Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated the PlayStation 3 version of Deadpool in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
Marvel comics classic antihero Deadpool has made a jump to the big leagues as the star of his own videogame by high Moon Studios. For those unfamiliar with the character, Deadpool is a mentally unstable mercenary who is deadly efficient with all manner of weaponry and takes delightful glee and dispensing violence. As the game opens, dead pool breaks down the fourth wall and openly speaks to the players often chiding them for their performance as well as cracking several raunchy one-liners and quips in the process. In his rundown apartment, we learn the dead pool has coursed through the use of high explosives the creation of a videogame written by and starring himself.
At numerous times throughout the game Deadpool will open the script to offer his creative input and decide to go off script and make some very creative and often bloody changes to the storyline which often causes the unseen but often heard studio exec complain about the budget of the game being surpassed.
While this is a very interesting set up and does add a lot of unique new wrinkles to a game of this type, at its heart Deadpool is simply an action adventure game in a style that we have seen many times before often in better games.
In pursuit of a contract, Deadpool graphically dispatches waves of enemies using his signature swords and guns which allow him to do all manner of complicated and impressive combat moves. As enemies are dispatched, players can earn the ability to purchase and equip new weapons such as shotguns, bear traps, grenades, dual machine guns, and more as well as have the ability to upgrade some of Dead pools abilities such as his healing speed. Like fellow mutant Wolverine, who briefly shows up the game, Deadpool is capable of regenerating health, so when combat becomes too intense it is often advisable for players to retreat to heal before wading back into the never-ending siege of enemy opponents.
Deadpool can also do some very creative stealth kills such as coming up behind an opponent and decapitating them or dispatching them with a quick shot to the head. This does have its own risks as excessive noise tends to attract large mobs of enemies and even as good as Deadpool is there comes a point where discretion is the better part of valor. Thankfully Deadpool has the ability to teleport away from danger and this comes exceptionally handy during the games numerous and at times frustrating jump sequences when a jump goes wrong.
There are elements of the game that are frustratingly hard but then there are moments that are absolute delight for fans of action games as well as, book heroes. The bawdy and over-the-top humor was excessive at times but was also entertaining and the character animations were true delight especially when Deadpool became a spinning dervish of death and dismemberment courtesy of his bladed weapons and guns.
Many of the enemies though became highly redundant and some did require a considerable amount of effort to dispatch so it is important that players conserve their ammunition as much as possible as running dry often required a hasty retreat rather than staying and finishing the job.
There were several clever cameos in game which I do not want to spoil and it was really nice to step into the bizarre and mayhem filled world in which the title character lives. My biggest issues with the game were that the gameplay became very repetitive after a while and the timed jumps and certain fights became extremely frustrating. If I want to do precision jumps from platform to platform to accomplish a goal, I will fire up the Wii U and play a game of Mario brothers.
I also had issues with some glitches in the game such as weapons animations disappearing and one extremely annoying sequence where the control systems on the PC version of the game went haywire and the character started to move on his own without any input from the controls. There were also some problems with the camera angles which in the heat of pitched battles became highly frustrating as I found myself boxed in and unable to see which way to go.
The graphics and sound in the game were solid but to control systems did have an element of frustration to them. While you are able to customize the controls on the PC version of the game, I did have to wonder how much easier the game would be on a console as it seems as if this wasn’t the intended platform of choice as it is a button mashers dream which is very conducive to a game control but not as friendly to a keyboard and mouse combination.
If you can look past the frustrations of the game, there is a lot to like here. Specifically the character, the action, and the ability to play as a truly demented individual who writes his own rules and does not care what anyone else has to say.
In the end the game is entertaining though nothing spectacular and while it may appeal mainly to hard-core fans of the character, I cannot help but think that the game could’ve been so much more.
http://sknr.net/2013/06/28/deadpool/
At numerous times throughout the game Deadpool will open the script to offer his creative input and decide to go off script and make some very creative and often bloody changes to the storyline which often causes the unseen but often heard studio exec complain about the budget of the game being surpassed.
While this is a very interesting set up and does add a lot of unique new wrinkles to a game of this type, at its heart Deadpool is simply an action adventure game in a style that we have seen many times before often in better games.
In pursuit of a contract, Deadpool graphically dispatches waves of enemies using his signature swords and guns which allow him to do all manner of complicated and impressive combat moves. As enemies are dispatched, players can earn the ability to purchase and equip new weapons such as shotguns, bear traps, grenades, dual machine guns, and more as well as have the ability to upgrade some of Dead pools abilities such as his healing speed. Like fellow mutant Wolverine, who briefly shows up the game, Deadpool is capable of regenerating health, so when combat becomes too intense it is often advisable for players to retreat to heal before wading back into the never-ending siege of enemy opponents.
Deadpool can also do some very creative stealth kills such as coming up behind an opponent and decapitating them or dispatching them with a quick shot to the head. This does have its own risks as excessive noise tends to attract large mobs of enemies and even as good as Deadpool is there comes a point where discretion is the better part of valor. Thankfully Deadpool has the ability to teleport away from danger and this comes exceptionally handy during the games numerous and at times frustrating jump sequences when a jump goes wrong.
There are elements of the game that are frustratingly hard but then there are moments that are absolute delight for fans of action games as well as, book heroes. The bawdy and over-the-top humor was excessive at times but was also entertaining and the character animations were true delight especially when Deadpool became a spinning dervish of death and dismemberment courtesy of his bladed weapons and guns.
Many of the enemies though became highly redundant and some did require a considerable amount of effort to dispatch so it is important that players conserve their ammunition as much as possible as running dry often required a hasty retreat rather than staying and finishing the job.
There were several clever cameos in game which I do not want to spoil and it was really nice to step into the bizarre and mayhem filled world in which the title character lives. My biggest issues with the game were that the gameplay became very repetitive after a while and the timed jumps and certain fights became extremely frustrating. If I want to do precision jumps from platform to platform to accomplish a goal, I will fire up the Wii U and play a game of Mario brothers.
I also had issues with some glitches in the game such as weapons animations disappearing and one extremely annoying sequence where the control systems on the PC version of the game went haywire and the character started to move on his own without any input from the controls. There were also some problems with the camera angles which in the heat of pitched battles became highly frustrating as I found myself boxed in and unable to see which way to go.
The graphics and sound in the game were solid but to control systems did have an element of frustration to them. While you are able to customize the controls on the PC version of the game, I did have to wonder how much easier the game would be on a console as it seems as if this wasn’t the intended platform of choice as it is a button mashers dream which is very conducive to a game control but not as friendly to a keyboard and mouse combination.
If you can look past the frustrations of the game, there is a lot to like here. Specifically the character, the action, and the ability to play as a truly demented individual who writes his own rules and does not care what anyone else has to say.
In the end the game is entertaining though nothing spectacular and while it may appeal mainly to hard-core fans of the character, I cannot help but think that the game could’ve been so much more.
http://sknr.net/2013/06/28/deadpool/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Box (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Norma (Cameron Diaz) and Arthur Lewis (James Marsden) don't seem to be any different than any other hardworking family in the late 1970s on the surface, but things aren't always what they seem. After a freak accident at the doctor's office when she was 18, Norma suffers from a disfigurement on her foot and has a noticeable limp. A student humiliates her in front of her class while she's teaching and Norma is under the impression that would be the worst part of her day until she's informed that the discount faculty had been getting on tuition would be cut next semester. Meanwhile, Arthur works for NASA and had been counting on being recruited as an astronaut since he aced every test, but is rejected for failing the psychological exam. Already living paycheck to paycheck, Norma and Lewis wonder how they'll support their son Walter and themselves until an opportunity presents itself in the form of a box. Arlington Steward (Frank Langella), a man who's missing half of his face, shows up at the Lewis' home and makes them an offer that could solve all of their financial situations at the expense of somebody else with the simple push of a button. But the consequences that unfold for Norma and Arthur ar far greater than what they bargained for.
Richard Kelly is capable of making pretty fantastic films. Donnie Darko is still his crowning achievement. People seem to either love the film or think it's highly overrated, but with repeat viewings over the years it's become a favorite and has a cult like status. Southland Tales showed promise, but just felt like the second half of an already established franchise. That turned out to be true when the three graphic novels were published and were recommended to be read before seeing the film. I admire the fact that they took a different approach to the filmwatching experience, but since I didn't hear about the reading material until after I saw the film it seemed like a lost cause. Possibly too much to be bothered with. So Kelly offers his take on a Twilight Zone episode with The Box and the result leaves the viewer with mixed reactions.
The film seems to drag a bit in the first half hour as it introduces us to the Lewis family. The Box is dropped off on their doorstep, but then we're offered a glimpse into the daily lives of Norma and Arthur Lewis; mostly what their careers and daily struggles are like. Once Mr. Steward shows up and explains what The Box does is when the film begins to gain momentum. From that point until around the time Arthur gets knee deep into his investigation is when The Box is at its peak. There's at least one twist in there that's actually pretty satisfying, but it's unfortunate that the film can't keep that up for its entire duration. From then on, it just seems like the film adds more and more weird plot twists and ridiculous explanations. You'll want the film to have ended 20 minutes prior by the time Mr. Steward makes his second offer to the Lewis family.
The dialogue seemed to fluctuate between sounding natural and sounding forced throughout the film. The film takes place in 1976 and it's established rather well, for the most part. At times, it felt like some of the dialect from today slipped through the cracks and made it into a film that took place over 30 years ago. The acting wasn't entirely satisfying either. Was Cameron Diaz's accent noticeable in the trailer for the film? It didn't really click until around the five minute mark of the actual film and seemed to kind of come and go depending on how much dialogue Diaz actually had in a particular scene. Frank Langella was the most enjoyable, but if he wasn't missing half of his face or being so mysterious then his character would probably be kind of dull since he doesn't actually show any range of emotion in the film. The CG also seemed to look a bit low budget during the three gateways scene, which is odd since the pool scene was pulled off incredibly well. With all of these superbly CG animated films coming out as of late like Disney Pixar's Up, Disney's A Christmas Carol, and even next year's Toy Story 3, if CG of a lower quality is contained in a film after that it becomes extremely evident in comparison.
Richard Kelly's The Box puts a modern day spin on a classic story and while it isn't entirely satisfying, it does have its high points. As the puzzle the film is wrapped in unravels, its first few reveals are interesting, but it was like they tried to cram in as many twists and turns as possible as the film went on. While Kelly has at least one great film under his belt, it seems like he still hasn't found a specific stride to being a great director. That doesn't mean he's not capable of doing so and he certainly has his trademarks that seem to bleed through in his films (usually something relating to another gateway or dimension), but that he hasn't been able to channel a similar formula to what made Donnie Darko his standout film. That, in itself, is disappointing.
Richard Kelly is capable of making pretty fantastic films. Donnie Darko is still his crowning achievement. People seem to either love the film or think it's highly overrated, but with repeat viewings over the years it's become a favorite and has a cult like status. Southland Tales showed promise, but just felt like the second half of an already established franchise. That turned out to be true when the three graphic novels were published and were recommended to be read before seeing the film. I admire the fact that they took a different approach to the filmwatching experience, but since I didn't hear about the reading material until after I saw the film it seemed like a lost cause. Possibly too much to be bothered with. So Kelly offers his take on a Twilight Zone episode with The Box and the result leaves the viewer with mixed reactions.
The film seems to drag a bit in the first half hour as it introduces us to the Lewis family. The Box is dropped off on their doorstep, but then we're offered a glimpse into the daily lives of Norma and Arthur Lewis; mostly what their careers and daily struggles are like. Once Mr. Steward shows up and explains what The Box does is when the film begins to gain momentum. From that point until around the time Arthur gets knee deep into his investigation is when The Box is at its peak. There's at least one twist in there that's actually pretty satisfying, but it's unfortunate that the film can't keep that up for its entire duration. From then on, it just seems like the film adds more and more weird plot twists and ridiculous explanations. You'll want the film to have ended 20 minutes prior by the time Mr. Steward makes his second offer to the Lewis family.
The dialogue seemed to fluctuate between sounding natural and sounding forced throughout the film. The film takes place in 1976 and it's established rather well, for the most part. At times, it felt like some of the dialect from today slipped through the cracks and made it into a film that took place over 30 years ago. The acting wasn't entirely satisfying either. Was Cameron Diaz's accent noticeable in the trailer for the film? It didn't really click until around the five minute mark of the actual film and seemed to kind of come and go depending on how much dialogue Diaz actually had in a particular scene. Frank Langella was the most enjoyable, but if he wasn't missing half of his face or being so mysterious then his character would probably be kind of dull since he doesn't actually show any range of emotion in the film. The CG also seemed to look a bit low budget during the three gateways scene, which is odd since the pool scene was pulled off incredibly well. With all of these superbly CG animated films coming out as of late like Disney Pixar's Up, Disney's A Christmas Carol, and even next year's Toy Story 3, if CG of a lower quality is contained in a film after that it becomes extremely evident in comparison.
Richard Kelly's The Box puts a modern day spin on a classic story and while it isn't entirely satisfying, it does have its high points. As the puzzle the film is wrapped in unravels, its first few reveals are interesting, but it was like they tried to cram in as many twists and turns as possible as the film went on. While Kelly has at least one great film under his belt, it seems like he still hasn't found a specific stride to being a great director. That doesn't mean he's not capable of doing so and he certainly has his trademarks that seem to bleed through in his films (usually something relating to another gateway or dimension), but that he hasn't been able to channel a similar formula to what made Donnie Darko his standout film. That, in itself, is disappointing.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Prodigy (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Here we are, a turning point of sorts. I had said to myself that I would try to be less of a scaredy cat and see all the films at the cinema. I'm not at a point where I can happily say "it's a no from me". Horror and I mix fine if I can watch them at home in the daylight and I can shout at the characters when they do dumb things like go into basements and don't turn on lights.
I wasn't even halfway through the trailers when I realised that sitting in the pitch black where people can appear out of nowhere was not for me. I made a decision to not see Us at the cinema there and then, and the same would be true for Pet Semetary if it wasn't for the fact they announced an Unlimited Screening for it.
Anyway...
I didn't know exactly what this film when I went in, I'd read the smallest of synopsis and that was basically it. It wasn't until I was in the cinema that I realised what I'd got myself into but by that point I was there and that was the end of it, I was staying.
The basic outline of the story is one that I'm certain I've seen in a similar form on other things, but I can't for the life of me remember where. Potentially I'm thinking of things like Criminal Minds.
You know fairly early on where this film is going to take you, I think I jumped in the first minute, along with a couple in front of me.
The way they link the simultaneous events at the beginning if very well done, the timing and the visuals line up perfectly. We then get fast-tracked through his early years and we see how special he is, and how he's just a smidge creepy.
The Prodigy has lots of classic tells from horror sprinkled through it, if I'd been at home I'd have been screaming at the screen. There are little tells everywhere but none of it spoils what's to come.
Overall the brought everything together extremely well to create something that was gripping and just a little scary to everyone around me... apart from the guy behind me who on more than one occasion laughed and gave me the urge to move seats.
The further in we get the more messed up things become for the characters, they're basically all screwed but none of them see it until it's too late. Miles becomes so creepy at one point that I'm assuming they decided that it was too much for the young actor to do. There's a cutaway to his eyes as he's talking but it sounds rather like a voice-over that's unlike the rest of the audio in the film.
At some point I gave up hope for... everything, and just wished someone would do the right thing and do away with him. Had I been watching this at home and shouting at the screen, someone might have listened and saved everyone a lot of heartbreak.
The Prodigy knows how to draw you in. We see Miles hypnotised with a metronome and the sequence makes you want to lean towards the screen for what you know is going to be something important. The constantly moving camera in time with the ticking worked so well.
If you look up Jackson Robert Scott on IMDb you get a delightfully cute picture, but even if I were his own mother I'd be suspicious about having him in the house after seeing this film. He seems to have found a little creepy niche with this and It, and he's pretty good at it. There's something about his mannerisms that don't feel quite right, but had he nailed that then I don't think I'd have ever slept again.
Taylor Shilling works well as Miles' mother, her reactions all help you get that sense of danger she feels and as her emotions ramp up so do ours. I'm not sure that the love of my child would have kept me on board for that long though.
There were mixed offerings from the rest of the cast, not that I'm sure that matters a great deal when the key part of the film is almost entirely focused on Miles and the visuals around that. I particularly like that they consistently show you the two sides of Miles. We see it on the movie posters as well as in the film with effective use of light and dark.
The Prodigy is almost right up my alley, it's basically a Criminal Minds storyline without the FBI, and a little supernatural something thrown in. It probably would have got higher marks from me had it not take every opportunity to make the audience jump. This film also teaches us a very important lesson, when a friendly dog hates a child you should trust its instincts.
What you should do
This is a very good thriller and if you don't mind jumping a bit every now and then it's well worth a watch. I think it's probably worth watching twice, knowing what I know now I'd like to see it again to put the pieces back together.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I will have the puppy from the beginning of the film, everything else can stay very very far away.
I wasn't even halfway through the trailers when I realised that sitting in the pitch black where people can appear out of nowhere was not for me. I made a decision to not see Us at the cinema there and then, and the same would be true for Pet Semetary if it wasn't for the fact they announced an Unlimited Screening for it.
Anyway...
I didn't know exactly what this film when I went in, I'd read the smallest of synopsis and that was basically it. It wasn't until I was in the cinema that I realised what I'd got myself into but by that point I was there and that was the end of it, I was staying.
The basic outline of the story is one that I'm certain I've seen in a similar form on other things, but I can't for the life of me remember where. Potentially I'm thinking of things like Criminal Minds.
You know fairly early on where this film is going to take you, I think I jumped in the first minute, along with a couple in front of me.
The way they link the simultaneous events at the beginning if very well done, the timing and the visuals line up perfectly. We then get fast-tracked through his early years and we see how special he is, and how he's just a smidge creepy.
The Prodigy has lots of classic tells from horror sprinkled through it, if I'd been at home I'd have been screaming at the screen. There are little tells everywhere but none of it spoils what's to come.
Overall the brought everything together extremely well to create something that was gripping and just a little scary to everyone around me... apart from the guy behind me who on more than one occasion laughed and gave me the urge to move seats.
The further in we get the more messed up things become for the characters, they're basically all screwed but none of them see it until it's too late. Miles becomes so creepy at one point that I'm assuming they decided that it was too much for the young actor to do. There's a cutaway to his eyes as he's talking but it sounds rather like a voice-over that's unlike the rest of the audio in the film.
At some point I gave up hope for... everything, and just wished someone would do the right thing and do away with him. Had I been watching this at home and shouting at the screen, someone might have listened and saved everyone a lot of heartbreak.
The Prodigy knows how to draw you in. We see Miles hypnotised with a metronome and the sequence makes you want to lean towards the screen for what you know is going to be something important. The constantly moving camera in time with the ticking worked so well.
If you look up Jackson Robert Scott on IMDb you get a delightfully cute picture, but even if I were his own mother I'd be suspicious about having him in the house after seeing this film. He seems to have found a little creepy niche with this and It, and he's pretty good at it. There's something about his mannerisms that don't feel quite right, but had he nailed that then I don't think I'd have ever slept again.
Taylor Shilling works well as Miles' mother, her reactions all help you get that sense of danger she feels and as her emotions ramp up so do ours. I'm not sure that the love of my child would have kept me on board for that long though.
There were mixed offerings from the rest of the cast, not that I'm sure that matters a great deal when the key part of the film is almost entirely focused on Miles and the visuals around that. I particularly like that they consistently show you the two sides of Miles. We see it on the movie posters as well as in the film with effective use of light and dark.
The Prodigy is almost right up my alley, it's basically a Criminal Minds storyline without the FBI, and a little supernatural something thrown in. It probably would have got higher marks from me had it not take every opportunity to make the audience jump. This film also teaches us a very important lesson, when a friendly dog hates a child you should trust its instincts.
What you should do
This is a very good thriller and if you don't mind jumping a bit every now and then it's well worth a watch. I think it's probably worth watching twice, knowing what I know now I'd like to see it again to put the pieces back together.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I will have the puppy from the beginning of the film, everything else can stay very very far away.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Jumanji: The Next Level (2019) in Movies
Dec 23, 2019
Like pretty much everyone else, when I first heard that the Robin Williams 1985 classic Jumanji was getting some kind of reboot/remake starring Dwayne Johnson, I was hugely sceptical. I probably even rolled my eyes and raised an eyebrow or something in disappointed disbelief! But then, also like pretty much everyone else judging by the fact it went on to make almost a billion dollars, I was more than pleasantly surprised when Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle turned out to be a big hit - an enjoyable, fresh take on the Jumanji idea, while still remaining true to the original. But, big box office numbers usually mean that a sequel won't be too far off and, sure enough, Jumanji: The Next Level was announced, with the original cast all returning. Hopefully they weren't going to end up stretching the formula too thin and had managed to come up with another new and exciting adventure to entice us back into the world of Jumanji.
Our four teens from Welcome to the Jungle are all still great friends following their ordeal/adventure together, although Spencer has become more distant from the group over the last year, seeming rather unhappy and depressed with life. As the rest of the group excitedly exchange messages on Whatsapp in preparation to return home for a Christmas reunion, Spencer is getting yelled at by his boss before struggling with a broken suitcase in the pouring rain as he heads to catch the bus home. When he does make it home, his Grandpa Eddie (Danny DeVito) is staying with them while he recovers from a hip operation, and Spencer now has the pleasure of sharing his bedroom with him. Complaining about old age, Eddie is the kind of grumpy character that Danny DeVito plays so perfectly and we are also introduced soon after to an old friend of his, Milo (Danny Glover). Eddie and Milo are former partners in the restaurant business, but haven't been on the best of terms over the last 15 years since they sold the restaurant and parted on not the best of terms.
When Spencer suddenly goes missing and his three friends go looking for him, they discover the battered Jumanji video game down in his basement, with Spencer's mobile phone and coat laying nearby. They realise that Spencer has ventured back into Jumanji and decide that they must join him in order to increase his chances of getting out of there alive. But this time round, it's not just the teens who get pulled into the game, as Eddie and Milo also find themselves inside Jumanji. And, just to mix things up a bit from the last movie, not everyone winds up in the same avatar as they did before either. So, similar to what we got last time, we're treated to plenty of comedy moments while everyone becomes accustomed to their new body and is either disgusted or overjoyed with what they've got. Grandpa Eddie finds himself as Dr. Bravestone while Milo is Franklin 'Mouse' Finbar, so obviously now having a fully functional, new and improved body is a pretty big deal for the old timers. Seeing Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart act out their very best impersonations of DeVito and Glover is a lot of fun and straight away serves up a completely different dynamic to that of the first movie. On top of that, there are some differences in the skills and weaknesses that each avatar now possesses and the introduction throughout the movie of a few more avatars in order to cater for the additional players who are now in the game.
When it comes to the quest that the team must embark upon in order to beat the game, this doesn't seem quite as well fleshed out or developed as in Welcome to the Jungle, and it's where this movie is lacking. The villain isn't at all interesting, and neither is the journey they take in order to get there. There are a couple of big fun action scenes, but also a lot of filler scenes that are somewhat lacking. It's still that winning formula from the previous movie, but with something missing.
As before though, it's the characters that shine through and make this all the more enjoyable. Probably the biggest addition this time round is Awkwafina as Ming Fleetfoot, who proves to be just as entertaining as the rest of the avatars. And, just to keep us on our toes, there are a couple of times where a dip in some magical water causes the players to switch avatars, meaning the cast get a chance to act in a different way as they get to grips with a new body and skills again.
Overall, Jumanji: The Next Level felt like more of the same, only not quite as good as Welcome to the Jungle. Obviously, there's a teaser or two of a sequel at the end of the movie and I'm sure the characters telling each other that they'll “never go back again” won't be enough to stop that from happening should this movie do as well as the last one!
Our four teens from Welcome to the Jungle are all still great friends following their ordeal/adventure together, although Spencer has become more distant from the group over the last year, seeming rather unhappy and depressed with life. As the rest of the group excitedly exchange messages on Whatsapp in preparation to return home for a Christmas reunion, Spencer is getting yelled at by his boss before struggling with a broken suitcase in the pouring rain as he heads to catch the bus home. When he does make it home, his Grandpa Eddie (Danny DeVito) is staying with them while he recovers from a hip operation, and Spencer now has the pleasure of sharing his bedroom with him. Complaining about old age, Eddie is the kind of grumpy character that Danny DeVito plays so perfectly and we are also introduced soon after to an old friend of his, Milo (Danny Glover). Eddie and Milo are former partners in the restaurant business, but haven't been on the best of terms over the last 15 years since they sold the restaurant and parted on not the best of terms.
When Spencer suddenly goes missing and his three friends go looking for him, they discover the battered Jumanji video game down in his basement, with Spencer's mobile phone and coat laying nearby. They realise that Spencer has ventured back into Jumanji and decide that they must join him in order to increase his chances of getting out of there alive. But this time round, it's not just the teens who get pulled into the game, as Eddie and Milo also find themselves inside Jumanji. And, just to mix things up a bit from the last movie, not everyone winds up in the same avatar as they did before either. So, similar to what we got last time, we're treated to plenty of comedy moments while everyone becomes accustomed to their new body and is either disgusted or overjoyed with what they've got. Grandpa Eddie finds himself as Dr. Bravestone while Milo is Franklin 'Mouse' Finbar, so obviously now having a fully functional, new and improved body is a pretty big deal for the old timers. Seeing Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart act out their very best impersonations of DeVito and Glover is a lot of fun and straight away serves up a completely different dynamic to that of the first movie. On top of that, there are some differences in the skills and weaknesses that each avatar now possesses and the introduction throughout the movie of a few more avatars in order to cater for the additional players who are now in the game.
When it comes to the quest that the team must embark upon in order to beat the game, this doesn't seem quite as well fleshed out or developed as in Welcome to the Jungle, and it's where this movie is lacking. The villain isn't at all interesting, and neither is the journey they take in order to get there. There are a couple of big fun action scenes, but also a lot of filler scenes that are somewhat lacking. It's still that winning formula from the previous movie, but with something missing.
As before though, it's the characters that shine through and make this all the more enjoyable. Probably the biggest addition this time round is Awkwafina as Ming Fleetfoot, who proves to be just as entertaining as the rest of the avatars. And, just to keep us on our toes, there are a couple of times where a dip in some magical water causes the players to switch avatars, meaning the cast get a chance to act in a different way as they get to grips with a new body and skills again.
Overall, Jumanji: The Next Level felt like more of the same, only not quite as good as Welcome to the Jungle. Obviously, there's a teaser or two of a sequel at the end of the movie and I'm sure the characters telling each other that they'll “never go back again” won't be enough to stop that from happening should this movie do as well as the last one!
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Mortal Engines (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Take a moment and imagine a world where most of humanity has been wiped off the map and those that remain are forced to survive on the remaining resources of a civilization that has been torn apart. In this new existence, leftover technology is coveted like diamonds and massive predator cities prey on weaker smaller cities to steal whatever meager resources they still possess. This is the world of Mortal Engines, the latest Peter Jackson blockbuster based on the young adult novel of the same name by Philip Reeves.
Mortal Engines takes place roughly a thousand years after the conclusion of the Sixty Minute War that decimated the earth and now civilization has banded into two very distinct groups. There are those in the “Traction Cities”, which are behemoth mobile cities that scour what remains of Europe gobbling up smaller cities to convert them and their resources into fuel that keeps the larger cities moving. Then there is the Anti-Traction League, a group that believes in preserving what little resources remain and living in “Traction-less” cities…a.k.a. cities built on land. London is the main Traction City and it is led by Thaddeus Valentine (Hugo Weaving) and his desire to tear down a great wall that is the only barrier between London and the surplus of resources that he so desperately needs.
After London devours one of the smaller cities, we are introduced to Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar), whose one goal in life is to kill Thaddeus Valentine, the man who murdered her mother. After her failed assassination attempt on his life, she teams up with historian Tom Natsworthy (Robert Sheehan) to not only survive, but also to prevent Valentine’s plan to recreate the war that took down humanity in the first place. This is a big job for the unlikely duo and on top of everything else, Hester is being hunted by a zombie/terminator hybrid named Shrike who wants nothing more than to kill her.
If it sounds like a lot to follow over the course of the two hours and nine-minute run time, you’d be right. In fact, without a lot of backstory which those who have read the novels will really benefit from, it can be a bit too much to take in. It comes across as a combination of Mad Max and the video game Dishonored, but it is lacking an excellent story to back up all of the post-apocalyptic action. That’s not to say that the story is bad, but it is by far the weakest part of the film and a huge missed opportunity to elevate a pretty good movie to the classic Peter Jackson masterpiece status we usually get from him. Considering the genius of Mr. Jackson this movie could have been so much more.
But now on to the good stuff…
Visually speaking Mortal Engines is a true work of art. Taking the steampunk Victorian era backdrop and adding in large mobile cities crashing through trees and forests gives us visuals that are not only magnificent, but also awe inspiring. I was lucky enough to see Mortal Engines in IMAX and the larger screen only helped to emphasize how truly awesome these large rolling cities are. This is a movie that is meant to be seen on the big screen, and with Mortal Engines, the bigger the better. The sound design matches the visuals in its epic scale, as it is loud and menacing. You can actually feel the rumble of the large treads as they move across the earth, and the crunching of smaller cities as the massive cities devour all that crosses their path. The casting and the acting were another positive as the good characters were ones you wanted to root for and the bad characters you hope would get what’s coming to them. All in all, there is quite a bit to like in this film and if nothing else you are sure to have a good time taking in all of the scenery.
In summary, Mortal Engines is a movie that feels as though it had so much potential but couldn’t quite live up to it. It definitely feels more like a summer blockbuster, full of explosions and action, instead of the deeper holiday releases that we usually get around this time. It’s the kind of movie that you go to see for the sheer spectacle of it all as long as you are willing to overlook any plot or story depth. Unfortunately, this leaves the quandary of whether or not it’s worth the full price of admission (or even more if you are planning to see it in IMAX) and my answer to that is…it depends. If you have any interest in seeing it at all then Mortal Engines is definitely a movie you should see on the big screen. On the other hand, it might be worth it to just wait to see it on pay-per-view or Blu-ray even though it may lose a lot of what makes the movie so much fun in the first place. While the movie could have been better, I have definitely seen worse and if the idea of massive rolling cities and steampunk set pieces are your thing, then Mortal Engines is certainly worth a look.
Mortal Engines takes place roughly a thousand years after the conclusion of the Sixty Minute War that decimated the earth and now civilization has banded into two very distinct groups. There are those in the “Traction Cities”, which are behemoth mobile cities that scour what remains of Europe gobbling up smaller cities to convert them and their resources into fuel that keeps the larger cities moving. Then there is the Anti-Traction League, a group that believes in preserving what little resources remain and living in “Traction-less” cities…a.k.a. cities built on land. London is the main Traction City and it is led by Thaddeus Valentine (Hugo Weaving) and his desire to tear down a great wall that is the only barrier between London and the surplus of resources that he so desperately needs.
After London devours one of the smaller cities, we are introduced to Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar), whose one goal in life is to kill Thaddeus Valentine, the man who murdered her mother. After her failed assassination attempt on his life, she teams up with historian Tom Natsworthy (Robert Sheehan) to not only survive, but also to prevent Valentine’s plan to recreate the war that took down humanity in the first place. This is a big job for the unlikely duo and on top of everything else, Hester is being hunted by a zombie/terminator hybrid named Shrike who wants nothing more than to kill her.
If it sounds like a lot to follow over the course of the two hours and nine-minute run time, you’d be right. In fact, without a lot of backstory which those who have read the novels will really benefit from, it can be a bit too much to take in. It comes across as a combination of Mad Max and the video game Dishonored, but it is lacking an excellent story to back up all of the post-apocalyptic action. That’s not to say that the story is bad, but it is by far the weakest part of the film and a huge missed opportunity to elevate a pretty good movie to the classic Peter Jackson masterpiece status we usually get from him. Considering the genius of Mr. Jackson this movie could have been so much more.
But now on to the good stuff…
Visually speaking Mortal Engines is a true work of art. Taking the steampunk Victorian era backdrop and adding in large mobile cities crashing through trees and forests gives us visuals that are not only magnificent, but also awe inspiring. I was lucky enough to see Mortal Engines in IMAX and the larger screen only helped to emphasize how truly awesome these large rolling cities are. This is a movie that is meant to be seen on the big screen, and with Mortal Engines, the bigger the better. The sound design matches the visuals in its epic scale, as it is loud and menacing. You can actually feel the rumble of the large treads as they move across the earth, and the crunching of smaller cities as the massive cities devour all that crosses their path. The casting and the acting were another positive as the good characters were ones you wanted to root for and the bad characters you hope would get what’s coming to them. All in all, there is quite a bit to like in this film and if nothing else you are sure to have a good time taking in all of the scenery.
In summary, Mortal Engines is a movie that feels as though it had so much potential but couldn’t quite live up to it. It definitely feels more like a summer blockbuster, full of explosions and action, instead of the deeper holiday releases that we usually get around this time. It’s the kind of movie that you go to see for the sheer spectacle of it all as long as you are willing to overlook any plot or story depth. Unfortunately, this leaves the quandary of whether or not it’s worth the full price of admission (or even more if you are planning to see it in IMAX) and my answer to that is…it depends. If you have any interest in seeing it at all then Mortal Engines is definitely a movie you should see on the big screen. On the other hand, it might be worth it to just wait to see it on pay-per-view or Blu-ray even though it may lose a lot of what makes the movie so much fun in the first place. While the movie could have been better, I have definitely seen worse and if the idea of massive rolling cities and steampunk set pieces are your thing, then Mortal Engines is certainly worth a look.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Ticket to Ride in Tabletop Games
Jan 9, 2020
I am one of the remaining few who reviewers who haven’t put in their two cents on Ticket to Ride. Why? Is it bad? No. Am I lazy? No. It’s really because I don’t think I have anything new to say about it that hasn’t already been said a hundred times. So this review on this game will be a little different from me. Instead of going over the rules and such (however truncated they typically are from me) I will question how well this game has aged for me.
Ticket to Ride is one of those games that has really hit it big in the mass market. You can find it all over in big box stores, in FLGS, online, secondary market, just everywhere. But why? And for this long? Ticket to Ride (TTR) came out in 2004. A mere 15 years ago. While that doesn’t really sound like a long time, in contrast to today’s game industry it is an eternity. With thousands upon thousands of games being released into the market through direct publish, Kickstarter/crowd funding, and big releases at conventions it’s hard to believe that you can still find this hanging with the exciting, fresh new games.
What I truly believe is magical about this game is its simplicity. “You have two main options: take some cards or play some cards.” When you can start a teach of a game by saying that, your players are invested right away because they know you aren’t going to bog them down with rules upon rules. “If you decide to take cards you can take these colored train cards or you can take new route ticket cards.” So now players have two choices from gaining cards. “If you decide to play cards you need to play cards of a color and number matching whichever route between two connecting cities on the map you like.” Done. The game is explained. Yeah, you can fight me about the endgame scoring stuff like longest route and whatnot, but for new gamers, you have explained this classic in three sentences. It’s so beautiful when a game allows you to teach it so quickly.
But that surely means that this is an easy game, right? With so few rules and such. Well, no. It’s not really “easy” at all. While your main rules are light, the strategy and tactics during play can cause feelings of joy and delight as well as frustration and concern as you see someone claim the route you need to connect to two cities on the map. Of course, you can’t explain that to your new players right away. You want them to experience these feelings organically and fully. It’s what makes TTR a really great game: having your well-laid plans just shot to smithereens by the guy who can’t tell the difference between the white train cars and the wild rainbow train cars.
DISCLAIMER: I play with the 1910 expansion, which is a MUST. The larger cards are way easier to play with. See photo below with comparisons from base game on bottom with the larger 1910 cards above. YMMV, but I will always play using this expansion. -T
Components. Let’s compare components to some current or newer games. The game board is laid out really well, and the artwork is sparse and not over-busy on the board. This is a HUGE plus for me. I like nothing more than for the board to offer thematic elements and feeling without pelting my eyes with too much distraction. The cards were a bad choice. Not because the art or the quality on them is bad – because that’s not what I am saying. The size of the cards was a poor choice. I did purchase the 1910 expansion and simply will not play my copy without it. I recently played TTR for GenCan’t 2019 at my FLGS with OG base cards and found myself dreaming of the 1910 cards. The score tracker discs are of industry-standard quality for scoring discs. The plastic train car pieces are still just as wonderful to handle and play with as are many other more modern components. Seriously just as good. TTR components (and really, most of the time Days of Wonder components in general) are really great.
So do I still enjoy playing it? You betcha, don’tcha know. I still love seeing the board in front of me, agonizing over the route tickets I am dealt, and trying to decide if I should go for the New York to Los Angeles, or keep it simple with multiple routes along the Mississippi River. I still love the panic that ensues when I see people hoarding train cards, just knowing that they will soon be on the attack and their train car collection will dwindle to almost endgame levels in too few rounds for me to complete my masterpiece. I guess I still really love it.
Is Ticket to Ride my favorite game? No. But I’ll tell you what. I hadn’t played it in a couple years, and after this weekend’s play, it has moved up on my list by several spaces. It still holds a special place in my heart, and also the hearts of my team. That’s why Purple Phoenix Games gives Ticket to Ride a retrospective 20 / 24. It’s still great!
Ticket to Ride is one of those games that has really hit it big in the mass market. You can find it all over in big box stores, in FLGS, online, secondary market, just everywhere. But why? And for this long? Ticket to Ride (TTR) came out in 2004. A mere 15 years ago. While that doesn’t really sound like a long time, in contrast to today’s game industry it is an eternity. With thousands upon thousands of games being released into the market through direct publish, Kickstarter/crowd funding, and big releases at conventions it’s hard to believe that you can still find this hanging with the exciting, fresh new games.
What I truly believe is magical about this game is its simplicity. “You have two main options: take some cards or play some cards.” When you can start a teach of a game by saying that, your players are invested right away because they know you aren’t going to bog them down with rules upon rules. “If you decide to take cards you can take these colored train cards or you can take new route ticket cards.” So now players have two choices from gaining cards. “If you decide to play cards you need to play cards of a color and number matching whichever route between two connecting cities on the map you like.” Done. The game is explained. Yeah, you can fight me about the endgame scoring stuff like longest route and whatnot, but for new gamers, you have explained this classic in three sentences. It’s so beautiful when a game allows you to teach it so quickly.
But that surely means that this is an easy game, right? With so few rules and such. Well, no. It’s not really “easy” at all. While your main rules are light, the strategy and tactics during play can cause feelings of joy and delight as well as frustration and concern as you see someone claim the route you need to connect to two cities on the map. Of course, you can’t explain that to your new players right away. You want them to experience these feelings organically and fully. It’s what makes TTR a really great game: having your well-laid plans just shot to smithereens by the guy who can’t tell the difference between the white train cars and the wild rainbow train cars.
DISCLAIMER: I play with the 1910 expansion, which is a MUST. The larger cards are way easier to play with. See photo below with comparisons from base game on bottom with the larger 1910 cards above. YMMV, but I will always play using this expansion. -T
Components. Let’s compare components to some current or newer games. The game board is laid out really well, and the artwork is sparse and not over-busy on the board. This is a HUGE plus for me. I like nothing more than for the board to offer thematic elements and feeling without pelting my eyes with too much distraction. The cards were a bad choice. Not because the art or the quality on them is bad – because that’s not what I am saying. The size of the cards was a poor choice. I did purchase the 1910 expansion and simply will not play my copy without it. I recently played TTR for GenCan’t 2019 at my FLGS with OG base cards and found myself dreaming of the 1910 cards. The score tracker discs are of industry-standard quality for scoring discs. The plastic train car pieces are still just as wonderful to handle and play with as are many other more modern components. Seriously just as good. TTR components (and really, most of the time Days of Wonder components in general) are really great.
So do I still enjoy playing it? You betcha, don’tcha know. I still love seeing the board in front of me, agonizing over the route tickets I am dealt, and trying to decide if I should go for the New York to Los Angeles, or keep it simple with multiple routes along the Mississippi River. I still love the panic that ensues when I see people hoarding train cards, just knowing that they will soon be on the attack and their train car collection will dwindle to almost endgame levels in too few rounds for me to complete my masterpiece. I guess I still really love it.
Is Ticket to Ride my favorite game? No. But I’ll tell you what. I hadn’t played it in a couple years, and after this weekend’s play, it has moved up on my list by several spaces. It still holds a special place in my heart, and also the hearts of my team. That’s why Purple Phoenix Games gives Ticket to Ride a retrospective 20 / 24. It’s still great!
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Thing (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
After the success of a videogame based on the original film, rumors of a sequel arose many times but never came to fruition, with creative differences between Universal and John Carpenter cited as the main reason. It was oft-speculated that Carpenter made a deal to write and produce a sequel provided he got to name has director. But when he opted to name himself director the studio balked and the project fell apart. In the aftermath, rumors of a miniseries on the SyfY channel arose along with the possibility of retelling the story with 20-somethings on a tropical island but (thankfully) they never saw the light of day.
Rather than do a sequel or remake, Universal opted to jump start the franchise with a prequel that covers the events leading up to the John Carpenter film. It is set in 1982 at a Norwegian research station in Antarctica shortly before the scientists make an amazing discovery. When they uncover an alien craft that had been buried in the ice for over 100,000 years, as well as a frozen crewmember from the craft, they quickly celebrate the scientific discovery of a lifetime.
Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), is recruited by a famed scientist to travel to the desolate continent to research the find. Told only that they are about to research an amazing discovery, Kate and a team of specialists arrive and are absolutely stunned by the magnitude of their discovery. Kate urges caution but is overridden by the expedition leader Dr. Halvorsan (Ulrich Thomsen), who insists on taking a tissue sample of the frozen creature encassed in a block of ice.
Later that evening while celebrating, the very much alive creature escapes from its icy prison and begins to systematically hunt the members of the research team. The creature is eventually trapped and burned which causes some consternation over the loss of the creature for further scientific study, but many in the camp applaud its loss after seeing firsthand the destruction it is capable of.
After a bizarre series of events, Kate makes the startling discovery that the cells of the creature are able to imitate and perfectly replicate any thing that it comes in contact with. As a result, not only is the creature very much alive, but the individuals in the camp may no longer be human. Trapped in a remote location with an advancing winter storm, suspicions and paranoia go through the roof as the survivors are pitted against one another, unsure of who is still human. What follows is a high-octane adventure awash in action and grisly special-effects as the two species are locked in the ultimate battle for survival.
The film has a good supporting cast and Joel Edgerton does solid supporting work as an American helicopter pilot assigned to the camp. Eric Christian Olsen provides a steadying presence as a research assistant but his character is not as developed as it could be. It is known that he and Kate know each other but their past history is undefined which makes their relationship a bit puzzling in the film especially when the survivors begin to pick sides.
While the movie is not going to make fans forget the original, it is a very worthy companion piece. As the film was winding down I found myself checking off a couple of inconsistencies with the original film, but was very pleasantly surprised when this was all explained during the end credits which perfectly synced the end of this film with the opening of John Carpenter’s classic.
In many ways the weakness of film is due to the success of John Carpenter’s previous film, in that the creature is not that much of a mystery this time around. Part of the suspense of the previous film was not knowing how the creature operated nor how it was capable of infecting and replicating numerous individuals.
This time around the suspense is lost due to the familiarity with the creature. As a result, director Matthijs van Heijningen focused his efforts on a more action adventure oriented film that gave very little time for character development. We are not told very much about many of the characters in the film as they simply exist to serve as potential victims for the creature. All one really needs to know is they are scientists or support staff as aside from a handful of characters we’re not really given much reason to care whether they survive.
Visually the film is sharp and it is clear that a lot of attention was paid to replicate the look of the previous film. The shots of vast fields of ice and snow emphasized the remote and isolated setting that the characters find themselves in and served as a reminder that danger lurks all around. The special-effects have obviously been upgraded since 1982 and it was nice to see that the creative elements did not go overboard on CGI effects, and actually used puppetry and animatronics to provide updated creature effects that were still in keeping with the look and tone from the previous film.
While the film is not likely to reach the iconic status of the previous film, it is still a worthy companion piece that has enough action and effects to keep it interesting to fans of the series – just so long as they keep their expectations reasonable and do not expect a film on par with the previous one.
Rather than do a sequel or remake, Universal opted to jump start the franchise with a prequel that covers the events leading up to the John Carpenter film. It is set in 1982 at a Norwegian research station in Antarctica shortly before the scientists make an amazing discovery. When they uncover an alien craft that had been buried in the ice for over 100,000 years, as well as a frozen crewmember from the craft, they quickly celebrate the scientific discovery of a lifetime.
Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), is recruited by a famed scientist to travel to the desolate continent to research the find. Told only that they are about to research an amazing discovery, Kate and a team of specialists arrive and are absolutely stunned by the magnitude of their discovery. Kate urges caution but is overridden by the expedition leader Dr. Halvorsan (Ulrich Thomsen), who insists on taking a tissue sample of the frozen creature encassed in a block of ice.
Later that evening while celebrating, the very much alive creature escapes from its icy prison and begins to systematically hunt the members of the research team. The creature is eventually trapped and burned which causes some consternation over the loss of the creature for further scientific study, but many in the camp applaud its loss after seeing firsthand the destruction it is capable of.
After a bizarre series of events, Kate makes the startling discovery that the cells of the creature are able to imitate and perfectly replicate any thing that it comes in contact with. As a result, not only is the creature very much alive, but the individuals in the camp may no longer be human. Trapped in a remote location with an advancing winter storm, suspicions and paranoia go through the roof as the survivors are pitted against one another, unsure of who is still human. What follows is a high-octane adventure awash in action and grisly special-effects as the two species are locked in the ultimate battle for survival.
The film has a good supporting cast and Joel Edgerton does solid supporting work as an American helicopter pilot assigned to the camp. Eric Christian Olsen provides a steadying presence as a research assistant but his character is not as developed as it could be. It is known that he and Kate know each other but their past history is undefined which makes their relationship a bit puzzling in the film especially when the survivors begin to pick sides.
While the movie is not going to make fans forget the original, it is a very worthy companion piece. As the film was winding down I found myself checking off a couple of inconsistencies with the original film, but was very pleasantly surprised when this was all explained during the end credits which perfectly synced the end of this film with the opening of John Carpenter’s classic.
In many ways the weakness of film is due to the success of John Carpenter’s previous film, in that the creature is not that much of a mystery this time around. Part of the suspense of the previous film was not knowing how the creature operated nor how it was capable of infecting and replicating numerous individuals.
This time around the suspense is lost due to the familiarity with the creature. As a result, director Matthijs van Heijningen focused his efforts on a more action adventure oriented film that gave very little time for character development. We are not told very much about many of the characters in the film as they simply exist to serve as potential victims for the creature. All one really needs to know is they are scientists or support staff as aside from a handful of characters we’re not really given much reason to care whether they survive.
Visually the film is sharp and it is clear that a lot of attention was paid to replicate the look of the previous film. The shots of vast fields of ice and snow emphasized the remote and isolated setting that the characters find themselves in and served as a reminder that danger lurks all around. The special-effects have obviously been upgraded since 1982 and it was nice to see that the creative elements did not go overboard on CGI effects, and actually used puppetry and animatronics to provide updated creature effects that were still in keeping with the look and tone from the previous film.
While the film is not likely to reach the iconic status of the previous film, it is still a worthy companion piece that has enough action and effects to keep it interesting to fans of the series – just so long as they keep their expectations reasonable and do not expect a film on par with the previous one.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) in Movies
Jul 3, 2020
Introduce a horror icon (3 more)
Robert Englund
Freddy
Wes Craven
Whatever you do, don’t fall asleep!
Contains spoilers, click to show
A Nightmare on Elm Street- is one of my all time favorite horror films. Its also one of the greatest horror movies of all time. That being said, the ending sucks and i will get to that, but first lets talk more about the film.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Canvas in Tabletop Games
Feb 3, 2021
I do not have any natural talent for art. That doesn’t stop me from enjoying it, though! Whether it’s coloring, painting, or crafting, I like to let my artistic side run free. So imagine my surprise as I was perusing Kickstarter one day and happened upon Canvas. A game about ‘painting’ and creating unique, brilliant, and one-of-a-kind pieces of artwork, all without having to worry about my lack of actual artistic talent?? I was immediately sold! Now that I have the game in hand and have gotten the opportunity to play it, will it withstand the test of time, like a classic masterpiece?
Canvas is a game of card drafting and set collection in which players are trying to layer their cards to create unique pieces of artwork that will earn them Ribbons (VP) at the local art festival. To begin, set up the canvas mat, 4 random Scoring Cards, Ribbon tokens, and Art cards in their corresponding locations in the play area. Each player receives 3 sleeved Background cards and 4 Inspiration tokens. Select a starting player, and the game is ready to begin!
Playing over a series of rounds, players will take turns either Taking an Art Card or Completing a Painting. If you choose to Take an Art Card, you select an Art Card from the canvas mat and take it into your hand. The card furthest from the draw deck is free, but subsequent cards must be ‘purchased’ by spending Inspiration. Place 1 Inspiration token on every card preceding the one you take into hand. If you select an Art Card that has an Inspiration token on it, you collect that token for future use!
If you have at least 3 Art Cards, or a maximum of 5 Art Cards in hand, you must Complete a Painting. You will select 3 of your Art Cards to be sleeved with one of your starting Background cards. You may layer the Art Cards in any order you choose – but remember, only visible icons are used for scoring! Once you have Completed a Painting, you immediately score that piece. Compare the visible icons on your final painting to the Scoring Cards, taking any corresponding Ribbon tokens for successfully meeting their requirements. Play continues in this manner until all players have completed their 3 paintings. Players count up their cumulative scores from all paintings, and the player with the most points is the winner!
The gameplay seems simple enough, right? Yes! It is very straightforward since you only have 2 options for each turn. Either draft a card, or complete a painting. Teaching time is minimal and the gameplay can move quickly. But THAT is where the simplicity ends, my friends. The heart of Canvas is in its strategy. Each game has 4 random Scoring Cards, which define how you will earn points. And each transparent Art Card has a number of icons at the bottom that will affect how you resolve each Scoring Card. By layering your Art Cards, you will cover some icons, while letting others remain visible. The possibilities are truly endless when it comes to how to layer your cards, but are you clever enough to layer them for maximum points? Admittedly, the various layering possibilities coupled with 4 different Scoring Cards can lead to some analysis paralysis, as players try to figure out every combination they have to see what could earn the most points. But all in all, I have found the that the gameplay is never really at a standstill, because as one player is taking their turn, all others can be strategizing with their own cards.
Let’s talk about components. First off, I love the canvas mat – it really brings the theme to life and is good quality! The Art Cards are colorful and sturdy, and they really are clear enough to see even when layered upon each other. (I should say that I did remove the plastic film from the manufacturing process.) The Scoring and Background cards are nice, big, and easy to read and understand. My deluxe copy of Canvas has Wooden Ribbons and Inspiration tokens instead of the standard cardboard, and they are nice, chunky, and fun to play with. There are even 5 small wooden easels on which players can display their masterpieces! All in all, the deluxe components are great quality and really elevate the gameplay. AND the game box literally has a hole in the back so it can be hung on the wall, like a real piece of art! Such a creative and immersive approach to the game, that just puts a smile on my face.
If you’ve read this far in my review, I think you can tell that I really love Canvas. The theme is creative, the gameplay is simple, but extremely strategic, and the high quality components really make it feel deluxe. Is there anything I don’t like about it? Maybe that it makes my brain hurt sometimes when trying to figure out the best layering combo of my Art Cards. But seriously, this game is a new and unique twist on some of my favorite mechanics. Canvas is quickly making its way towards my Top 10 list, and this is one I will definitely be pulling out at game nights pretty often. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an eccentric 11 / 12. Give it a shot, I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.
Canvas is a game of card drafting and set collection in which players are trying to layer their cards to create unique pieces of artwork that will earn them Ribbons (VP) at the local art festival. To begin, set up the canvas mat, 4 random Scoring Cards, Ribbon tokens, and Art cards in their corresponding locations in the play area. Each player receives 3 sleeved Background cards and 4 Inspiration tokens. Select a starting player, and the game is ready to begin!
Playing over a series of rounds, players will take turns either Taking an Art Card or Completing a Painting. If you choose to Take an Art Card, you select an Art Card from the canvas mat and take it into your hand. The card furthest from the draw deck is free, but subsequent cards must be ‘purchased’ by spending Inspiration. Place 1 Inspiration token on every card preceding the one you take into hand. If you select an Art Card that has an Inspiration token on it, you collect that token for future use!
If you have at least 3 Art Cards, or a maximum of 5 Art Cards in hand, you must Complete a Painting. You will select 3 of your Art Cards to be sleeved with one of your starting Background cards. You may layer the Art Cards in any order you choose – but remember, only visible icons are used for scoring! Once you have Completed a Painting, you immediately score that piece. Compare the visible icons on your final painting to the Scoring Cards, taking any corresponding Ribbon tokens for successfully meeting their requirements. Play continues in this manner until all players have completed their 3 paintings. Players count up their cumulative scores from all paintings, and the player with the most points is the winner!
The gameplay seems simple enough, right? Yes! It is very straightforward since you only have 2 options for each turn. Either draft a card, or complete a painting. Teaching time is minimal and the gameplay can move quickly. But THAT is where the simplicity ends, my friends. The heart of Canvas is in its strategy. Each game has 4 random Scoring Cards, which define how you will earn points. And each transparent Art Card has a number of icons at the bottom that will affect how you resolve each Scoring Card. By layering your Art Cards, you will cover some icons, while letting others remain visible. The possibilities are truly endless when it comes to how to layer your cards, but are you clever enough to layer them for maximum points? Admittedly, the various layering possibilities coupled with 4 different Scoring Cards can lead to some analysis paralysis, as players try to figure out every combination they have to see what could earn the most points. But all in all, I have found the that the gameplay is never really at a standstill, because as one player is taking their turn, all others can be strategizing with their own cards.
Let’s talk about components. First off, I love the canvas mat – it really brings the theme to life and is good quality! The Art Cards are colorful and sturdy, and they really are clear enough to see even when layered upon each other. (I should say that I did remove the plastic film from the manufacturing process.) The Scoring and Background cards are nice, big, and easy to read and understand. My deluxe copy of Canvas has Wooden Ribbons and Inspiration tokens instead of the standard cardboard, and they are nice, chunky, and fun to play with. There are even 5 small wooden easels on which players can display their masterpieces! All in all, the deluxe components are great quality and really elevate the gameplay. AND the game box literally has a hole in the back so it can be hung on the wall, like a real piece of art! Such a creative and immersive approach to the game, that just puts a smile on my face.
If you’ve read this far in my review, I think you can tell that I really love Canvas. The theme is creative, the gameplay is simple, but extremely strategic, and the high quality components really make it feel deluxe. Is there anything I don’t like about it? Maybe that it makes my brain hurt sometimes when trying to figure out the best layering combo of my Art Cards. But seriously, this game is a new and unique twist on some of my favorite mechanics. Canvas is quickly making its way towards my Top 10 list, and this is one I will definitely be pulling out at game nights pretty often. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an eccentric 11 / 12. Give it a shot, I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
Jun 11, 2021
The two Emmas (2 more)
The rest of the ensemble cast
The technical team: cinematography, hair & make-up; costuming
An astonishing attack on the senses as Disney goes to the dark side.
Positives:
- The battle of the Emmas! It's really difficult to say who wins, since both Emma Thompson and Emma Stone give such fabulous performances here. You might think that Thompson steals a scene at one minute, only for Stone to come surfing in on a garbage truck and outdo her! I think it would be a surprise if both were not nominated for Actress and Supporting Actress Oscars for this.
- The supporting cast is also very strong. Paul Walter Hauser picks up the 'comedy villain' role as Horace Badun, and is so entertaining I could just about forgive his 'gor-blimey-guvnor' cockney accent: one that gives Dick Van Dyke a run for his money. Joel Fry - most recognisable to me as the useless roadie from "Yesterday" - plays the straight man in the duo, and does it very well. Mark Strong, cast against type as an evil henchman (#humour) is as good as always. And Kirby Howell-Baptiste and John McCrea round off the strong ensemble cast. But a particular shout-out I think should go to young Tipper Seifert-Cleveland who plays the young Estrella: she's way down the cast list, but I thought she gave a knock-out performance to ground the dramatic opening scenes of the movie.
- Technically, the film is marvellous and surely in line for a slew of technical Oscars next awards season. In fact, I think - even at this early point in the year - you would be a VERY brave person to bet against Cruella picking up the awards for Hair and Makeup (Nadia Stacey), Costume (Jenny Beavan and Tom Davies) and Production Design (Fiona Crombie). It's a stunning technical achievement - a real attack on the senses.
- The cinematography (Nicholas Karakatsanis) is also spectacular. A 'single-take' fly-through of the Liberty store from top to bottom is a tour-de-force, worthy of "1917"-style applause.
- And we should also add to this list a truly banging soundtrack from Nicholas Britell. Many of the tracks chosen - although regular visitors to cinema screen - catch the mood of the movie brilliantly and add to what is a joy-ride of a flick.
- The script is deliciously dark in places for a Disney film. Definitely NOT one for young children. Perhaps - given that it went down some of the roads it did, it could have been made EVEN BLACKER in places. (Did we REALLY need to see the Dalmatians again!) But some of the twists are delightful, especially 'mothageddon' which made me howl with laughter (even though I rather saw a variation of it coming).
Negatives:
- At 134 minutes, I felt the movie was a bit too long. There's a point (at about 100 minutes, where Emma Stone does her "I am Cruella" speech) which felt to me like the perfect end to a (first) film. I was delighted, happy and very content with the movie, thank-you very much. But then we dived back into the third reel. And, don't get me wrong, the ending was really entertaining. But, given that I suspect Disney KNEW that this was likely to be a big hit, I think a shorter film teasing for the sequel would have worked better.
Additional Notes:
- It's 12A certificate for a reason. Although a Disney, this is the dark-side of Disney and is not suitable for younger children.
- Yes, this one has a mid-credit scene - and for once its worth staying for: an introduction to two of the stars of the original cartoon that we haven't met yet, and for a rendition of a well-known tune (a TERRIBLE ear-worm that I've been quietly humming to myself ever since!).
Summary Thoughts on "Cruella": The cinema summer's still young, but it's already had some tricks up its sleeve. First "Nobody" came out of nowhere to delight me. And now, what a surprise! "Cruella" is a blisteringly funny, gloriously colourful and hugely entertaining blockbuster.
You'll know I'm not a fan of these Disney live-action re-imaginings of classic cartoons (although of course this one has previously had the Glenn Close treatment in two previous films in 1996 and 2000). But this is an origin story I really thought I didn't want... but now feel that I was wrong.
I've seen it described as "Devil Wears Prada meets Joker". The Prada analogy is well-deserved. But I'm not sure I agree with the Joker analogy. In Joker, our anti-hero was an everyman (albeit a disturbed one) driven to madness and anarchy by others. In Cruella, it's all inbred and that makes it perhaps even more deliciously dark. The fact that Disney released this - forewarned by a distinctly sombre and stormy castle logo at the start - is a minor miracle, and hopefully signs of more spice and adventure to come.
If you haven't caught it yet, it's highly recommended. As well as being in cinemas, its also available to buy on Disney+ streaming.
(Please check out the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/11/cruella-an-astonishing-attack-on-the-senses-as-disney-goes-to-the-dark-side/. Thanks).
- The battle of the Emmas! It's really difficult to say who wins, since both Emma Thompson and Emma Stone give such fabulous performances here. You might think that Thompson steals a scene at one minute, only for Stone to come surfing in on a garbage truck and outdo her! I think it would be a surprise if both were not nominated for Actress and Supporting Actress Oscars for this.
- The supporting cast is also very strong. Paul Walter Hauser picks up the 'comedy villain' role as Horace Badun, and is so entertaining I could just about forgive his 'gor-blimey-guvnor' cockney accent: one that gives Dick Van Dyke a run for his money. Joel Fry - most recognisable to me as the useless roadie from "Yesterday" - plays the straight man in the duo, and does it very well. Mark Strong, cast against type as an evil henchman (#humour) is as good as always. And Kirby Howell-Baptiste and John McCrea round off the strong ensemble cast. But a particular shout-out I think should go to young Tipper Seifert-Cleveland who plays the young Estrella: she's way down the cast list, but I thought she gave a knock-out performance to ground the dramatic opening scenes of the movie.
- Technically, the film is marvellous and surely in line for a slew of technical Oscars next awards season. In fact, I think - even at this early point in the year - you would be a VERY brave person to bet against Cruella picking up the awards for Hair and Makeup (Nadia Stacey), Costume (Jenny Beavan and Tom Davies) and Production Design (Fiona Crombie). It's a stunning technical achievement - a real attack on the senses.
- The cinematography (Nicholas Karakatsanis) is also spectacular. A 'single-take' fly-through of the Liberty store from top to bottom is a tour-de-force, worthy of "1917"-style applause.
- And we should also add to this list a truly banging soundtrack from Nicholas Britell. Many of the tracks chosen - although regular visitors to cinema screen - catch the mood of the movie brilliantly and add to what is a joy-ride of a flick.
- The script is deliciously dark in places for a Disney film. Definitely NOT one for young children. Perhaps - given that it went down some of the roads it did, it could have been made EVEN BLACKER in places. (Did we REALLY need to see the Dalmatians again!) But some of the twists are delightful, especially 'mothageddon' which made me howl with laughter (even though I rather saw a variation of it coming).
Negatives:
- At 134 minutes, I felt the movie was a bit too long. There's a point (at about 100 minutes, where Emma Stone does her "I am Cruella" speech) which felt to me like the perfect end to a (first) film. I was delighted, happy and very content with the movie, thank-you very much. But then we dived back into the third reel. And, don't get me wrong, the ending was really entertaining. But, given that I suspect Disney KNEW that this was likely to be a big hit, I think a shorter film teasing for the sequel would have worked better.
Additional Notes:
- It's 12A certificate for a reason. Although a Disney, this is the dark-side of Disney and is not suitable for younger children.
- Yes, this one has a mid-credit scene - and for once its worth staying for: an introduction to two of the stars of the original cartoon that we haven't met yet, and for a rendition of a well-known tune (a TERRIBLE ear-worm that I've been quietly humming to myself ever since!).
Summary Thoughts on "Cruella": The cinema summer's still young, but it's already had some tricks up its sleeve. First "Nobody" came out of nowhere to delight me. And now, what a surprise! "Cruella" is a blisteringly funny, gloriously colourful and hugely entertaining blockbuster.
You'll know I'm not a fan of these Disney live-action re-imaginings of classic cartoons (although of course this one has previously had the Glenn Close treatment in two previous films in 1996 and 2000). But this is an origin story I really thought I didn't want... but now feel that I was wrong.
I've seen it described as "Devil Wears Prada meets Joker". The Prada analogy is well-deserved. But I'm not sure I agree with the Joker analogy. In Joker, our anti-hero was an everyman (albeit a disturbed one) driven to madness and anarchy by others. In Cruella, it's all inbred and that makes it perhaps even more deliciously dark. The fact that Disney released this - forewarned by a distinctly sombre and stormy castle logo at the start - is a minor miracle, and hopefully signs of more spice and adventure to come.
If you haven't caught it yet, it's highly recommended. As well as being in cinemas, its also available to buy on Disney+ streaming.
(Please check out the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/11/cruella-an-astonishing-attack-on-the-senses-as-disney-goes-to-the-dark-side/. Thanks).
