Search
Search results
The Crowning of the Fire King by Sorcerer
Album Watch
Sorcerer was formed in Stockholm, Sweden in 1988 by Johnny Hagel (Tiamat, Sundown, Lithium), Tommy...
metal
Mayhawke (97 KP) rated I am No One in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Intriguing but ultimately disappointing
Written in the first person I Am No One is the account of recent events in the life of the fictional NY academic, Jeremy O'Keefe. O'Keefe, ironically an expert in surveillance, finds himself the subject of apparent scrutiny by unknown observers, a discovery that propels him into paranoia and pushes him to the boundaries of sanity. As the story is unpacked, page by page, it becomes clear that O'Keefe's paranoia is not unfounded, and that his initial confusion as to why anyone would want to bother observing the behaviour of a mundane and only moderately successful Professor actually belies a deeper understanding of the cause and his actions that precipitated it.
O'Keefe is a difficult character to really sympathise with. Whilst his ideology is admirably egalitarian he falls into that bracket of slightly stuffy, middle-class liberals who take themselves too seriously and fail to practise what they preach. In fairness to O'Keefe he largely has the grace and self-awareness to question the rationality of his fears and accidental moments of prejudice (though he is of the very typical male Liberal variety that doesn't seem to recognise the contradiction of professing himself feminist whilst watching porn): slightly pompous, slightly too much self-regard slightly too much sense of victimhood, he is not unlikeable just a bit of a non-entity. Whilst this is clearly intentional it makes his narrative stodgy. Not unreadable, but at the same time easy to put down for a week whilst a more engaging book is read. This is either a spectacularly adept piece of characterisation or an unfortunate reflection of the author, Patrick Flanery. I do hope it is the writing because if not then all the peculiar, inaccurate and unlikely observations made by O'Keefe onbehalf of his character regarding differences between the British and Americans are likely also Flanery's:. For example the breath-taking assertion that socio-economic failure is treated more harshly in the UK than in the US, when any basic knowledge of sociology in the two countries shows that the criteria for failure is a) much broader in the US and b) responded to far more harshly, e.g.: "if you don't earn enough from your three jobs to afford medical insurance to pay for your cancer treatment, you clearly haven't worked hard enough. The fault is yours , you are a failure and the punishment is premature death.". It is also difficult to accept that Flanery is regularly treated with distrust and dislike by bank cashiers for his Irish name. Quite aside from anything else most bank cashiers in this country now aren't old enough to remember the Irish troubles, and the bigots-for-bigotry's-sake have long since transferred their angst from the Irish to the Poles and the Muslims.
Flanery is also an academic, something that is abundantly obvious from the highly structured writing method he employs in this book. The reader is left with the impression that where other novelists write books to be read as stories Flanery has written a text with an eye to future deconstruction by English Lit students. That is not necessarily a bad thing, of course, but occasionally one wishes he could have been a little less concerned with construction in the minutiae and more concerned with crafting a story with a complete beginning, middle and end. And therein lies one of the greatest failings of this book: it has no real conclusion. Questions are raised that go unanswered. In particular, there are issues with characters, whose true identity may never be elaborated upon or, in the case of his girlfriend who makes a sudden, poorly explained behavioural volte-face that is entirely out of character but provides Flanery with a device to enable his protagonist take the critical closing step to the tale.
It seems that Flanery has written this book as a parable on the dangers of unfettered digital surveillance: how easy it is for those who wish to to access all our personal data and how very quickly and efficiently lives can be subverted. Whilst this may be a revelation to a few it has to be said that there is nothing revealed in this book about the scope and methods of data collection that anyone who has even a small amount of technical savvy won't already know, which rather undermines it as an expose. The book also attempts to portray how easy it is to suddenly and unintentionally find oneself on the wrong side of the law. Unfortunately in this story the actions which purport to have landed O'Keefe in possible criminality are so ridiculous and far-fetched that only the most paranoid would ever see an offence in them. Contrary to highlighting the ease with which the well intentioned can unwittingly find themselves in need of lawyers it suggests that all the peripheral characters are actually far more paranoid and delusional than O'Keefe will ever be.
All that aside this was an intriguing and mildly engaging story. Largely well-written but let down by a an unsatisfactory conclusion and a failure to induce the kind of fear that was intended.
O'Keefe is a difficult character to really sympathise with. Whilst his ideology is admirably egalitarian he falls into that bracket of slightly stuffy, middle-class liberals who take themselves too seriously and fail to practise what they preach. In fairness to O'Keefe he largely has the grace and self-awareness to question the rationality of his fears and accidental moments of prejudice (though he is of the very typical male Liberal variety that doesn't seem to recognise the contradiction of professing himself feminist whilst watching porn): slightly pompous, slightly too much self-regard slightly too much sense of victimhood, he is not unlikeable just a bit of a non-entity. Whilst this is clearly intentional it makes his narrative stodgy. Not unreadable, but at the same time easy to put down for a week whilst a more engaging book is read. This is either a spectacularly adept piece of characterisation or an unfortunate reflection of the author, Patrick Flanery. I do hope it is the writing because if not then all the peculiar, inaccurate and unlikely observations made by O'Keefe onbehalf of his character regarding differences between the British and Americans are likely also Flanery's:. For example the breath-taking assertion that socio-economic failure is treated more harshly in the UK than in the US, when any basic knowledge of sociology in the two countries shows that the criteria for failure is a) much broader in the US and b) responded to far more harshly, e.g.: "if you don't earn enough from your three jobs to afford medical insurance to pay for your cancer treatment, you clearly haven't worked hard enough. The fault is yours , you are a failure and the punishment is premature death.". It is also difficult to accept that Flanery is regularly treated with distrust and dislike by bank cashiers for his Irish name. Quite aside from anything else most bank cashiers in this country now aren't old enough to remember the Irish troubles, and the bigots-for-bigotry's-sake have long since transferred their angst from the Irish to the Poles and the Muslims.
Flanery is also an academic, something that is abundantly obvious from the highly structured writing method he employs in this book. The reader is left with the impression that where other novelists write books to be read as stories Flanery has written a text with an eye to future deconstruction by English Lit students. That is not necessarily a bad thing, of course, but occasionally one wishes he could have been a little less concerned with construction in the minutiae and more concerned with crafting a story with a complete beginning, middle and end. And therein lies one of the greatest failings of this book: it has no real conclusion. Questions are raised that go unanswered. In particular, there are issues with characters, whose true identity may never be elaborated upon or, in the case of his girlfriend who makes a sudden, poorly explained behavioural volte-face that is entirely out of character but provides Flanery with a device to enable his protagonist take the critical closing step to the tale.
It seems that Flanery has written this book as a parable on the dangers of unfettered digital surveillance: how easy it is for those who wish to to access all our personal data and how very quickly and efficiently lives can be subverted. Whilst this may be a revelation to a few it has to be said that there is nothing revealed in this book about the scope and methods of data collection that anyone who has even a small amount of technical savvy won't already know, which rather undermines it as an expose. The book also attempts to portray how easy it is to suddenly and unintentionally find oneself on the wrong side of the law. Unfortunately in this story the actions which purport to have landed O'Keefe in possible criminality are so ridiculous and far-fetched that only the most paranoid would ever see an offence in them. Contrary to highlighting the ease with which the well intentioned can unwittingly find themselves in need of lawyers it suggests that all the peripheral characters are actually far more paranoid and delusional than O'Keefe will ever be.
All that aside this was an intriguing and mildly engaging story. Largely well-written but let down by a an unsatisfactory conclusion and a failure to induce the kind of fear that was intended.
Kiruji (13 KP) rated X-Men: First Class (2011) in Movies
Jul 18, 2018
I'm not an X-Men fan. I know, it's strange, right? I mean, I'm a comic book fan in general. Iron Man's a dude. I dig the Hulk. I love all things Batman (except when Joel Schumacher tweaked the Batman's Batnipples). I geekgasmed all over my trousers in the lead up to THE DARK KNIGHT and actually watching it at an IMAX was like losing my virginity again. But the X-Men? Kinda leave me cold. Even though, on the face of it, it should be pretty awesome. Mutant humans with the ability to do just about anything you can imagine, fighting each other and various other bad things? Why the hell wouldn't I like that? But I could never get into it. The first X-Men movie, way back in 2000, left me feeling indifferent. It was OK, but nothing special. The second one was worse. The third one just plain awful. WOLVERINE: ORIGINS was quite fun, but then, a hard drinking, smoking, swearing brawler with friendly mutton-chops and blades in his hands was always going to be appealing to me.
And so, it was with a feeling of complete indifference that I flashed my Cineworld Unlimited card at a bored usher and got my ticket and a mixed slushie last week. I only went to see it because my buddy wanted to and, well, we'd missed the start of THE HANGOVER PART II.
So, into the darkened room early for a change. Managed to get prime seats. Mainly because the auditorium was pretty much empty. Something I didn't think was the most fortuitous portent to the movie we were about to watch. On the plus side however, as we were watching a comic book movie, we got the comic book trailer reel... First was THE GREEN LANTERN, which excited me a little (mainly because I have a man crush on Ryan Reynolds). Then came CAPTAIN AMERICA, which excited me a little more (mainly because it looks FREAKIN' AWESOME). Then we got RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, which intrigued me (mainly because James Franco was doing a 'learned man' accent). Presumably because Cineworld were already scraping the comic book movie barrel, they then repeated the APES trailer, which killed the mood and left me feeling indifferent again.
But I digress. I think you get that I didn't really give a crap one way or the other about the movie I was about to watch. The opening scenes however, are set in a WWII concentration camp and I found my interest piqued. At first, I couldn't figure out whether it had been newly filmed or if they were recycling one of the flashbacks from one of the earlier movies. Then, Kevin Bacon. Suddenly, I was transfixed by the German pouring forth from his mouth which seemed authentic and I couldn't quite work out if he was lip-synching or not. That's somewhat besides the point though, as the scene itself was very tense and only marginally spoiled by the child actor when it was his turn to scream the longest NOOOOOOO!!! (sorry, NEEEEEEEEIN!!!) since Adolf Vader in Episode 3.
The film very quickly moved on in leaps and bounds, sucking me in and winning me over. Kevin Bacon seemed to enjoy hamming it up as the evil Sebastian Shaw. James McAvoy is an exceptionally talented chap and made for an excellent Charles Xavier - a cocky, beer-swilling, genius ladies man. Similarly, Michael Fassbender did a top notch job in playing Erik Lehnsherr, coming across as a Holocaust-surviving Bond, maybe even slightly cooler. Even Jason Flemyng was pretty good, although I don't think he actually spoke at all, which might have helped his case.
I loved the whole origins story, seeing how Xavier and Lehnsherr were good friends despite their obvious differences and started the School for the Gifted together was pretty cool. The only little blight on the movie (after the whole NEEEEEEEIN!!! incident) was that when it came time for Fassbender to don Magneto's helmet, the prop department had obviously measured his noggin wrong and it was clearly too tight. I say that because, every time he slapped it on his dome, his accent turned from gruff-hero-of-indeterminate-country-of-origin to... Well, to Oirish. The only reason I can think of is that the helmet was squeezing his bonce a bit too snugly. It didn't happen when Kevin Bacon was wearing it.
Helmet business aside, on the whole, I left feeling like I'd just seen a proper comic book movie. Full of fantastical, incredible things dancing around a plot that made sense and characters that I, on the whole, cared about at least a little. There was even a Wolverine cameo in it, which made me chuckle more than it should have. Far from being indifferent towards the X-Men now, I'm looking forward to seeing where the story goes next. I just hope Matthew Vaughn is directing again. He's turned out an X-Men film that is much, much better than mediocre and they'd be idiots to give it to anyone else.
And so, it was with a feeling of complete indifference that I flashed my Cineworld Unlimited card at a bored usher and got my ticket and a mixed slushie last week. I only went to see it because my buddy wanted to and, well, we'd missed the start of THE HANGOVER PART II.
So, into the darkened room early for a change. Managed to get prime seats. Mainly because the auditorium was pretty much empty. Something I didn't think was the most fortuitous portent to the movie we were about to watch. On the plus side however, as we were watching a comic book movie, we got the comic book trailer reel... First was THE GREEN LANTERN, which excited me a little (mainly because I have a man crush on Ryan Reynolds). Then came CAPTAIN AMERICA, which excited me a little more (mainly because it looks FREAKIN' AWESOME). Then we got RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, which intrigued me (mainly because James Franco was doing a 'learned man' accent). Presumably because Cineworld were already scraping the comic book movie barrel, they then repeated the APES trailer, which killed the mood and left me feeling indifferent again.
But I digress. I think you get that I didn't really give a crap one way or the other about the movie I was about to watch. The opening scenes however, are set in a WWII concentration camp and I found my interest piqued. At first, I couldn't figure out whether it had been newly filmed or if they were recycling one of the flashbacks from one of the earlier movies. Then, Kevin Bacon. Suddenly, I was transfixed by the German pouring forth from his mouth which seemed authentic and I couldn't quite work out if he was lip-synching or not. That's somewhat besides the point though, as the scene itself was very tense and only marginally spoiled by the child actor when it was his turn to scream the longest NOOOOOOO!!! (sorry, NEEEEEEEEIN!!!) since Adolf Vader in Episode 3.
The film very quickly moved on in leaps and bounds, sucking me in and winning me over. Kevin Bacon seemed to enjoy hamming it up as the evil Sebastian Shaw. James McAvoy is an exceptionally talented chap and made for an excellent Charles Xavier - a cocky, beer-swilling, genius ladies man. Similarly, Michael Fassbender did a top notch job in playing Erik Lehnsherr, coming across as a Holocaust-surviving Bond, maybe even slightly cooler. Even Jason Flemyng was pretty good, although I don't think he actually spoke at all, which might have helped his case.
I loved the whole origins story, seeing how Xavier and Lehnsherr were good friends despite their obvious differences and started the School for the Gifted together was pretty cool. The only little blight on the movie (after the whole NEEEEEEEIN!!! incident) was that when it came time for Fassbender to don Magneto's helmet, the prop department had obviously measured his noggin wrong and it was clearly too tight. I say that because, every time he slapped it on his dome, his accent turned from gruff-hero-of-indeterminate-country-of-origin to... Well, to Oirish. The only reason I can think of is that the helmet was squeezing his bonce a bit too snugly. It didn't happen when Kevin Bacon was wearing it.
Helmet business aside, on the whole, I left feeling like I'd just seen a proper comic book movie. Full of fantastical, incredible things dancing around a plot that made sense and characters that I, on the whole, cared about at least a little. There was even a Wolverine cameo in it, which made me chuckle more than it should have. Far from being indifferent towards the X-Men now, I'm looking forward to seeing where the story goes next. I just hope Matthew Vaughn is directing again. He's turned out an X-Men film that is much, much better than mediocre and they'd be idiots to give it to anyone else.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Passion of the Christ (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Perhaps the most controversial film of our time “The Passion of the Christ” has arrived amidst much speculation and controversy. Not since “The Last Temptation of Christ” has a film garnered so much controversy and that film did not have a mega-star like Mel Gibson attached to it nor a wide-release reported to reach 2500 screens in the U.S. alone.
The film shows the final hours of Jesus leading to his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. The film opens with Jesus (Jim Caviezel), and some of his Disciples in the garden as Jesus contemplates what is to come and prays that this burden be passed from him if it is Gods will. Jesus is visibly afraid and is unsure of what to do, as he knows Judas has betrayed him and that troops are on the way to arrest him.
Jesus is soon arrested and is beaten and taken before the Jewish elders to be accused of heresy for teaching beliefs which contradict the locale doctrine and for encouraging others to follow his teachings.
Jesus is soon taken before the Roman consul who decides to punish not execute Jesus, as he does not believe his crimes are worthy of death. Politics soon envelope the situation as the Romans fear an uprising if the wishes of the council are not followed forcing Jesus to be ordered for crucifixion.
While I am not one to give away vital parts to a films story, I take it that the majority of readers will know at least this much of the story. The emphasis on the film is on what Jesus had to endure during the final hours of his life and the untold suffering and brutality that were put upon him for his beliefs.
Much has been made of the films intense and graphic violence and I am not going to sugar coat this. The film is very intense and very violent and on more than once occasion caused me to start tearing as the film is very emotional and it is hard to watch a person suffer especially one who many believe devoted his life for the betterment of all of us regardless of faith. I have always been one that believes that all people are entitled to their beliefs and that no group has the right to say that there way is the only way and that others are wrong for not following them.
In many ways, the film drives this point home as Jesus prays for the forgiveness of those who are killing him even though they do not share his faith. The man who was killed as a threat to the society and doctrines of the community never wavered in his love for his fellow man and retained his compassion to the very end.
Gibson is to be commended for making a powerful and emotional film that can be enjoyed by people of all faiths. The film is a visual masterpiece that is highly detailed and is the most accurate depiction of the final hours of Christ ever committed to film. The use of Latin and Aramaic in combination with subtitles underscores attention to detail that Gibson put into his labor of love and as such, he deserves praise for crafting this film regardless of your opinion on the films content. This is a bold and passionate film that attempts to tell the story in the way that it happened as accurately as possible. While some of the scenes may be very difficult to watch, you will not soon forget the images and will have a hard time not being emotionally moved by the work. This is not a film that blames any group for the death of Jesus; it is simply an account as to how and why it happened. The film also serves as a message that we should all embrace and tolerate the differences in our neighbors as when we do not, atrocities can happen. As a student of history, I found myself pondering during the film in regards to what would happen if a figure arrived today that encouraged others to follow a new path and not those of the traditional religions. If said person were to become widely know and develop a large following what would happen? Would they be called a cult and prosecuted, would they be ridiculed, or would they be killed? This troubled me as I think that despite nearly 2000 years of progress there are those who would resort to violence. Such is the case of the film. The majority did not want to see Jesus killed; it was a strong and vocal minority of the population who wanted to protect their interests. The film is not anti-Semitic and does not blame any group for the death of Jesus and emphasizes that his death was in order to absolve sin and blame.
The film makes you think and in this day of disposable films, it is nice to see that despite the controversy and lack of commercial nature of the film, Gibson put his heart into the production and created one of the best films of the decade. Gibson is a master storyteller and shows that he is a gifted director and producer and should be praised for his craft.
The film shows the final hours of Jesus leading to his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. The film opens with Jesus (Jim Caviezel), and some of his Disciples in the garden as Jesus contemplates what is to come and prays that this burden be passed from him if it is Gods will. Jesus is visibly afraid and is unsure of what to do, as he knows Judas has betrayed him and that troops are on the way to arrest him.
Jesus is soon arrested and is beaten and taken before the Jewish elders to be accused of heresy for teaching beliefs which contradict the locale doctrine and for encouraging others to follow his teachings.
Jesus is soon taken before the Roman consul who decides to punish not execute Jesus, as he does not believe his crimes are worthy of death. Politics soon envelope the situation as the Romans fear an uprising if the wishes of the council are not followed forcing Jesus to be ordered for crucifixion.
While I am not one to give away vital parts to a films story, I take it that the majority of readers will know at least this much of the story. The emphasis on the film is on what Jesus had to endure during the final hours of his life and the untold suffering and brutality that were put upon him for his beliefs.
Much has been made of the films intense and graphic violence and I am not going to sugar coat this. The film is very intense and very violent and on more than once occasion caused me to start tearing as the film is very emotional and it is hard to watch a person suffer especially one who many believe devoted his life for the betterment of all of us regardless of faith. I have always been one that believes that all people are entitled to their beliefs and that no group has the right to say that there way is the only way and that others are wrong for not following them.
In many ways, the film drives this point home as Jesus prays for the forgiveness of those who are killing him even though they do not share his faith. The man who was killed as a threat to the society and doctrines of the community never wavered in his love for his fellow man and retained his compassion to the very end.
Gibson is to be commended for making a powerful and emotional film that can be enjoyed by people of all faiths. The film is a visual masterpiece that is highly detailed and is the most accurate depiction of the final hours of Christ ever committed to film. The use of Latin and Aramaic in combination with subtitles underscores attention to detail that Gibson put into his labor of love and as such, he deserves praise for crafting this film regardless of your opinion on the films content. This is a bold and passionate film that attempts to tell the story in the way that it happened as accurately as possible. While some of the scenes may be very difficult to watch, you will not soon forget the images and will have a hard time not being emotionally moved by the work. This is not a film that blames any group for the death of Jesus; it is simply an account as to how and why it happened. The film also serves as a message that we should all embrace and tolerate the differences in our neighbors as when we do not, atrocities can happen. As a student of history, I found myself pondering during the film in regards to what would happen if a figure arrived today that encouraged others to follow a new path and not those of the traditional religions. If said person were to become widely know and develop a large following what would happen? Would they be called a cult and prosecuted, would they be ridiculed, or would they be killed? This troubled me as I think that despite nearly 2000 years of progress there are those who would resort to violence. Such is the case of the film. The majority did not want to see Jesus killed; it was a strong and vocal minority of the population who wanted to protect their interests. The film is not anti-Semitic and does not blame any group for the death of Jesus and emphasizes that his death was in order to absolve sin and blame.
The film makes you think and in this day of disposable films, it is nice to see that despite the controversy and lack of commercial nature of the film, Gibson put his heart into the production and created one of the best films of the decade. Gibson is a master storyteller and shows that he is a gifted director and producer and should be praised for his craft.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Jumanji: The Next Level (2019) in Movies
Dec 23, 2019
Like pretty much everyone else, when I first heard that the Robin Williams 1985 classic Jumanji was getting some kind of reboot/remake starring Dwayne Johnson, I was hugely sceptical. I probably even rolled my eyes and raised an eyebrow or something in disappointed disbelief! But then, also like pretty much everyone else judging by the fact it went on to make almost a billion dollars, I was more than pleasantly surprised when Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle turned out to be a big hit - an enjoyable, fresh take on the Jumanji idea, while still remaining true to the original. But, big box office numbers usually mean that a sequel won't be too far off and, sure enough, Jumanji: The Next Level was announced, with the original cast all returning. Hopefully they weren't going to end up stretching the formula too thin and had managed to come up with another new and exciting adventure to entice us back into the world of Jumanji.
Our four teens from Welcome to the Jungle are all still great friends following their ordeal/adventure together, although Spencer has become more distant from the group over the last year, seeming rather unhappy and depressed with life. As the rest of the group excitedly exchange messages on Whatsapp in preparation to return home for a Christmas reunion, Spencer is getting yelled at by his boss before struggling with a broken suitcase in the pouring rain as he heads to catch the bus home. When he does make it home, his Grandpa Eddie (Danny DeVito) is staying with them while he recovers from a hip operation, and Spencer now has the pleasure of sharing his bedroom with him. Complaining about old age, Eddie is the kind of grumpy character that Danny DeVito plays so perfectly and we are also introduced soon after to an old friend of his, Milo (Danny Glover). Eddie and Milo are former partners in the restaurant business, but haven't been on the best of terms over the last 15 years since they sold the restaurant and parted on not the best of terms.
When Spencer suddenly goes missing and his three friends go looking for him, they discover the battered Jumanji video game down in his basement, with Spencer's mobile phone and coat laying nearby. They realise that Spencer has ventured back into Jumanji and decide that they must join him in order to increase his chances of getting out of there alive. But this time round, it's not just the teens who get pulled into the game, as Eddie and Milo also find themselves inside Jumanji. And, just to mix things up a bit from the last movie, not everyone winds up in the same avatar as they did before either. So, similar to what we got last time, we're treated to plenty of comedy moments while everyone becomes accustomed to their new body and is either disgusted or overjoyed with what they've got. Grandpa Eddie finds himself as Dr. Bravestone while Milo is Franklin 'Mouse' Finbar, so obviously now having a fully functional, new and improved body is a pretty big deal for the old timers. Seeing Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart act out their very best impersonations of DeVito and Glover is a lot of fun and straight away serves up a completely different dynamic to that of the first movie. On top of that, there are some differences in the skills and weaknesses that each avatar now possesses and the introduction throughout the movie of a few more avatars in order to cater for the additional players who are now in the game.
When it comes to the quest that the team must embark upon in order to beat the game, this doesn't seem quite as well fleshed out or developed as in Welcome to the Jungle, and it's where this movie is lacking. The villain isn't at all interesting, and neither is the journey they take in order to get there. There are a couple of big fun action scenes, but also a lot of filler scenes that are somewhat lacking. It's still that winning formula from the previous movie, but with something missing.
As before though, it's the characters that shine through and make this all the more enjoyable. Probably the biggest addition this time round is Awkwafina as Ming Fleetfoot, who proves to be just as entertaining as the rest of the avatars. And, just to keep us on our toes, there are a couple of times where a dip in some magical water causes the players to switch avatars, meaning the cast get a chance to act in a different way as they get to grips with a new body and skills again.
Overall, Jumanji: The Next Level felt like more of the same, only not quite as good as Welcome to the Jungle. Obviously, there's a teaser or two of a sequel at the end of the movie and I'm sure the characters telling each other that they'll “never go back again” won't be enough to stop that from happening should this movie do as well as the last one!
Our four teens from Welcome to the Jungle are all still great friends following their ordeal/adventure together, although Spencer has become more distant from the group over the last year, seeming rather unhappy and depressed with life. As the rest of the group excitedly exchange messages on Whatsapp in preparation to return home for a Christmas reunion, Spencer is getting yelled at by his boss before struggling with a broken suitcase in the pouring rain as he heads to catch the bus home. When he does make it home, his Grandpa Eddie (Danny DeVito) is staying with them while he recovers from a hip operation, and Spencer now has the pleasure of sharing his bedroom with him. Complaining about old age, Eddie is the kind of grumpy character that Danny DeVito plays so perfectly and we are also introduced soon after to an old friend of his, Milo (Danny Glover). Eddie and Milo are former partners in the restaurant business, but haven't been on the best of terms over the last 15 years since they sold the restaurant and parted on not the best of terms.
When Spencer suddenly goes missing and his three friends go looking for him, they discover the battered Jumanji video game down in his basement, with Spencer's mobile phone and coat laying nearby. They realise that Spencer has ventured back into Jumanji and decide that they must join him in order to increase his chances of getting out of there alive. But this time round, it's not just the teens who get pulled into the game, as Eddie and Milo also find themselves inside Jumanji. And, just to mix things up a bit from the last movie, not everyone winds up in the same avatar as they did before either. So, similar to what we got last time, we're treated to plenty of comedy moments while everyone becomes accustomed to their new body and is either disgusted or overjoyed with what they've got. Grandpa Eddie finds himself as Dr. Bravestone while Milo is Franklin 'Mouse' Finbar, so obviously now having a fully functional, new and improved body is a pretty big deal for the old timers. Seeing Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart act out their very best impersonations of DeVito and Glover is a lot of fun and straight away serves up a completely different dynamic to that of the first movie. On top of that, there are some differences in the skills and weaknesses that each avatar now possesses and the introduction throughout the movie of a few more avatars in order to cater for the additional players who are now in the game.
When it comes to the quest that the team must embark upon in order to beat the game, this doesn't seem quite as well fleshed out or developed as in Welcome to the Jungle, and it's where this movie is lacking. The villain isn't at all interesting, and neither is the journey they take in order to get there. There are a couple of big fun action scenes, but also a lot of filler scenes that are somewhat lacking. It's still that winning formula from the previous movie, but with something missing.
As before though, it's the characters that shine through and make this all the more enjoyable. Probably the biggest addition this time round is Awkwafina as Ming Fleetfoot, who proves to be just as entertaining as the rest of the avatars. And, just to keep us on our toes, there are a couple of times where a dip in some magical water causes the players to switch avatars, meaning the cast get a chance to act in a different way as they get to grips with a new body and skills again.
Overall, Jumanji: The Next Level felt like more of the same, only not quite as good as Welcome to the Jungle. Obviously, there's a teaser or two of a sequel at the end of the movie and I'm sure the characters telling each other that they'll “never go back again” won't be enough to stop that from happening should this movie do as well as the last one!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Thing (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
After the success of a videogame based on the original film, rumors of a sequel arose many times but never came to fruition, with creative differences between Universal and John Carpenter cited as the main reason. It was oft-speculated that Carpenter made a deal to write and produce a sequel provided he got to name has director. But when he opted to name himself director the studio balked and the project fell apart. In the aftermath, rumors of a miniseries on the SyfY channel arose along with the possibility of retelling the story with 20-somethings on a tropical island but (thankfully) they never saw the light of day.
Rather than do a sequel or remake, Universal opted to jump start the franchise with a prequel that covers the events leading up to the John Carpenter film. It is set in 1982 at a Norwegian research station in Antarctica shortly before the scientists make an amazing discovery. When they uncover an alien craft that had been buried in the ice for over 100,000 years, as well as a frozen crewmember from the craft, they quickly celebrate the scientific discovery of a lifetime.
Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), is recruited by a famed scientist to travel to the desolate continent to research the find. Told only that they are about to research an amazing discovery, Kate and a team of specialists arrive and are absolutely stunned by the magnitude of their discovery. Kate urges caution but is overridden by the expedition leader Dr. Halvorsan (Ulrich Thomsen), who insists on taking a tissue sample of the frozen creature encassed in a block of ice.
Later that evening while celebrating, the very much alive creature escapes from its icy prison and begins to systematically hunt the members of the research team. The creature is eventually trapped and burned which causes some consternation over the loss of the creature for further scientific study, but many in the camp applaud its loss after seeing firsthand the destruction it is capable of.
After a bizarre series of events, Kate makes the startling discovery that the cells of the creature are able to imitate and perfectly replicate any thing that it comes in contact with. As a result, not only is the creature very much alive, but the individuals in the camp may no longer be human. Trapped in a remote location with an advancing winter storm, suspicions and paranoia go through the roof as the survivors are pitted against one another, unsure of who is still human. What follows is a high-octane adventure awash in action and grisly special-effects as the two species are locked in the ultimate battle for survival.
The film has a good supporting cast and Joel Edgerton does solid supporting work as an American helicopter pilot assigned to the camp. Eric Christian Olsen provides a steadying presence as a research assistant but his character is not as developed as it could be. It is known that he and Kate know each other but their past history is undefined which makes their relationship a bit puzzling in the film especially when the survivors begin to pick sides.
While the movie is not going to make fans forget the original, it is a very worthy companion piece. As the film was winding down I found myself checking off a couple of inconsistencies with the original film, but was very pleasantly surprised when this was all explained during the end credits which perfectly synced the end of this film with the opening of John Carpenter’s classic.
In many ways the weakness of film is due to the success of John Carpenter’s previous film, in that the creature is not that much of a mystery this time around. Part of the suspense of the previous film was not knowing how the creature operated nor how it was capable of infecting and replicating numerous individuals.
This time around the suspense is lost due to the familiarity with the creature. As a result, director Matthijs van Heijningen focused his efforts on a more action adventure oriented film that gave very little time for character development. We are not told very much about many of the characters in the film as they simply exist to serve as potential victims for the creature. All one really needs to know is they are scientists or support staff as aside from a handful of characters we’re not really given much reason to care whether they survive.
Visually the film is sharp and it is clear that a lot of attention was paid to replicate the look of the previous film. The shots of vast fields of ice and snow emphasized the remote and isolated setting that the characters find themselves in and served as a reminder that danger lurks all around. The special-effects have obviously been upgraded since 1982 and it was nice to see that the creative elements did not go overboard on CGI effects, and actually used puppetry and animatronics to provide updated creature effects that were still in keeping with the look and tone from the previous film.
While the film is not likely to reach the iconic status of the previous film, it is still a worthy companion piece that has enough action and effects to keep it interesting to fans of the series – just so long as they keep their expectations reasonable and do not expect a film on par with the previous one.
Rather than do a sequel or remake, Universal opted to jump start the franchise with a prequel that covers the events leading up to the John Carpenter film. It is set in 1982 at a Norwegian research station in Antarctica shortly before the scientists make an amazing discovery. When they uncover an alien craft that had been buried in the ice for over 100,000 years, as well as a frozen crewmember from the craft, they quickly celebrate the scientific discovery of a lifetime.
Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), is recruited by a famed scientist to travel to the desolate continent to research the find. Told only that they are about to research an amazing discovery, Kate and a team of specialists arrive and are absolutely stunned by the magnitude of their discovery. Kate urges caution but is overridden by the expedition leader Dr. Halvorsan (Ulrich Thomsen), who insists on taking a tissue sample of the frozen creature encassed in a block of ice.
Later that evening while celebrating, the very much alive creature escapes from its icy prison and begins to systematically hunt the members of the research team. The creature is eventually trapped and burned which causes some consternation over the loss of the creature for further scientific study, but many in the camp applaud its loss after seeing firsthand the destruction it is capable of.
After a bizarre series of events, Kate makes the startling discovery that the cells of the creature are able to imitate and perfectly replicate any thing that it comes in contact with. As a result, not only is the creature very much alive, but the individuals in the camp may no longer be human. Trapped in a remote location with an advancing winter storm, suspicions and paranoia go through the roof as the survivors are pitted against one another, unsure of who is still human. What follows is a high-octane adventure awash in action and grisly special-effects as the two species are locked in the ultimate battle for survival.
The film has a good supporting cast and Joel Edgerton does solid supporting work as an American helicopter pilot assigned to the camp. Eric Christian Olsen provides a steadying presence as a research assistant but his character is not as developed as it could be. It is known that he and Kate know each other but their past history is undefined which makes their relationship a bit puzzling in the film especially when the survivors begin to pick sides.
While the movie is not going to make fans forget the original, it is a very worthy companion piece. As the film was winding down I found myself checking off a couple of inconsistencies with the original film, but was very pleasantly surprised when this was all explained during the end credits which perfectly synced the end of this film with the opening of John Carpenter’s classic.
In many ways the weakness of film is due to the success of John Carpenter’s previous film, in that the creature is not that much of a mystery this time around. Part of the suspense of the previous film was not knowing how the creature operated nor how it was capable of infecting and replicating numerous individuals.
This time around the suspense is lost due to the familiarity with the creature. As a result, director Matthijs van Heijningen focused his efforts on a more action adventure oriented film that gave very little time for character development. We are not told very much about many of the characters in the film as they simply exist to serve as potential victims for the creature. All one really needs to know is they are scientists or support staff as aside from a handful of characters we’re not really given much reason to care whether they survive.
Visually the film is sharp and it is clear that a lot of attention was paid to replicate the look of the previous film. The shots of vast fields of ice and snow emphasized the remote and isolated setting that the characters find themselves in and served as a reminder that danger lurks all around. The special-effects have obviously been upgraded since 1982 and it was nice to see that the creative elements did not go overboard on CGI effects, and actually used puppetry and animatronics to provide updated creature effects that were still in keeping with the look and tone from the previous film.
While the film is not likely to reach the iconic status of the previous film, it is still a worthy companion piece that has enough action and effects to keep it interesting to fans of the series – just so long as they keep their expectations reasonable and do not expect a film on par with the previous one.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Toy Story 4 (2019) in Movies
Feb 11, 2021
The rule of threes is a pretty solid philosophy. We find things repeated in triplicate satisfying and complete. There is no rule of four, it isn’t a thing. Four is usually one too many… and this was the fear for all Pixar and Toy Story fans when this project was announced, fairly unexpectedly, in 2018. Toy Story 3 was a beautiful and heart-rending end to the saga of Woody, Buzz and co. It was an end. Wasn’t it? Everything worth saying had been said, and it was all tied up in a plastic bow rather perfectly.
Well, Pixar are innovators and pioneers of the highest order, so maybe we should just trust that they know what they are doing (apart from the Cars series). Please don’t ruin it all, is all we asked, with fingers crossed. So many franchises and beloved event movies have had their legacy shat on by one too many sequels. Die Hard, Alien, Star Wars, The Terminator, etc, etc. Isn’t it best to leave well alone and concentrate on new ideas and new directions?
All the usual voice actors, Mr Hanks and Mr Allen, were back on board, with some intriguing additions in guest stars such as Christina Hendricks and Keanu Reeves, as Gabby Gabby and Duke Caboom, respectively. There was also a new director in Josh Cooley, who had been part of the team since story boarding The Incredibles in 2003, and graduating to writer and actor on Inside Out. It’s good to know Pixar look after their own with these kind of opportunities, but was this the right film and series to be making a debut in? A lot of pressure, you would think.
So, firstly, by now we know the entire world breathed a sigh of relief that it wasn’t terrible. Not only wasn’t it terrible, but it was a heck of a lot of fun! I mean, a lot! It went on to win the Oscar for best animated film, and everyone that went on to watch it after its cinema release unanimously says: “Hey, this is much better than I thought… maybe even my second favourite out of the four”. And it is true! It’s not just good enough, it is great. I loved it.
I tend to save my animation for Sundays. I don’t know why, but that feels like the best day to indulge my inner child and sense of sentimental wonder. From minute one I was into this film. As soon as you see and hear your old friends in the toy box, it doesn’t take long to feel at home in this world of talking, walking, feeling, fearing, loving characters. They are so well drawn, in all senses, it is hard to think of animated entities so adored and part of the family. I laughed, I cried, I felt excited and worried and tense and ultimately warmed up with joy. It has it all.
Not to say it merely repeats the best tricks of the first three, it doesn’t. In fact, there are a lot of differences here. It feels a little more mature, like we have all grown up together and have no need to be patronised or expositioned at. It assumes we know these people (yes, I think of them as people, that is why it works) and can leap into their lives at any point. Woody, who is of course the beating heart of the show, has been a friend, a paramour and brother before, but now he is a father figure too, an evolution that reflects life. And these guys know how effective that is going to be.
There is a slight concern regarding his adopted ward, the controversial “Forky”, who seemed a little childish and simplistic in theory… but that becomes a wonderful part of the whole point… no spoilers. I’d understand if the character grated a tiny touch at first; it kinda did with me. But the laughs are there eventually, and some of them are big laughs! Fear not, it works. Not perfect, but it works. Although why it isn’t called “Sporky” I do not know… it is clearly a spork and not a fork. Oh, yes, I know why, it is because that is what Bonnie calls him, and she is a child. Genius. I was wrong.
The plot, such as it is, is an adventure story worthy of Indiana Jones at points, and it moves along at an exciting clip for sure! Gabby Gabby is gloriously sinister, as are her ventriloquist dummy henchmen; Duke Caboom is hilarious and has probably the best light relief moments; but there is also the duo of “Ducky” and “Bunny” to enjoy on a more surreal and perhaps more adult level. Even when you see where it is going, it has the ability to surprise you, which is terrific film-making art in any animation, or anything full stop. Not least, the final 10 minutes, which break the heart in the best way, just as all the previous films have done. The thought of where they leave it brings a lump to my throat even now!
In short. If you haven’t seen it: do. If you have, watch it again as part of a Toy Story marathon and see exactly how different it is from start to finish, and just how many themes and ideas it has covered in its 25 year existence. Bravo Pixar, you did it again!
Well, Pixar are innovators and pioneers of the highest order, so maybe we should just trust that they know what they are doing (apart from the Cars series). Please don’t ruin it all, is all we asked, with fingers crossed. So many franchises and beloved event movies have had their legacy shat on by one too many sequels. Die Hard, Alien, Star Wars, The Terminator, etc, etc. Isn’t it best to leave well alone and concentrate on new ideas and new directions?
All the usual voice actors, Mr Hanks and Mr Allen, were back on board, with some intriguing additions in guest stars such as Christina Hendricks and Keanu Reeves, as Gabby Gabby and Duke Caboom, respectively. There was also a new director in Josh Cooley, who had been part of the team since story boarding The Incredibles in 2003, and graduating to writer and actor on Inside Out. It’s good to know Pixar look after their own with these kind of opportunities, but was this the right film and series to be making a debut in? A lot of pressure, you would think.
So, firstly, by now we know the entire world breathed a sigh of relief that it wasn’t terrible. Not only wasn’t it terrible, but it was a heck of a lot of fun! I mean, a lot! It went on to win the Oscar for best animated film, and everyone that went on to watch it after its cinema release unanimously says: “Hey, this is much better than I thought… maybe even my second favourite out of the four”. And it is true! It’s not just good enough, it is great. I loved it.
I tend to save my animation for Sundays. I don’t know why, but that feels like the best day to indulge my inner child and sense of sentimental wonder. From minute one I was into this film. As soon as you see and hear your old friends in the toy box, it doesn’t take long to feel at home in this world of talking, walking, feeling, fearing, loving characters. They are so well drawn, in all senses, it is hard to think of animated entities so adored and part of the family. I laughed, I cried, I felt excited and worried and tense and ultimately warmed up with joy. It has it all.
Not to say it merely repeats the best tricks of the first three, it doesn’t. In fact, there are a lot of differences here. It feels a little more mature, like we have all grown up together and have no need to be patronised or expositioned at. It assumes we know these people (yes, I think of them as people, that is why it works) and can leap into their lives at any point. Woody, who is of course the beating heart of the show, has been a friend, a paramour and brother before, but now he is a father figure too, an evolution that reflects life. And these guys know how effective that is going to be.
There is a slight concern regarding his adopted ward, the controversial “Forky”, who seemed a little childish and simplistic in theory… but that becomes a wonderful part of the whole point… no spoilers. I’d understand if the character grated a tiny touch at first; it kinda did with me. But the laughs are there eventually, and some of them are big laughs! Fear not, it works. Not perfect, but it works. Although why it isn’t called “Sporky” I do not know… it is clearly a spork and not a fork. Oh, yes, I know why, it is because that is what Bonnie calls him, and she is a child. Genius. I was wrong.
The plot, such as it is, is an adventure story worthy of Indiana Jones at points, and it moves along at an exciting clip for sure! Gabby Gabby is gloriously sinister, as are her ventriloquist dummy henchmen; Duke Caboom is hilarious and has probably the best light relief moments; but there is also the duo of “Ducky” and “Bunny” to enjoy on a more surreal and perhaps more adult level. Even when you see where it is going, it has the ability to surprise you, which is terrific film-making art in any animation, or anything full stop. Not least, the final 10 minutes, which break the heart in the best way, just as all the previous films have done. The thought of where they leave it brings a lump to my throat even now!
In short. If you haven’t seen it: do. If you have, watch it again as part of a Toy Story marathon and see exactly how different it is from start to finish, and just how many themes and ideas it has covered in its 25 year existence. Bravo Pixar, you did it again!
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Dinosaur Island in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
One of the best parts of the board gaming experience is finding a fun group of people with whom to play! Sometimes, though, coordinating a game night is easier said than done. We all must occasionally forego the group experience and face the world as the Lonely Only. But fear not! The world of solo-play is a vast and exciting realm! What follows is a chronicle of my journey into the solo-playing world – notes on gameplay, mechanics, rules, difficulty, and overall experience with solo variations of commonly multiplayer games! I hope this will provide some insight as you continue to grow your collection, or explore your already owned games!
In Dinosaur Island, you have successfully created a theme park of the Jurassic variety (see what I did there?), and are now tasked with managing and supervising the day-to-day operations. Think “Zoo Tycoon” on steroids. You have to collect new DNA, upgrade your facilities, build new attractions, hire specialists, oversee your workers, and create new dinosaurs to populate your park! Make sure you manage your resources wisely for maximum benefit, and keep a close eye on the security of your park to ensure the safety of your guests! The goal is to create and maintain the most successful dinosaur park!
DISCLAIMER: An expansion exists for Dinosaur Island, and I do own it, but I have yet to incorporate it into my games. Once I get some experience with the expansion, I will either amend this review or address it in a separate post! -L
Let me first begin this review by saying that there is A LOT going on in this game. Seriously, a lot. And it can be pretty overwhelming at first. But one thing I cannot praise enough about Dinosaur Island is its rulebook. It’s kind of hefty, but it is so detailed and clear (with numerous examples) that I understood how to play the game on my first read-through. And sometimes with games that have so many moving elements, total understanding from the get-go can be rare, for me especially. The excellent rulebook makes a seemingly daunting game not so scary. I always keep the rulebook on hand when I play (just to be safe!), but once I got the hang of all of the steps, I don’t really need to refer back to it anymore!
As a solo game, Dinosaur Island plays very similarly as it does in group play with a few minor differences. For one, no regular Objective cards are used – instead you use a set of specified Solo Objective cards. Next, to simulate player interaction during the Research and Market Phases, the solo player draws a card from an AI deck and eliminates the options/discards the resources listed on the card – this mimics group play in the sense that turn order changes every round and you do not always get your first pick during these phases. The remaining 2 Phases (Worker and Park) occur simultaneously and involve no player interaction, so those are played as normal. One final difference between group and solo play is that the solo player can choose to play without Plot Twist cards. A solo game is played over the course of 7 total rounds, and the overall goal of the game remains the same – amass the most Victory Points.
The trickiest part of playing Dinosaur Island solo, for me, has to do with the Solo Objectives. You have 7 Solo Objectives to be completed throughout the game, and they reward Victory Points based on the round in which they were completed – finishing objectives in earlier rounds yields a higher number of points. If you are unable to complete any objective in a given round, you must discard one (of your choice) at the end of that round. The hard thing is that depending on which objectives are currently in play, it can be difficult to complete one each round to earn those points. Some things take time (and a couple of rounds) to be able to complete – like “Reach a threat level of 15.” If you have multiple long-term objectives in play, they can really limit the number of points you can earn from them. A nice mix of objectives (both short-term and long-term) can help balance out the game a little more, but it’s ultimately a luck of the draw.
One positive thing I can say about the objectives, though, is that they really force you to come up with a multi-faceted strategy. Depending on which objectives are in play, you have to decide on a logical strategy and order in which to complete them for maximum points. You can’t just focus on one objective – you also need to be setting yourself up to complete future objectives. I never feel like I’m just going through the motions because I always need to be thinking ahead to my future rounds.
The thing I really like about Dinosaur Island as a solo game is that it is still extremely engaging. I’m not a huge fan of “Beat your own personal best” solo games, but this one keeps me so involved that I don’t mind the fact that there’s no real ‘winner.’ Since a group game doesn’t involve that much player interaction anyway, Dinosaur Island doesn’t really even necessarily feel like a solo game. Every play requires a different strategy, and that makes it feel like a new game every time. If you enjoy Dinosaur Island in a group setting, give it a try as a solo game. There’s really not much of a gameplay difference, and I think you’ll enjoy it just as much!
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/05/21/solo-chronicles-dinosaur-island/
In Dinosaur Island, you have successfully created a theme park of the Jurassic variety (see what I did there?), and are now tasked with managing and supervising the day-to-day operations. Think “Zoo Tycoon” on steroids. You have to collect new DNA, upgrade your facilities, build new attractions, hire specialists, oversee your workers, and create new dinosaurs to populate your park! Make sure you manage your resources wisely for maximum benefit, and keep a close eye on the security of your park to ensure the safety of your guests! The goal is to create and maintain the most successful dinosaur park!
DISCLAIMER: An expansion exists for Dinosaur Island, and I do own it, but I have yet to incorporate it into my games. Once I get some experience with the expansion, I will either amend this review or address it in a separate post! -L
Let me first begin this review by saying that there is A LOT going on in this game. Seriously, a lot. And it can be pretty overwhelming at first. But one thing I cannot praise enough about Dinosaur Island is its rulebook. It’s kind of hefty, but it is so detailed and clear (with numerous examples) that I understood how to play the game on my first read-through. And sometimes with games that have so many moving elements, total understanding from the get-go can be rare, for me especially. The excellent rulebook makes a seemingly daunting game not so scary. I always keep the rulebook on hand when I play (just to be safe!), but once I got the hang of all of the steps, I don’t really need to refer back to it anymore!
As a solo game, Dinosaur Island plays very similarly as it does in group play with a few minor differences. For one, no regular Objective cards are used – instead you use a set of specified Solo Objective cards. Next, to simulate player interaction during the Research and Market Phases, the solo player draws a card from an AI deck and eliminates the options/discards the resources listed on the card – this mimics group play in the sense that turn order changes every round and you do not always get your first pick during these phases. The remaining 2 Phases (Worker and Park) occur simultaneously and involve no player interaction, so those are played as normal. One final difference between group and solo play is that the solo player can choose to play without Plot Twist cards. A solo game is played over the course of 7 total rounds, and the overall goal of the game remains the same – amass the most Victory Points.
The trickiest part of playing Dinosaur Island solo, for me, has to do with the Solo Objectives. You have 7 Solo Objectives to be completed throughout the game, and they reward Victory Points based on the round in which they were completed – finishing objectives in earlier rounds yields a higher number of points. If you are unable to complete any objective in a given round, you must discard one (of your choice) at the end of that round. The hard thing is that depending on which objectives are currently in play, it can be difficult to complete one each round to earn those points. Some things take time (and a couple of rounds) to be able to complete – like “Reach a threat level of 15.” If you have multiple long-term objectives in play, they can really limit the number of points you can earn from them. A nice mix of objectives (both short-term and long-term) can help balance out the game a little more, but it’s ultimately a luck of the draw.
One positive thing I can say about the objectives, though, is that they really force you to come up with a multi-faceted strategy. Depending on which objectives are in play, you have to decide on a logical strategy and order in which to complete them for maximum points. You can’t just focus on one objective – you also need to be setting yourself up to complete future objectives. I never feel like I’m just going through the motions because I always need to be thinking ahead to my future rounds.
The thing I really like about Dinosaur Island as a solo game is that it is still extremely engaging. I’m not a huge fan of “Beat your own personal best” solo games, but this one keeps me so involved that I don’t mind the fact that there’s no real ‘winner.’ Since a group game doesn’t involve that much player interaction anyway, Dinosaur Island doesn’t really even necessarily feel like a solo game. Every play requires a different strategy, and that makes it feel like a new game every time. If you enjoy Dinosaur Island in a group setting, give it a try as a solo game. There’s really not much of a gameplay difference, and I think you’ll enjoy it just as much!
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/05/21/solo-chronicles-dinosaur-island/
Lee (2222 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Mar 20, 2018
A dazzling, geeky feast for the eyes!
I don't really do books. In the last twenty years or so, I've probably only read one book from start to finish, and that book was Ready Player One. And I absolutely loved it, reading it pretty much non stop until I'd completed it. As anyone else who has read the book knows, there's a hell of a lot in there for someone to try and incorporate into any movie adaptation that gets undertaken, not to mention all the rights needing to be obtained for the vast wealth of famous characters, movies and video games that it features and recreates in such intricate geeky detail. Steven Spielberg is probably about a good a choice as any for tackling something like this though, and to say I was excited heading in to the preview screening of this would be a serious understatement.
The movie covers a lot of detail up front in a fairly brisk, but very effective introduction in order to set the scene. It's 2045, and our hero is Wade Watts, living high up in 'The Stacks', towers of trailers crudely stacked and held up together by metal beams in a densely populated urban area of Columbus. As Wade descends from his home, he passes his neighbours, many of whom are wearing some kind of VR headsets, involved in different kinds of online activity that we can't see. Wade tells us that at some point in the past people just stopped trying to fix lifes problems and learnt to just live with them instead. And to make things easier, they have the OASIS. The virtual world that his neighbours, and billions of people around the world, all connect to in order to escape the daily grind of the real world. In the OASIS you can be anyone you want to be, do anything you want to do. There are different worlds you can visit, and coins to be earned in order to upgrade your experience. Wade has all his equipment for connecting to the OASIS hidden away among the nearby piles of scrap cars, and when he puts on his headset, we are introduced to his online avatar, Parzival. He tells us about James Halliday, creator of the OASIS, who died five years ago. He left behind a message, informing the world that within the OASIS he'd hidden an Easter egg. Anyone who could find the three keys needed to unlock the door to that Easter egg, would inherit his entire fortune, and gain complete control of the OASIS. Since then, nobody has even got their hands on the first key. Nobody has their name up on the high score board. So... Ready Player One...
And so it kicks off, in dazzlingly glorious fashion, with a crazy multi-vehicle race through New York city in order to get to the finish line and grab the first key. It's like Mario Kart on steroids, with jumps and hazards throughout. Wrecking balls smashing the road, a T-Rex causing havoc and Kong jumping from building to building, smashing things up and taking players out of the game. But nobody can make it to the finish line. It's a fantastic, dizzy assault on the senses, and the first of many scenes where you find yourself frantically scouring the screen to see how many famous cars and characters you can spot. Parzival himself is driving a DeLorean, obviously. We're also introduced to fellow racer, and legend within the OASIS, Art3mis, who after being rescued by Parzival, becomes a close friend. Along with Art3mis, Parzival has a number of other close friends within the OASIS - Aech, Daito and Shoto, none of whom he has met in real life. As Parzival finds the first key, and begins sharing that knowledge with his friends in order to work together for the rest of the keys, they become known as the High Five, in recognition of their names being top of the scoreboard.
The bad guy of the movie is Nolan Sorrento, who used to work for Halliday. He, along with his army of employees, are out to try and take over the OASIS for monetary gain and will do whatever it takes in order to make that happen. When Sorrento discovers the real world identity of Parzival, things begin to get very difficult for the High Five who now have to struggle to not only find the keys first, but also evade capture in the real world.
I don't remember all of the details from the book, so I can't comment too much on what's been missed. But I do know that the puzzles surrounding the keys differ in the movie from those in the book. There are also some pretty big elements which don't feature in the book at all, but the main thing for me was that the overall spirit of the book definitely carries over to the movie. There is some occasional second half drag, but that's inevitable when there are so many prolonged moments of eye-popping visuals on display in-between. One thing I do remember well from the book is the final act, where Wade calls upon an army of OASIS users to help him and the high five fight Sorrento and his army in order to gain access to the final key. It's something I always imagined while reading as being absolutely epic if it were ever to be recreated on screen. Luckily, it is. Wow, just wow!! And once again, like with much of this movie overall, I sat there, wide eyed and with a big gormless geeky grin on my face.
The movie covers a lot of detail up front in a fairly brisk, but very effective introduction in order to set the scene. It's 2045, and our hero is Wade Watts, living high up in 'The Stacks', towers of trailers crudely stacked and held up together by metal beams in a densely populated urban area of Columbus. As Wade descends from his home, he passes his neighbours, many of whom are wearing some kind of VR headsets, involved in different kinds of online activity that we can't see. Wade tells us that at some point in the past people just stopped trying to fix lifes problems and learnt to just live with them instead. And to make things easier, they have the OASIS. The virtual world that his neighbours, and billions of people around the world, all connect to in order to escape the daily grind of the real world. In the OASIS you can be anyone you want to be, do anything you want to do. There are different worlds you can visit, and coins to be earned in order to upgrade your experience. Wade has all his equipment for connecting to the OASIS hidden away among the nearby piles of scrap cars, and when he puts on his headset, we are introduced to his online avatar, Parzival. He tells us about James Halliday, creator of the OASIS, who died five years ago. He left behind a message, informing the world that within the OASIS he'd hidden an Easter egg. Anyone who could find the three keys needed to unlock the door to that Easter egg, would inherit his entire fortune, and gain complete control of the OASIS. Since then, nobody has even got their hands on the first key. Nobody has their name up on the high score board. So... Ready Player One...
And so it kicks off, in dazzlingly glorious fashion, with a crazy multi-vehicle race through New York city in order to get to the finish line and grab the first key. It's like Mario Kart on steroids, with jumps and hazards throughout. Wrecking balls smashing the road, a T-Rex causing havoc and Kong jumping from building to building, smashing things up and taking players out of the game. But nobody can make it to the finish line. It's a fantastic, dizzy assault on the senses, and the first of many scenes where you find yourself frantically scouring the screen to see how many famous cars and characters you can spot. Parzival himself is driving a DeLorean, obviously. We're also introduced to fellow racer, and legend within the OASIS, Art3mis, who after being rescued by Parzival, becomes a close friend. Along with Art3mis, Parzival has a number of other close friends within the OASIS - Aech, Daito and Shoto, none of whom he has met in real life. As Parzival finds the first key, and begins sharing that knowledge with his friends in order to work together for the rest of the keys, they become known as the High Five, in recognition of their names being top of the scoreboard.
The bad guy of the movie is Nolan Sorrento, who used to work for Halliday. He, along with his army of employees, are out to try and take over the OASIS for monetary gain and will do whatever it takes in order to make that happen. When Sorrento discovers the real world identity of Parzival, things begin to get very difficult for the High Five who now have to struggle to not only find the keys first, but also evade capture in the real world.
I don't remember all of the details from the book, so I can't comment too much on what's been missed. But I do know that the puzzles surrounding the keys differ in the movie from those in the book. There are also some pretty big elements which don't feature in the book at all, but the main thing for me was that the overall spirit of the book definitely carries over to the movie. There is some occasional second half drag, but that's inevitable when there are so many prolonged moments of eye-popping visuals on display in-between. One thing I do remember well from the book is the final act, where Wade calls upon an army of OASIS users to help him and the high five fight Sorrento and his army in order to gain access to the final key. It's something I always imagined while reading as being absolutely epic if it were ever to be recreated on screen. Luckily, it is. Wow, just wow!! And once again, like with much of this movie overall, I sat there, wide eyed and with a big gormless geeky grin on my face.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Villagers in Tabletop Games
Jan 16, 2020
The saying is, “It takes a village…” but that village didn’t just magically appear overnight. Creating a prosperous and thriving community takes not only time, but hard work, ingenuity, and a little bit of luck! Villagers is a game that takes you through that process, as you strive to create a village of renown.
Disclaimer: I do not intent to rehash the entire rulebook in this review, but rather provide an overview of the gameplay, and how it differs between multiplayer and solo play. -L
Villagers is a game of card drafting and tableau building in which players are competing to build the most prosperous village in the land. The game is played over a series of rounds, each broken up into the Draft Phase and the Build Phase. During the Draft Phase, players take turns drafting villagers from the available card stacks into their hands. During the Build Phase, players can add villagers from their hand to their tableau. Certain cards can be chained together, and provide more powers and/or end-game points – but they must be added to the village in chain order. At two points throughout the game, the First and Second Market Phases, all players will collect money depending on which cards they have in their villages. The game ends immediately after the Second Market Phase is completed, and the player with the most money is the winner!
As a solo game, Villagers plays very similarly to group play, with only a couple of differences. First, the solo player is battling against The Countess, an AI character, to create the best village. The Countess is incorporated into the game in a unique way. During the Draft Phase, whenever you draft a villager to your hand, you also select an available villager to go straight into the village of the Countess. The Build Phase is carried out as normal. At the end of every round, you blindly draw a face-down card from the Reserve (draw deck), and it automatically goes into the Countess’ village as well. The other twist to a solo game of Villagers is that there are Event cards in play each round. Events are resolved after the Build Phase, before beginning the next round, and are often detrimental to the player – like making you pay extra gold to unlock padlocks, for example. The First and Second Market Phases work the same as they do in a multiplayer game, and the game ends immediately after the Second Market Phase. If you have managed to accrue more money than the Countess, then you have won!
I want to start off by saying that I love Villagers. Card drafting and set collection are my JAM, and this is a game that highlights those really well without making it too complicated. Even when playing solo, those mechanics still feel balanced, and that makes the overall game enjoyable. From my previous Solo Chronicles, I have stated how much I dislike “Beat your own high score” solo modes, so I was extremely happy when I saw that Villagers pitted the solo player against an AI character – the Countess. For the most part, I think that the Countess works really well in this game. When you draft a card, the Countess gets a card as well. But the best part about that is that you get to choose which card goes to the Countess. That means that you are able to keep some semblance of strategy in your game, because you have the power to decide what cards go where, for the most part.
The other neat thing about solo play is the inclusion of Event cards in the game – which are not present in group play. The Events add an extra element that you have to take into account for the given round. Depending on the Event, it could compromise your strategy quite a bit, but that’s what keeps it interesting. You can’t just get into a groove and grind through the rounds, drafting everything you want, when you want. You have to adapt your strategy based upon the Event(s) in play, and the Countess’ village.
The only downside for me is that at the end of every round, the Countess gets the top face-down card from the Reserve, and depending on what card that is, it could throw a wrench into the strategy you’ve been working hard to set up. I guess that mimics a multiplayer game in a sense, though, because you can’t always control what your opponents will do. The biggest downside about solo play for me has nothing to do with actual gameplay, but rather table space. Every card that goes into the Countess’ village is a stand-alone, meaning that they do not chain together like cards in your village will. So depending on how long the game goes, the Countess’ village will get to be pretty large, and hog lots of the table. I think that just means I need a bigger table though…
All that being said – is Villagers a good game for solo play? I would say mostly yes. Strategy is still required for success, but adaptability of that strategy is what keeps the game engaging and entertaining. Nothing can quite replace the multiplayer experience, but playing against the AI character keeps the competitiveness alive in the game. As someone who does a lot of solo playing these days, I am glad that I have added Villagers to my collection. If you haven’t gotten a chance to play Villagers yet, I would highly recommend checking it out. Solo or multiplayer, it’s a great time!
Disclaimer: I do not intent to rehash the entire rulebook in this review, but rather provide an overview of the gameplay, and how it differs between multiplayer and solo play. -L
Villagers is a game of card drafting and tableau building in which players are competing to build the most prosperous village in the land. The game is played over a series of rounds, each broken up into the Draft Phase and the Build Phase. During the Draft Phase, players take turns drafting villagers from the available card stacks into their hands. During the Build Phase, players can add villagers from their hand to their tableau. Certain cards can be chained together, and provide more powers and/or end-game points – but they must be added to the village in chain order. At two points throughout the game, the First and Second Market Phases, all players will collect money depending on which cards they have in their villages. The game ends immediately after the Second Market Phase is completed, and the player with the most money is the winner!
As a solo game, Villagers plays very similarly to group play, with only a couple of differences. First, the solo player is battling against The Countess, an AI character, to create the best village. The Countess is incorporated into the game in a unique way. During the Draft Phase, whenever you draft a villager to your hand, you also select an available villager to go straight into the village of the Countess. The Build Phase is carried out as normal. At the end of every round, you blindly draw a face-down card from the Reserve (draw deck), and it automatically goes into the Countess’ village as well. The other twist to a solo game of Villagers is that there are Event cards in play each round. Events are resolved after the Build Phase, before beginning the next round, and are often detrimental to the player – like making you pay extra gold to unlock padlocks, for example. The First and Second Market Phases work the same as they do in a multiplayer game, and the game ends immediately after the Second Market Phase. If you have managed to accrue more money than the Countess, then you have won!
I want to start off by saying that I love Villagers. Card drafting and set collection are my JAM, and this is a game that highlights those really well without making it too complicated. Even when playing solo, those mechanics still feel balanced, and that makes the overall game enjoyable. From my previous Solo Chronicles, I have stated how much I dislike “Beat your own high score” solo modes, so I was extremely happy when I saw that Villagers pitted the solo player against an AI character – the Countess. For the most part, I think that the Countess works really well in this game. When you draft a card, the Countess gets a card as well. But the best part about that is that you get to choose which card goes to the Countess. That means that you are able to keep some semblance of strategy in your game, because you have the power to decide what cards go where, for the most part.
The other neat thing about solo play is the inclusion of Event cards in the game – which are not present in group play. The Events add an extra element that you have to take into account for the given round. Depending on the Event, it could compromise your strategy quite a bit, but that’s what keeps it interesting. You can’t just get into a groove and grind through the rounds, drafting everything you want, when you want. You have to adapt your strategy based upon the Event(s) in play, and the Countess’ village.
The only downside for me is that at the end of every round, the Countess gets the top face-down card from the Reserve, and depending on what card that is, it could throw a wrench into the strategy you’ve been working hard to set up. I guess that mimics a multiplayer game in a sense, though, because you can’t always control what your opponents will do. The biggest downside about solo play for me has nothing to do with actual gameplay, but rather table space. Every card that goes into the Countess’ village is a stand-alone, meaning that they do not chain together like cards in your village will. So depending on how long the game goes, the Countess’ village will get to be pretty large, and hog lots of the table. I think that just means I need a bigger table though…
All that being said – is Villagers a good game for solo play? I would say mostly yes. Strategy is still required for success, but adaptability of that strategy is what keeps the game engaging and entertaining. Nothing can quite replace the multiplayer experience, but playing against the AI character keeps the competitiveness alive in the game. As someone who does a lot of solo playing these days, I am glad that I have added Villagers to my collection. If you haven’t gotten a chance to play Villagers yet, I would highly recommend checking it out. Solo or multiplayer, it’s a great time!
