Search
Search results
Andy Meakin (5 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2018
Thor-oughly entertaining.
Thor has always come across as the weaker of the Marvel film series’. The first film was well made, but never really demanded a repeat watch. The second, whilst not as bad as some people will attest, still felt more like a stop gap filler. You can’t blame the casting for the feeling of nonchalance that the films, so far, have delivered. Hemsworth is great in the role, and the support cast have always given their all, from Hiddleston as Loki, to Anthony Hopkins as Odin. But the stories have just felt superfluous, generic, and lacking in anything fantastical or mystical. In addition they have made the same error that DC made when they adapted Green Lantern – they spent too much time on Earth! You see, there are enough super-hero films that focus on a threat to Earth, so even though you could argue that it is faithful to the comics to have Thor defending Midgard against some mythical enemy, it has the unfortunate effect of making it seem just a little too…familiar. Wisely the decision was made for this third film to break away from Midgard, and go ‘cosmic’ with the story – and the end result is a damn sight better as a result.
The film spends the first act tying up some loose ends from the previous film, and returning Thor to Asgard. There he finds things are not as he left, and pretty soon Hela (Cate Blanchett) arrives to take control of Asgard, and threaten all the kingdoms with her army. Thor himself finds himself stranded on a remote junk-planet called Sakaar, where he finds himself thrown into gladiatorial combat against…well…an old friend. Can Thor unite an army to return to Asgard and save his people?
To say the film is immense fun would be an understatement! Director Taika Waititi, known for comedy dramas such as Hunt for the Wilderpeople and What We Do In The Shadows, definitely had an aim to explore the somewhat sillier side of the character, and the film is funny from the outset. Thor, who has always been a little naïve and shown some more awkward moments, is really given a lot of great lines, jibes, and clumsy aspects to round him out as more than just a ‘dumb, cocky Asgardian’. Throughout the film, characters quip and riff on ideas, creating genuine laughs and quotable moments, with even the newer characters getting their moments to impress on the audience. Amongst those newer additions, Karl Urban as Skurge, Jeff Goldblum as Grandmaster, and Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie steal any moments they appear on screen (Goldblum in particular just needs to have a wry grin and a raised eyebrow and all focus is on him). But Waititi himself gets to play with the best new addition to the cast, and one we will apparently see more of in the future, as Korg, a Kronan warrior.
So far, so entertaining, but is it all comedy and no substance? Far from it! The comedy serves well to balance against the dark drama of the story. This is titled Ragnarok, and Hela’s assault on Asgard is chilling indeed. In addition, the weaving in of elements from the Planet Hulk storyline, to give the mid-point journey part of the film some meat, ensures that there is never any dip in the tale, and there is plenty going on. The delicate balance of drama, emotion, and comedy is very reminiscent of the Guardians of the Galaxy films, and the franchise is so much better for it. After all, Asgardians are an alien race, so why not explore the cosmos a little with them? Even the soundtrack feels a little ‘Guardians-esque’ in style, with Led Zeppelin’s fabulous Immigrant Song being utilised perfectly for battle moments, but a somewhat electro-pop-synth score resonating throughout the film.
This is a film that flies by in run time (130 minutes, but never dragging), and finally gives Thor an identity in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. As the end credits finish rolling, the immediate desire is to watch it all again – which is not a feeling that the other two films left in me at all. Jostling for position in the top three Marvel films to date (Avengers and Guardians for those who are curious – yes, I know Winter Soldier and Civil War are damned good too, but these films are just fun). Thor: Ragnarok looks amazing, and entertains thoroughly. Ragnarok may mean the end of Asgard according to myth and legend, but it signals the true start of Thor as a character in his own right. All of that positive without even mentioning Ruffalo as Hulk (which you just knew was going to be great anyway)! Just watch the film for yourself, and enjoy.
The film spends the first act tying up some loose ends from the previous film, and returning Thor to Asgard. There he finds things are not as he left, and pretty soon Hela (Cate Blanchett) arrives to take control of Asgard, and threaten all the kingdoms with her army. Thor himself finds himself stranded on a remote junk-planet called Sakaar, where he finds himself thrown into gladiatorial combat against…well…an old friend. Can Thor unite an army to return to Asgard and save his people?
To say the film is immense fun would be an understatement! Director Taika Waititi, known for comedy dramas such as Hunt for the Wilderpeople and What We Do In The Shadows, definitely had an aim to explore the somewhat sillier side of the character, and the film is funny from the outset. Thor, who has always been a little naïve and shown some more awkward moments, is really given a lot of great lines, jibes, and clumsy aspects to round him out as more than just a ‘dumb, cocky Asgardian’. Throughout the film, characters quip and riff on ideas, creating genuine laughs and quotable moments, with even the newer characters getting their moments to impress on the audience. Amongst those newer additions, Karl Urban as Skurge, Jeff Goldblum as Grandmaster, and Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie steal any moments they appear on screen (Goldblum in particular just needs to have a wry grin and a raised eyebrow and all focus is on him). But Waititi himself gets to play with the best new addition to the cast, and one we will apparently see more of in the future, as Korg, a Kronan warrior.
So far, so entertaining, but is it all comedy and no substance? Far from it! The comedy serves well to balance against the dark drama of the story. This is titled Ragnarok, and Hela’s assault on Asgard is chilling indeed. In addition, the weaving in of elements from the Planet Hulk storyline, to give the mid-point journey part of the film some meat, ensures that there is never any dip in the tale, and there is plenty going on. The delicate balance of drama, emotion, and comedy is very reminiscent of the Guardians of the Galaxy films, and the franchise is so much better for it. After all, Asgardians are an alien race, so why not explore the cosmos a little with them? Even the soundtrack feels a little ‘Guardians-esque’ in style, with Led Zeppelin’s fabulous Immigrant Song being utilised perfectly for battle moments, but a somewhat electro-pop-synth score resonating throughout the film.
This is a film that flies by in run time (130 minutes, but never dragging), and finally gives Thor an identity in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. As the end credits finish rolling, the immediate desire is to watch it all again – which is not a feeling that the other two films left in me at all. Jostling for position in the top three Marvel films to date (Avengers and Guardians for those who are curious – yes, I know Winter Soldier and Civil War are damned good too, but these films are just fun). Thor: Ragnarok looks amazing, and entertains thoroughly. Ragnarok may mean the end of Asgard according to myth and legend, but it signals the true start of Thor as a character in his own right. All of that positive without even mentioning Ruffalo as Hulk (which you just knew was going to be great anyway)! Just watch the film for yourself, and enjoy.
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated A Little Princess in Books
Nov 7, 2019
A little Princess was published in full by Charles Scribner's sons in September of 1905 after being a serialisation in St. Nicholas Magazine in 1887 and being a novella in 1888. The book was named one of the Teachers top books for children in 2007 and in 2012 was ranked 56th in the School Library Journal survey. The story follows Sara Crewe a wealthy heiress being sent off to boarding school in England. Despite being wealthy Sara isn't snobbish and rude but polite, clever and generous befriending several other students and the scullery maid Becky. Sara goes from privilege to a pauper after her fathers scheme with is friend over a diamond mine supposedly fails. After spending a few years working hard at the school she once attended Sara is found by her fathers friend and returned to privilege after finding out the diamond mines actually worked.
There are six film adaptions having been released in 1917, 1939, two in 1995 (One version being Filipino) with the most recent being a Russian film released in 1997. the most well known being the 1995 version being directed by Alfonso Cuaron. There have been seven TV shows based on A Little Princess with the 1973 and 1986 (Maureen Lipton was Miss Minchin) versions being particularly faithful to the books, the 1985, 2006 and 2009 versions were various Japanese anime and another Filipino remake happened in 2007. an episode of Veggietales in 2012 was another version of A little Princess. From 2002 to 2014 there have been several musical adaptions of a little princess as well.
Francis Eliza Hodgson Burnett was born in England on the 24th November 1849 in Cheetham, Manchester, England. When her father died in 1852 her family fell on hard times and Francis was looked after by her grandmother who fuelled her love of reading whilst her mother dealt with the family finances. The family eventually emigrated to the states in 1865 but remained somewhat poor thanks to the end of the American Civil war. Francis started writing in fever trying to help her family get out of the financial hole they were in and did so with her first story being published in the Godey's Lady's book in 1868 eventually being published regularly in its pages alongside Scribner's Monthly, Peterson's Magazine and Harper's Bazaar.
In 1872 Francis agreed to and married family friend Swan Burnett. She continued to write which supported them as they moved to Paris to allow Swan to train as an eye and ear doctor. Francis economised by making clothes for both their sons and for herself. The family returned to the US a few years later where swan managed to set up a doctoring business despite being in debt. For several years afterwards Francis wrote several short stories which were continuously published, Francis eventually turned to children's novels after a meeting with Mary Mapes Dodge the editor of children's magazine St Nicholas. In 1884 Francis set to work on Little Lord Fauntleroy which was serialised in 1885 and published in book form in 1886.
In 1887 Francis returned to England for Queen Victoria's golden jubilee which triggered yearly transatlantic trips between the US and England with her sons. She had fallen ill during this time and had spent time confined to bed, she did however managed to write both The Fortunes of Phillipa Fairfax (only published in the UK) and Sara Crewe or what happened at Miss Minchin's which was rewritten as A Little Princess. In December 1890 Francis and Swans eldest son Lionel died of consumption which spurred his mother into a depression and turn away form the Protestant faith and embrace spiritualism.
In 1898 After their youngest son Vivian finished school, Francis and Swan had divorced (though they had begun to drift apart and were living separate lives several years earlier) and two years later Francis had moved back to England and lived at Great Maytham Hall and married Stephan Townsend, which proved to be a terrible marriage and it ended in 1902. In 1907 Francis returned to the states and spent the next seventeen years in Plandome manor writing several more stories and editing for the Children's Magazine upon the insistence of her Son Vivian. Francis died on October 29th 1924 at the age of 72, she's buried in Roslyn Cemetery and her son Vivian is burred nearby having died in 1937.
I knew of the book as a child but didn't read it until I was a teenager, by then I did know of and had seen the 1995 movie directed by Alfonso Cuaron. The books theme of rising above and succeeding in the face of terrible times is a good thing to reed about. I definitely recommend the book to children and teenagers alike and I give it 9/10.
There are six film adaptions having been released in 1917, 1939, two in 1995 (One version being Filipino) with the most recent being a Russian film released in 1997. the most well known being the 1995 version being directed by Alfonso Cuaron. There have been seven TV shows based on A Little Princess with the 1973 and 1986 (Maureen Lipton was Miss Minchin) versions being particularly faithful to the books, the 1985, 2006 and 2009 versions were various Japanese anime and another Filipino remake happened in 2007. an episode of Veggietales in 2012 was another version of A little Princess. From 2002 to 2014 there have been several musical adaptions of a little princess as well.
Francis Eliza Hodgson Burnett was born in England on the 24th November 1849 in Cheetham, Manchester, England. When her father died in 1852 her family fell on hard times and Francis was looked after by her grandmother who fuelled her love of reading whilst her mother dealt with the family finances. The family eventually emigrated to the states in 1865 but remained somewhat poor thanks to the end of the American Civil war. Francis started writing in fever trying to help her family get out of the financial hole they were in and did so with her first story being published in the Godey's Lady's book in 1868 eventually being published regularly in its pages alongside Scribner's Monthly, Peterson's Magazine and Harper's Bazaar.
In 1872 Francis agreed to and married family friend Swan Burnett. She continued to write which supported them as they moved to Paris to allow Swan to train as an eye and ear doctor. Francis economised by making clothes for both their sons and for herself. The family returned to the US a few years later where swan managed to set up a doctoring business despite being in debt. For several years afterwards Francis wrote several short stories which were continuously published, Francis eventually turned to children's novels after a meeting with Mary Mapes Dodge the editor of children's magazine St Nicholas. In 1884 Francis set to work on Little Lord Fauntleroy which was serialised in 1885 and published in book form in 1886.
In 1887 Francis returned to England for Queen Victoria's golden jubilee which triggered yearly transatlantic trips between the US and England with her sons. She had fallen ill during this time and had spent time confined to bed, she did however managed to write both The Fortunes of Phillipa Fairfax (only published in the UK) and Sara Crewe or what happened at Miss Minchin's which was rewritten as A Little Princess. In December 1890 Francis and Swans eldest son Lionel died of consumption which spurred his mother into a depression and turn away form the Protestant faith and embrace spiritualism.
In 1898 After their youngest son Vivian finished school, Francis and Swan had divorced (though they had begun to drift apart and were living separate lives several years earlier) and two years later Francis had moved back to England and lived at Great Maytham Hall and married Stephan Townsend, which proved to be a terrible marriage and it ended in 1902. In 1907 Francis returned to the states and spent the next seventeen years in Plandome manor writing several more stories and editing for the Children's Magazine upon the insistence of her Son Vivian. Francis died on October 29th 1924 at the age of 72, she's buried in Roslyn Cemetery and her son Vivian is burred nearby having died in 1937.
I knew of the book as a child but didn't read it until I was a teenager, by then I did know of and had seen the 1995 movie directed by Alfonso Cuaron. The books theme of rising above and succeeding in the face of terrible times is a good thing to reed about. I definitely recommend the book to children and teenagers alike and I give it 9/10.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Django Unchained (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Writer-director Quentin Tarantino has returned in a big way with “Django Unchained” his homage to spaghetti Westerns. The film stars Jamie Foxx as a slave named Django who is part of a convoy of slaves being transported through Texas two years before the start of the Civil War. Django is unaware that his life is about to take a monumental turn when his caravan encounters Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) one dark evening. Schultz wishes to purchase Django, and when his current owners make the mistake of threatening the good doctor, he quickly turns the table on them and sets Django and his fellow slaves free. Schultz reveals to Django that he is in fact a bounty hunter and needs him to help identify three potential targets. Since Django last lived at the plantation where the three targets worked as overseers, he is essential to Schultz’s hunt. Schultz offers to free Django and pay him $75.00 for his assistance and the duo set off on their mission.
Some truly action-packed and hysterical scenes later, Schultz realizes that Django is an absolute natural for the business and decides to take him on for the winter as an assistant, even going so far as to offer to share one third of his bounties with them. In return, Schultz also offers to help Django reclaim his wife who was sold to a plantation somewhere in Tennessee. Schultz rationalizes that to show up now would be extremely dangerous, therefore the duo must wait out the winter earning money before embarking on their rescue mission.
The hard work of the team pays off and they learn that Django’s wife has been sold to one of the largest plantations under the ownership of Calvin Candie (Leonardo di Caprio), a despotic plantation owner who is as greedy as he is cruel. Despite having more money than he could ever use, Calvin likes to force certain members of his slaves to fight to the death. Schultz and Django decide to use this angle as their chance to get close to Calvin so they can verify that Django’s wife is indeed at the plantation and determine what it will take to buy or obtain her freedom. This proves to be no easy task as not only is Calvin surrounded by an army hired guns, but he also has a very surly and suspicious head of a household named Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), eyeing every move that the strangers make and questioning their actions.
What follows is a hyperkinetic storm of violence, fury, music, and color in the true Tarantino style. The director is never one to shy away from blood and violence and there are tons of it in the film. The amazing thing about it is despite being graphic and, in some cases, borderline gratuitous, it does not distract from the enjoyment of the film and its characters. The performances were absolutely amazing, especially the work of Waltz, Foxx, and diCaprio. Jackson also does very solid supporting work as does Don Johnson in his appearance as an uber-racist plantation owner. Waltz worked previously with Tarantino on “Inglorious Bastards”, and this is where the Austrian actor really gained notice by Hollywood. This time out he gives a captivating performance as the complex killer with a heart of gold.
While I understand Tarantino’s style is not for everybody, it’s hard not to be impressed with the way he is able to paint a picture, fill it with interesting and quirky characters, and quickly tear it all apart as things descend into utter chaos and destruction. You alternate between laughing, cheering, and being shocked all the way through the film’s nearly three-hour runtime. Yet rarely did the film ever seem to drag on unnecessarily. There was some loss of pacing as the characters converged on Calvin’s plantation, and some may question some of the character changes or gaps in logic in the film’s finale.
I believe this film is one of the best films of the year. It captured so much of what an action film and drama should have: interesting, complex and well-acted characters, a good story, and plenty of action. Those who are easily offended will want to take note that the language in the film is extremely rough and there is frequent uses of racials lurs, as well is derogatory comments made about the black characters in the film. While this is intended to show the mindset and lifestyle of the 1860s in which the film is set, some may find it unsettling if they go in unprepared.
That being said I can honestly say that this was the most enjoyable Tarantino film I have ever seen and could be his best work to date.
Some truly action-packed and hysterical scenes later, Schultz realizes that Django is an absolute natural for the business and decides to take him on for the winter as an assistant, even going so far as to offer to share one third of his bounties with them. In return, Schultz also offers to help Django reclaim his wife who was sold to a plantation somewhere in Tennessee. Schultz rationalizes that to show up now would be extremely dangerous, therefore the duo must wait out the winter earning money before embarking on their rescue mission.
The hard work of the team pays off and they learn that Django’s wife has been sold to one of the largest plantations under the ownership of Calvin Candie (Leonardo di Caprio), a despotic plantation owner who is as greedy as he is cruel. Despite having more money than he could ever use, Calvin likes to force certain members of his slaves to fight to the death. Schultz and Django decide to use this angle as their chance to get close to Calvin so they can verify that Django’s wife is indeed at the plantation and determine what it will take to buy or obtain her freedom. This proves to be no easy task as not only is Calvin surrounded by an army hired guns, but he also has a very surly and suspicious head of a household named Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), eyeing every move that the strangers make and questioning their actions.
What follows is a hyperkinetic storm of violence, fury, music, and color in the true Tarantino style. The director is never one to shy away from blood and violence and there are tons of it in the film. The amazing thing about it is despite being graphic and, in some cases, borderline gratuitous, it does not distract from the enjoyment of the film and its characters. The performances were absolutely amazing, especially the work of Waltz, Foxx, and diCaprio. Jackson also does very solid supporting work as does Don Johnson in his appearance as an uber-racist plantation owner. Waltz worked previously with Tarantino on “Inglorious Bastards”, and this is where the Austrian actor really gained notice by Hollywood. This time out he gives a captivating performance as the complex killer with a heart of gold.
While I understand Tarantino’s style is not for everybody, it’s hard not to be impressed with the way he is able to paint a picture, fill it with interesting and quirky characters, and quickly tear it all apart as things descend into utter chaos and destruction. You alternate between laughing, cheering, and being shocked all the way through the film’s nearly three-hour runtime. Yet rarely did the film ever seem to drag on unnecessarily. There was some loss of pacing as the characters converged on Calvin’s plantation, and some may question some of the character changes or gaps in logic in the film’s finale.
I believe this film is one of the best films of the year. It captured so much of what an action film and drama should have: interesting, complex and well-acted characters, a good story, and plenty of action. Those who are easily offended will want to take note that the language in the film is extremely rough and there is frequent uses of racials lurs, as well is derogatory comments made about the black characters in the film. While this is intended to show the mindset and lifestyle of the 1860s in which the film is set, some may find it unsettling if they go in unprepared.
That being said I can honestly say that this was the most enjoyable Tarantino film I have ever seen and could be his best work to date.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated John Carter (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Edgar Rice Burroughs is famous for literary creations that have inspired countless generations and given birth to numerous film and television projects. You would be hard-pressed to find anybody not familiar with Tarzan, one of Burrough’s great series. John Carter of Mars is another one, and at long last has finally made it to the big screen.
The film is based on the first book of eleven, a series that began in 1911 and ran through 1964 when the last book was published posthumously. John Carter stars Tylor Kitsch as the title character, a bitter Civil War veteran who, despite an accomplished service record, no longer wants anything to do with the military. Instead he is fixated upon finding a cave of gold.
Despite the fact that he served for the Confederacy, John Carter draws the attention of the U.S. Cavalry whose leader is anxious to recruit an officer of Carter’s skills and experience to aid them in their skirmishes with the Apache tribes. No longer willing to fight or get involved, Carter declines the offer but soon finds himself caught in the middle of an unplanned battle between both sides. As he attempts to find shelter for himself and a wounded officer, Carter accidentally stumbles upon the cave of gold he was seeking.
Carter’s surprise soon turns to shock when he’s attacked by a mysterious individual who presses a glowing amulet in his hand and utters a phrase that transports John Carter instantly to the planet Mars. Of course, Carter at first has no idea where he is but soon realizes that he has incredible leaping abilities due to the lower gravity of the planet.
Shortly after his arrival he gains the attention of Tars Tarkas (Willem Dafoe), the chief of a race of tall, skinny, four armed alien warriors. At first intrigued by Carter, Tarkas and his people become divided over what to do with the new arrival. This becomes further complicated when airships arrive and begin a massive gunbattle. Carter immediately leaps into action with his newfound ability which quickly gains the attention of Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins), princess of the city of Helium.
It is learned that Princess Dejah is being forced to marry an evil warlord who possesses an awesome destructive ability and is using it to subjugate all those he encounters. Desperate to save their city, the princess is offered up to appease the warlord. Naturally this does not sit well with the free-spirited and feisty princess and before long she and John Carter find themselves united in their quest to save Helium. Despite his reluctance to get involved and fight, Carter realizes the princess may be his only way to get home.
A stranger in a strange land, with danger all around him, John Carter takes his audience on an epic adventure. Despite having little star power, the movie works exceptionally well with amazing special effects. The CGI used to create the various alien characters infuses them with personality and vitality rarely seen in artificially created characters. The film is visually spectacular from the legions of aliens locked in combat, to the stark splendor of the planet and its inhabitants.
Even though the film was presented in converted 3-D which, as many of you will know has long been a very touchy subject with me, the final product was actually better than most conversions. While it was nowhere near the quality of films shot in 3-D, it nonetheless offered an immersive quality to epic battle scenes and did not rely on the gimmicky trick of trying to make things pop out of the screen in order to sell the film.
Kitsch does a great job handling the action of the film and manages to interact with his CGI costars in a believable enough manner to establish as much chemistry with them as he did with the flesh and blood Collins. Although some moments of the film drag, it does have enough action to sustain the nearly two-hour runtime with a touch of humor and romance thrown in for good measure.
I first became aware of the film a year ago at the D23 Expo when Disney showed a few clips and had Kitsch, Collins and Dafoeon hand to promote the pending release. While intriguing, I did not see anything that really made the film stand out as a must-see. I am very happy to say that upon seeing the completed film, the scenes that were shown to us not only had even greater effects in the finished product but were also much more entertaining and dynamic once shown within the full context of the story line.
Director Andrew Stanton, who has made a name for himself with his animated films at Pixar, skillfully blends live-action and CGI to create a very energetic and enjoyable action-adventure film that was a very pleasant surprise.
While the acting, character development, and plot are nothing spectacular in and of themselves, they combined well and set the stage effectively for what should be a series of John Carter films in the future.
The film is based on the first book of eleven, a series that began in 1911 and ran through 1964 when the last book was published posthumously. John Carter stars Tylor Kitsch as the title character, a bitter Civil War veteran who, despite an accomplished service record, no longer wants anything to do with the military. Instead he is fixated upon finding a cave of gold.
Despite the fact that he served for the Confederacy, John Carter draws the attention of the U.S. Cavalry whose leader is anxious to recruit an officer of Carter’s skills and experience to aid them in their skirmishes with the Apache tribes. No longer willing to fight or get involved, Carter declines the offer but soon finds himself caught in the middle of an unplanned battle between both sides. As he attempts to find shelter for himself and a wounded officer, Carter accidentally stumbles upon the cave of gold he was seeking.
Carter’s surprise soon turns to shock when he’s attacked by a mysterious individual who presses a glowing amulet in his hand and utters a phrase that transports John Carter instantly to the planet Mars. Of course, Carter at first has no idea where he is but soon realizes that he has incredible leaping abilities due to the lower gravity of the planet.
Shortly after his arrival he gains the attention of Tars Tarkas (Willem Dafoe), the chief of a race of tall, skinny, four armed alien warriors. At first intrigued by Carter, Tarkas and his people become divided over what to do with the new arrival. This becomes further complicated when airships arrive and begin a massive gunbattle. Carter immediately leaps into action with his newfound ability which quickly gains the attention of Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins), princess of the city of Helium.
It is learned that Princess Dejah is being forced to marry an evil warlord who possesses an awesome destructive ability and is using it to subjugate all those he encounters. Desperate to save their city, the princess is offered up to appease the warlord. Naturally this does not sit well with the free-spirited and feisty princess and before long she and John Carter find themselves united in their quest to save Helium. Despite his reluctance to get involved and fight, Carter realizes the princess may be his only way to get home.
A stranger in a strange land, with danger all around him, John Carter takes his audience on an epic adventure. Despite having little star power, the movie works exceptionally well with amazing special effects. The CGI used to create the various alien characters infuses them with personality and vitality rarely seen in artificially created characters. The film is visually spectacular from the legions of aliens locked in combat, to the stark splendor of the planet and its inhabitants.
Even though the film was presented in converted 3-D which, as many of you will know has long been a very touchy subject with me, the final product was actually better than most conversions. While it was nowhere near the quality of films shot in 3-D, it nonetheless offered an immersive quality to epic battle scenes and did not rely on the gimmicky trick of trying to make things pop out of the screen in order to sell the film.
Kitsch does a great job handling the action of the film and manages to interact with his CGI costars in a believable enough manner to establish as much chemistry with them as he did with the flesh and blood Collins. Although some moments of the film drag, it does have enough action to sustain the nearly two-hour runtime with a touch of humor and romance thrown in for good measure.
I first became aware of the film a year ago at the D23 Expo when Disney showed a few clips and had Kitsch, Collins and Dafoeon hand to promote the pending release. While intriguing, I did not see anything that really made the film stand out as a must-see. I am very happy to say that upon seeing the completed film, the scenes that were shown to us not only had even greater effects in the finished product but were also much more entertaining and dynamic once shown within the full context of the story line.
Director Andrew Stanton, who has made a name for himself with his animated films at Pixar, skillfully blends live-action and CGI to create a very energetic and enjoyable action-adventure film that was a very pleasant surprise.
While the acting, character development, and plot are nothing spectacular in and of themselves, they combined well and set the stage effectively for what should be a series of John Carter films in the future.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Large and Small on screen, but just ends up middling.
So, for the first time we divided last night at the cinema. I went off to watch “Ant-Man and the Wasp” and my wife – not a Marvel fan – went to see “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again” (for the THIRD time!). Incidentally, Mamma Mia 2 seems to be the movie phenomenon of the summer, taking over from “The Greatest Showman” as the movie phenomenon of the winter. It’s been out three weeks now and the shows are still selling out, with people (mostly groups of women) being turned away at the ticket desk. I can see this one running in theatres until October, when they bring out a sing-a-long edition and it carries on running ‘til Christmas. Extraordinary.
But, let’s turn from big things to small things. In a prologue we see a young Dr Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and wife Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer) torn apart as Janet miniturises herself into the “quantum realm” to save the world from nuclear disaster. But in the present day Hank thinks there might be a way to find and retrieve Janet with the help of their superhero daughter Hope (“The Wasp”, played by Evangeline Lilly). (“What the f*** have you been thinking about instead for the last 30 years while I’ve been sat here avoiding neutrons”, would be the imagined response from Janet, but we don’t go there!).
But Scott Lang (aka “Ant Man”, Paul Rudd), having also been to the quantum realm, holds a key part of the puzzle. To add to their problems, a strange ghost-like girl called Ava has her own reasons for retrieving the lost soul, but in ways that will tear Janet limb from limb. Can Hank, Hope and Scott succeed, while dodging both The Ghost, the FBI and other criminal forces intent on seizing Pym’s technology?
I must admit that I’d somewhat forgotten how “Ant Man” ended three years ago, which together with the one film missing from my Marvel-watching canon being “Captain America: Civil War” left me somewhat confused by why we start the film with our hero Lang under two-year’s house arrest. But much fun is had with Lang’s curfew and the frustration of FBI agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park) in trying to catch him breaking the rules.
For we are again at the comedic end of the Marvel universe. However the comedy is extremely uneven this time and doesn’t sit particularly well with the dramatic and emotional elements of the film. It’s certainly nowhere near the consistently funny content of the surprisingly good “Thor: Ragnarok”. Some of Rudd’s lines just smell of “trying too hard”.
Adding comedic value is Michael Peña returning here as Scott’s partner Luis. His motor-mouth routine after taking a truth drug (“not a truth drug”!) was hilarious, with the rest of the cast miming his words in flashback.
It has to be said though that there are some truly great sight-gags, to rival the Thomas the Tank Engine scenes in the first film. The expanding salt-cellar; the expanding / contracting car and building moments; and the “skateboard” scenes. But all – and I mean ALL – of these scenes were universally spoiled by the trailer, such that the reaction to them was “oh, that’s that bit then”. NEVER has there been a better case for a teaser trailer that basically said “Ant Man’s back; here’s ONE wow-factor visual”. It’s just criminal. Interestingly, re the trailer, there was also at least one scene (the “you go high, I’ll go low” one, which I thought was very funny) that didn’t make the cut I saw.
Acting wise you can’t fault the cast with Lilly just great as “The Wasp”. If I was her, I would have said “OK… I’ll do the film, but I get to keep the suit!”. That would be her age monitoring device for years to come…. “Does the zip still do up at the back? Do my impossibly pert breasts still align with these impossibly well-moulded contours?”. It’s also great to see Michael Douglas and Laurence Fishburne going head-to-head in the acting stakes. Walton Goggins again crops up as a believable bad-guy, a performance I really enjoyed, but the star turn for me in the whole film was a career-making performance by Hannah John-Kamen as Ava/The Ghost: she’s previously only had small supporting roles in “Tomb Raider” and “Ready Player One”. Looking like a Star Wars sand-person in her outfit she removes her mask to reveal a stunningly piercing gaze and great screen presence. One to watch for the future.
Directed by original “Ant Man” director Peyton Reed, it’s a perfectly entertaining watch for a summer night, but it is uneven in tone, perhaps the result of the team of five credited with the writing. Ask me in two months’ time to tell you anything about it and I will probably struggle. It’s a “meh” sort of film for me.
But, let’s turn from big things to small things. In a prologue we see a young Dr Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and wife Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer) torn apart as Janet miniturises herself into the “quantum realm” to save the world from nuclear disaster. But in the present day Hank thinks there might be a way to find and retrieve Janet with the help of their superhero daughter Hope (“The Wasp”, played by Evangeline Lilly). (“What the f*** have you been thinking about instead for the last 30 years while I’ve been sat here avoiding neutrons”, would be the imagined response from Janet, but we don’t go there!).
But Scott Lang (aka “Ant Man”, Paul Rudd), having also been to the quantum realm, holds a key part of the puzzle. To add to their problems, a strange ghost-like girl called Ava has her own reasons for retrieving the lost soul, but in ways that will tear Janet limb from limb. Can Hank, Hope and Scott succeed, while dodging both The Ghost, the FBI and other criminal forces intent on seizing Pym’s technology?
I must admit that I’d somewhat forgotten how “Ant Man” ended three years ago, which together with the one film missing from my Marvel-watching canon being “Captain America: Civil War” left me somewhat confused by why we start the film with our hero Lang under two-year’s house arrest. But much fun is had with Lang’s curfew and the frustration of FBI agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park) in trying to catch him breaking the rules.
For we are again at the comedic end of the Marvel universe. However the comedy is extremely uneven this time and doesn’t sit particularly well with the dramatic and emotional elements of the film. It’s certainly nowhere near the consistently funny content of the surprisingly good “Thor: Ragnarok”. Some of Rudd’s lines just smell of “trying too hard”.
Adding comedic value is Michael Peña returning here as Scott’s partner Luis. His motor-mouth routine after taking a truth drug (“not a truth drug”!) was hilarious, with the rest of the cast miming his words in flashback.
It has to be said though that there are some truly great sight-gags, to rival the Thomas the Tank Engine scenes in the first film. The expanding salt-cellar; the expanding / contracting car and building moments; and the “skateboard” scenes. But all – and I mean ALL – of these scenes were universally spoiled by the trailer, such that the reaction to them was “oh, that’s that bit then”. NEVER has there been a better case for a teaser trailer that basically said “Ant Man’s back; here’s ONE wow-factor visual”. It’s just criminal. Interestingly, re the trailer, there was also at least one scene (the “you go high, I’ll go low” one, which I thought was very funny) that didn’t make the cut I saw.
Acting wise you can’t fault the cast with Lilly just great as “The Wasp”. If I was her, I would have said “OK… I’ll do the film, but I get to keep the suit!”. That would be her age monitoring device for years to come…. “Does the zip still do up at the back? Do my impossibly pert breasts still align with these impossibly well-moulded contours?”. It’s also great to see Michael Douglas and Laurence Fishburne going head-to-head in the acting stakes. Walton Goggins again crops up as a believable bad-guy, a performance I really enjoyed, but the star turn for me in the whole film was a career-making performance by Hannah John-Kamen as Ava/The Ghost: she’s previously only had small supporting roles in “Tomb Raider” and “Ready Player One”. Looking like a Star Wars sand-person in her outfit she removes her mask to reveal a stunningly piercing gaze and great screen presence. One to watch for the future.
Directed by original “Ant Man” director Peyton Reed, it’s a perfectly entertaining watch for a summer night, but it is uneven in tone, perhaps the result of the team of five credited with the writing. Ask me in two months’ time to tell you anything about it and I will probably struggle. It’s a “meh” sort of film for me.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated the PC version of Outriders in Video Games
Apr 10, 2021
Once Patched: Outriders Is A Fun And Engaging Adventure Which Provides Plenty Of Action
With the Earth deemed unsalvageable and with mounting natural disasters, humanity plans to send colony ships to the distant planet of Enoch in an effort to save humanity. After 86 years in space, an elite unit known as Outriders land to pave the way and soon finds themselves under attack by rival security forces and a deadly and bizarre storm that has decimated the Outriders.
Seriously injured the player character is put in stasis and is awakened 31 years later to find what is left of humanity engaged in a violent Civil War with the player being their best chance for survival.
Thus begins Outriders; an ambitious game from People Can Fly and Square Enix which looks to combine action, combat, loot, and Science Fiction into a bold gaming experience.
Players can customize the look of their characters and must select a class such as Trickster, Pyromancer, Devastator, and Technomancer. The classes have specific abilities which as players gain experience, unlocks and allows them to select and use devastating powers as it seems the exposure to the storm has given the player character God-like abilities and has earned them the title of “Altered”. I selected the Devastator class and enjoyed being able to suspend and reflect incoming fire, add a protective barrier, produce spikes to impale enemies, crush enemies with a gravity-based attack, dash and smash, and my favorite; a propelled leap that reduced all in my landing area to a pulp. Each power has a cool-down timer after use but as the game is very customizable; players can unlock and assign new perks which can increase damage, duration, and more for their powers, weapons, and such.
The game had an extensive demo available pre-launch and this allowed me to get to know the screens to equip, modify, swap, or deconstruct gear as there is a huge variety of armor and weapons for players to use and modify.
While the menu system at times was confusing at first in terms of what the main mission was and what were numerous side missions and such; I was able to get things up to speed and with strategic capture points; players can always jump back to various locales.
Since the early missions involved being around the main base filled with trade and other options; I had figured it would play into the game going forward. However, as I went deeper into the game I found it easier to simply deconstruct or not gather loot that I did not want and simply equip better gear and weapons as they came my way.
The progress I had made in the demo also carried over onto the main game so long as you use the same platform for release that you did in the demo. This was great to experience as I did not have to replay the lengthy intro and setup nor the early missions.
With a crew of NPC characters along for the mission, the player will journey into dangerous zones each with their own unique biosphere and dangerous creatures and enemies who come at you in waves and can be overwhelming even with the ability to set the game difficulty.
Outriders is setup to be played with a party of characters and much has been made of the rough launch for the game which included server issues, cross-play problems, missing HUD Displays, and such hampered gamers. I was able to connect with a player I found in the forums for the game and he helped me through some battles that I could not figure out how anyone could be expected to complete on their own at the skill level they originated at.
Players can randomly join a party but did not have a clue where they would be in the story progress or how many were in a party, but it was very easy to resume a campaign where I left off should the party I joined be further ahead of or back of where I wished to be.
I did jump into a game that is done randomly and was able to get some higher-level gear and weapons which helped when I returned to my campaign, but in time I again found myself in need of help. One player had issues with getting in my game and then being booted as an example. The HUD display would vanish often which required a return to the lobby, sometimes multiple trips; to get it back. While it seems like no big deal and I worked my way through at times without it; not being able to see a mini-map, health, and if your powers were recharged does make it difficult.
The game offers lavish locales from snow-covered mountains to a jungle, desert, temples, and more. The enemies can be very challenging as I found the ones with guns to be easier at times than the wildlife which came in waves and could take all I had to bring down.
The graphics of the game are solid and the combat mechanics reminded me of a mix of Gears of War and The Division series as from a third-person perspective; players could take cover and shoot from a shelter, or wade on into the oncoming enemies and use the vast arsenal of pistols, machine guns, shotguns, and sniper rifles to win the day.
The numerous cut scenes dive the story forward and upon completion of the story; there is a mode where players can work to retrieve items. It was humbling to have weapons that reduced powerful enemies to mush do little more than annoy the enemies I encountered as it was clear that this mode was best suited for advanced gamers in a party.
A new patch arrived yesterday which seemed to resolve the issues I had with matchmaking, server connections, and the missing heads-up display. I was able to match up with another player where I was in the game and the two of us powered through the main missions as well as some side missions to complete the game. We did not have any in-game chat/communication but we were able to work well as a team. I would suggest using Discord or a similar service if you are looking to play with friends on PC or chat with console users.
While the launch was rough due to the numerous issues; they were addressed and the final result once patched is a deeply enjoyable action game that provides plenty of fun and challenges. Some may say waves of wildlife and enemies may become repetitive but the vast array of them as well as the varied locales, weapons, and powers had me hooked from start to finish.
I was a big fan of People Can Fly’s Bulletstorm game and have longed for a sequel ever since that game arrived. Here is hoping that Outriders will become a new franchise and we will see more content in the not too distant future.
Seriously injured the player character is put in stasis and is awakened 31 years later to find what is left of humanity engaged in a violent Civil War with the player being their best chance for survival.
Thus begins Outriders; an ambitious game from People Can Fly and Square Enix which looks to combine action, combat, loot, and Science Fiction into a bold gaming experience.
Players can customize the look of their characters and must select a class such as Trickster, Pyromancer, Devastator, and Technomancer. The classes have specific abilities which as players gain experience, unlocks and allows them to select and use devastating powers as it seems the exposure to the storm has given the player character God-like abilities and has earned them the title of “Altered”. I selected the Devastator class and enjoyed being able to suspend and reflect incoming fire, add a protective barrier, produce spikes to impale enemies, crush enemies with a gravity-based attack, dash and smash, and my favorite; a propelled leap that reduced all in my landing area to a pulp. Each power has a cool-down timer after use but as the game is very customizable; players can unlock and assign new perks which can increase damage, duration, and more for their powers, weapons, and such.
The game had an extensive demo available pre-launch and this allowed me to get to know the screens to equip, modify, swap, or deconstruct gear as there is a huge variety of armor and weapons for players to use and modify.
While the menu system at times was confusing at first in terms of what the main mission was and what were numerous side missions and such; I was able to get things up to speed and with strategic capture points; players can always jump back to various locales.
Since the early missions involved being around the main base filled with trade and other options; I had figured it would play into the game going forward. However, as I went deeper into the game I found it easier to simply deconstruct or not gather loot that I did not want and simply equip better gear and weapons as they came my way.
The progress I had made in the demo also carried over onto the main game so long as you use the same platform for release that you did in the demo. This was great to experience as I did not have to replay the lengthy intro and setup nor the early missions.
With a crew of NPC characters along for the mission, the player will journey into dangerous zones each with their own unique biosphere and dangerous creatures and enemies who come at you in waves and can be overwhelming even with the ability to set the game difficulty.
Outriders is setup to be played with a party of characters and much has been made of the rough launch for the game which included server issues, cross-play problems, missing HUD Displays, and such hampered gamers. I was able to connect with a player I found in the forums for the game and he helped me through some battles that I could not figure out how anyone could be expected to complete on their own at the skill level they originated at.
Players can randomly join a party but did not have a clue where they would be in the story progress or how many were in a party, but it was very easy to resume a campaign where I left off should the party I joined be further ahead of or back of where I wished to be.
I did jump into a game that is done randomly and was able to get some higher-level gear and weapons which helped when I returned to my campaign, but in time I again found myself in need of help. One player had issues with getting in my game and then being booted as an example. The HUD display would vanish often which required a return to the lobby, sometimes multiple trips; to get it back. While it seems like no big deal and I worked my way through at times without it; not being able to see a mini-map, health, and if your powers were recharged does make it difficult.
The game offers lavish locales from snow-covered mountains to a jungle, desert, temples, and more. The enemies can be very challenging as I found the ones with guns to be easier at times than the wildlife which came in waves and could take all I had to bring down.
The graphics of the game are solid and the combat mechanics reminded me of a mix of Gears of War and The Division series as from a third-person perspective; players could take cover and shoot from a shelter, or wade on into the oncoming enemies and use the vast arsenal of pistols, machine guns, shotguns, and sniper rifles to win the day.
The numerous cut scenes dive the story forward and upon completion of the story; there is a mode where players can work to retrieve items. It was humbling to have weapons that reduced powerful enemies to mush do little more than annoy the enemies I encountered as it was clear that this mode was best suited for advanced gamers in a party.
A new patch arrived yesterday which seemed to resolve the issues I had with matchmaking, server connections, and the missing heads-up display. I was able to match up with another player where I was in the game and the two of us powered through the main missions as well as some side missions to complete the game. We did not have any in-game chat/communication but we were able to work well as a team. I would suggest using Discord or a similar service if you are looking to play with friends on PC or chat with console users.
While the launch was rough due to the numerous issues; they were addressed and the final result once patched is a deeply enjoyable action game that provides plenty of fun and challenges. Some may say waves of wildlife and enemies may become repetitive but the vast array of them as well as the varied locales, weapons, and powers had me hooked from start to finish.
I was a big fan of People Can Fly’s Bulletstorm game and have longed for a sequel ever since that game arrived. Here is hoping that Outriders will become a new franchise and we will see more content in the not too distant future.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Tiny Epic Kingdoms in Tabletop Games
Jul 30, 2019
Behold – the Tiny Epic game that started the saga. Tiny Epic Kingdoms is the OG, and it’s about time we got around to reviewing it. It’s tiny. It’s epic. Keep reading to find out if it’s a keeper!
In Tiny Epic Kingdoms, you are the ruler of (you guessed it) a tiny kingdom. You, however, are not content with simply maintaining your realm – you have plans to expand your borders and make your kingdom not-so-tiny! Send your adventurers out to explore new lands, learn new magics, construct towers to assert your dominance, and fight off others who would stand in your way! Do you have the strategy necessary to outwit your competitors and grow your kingdom? Play to find out!
DISCLAIMER: There are several expansions to this game, but we are not reviewing them at this time. Should we review them in the future we will either update this review or post a link to the new material here. -T
Tiny Epic Kingdoms is a game of worker placement, area control, and action point allowance. Players take turns gathering resources, buildings towers, researching magic, or exploring (and potentially waging war) in new lands. As the active player, on your turn you will select and perform one of the six available actions from the Action Card: Patrol, Quest, Build, Research, Expand, or Trade. Following your action, and still on your turn, the remaining players will either decide to perform the same action you chose, or collect resources. Once everyone has had the chance to act, your turn is over. The next player now becomes the active player and the process repeats with one big change – the action you chose on your turn is no longer available for selection. Each subsequent active player will always have 1 fewer action choice on their turn. This process repeats until there are no more actions available. When this happens, the Action Card is cleared and all actions are available once more for selection. Strategy is key – which action can you choose on your turn to best benefit you while also inhibiting your competitors? The game ends at the end of the turn in which one of these three things has happened: a player has all of their meeples in play, a player has built the 6th level on the tower card, or a player has reached the 5th level of magic on their faction card. End-game points are scored based on meeples in play, magic level, tower level, and control of Capital Cities. The player with the highest score wins!
For such a small game, there’s definitely a fair amount of strategy involved in Tiny Epic Kingdoms. You’ve got to decide on the best approach for you, and it must be adaptable to any given situation. Do you play it safe, quietly collecting resources, trying to achieve your end-game goals the fastest? Or do you venture out to confront your opponents, trying to usurp their territory and resources and take them out as your competition? Or maybe you try to stay civil, but an opponent is threatening your progress and now you’ve got to fight back? There are lots of strategic options, and every game feels like a new challenge.
One thing I enjoy about Tiny Epic Kingdoms is that you get to act on every single turn, even if you aren’t the active player. You don’t have to sit there and watch your friends play – you have the chance to benefit during every single turn, even if it’s merely collecting resources. The opportunity to act on every turn also adds a little bit of ‘take that’ to this game. I might choose an action on my turn as the active player that I know one of my competitors cannot perform – thus forcing them to collect resources and waste the opportunity to perform that specific action for an entire round. And since that action cannot be picked again until all available actions have already been chosen, I’ve successfully blocked their progress in a certain area of play. Your strategy has to extend beyond just your turn as the active player – you must consider all options for your opponents as well.
The thing I don’t necessarily like about Tiny Epic Kingdoms is that the gameplay can be a little stale. Unless you’re playing with people who actively try to engage with you, it is extremely easy to just stay in your own realm and not even interact with anyone at all. There’s no forced interaction in this game, and although it is admittedly nice sometimes, mostly it just feels like we’re all playing the same game alone. It’s like we all just take turns performing/following actions until someone has triggered the end-game.
Overall, I like Tiny Epic Kingdoms. It’s not my favorite Tiny Epic game, but it’s a good one. There’s a decent amount of strategy involved, but at times it can feel more like a ‘take that’ type game to me. The lack of forced player interaction can lead to dull gameplay and a lackluster experience. It’s not a bad game. It’s just not the most epic Tiny Epic game out there, in my opinion. That’s why Purple Phoenix Games gives it a regal 14 / 18.
In Tiny Epic Kingdoms, you are the ruler of (you guessed it) a tiny kingdom. You, however, are not content with simply maintaining your realm – you have plans to expand your borders and make your kingdom not-so-tiny! Send your adventurers out to explore new lands, learn new magics, construct towers to assert your dominance, and fight off others who would stand in your way! Do you have the strategy necessary to outwit your competitors and grow your kingdom? Play to find out!
DISCLAIMER: There are several expansions to this game, but we are not reviewing them at this time. Should we review them in the future we will either update this review or post a link to the new material here. -T
Tiny Epic Kingdoms is a game of worker placement, area control, and action point allowance. Players take turns gathering resources, buildings towers, researching magic, or exploring (and potentially waging war) in new lands. As the active player, on your turn you will select and perform one of the six available actions from the Action Card: Patrol, Quest, Build, Research, Expand, or Trade. Following your action, and still on your turn, the remaining players will either decide to perform the same action you chose, or collect resources. Once everyone has had the chance to act, your turn is over. The next player now becomes the active player and the process repeats with one big change – the action you chose on your turn is no longer available for selection. Each subsequent active player will always have 1 fewer action choice on their turn. This process repeats until there are no more actions available. When this happens, the Action Card is cleared and all actions are available once more for selection. Strategy is key – which action can you choose on your turn to best benefit you while also inhibiting your competitors? The game ends at the end of the turn in which one of these three things has happened: a player has all of their meeples in play, a player has built the 6th level on the tower card, or a player has reached the 5th level of magic on their faction card. End-game points are scored based on meeples in play, magic level, tower level, and control of Capital Cities. The player with the highest score wins!
For such a small game, there’s definitely a fair amount of strategy involved in Tiny Epic Kingdoms. You’ve got to decide on the best approach for you, and it must be adaptable to any given situation. Do you play it safe, quietly collecting resources, trying to achieve your end-game goals the fastest? Or do you venture out to confront your opponents, trying to usurp their territory and resources and take them out as your competition? Or maybe you try to stay civil, but an opponent is threatening your progress and now you’ve got to fight back? There are lots of strategic options, and every game feels like a new challenge.
One thing I enjoy about Tiny Epic Kingdoms is that you get to act on every single turn, even if you aren’t the active player. You don’t have to sit there and watch your friends play – you have the chance to benefit during every single turn, even if it’s merely collecting resources. The opportunity to act on every turn also adds a little bit of ‘take that’ to this game. I might choose an action on my turn as the active player that I know one of my competitors cannot perform – thus forcing them to collect resources and waste the opportunity to perform that specific action for an entire round. And since that action cannot be picked again until all available actions have already been chosen, I’ve successfully blocked their progress in a certain area of play. Your strategy has to extend beyond just your turn as the active player – you must consider all options for your opponents as well.
The thing I don’t necessarily like about Tiny Epic Kingdoms is that the gameplay can be a little stale. Unless you’re playing with people who actively try to engage with you, it is extremely easy to just stay in your own realm and not even interact with anyone at all. There’s no forced interaction in this game, and although it is admittedly nice sometimes, mostly it just feels like we’re all playing the same game alone. It’s like we all just take turns performing/following actions until someone has triggered the end-game.
Overall, I like Tiny Epic Kingdoms. It’s not my favorite Tiny Epic game, but it’s a good one. There’s a decent amount of strategy involved, but at times it can feel more like a ‘take that’ type game to me. The lack of forced player interaction can lead to dull gameplay and a lackluster experience. It’s not a bad game. It’s just not the most epic Tiny Epic game out there, in my opinion. That’s why Purple Phoenix Games gives it a regal 14 / 18.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Kids of Appetite in Books
Dec 14, 2018
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good.</i>
<i>Mosquitoland </i>was the best book I read last year (2015) and I was excited to discover what David Arnold would write next. I approached<i> Kids of Appetite</i> with mild trepidation; what if it did not live up to my expectations? Need not have worried – it was brilliant. Dubbed a “tragicomedy” <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a combination of realistic, heartbreaking experiences with intellectual humour.
The book opens mid interview at a local police station where two teenagers, Vic and Mad, are being questioned about a murder their friend has supposedly committed. From there, the story backtracks a week and proceeds to bring the reader up to date. It all begins with Vic running away from home, distancing himself from his mother and her new partner. By chance, a coincidence – a bump, Vic would say – he is found by Mad who introduces him to a small group of homeless friends. Vic may not have packed in preparation for life on the streets – or in a greenhouse as it turns out – however he did grab the urn containing his late father’s ashes before racing out of the house. Along with the urn is a letter containing cryptic clues that lead to various locations that Vic’s father wished for his ashes to be scattered. He, along with his new found friends; make it a mission to put his father to rest.
It is not possible to label the general theme of the book. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a story full of stories. Each character has their own past, something that led them to the situation they find themselves in now. The group consists of five members – once Vic has been accepted. Baz, at age twenty-seven, is clearly the leader: responsible, caring, and fatherly – until accused of murder. Seven years younger is Zuz, Baz’s mute brother, and finally Coco, an eleven year old with the mouth of a foul old lady. It is Coco, amongst all her swearing and hilarious misuse of words, that coins the name <i>Kids of Appetite, KOA</i> for short, a play on words: they are not solely in want of food, they hunger for life.
Initially it would appear that the main focus will be on Vic: his father’s death, his mother’s new partner, Moebius (facial paralysis) – a syndrome that results in a lot of bullying and discrimination – and, of course, his flight from home. However the remaining members of <i>KOA </i>equally contribute to the overall narrative. Mad, like Vic, knows what it is like to lose a father. Unfortunately she also knows what it is like to lose a mother. Her life since the fateful car crash that left her and orphan has been full of abuse and uncertainty. Baz and Zuz, on the other hand, have escaped a traumatizing childhood in the midst of the Congo Civil War.
Similarly with <i>Mosquitoland</i>, Arnold’s second book is full of intellectual knowledge and humour complete with references to highbrow material. Vic is obsessed with an operatic song and deeply interested in abstract art, particularly Matisse. He pulls the artist’s work apart in search of meaning and relatable truths of life. Like Vic, Mad has a particular song she draws comfort from. The lyrics help her make sense of the world around her, and produce her own manifesto – Madifesto, rather. She is particularly fascinated by S E Hinton’s <i>The Outsiders</i> – a book I have not read, but am obviously going to now. With in-depth theories purloined from her favourite novel, she encourages and advises those around her.
The murder investigation is evidently another key point of the book. I do not want to say too much on the matter as it would not be fair to give the ending away. Be reassured that<i> Kids of Appetite</i> is not a thriller, crime or horror novel; it is the events and dialogue leading up to the conclusion that make up the greatest parts of the story.
It is essentially the characters that make <i>Kids of Appetite</i> such a fantastic work of fiction. Their background stories are all based on real life experiences of many people throughout the world, but it is their opinion of life, their terminology, and their reckless enthusiasm that really impacts the reader. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book to be read over and over again. So many phrases can be lifted and quoted to explain our own lives and feelings. In fact, the entire novel is one big quote to sum up life itself. Although there are so many themes, stories and ideas, there is one clear message. Let go. Let go of the past. Let go of the things that hold you back. For Vic and Mad it is the death of their parents; for Coco it is abandonment; and Baz and Zuz learn to let go of their violent childhood.
David Arnold is an extremely talented author, seamlessly flowing from one notion to another, whilst sweeping the reader into a sea of pure emotion. He may over use the word “ergo” and have an unconventional penchant for ellipses, but that only adds to the uniqueness of the writing. There may be an excessive amount of expletives, however that is overshadowed by the pure genius of the story itself. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book I want to recommend to all. The blurb likens it to authors Rainbow Rowell and Jennifer Niven – I would like to throw John Green into the mix – and should appeal to many Young Adult readers. I could write forever about this book, but I would rather you go and read it yourself. And whilst you read, remember:
<i>They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good. </i>
They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good.</i>
<i>Mosquitoland </i>was the best book I read last year (2015) and I was excited to discover what David Arnold would write next. I approached<i> Kids of Appetite</i> with mild trepidation; what if it did not live up to my expectations? Need not have worried – it was brilliant. Dubbed a “tragicomedy” <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a combination of realistic, heartbreaking experiences with intellectual humour.
The book opens mid interview at a local police station where two teenagers, Vic and Mad, are being questioned about a murder their friend has supposedly committed. From there, the story backtracks a week and proceeds to bring the reader up to date. It all begins with Vic running away from home, distancing himself from his mother and her new partner. By chance, a coincidence – a bump, Vic would say – he is found by Mad who introduces him to a small group of homeless friends. Vic may not have packed in preparation for life on the streets – or in a greenhouse as it turns out – however he did grab the urn containing his late father’s ashes before racing out of the house. Along with the urn is a letter containing cryptic clues that lead to various locations that Vic’s father wished for his ashes to be scattered. He, along with his new found friends; make it a mission to put his father to rest.
It is not possible to label the general theme of the book. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a story full of stories. Each character has their own past, something that led them to the situation they find themselves in now. The group consists of five members – once Vic has been accepted. Baz, at age twenty-seven, is clearly the leader: responsible, caring, and fatherly – until accused of murder. Seven years younger is Zuz, Baz’s mute brother, and finally Coco, an eleven year old with the mouth of a foul old lady. It is Coco, amongst all her swearing and hilarious misuse of words, that coins the name <i>Kids of Appetite, KOA</i> for short, a play on words: they are not solely in want of food, they hunger for life.
Initially it would appear that the main focus will be on Vic: his father’s death, his mother’s new partner, Moebius (facial paralysis) – a syndrome that results in a lot of bullying and discrimination – and, of course, his flight from home. However the remaining members of <i>KOA </i>equally contribute to the overall narrative. Mad, like Vic, knows what it is like to lose a father. Unfortunately she also knows what it is like to lose a mother. Her life since the fateful car crash that left her and orphan has been full of abuse and uncertainty. Baz and Zuz, on the other hand, have escaped a traumatizing childhood in the midst of the Congo Civil War.
Similarly with <i>Mosquitoland</i>, Arnold’s second book is full of intellectual knowledge and humour complete with references to highbrow material. Vic is obsessed with an operatic song and deeply interested in abstract art, particularly Matisse. He pulls the artist’s work apart in search of meaning and relatable truths of life. Like Vic, Mad has a particular song she draws comfort from. The lyrics help her make sense of the world around her, and produce her own manifesto – Madifesto, rather. She is particularly fascinated by S E Hinton’s <i>The Outsiders</i> – a book I have not read, but am obviously going to now. With in-depth theories purloined from her favourite novel, she encourages and advises those around her.
The murder investigation is evidently another key point of the book. I do not want to say too much on the matter as it would not be fair to give the ending away. Be reassured that<i> Kids of Appetite</i> is not a thriller, crime or horror novel; it is the events and dialogue leading up to the conclusion that make up the greatest parts of the story.
It is essentially the characters that make <i>Kids of Appetite</i> such a fantastic work of fiction. Their background stories are all based on real life experiences of many people throughout the world, but it is their opinion of life, their terminology, and their reckless enthusiasm that really impacts the reader. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book to be read over and over again. So many phrases can be lifted and quoted to explain our own lives and feelings. In fact, the entire novel is one big quote to sum up life itself. Although there are so many themes, stories and ideas, there is one clear message. Let go. Let go of the past. Let go of the things that hold you back. For Vic and Mad it is the death of their parents; for Coco it is abandonment; and Baz and Zuz learn to let go of their violent childhood.
David Arnold is an extremely talented author, seamlessly flowing from one notion to another, whilst sweeping the reader into a sea of pure emotion. He may over use the word “ergo” and have an unconventional penchant for ellipses, but that only adds to the uniqueness of the writing. There may be an excessive amount of expletives, however that is overshadowed by the pure genius of the story itself. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book I want to recommend to all. The blurb likens it to authors Rainbow Rowell and Jennifer Niven – I would like to throw John Green into the mix – and should appeal to many Young Adult readers. I could write forever about this book, but I would rather you go and read it yourself. And whilst you read, remember:
<i>They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good. </i>
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) in Movies
Jul 19, 2017 (Updated Apr 16, 2021)
80's setting (2 more)
Quicksilver
Oscar Isaacs
Mutants Have Mankind Divided
This movie has had the most mixed reaction that I have seen since Batman V Superman, however I do objectively believe that X Men is a better movie and to be honest I don’t understand the mixed response Apocalypse has gotten. The year is 1983, 10 years after the last x men movie, Days Of Future Past (as in the kind of 10 years where no one ages a day,) and we know that it is 1983 because some of the young mutants go and see Return Of The Jedi in the cinema. The hairstyles and fashion statements are suitably 80’s, which is an appropriate motif to choose as it adds a more comic book feel to the movie and forces it to stick to a brighter colour pallet than some of the previous X men outings. Another positive is the return of Quicksilver, who has another awesome slow motion scene, which possibly isn’t as well choreographed as the one in DOFP, but is definitely grander in scale. While the design of Apocalypse in this movie has been heavily criticised, I didn’t feel that it took me out of the movie and I felt that Oscar Isaacs’ portrayal of the ancient mutant is another great turn by the actor and proves yet again how diverse and chameleon like he really is. The one downside of his character is that he has been significantly nerfed in terms of his powers here. He does feel powerful, but never overwhelmingly so and when the final confrontation does take place, it feels like he is holding back. This could be explained in a contrived manner by saying that he doesn’t want to kill mutants, because they are all his children, but if the success of his plan depends on it then he shouldn’t even hesitate, he should just wipe all the X Men out in an instant like we know he can.
The tone is another issue I have with the movie, it is fairly inconsistent throughout and never reaches the level of threat that it is aiming for. However, this is through no fault of the cast or the performances. MacAvoy and Fassbender stand out here as you would expect, their relationship also remains one of the most interesting parts of the plot. Isaacs’ performance is also suitably threatening and sinister, the only thing lacking in his character other than the odd design choice, is how short he is next to the other mutants. He doesn’t have to be huge like in the comics and cartoons, but making him a little bit more physically imposing with clever camera tricks would have went a long way in adding to the character. Jennifer Lawrence is fine here as usual and young Cyclops and Jean Grey are perfectly serviceable, although Sophie Turner’s American accent does come and go in certain scenes. Even Peters is typically brilliant as Quicksilver and the actress who plays Storm here is also pretty convincing, as is the young English actor who plays Angel. Nightcrawler is a welcome addition to the roster as I feel that he has been criminally underused since the second X Men movie and his power set is definitely one of the most interesting in all of the X Men movies, also the actor playing him here does a good job throughout the film. However the same can’t be said for Olivia Munn who plays Psylocke in this movie, I have disliked this actress in every role I have seen her in to date and the same goes for this one, she brings nothing to the movie and she constantly has a resting bitch face that suggests she doesn’t want to be there.
Like Civil War, X Men wasn’t anything like the comic it was based on and we didn’t get what we expected, but what we did end up getting was fresh and entertaining in it’s own right, so it’s okay that the film plots aren’t 100% faithful to the source material and that is something that Singer has been preaching since he made the first X Men movie back in 2001, which incidentally wasn’t based on any comic book and was a totally original plot. Also I love how because of the alternate timeline they are now free to do whatever they want in terms of the timing of certain events. For example, (and this is a slight spoiler, but the movie has been out for a while now so deal with it,) the Phoenix Force makes an appearance in this movie, which typically isn’t something that Jean Grey acquires until later in her life. Also the fact that we saw Wolverine escaping from Weapon X again, (again spoilers but this was in the trailers anyway so again, deal with it,) was awesome and this time we saw him being broken out by the young X Men and this time he had the comic book accurate electric headgear on while he escaped and I also loved how we saw him interact with young Jean Grey and regain some of his memories. This could also could be a change in the timeline caused by the butterfly effect as a result of the events of Days Of Future Past. This would also explain why the Magneto/Quicksilver, father/son relationship has never been discussed before, because if Apocalypse never awakened in the original X Men trilogy, then Quicksilver would have never went to the X Men mansion and therefore wouldn’t have come into contact with his dad during the final battle scene. Also Mystique looks like she is now a member and potential leader of the X Men team, rather than an enemy of the team like she was in the original movies when she was played by Rebecca Romjin. The other big change in the timeline is the death of Magneto’s family and even the fact that he had a wife and another child besides Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch.
Overall I really enjoyed this movie, however I can also see why some people would take a disliking to it, as it does require a good amount of previous knowledge of the universe, but as an X Men fan, I loved it. Also another criticism I have read is that people aren’t happy with the length of the film, stating that it is too long and it drags in, but I actually thought the pacing was spot on. Anyway as an X Men fan, I loved my time would this movie and I look forward to seeing it again and I’d recommend it to anyone who is a mutant superhero fan.
The tone is another issue I have with the movie, it is fairly inconsistent throughout and never reaches the level of threat that it is aiming for. However, this is through no fault of the cast or the performances. MacAvoy and Fassbender stand out here as you would expect, their relationship also remains one of the most interesting parts of the plot. Isaacs’ performance is also suitably threatening and sinister, the only thing lacking in his character other than the odd design choice, is how short he is next to the other mutants. He doesn’t have to be huge like in the comics and cartoons, but making him a little bit more physically imposing with clever camera tricks would have went a long way in adding to the character. Jennifer Lawrence is fine here as usual and young Cyclops and Jean Grey are perfectly serviceable, although Sophie Turner’s American accent does come and go in certain scenes. Even Peters is typically brilliant as Quicksilver and the actress who plays Storm here is also pretty convincing, as is the young English actor who plays Angel. Nightcrawler is a welcome addition to the roster as I feel that he has been criminally underused since the second X Men movie and his power set is definitely one of the most interesting in all of the X Men movies, also the actor playing him here does a good job throughout the film. However the same can’t be said for Olivia Munn who plays Psylocke in this movie, I have disliked this actress in every role I have seen her in to date and the same goes for this one, she brings nothing to the movie and she constantly has a resting bitch face that suggests she doesn’t want to be there.
Like Civil War, X Men wasn’t anything like the comic it was based on and we didn’t get what we expected, but what we did end up getting was fresh and entertaining in it’s own right, so it’s okay that the film plots aren’t 100% faithful to the source material and that is something that Singer has been preaching since he made the first X Men movie back in 2001, which incidentally wasn’t based on any comic book and was a totally original plot. Also I love how because of the alternate timeline they are now free to do whatever they want in terms of the timing of certain events. For example, (and this is a slight spoiler, but the movie has been out for a while now so deal with it,) the Phoenix Force makes an appearance in this movie, which typically isn’t something that Jean Grey acquires until later in her life. Also the fact that we saw Wolverine escaping from Weapon X again, (again spoilers but this was in the trailers anyway so again, deal with it,) was awesome and this time we saw him being broken out by the young X Men and this time he had the comic book accurate electric headgear on while he escaped and I also loved how we saw him interact with young Jean Grey and regain some of his memories. This could also could be a change in the timeline caused by the butterfly effect as a result of the events of Days Of Future Past. This would also explain why the Magneto/Quicksilver, father/son relationship has never been discussed before, because if Apocalypse never awakened in the original X Men trilogy, then Quicksilver would have never went to the X Men mansion and therefore wouldn’t have come into contact with his dad during the final battle scene. Also Mystique looks like she is now a member and potential leader of the X Men team, rather than an enemy of the team like she was in the original movies when she was played by Rebecca Romjin. The other big change in the timeline is the death of Magneto’s family and even the fact that he had a wife and another child besides Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch.
Overall I really enjoyed this movie, however I can also see why some people would take a disliking to it, as it does require a good amount of previous knowledge of the universe, but as an X Men fan, I loved it. Also another criticism I have read is that people aren’t happy with the length of the film, stating that it is too long and it drags in, but I actually thought the pacing was spot on. Anyway as an X Men fan, I loved my time would this movie and I look forward to seeing it again and I’d recommend it to anyone who is a mutant superhero fan.
Fred (860 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Red Dead Redemption 2 in Video Games
Dec 4, 2018
Beautiful humongous world (5 more)
Tons to do. Hours & hours of stuff.
Great acting and characters
Lots of Easter eggs
Wonderful music
Great story
That feckin robin (2 more)
Big world means lots of riding
New Austin is kind of dead
Rockstar let my mama's baby grow up to be a cowboy
Yes, I'm a little late to this party, but I wanted to play until I completed the game & today, I finally did. I've also played a few hours of the online beta, but I'll get to that later.
Let's start with what this game is about. It's an open world game, set in the old west. It's set before the events of Red Dead Redemption. In that game, you played as John Marston. In that game, John was a man trying to change his life. He was a criminal, a thief, a murderer, but he's gone straight In this game, you play as Arthur Morgan. A criminal in the same gang with John. He is a bad guy, no doubt. But throughout the game, he has many opportunities to do good. Of course, you can play him that way, or you can play him as a heartless bastard. This will effect some of the story, the dialogue & the ending of the game. I played the game as if Arthur was a good guy inside & the ending I got was very satisfying, very emotional.
For most of the story, you're on the run with your gang, setting up different camps throughout the map, evading rival gangs & the law. This is a great way to get to know the world, however, you're free to explore most of the map freely. It is enormous & gorgeous. Some of the best scenery I've seen in a game. Sometimes you will really feel you're living in a real world. And that's the greatest thing about this game. The immersion. You really feel like you're living the life of your character. And Rockstar did that by making you take care of your character. You shave, bathe, eat & take care of your horse. Yes, you name your horse, feed it, brush it, pet it. You get very attached to it, as it is your main way of getting around. If your horse dies, it's gone. And believe me, it hurts to lose your horse.
Rockstar fills the game with so many missions, side activities, random encounters & hidden Easter eggs that it will take you weeks to do them all. I've been playing since day one, an average of 6 to 7 hours a day, & today, 5 & a half weeks later, I finally got 100% in the game. To be honest, when I first started, I spent lots of time just riding around, finding activities & hidden goodies & enjoying the scenery. Like most of their games, there's a supernatural element to some things as well as supernatural encounters. Steampunk, monsters, etc... a little bit of everything. Some encounters are funny, some terrifying, all of them cool.
I think what makes this game different & better than it's predecessor is the characters themselves. I'm not talking about the main characters alone, I'm talking about the people who litter the world. In RDR, some of the characters were silly, off-the-wall & unnatural. They were cartoonish. In RDR2, the people are real. Some may be weird and a bit crazy, but they never feel fake. They never feel like a character. Because of this, the world lives. They breathe life into it with every interaction. From the
Civil War veterans to the blind beggar, to the racist jackass standing on the corner in Saint Denis handing out pro-white pamphlets. They really make you feel like you're there. Again, immersion.
Some of the things you can do besides the missions are rob people, trains, coaches, banks. Another thing is hunting. Hunting can be a great way to make money. During the game, there are many challenges that you can undertake as well. There's are 9 categories with 10 challenges to each that can be done at your leisure. I left a lot of these to do last. I honestly didn't think I'd be able to do some of them. They just seemed ridiculous. But funny enough, I did about 50 of the last challenges within 2 days. And when I finished, I expected my 100% trophy to pop up. But it didn't. I was at 99%. What the? Looking at my completion list, there was something under the collections section that said unknown collection. Searching the internet, I found that most sites didn't have it listed. But I finally found a site that did. The last collection was the hunting challenge. And this brings us to that feckin robin.
Okay, let me explain. The hunting challenge you are given is to kill 5 different lists of animals. Each animal must be a perfect carcass. Which means, they have to be of perfect quality before you kill them & you must not damage them while killing them. Well, all of these animals are small animals. And most of them are small birds. It was fairly easy to get most of these animals. But there was one that was a huge pain in the ass. Can you guess what it was? Yes, a robin. A small, fast bird that is so rare, there are pages & videos galore on finding one. Most of which as total bollocks. How do I know? I spent over 7 hours trying to find one. Going to all these spots, seeing 3 of them total, shooting one & ruining it's carcass, & missing the other 2 based on their disappearance through the trees. I was really going to give up. So close, but so far. Luckily, using some people's hints & coming up with my own, I finally figured out how to get him. And it then took me 15 minutes. Yes, 15 minutes with 7 hours of wasted time. I am putting this as a negative, because it was really ridiculous to try to hunt this thing. So aggrivating. I understand if they want to make something rare, but it's just not nice. I felt like Rockstar was pulling a joke on it's players.
But anyway, this still doesn't bring down my score of the game. It's one of the greatest games I've ever played. But Rockstar has many perfect 10 games under it's belt in my opinion, including RDR. Is this game better. Yes, I think so. But it's oh so close.
A quick word on RDR online. It's only in beta, so I can't give a true review yet. However, I'm finding it so much fun doing missions with other people. Of course, there are jackasses going around shooting people for no reason. It gives no benefit to do so. Not all of the features are in there yet, but I will be playing when it goes to full online & will giv an update.
Let's start with what this game is about. It's an open world game, set in the old west. It's set before the events of Red Dead Redemption. In that game, you played as John Marston. In that game, John was a man trying to change his life. He was a criminal, a thief, a murderer, but he's gone straight In this game, you play as Arthur Morgan. A criminal in the same gang with John. He is a bad guy, no doubt. But throughout the game, he has many opportunities to do good. Of course, you can play him that way, or you can play him as a heartless bastard. This will effect some of the story, the dialogue & the ending of the game. I played the game as if Arthur was a good guy inside & the ending I got was very satisfying, very emotional.
For most of the story, you're on the run with your gang, setting up different camps throughout the map, evading rival gangs & the law. This is a great way to get to know the world, however, you're free to explore most of the map freely. It is enormous & gorgeous. Some of the best scenery I've seen in a game. Sometimes you will really feel you're living in a real world. And that's the greatest thing about this game. The immersion. You really feel like you're living the life of your character. And Rockstar did that by making you take care of your character. You shave, bathe, eat & take care of your horse. Yes, you name your horse, feed it, brush it, pet it. You get very attached to it, as it is your main way of getting around. If your horse dies, it's gone. And believe me, it hurts to lose your horse.
Rockstar fills the game with so many missions, side activities, random encounters & hidden Easter eggs that it will take you weeks to do them all. I've been playing since day one, an average of 6 to 7 hours a day, & today, 5 & a half weeks later, I finally got 100% in the game. To be honest, when I first started, I spent lots of time just riding around, finding activities & hidden goodies & enjoying the scenery. Like most of their games, there's a supernatural element to some things as well as supernatural encounters. Steampunk, monsters, etc... a little bit of everything. Some encounters are funny, some terrifying, all of them cool.
I think what makes this game different & better than it's predecessor is the characters themselves. I'm not talking about the main characters alone, I'm talking about the people who litter the world. In RDR, some of the characters were silly, off-the-wall & unnatural. They were cartoonish. In RDR2, the people are real. Some may be weird and a bit crazy, but they never feel fake. They never feel like a character. Because of this, the world lives. They breathe life into it with every interaction. From the
Civil War veterans to the blind beggar, to the racist jackass standing on the corner in Saint Denis handing out pro-white pamphlets. They really make you feel like you're there. Again, immersion.
Some of the things you can do besides the missions are rob people, trains, coaches, banks. Another thing is hunting. Hunting can be a great way to make money. During the game, there are many challenges that you can undertake as well. There's are 9 categories with 10 challenges to each that can be done at your leisure. I left a lot of these to do last. I honestly didn't think I'd be able to do some of them. They just seemed ridiculous. But funny enough, I did about 50 of the last challenges within 2 days. And when I finished, I expected my 100% trophy to pop up. But it didn't. I was at 99%. What the? Looking at my completion list, there was something under the collections section that said unknown collection. Searching the internet, I found that most sites didn't have it listed. But I finally found a site that did. The last collection was the hunting challenge. And this brings us to that feckin robin.
Okay, let me explain. The hunting challenge you are given is to kill 5 different lists of animals. Each animal must be a perfect carcass. Which means, they have to be of perfect quality before you kill them & you must not damage them while killing them. Well, all of these animals are small animals. And most of them are small birds. It was fairly easy to get most of these animals. But there was one that was a huge pain in the ass. Can you guess what it was? Yes, a robin. A small, fast bird that is so rare, there are pages & videos galore on finding one. Most of which as total bollocks. How do I know? I spent over 7 hours trying to find one. Going to all these spots, seeing 3 of them total, shooting one & ruining it's carcass, & missing the other 2 based on their disappearance through the trees. I was really going to give up. So close, but so far. Luckily, using some people's hints & coming up with my own, I finally figured out how to get him. And it then took me 15 minutes. Yes, 15 minutes with 7 hours of wasted time. I am putting this as a negative, because it was really ridiculous to try to hunt this thing. So aggrivating. I understand if they want to make something rare, but it's just not nice. I felt like Rockstar was pulling a joke on it's players.
But anyway, this still doesn't bring down my score of the game. It's one of the greatest games I've ever played. But Rockstar has many perfect 10 games under it's belt in my opinion, including RDR. Is this game better. Yes, I think so. But it's oh so close.
A quick word on RDR online. It's only in beta, so I can't give a true review yet. However, I'm finding it so much fun doing missions with other people. Of course, there are jackasses going around shooting people for no reason. It gives no benefit to do so. Not all of the features are in there yet, but I will be playing when it goes to full online & will giv an update.