Search
Search results
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated What Once Was Mine in Books
Oct 25, 2021
๐พ๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐น๐๐๐๐๐๐๐โ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐
๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐?
As you will all know by now, I am in love with the Twisted Tales series and have to read each installment as they are released. What Once was Mine is the 12th Twisted Tale book and the 7th written by Liz Braswell so to say I was excited would be an understatement.
As always, TT books come with a tag line to lure you in and this one is โWhat if Rapunzelโs mother drank a potion from the wrong flower?โ Yes, instead of the golden Sundrop flower, the ailing pregnant queen is mistakenly given a potion using the Moondrop flower, resulting in a silver-haired princess whose power kills rather than heals!
Of course, that casts the whole locking the princess in a tower concept into an entirely new light! However, many of the other elements remain the same as Disneyโs โTangledโ movie: Gothel is Rapunzelโs captor and โmotherโ, Flynn steals a crown and is on the run from the Stabbington brothers and Rapunzel is desperate to see the floating lights.
What Liz Braswell manages to do (very well, in my opinion) is to maintain all these similarities, keeping her readers rooted to the original story but also to bend the original fairytale into something a bit more mature, a bit darker and, in some cases, a bit more real.
โ๐๐๐ ๐ฉ๐ง๐ช๐ฉ๐ ๐๐๐ค๐ช๐ฉ ๐ฎ๐ค๐ช ๐๐จ ๐๐ก๐ก ๐ฉ๐๐ฃ๐๐ก๐๐, ๐ก๐๐ ๐ ๐ฎ๐ค๐ช๐ง ๐๐ง๐๐๐๐จ, ๐๐๐ฅ๐ช๐ฃ๐ฏ๐๐กโ
What Once was Mine is written from Rapunzelโs perspective. Now, this may be an obvious choice, but it also gives Braswell the opportunity to show her protagonist in a slightly more mature light than we are used to. Yes, Rapunzel is scatty, enthusiastic and teeth-grittingly cheerful about everything but she also believes she is dangerous and that she belongs in the tower for the safety of others.
Rapunzel has always been told that her hair killed her parents and that Gothel has been charged with her care and protection. However, what I really enjoyed about Braswellโs Rapunzel is that, although she begins with the same blind faith in Gothel as she has in the movie, she soon develops an inner turmoil of emotions with regards to her captor, questioning where she spends her days and recognising the little digs often made at the daughterโs expense.
As her journey continues, Rapunzel observes other mother-daughter relationships and her doubt and distrust of Gothel begins to build as a result. Lords, ladies and bandits alike are hunting for Rapunzel in order to claim her as their prize but this couldnโt be orchestrated by her mother, the only family she has ever known, could it?
โ๐ฝ๐๐๐๐ฃ ๐ฎ๐ค๐ช๐ง ๐ฃ๐๐ฃ๐๐ฉ๐๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐ ๐ฎ๐๐๐ง ๐๐ฎ ๐๐ค๐ง๐๐๐ซ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐ฎ๐ค๐ช๐ง๐จ๐๐ก๐, ๐๐๐ฅ๐ช๐ฃ๐ฏ๐๐ก. ๐๐๐๐ฉโ๐จ ๐ ๐๐๐ง ๐๐๐ฉ๐ฉ๐๐ง ๐๐๐๐ฉ ๐ฉ๐๐๐ฃ ๐๐ก๐ค๐๐ฉ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐ก๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐ฃ๐จ.โ
I have conflicting feelings when it comes to the darker elements of What Once Was Mine. The inclusion of the very real Countess Bathory took me by surprise and was quite gruesome in places: not a problem for a grown-up Disney nerd but Iโm not sure whether I will be passing this one along to the Mini Bookworm any time soon.
There is also the narrator of the story: a brother making up an alternative Rapunzel story for his sister while she is undergoing chemo. I understand this is an emotive topic for the author and I almost got it as a tool for the story-telling, enabling the use of quite modern, colloquial terms such as โmurderhairโ and enabling the creative inclusion of characters such as Maximus.
I really wanted this technique to be profound and make the story mean more, such as fairytales having an important place in the modern world for example. Unfortunately, it fell a little flat for me: it was an interesting tweak but it didnโt make me feel as much as I wanted it to.
It is not all doom and gloom though, Rapunzelโs perspective of the world provides comic moments: her (limited) knowledge of the world comes from the 37 books that she owns, leading to a moose that is definitely a squirrel and a cat which acts suspiciously like a fox. We are also not deprived of the regulars of The Snuggly Duckling, indeed all of your favourites from the film turn up for this novel.
Braswellโs characterisation when it came to Flynn was spot on in my opinion. The observation by Rapunzel that there is the โrealโ Flynn and then there is the charming, roguish mask he uses was perfect! Gina was also a great addition, desperately trying to be an adventurer/criminal and not being taken seriously just because she is a girl. The relationship between her and Flynn was adorable and, of course, Ginaโs mother is just legendary.
โ๐๐๐ ๐ฌ๐๐จ๐ฃโ๐ฉ ๐๐๐๐จ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐๐จ๐ฉ๐๐ฃ๐ฉ ๐ก๐๐๐๐ฉ๐จ; ๐จ๐๐ ๐ฌ๐๐จ ๐ฅ๐ช๐ง๐จ๐ช๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐ฃ ๐ช๐ฃ๐ง๐๐๐ก๐๐ฏ๐๐ ๐๐ง๐๐๐ข ๐ค๐ ๐ฃ๐ค๐ง๐ข๐๐ก๐๐ฎโ
The writing style isnโt for everyone and, I must admit, this is the twisted tale which I have probably put down and walked away from the most. However, if you can stick it through the slow sections the story is really worth it and provides a much-admired evolution of the Disney Princess.
Donโt get me wrong - in the animated movie Rapunzel is great and all but by the end she is a princess with a haircut and a smouldering husband. Braswellโs Rapunzel has magic that she needs to study, understand and control, she is a future Queen in the making and simply has more of a purpose than her animated counterpart.
โ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ฅ๐ค๐ฌ๐๐ง ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐ฌ๐๐ก๐ก ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐ ๐จ๐ฉ๐ช๐๐๐ค๐ง๐ฃ ๐๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ค๐จ๐๐ฉ๐๐ค๐ฃโ
What Once Was Mine brings a whole new depth to the characters of Disneyโs Tangled. It gives us a new (frankly, disgusting) villain alongside all our favourite characters and definitely presents a creative twist on the traditional story. Donโt worry, Rapunzel still gets her Happily Ever After, but she fought a little harder for it this time around!
As you will all know by now, I am in love with the Twisted Tales series and have to read each installment as they are released. What Once was Mine is the 12th Twisted Tale book and the 7th written by Liz Braswell so to say I was excited would be an understatement.
As always, TT books come with a tag line to lure you in and this one is โWhat if Rapunzelโs mother drank a potion from the wrong flower?โ Yes, instead of the golden Sundrop flower, the ailing pregnant queen is mistakenly given a potion using the Moondrop flower, resulting in a silver-haired princess whose power kills rather than heals!
Of course, that casts the whole locking the princess in a tower concept into an entirely new light! However, many of the other elements remain the same as Disneyโs โTangledโ movie: Gothel is Rapunzelโs captor and โmotherโ, Flynn steals a crown and is on the run from the Stabbington brothers and Rapunzel is desperate to see the floating lights.
What Liz Braswell manages to do (very well, in my opinion) is to maintain all these similarities, keeping her readers rooted to the original story but also to bend the original fairytale into something a bit more mature, a bit darker and, in some cases, a bit more real.
โ๐๐๐ ๐ฉ๐ง๐ช๐ฉ๐ ๐๐๐ค๐ช๐ฉ ๐ฎ๐ค๐ช ๐๐จ ๐๐ก๐ก ๐ฉ๐๐ฃ๐๐ก๐๐, ๐ก๐๐ ๐ ๐ฎ๐ค๐ช๐ง ๐๐ง๐๐๐๐จ, ๐๐๐ฅ๐ช๐ฃ๐ฏ๐๐กโ
What Once was Mine is written from Rapunzelโs perspective. Now, this may be an obvious choice, but it also gives Braswell the opportunity to show her protagonist in a slightly more mature light than we are used to. Yes, Rapunzel is scatty, enthusiastic and teeth-grittingly cheerful about everything but she also believes she is dangerous and that she belongs in the tower for the safety of others.
Rapunzel has always been told that her hair killed her parents and that Gothel has been charged with her care and protection. However, what I really enjoyed about Braswellโs Rapunzel is that, although she begins with the same blind faith in Gothel as she has in the movie, she soon develops an inner turmoil of emotions with regards to her captor, questioning where she spends her days and recognising the little digs often made at the daughterโs expense.
As her journey continues, Rapunzel observes other mother-daughter relationships and her doubt and distrust of Gothel begins to build as a result. Lords, ladies and bandits alike are hunting for Rapunzel in order to claim her as their prize but this couldnโt be orchestrated by her mother, the only family she has ever known, could it?
โ๐ฝ๐๐๐๐ฃ ๐ฎ๐ค๐ช๐ง ๐ฃ๐๐ฃ๐๐ฉ๐๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐ ๐ฎ๐๐๐ง ๐๐ฎ ๐๐ค๐ง๐๐๐ซ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐ฎ๐ค๐ช๐ง๐จ๐๐ก๐, ๐๐๐ฅ๐ช๐ฃ๐ฏ๐๐ก. ๐๐๐๐ฉโ๐จ ๐ ๐๐๐ง ๐๐๐ฉ๐ฉ๐๐ง ๐๐๐๐ฉ ๐ฉ๐๐๐ฃ ๐๐ก๐ค๐๐ฉ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐ก๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐ฃ๐จ.โ
I have conflicting feelings when it comes to the darker elements of What Once Was Mine. The inclusion of the very real Countess Bathory took me by surprise and was quite gruesome in places: not a problem for a grown-up Disney nerd but Iโm not sure whether I will be passing this one along to the Mini Bookworm any time soon.
There is also the narrator of the story: a brother making up an alternative Rapunzel story for his sister while she is undergoing chemo. I understand this is an emotive topic for the author and I almost got it as a tool for the story-telling, enabling the use of quite modern, colloquial terms such as โmurderhairโ and enabling the creative inclusion of characters such as Maximus.
I really wanted this technique to be profound and make the story mean more, such as fairytales having an important place in the modern world for example. Unfortunately, it fell a little flat for me: it was an interesting tweak but it didnโt make me feel as much as I wanted it to.
It is not all doom and gloom though, Rapunzelโs perspective of the world provides comic moments: her (limited) knowledge of the world comes from the 37 books that she owns, leading to a moose that is definitely a squirrel and a cat which acts suspiciously like a fox. We are also not deprived of the regulars of The Snuggly Duckling, indeed all of your favourites from the film turn up for this novel.
Braswellโs characterisation when it came to Flynn was spot on in my opinion. The observation by Rapunzel that there is the โrealโ Flynn and then there is the charming, roguish mask he uses was perfect! Gina was also a great addition, desperately trying to be an adventurer/criminal and not being taken seriously just because she is a girl. The relationship between her and Flynn was adorable and, of course, Ginaโs mother is just legendary.
โ๐๐๐ ๐ฌ๐๐จ๐ฃโ๐ฉ ๐๐๐๐จ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐๐จ๐ฉ๐๐ฃ๐ฉ ๐ก๐๐๐๐ฉ๐จ; ๐จ๐๐ ๐ฌ๐๐จ ๐ฅ๐ช๐ง๐จ๐ช๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐ฃ ๐ช๐ฃ๐ง๐๐๐ก๐๐ฏ๐๐ ๐๐ง๐๐๐ข ๐ค๐ ๐ฃ๐ค๐ง๐ข๐๐ก๐๐ฎโ
The writing style isnโt for everyone and, I must admit, this is the twisted tale which I have probably put down and walked away from the most. However, if you can stick it through the slow sections the story is really worth it and provides a much-admired evolution of the Disney Princess.
Donโt get me wrong - in the animated movie Rapunzel is great and all but by the end she is a princess with a haircut and a smouldering husband. Braswellโs Rapunzel has magic that she needs to study, understand and control, she is a future Queen in the making and simply has more of a purpose than her animated counterpart.
โ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ฅ๐ค๐ฌ๐๐ง ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐ฌ๐๐ก๐ก ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐ ๐จ๐ฉ๐ช๐๐๐ค๐ง๐ฃ ๐๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ค๐จ๐๐ฉ๐๐ค๐ฃโ
What Once Was Mine brings a whole new depth to the characters of Disneyโs Tangled. It gives us a new (frankly, disgusting) villain alongside all our favourite characters and definitely presents a creative twist on the traditional story. Donโt worry, Rapunzel still gets her Happily Ever After, but she fought a little harder for it this time around!
RษX Regent (349 KP) rated The Dark Knight Rises (2012) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
After four years, since The Dark Knight ended, leaving us wanting more and seven years since Christopher Nolan reinvented the comic book adaptation with Batman Begins, The final chapter of The Dark Knight Trilogy has arrived.
With this much hype, would it possible live up to potentially bloated expectations? The first reviews hit last monday, with 4 to 5 stars being the consensus. Well, it did! The Dark Knight returns one last time, after eight years have passed since the events of The Dark Knight and Batman had retreated into the rebuilt Wayne Manor as Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman), maintaining the lie that Harvey Dent was Gothamโs The White Knight, and not the maniacal Two-Face, had managed to clean up Gotham City.
Batman was no longer needed but in the meantime, Bane has arrived in the city with grand plans for its destruction. I wonโt go much further into the plot that this, though I will probably write a more spoiler heavy review for the Blu-ray later in the year. But for now, I will try to maintain the filmโs integrity.
When we first meet Bruce Wayne after almost a decade of seclusion, he is a broken man, both physically and mentally following the murder of his childhood sweetheart, Rachel Dawes in the previous film and the toll of nightly combat. So the first port of call is to bring Batman back to the streets of Gotham. The sense of excitement is palpable and very much a part of what makes Nolanโs films tick.
He draws his audience into the narrative as if we are part of the events and the universe as it unfolds, leaving us not just wanting Batman to return for the sake of the action but for Gothamโs sake as well. Bane, played so excellently by Tom Hardy, was a little difficult to understand from behind his mask, but still conveyed an enormous amount of presence and power, as he lays siege to the city but not as Terrorist per say, but as a freedom fighter or revolutionary, with many visual references to the French Revolution to keep us going.
Anne Hathawayโs Catwoman, though not named as anyone other than Selina Kyle, was a credit to her character as well as the actress. Dark, sultry, seductive and agile, her feline credibly was intact, whilst still being a very human character. Her duplicity was bread from desperation rather than evil and her motives convincingly drive her in both good and more dubious endeavours.
*** MAJOR SPOILER***
The less said about Talia Al Ghul the better, but the for those aware of her role, it was well-played, though her final scene was the hammiest in the film, possibly the entire trilogy.
Then thereโs the supporting cast, such as Mathew Modene, who does a great job as Dept. Commissioner Foley and Cillian Murphyโs back again, as the subtly unrecognisable Scarecrow, who besides some frayed shoulderโs on his jacket, could have been anyone,and thatโs the beauty of Nolanโs Batman universe. Itโs fluid and you canโt count on anything on anyone for too long.
But this franchise would be nothing without Hans Zimmer percussive score, pounding as much as it was gentle, it works well among with Nolanโs direction to craft the near perfect conclusion to the Trilogy. Both riff on earlier films and supe it up accordingly whilst maintaining the filmโs integrity.
In the end, my expectations were met and exceeded. Nolan has crowned his trilogy with a film which is of the same calabar as the two which preceded it, filling in many of the blanks, choosing the right characters to take on and doing so a variety of ways, touching this time on the flamboyant Bain, though scrapping the โVenomโ plot from the comics, creating an intriguing Catwoman and building another major character in the form of R. John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Lovett).
The ending of the film is just perfect, not only for this but for the entire Trilogy. With nods to Inception though I believe that it is just a nod and not as similar as some would protest, but this is epic in the way that The Dark Knight never tried to be and Batman Begins didnโt need to be. The threat is apocalyptic, in keeping with the genre, but believable in keeping with Nolan.
The same can be said for the action, though I must admit, the sentimentalist in me wanted to see the Batmoble/Tumber back, though it was there in triplicate, as Bane steels three prototype Tumbers from Wayne Enterprises, for his private army, but the Bat (Batwing) was stunning, and the Batpod made a reappearance. The Final showdown will leave you breathless, the perfect blend of direction, Zimmerโs score and some of the most intense and meaningful action youโll see on the big screen.
The only real faults with The Dark Knight Rises stem from its scale and change in direction. Itโs more about Batmanโs evolution from crime fighter to savour. Less intense on a personal level, but much grander in its ideals and horror as Gotham is destroyed on scale never seen in a film of this type. But itโs not as far-fetched as one may think, as it grounds itself with historical references, such as the French Revolution, which was hardly far-fetched, though it was hard-hitting and is well translated here.
Bruce Wayne completes his journey from the boy who witnessed his parents murder, to a young man who could not grow beyond it, to a man who lost himself in a journey to understand the criminal mind. Finally returning as Batman, who defied his mentor to protect his beloved city, to a master detective. But here, he returns to his roots.
The billionaire who never cared about his wealth as much as he cared for the people of Gotham, he ends up exactly where he needed to be. Decide for yourself, whether itโs a happy ending, sad or satisfying, but either way, it was not only the best way to advance the saga, but the best way to end the series as a whole. Thanks to Nolan and his crew, we now have the most definitively brilliant Batman series EVER committed to celluloid, (or digital), and no matter what is to follow, whether it is to be the Justice League mash-up or another reboot, I suspect that it will be a long, long time before anyone can beat these.
With this much hype, would it possible live up to potentially bloated expectations? The first reviews hit last monday, with 4 to 5 stars being the consensus. Well, it did! The Dark Knight returns one last time, after eight years have passed since the events of The Dark Knight and Batman had retreated into the rebuilt Wayne Manor as Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman), maintaining the lie that Harvey Dent was Gothamโs The White Knight, and not the maniacal Two-Face, had managed to clean up Gotham City.
Batman was no longer needed but in the meantime, Bane has arrived in the city with grand plans for its destruction. I wonโt go much further into the plot that this, though I will probably write a more spoiler heavy review for the Blu-ray later in the year. But for now, I will try to maintain the filmโs integrity.
When we first meet Bruce Wayne after almost a decade of seclusion, he is a broken man, both physically and mentally following the murder of his childhood sweetheart, Rachel Dawes in the previous film and the toll of nightly combat. So the first port of call is to bring Batman back to the streets of Gotham. The sense of excitement is palpable and very much a part of what makes Nolanโs films tick.
He draws his audience into the narrative as if we are part of the events and the universe as it unfolds, leaving us not just wanting Batman to return for the sake of the action but for Gothamโs sake as well. Bane, played so excellently by Tom Hardy, was a little difficult to understand from behind his mask, but still conveyed an enormous amount of presence and power, as he lays siege to the city but not as Terrorist per say, but as a freedom fighter or revolutionary, with many visual references to the French Revolution to keep us going.
Anne Hathawayโs Catwoman, though not named as anyone other than Selina Kyle, was a credit to her character as well as the actress. Dark, sultry, seductive and agile, her feline credibly was intact, whilst still being a very human character. Her duplicity was bread from desperation rather than evil and her motives convincingly drive her in both good and more dubious endeavours.
*** MAJOR SPOILER***
The less said about Talia Al Ghul the better, but the for those aware of her role, it was well-played, though her final scene was the hammiest in the film, possibly the entire trilogy.
Then thereโs the supporting cast, such as Mathew Modene, who does a great job as Dept. Commissioner Foley and Cillian Murphyโs back again, as the subtly unrecognisable Scarecrow, who besides some frayed shoulderโs on his jacket, could have been anyone,and thatโs the beauty of Nolanโs Batman universe. Itโs fluid and you canโt count on anything on anyone for too long.
But this franchise would be nothing without Hans Zimmer percussive score, pounding as much as it was gentle, it works well among with Nolanโs direction to craft the near perfect conclusion to the Trilogy. Both riff on earlier films and supe it up accordingly whilst maintaining the filmโs integrity.
In the end, my expectations were met and exceeded. Nolan has crowned his trilogy with a film which is of the same calabar as the two which preceded it, filling in many of the blanks, choosing the right characters to take on and doing so a variety of ways, touching this time on the flamboyant Bain, though scrapping the โVenomโ plot from the comics, creating an intriguing Catwoman and building another major character in the form of R. John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Lovett).
The ending of the film is just perfect, not only for this but for the entire Trilogy. With nods to Inception though I believe that it is just a nod and not as similar as some would protest, but this is epic in the way that The Dark Knight never tried to be and Batman Begins didnโt need to be. The threat is apocalyptic, in keeping with the genre, but believable in keeping with Nolan.
The same can be said for the action, though I must admit, the sentimentalist in me wanted to see the Batmoble/Tumber back, though it was there in triplicate, as Bane steels three prototype Tumbers from Wayne Enterprises, for his private army, but the Bat (Batwing) was stunning, and the Batpod made a reappearance. The Final showdown will leave you breathless, the perfect blend of direction, Zimmerโs score and some of the most intense and meaningful action youโll see on the big screen.
The only real faults with The Dark Knight Rises stem from its scale and change in direction. Itโs more about Batmanโs evolution from crime fighter to savour. Less intense on a personal level, but much grander in its ideals and horror as Gotham is destroyed on scale never seen in a film of this type. But itโs not as far-fetched as one may think, as it grounds itself with historical references, such as the French Revolution, which was hardly far-fetched, though it was hard-hitting and is well translated here.
Bruce Wayne completes his journey from the boy who witnessed his parents murder, to a young man who could not grow beyond it, to a man who lost himself in a journey to understand the criminal mind. Finally returning as Batman, who defied his mentor to protect his beloved city, to a master detective. But here, he returns to his roots.
The billionaire who never cared about his wealth as much as he cared for the people of Gotham, he ends up exactly where he needed to be. Decide for yourself, whether itโs a happy ending, sad or satisfying, but either way, it was not only the best way to advance the saga, but the best way to end the series as a whole. Thanks to Nolan and his crew, we now have the most definitively brilliant Batman series EVER committed to celluloid, (or digital), and no matter what is to follow, whether it is to be the Justice League mash-up or another reboot, I suspect that it will be a long, long time before anyone can beat these.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb in Books
Apr 13, 2019
"The crime itself was indefensible. The brilliant, spoiled and bored sons of two of Chicago's wealthiest families planned to commit the perfect crime both for the thrill of and to prove their perverse misunderstanding of Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy of the 'superman,' who was above all law so long as he made no mistake. Their plan, worked out over several months, was to kidnap and immediately kill one of their younger neighbors and hide his body. They would then demand and collect a ransom. The body would never be discovered, the crime would never be solved and only they would know that they had prevailed over ordinary human beings and their simple-minded legal system. But far from being the 'perfect crime,' the murder of 14-year-old Bobby Franks turned out to be amateurishly botched. Before any ransom could be paid, the boy's body was discovered in a culvert near where Nathan Leopold often went bird-watching. A pair of telltale glasses were found adjacent to the body. They were easily traced to Leopold who first came up with a paper-thin alibi and soon thereafter confessed to the crime. His fellow murderer likewise confessed. Each of the 'superboys' placed blame for the actual killing on the other." - Alan M. Dershowitz
If you mentioned the names Leopold and Loeb today, many people wouldn't know who you were talking about, but if you had mentioned them just thirty years ago, many people would recall the 'murder of the century.'
If you are a fan of the True Crime genre, you'll come across the case of two wealthy Chicago boys who thought they could get away with murder. (The trial is probably the most talked about trial to-date because this is the first time that psychology was brought before a court room.)
For a good part of the late 1920's, Leopold and Loeb were household names for good reason: they came from millionaire families, they were college graduates before they were 18-years-old, and their trial was the first time in history that the world saw psychology put in front of a judge. The trial was even more unforgettable due to a closing speech given by famous defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, which is reprinted in its entirety,spanning a hefty 93 pages.
Nathan Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb were two people who should have never met, according to the courtroom. The two met at about the age of fifteen, soon after they began to embark on criminal acts together, ranging from theft to arson. It's stated in 'the Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' that Loeb had created a fantasy world where he was a crime ringleader that was too smart for the police to catch. Readers get to judge for themselves whether or not they believe Loeb was the cause of their crimes, or if Leopold was the one really in charge.
After robbing Loeb's fraternity house together, Leopold and Loeb came up with a plan to kidnap a wealthy child that they could then ransom. "They began to devise elaborate plans for this kidnapping, and soon the planning became the all-important thing. They gave up the idea of kidnapping this particular person [a young man named William], and settled on the idea of kidnapping anyone who would fit in their kidnapping plans." Throughout the book, we find out that the boys were pretty desperate for a kidnapping victim, that they even thought about kidnapping one of their close friends:
"The plan of kidnaping Dick Rubel was given up because Dick Rubel's father was so tight we might not get any money from him."
Leopold and Loeb discussed everything from how they would receive the ransom, what weapons they would use, how they would get the victim inside a rented vehicle, and what they would do with the body afterwards. "In March, 1924, the patient [Loeb] conceived the idea of securing the money by having it thrown off a moving train. This idea was discussed in great detail, and gradually developed into a carefully systematized plan. As time wore on the plan became greatly modified from the original one. They discussed at considerable length the choice of a suitable subject for kidnapping. The patient's companion [Leopold] suggested that they kidnap a young girl instead of a boy, but the patient [Loeb] objected to this. His companion [Leopold] also suggested that they kidnap the patient's [Loeb] younger brother, but the patient apparently did not seriously consider doing this. They then considered half a dozen boys, any one of whom would do, for the following reasons: that they were physically small enough to be easily handled and their parents were extremely wealthy and would have no difficulty or disinclination to pay ransom money."
During the trial, Leopold and Loeb's psychological evaluations became the forefront of their guilty plea, stating that they were not responsible for their actions due to their upbringing and environment. "I submit the facts do not rest on the evidence of these boys alone. It is proven by the writings; it is proven by every act. It is proven by their companions, and there can by no question about it." Clarence Darrow explains in his famous closing statement. "We brought into this courtroom a number of their boy friends, whom they had known day by day, who had associated with them in the club house, were their constant companions, and they tell the same stories. They tell the story that neither of these two boys was responsible for his conduct."
'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' contains the portions of the psychiatric evaluations that were submitted in court,but the testimony of character witnesses is omitted. For a factual telling of a real life trial, this book is okay. If the reader pays attention, they may notice that some of the book contradicts itself, such as one page states that the car robe used to wrap up Franks' body was found buried near Lake Michigan,but then pages later, the book states it had been burned at Loeb's home.
The psychiatric reports are very repetitive,just using different words to describe the same things. Yet, these reports are the backbone of the trial and well worth a read. The evaluations and Darrow's extensive speech were what saved Leopold and Loeb from a death sentence.
There are very few books written about the 'murder of the century,' and even less about the 'lawyer of the century.' Leopold and Loeb, as well as Darrow, have faded into the obscurity of the True Crime genre, but because the boys' mental state was brought into question, we now accept forensic science/psychology in the court room today. I feel that only people who are truly interested in True Crime, or even have a fascination for the court room are the only ones who will enjoy 'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb.'
If you mentioned the names Leopold and Loeb today, many people wouldn't know who you were talking about, but if you had mentioned them just thirty years ago, many people would recall the 'murder of the century.'
If you are a fan of the True Crime genre, you'll come across the case of two wealthy Chicago boys who thought they could get away with murder. (The trial is probably the most talked about trial to-date because this is the first time that psychology was brought before a court room.)
For a good part of the late 1920's, Leopold and Loeb were household names for good reason: they came from millionaire families, they were college graduates before they were 18-years-old, and their trial was the first time in history that the world saw psychology put in front of a judge. The trial was even more unforgettable due to a closing speech given by famous defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, which is reprinted in its entirety,spanning a hefty 93 pages.
Nathan Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb were two people who should have never met, according to the courtroom. The two met at about the age of fifteen, soon after they began to embark on criminal acts together, ranging from theft to arson. It's stated in 'the Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' that Loeb had created a fantasy world where he was a crime ringleader that was too smart for the police to catch. Readers get to judge for themselves whether or not they believe Loeb was the cause of their crimes, or if Leopold was the one really in charge.
After robbing Loeb's fraternity house together, Leopold and Loeb came up with a plan to kidnap a wealthy child that they could then ransom. "They began to devise elaborate plans for this kidnapping, and soon the planning became the all-important thing. They gave up the idea of kidnapping this particular person [a young man named William], and settled on the idea of kidnapping anyone who would fit in their kidnapping plans." Throughout the book, we find out that the boys were pretty desperate for a kidnapping victim, that they even thought about kidnapping one of their close friends:
"The plan of kidnaping Dick Rubel was given up because Dick Rubel's father was so tight we might not get any money from him."
Leopold and Loeb discussed everything from how they would receive the ransom, what weapons they would use, how they would get the victim inside a rented vehicle, and what they would do with the body afterwards. "In March, 1924, the patient [Loeb] conceived the idea of securing the money by having it thrown off a moving train. This idea was discussed in great detail, and gradually developed into a carefully systematized plan. As time wore on the plan became greatly modified from the original one. They discussed at considerable length the choice of a suitable subject for kidnapping. The patient's companion [Leopold] suggested that they kidnap a young girl instead of a boy, but the patient [Loeb] objected to this. His companion [Leopold] also suggested that they kidnap the patient's [Loeb] younger brother, but the patient apparently did not seriously consider doing this. They then considered half a dozen boys, any one of whom would do, for the following reasons: that they were physically small enough to be easily handled and their parents were extremely wealthy and would have no difficulty or disinclination to pay ransom money."
During the trial, Leopold and Loeb's psychological evaluations became the forefront of their guilty plea, stating that they were not responsible for their actions due to their upbringing and environment. "I submit the facts do not rest on the evidence of these boys alone. It is proven by the writings; it is proven by every act. It is proven by their companions, and there can by no question about it." Clarence Darrow explains in his famous closing statement. "We brought into this courtroom a number of their boy friends, whom they had known day by day, who had associated with them in the club house, were their constant companions, and they tell the same stories. They tell the story that neither of these two boys was responsible for his conduct."
'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' contains the portions of the psychiatric evaluations that were submitted in court,but the testimony of character witnesses is omitted. For a factual telling of a real life trial, this book is okay. If the reader pays attention, they may notice that some of the book contradicts itself, such as one page states that the car robe used to wrap up Franks' body was found buried near Lake Michigan,but then pages later, the book states it had been burned at Loeb's home.
The psychiatric reports are very repetitive,just using different words to describe the same things. Yet, these reports are the backbone of the trial and well worth a read. The evaluations and Darrow's extensive speech were what saved Leopold and Loeb from a death sentence.
There are very few books written about the 'murder of the century,' and even less about the 'lawyer of the century.' Leopold and Loeb, as well as Darrow, have faded into the obscurity of the True Crime genre, but because the boys' mental state was brought into question, we now accept forensic science/psychology in the court room today. I feel that only people who are truly interested in True Crime, or even have a fascination for the court room are the only ones who will enjoy 'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb.'
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
โSiempre estamos solasโ
Alfonso Cuarรณnโs โRomaโ has been lauded with praise and awardโs hype, and I must admit to have been a little bit snooty about it. A black-and-white Spanish language film with subtitles that โ to be honest โ looks a bit dreary: can it really be that good? Having now (finally) seen it on Netflix I can confirm thatโs a big YES from my point of view. Itโs a novelty of a glacially slow film that grips like a vice.
A primer on 70โs Mexican History.
This is a film about ordinary life set against tumultuous times. Set in the Colonia Roma district of Mexico City (if you were puzzled, as I was, where the title came from) it is an โUpstairs, Downstairsโ tale of Cleo (Yalitza Aparicio), a maid and nanny to a middle class family in the early 70โs.
There are two intertwined stories here: Cleoโs personal story and that of the family background in which she works.
Cleo has a pleasant enough life working as partners in crime in the household with Adela (Nancy Garcรญa Garcรญa). Life is about getting the work done (well, more of less), keeping the four children happy โ to who she is devoted โ and scraping enough by to spend her downtime with her martial arts boyfriend Ramรณn (Josรฉ Manuel Guerrero Mendoza).
Meanwhile the lady of the house Senora Sofia (Marina de Tavira) has an affluent and cosseted lifestyle amid her loving family.
But times are about to change for all of the players, as events โ not just the events of the โMexican Dirty Warโ of 1971 going on in the background โ transpire to change all their lives forever.
A masterclass in framing.
Itโs criminal that I wasnโt able to get to see this in the cinema. Since every frame of this movie is a masterpiece of detail. There is just so much going on that your eyes dart this way and that, and you could probably watch it five times and see more. Even the opening titles are mesmerising, as the cobbled floor becomes a screen and an airliner lazily flies across it.
Even major action sequences, that other directors would fill the screen with (โDo you KNOW how much this scene is costing for Godโs sake??โ), are seen as they would typically be seen in real life โ second hand, from a place of hiding. This is typified by the depiction of the Corpus Christi Massacre of June โ71, where the military, and more controversially the elite El Halconazo (The Hawks) of the Mexican army, turned on a student protest. Most of the action is seen as glimpses through the windows by the characters during a shopping trip to the second floor of a department store. How this was enacted and directed is a mystery to me, but it works just brilliantly.
A masterclass in pacing and panning.
One of Cuarรณnโs trademarks is the long take (think โChildren of Menโ) and here he (literally!) goes to town with the technique. An incredibly impressive scene has Cleo and Adela running through the streets of the City to meet their lovers at the cinema. Itโs a continuous pan that again defies belief in the brilliance of its execution.
Even the mundane act of Cleo tidying up the apartment is done with a glorious slow pan around the room. Some of this panning is done to set the mood for the film (โGet settled inโฆ this is going to be a long haulโ) but others manage to evoke a sense of rising dread, an example at the beach being a brilliant case in point.
The cinematography was supposed to have been done by the great Emmanuel Lubezki, but he was unavailable so Cuarรณn did it himself! And itโs quite brilliant. So, thatโs a lesson learned then that will reduce the budget for next time!
A personal story.
Cuarรณn wrote the script. Of course he didโฆ itโs his story! Heโs the same age as I am, so was nine years old for the autobiographical events featured in the film (he is the kid who gets punished for eavesdropping). Numerous aspects of the film are from his own childhood, including the fact that his younger brother kept spookily coming out with things that heโd done in his past lives! Itโs a painful true story of his upbringing and of the life of Liboria Rodrรญguez: โLiboโ to whom the film is dedicated.
Where the script is delightful is in never destroying the mood with lengthy exposition. Both of the key stories evolve slowly and only gradually do you work out whatโs really going on. This is grown-up cinema at its finest.
Itโs also a love letter from Cuarรณn to the cinema of his youth, a passion that sparked his eventual career. We see a number of trips to the local fleapit, and in one cute scene we seen a clip from the Gregory Peck space epic โMaroonedโ: the film that inspired Cuarรณnโs own masterpiece โGravityโ.
A naturalistic cast.
Casting a large proportion of the cast from unknowns feels like a great risk, but its a risk that pays off handsomely, particularly in the case of Yalitza Aparicio, who is breathtakingly naturalistic. Cuarรณn withheld the script from his cast, so some of the โactingโ is not acting at all โ specifically a gruelling and heartrending scene featuring Cleo later in the film. Thatโs real and raw emotion on the screen.
Marina de Tavira, although an actress with a track record, is also mightily impressive as the beleaguered and troubled wife.
Final Thoughts.
This is a masterpiece, and thoroughly deserves the โBest Pictureโ awards it has been getting. Itโs certainly my odds on favourite, as well as being my pick, for the Oscar on Sunday. Will it be for everyone? Probably not.
There are some scenes which feel slightly ostentatious. A forest fire scene is brilliantly done (โPut out the small fires kidsโ), but then a guy in a monster suit pulls off his head-wear and starts singing a long and mournful song. Sorry?
There will also be many I suspect who will find the leisurely pace of the film excruciating; โJUST GET ON WITH ITโ I hear them yelling at the screen. But if you give it the time and let it soak in, then you WILL be moved and you WILL remember the film long after youโve seen it.
I remain cross however that this was released through Netflix. This is a film that deserves a full and widespread cinema release in 70mm format. Itโs like taking an iPhone snap of the Mona Lisa and putting the phone on display instead.
A primer on 70โs Mexican History.
This is a film about ordinary life set against tumultuous times. Set in the Colonia Roma district of Mexico City (if you were puzzled, as I was, where the title came from) it is an โUpstairs, Downstairsโ tale of Cleo (Yalitza Aparicio), a maid and nanny to a middle class family in the early 70โs.
There are two intertwined stories here: Cleoโs personal story and that of the family background in which she works.
Cleo has a pleasant enough life working as partners in crime in the household with Adela (Nancy Garcรญa Garcรญa). Life is about getting the work done (well, more of less), keeping the four children happy โ to who she is devoted โ and scraping enough by to spend her downtime with her martial arts boyfriend Ramรณn (Josรฉ Manuel Guerrero Mendoza).
Meanwhile the lady of the house Senora Sofia (Marina de Tavira) has an affluent and cosseted lifestyle amid her loving family.
But times are about to change for all of the players, as events โ not just the events of the โMexican Dirty Warโ of 1971 going on in the background โ transpire to change all their lives forever.
A masterclass in framing.
Itโs criminal that I wasnโt able to get to see this in the cinema. Since every frame of this movie is a masterpiece of detail. There is just so much going on that your eyes dart this way and that, and you could probably watch it five times and see more. Even the opening titles are mesmerising, as the cobbled floor becomes a screen and an airliner lazily flies across it.
Even major action sequences, that other directors would fill the screen with (โDo you KNOW how much this scene is costing for Godโs sake??โ), are seen as they would typically be seen in real life โ second hand, from a place of hiding. This is typified by the depiction of the Corpus Christi Massacre of June โ71, where the military, and more controversially the elite El Halconazo (The Hawks) of the Mexican army, turned on a student protest. Most of the action is seen as glimpses through the windows by the characters during a shopping trip to the second floor of a department store. How this was enacted and directed is a mystery to me, but it works just brilliantly.
A masterclass in pacing and panning.
One of Cuarรณnโs trademarks is the long take (think โChildren of Menโ) and here he (literally!) goes to town with the technique. An incredibly impressive scene has Cleo and Adela running through the streets of the City to meet their lovers at the cinema. Itโs a continuous pan that again defies belief in the brilliance of its execution.
Even the mundane act of Cleo tidying up the apartment is done with a glorious slow pan around the room. Some of this panning is done to set the mood for the film (โGet settled inโฆ this is going to be a long haulโ) but others manage to evoke a sense of rising dread, an example at the beach being a brilliant case in point.
The cinematography was supposed to have been done by the great Emmanuel Lubezki, but he was unavailable so Cuarรณn did it himself! And itโs quite brilliant. So, thatโs a lesson learned then that will reduce the budget for next time!
A personal story.
Cuarรณn wrote the script. Of course he didโฆ itโs his story! Heโs the same age as I am, so was nine years old for the autobiographical events featured in the film (he is the kid who gets punished for eavesdropping). Numerous aspects of the film are from his own childhood, including the fact that his younger brother kept spookily coming out with things that heโd done in his past lives! Itโs a painful true story of his upbringing and of the life of Liboria Rodrรญguez: โLiboโ to whom the film is dedicated.
Where the script is delightful is in never destroying the mood with lengthy exposition. Both of the key stories evolve slowly and only gradually do you work out whatโs really going on. This is grown-up cinema at its finest.
Itโs also a love letter from Cuarรณn to the cinema of his youth, a passion that sparked his eventual career. We see a number of trips to the local fleapit, and in one cute scene we seen a clip from the Gregory Peck space epic โMaroonedโ: the film that inspired Cuarรณnโs own masterpiece โGravityโ.
A naturalistic cast.
Casting a large proportion of the cast from unknowns feels like a great risk, but its a risk that pays off handsomely, particularly in the case of Yalitza Aparicio, who is breathtakingly naturalistic. Cuarรณn withheld the script from his cast, so some of the โactingโ is not acting at all โ specifically a gruelling and heartrending scene featuring Cleo later in the film. Thatโs real and raw emotion on the screen.
Marina de Tavira, although an actress with a track record, is also mightily impressive as the beleaguered and troubled wife.
Final Thoughts.
This is a masterpiece, and thoroughly deserves the โBest Pictureโ awards it has been getting. Itโs certainly my odds on favourite, as well as being my pick, for the Oscar on Sunday. Will it be for everyone? Probably not.
There are some scenes which feel slightly ostentatious. A forest fire scene is brilliantly done (โPut out the small fires kidsโ), but then a guy in a monster suit pulls off his head-wear and starts singing a long and mournful song. Sorry?
There will also be many I suspect who will find the leisurely pace of the film excruciating; โJUST GET ON WITH ITโ I hear them yelling at the screen. But if you give it the time and let it soak in, then you WILL be moved and you WILL remember the film long after youโve seen it.
I remain cross however that this was released through Netflix. This is a film that deserves a full and widespread cinema release in 70mm format. Itโs like taking an iPhone snap of the Mona Lisa and putting the phone on display instead.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated No Time to Die (2021) in Movies
Oct 7, 2021 (Updated Oct 10, 2021)
What a wait itโs been for Bond 25! But Daniel Craigโs last outing as Bond is finally here and I thought it was great! It has all the elements of Bondโฆ but perhaps not as we traditionally know it.
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of โSpectreโ, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Lรฉa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleineโs past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past โ the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIAโs Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Lรฉa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet itโs a real character piece too, delving far more into Bondโs emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we havenโt seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craigโs acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. Weโre back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, ร la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Powerโs โGoldmemberโ perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickinโ laser beamsโฆ but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in โThe Spy Who Loved Meโ. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. Thereโs a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where heโs sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craigโs acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from โKnives Outโ). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think โcast HER as the next Bondโ!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! Itโs a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from โOn Her Majestyโs Secret Serviceโ, directly into the film. Iโm even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think itโs too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from โSpectreโ.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did โLa La Landโ) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an โOK, move on, seen thisโ attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? ITโS A NEW BONDโฆ OF COURSE WEโRE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white โBond is Backโ text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes itโs the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more youโd need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, โI wish theyโd bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old daysโ. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on โNo Time to Dieโ: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, Iโm perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed โBond fansโ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of โLive and Let Dieโ in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldnโt be better for me, and certainly on a par with โCasino Royaleโ and โSkyfallโ for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said โ โJames Bond Will Returnโ. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of โSpectreโ, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Lรฉa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleineโs past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past โ the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIAโs Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Lรฉa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet itโs a real character piece too, delving far more into Bondโs emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we havenโt seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craigโs acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. Weโre back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, ร la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Powerโs โGoldmemberโ perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickinโ laser beamsโฆ but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in โThe Spy Who Loved Meโ. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. Thereโs a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where heโs sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craigโs acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from โKnives Outโ). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think โcast HER as the next Bondโ!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! Itโs a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from โOn Her Majestyโs Secret Serviceโ, directly into the film. Iโm even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think itโs too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from โSpectreโ.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did โLa La Landโ) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an โOK, move on, seen thisโ attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? ITโS A NEW BONDโฆ OF COURSE WEโRE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white โBond is Backโ text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes itโs the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more youโd need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, โI wish theyโd bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old daysโ. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on โNo Time to Dieโ: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, Iโm perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed โBond fansโ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of โLive and Let Dieโ in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldnโt be better for me, and certainly on a par with โCasino Royaleโ and โSkyfallโ for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said โ โJames Bond Will Returnโ. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated A Walk Among the Tombstones (2014) in Movies
Jun 28, 2019 (Updated Jun 28, 2019)
Liam Neeson puts in a commanding performance and is a natural as a detective. (2 more)
The film has great visual flair and creates an effectively dark and moody atmosphere.
The solid supporting cast strengthen an otherwise dull and derivative film.
The heavy graphic content of rape, mutilation, and murder is extremely off-putting. (1 more)
There's not a single likeable character to be found in the whole movie.
A Walk Among the Tombstones is unsettling but never really all that compelling. It's a decent detective movie, but your enjoyment of it may depend on how well you can handle its grimy setting and extreme violence.
After watching A Walk Among the Tombstones, I literally felt like I was going to puke. This mystery-thriller, based on Lawrence Blockโs popular novel, is a gross and grisly foray into the criminal underworld in search of sadistic kidnappers. Director Scott Frank paints a portrait of a dark and twisted 1990s New York City where women are disappearing, only to later show up chopped into pieces. The film is grim without remorse or reason, and if youโre anything like me, youโll be eager for it to end so you can wash your hands of it entirely. It stars Liam Neeson as an unlicensed private detective named Matthew Scudder who leads an investigation to find the people responsible for these horrific murders. While it may appear from the trailers to be another entry in Neesonโs growing lineup of ass-kicking action-thrillers, itโs actually far from it. A Walk Among the Tombstones plays out more like a brooding, slow-paced horror film. If youโre expecting Taken, then youโre walking right into the wrong movie.
Neesonโs character Matt Scudder is a former alcoholic and an ex-cop turned personal private investigator who works in exchange for favors. Since heโs no longer affiliated with the police, heโs an appealing person to turn to for those who need help but want to keep the cops out of the picture. When a drug dealerโs wife is kidnapped and savagely murdered, he seeks out Scudder for help. What follows is in an investigation into the murder that links up to the murder of another drug dealerโs wife. With the killers still at large, Scudder is determined to catch them before they can strike again.
Being that Scudder is working with criminals to find even worse criminals, the characters in A Walk Among the Tombstones are quite despicable. In fact, I would argue thereโs not a single likeable character in the whole film. Even our protagonist Scudder is a shady person with a corrupt past. Itโs hard to care about anyone here except for the poor abducted women, and yet we never get to know any of them. Theyโre reduced to the point where itโs hard to see them as anything more than the killersโ unlucky victims who have no chance of surviving. We follow Scudder through this twisted investigation not because we care about him, but for their sake of these women, with the hope that our detective hero can put an end to these killersโ unspeakable crimes. The filmโs dreadful cast of characters give an incredibly bleak and hopeless outlook on people as a whole.
Liam Neeson gives a suitable performance as Scudder, fitting into the role of a detective quite naturally. As usual, he has a great presence and commands your attention any time heโs on screen. In A Walk Among the Tombstones, heโs not nearly the unstoppable action-hero he has been in his other recent films, but heโs still an intimidating guy youโd be wise not to mess with. He does actually have a couple tense conversations with the killers over the phone that are reminiscent of the famous scene in Taken, but certainly not as memorable.
The killers in the movie happen to be far more appalling than interesting. We donโt ever get to know much about them or their motives. Theyโre sick, demented people that arenโt given much more depth than being bad for the sake of being bad. However, thereโs no question that theyโre believably haunting and deranged. Despite their limited screen time and lack of complexity, their actors put in truly unnerving performances.
The film is well-acted throughout, with a few especially notable performances from supporting characters. Olafur Darri Olafsson is terrific as the creepy cemetery groundskeeper, and Eric Nelsen does a commendable job as the drug addict younger brother of the drug dealer who sought Scudderโs help. Thereโs also Brian โAstroโ Bradley as a homeless teenager named TJ that Scudder befriends, who volunteers himself to be his crime-solving partner. Astro at times lightens up the moody film with his charm, and while heโs truly the only character that offers any sense of hope in the filmโs gritty world, I think his character largely feels out of place as an unnecessary inclusion.
Scott Frank effectively creates a dark and sullen atmosphere in his movie that is also visually striking. He turns New Yorkโs underbelly into a stylishly gloomy city where its seedy citizens can run rampant. He demonstrates proficiency behind the camera, building eeriness and suspense. However, he goes too far with the filmโs graphic sexual content, which includes rape, torture, and mutilation. While he never gives you a very clear look at these heinous acts, he puts you right there in the moment and lets the camera linger. Itโs sadistic, cruel, and very disturbing to watch. In a bizarre directorial decision, he has the 12 steps to recovery from Alcoholics Anonymous narrated over the climax of the film. Considering Scudder regularly attends AA meetings to celebrate his sobriety, I can understand why it was included, but it just doesnโt work and ends up detracting from the filmโs most heightened sequences. He also disappointingly finishes the movie on a bad note with a conclusion that is drawn out far too long and which contains a weak, conventional ending that is completely forgettable.
A Walk Among the Tombstones raises more questions than it answers, but in a movie this morbid, maybe itโs best not to know. While the movie excels at being unsettling, itโs never really all that compelling. Filled with plenty of bad dialogue and characters that are hard to relate to and care about, I was yearning for this one to end so I wouldnโt have to endure any more of its vileness. Even with all the disturbing content aside, I would argue that the film is still only average at best. While Iโm sure there are plenty of people with a penchant for the macabre that will enjoy the film, I am certainly not one of them and I left the theater feeling completely disturbed by what I had just watched. A Walk Among the Tombstones is a decent detective movie, but your enjoyment of the film may depend on how well you can handle its grimy setting and extreme violence. One thing that I can assure you is that I personally donโt have the stomach for it.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.20.14.)
Neesonโs character Matt Scudder is a former alcoholic and an ex-cop turned personal private investigator who works in exchange for favors. Since heโs no longer affiliated with the police, heโs an appealing person to turn to for those who need help but want to keep the cops out of the picture. When a drug dealerโs wife is kidnapped and savagely murdered, he seeks out Scudder for help. What follows is in an investigation into the murder that links up to the murder of another drug dealerโs wife. With the killers still at large, Scudder is determined to catch them before they can strike again.
Being that Scudder is working with criminals to find even worse criminals, the characters in A Walk Among the Tombstones are quite despicable. In fact, I would argue thereโs not a single likeable character in the whole film. Even our protagonist Scudder is a shady person with a corrupt past. Itโs hard to care about anyone here except for the poor abducted women, and yet we never get to know any of them. Theyโre reduced to the point where itโs hard to see them as anything more than the killersโ unlucky victims who have no chance of surviving. We follow Scudder through this twisted investigation not because we care about him, but for their sake of these women, with the hope that our detective hero can put an end to these killersโ unspeakable crimes. The filmโs dreadful cast of characters give an incredibly bleak and hopeless outlook on people as a whole.
Liam Neeson gives a suitable performance as Scudder, fitting into the role of a detective quite naturally. As usual, he has a great presence and commands your attention any time heโs on screen. In A Walk Among the Tombstones, heโs not nearly the unstoppable action-hero he has been in his other recent films, but heโs still an intimidating guy youโd be wise not to mess with. He does actually have a couple tense conversations with the killers over the phone that are reminiscent of the famous scene in Taken, but certainly not as memorable.
The killers in the movie happen to be far more appalling than interesting. We donโt ever get to know much about them or their motives. Theyโre sick, demented people that arenโt given much more depth than being bad for the sake of being bad. However, thereโs no question that theyโre believably haunting and deranged. Despite their limited screen time and lack of complexity, their actors put in truly unnerving performances.
The film is well-acted throughout, with a few especially notable performances from supporting characters. Olafur Darri Olafsson is terrific as the creepy cemetery groundskeeper, and Eric Nelsen does a commendable job as the drug addict younger brother of the drug dealer who sought Scudderโs help. Thereโs also Brian โAstroโ Bradley as a homeless teenager named TJ that Scudder befriends, who volunteers himself to be his crime-solving partner. Astro at times lightens up the moody film with his charm, and while heโs truly the only character that offers any sense of hope in the filmโs gritty world, I think his character largely feels out of place as an unnecessary inclusion.
Scott Frank effectively creates a dark and sullen atmosphere in his movie that is also visually striking. He turns New Yorkโs underbelly into a stylishly gloomy city where its seedy citizens can run rampant. He demonstrates proficiency behind the camera, building eeriness and suspense. However, he goes too far with the filmโs graphic sexual content, which includes rape, torture, and mutilation. While he never gives you a very clear look at these heinous acts, he puts you right there in the moment and lets the camera linger. Itโs sadistic, cruel, and very disturbing to watch. In a bizarre directorial decision, he has the 12 steps to recovery from Alcoholics Anonymous narrated over the climax of the film. Considering Scudder regularly attends AA meetings to celebrate his sobriety, I can understand why it was included, but it just doesnโt work and ends up detracting from the filmโs most heightened sequences. He also disappointingly finishes the movie on a bad note with a conclusion that is drawn out far too long and which contains a weak, conventional ending that is completely forgettable.
A Walk Among the Tombstones raises more questions than it answers, but in a movie this morbid, maybe itโs best not to know. While the movie excels at being unsettling, itโs never really all that compelling. Filled with plenty of bad dialogue and characters that are hard to relate to and care about, I was yearning for this one to end so I wouldnโt have to endure any more of its vileness. Even with all the disturbing content aside, I would argue that the film is still only average at best. While Iโm sure there are plenty of people with a penchant for the macabre that will enjoy the film, I am certainly not one of them and I left the theater feeling completely disturbed by what I had just watched. A Walk Among the Tombstones is a decent detective movie, but your enjoyment of the film may depend on how well you can handle its grimy setting and extreme violence. One thing that I can assure you is that I personally donโt have the stomach for it.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.20.14.)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Artemis Fowl (2020) in Movies
Jun 13, 2020
Disney: "We're making a film of Artemis Fowl!"
Me: *wildly switches from happiness to devastation about the possibilities*
Artemis Fowl's father, Artemis Fowl Snr., has gone missing, the media is portraying him as a criminal and calling for answers. Shocked and confused by what's happening Artemis Jnr. receives a phone call from his father's kidnapper and must hand over an item to secure his release. But he's no idea what the item is, or where, he's about to learn a great deal about fantastical things in a very short space of time and meet an odd selection of new friends.
So... I'm going to break this down into two parts, the first bit will be just about the film and the second will be me ranting about the film in conjunction with the book... *calm thoughts* Let us begin.
From the very beginning I was thrown, the opening in no way seems like a family film and I was wondering if by avoiding reading about it all beforehand that I'd got the wrong idea about what to expect.
With such a good cast backing up our newcomers I had medium hopes for what was going to hit our screens...
Ferdia Shaw takes on the part of Artemis Fowl Jnr., putting aside the comparison between the two versions until later, the performance isn't bad but it's quite forgettable. The same sadly goes for Lara McDonnell as Holly Short. Neither one has much of a presence on screen and I think that's mostly to do with the fact that Artemis and Holly are both rather bland in the whole story.
There's something oddly appealing about Josh Gad as Mulch but I'm not sure that giving him such a large role as narrator worked. It's never really clear why he's given that role and the scene's where we cut back to him talking are given a strange noir look that doesn't match with the rest of the film. Even so, I'm willing to concede that he's my favourite character as he has just enough humour to carry it.
Judi Dench as Commander Root was a little bit of a challenge to see. Root is a gruff but caring character, the trouble come in the fact that the change comes quite unnaturally at times.
One of the main failings is that there are times when the script feels poor, the dialogue is a little forced and doesn't fit with the characters, couple that with a variety of scenes that don't fit with the style of everything else and the fact that some pieces could be removed without really affecting anything around it and I'm left less than inspired by the film.
I did like the look of Haven City, the animation of the overhead view looked really promising. As we got into the city though I couldn't help but think it looked a little cheap and the aesthetic wasn't great. Effects, in general, were not good if I'm honest, particularly when you get to the siege on Fowl manor, when the siege is ending it comes with some chaos that is a perfect example of this coupled with another example of how the story glosses over an explanation of what's happening that could have offered some extra development for characters. (Specifically in this instance, Foley, who was woefully underused. He might not have been as majestic as a Brosnan centaur but he deserved better than the film gave him.)
By the end a lot of things get resolved seemingly by fairy magic because it's not clear how any of it happens. Potentially it's something that I wouldn't have noticed as there's a certain amount of this kind of wrapping up that you can forgive, but by this point I was so frustrated by everything that I was spotting everything.
I'm aware I'm waffling more than I intended so let me "briefly" mention things regarding the book...
The film is, in my opinion, only vaguely based on the book. It has kept ideas and pieces of story while removing and adding characters to varying degrees. Notably Artemis' mother is gone and his father is there instead. Removing mum makes Juliet's inclusion surplus to requirements, I can understand wanting to keep her for a young female character for viewers to identify with, but the role she ends up with is bland and in no way lives up to the book's version. The blandness also extends to her brother, Butler, and that's partly because of the major change they made...
Artemis. He is barely recognisable in comparison. He's a jeans-wearing, surfing, tween? He's much more casual than the original and this fluffier version doesn't have the same edge that book Artemis does. In their revamp they have changed his story and I very quickly felt like it could have been a sequel to the books, Artemis Snr. felt more like the Artemis from the books grown up and he was teaching his son about all the things he learnt. Part of the thing I enjoyed about the books is that Artemis was always an anti-hero of sorts, he was very difficult to like at times because of his actions, film Artemis is a little bit jumbled in this respect as they give him a very clear reason for the things he does so when he tries to show that tough side it doesn't have any impact.
There are a lot of differences, but I will leave that analysis for someone who is much more thorough at scouring the books and film than I am. I'll be keeping my eye out for other reviews with the comparisons in, if you spot any then please leave a link in the comments below.
When it came to scoring this I thought about it on two levels.
As a film from such a big company I was quite shocked by the quality of script and effects, there was a baddie that didn't really participate in anything and there were scenes and characters which weren't needed... and to finish it off in such an obvious set up for a sequel... I was done. I had marked it down for a generous score of 2 stars, that's normally my "I didn't like it but I can see why other people might" score, but I can't quite see what would appeal to people in it if I'm honest.
As an adaptation of the book I was too frustrated by the changes they made to Artemis, they essentially changed the fundamentals of the character and that had a knock-on effect to other characters as well. No one came out unscathed, but even though Mulch was heavily adapted I was glad that some of his humour was still there. Scoring on this basis I would have given it 1 star, but again, that felt generous to me.
In the end I will always score something on my enjoyment, in this instance it seems fair to even out the two scores. They've taken a great book and removed most of its personality, the final product was not exciting to watch and I don't think I could bring myself to watch a sequel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/artemis-fowl-movie-review.html
Me: *wildly switches from happiness to devastation about the possibilities*
Artemis Fowl's father, Artemis Fowl Snr., has gone missing, the media is portraying him as a criminal and calling for answers. Shocked and confused by what's happening Artemis Jnr. receives a phone call from his father's kidnapper and must hand over an item to secure his release. But he's no idea what the item is, or where, he's about to learn a great deal about fantastical things in a very short space of time and meet an odd selection of new friends.
So... I'm going to break this down into two parts, the first bit will be just about the film and the second will be me ranting about the film in conjunction with the book... *calm thoughts* Let us begin.
From the very beginning I was thrown, the opening in no way seems like a family film and I was wondering if by avoiding reading about it all beforehand that I'd got the wrong idea about what to expect.
With such a good cast backing up our newcomers I had medium hopes for what was going to hit our screens...
Ferdia Shaw takes on the part of Artemis Fowl Jnr., putting aside the comparison between the two versions until later, the performance isn't bad but it's quite forgettable. The same sadly goes for Lara McDonnell as Holly Short. Neither one has much of a presence on screen and I think that's mostly to do with the fact that Artemis and Holly are both rather bland in the whole story.
There's something oddly appealing about Josh Gad as Mulch but I'm not sure that giving him such a large role as narrator worked. It's never really clear why he's given that role and the scene's where we cut back to him talking are given a strange noir look that doesn't match with the rest of the film. Even so, I'm willing to concede that he's my favourite character as he has just enough humour to carry it.
Judi Dench as Commander Root was a little bit of a challenge to see. Root is a gruff but caring character, the trouble come in the fact that the change comes quite unnaturally at times.
One of the main failings is that there are times when the script feels poor, the dialogue is a little forced and doesn't fit with the characters, couple that with a variety of scenes that don't fit with the style of everything else and the fact that some pieces could be removed without really affecting anything around it and I'm left less than inspired by the film.
I did like the look of Haven City, the animation of the overhead view looked really promising. As we got into the city though I couldn't help but think it looked a little cheap and the aesthetic wasn't great. Effects, in general, were not good if I'm honest, particularly when you get to the siege on Fowl manor, when the siege is ending it comes with some chaos that is a perfect example of this coupled with another example of how the story glosses over an explanation of what's happening that could have offered some extra development for characters. (Specifically in this instance, Foley, who was woefully underused. He might not have been as majestic as a Brosnan centaur but he deserved better than the film gave him.)
By the end a lot of things get resolved seemingly by fairy magic because it's not clear how any of it happens. Potentially it's something that I wouldn't have noticed as there's a certain amount of this kind of wrapping up that you can forgive, but by this point I was so frustrated by everything that I was spotting everything.
I'm aware I'm waffling more than I intended so let me "briefly" mention things regarding the book...
The film is, in my opinion, only vaguely based on the book. It has kept ideas and pieces of story while removing and adding characters to varying degrees. Notably Artemis' mother is gone and his father is there instead. Removing mum makes Juliet's inclusion surplus to requirements, I can understand wanting to keep her for a young female character for viewers to identify with, but the role she ends up with is bland and in no way lives up to the book's version. The blandness also extends to her brother, Butler, and that's partly because of the major change they made...
Artemis. He is barely recognisable in comparison. He's a jeans-wearing, surfing, tween? He's much more casual than the original and this fluffier version doesn't have the same edge that book Artemis does. In their revamp they have changed his story and I very quickly felt like it could have been a sequel to the books, Artemis Snr. felt more like the Artemis from the books grown up and he was teaching his son about all the things he learnt. Part of the thing I enjoyed about the books is that Artemis was always an anti-hero of sorts, he was very difficult to like at times because of his actions, film Artemis is a little bit jumbled in this respect as they give him a very clear reason for the things he does so when he tries to show that tough side it doesn't have any impact.
There are a lot of differences, but I will leave that analysis for someone who is much more thorough at scouring the books and film than I am. I'll be keeping my eye out for other reviews with the comparisons in, if you spot any then please leave a link in the comments below.
When it came to scoring this I thought about it on two levels.
As a film from such a big company I was quite shocked by the quality of script and effects, there was a baddie that didn't really participate in anything and there were scenes and characters which weren't needed... and to finish it off in such an obvious set up for a sequel... I was done. I had marked it down for a generous score of 2 stars, that's normally my "I didn't like it but I can see why other people might" score, but I can't quite see what would appeal to people in it if I'm honest.
As an adaptation of the book I was too frustrated by the changes they made to Artemis, they essentially changed the fundamentals of the character and that had a knock-on effect to other characters as well. No one came out unscathed, but even though Mulch was heavily adapted I was glad that some of his humour was still there. Scoring on this basis I would have given it 1 star, but again, that felt generous to me.
In the end I will always score something on my enjoyment, in this instance it seems fair to even out the two scores. They've taken a great book and removed most of its personality, the final product was not exciting to watch and I don't think I could bring myself to watch a sequel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/artemis-fowl-movie-review.html
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Skulls of Sedlec in Tabletop Games
Feb 27, 2020
When it comes to board gaming, bigger does not always necessarily mean better. And that is something that Button Shy Games has really embraced. With all of their wallet games comprising of only 18 cards, they always manage to pack a lot of game into one small space. I think theyโve got the right idea โ engaging gameplay, multitude of themes and mechanics, and easy storage and transport! So how does their newest game hold up to their other successful wallet games? Keep reading to find out!
Let us travel back to the 16th Century AD. You are a monk working in the Sedlec Ossuary, a chapel in the Czech Republic. The coincidental timing of the Black Plague and the Hussite Wars has led to some serious overcrowding in the Sedlec graveyard. Working under a half-blind monk, you and your fellow underlings have been tasked with exhuming graves and artfully arranging the skulls in the crypt. Who can create the most unique and tasteful display of skulls? Thereโs only one way to find out.
Disclaimer: We were provided a prototype review copy of this game for the purposes of this preview. The final components may vary once the Kickstarter campaign has concluded, so the published game may look differently than the one presented in these pictures. -L
Skulls of Sedlec is a game of card drafting and hand management in which players are trying to amass the most points by the end of the game. Hereโs how it works. To set up, shuffle all 18 cards. Create a 2ร3 grid of 6 facedown piles consisting of 3 cards each. Pick any pile and flip one card face-up from the top. You are now ready to begin! The game is played over a series of turns in which players will draft and play cards into their personal Stack, an arrangement of cards in a pyramid shape. Each card has 2 skulls on it, and each skull earns a certain number of points based on its placement in your Stack. For example, Criminal skulls are vying for redemption in the afterlife, so they score 2 points if they are adjacent to any Priest skulls. At the end of the game, the player with the highest scoring Stack is the winner!
During the game, on your turn, you will take one of these three possible actions: Dig, Collect, or Stack. When you choose to Dig, you choose 2 facedown piles in the graveyard and flip their top cards face-up. Once you have done that, choose one of the two cards you flipped to take into your hand. If you choose to Collect, you simply choose any face-up card from the graveyard and take it into your hand. There is a hand limit of 2 cards per player, though, so if you already have 2 cards in your hand you may not take the Collect action. If you choose to Stack, you select one card from your hand and add it to your Stack, following the placement rules โ Stacks are built from the bottom up. Your first card will be placed into the bottom row of your Stack. Depending on how many players are in the game, your Stack will require a different number of cards in each row. A card may only be played into a higher row if it is directly centered over two cards on the row beneath it. Logical enough! The game ends when each player has completed their Stack. Points are then added, and the highest score wins.
As I mentioned earlier, the size of the game does not always dictate the quality of the game, and Skulls of Sedlec is the perfect example of that. For only consisting of 18 cards, it takes a good deal of strategy to claim victory. There are 5 different types of skulls, and they earn points in different ways depending on their placement. You really have to be thinking in advance as to how you want to play the cards in your hand, and what other skulls you need to pick up to maximize your score. You can also see the Stacks of your opponents, so you know what youโre up against. You need an adaptive strategy for success based on the current cards available in the graveyard, as well as potentially anticipating your opponentsโ moves. Be careful, though, because once a card has been played to your Stack, it cannot be moved.
Components. Again, this is just a preview copy of the game, but the card quality is already great. It might be something upgraded during the Kickstarter campaign, but if itโs not, youโre still getting a high quality game. Of course, the trademark wallet is on par with the rest of the wallet series, and it protects the cards well. The artwork of Skulls of Sedlec might not be awe-inspiring, but it is still colorful, thematic, and well-done. I appreciate the simplicity of the cards because it makes it easier to see the card types throughout the game and final scoring. You can clearly tell which skulls are which, so the game does not grind to a halt while trying to figure out what the scoring requirements are for a particular skull. And each skull type has a corresponding symbol, which can help our color-blind friends play the game โ instead of relying solely on color, the symbols help differentiate the cards. So big kudos there!
As someone who does a fair amount of solo playing, I would like to mention the solo expansion of Skulls of Sedlec, Monstrance. Again, this is a preview of the solo expansion, so final rules and components may vary from those described here. When playing Skulls of Sedlec as a solo game, you will be creating a Stack like in a multiplayer game, as well as a Feature. The Feature you build will have a shape different to that of your normal Stack, and is determined by the Feature card you select at game setup. You will also select a second Feature card, which will be flipped over to reveal a new condition or effect for the game (for example, Romantics in the Stack do not score). Create a graveyard of 4 facedown piles of cards, evenly spread throughout the piles. You are then ready to play.
Gameplay is similar to that of a multiplayer game, but the solo player does not have a hand of cards. Instead, every card that you select will be immediately played into your Stack or your Feature. Placement rules are the same for the Stack, and cards in your Feature must be supported from below or adjacently. When both your Stack and Feature are complete, the game is over and you tally up your score. The solo expansion offers scoring milestones to compare with your score. See if you can best yourself and become a Legendary Artisan instead of remaining a Humble Monk.
Personally, I am not a huge fan of beat-your-own-score solo expansions. That being said, the gameplay of the Monstrance solo expansion still requires decent strategy and thought to maximize your final score. The addition of Features to solo play add another level of strategy because placement is just as important there as it is in your general Stack. Another neat twist is the addition of effects/conditions in solo play. They affect your strategy and make for a unique game every play.
Overall, I would say that Skulls of Sedlec is one of my favorite ButtonShy Games that I have played. Itโs fast to play, simple to teach and learn, yet strategic enough that it keeps you engaged the entire time. Another thing I love about it is that it is only a 2-3 player game. We all know that getting together for game nights can be tricky, so I can see myself bringing Skulls of Sedlec to many game nights in which maybe only a few of us could attend. Iโm glad I got the opportunity to preview this game, and I will be following the progress of the campaign for sure. If youโre looking for a small filler that still keeps your brain working, definitely consider backing the Skulls of Sedlec campaign!
Let us travel back to the 16th Century AD. You are a monk working in the Sedlec Ossuary, a chapel in the Czech Republic. The coincidental timing of the Black Plague and the Hussite Wars has led to some serious overcrowding in the Sedlec graveyard. Working under a half-blind monk, you and your fellow underlings have been tasked with exhuming graves and artfully arranging the skulls in the crypt. Who can create the most unique and tasteful display of skulls? Thereโs only one way to find out.
Disclaimer: We were provided a prototype review copy of this game for the purposes of this preview. The final components may vary once the Kickstarter campaign has concluded, so the published game may look differently than the one presented in these pictures. -L
Skulls of Sedlec is a game of card drafting and hand management in which players are trying to amass the most points by the end of the game. Hereโs how it works. To set up, shuffle all 18 cards. Create a 2ร3 grid of 6 facedown piles consisting of 3 cards each. Pick any pile and flip one card face-up from the top. You are now ready to begin! The game is played over a series of turns in which players will draft and play cards into their personal Stack, an arrangement of cards in a pyramid shape. Each card has 2 skulls on it, and each skull earns a certain number of points based on its placement in your Stack. For example, Criminal skulls are vying for redemption in the afterlife, so they score 2 points if they are adjacent to any Priest skulls. At the end of the game, the player with the highest scoring Stack is the winner!
During the game, on your turn, you will take one of these three possible actions: Dig, Collect, or Stack. When you choose to Dig, you choose 2 facedown piles in the graveyard and flip their top cards face-up. Once you have done that, choose one of the two cards you flipped to take into your hand. If you choose to Collect, you simply choose any face-up card from the graveyard and take it into your hand. There is a hand limit of 2 cards per player, though, so if you already have 2 cards in your hand you may not take the Collect action. If you choose to Stack, you select one card from your hand and add it to your Stack, following the placement rules โ Stacks are built from the bottom up. Your first card will be placed into the bottom row of your Stack. Depending on how many players are in the game, your Stack will require a different number of cards in each row. A card may only be played into a higher row if it is directly centered over two cards on the row beneath it. Logical enough! The game ends when each player has completed their Stack. Points are then added, and the highest score wins.
As I mentioned earlier, the size of the game does not always dictate the quality of the game, and Skulls of Sedlec is the perfect example of that. For only consisting of 18 cards, it takes a good deal of strategy to claim victory. There are 5 different types of skulls, and they earn points in different ways depending on their placement. You really have to be thinking in advance as to how you want to play the cards in your hand, and what other skulls you need to pick up to maximize your score. You can also see the Stacks of your opponents, so you know what youโre up against. You need an adaptive strategy for success based on the current cards available in the graveyard, as well as potentially anticipating your opponentsโ moves. Be careful, though, because once a card has been played to your Stack, it cannot be moved.
Components. Again, this is just a preview copy of the game, but the card quality is already great. It might be something upgraded during the Kickstarter campaign, but if itโs not, youโre still getting a high quality game. Of course, the trademark wallet is on par with the rest of the wallet series, and it protects the cards well. The artwork of Skulls of Sedlec might not be awe-inspiring, but it is still colorful, thematic, and well-done. I appreciate the simplicity of the cards because it makes it easier to see the card types throughout the game and final scoring. You can clearly tell which skulls are which, so the game does not grind to a halt while trying to figure out what the scoring requirements are for a particular skull. And each skull type has a corresponding symbol, which can help our color-blind friends play the game โ instead of relying solely on color, the symbols help differentiate the cards. So big kudos there!
As someone who does a fair amount of solo playing, I would like to mention the solo expansion of Skulls of Sedlec, Monstrance. Again, this is a preview of the solo expansion, so final rules and components may vary from those described here. When playing Skulls of Sedlec as a solo game, you will be creating a Stack like in a multiplayer game, as well as a Feature. The Feature you build will have a shape different to that of your normal Stack, and is determined by the Feature card you select at game setup. You will also select a second Feature card, which will be flipped over to reveal a new condition or effect for the game (for example, Romantics in the Stack do not score). Create a graveyard of 4 facedown piles of cards, evenly spread throughout the piles. You are then ready to play.
Gameplay is similar to that of a multiplayer game, but the solo player does not have a hand of cards. Instead, every card that you select will be immediately played into your Stack or your Feature. Placement rules are the same for the Stack, and cards in your Feature must be supported from below or adjacently. When both your Stack and Feature are complete, the game is over and you tally up your score. The solo expansion offers scoring milestones to compare with your score. See if you can best yourself and become a Legendary Artisan instead of remaining a Humble Monk.
Personally, I am not a huge fan of beat-your-own-score solo expansions. That being said, the gameplay of the Monstrance solo expansion still requires decent strategy and thought to maximize your final score. The addition of Features to solo play add another level of strategy because placement is just as important there as it is in your general Stack. Another neat twist is the addition of effects/conditions in solo play. They affect your strategy and make for a unique game every play.
Overall, I would say that Skulls of Sedlec is one of my favorite ButtonShy Games that I have played. Itโs fast to play, simple to teach and learn, yet strategic enough that it keeps you engaged the entire time. Another thing I love about it is that it is only a 2-3 player game. We all know that getting together for game nights can be tricky, so I can see myself bringing Skulls of Sedlec to many game nights in which maybe only a few of us could attend. Iโm glad I got the opportunity to preview this game, and I will be following the progress of the campaign for sure. If youโre looking for a small filler that still keeps your brain working, definitely consider backing the Skulls of Sedlec campaign!
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Crime and Punishment in Books
Apr 27, 2018
**spoilers**
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky. read by Anthony Heald.
Genre: Fiction, classic
Rating: 5
Sin, Sentence, and Salvation
The allegory of Crime and Punishment
Crime and Punishment, one of the more famous works of Fyodor Dostoevsky, is considered โthe first great novel of his mature period,โ (Frank, 1995) and is one of his more famous books, rivaled only by The Brothers Karamazov. What makes Crime and Punishment such a classic? Perhaps because it is a picture of the only classic, and greatest story of all time. Crime and Punishment is an allegory of Salvation.
Self-justified
The main character, Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, was a poor student at a university, and was overcome with hate toward an old pawnbroker, and decided to rid the world of her for the greater good of everyone. He believed that she was a โlouse,โ and since everyone would be happier without her, his actions would be justified. He believed that he had broken the letter of the law only, but that it didnโt have any authority over him anyway because it was written by people just as low as himself. He didnโt believe in God, and in prison he was convinced that he didnโt deserve his treatment, and that it was something he simply needed to get over with. He had no higher authority, so he said โmy conscience is at rest.โ This is a picture of man before he is touched by the merciful salvation of Christ.
A Troubled Man
Although Raskolnikov justified his actions in killing the old woman, he still felt an overwhelming sense of guilt and fear over what he did. He worked very hard at keeping it a secret, and at first he thought he could live with the guilt that sat in back of his mind, but he was wrong. Raskolnikov had horrible dreams, was always sick, and one of the other characters noticed that he was constantly โset off by little thingsโ for no apparent reason (though the reader knew that it was only because it reminded him of his crime). This represents a man who knows in his heart that he is a sinner, but who will not turn and repent from his sin.
Unending Love
Sonya Semyonovna Marmeladov was the daughter of a drunkard who โtook the yellow cardโ and prostituted herself to support her family. Throughout the book, Sonya began to love Raskolnikov. Eventually, Raskolnikov told Sonya his secret. Sonya was horrified, but still loved him and forgave him after her initial shock wore off. As Raskolnikov was fighting inside with his conscience and his sins, he repeatedly snapped at her, refused her comfort, yelled at her, and so on. He was a bitter, angry, hateful manโand yet Sonya forgave him for everything he did to her, and everything he had done in his past. What redeeming quality Sonya saw in the wretch and why she forgave him, one cannot begin to comprehend; aside from the simple truth that Sonya was a loving, gentile, merciful girl. She saw that Raskolnikov needed someone to love him and she reached out to him, even when he repeatedly pushed her away. Sonyaโs love for him is a picture of Christโs unending and perfect love to His sinful people.
A Silent Witness
When Raskolnikov finally broke down and confessed his crime, Sonya moved to Siberia with him. Raskolnikov expected this, and knew that telling her not to come would be fruitless. She visited him often in prison and wrote to his family for him. But although Raskolnikov expected her to preach to him and push the Gospel in his face, she did not. Sonya followed the scriptureโs instruction to Christian wives with non-Christian husbands in 1 Peter 3:1โโ Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wivesโฆโ The verse tells women to be good examples of Christ to their non-Christian husbands rather than to preach to them and try to convert them, and that is exactly what Sonya did, even though she was not married to him. She did not try to convert him with words; rather she won him with her love. She did not push the Testament into Raskolnikovโs hands, he asked for it. When she did bring it, she did not pester him to read it. She had faith, and showed Raskolnikov the love of Christ through her actions. In the end, it paid off. Although Dostoevsky does not specifically say that Raskolnikov was converted, he does imply that he eventually became a Christian when he mused โCan not her own convictions now be mine?โ
The truth will set you free
When Raskolnikov finally realized that he loved Sonya, he accepted that he was a criminal, and a murderer. When he finally accepted that he was a sinner, he repented and had a new life in him. He said he felt like โhe had risen againโ and that Sonya โlived only in his life.โ By life, Dostoevsky refers to his mentality. Before, he had been a living dead man in prison. He was hated by his inmates, was almost killed by them in an outbreak, was unaffected by anything that happened to him or his family, and eventually became ill from it all. But after his resurrection, he repented from his sins, learned to move on with his life, and started to change. He began to converse with his inmates, and they no longer hated him. Sonya was alive in his โlifeโ because of her love for him. When he was changed, she was so happy that she became sick with joy, to the point that she was ill in bed. Dostoevsky paints a picture of a redeemed man at the end of his novelโredeemed both by the law, and by God. This picture symbolizes the miracle of salvation through Christ.
An amazing Allegory
Dostoevsky was a wonderful writer because of his use of dialogue to tell the story, his descriptive scenes, his powerfully developed characters, and their inner dialogue. He often times told you that something was happening by only telling you what the character who was speaking at the time said in response to what was going on. For example, if Sonya was standing up, Dostoevsky would write โโฆ โhey, what do you stand for?โ for Sonya had stood.โ
He also painted such good descriptions of his characters, that by the middle of the book he didnโt have to say that Raskolnikov was musing in the corner of the room, glaring at anyone who was brave enough to look at him, while he stewed in grief under his old ratted cap, because you knew from how well he was described earlier and how well his character was developed from the dialogue, that he was doing exactly that.
His characters are so real, they almost frighten you because you see the things they do and feel and experience reflected in your own life. They are not perfectโin fact they are all incredibly flawed, but they are a joy to read.
His ending is superb, because he closes the story without actually telling you everything. He never says that Raskolnikov was converted, he never says when he got out of prison, and he never says that Sonya and he were married, but you know that it happened. The last scene of the story is so superb, it makes you want to read it again, just to experience the joy all over again.
But what really made Crime and Punishment the classic that it was is the picture of the best story in the world, the classic story of the world, showing through. The story of the Gospel, of Jesus Christโs unending love and sin and salvation is clearly portrayed, and makes a joyous read.
Works cited:
Quotes are from Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky, 1886
Frank, Joseph (1995). Dostoevsky: The Miraculous Years, 1865โ1871. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01587-2. (source found and taken from Wikipedia.com)
1 Peter 3:1 New International Version of The Holy Bible
Audio review: I had a hard time reading the book, simply because it was so huge that it was intimidating. I bought (ouch) the audio book of Crime and Punishment, recorded by Anthony Heald who did a fantastic job reading. His voices for the characters perfectly matched them, he felt for them, and he acted them. None of them were cheesy (yeah you all know how lame some male readers are at acting female voices). He read fast enough that the story didn't drag at all, but not so fast that you'd feel like you'd miss something if you didn't listen hard. I will definitely re-listen to the audio book.
Content: some gruesome descriptions of blood from the murder
Recommendation: Ages 14+
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky. read by Anthony Heald.
Genre: Fiction, classic
Rating: 5
Sin, Sentence, and Salvation
The allegory of Crime and Punishment
Crime and Punishment, one of the more famous works of Fyodor Dostoevsky, is considered โthe first great novel of his mature period,โ (Frank, 1995) and is one of his more famous books, rivaled only by The Brothers Karamazov. What makes Crime and Punishment such a classic? Perhaps because it is a picture of the only classic, and greatest story of all time. Crime and Punishment is an allegory of Salvation.
Self-justified
The main character, Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, was a poor student at a university, and was overcome with hate toward an old pawnbroker, and decided to rid the world of her for the greater good of everyone. He believed that she was a โlouse,โ and since everyone would be happier without her, his actions would be justified. He believed that he had broken the letter of the law only, but that it didnโt have any authority over him anyway because it was written by people just as low as himself. He didnโt believe in God, and in prison he was convinced that he didnโt deserve his treatment, and that it was something he simply needed to get over with. He had no higher authority, so he said โmy conscience is at rest.โ This is a picture of man before he is touched by the merciful salvation of Christ.
A Troubled Man
Although Raskolnikov justified his actions in killing the old woman, he still felt an overwhelming sense of guilt and fear over what he did. He worked very hard at keeping it a secret, and at first he thought he could live with the guilt that sat in back of his mind, but he was wrong. Raskolnikov had horrible dreams, was always sick, and one of the other characters noticed that he was constantly โset off by little thingsโ for no apparent reason (though the reader knew that it was only because it reminded him of his crime). This represents a man who knows in his heart that he is a sinner, but who will not turn and repent from his sin.
Unending Love
Sonya Semyonovna Marmeladov was the daughter of a drunkard who โtook the yellow cardโ and prostituted herself to support her family. Throughout the book, Sonya began to love Raskolnikov. Eventually, Raskolnikov told Sonya his secret. Sonya was horrified, but still loved him and forgave him after her initial shock wore off. As Raskolnikov was fighting inside with his conscience and his sins, he repeatedly snapped at her, refused her comfort, yelled at her, and so on. He was a bitter, angry, hateful manโand yet Sonya forgave him for everything he did to her, and everything he had done in his past. What redeeming quality Sonya saw in the wretch and why she forgave him, one cannot begin to comprehend; aside from the simple truth that Sonya was a loving, gentile, merciful girl. She saw that Raskolnikov needed someone to love him and she reached out to him, even when he repeatedly pushed her away. Sonyaโs love for him is a picture of Christโs unending and perfect love to His sinful people.
A Silent Witness
When Raskolnikov finally broke down and confessed his crime, Sonya moved to Siberia with him. Raskolnikov expected this, and knew that telling her not to come would be fruitless. She visited him often in prison and wrote to his family for him. But although Raskolnikov expected her to preach to him and push the Gospel in his face, she did not. Sonya followed the scriptureโs instruction to Christian wives with non-Christian husbands in 1 Peter 3:1โโ Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wivesโฆโ The verse tells women to be good examples of Christ to their non-Christian husbands rather than to preach to them and try to convert them, and that is exactly what Sonya did, even though she was not married to him. She did not try to convert him with words; rather she won him with her love. She did not push the Testament into Raskolnikovโs hands, he asked for it. When she did bring it, she did not pester him to read it. She had faith, and showed Raskolnikov the love of Christ through her actions. In the end, it paid off. Although Dostoevsky does not specifically say that Raskolnikov was converted, he does imply that he eventually became a Christian when he mused โCan not her own convictions now be mine?โ
The truth will set you free
When Raskolnikov finally realized that he loved Sonya, he accepted that he was a criminal, and a murderer. When he finally accepted that he was a sinner, he repented and had a new life in him. He said he felt like โhe had risen againโ and that Sonya โlived only in his life.โ By life, Dostoevsky refers to his mentality. Before, he had been a living dead man in prison. He was hated by his inmates, was almost killed by them in an outbreak, was unaffected by anything that happened to him or his family, and eventually became ill from it all. But after his resurrection, he repented from his sins, learned to move on with his life, and started to change. He began to converse with his inmates, and they no longer hated him. Sonya was alive in his โlifeโ because of her love for him. When he was changed, she was so happy that she became sick with joy, to the point that she was ill in bed. Dostoevsky paints a picture of a redeemed man at the end of his novelโredeemed both by the law, and by God. This picture symbolizes the miracle of salvation through Christ.
An amazing Allegory
Dostoevsky was a wonderful writer because of his use of dialogue to tell the story, his descriptive scenes, his powerfully developed characters, and their inner dialogue. He often times told you that something was happening by only telling you what the character who was speaking at the time said in response to what was going on. For example, if Sonya was standing up, Dostoevsky would write โโฆ โhey, what do you stand for?โ for Sonya had stood.โ
He also painted such good descriptions of his characters, that by the middle of the book he didnโt have to say that Raskolnikov was musing in the corner of the room, glaring at anyone who was brave enough to look at him, while he stewed in grief under his old ratted cap, because you knew from how well he was described earlier and how well his character was developed from the dialogue, that he was doing exactly that.
His characters are so real, they almost frighten you because you see the things they do and feel and experience reflected in your own life. They are not perfectโin fact they are all incredibly flawed, but they are a joy to read.
His ending is superb, because he closes the story without actually telling you everything. He never says that Raskolnikov was converted, he never says when he got out of prison, and he never says that Sonya and he were married, but you know that it happened. The last scene of the story is so superb, it makes you want to read it again, just to experience the joy all over again.
But what really made Crime and Punishment the classic that it was is the picture of the best story in the world, the classic story of the world, showing through. The story of the Gospel, of Jesus Christโs unending love and sin and salvation is clearly portrayed, and makes a joyous read.
Works cited:
Quotes are from Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky, 1886
Frank, Joseph (1995). Dostoevsky: The Miraculous Years, 1865โ1871. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01587-2. (source found and taken from Wikipedia.com)
1 Peter 3:1 New International Version of The Holy Bible
Audio review: I had a hard time reading the book, simply because it was so huge that it was intimidating. I bought (ouch) the audio book of Crime and Punishment, recorded by Anthony Heald who did a fantastic job reading. His voices for the characters perfectly matched them, he felt for them, and he acted them. None of them were cheesy (yeah you all know how lame some male readers are at acting female voices). He read fast enough that the story didn't drag at all, but not so fast that you'd feel like you'd miss something if you didn't listen hard. I will definitely re-listen to the audio book.
Content: some gruesome descriptions of blood from the murder
Recommendation: Ages 14+
