Search
Search results
Becca Major (96 KP) rated Love O2O in TV
Jan 21, 2019
Characters (Main and Side) (2 more)
The Story
I like the basic premise.
A Simple Meet-Cute
Contains spoilers, click to show
One of the best things about Netflix is that there are a plethora of media that would otherwise be practically unavailable for viewing otherwise. For me, that primarily means Asian dramas, though I know many people discovered anime or other foreign television the same way. One of the most recent shows I watched via Netflix was a 2016 Chinese drama called Love 020. While it is not my favorite drama ever (that distinction belongs to Bromance) it is pretty good.
The story follows university students Bei Weiwei and Xiao Nai, who are computer technology majors at Qing University and both have a passion for game design. One day Weiwei has to log into her preferred MMORPG from a public computer and is spotted by Nai. He later finds her in-game and they begin a relationship between their characters. It isn’t long before Weiwei and Nai begin to develop real feelings, and Nai goes out of his way to pass by Weiwei in real life. Their eventual official IRL meeting is sufficiently exciting.
The best part is that Xiao Nai, while ruffling a few of my feathers for his more stalker-y actions, is not an asshole! He is nice to Weiwei from the start and is a devoted and engaged boyfriend. Weiwei herself is smart and sassy, though aloof online. One of my favorite scenes involves her putting her ex-in-game-husband in his place once they meet IRL. It also doesn’t help that these two are practically the perfect couple.
All of the characters, in fact, are fairly interesting. Both sets of roommates have different but very dynamic relationships with each other; it feels very organic. My personal favorites were K.O, Hao Mei, and Weiwei’s roommate Erxi. Though my attachments may be because they are the central characters to my favorite side-plots. If there was a character I had to choose to dislike, it would probably be Nana, the character who does the most bad in the plot but doesn’t suffer any real consequences for her actions.
I don’t want to spoil the ending for you, but most of my criticisms concern how the story wraps up, so if you want to watch the series, then go for it! It is a very simple, easy story that hits all the right buttons if you just finished a heart-wringer.
|SPOILERS|
My main points of contention with Love O2O stem almost entirely from the way the series ends. As a brief summary, Xiao Nai’s game development company goes head to head with a rival, more established company, over the right to develop a particular game that both companies really really want, and (extra spoilers) they win. The side-plot of Erxi and Cao Guang comes to a head as the two realize the misunderstanding that’s been happening for the last few months. And Hao Mei still doesn’t realize that K.O has a huge crush on him!
Ordinarily, I wouldn’t mind this ending because it flows with the narrative, every story thread is tied, and it ends on a happy note with the main couple en-route to a wedding. It’s just… Where are the stakes?! The tension, where it exists, doesn’t stem from Xiao Nai or Weiwei or their relationship with each other, like what happens in most other dramas that I watch. Almost all of that drama and tension seemed to be relegated to other characters.
Everything is wrapped up so easily, the antagonists (for what little they did to advance the plot) simply admitted to the leads that they were wrong and they’re sorry. Additionally, the final “threat” that Xiao Nai and Weiwei face is meeting Weiwei’s parents, in which Weiwei’s father doesn’t like Nai because of course he doesn’t; and that is solved easily by Nai reminiscing with his future father-in-law about Weiwei as a child and how adorable their future children will be.
I wish I could have enjoyed this series a lot more than I did, but the ending means a lot for me because it’s the last thing I tend to remember, and the emotions that go with those endings tend to stick. So, yes I enjoyed this series, but the ending left a disappointing aftertaste.
The story follows university students Bei Weiwei and Xiao Nai, who are computer technology majors at Qing University and both have a passion for game design. One day Weiwei has to log into her preferred MMORPG from a public computer and is spotted by Nai. He later finds her in-game and they begin a relationship between their characters. It isn’t long before Weiwei and Nai begin to develop real feelings, and Nai goes out of his way to pass by Weiwei in real life. Their eventual official IRL meeting is sufficiently exciting.
The best part is that Xiao Nai, while ruffling a few of my feathers for his more stalker-y actions, is not an asshole! He is nice to Weiwei from the start and is a devoted and engaged boyfriend. Weiwei herself is smart and sassy, though aloof online. One of my favorite scenes involves her putting her ex-in-game-husband in his place once they meet IRL. It also doesn’t help that these two are practically the perfect couple.
All of the characters, in fact, are fairly interesting. Both sets of roommates have different but very dynamic relationships with each other; it feels very organic. My personal favorites were K.O, Hao Mei, and Weiwei’s roommate Erxi. Though my attachments may be because they are the central characters to my favorite side-plots. If there was a character I had to choose to dislike, it would probably be Nana, the character who does the most bad in the plot but doesn’t suffer any real consequences for her actions.
I don’t want to spoil the ending for you, but most of my criticisms concern how the story wraps up, so if you want to watch the series, then go for it! It is a very simple, easy story that hits all the right buttons if you just finished a heart-wringer.
|SPOILERS|
My main points of contention with Love O2O stem almost entirely from the way the series ends. As a brief summary, Xiao Nai’s game development company goes head to head with a rival, more established company, over the right to develop a particular game that both companies really really want, and (extra spoilers) they win. The side-plot of Erxi and Cao Guang comes to a head as the two realize the misunderstanding that’s been happening for the last few months. And Hao Mei still doesn’t realize that K.O has a huge crush on him!
Ordinarily, I wouldn’t mind this ending because it flows with the narrative, every story thread is tied, and it ends on a happy note with the main couple en-route to a wedding. It’s just… Where are the stakes?! The tension, where it exists, doesn’t stem from Xiao Nai or Weiwei or their relationship with each other, like what happens in most other dramas that I watch. Almost all of that drama and tension seemed to be relegated to other characters.
Everything is wrapped up so easily, the antagonists (for what little they did to advance the plot) simply admitted to the leads that they were wrong and they’re sorry. Additionally, the final “threat” that Xiao Nai and Weiwei face is meeting Weiwei’s parents, in which Weiwei’s father doesn’t like Nai because of course he doesn’t; and that is solved easily by Nai reminiscing with his future father-in-law about Weiwei as a child and how adorable their future children will be.
I wish I could have enjoyed this series a lot more than I did, but the ending means a lot for me because it’s the last thing I tend to remember, and the emotions that go with those endings tend to stick. So, yes I enjoyed this series, but the ending left a disappointing aftertaste.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Harbour in Tabletop Games
Dec 19, 2019
“Ugh, I have too much stone and not enough fish! What am I going to do, just magically convert this stone into fish?” In Harbour, the answer is YES. Harbour is a light economic, worker placement, set collection game with fantasy elements to spice up the theming. Your goal is to amass the most victory points at the end of the game and become the greatest Harbourmaster ever!
In Harbour, you control a gobleeple (I am really horrible at this, but it’s a meeple in the shape of a goblin) who travels around town visiting buildings to enact their special abilities. Using these abilities will help you amass goods whose value is ever-changing on a uniquely-designed market board. Knowing when to sell your wood and livestock to purchase buildings is the key factor to creating a strategic path to income and winning the game of Harbour.
DISCLAIMER: I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. Furthermore, there is an expansion to this game, but we are not reviewing it at this time. Should we review it in the future we will either update this review or post a link to the new material here. -T
To setup give each player a gobleeple of their color choice (I choose you, purple!), a player board of their choice – or randomly dealt, and one token of each good to later be placed on their warehouse spaces. Place the main market board in the middle of the table with one goods token per space on the market to indicate starting prices for each good. Have each player now assign goods to warehouse spaces not to exceed three total goods stored. Shuffle the main building cards and place out in a grid a number of cards equal to three plus the number of players (seven total in a four-player game). Determine the starting player and you are ready to begin!
On your turn you must move your gobleeple to another vacant building, even the starting one on your player mat, or another player’s built building (but you must pay them a good to do so). From there you may take advantage of any special abilities that building offers. It could be adjusting the prices of goods, trading one type of good for another, or allowing you to purchase buildings from the grid. Purchasing buildings brings the game closer to its end, as the end is triggered by a player purchasing their fourth building. The round continues until everyone has had equal amount of turns and the player with the highest VP in buildings wins! I will have you play the game to see the various abilities that each player mat and each building offer.
Components. This is a small game in a small box (ironically it’s a Scott Almes design – you know, of Tiny Epic fame). You are given lots of player mats that feature different characters and abilities that you can choose to emulate. These mats are great, laid out well, and have funny flavor text on them. Also included are the aforementioned painted wooden gobleeples in fun colors and with an even funner shrugging pose. To keep track of your goods and market values you use blocks with stickers applied. In addition to this is a giant stack of cards to represent the buildings you will be visiting and purchasing. I have sleeved mine and they all fit back in the box (even with a few promos included). Everything is of great quality. No problems at all for me, as per usual with Tasty Minstrel Games fare.
I do not own many market and economic games because usually they do not really interest me at all. I do have many worker placement games because I really enjoy the mechanic. This one, though, is special to me. It is one of the games I have Kickstarted that I feel really delivered and fires on all cylinders for me. Your opinions may vary if you have played it, but this game is an absolute gem. It is light, fast, and incredibly fun. There is a slight learning curve if you are not used to either economic or worker placement games, but after a few rounds it will all fall into place. If you are looking for a euro game in fun clothing, I highly recommend Harbour (and it’s a steal right now in stores). Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a rousing 10 / 12.
In Harbour, you control a gobleeple (I am really horrible at this, but it’s a meeple in the shape of a goblin) who travels around town visiting buildings to enact their special abilities. Using these abilities will help you amass goods whose value is ever-changing on a uniquely-designed market board. Knowing when to sell your wood and livestock to purchase buildings is the key factor to creating a strategic path to income and winning the game of Harbour.
DISCLAIMER: I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. Furthermore, there is an expansion to this game, but we are not reviewing it at this time. Should we review it in the future we will either update this review or post a link to the new material here. -T
To setup give each player a gobleeple of their color choice (I choose you, purple!), a player board of their choice – or randomly dealt, and one token of each good to later be placed on their warehouse spaces. Place the main market board in the middle of the table with one goods token per space on the market to indicate starting prices for each good. Have each player now assign goods to warehouse spaces not to exceed three total goods stored. Shuffle the main building cards and place out in a grid a number of cards equal to three plus the number of players (seven total in a four-player game). Determine the starting player and you are ready to begin!
On your turn you must move your gobleeple to another vacant building, even the starting one on your player mat, or another player’s built building (but you must pay them a good to do so). From there you may take advantage of any special abilities that building offers. It could be adjusting the prices of goods, trading one type of good for another, or allowing you to purchase buildings from the grid. Purchasing buildings brings the game closer to its end, as the end is triggered by a player purchasing their fourth building. The round continues until everyone has had equal amount of turns and the player with the highest VP in buildings wins! I will have you play the game to see the various abilities that each player mat and each building offer.
Components. This is a small game in a small box (ironically it’s a Scott Almes design – you know, of Tiny Epic fame). You are given lots of player mats that feature different characters and abilities that you can choose to emulate. These mats are great, laid out well, and have funny flavor text on them. Also included are the aforementioned painted wooden gobleeples in fun colors and with an even funner shrugging pose. To keep track of your goods and market values you use blocks with stickers applied. In addition to this is a giant stack of cards to represent the buildings you will be visiting and purchasing. I have sleeved mine and they all fit back in the box (even with a few promos included). Everything is of great quality. No problems at all for me, as per usual with Tasty Minstrel Games fare.
I do not own many market and economic games because usually they do not really interest me at all. I do have many worker placement games because I really enjoy the mechanic. This one, though, is special to me. It is one of the games I have Kickstarted that I feel really delivered and fires on all cylinders for me. Your opinions may vary if you have played it, but this game is an absolute gem. It is light, fast, and incredibly fun. There is a slight learning curve if you are not used to either economic or worker placement games, but after a few rounds it will all fall into place. If you are looking for a euro game in fun clothing, I highly recommend Harbour (and it’s a steal right now in stores). Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a rousing 10 / 12.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2020 (Updated Jan 3, 2020)
Saoirse Ronan - just mesmeric. What screen presence! (2 more)
Great supporting cast.
Alexandre Desplat soundtrack.
"God hasn't met my will yet"
Greta Gerwig's follow up to her Oscar-praised "Lady Bird" from 2017 looks set to repeat the job this year. For it's nothing short of a masterpiece of cinema.
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Sonic the Hedgehog (2020) in Movies
Feb 17, 2020
It’s been a very long time since I played the Sonic the Hedgehog video games on my brothers SEGA Megadrive. I was, and always have been, a Nintendo guy, so since then my only experience of Sonic has been when he joins forces with Mario and Co for Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games. I do have good memories of his solo outings though, and he is clearly an enduring and popular character, ideally suited for a CGI/live action movie.
When we first meet Sonic, he’s a young hedgehog on his home world, zipping about the place without a care in the world and being mentored by an owl called Longclaw. Before we get a chance to learn anything about Longclaw and the world that he and Sonic inhabit, some bad guy echidnas show up, looking to get their hands on Sonic and his speedy powers. Longclaw gives Sonic a bag of rings that can be used to open a portal to another world, and after opening one for him to escape through, tells him to use one whenever he is in danger of being captured.
Cut to Green Hills, Montana where we meet local sheriff Tom Wachowski (James Marsden) and his wife Maddie (Tika Sumpter). Tom has been accepted, pending background checks, into the San Francisco police department, and he and Maddie are currently in the process of looking at houses there. We also learn that a now grown up Sonic has found his way into our world and has been living in hiding in Green Hills for some time now. The local crazy old man, Crazy Carl, claims to have seen a ‘blue devil’ on a number of occasions, but otherwise Sonic has managed to stay hidden. He’s even got himself a little underground man cave, and has become quite attached to Tom and Maddie, observing and following their every day lives from afar.
When Sonic manages to cause a city-wide power outage one evening, he draws the attention of the government, who bring in mad scientist Dr Robotnik (Jim Carrey) to investigate. When the gold rings that Sonic needs to transport to another world are mislaid, and as Robotnik and his team close in on him, Sonic makes himself known to an unsuspecting Tom and asks for his help. The movie then becomes a road trip, with them both on the run, evading Dr Robotnik and searching for the gold rings.
The CGI representation of Sonic had been something of a hot talking point, ever since the release of the first trailer sparked a huge online backlash. Looking more human, with smaller eyes, and longer limbs, the reaction of horror by anyone vaguely familiar with the character was enough to make director Jeff Fowler stand up and take notice, and the release date of the movie was pushed back to allow for some serious rework by the VFX team. Thankfully, when the new trailer was released, it was to a much more positive reaction, and rightfully so - Sonic was now much more aligned to his video game persona and on the receiving end of some pretty decent marketing material and promotion to back it all up. Ben Schwartz provides the voice for Sonic, giving him a wonderful childlike quality - in awe of the world around him, funny and confident in his abilities, but never really coming across as an annoying brat.
Jim Carrey brings to Robotnik the kind of madcap comedy that he we haven’t seen from him in a long time and is a delight in every scene he features. James Marsden is no stranger to appearing alongside CGI characters in children’s movies, and does his part well once again. Outside of that, the rest of the cast don’t get much to work with and kind of just fade into the background.
Overall, Sonic the Hedgehog is a fairly enjoyable movie, but it’s also instantly forgettable. It’s been a couple of days since I saw it and, apart from a couple of fun action scenes along the way, and the climactic showdown, I really don’t remember very much about it. If you’ve seen the wonderful scenes in the X-Men movies where QuickSilver zips around, interacting with characters and scenery as though time has stood still, then there are a few scenes just like that for you to enjoy. It’s a much better movie than I was expecting to see, but ultimately I think it could have been a hello a lot worse if they’d stuck to their guns with the original character design.
When we first meet Sonic, he’s a young hedgehog on his home world, zipping about the place without a care in the world and being mentored by an owl called Longclaw. Before we get a chance to learn anything about Longclaw and the world that he and Sonic inhabit, some bad guy echidnas show up, looking to get their hands on Sonic and his speedy powers. Longclaw gives Sonic a bag of rings that can be used to open a portal to another world, and after opening one for him to escape through, tells him to use one whenever he is in danger of being captured.
Cut to Green Hills, Montana where we meet local sheriff Tom Wachowski (James Marsden) and his wife Maddie (Tika Sumpter). Tom has been accepted, pending background checks, into the San Francisco police department, and he and Maddie are currently in the process of looking at houses there. We also learn that a now grown up Sonic has found his way into our world and has been living in hiding in Green Hills for some time now. The local crazy old man, Crazy Carl, claims to have seen a ‘blue devil’ on a number of occasions, but otherwise Sonic has managed to stay hidden. He’s even got himself a little underground man cave, and has become quite attached to Tom and Maddie, observing and following their every day lives from afar.
When Sonic manages to cause a city-wide power outage one evening, he draws the attention of the government, who bring in mad scientist Dr Robotnik (Jim Carrey) to investigate. When the gold rings that Sonic needs to transport to another world are mislaid, and as Robotnik and his team close in on him, Sonic makes himself known to an unsuspecting Tom and asks for his help. The movie then becomes a road trip, with them both on the run, evading Dr Robotnik and searching for the gold rings.
The CGI representation of Sonic had been something of a hot talking point, ever since the release of the first trailer sparked a huge online backlash. Looking more human, with smaller eyes, and longer limbs, the reaction of horror by anyone vaguely familiar with the character was enough to make director Jeff Fowler stand up and take notice, and the release date of the movie was pushed back to allow for some serious rework by the VFX team. Thankfully, when the new trailer was released, it was to a much more positive reaction, and rightfully so - Sonic was now much more aligned to his video game persona and on the receiving end of some pretty decent marketing material and promotion to back it all up. Ben Schwartz provides the voice for Sonic, giving him a wonderful childlike quality - in awe of the world around him, funny and confident in his abilities, but never really coming across as an annoying brat.
Jim Carrey brings to Robotnik the kind of madcap comedy that he we haven’t seen from him in a long time and is a delight in every scene he features. James Marsden is no stranger to appearing alongside CGI characters in children’s movies, and does his part well once again. Outside of that, the rest of the cast don’t get much to work with and kind of just fade into the background.
Overall, Sonic the Hedgehog is a fairly enjoyable movie, but it’s also instantly forgettable. It’s been a couple of days since I saw it and, apart from a couple of fun action scenes along the way, and the climactic showdown, I really don’t remember very much about it. If you’ve seen the wonderful scenes in the X-Men movies where QuickSilver zips around, interacting with characters and scenery as though time has stood still, then there are a few scenes just like that for you to enjoy. It’s a much better movie than I was expecting to see, but ultimately I think it could have been a hello a lot worse if they’d stuck to their guns with the original character design.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated 7500 (2019) in Movies
Jun 28, 2020
A 'small film' that packs a big punch
I'm not sure if there is an "IQ" table of Hollywood stars, but I would reckon if there is then Joseph Gordon-Levitt would rate pretty highly. Whenever I see him interviewed he comes across as a highly articulate and intelligent bloke. And that intelligence filters through into his choices of movie role. If you look back at his filmography on IMDB the first thing you notice is that his output is pretty sparse and selective, and the next is that the projects he's done mostly deliver a pretty strong hit rate: "500 Days of Summer"; "Inception", "Looper", "The Dark Knight Rises"; "Don Jon".... the list is impressive.
Here he stars (and really stars) in a small German film. It only had a $5 million budget and in some ways it shows: the speaking cast totals about a dozen; the single location used is the cockpit (an Airbus A320 simulator somewhere? Or a set? The production design is so good, it's difficult to tell) ; and the "score" is so minimalistic (a solo piano piece over the end titles) that it doesn't even merit an IMDB music credit!
But in many ways this is a case of 'small is beautiful'. For this is an extremely tense and claustrophobic action picture.
The Plot: German Captain Michael Lutzmann (Carlo Kitzlinger) and American Co-pilot Tobias Ellis (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are about to pilot an Airbus A320 on a routine flight from Berlin to Paris. By coincidence, also on the flight is Tobias's partner and mother of his son, stewardess Gökce (Aylin Tezel). Shortly into the flight, three terrorists - Kenan (Murathan Muslu), Daniel (Paul Wollin) and youngster Vedat (Omid Memar) - take over the aircraft. Tobias issues a "7500" (hijack in progress) code. All that is protecting the injured pilots and the security of the 80 people on the flight is the cockpit door.
The film starts slowly, building atmosphere through the pre-flight chit-chat between the pilots and a leisurely take-off. I loved this development of character by Oscar-nominated shorts director Patrick Vollrath. But when the action starts, it starts with a bang and continues in truly tense and visceral style. There's a sense of creeping dread when you realise the terrorist's use of hostages to get the door open, and of who the hostages might be.
I note that one of the "thanks" for the film was director Paul Greengrass, who of course made the outstanding 9/11-themed "United 93" back in 2006. It would be fascinating to understand whether this was a "thank-you" for the inspiration the classic film gave Vollrath, or if there was some practical consultancy undertaken there.
Star of the show here is Joseph Gordon-Levitt who delivers a peerless performance as the pilot under extreme stress. Veering cyclically through terror, emotional breakdown and calm 'training-kicking-in' modes, it's a performance that is almost Oscar nomination-worthy in my book. He's on screen for virtually every shot of the film, and really earned his fee here. He makes for a very believable pilot.
I've read other comment that says the terrorists are rather 2-dimensional in their attempts to "do a 9/11". And to a degree I agree. A nice angle though is the relationship that develops between Tobias and young Vedat in the second half of the movie. There's a 'Stockholm Syndrome' vibe going on here, but this never quite gets resolved satisfactorily.
As such, unfortunately this 'back 9' never really quite lived up to the promise of the first 45 minutes for me. And as a single-location story that had nowhere else to go, the abrupt ending will not be to the liking of some I'm sure.
Not to be confused with the 2014 horror "Flight 7500", this is for once a B-movie that's real nail-biter. The movie doesn't pull its punches, and although there is little of the more graphic violence actually shown, the mind can fill in the gaps effectively which makes for some upsetting moments. Although it never quite lives up to its early promise at only 93 minutes it is strongly deserving of your attention. The movie is available for viewing via Amazon-Prime.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/06/28/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-7500-2020/ .)
Here he stars (and really stars) in a small German film. It only had a $5 million budget and in some ways it shows: the speaking cast totals about a dozen; the single location used is the cockpit (an Airbus A320 simulator somewhere? Or a set? The production design is so good, it's difficult to tell) ; and the "score" is so minimalistic (a solo piano piece over the end titles) that it doesn't even merit an IMDB music credit!
But in many ways this is a case of 'small is beautiful'. For this is an extremely tense and claustrophobic action picture.
The Plot: German Captain Michael Lutzmann (Carlo Kitzlinger) and American Co-pilot Tobias Ellis (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are about to pilot an Airbus A320 on a routine flight from Berlin to Paris. By coincidence, also on the flight is Tobias's partner and mother of his son, stewardess Gökce (Aylin Tezel). Shortly into the flight, three terrorists - Kenan (Murathan Muslu), Daniel (Paul Wollin) and youngster Vedat (Omid Memar) - take over the aircraft. Tobias issues a "7500" (hijack in progress) code. All that is protecting the injured pilots and the security of the 80 people on the flight is the cockpit door.
The film starts slowly, building atmosphere through the pre-flight chit-chat between the pilots and a leisurely take-off. I loved this development of character by Oscar-nominated shorts director Patrick Vollrath. But when the action starts, it starts with a bang and continues in truly tense and visceral style. There's a sense of creeping dread when you realise the terrorist's use of hostages to get the door open, and of who the hostages might be.
I note that one of the "thanks" for the film was director Paul Greengrass, who of course made the outstanding 9/11-themed "United 93" back in 2006. It would be fascinating to understand whether this was a "thank-you" for the inspiration the classic film gave Vollrath, or if there was some practical consultancy undertaken there.
Star of the show here is Joseph Gordon-Levitt who delivers a peerless performance as the pilot under extreme stress. Veering cyclically through terror, emotional breakdown and calm 'training-kicking-in' modes, it's a performance that is almost Oscar nomination-worthy in my book. He's on screen for virtually every shot of the film, and really earned his fee here. He makes for a very believable pilot.
I've read other comment that says the terrorists are rather 2-dimensional in their attempts to "do a 9/11". And to a degree I agree. A nice angle though is the relationship that develops between Tobias and young Vedat in the second half of the movie. There's a 'Stockholm Syndrome' vibe going on here, but this never quite gets resolved satisfactorily.
As such, unfortunately this 'back 9' never really quite lived up to the promise of the first 45 minutes for me. And as a single-location story that had nowhere else to go, the abrupt ending will not be to the liking of some I'm sure.
Not to be confused with the 2014 horror "Flight 7500", this is for once a B-movie that's real nail-biter. The movie doesn't pull its punches, and although there is little of the more graphic violence actually shown, the mind can fill in the gaps effectively which makes for some upsetting moments. Although it never quite lives up to its early promise at only 93 minutes it is strongly deserving of your attention. The movie is available for viewing via Amazon-Prime.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/06/28/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-7500-2020/ .)
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Witches (2020) in Movies
Mar 6, 2021
Not a patch on the original
The Witches is a 2020 retelling of the Roald Dahl children’s story, from director Robert Zemeckis. Remakes and reboots have been commonplace in the movies for quite some time, so it’s no surprise that The Witches has been given a Hollywood makeover, especially as it has been 30 years since the original film adaptation was released in 1990. I will readily admit that the original film is a childhood favourite, so this remake has very big shows to fill.
This time round, the story has been transported to late 1960s Alabama. It follows a unnamed boy (named in the credits as simply ‘Hero Boy’), played by Jahzir Bruno, and his grandma (Octavia Spencer) as they encounter a witch in their home town, prompting her to whisk him away to a seaside resort. Unbeknownst to them, this seaside resort is also where the Grand High Witch (Anne Hathaway) is due to unveil her dastardly plans to transform the world’s children. In his bids to thwart the witches plans, Hero Boy bumps into some familiar names, greedy English boy Bruno Jenkins (Codie-Lei Eastick) and put-upon hotel manager Mr Stringer (Stanley Tucci).
I was very sceptical about this in general, and while I think my scepticism was most definitely warranted, I was at least pleasantly surprised that moving the action from England to 60s America worked. It gives the film a different vibe with a new setting (with some very good costume and set design too), yet still keeping the same base story. However I’m afraid that’s the only good change that they’ve made in this entire remake. The 60s setting works, but the hotel itself lacks the beauty and grandeur of the hotel in the original. Gone are the imposing shots of a beautiful old hotel set on top of a cliff with its gorgeous landscapes (which incidentally is a real life hotel called The Headland which is on my travel wish list), and instead replaced with something that looks good on the surface, but is sadly lacking in realism and has obviously been entirely computer generated.
And this is the major problem with The Witches (2020), it’s over reliance and overuse of CGI. Everything in this, from the mice to the hotel exteriors to the witches true appearance, are all computer generated, and not particularly well at that. The mice look pretty bad and unrealistic, but the worst of all is what they’ve done to the witches. The changes themselves may have worked had this used practical effects, but sadly the CGI only serves to highlight how ridiculous the changes are. From the missing two fingers on each hand to the elongated mouths with demon like tongues, the witches to begin with seem creepy but after this initial shock, you see how absurd and laughable they really are.
Unfortunately even the performances can’t save this adaptation. Octavia Spencer is as reliable as always and Jazhir Bruno and Codie-Lei Eastick are quite adorable, but the rest of the fairly decent cast are sadly misplaced. The usually loveable Stanley Tucci is given absolutely nothing to work with, not even giving him a chance to try and match up to Rowan Atkinson’s original Mr Stringer, and Chris Rock is sadly out of place as the voice of older Hero Mouse. However the worst offender here is Anne Hathaway. Admittedly she isn’t helped much by the poor transformations to the witches appearance, but all the CGI in the world couldn’t fix her questionable Eastern European accent and hammy performance. The fact that Angelica Huston put in a more sinister and believable performance with 90s facial prosthetics and practical effects is a credit to her and only highlights how bad a choice Hathaway was for this role.
While parts of this remake aren’t entirely condemnable, as some aspects do stick closer to Dahl’s original source material, overall it is a far inferior adaptation that loses everything that made the 1990 film such a classic. Gone are the sinister witches and the dark stories of missing children (the girl stuck in the picture is an image that has always stuck with me), instead replaced with a far too lighthearted story with an over reliance on CGI. The most worrying thing of all is that even Robert Zemeckis and Guillermo Del Toro being involved couldn’t save this.
This time round, the story has been transported to late 1960s Alabama. It follows a unnamed boy (named in the credits as simply ‘Hero Boy’), played by Jahzir Bruno, and his grandma (Octavia Spencer) as they encounter a witch in their home town, prompting her to whisk him away to a seaside resort. Unbeknownst to them, this seaside resort is also where the Grand High Witch (Anne Hathaway) is due to unveil her dastardly plans to transform the world’s children. In his bids to thwart the witches plans, Hero Boy bumps into some familiar names, greedy English boy Bruno Jenkins (Codie-Lei Eastick) and put-upon hotel manager Mr Stringer (Stanley Tucci).
I was very sceptical about this in general, and while I think my scepticism was most definitely warranted, I was at least pleasantly surprised that moving the action from England to 60s America worked. It gives the film a different vibe with a new setting (with some very good costume and set design too), yet still keeping the same base story. However I’m afraid that’s the only good change that they’ve made in this entire remake. The 60s setting works, but the hotel itself lacks the beauty and grandeur of the hotel in the original. Gone are the imposing shots of a beautiful old hotel set on top of a cliff with its gorgeous landscapes (which incidentally is a real life hotel called The Headland which is on my travel wish list), and instead replaced with something that looks good on the surface, but is sadly lacking in realism and has obviously been entirely computer generated.
And this is the major problem with The Witches (2020), it’s over reliance and overuse of CGI. Everything in this, from the mice to the hotel exteriors to the witches true appearance, are all computer generated, and not particularly well at that. The mice look pretty bad and unrealistic, but the worst of all is what they’ve done to the witches. The changes themselves may have worked had this used practical effects, but sadly the CGI only serves to highlight how ridiculous the changes are. From the missing two fingers on each hand to the elongated mouths with demon like tongues, the witches to begin with seem creepy but after this initial shock, you see how absurd and laughable they really are.
Unfortunately even the performances can’t save this adaptation. Octavia Spencer is as reliable as always and Jazhir Bruno and Codie-Lei Eastick are quite adorable, but the rest of the fairly decent cast are sadly misplaced. The usually loveable Stanley Tucci is given absolutely nothing to work with, not even giving him a chance to try and match up to Rowan Atkinson’s original Mr Stringer, and Chris Rock is sadly out of place as the voice of older Hero Mouse. However the worst offender here is Anne Hathaway. Admittedly she isn’t helped much by the poor transformations to the witches appearance, but all the CGI in the world couldn’t fix her questionable Eastern European accent and hammy performance. The fact that Angelica Huston put in a more sinister and believable performance with 90s facial prosthetics and practical effects is a credit to her and only highlights how bad a choice Hathaway was for this role.
While parts of this remake aren’t entirely condemnable, as some aspects do stick closer to Dahl’s original source material, overall it is a far inferior adaptation that loses everything that made the 1990 film such a classic. Gone are the sinister witches and the dark stories of missing children (the girl stuck in the picture is an image that has always stuck with me), instead replaced with a far too lighthearted story with an over reliance on CGI. The most worrying thing of all is that even Robert Zemeckis and Guillermo Del Toro being involved couldn’t save this.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated the Xbox One version of Maid of Sker in Video Games
Nov 7, 2020
Hold Your Breath
Maid of Sker- is a excellent first person horror game.
The game takes place in 1898 in the Sker Hotel, located on an imaginary island called Sker Island, where the protagonist, Thomas Evans, is invited by his lover, Elisabeth Williams, to uncover the mysteries of the hotel after she notices her family's strange behavior. While exploring the hotel, Thomas learns the place is controlled by cult followers called "The Quiet Ones". The history of Elisabeth's family is revealed when Thomas finds notes and gramophone records scattered around the hotel.
The story is inspired by multiple Welsh and British folklore tales, specifically the idea of the hotel is influenced by the Sker House, a real life historic place situated just outside the town of Porthcawl, near Bridgend, Wales, which is made famous by the three-volume novel written by R. D. Blackmore, The Maid of Sker. The game has drawn influences from this novel as well as the folklore story under the same name (called Y Ferch o’r Sger in Welsh). The game has been compared to Outlast, The Evil Within 2, Silent Hill, and its saving system was also compared to those of Resident Evil, with the typewriter switched to a gramophone in the saving rooms.
In the original folk story, Elisabeth Willaims, a woman of the higher class, falls in love with Thomas Evans, a poor harpist. Elisabeth's father, Isaac, disapproves of the relationship, and, in one of the variations of the tale, her father locks her in a room to prevent her from running away until she starves; other variations include Elisabeth dying from a broken heart or being forced to marry a richer man who she does not love until she passes away from illness. According to the tale, her ghost, alongside the ghost of a sailor, haunt the Sker House.
The game is using the first-person perspective and features blind enemies that can find the player by noise, they are introduced as "The Quiet Ones." As Thomas cannot fight back (except for when a temporary weapon is introduced mid-game), the player is forced to be stealthy when exploring the hotel grounds, or making sounds to distract The Quiet Ones so Thomas passes them safely. The only way to search through the hotel grounds successfully is by avoiding The Quiet Ones by not making noise and holding your breath when a Quiet One is close or not bumping into objects. If the player holds their breath for too long, Thomas gasps for air which alerts the enemies. In certain environments, such as when the protagonist is in a dusty location or close to a fireplace, he coughs, and the player has to stop him by holding his breath as this alerts The Quiet Ones.
It consists of a device which sends shock waves and temporarily damages the hearing of The Silent Ones, stunning them for a short duration; this allows the player to run away from the location. While the player gets this weapon, ammunition is scarce and the player has to use it carefully.
The game features a manual save style and there is no autosave. To save the game, the player has to find "safe rooms", the rooms have green-tainted patterned doors, and inside the rooms are gramophones which the player has to play to save the game. Before the game saves, the gramophones play records of Elisabeth and her experiences with her family which adds to the background of the story. After the records end or when the player stops them manually, the game starts saving. If the player dies or restores a save, they lose all the progress made after the last save, additionally, enemies always change routes and cannot always be found lurking in the same places. This saving system is compared to the one which appeared in the Resident Evil games.
While the game is praised for its great sound design, Thomas never speaks in the game. Aside from grunting noises, he is completely mute throughout the game and his lines are displayed as text instead; however, this is not the case for Elisabeth and she has her voice actor. This has received some negative feedback alongside the sensitivity of the movement on consoles. The game has been compared to Outlast when it comes to the gameplay style, and The Evil Within 2 and Silent Hill when it comes to the game's atmosphere.
I love the concept, the atomsphere, the horror, the strategy, it does remind of "The Evil Within", "Resident Evil", "Silent Hill" and "Outlast". All excellent horror games and same with this one.
The game takes place in 1898 in the Sker Hotel, located on an imaginary island called Sker Island, where the protagonist, Thomas Evans, is invited by his lover, Elisabeth Williams, to uncover the mysteries of the hotel after she notices her family's strange behavior. While exploring the hotel, Thomas learns the place is controlled by cult followers called "The Quiet Ones". The history of Elisabeth's family is revealed when Thomas finds notes and gramophone records scattered around the hotel.
The story is inspired by multiple Welsh and British folklore tales, specifically the idea of the hotel is influenced by the Sker House, a real life historic place situated just outside the town of Porthcawl, near Bridgend, Wales, which is made famous by the three-volume novel written by R. D. Blackmore, The Maid of Sker. The game has drawn influences from this novel as well as the folklore story under the same name (called Y Ferch o’r Sger in Welsh). The game has been compared to Outlast, The Evil Within 2, Silent Hill, and its saving system was also compared to those of Resident Evil, with the typewriter switched to a gramophone in the saving rooms.
In the original folk story, Elisabeth Willaims, a woman of the higher class, falls in love with Thomas Evans, a poor harpist. Elisabeth's father, Isaac, disapproves of the relationship, and, in one of the variations of the tale, her father locks her in a room to prevent her from running away until she starves; other variations include Elisabeth dying from a broken heart or being forced to marry a richer man who she does not love until she passes away from illness. According to the tale, her ghost, alongside the ghost of a sailor, haunt the Sker House.
The game is using the first-person perspective and features blind enemies that can find the player by noise, they are introduced as "The Quiet Ones." As Thomas cannot fight back (except for when a temporary weapon is introduced mid-game), the player is forced to be stealthy when exploring the hotel grounds, or making sounds to distract The Quiet Ones so Thomas passes them safely. The only way to search through the hotel grounds successfully is by avoiding The Quiet Ones by not making noise and holding your breath when a Quiet One is close or not bumping into objects. If the player holds their breath for too long, Thomas gasps for air which alerts the enemies. In certain environments, such as when the protagonist is in a dusty location or close to a fireplace, he coughs, and the player has to stop him by holding his breath as this alerts The Quiet Ones.
It consists of a device which sends shock waves and temporarily damages the hearing of The Silent Ones, stunning them for a short duration; this allows the player to run away from the location. While the player gets this weapon, ammunition is scarce and the player has to use it carefully.
The game features a manual save style and there is no autosave. To save the game, the player has to find "safe rooms", the rooms have green-tainted patterned doors, and inside the rooms are gramophones which the player has to play to save the game. Before the game saves, the gramophones play records of Elisabeth and her experiences with her family which adds to the background of the story. After the records end or when the player stops them manually, the game starts saving. If the player dies or restores a save, they lose all the progress made after the last save, additionally, enemies always change routes and cannot always be found lurking in the same places. This saving system is compared to the one which appeared in the Resident Evil games.
While the game is praised for its great sound design, Thomas never speaks in the game. Aside from grunting noises, he is completely mute throughout the game and his lines are displayed as text instead; however, this is not the case for Elisabeth and she has her voice actor. This has received some negative feedback alongside the sensitivity of the movement on consoles. The game has been compared to Outlast when it comes to the gameplay style, and The Evil Within 2 and Silent Hill when it comes to the game's atmosphere.
I love the concept, the atomsphere, the horror, the strategy, it does remind of "The Evil Within", "Resident Evil", "Silent Hill" and "Outlast". All excellent horror games and same with this one.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Twisted Game of War in Tabletop Games
Jun 4, 2021
War. The card game nearly everyone knows how to play. You know, throw a card and your opponent throws a card and the highest number wins the played cards. First one to get all the cards wins. Yeah, there’s another rule, but that’s the gist. Well what if War got a small makeover? Would you be interested in checking it out? Let’s find out together!
In Twisted Game of War players take hold of their army and attempt to defeat their opponents by capturing and converting their entire army. The winner is the player who manages to collect all of the cards in the deck and hold every soldier.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup give each player a reference card, shuffle the deck of remaining cards, and give each player an equal number of cards. The game may now begin!
On a turn each player will simultaneously blindly draw and play one card from the top of their deck to the table. The cards are compared and the winner of the hand is the card with the higher number value. In Twisted Game of War, however, in addition to gaining the played cards the winner will also consult the chart on the reverse of the reference card. This chart shows additional results based on which suit of card bested the other suit. Possible effects include: a random card from the loser’s deck, a bottom card, the top two cards, or even each card returning to its original owner’s deck. As the game progresses, one player will eventually out-duel their opponent to win the game!
Components. This is a deck of cards in a tuckbox. The cards are normal quality and feature a brown back and numbers with different suit on the fronts. Quality-wise everything is fine. Where I have issues is the artistic design choices made for the game. The suits all suggest medieval-esque weapons and armor, and all utilizing metal as primary materials (save for the bow). However, the card backs and logo for the game seem to feature stitching, as you might find in cloth materials. This mismatch does not affect gameplay at all, but made me do the doggy head-cock motion when I noticed it. Similarly, the cards are all, well, boring to look at. Yes, they give the proper elements that are needed: suit and number. And I suppose players aren’t really looking at them too much anyway, as it’s a slightly fancied-up War and cards are played and discarded almost immediately. In any case, I feel an area of opportunity lies with the aesthetic of the game cards.
All in all this is a decent idea pasted onto a “game” that really is not much fun to play anyway. War takes zero skill and has zero choices. Twisted Game of War plays the exact same way, but has the added bonus of at least DOING something on many hands. So I suppose there is merit to be found.
When all is said and done, I still cannot see this as a “game,” as I happen to define the term personally, but I can see value when playing with children. If used with children, the game introduces the “less than” and “greater than” concepts, and children do not need to be able to read in order to play with the suit effect chart, so long as an adult or older child is able to read the results.
When I am hankering for a good card game, I simply cannot suggest Twisted Game of War with typical adult gamers. However, if I need something that my kids can get into, I may be able to pull this out and help teach them simple math and chaos concepts. I like the idea of trying to improve overly-simple games, but I think a bit more care could have gone into production here and it would have elevated this game for me. If you are searching for such a game as this, please hop over to the publisher’s website at: Mental Eclipse Games and tell them Travis sent ya.
In Twisted Game of War players take hold of their army and attempt to defeat their opponents by capturing and converting their entire army. The winner is the player who manages to collect all of the cards in the deck and hold every soldier.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup give each player a reference card, shuffle the deck of remaining cards, and give each player an equal number of cards. The game may now begin!
On a turn each player will simultaneously blindly draw and play one card from the top of their deck to the table. The cards are compared and the winner of the hand is the card with the higher number value. In Twisted Game of War, however, in addition to gaining the played cards the winner will also consult the chart on the reverse of the reference card. This chart shows additional results based on which suit of card bested the other suit. Possible effects include: a random card from the loser’s deck, a bottom card, the top two cards, or even each card returning to its original owner’s deck. As the game progresses, one player will eventually out-duel their opponent to win the game!
Components. This is a deck of cards in a tuckbox. The cards are normal quality and feature a brown back and numbers with different suit on the fronts. Quality-wise everything is fine. Where I have issues is the artistic design choices made for the game. The suits all suggest medieval-esque weapons and armor, and all utilizing metal as primary materials (save for the bow). However, the card backs and logo for the game seem to feature stitching, as you might find in cloth materials. This mismatch does not affect gameplay at all, but made me do the doggy head-cock motion when I noticed it. Similarly, the cards are all, well, boring to look at. Yes, they give the proper elements that are needed: suit and number. And I suppose players aren’t really looking at them too much anyway, as it’s a slightly fancied-up War and cards are played and discarded almost immediately. In any case, I feel an area of opportunity lies with the aesthetic of the game cards.
All in all this is a decent idea pasted onto a “game” that really is not much fun to play anyway. War takes zero skill and has zero choices. Twisted Game of War plays the exact same way, but has the added bonus of at least DOING something on many hands. So I suppose there is merit to be found.
When all is said and done, I still cannot see this as a “game,” as I happen to define the term personally, but I can see value when playing with children. If used with children, the game introduces the “less than” and “greater than” concepts, and children do not need to be able to read in order to play with the suit effect chart, so long as an adult or older child is able to read the results.
When I am hankering for a good card game, I simply cannot suggest Twisted Game of War with typical adult gamers. However, if I need something that my kids can get into, I may be able to pull this out and help teach them simple math and chaos concepts. I like the idea of trying to improve overly-simple games, but I think a bit more care could have gone into production here and it would have elevated this game for me. If you are searching for such a game as this, please hop over to the publisher’s website at: Mental Eclipse Games and tell them Travis sent ya.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Alone in Berlin (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Small Rebellions.
Once again, World War II turns up another true story of quiet valour to turn into a motion picture. At a time when Trump is pontificating about so called “fake news”, here is a timely tale from history which centres on the battle against genuinely fake news: the Nazi propaganda machine.
After losing their only son in the French campaign, Berliners Otto (Brendan Gleeson,”Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”) and Anna (Emma Thompson, “Saving Mr Banks“) turn against the regime and in repeated acts of rebellion Otto laboriously hand writes subversive postcards to leave in office blocks around Berlin.
Resistance is futile. Otto (Brendan Gleeson) and Anna (Emma Thompson) out on a new mission.
Out to catch him is local police investigator Escherich (Daniel Brühl) but in an age before CCTV that’s no easy task and with increasing SS pressure the stakes for Escherich steadily increase. For Otto and Anna, the stress is there but both are resigned to their fate: with their son stolen from them for an unjust cause they are an island of indifference in an unholy land. Both are ‘alone in Berlin’.
Daniel Brühl as police detective Escherich getting more than he bargained for from the SS.
After 70 years it still chills the blood to see German locations decked out in Nazi regalia, but one of the joys of this film is this rendering of life in wartime Berlin: starting with jubilation at German progress prior to D-Day and turning to despair and genuine danger as the tide turns towards 1945. In a pretty bleak film there are touches of black comedy now and then: Otto’s carpentry company is being encouraged “by the Fuhrer” to double and triple their output… of coffins.
A (very clean) Berlin, decked out with Nazi regalia.
More joy comes from the star turns of Gleeson and Thompson, both of who deliver on their emotionally challenging roles. Gleeson in particular makes a very believable German with a sour demeanor and a steely determination. But the star acting turn for me goes to the wonderful Daniel Brühl (“Rush“) as the tormented police detective, bullied into an ethical corner by the SS. The finale of the film – whilst not seeming quite believable – makes for a nicely unexpected twist.
The Nazi Womens’ League out on another fund-raising sweep, providing Thompson with one of her best scenes in the film with an Oberführer’s wife.
Based on a novel by Hans Fallada, the lead writing credits for the piece are shared between Achim von Borries and the director Vincent Perez – in a rare directorial outing for the Swiss actor. The script exudes a melancholic gloom and at times expresses beautifully both the grief and love shared by this older couple. But some of the dialogue needs more work and we don’t see enough of Thompson in the early part of the film where her motivations should be being developed. This rather comes down to a lack of focus by the director. While the primary story of the card distribution is slight, it is compelling and a detour into a sub-story about an old Jewish lodger living upstairs is unnecessary and detracts from the overall story arc. I would have far preferred if the running time had been a tight 90 minutes just focused on Otto’s mission. One final comment on the script: did I mishear that Anna claimed to have a 6 year old child during an air raid scene? I know Emma Thompson looks great for her age, but….
Otto and Elise Hampel – the real life characters on which the film’s Otto and Anna Quangel were based.
I can’t finish this without commending the beautiful piano score of Alexandre Desplat. From the first note I knew it was him – he has such a characteristic style – and his clever use of the score complements the film exquisitely. “Small” films like this tend to rather disappear into the woodwork for Oscar consideration, but here’s a soundtrack that I think should be considered: (but what do I know… when “Nocturnal Animals” wasn’t even nominated in one of the Oscar crimes of the century!).
In summary, I found this a thoughtful and thought-provoking film, that – despite some of the mean reviews I’ve seen – I thought was well crafted and with excellent production design by Jean-Vincent Puzos (“Amour”). It will be particularly appreciated by older audiences looking for an untold story from the war, and by all lovers of fine acting performances by the three leads.
After losing their only son in the French campaign, Berliners Otto (Brendan Gleeson,”Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”) and Anna (Emma Thompson, “Saving Mr Banks“) turn against the regime and in repeated acts of rebellion Otto laboriously hand writes subversive postcards to leave in office blocks around Berlin.
Resistance is futile. Otto (Brendan Gleeson) and Anna (Emma Thompson) out on a new mission.
Out to catch him is local police investigator Escherich (Daniel Brühl) but in an age before CCTV that’s no easy task and with increasing SS pressure the stakes for Escherich steadily increase. For Otto and Anna, the stress is there but both are resigned to their fate: with their son stolen from them for an unjust cause they are an island of indifference in an unholy land. Both are ‘alone in Berlin’.
Daniel Brühl as police detective Escherich getting more than he bargained for from the SS.
After 70 years it still chills the blood to see German locations decked out in Nazi regalia, but one of the joys of this film is this rendering of life in wartime Berlin: starting with jubilation at German progress prior to D-Day and turning to despair and genuine danger as the tide turns towards 1945. In a pretty bleak film there are touches of black comedy now and then: Otto’s carpentry company is being encouraged “by the Fuhrer” to double and triple their output… of coffins.
A (very clean) Berlin, decked out with Nazi regalia.
More joy comes from the star turns of Gleeson and Thompson, both of who deliver on their emotionally challenging roles. Gleeson in particular makes a very believable German with a sour demeanor and a steely determination. But the star acting turn for me goes to the wonderful Daniel Brühl (“Rush“) as the tormented police detective, bullied into an ethical corner by the SS. The finale of the film – whilst not seeming quite believable – makes for a nicely unexpected twist.
The Nazi Womens’ League out on another fund-raising sweep, providing Thompson with one of her best scenes in the film with an Oberführer’s wife.
Based on a novel by Hans Fallada, the lead writing credits for the piece are shared between Achim von Borries and the director Vincent Perez – in a rare directorial outing for the Swiss actor. The script exudes a melancholic gloom and at times expresses beautifully both the grief and love shared by this older couple. But some of the dialogue needs more work and we don’t see enough of Thompson in the early part of the film where her motivations should be being developed. This rather comes down to a lack of focus by the director. While the primary story of the card distribution is slight, it is compelling and a detour into a sub-story about an old Jewish lodger living upstairs is unnecessary and detracts from the overall story arc. I would have far preferred if the running time had been a tight 90 minutes just focused on Otto’s mission. One final comment on the script: did I mishear that Anna claimed to have a 6 year old child during an air raid scene? I know Emma Thompson looks great for her age, but….
Otto and Elise Hampel – the real life characters on which the film’s Otto and Anna Quangel were based.
I can’t finish this without commending the beautiful piano score of Alexandre Desplat. From the first note I knew it was him – he has such a characteristic style – and his clever use of the score complements the film exquisitely. “Small” films like this tend to rather disappear into the woodwork for Oscar consideration, but here’s a soundtrack that I think should be considered: (but what do I know… when “Nocturnal Animals” wasn’t even nominated in one of the Oscar crimes of the century!).
In summary, I found this a thoughtful and thought-provoking film, that – despite some of the mean reviews I’ve seen – I thought was well crafted and with excellent production design by Jean-Vincent Puzos (“Amour”). It will be particularly appreciated by older audiences looking for an untold story from the war, and by all lovers of fine acting performances by the three leads.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated West Side Story (2021) in Movies
Mar 7, 2022
Very Good...but could have (SHOULD HAVE) been GREAT
One of the biggest disappointments in watching a Motion Picture is when a Film has all of the ingredients to be a GREAT film, but is knocked off this tier by one flaw - and sometimes - is knocked down to merely good by an egregious flaw.
Such is the case with Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of the 1957 Broadway Musical WEST SIDE STORY - it has all of the ingredients to be considered a great film, but it has a problem at it’s core that knocks it down to very good (and maybe just “good”).
The 1961 version of West Side Story, of course, swept the 1962 Oscars, winning 10 Oscars - including Best Picture. This musical, of course, is based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet about a doomed love relationship set in a time of battling factions.
There is much to like in this adaptation - and let’s start with Spielberg’s Oscar nominated Direction. It is “spot-on”, for the most part in this telling of this tale, keeping the events rolling, and the tension taught (and rising) throughout the course of the film and orchestrating well deserved Production Design, Sound, Cinematography and Costume Oscar nominations. This film is a treat to watch (and listen to) and is the very definition of a film deserving of Awards. These are all top notch professionals in their fields delivering top notch results and having the Songs of Leonard Bernstein (Music) and Stephen Sondheim (Lyrics) so beautifully depicted is a treat, indeed.
Spielberg, wisely, ethnically cast this movie appropriately. Having Latino performers playing one faction of these warring entities and White performers playing the Anglos in this film is the correct move. Spielberg (and playwright Tony Kushner who adapted Arthur Laurents book) decided to have some of the scenes performed in Spanish (as they would be in “real life”) with no subtitles. As a non-Spanish speaking Anglo, these scenes worked very well for me.
Add to all of this strong performances across the cast. David Alvarez as Bernardo, Mike Faist as Riff, Josh Andres Rivera as Chino all shine as does Iris Menas as Anybodys. Stealing the show, of course, is Ariana DeBose (HAMILTON) as the hot-blooded Anita, a performance that will, IMHO, win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. If she does win, she will be the 2nd Actress to win the Oscar for playing this role in a film. Rita Moreno won it in 1961 - and let’s talk about her work in this film. Spielberg, wisely, gender-swapped the “Doc” role in this film - and gave it to Moreno. Her Valentino is the heart and soul of this film and it was a risky, and wise, choice to give Valentino the song “Somewhere” - and it works beautifully. I would have been happy to see the EGOT winning, 90-something year old Moreno get an Oscar nomination as well.
You will notice that the 2 leads - Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) have yet to be mentioned and, therein, lies the problem with this film.
Individually, their performances are “good”. Zegler’s Maria is young, sweet and innocent and she is “pitch-perfect” for this role. Most critics point to Elgort’s work as the reason that this film falls short of greatness and I think that this is unfair to Elgort. Remember, Tony has been tucked away in jail for a few years for almost killing a rival gang member with his fists, so he needs to be somewhat older than the others and he needs to have a temper simmering underneath that is ready to explode. Elgort plays this role as Directed by Spielberg and is a good fit for the interpretation of this role as formed through the eyes of his talented Director.
The issue is when Tony and Maria are put together on the screen - there just is no chemistry between the two and the age difference (at least how the 2 characters look and are portrayed on screen) is jarring and is almost creepy. I never felt the love connection between Tony and Maria, a factor that is so important to the spine of this film that when it is missing - as it is here - the movie fell flat.
Ultimately, you have to fault the Director for this and that is too bad, for the other aspects of the film - and Spielberg’s Direction - are so good and so strong that the disappointment of the black hole that is central to this film is crushing.
Letter Grade: A- (heading towards B+)
8 stars out of 10 (it could have…SHOULD HAVE…been a 9 or a 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of the 1957 Broadway Musical WEST SIDE STORY - it has all of the ingredients to be considered a great film, but it has a problem at it’s core that knocks it down to very good (and maybe just “good”).
The 1961 version of West Side Story, of course, swept the 1962 Oscars, winning 10 Oscars - including Best Picture. This musical, of course, is based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet about a doomed love relationship set in a time of battling factions.
There is much to like in this adaptation - and let’s start with Spielberg’s Oscar nominated Direction. It is “spot-on”, for the most part in this telling of this tale, keeping the events rolling, and the tension taught (and rising) throughout the course of the film and orchestrating well deserved Production Design, Sound, Cinematography and Costume Oscar nominations. This film is a treat to watch (and listen to) and is the very definition of a film deserving of Awards. These are all top notch professionals in their fields delivering top notch results and having the Songs of Leonard Bernstein (Music) and Stephen Sondheim (Lyrics) so beautifully depicted is a treat, indeed.
Spielberg, wisely, ethnically cast this movie appropriately. Having Latino performers playing one faction of these warring entities and White performers playing the Anglos in this film is the correct move. Spielberg (and playwright Tony Kushner who adapted Arthur Laurents book) decided to have some of the scenes performed in Spanish (as they would be in “real life”) with no subtitles. As a non-Spanish speaking Anglo, these scenes worked very well for me.
Add to all of this strong performances across the cast. David Alvarez as Bernardo, Mike Faist as Riff, Josh Andres Rivera as Chino all shine as does Iris Menas as Anybodys. Stealing the show, of course, is Ariana DeBose (HAMILTON) as the hot-blooded Anita, a performance that will, IMHO, win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. If she does win, she will be the 2nd Actress to win the Oscar for playing this role in a film. Rita Moreno won it in 1961 - and let’s talk about her work in this film. Spielberg, wisely, gender-swapped the “Doc” role in this film - and gave it to Moreno. Her Valentino is the heart and soul of this film and it was a risky, and wise, choice to give Valentino the song “Somewhere” - and it works beautifully. I would have been happy to see the EGOT winning, 90-something year old Moreno get an Oscar nomination as well.
You will notice that the 2 leads - Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) have yet to be mentioned and, therein, lies the problem with this film.
Individually, their performances are “good”. Zegler’s Maria is young, sweet and innocent and she is “pitch-perfect” for this role. Most critics point to Elgort’s work as the reason that this film falls short of greatness and I think that this is unfair to Elgort. Remember, Tony has been tucked away in jail for a few years for almost killing a rival gang member with his fists, so he needs to be somewhat older than the others and he needs to have a temper simmering underneath that is ready to explode. Elgort plays this role as Directed by Spielberg and is a good fit for the interpretation of this role as formed through the eyes of his talented Director.
The issue is when Tony and Maria are put together on the screen - there just is no chemistry between the two and the age difference (at least how the 2 characters look and are portrayed on screen) is jarring and is almost creepy. I never felt the love connection between Tony and Maria, a factor that is so important to the spine of this film that when it is missing - as it is here - the movie fell flat.
Ultimately, you have to fault the Director for this and that is too bad, for the other aspects of the film - and Spielberg’s Direction - are so good and so strong that the disappointment of the black hole that is central to this film is crushing.
Letter Grade: A- (heading towards B+)
8 stars out of 10 (it could have…SHOULD HAVE…been a 9 or a 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)