Search
Search results
Andy K (10821 KP) rated What We Left Behind: Looking Back at Deep Space Nine (2018) in Movies
Jul 23, 2019
Where would we be without DS9?
Maybe the best Trek of all time?
Sisko, Odo, Kira, O'Brien, Dax, Quark, Bashir and the rest of the massive cast brought Star Trek to life as never before in this vastly different "station"ary style of Trek.
At the time, syndication was where it was at for reruns and additional revenue for a TV program. DS9 bucked the trend of wrapping up everything within one episode and began a TV serial which pretty much ran almost the entire run, much to the dismay of studio executives. Nowadays, shows like The Walking Dead, Lost, or Game of Thrones do this every week, but in the mid 90s this was not common.
Sandwiched in between The Next Generation and Voyager, DS9 did not get a lot of respect during its initial run at all. Also at that time, Trek TNG movies were in full swing so the show had to compete with that as well. Television stations would often preempt the show, skip a week or run the show in the early morning hours which made it even harder for its audience to keep track of the action.
DS9 certainly got a 2nd life with the current popularity of "binge watching" on your favorite streaming service. Having the ability to watch multi-part episodes or entire seasons within a few weeks brought back to life the en genius writing, acting and production quality of the series.
For this documentary, former showrunner Ira Steven Behr took several years worth of cast, crew and fan interviews, clips, behind the scenes footage and compiled a wonderful interesting film for any Trek fan. Many cast members major and minor as well as producers, writers and tech workers told tales of working on the show and how they very much enjoyed their time.
Throughout the many iterations of Trek, original creator Gene Roddenberry felt the show should entertain as well as provide social commentary on the issues of the time and DS9 was no exception. Throughout the show's 7 year run they dealt with issues such as racism, homelessness, same sex relationships and even genetic engineering.
One of the most fun subplots of the film was gathering the show's original writers in a room to formulate the first episode for the fictitious "Season 8" which will never actually happen (although I wish it would). The ideas, plot points and arcs they went through and came up with were extremely interesting, keep with the high level of writing the show originally produced, but also through us a few curveballs with some fun surprises.
Through the cast interviews we got to hear how the crew got along, some of their favorite and least favorite episodes and even the friendships they have maintained with one another.
The DVD set I received also had included a vast assortment of additional footage featuring even more nuggets and stories of what made the show great.
Overall, this film was one of the best documentaries I have ever seen about one of my favorite television programs in my lifetime. I might have to start binge watching the show again very soon.
Did I mention my name appears in the end credits?!? đ
Sisko, Odo, Kira, O'Brien, Dax, Quark, Bashir and the rest of the massive cast brought Star Trek to life as never before in this vastly different "station"ary style of Trek.
At the time, syndication was where it was at for reruns and additional revenue for a TV program. DS9 bucked the trend of wrapping up everything within one episode and began a TV serial which pretty much ran almost the entire run, much to the dismay of studio executives. Nowadays, shows like The Walking Dead, Lost, or Game of Thrones do this every week, but in the mid 90s this was not common.
Sandwiched in between The Next Generation and Voyager, DS9 did not get a lot of respect during its initial run at all. Also at that time, Trek TNG movies were in full swing so the show had to compete with that as well. Television stations would often preempt the show, skip a week or run the show in the early morning hours which made it even harder for its audience to keep track of the action.
DS9 certainly got a 2nd life with the current popularity of "binge watching" on your favorite streaming service. Having the ability to watch multi-part episodes or entire seasons within a few weeks brought back to life the en genius writing, acting and production quality of the series.
For this documentary, former showrunner Ira Steven Behr took several years worth of cast, crew and fan interviews, clips, behind the scenes footage and compiled a wonderful interesting film for any Trek fan. Many cast members major and minor as well as producers, writers and tech workers told tales of working on the show and how they very much enjoyed their time.
Throughout the many iterations of Trek, original creator Gene Roddenberry felt the show should entertain as well as provide social commentary on the issues of the time and DS9 was no exception. Throughout the show's 7 year run they dealt with issues such as racism, homelessness, same sex relationships and even genetic engineering.
One of the most fun subplots of the film was gathering the show's original writers in a room to formulate the first episode for the fictitious "Season 8" which will never actually happen (although I wish it would). The ideas, plot points and arcs they went through and came up with were extremely interesting, keep with the high level of writing the show originally produced, but also through us a few curveballs with some fun surprises.
Through the cast interviews we got to hear how the crew got along, some of their favorite and least favorite episodes and even the friendships they have maintained with one another.
The DVD set I received also had included a vast assortment of additional footage featuring even more nuggets and stories of what made the show great.
Overall, this film was one of the best documentaries I have ever seen about one of my favorite television programs in my lifetime. I might have to start binge watching the show again very soon.
Did I mention my name appears in the end credits?!? đ
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Interview (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Thanks to the negative attention that âThe Interviewâ received, it will be viewed by many more people than it would have without the controversy. The film, which was almost never released due to a cyberattack on Sony, is now the most widely accessible of this season.
The comedy follows two average journalists, Aaron Rapoport (Seth Rogan) and David Skylark (James Franco), who become pawns in a CIA plot to assassinate the leader of North Korea.
Skylark is an overzealous news anchor who seems to have no shame in what he reports on. He hosts a celebrity talk show, where he discusses the latest gossip. Fitting perfectly into this scenario are hilarious cameo appearances by Eminem and Rob Lowe.
When Skylark discovers his show is one of Kim Jong-unâs (Randall Park) favorites, he is struck with the genius idea to ask for an interview. Amazingly that request is granted, but attracts the attention of the CIA. Once the two guys are plunged into the outrageous mission, the film carries a fast pace through to the end.
Rogan, who codirected the film with Evan Goldberg, obviously did some real research. Some details are actually based on real world observations.
North Korea is a place shrouded in mystery and little information about the odd dictatorship has surfaced in the outside world. However, there are multiple documentaries by Vice which detail very regimented and monitored trips journalist have taken inside the isolated country.
Elements appearing in the film which are similar to actual documented information about North Korea include: the placement of fake stores with fake food, the discussion of famine and labor camps, and the only pictures allowed on any wall being that of the âsupreme leaderâ or those leaders before him.
Regardless of its very serious political undertones, the film can hardly be taken seriously.
Little touches keep the movie silly and lighthearted. There are quite a few inside jokes that develop throughout the story, cleverly pulling the audience in and making them laugh.
The use of the song âFireworkâ by Katy Perry is one example. It is established as Kim Jong-unâs favorite song, comedically revealing his âsofterâ side. It also happens to be Skylarkâs favorite song, which creates a common ground between the two characters as they begin to form their own bromance. The song works its way into the plot and reappears at the most mismatched moments, making them that much more absurd.
In general, the execution of the plot and mannerisms of the characters stand out as even cheesier than the past work of Rogan and Franco. The extremely animated facial expressions of Franco in his role as the cocky and lovably stupid reporter, look almost cartoon like. Sex jokes and awkward moments abound. People who do not enjoy that type of comedy will not find much value in this film.
Despite the heavy political attention surrounding âThe Interview,â it is one of the most ridiculous comedies to hit theaters. The film has all of the typical features of a Rogan â Franco comedy. Itâs filled with over the top raunchy humor, graphic violence, and of course plenty of âbromance.â However this time, it is also a highly entertaining political satire.
I give âThe Interviewâ 3.5 out of 5 stars for quality, and 5 out of 5 stars for becoming an outrageous international controversy.
The comedy follows two average journalists, Aaron Rapoport (Seth Rogan) and David Skylark (James Franco), who become pawns in a CIA plot to assassinate the leader of North Korea.
Skylark is an overzealous news anchor who seems to have no shame in what he reports on. He hosts a celebrity talk show, where he discusses the latest gossip. Fitting perfectly into this scenario are hilarious cameo appearances by Eminem and Rob Lowe.
When Skylark discovers his show is one of Kim Jong-unâs (Randall Park) favorites, he is struck with the genius idea to ask for an interview. Amazingly that request is granted, but attracts the attention of the CIA. Once the two guys are plunged into the outrageous mission, the film carries a fast pace through to the end.
Rogan, who codirected the film with Evan Goldberg, obviously did some real research. Some details are actually based on real world observations.
North Korea is a place shrouded in mystery and little information about the odd dictatorship has surfaced in the outside world. However, there are multiple documentaries by Vice which detail very regimented and monitored trips journalist have taken inside the isolated country.
Elements appearing in the film which are similar to actual documented information about North Korea include: the placement of fake stores with fake food, the discussion of famine and labor camps, and the only pictures allowed on any wall being that of the âsupreme leaderâ or those leaders before him.
Regardless of its very serious political undertones, the film can hardly be taken seriously.
Little touches keep the movie silly and lighthearted. There are quite a few inside jokes that develop throughout the story, cleverly pulling the audience in and making them laugh.
The use of the song âFireworkâ by Katy Perry is one example. It is established as Kim Jong-unâs favorite song, comedically revealing his âsofterâ side. It also happens to be Skylarkâs favorite song, which creates a common ground between the two characters as they begin to form their own bromance. The song works its way into the plot and reappears at the most mismatched moments, making them that much more absurd.
In general, the execution of the plot and mannerisms of the characters stand out as even cheesier than the past work of Rogan and Franco. The extremely animated facial expressions of Franco in his role as the cocky and lovably stupid reporter, look almost cartoon like. Sex jokes and awkward moments abound. People who do not enjoy that type of comedy will not find much value in this film.
Despite the heavy political attention surrounding âThe Interview,â it is one of the most ridiculous comedies to hit theaters. The film has all of the typical features of a Rogan â Franco comedy. Itâs filled with over the top raunchy humor, graphic violence, and of course plenty of âbromance.â However this time, it is also a highly entertaining political satire.
I give âThe Interviewâ 3.5 out of 5 stars for quality, and 5 out of 5 stars for becoming an outrageous international controversy.
Scott Tostik (389 KP) rated Blood Sucking Freaks (1976) in Movies
Apr 26, 2020
Excellent kills (2 more)
A dwarf... A torturing foul mouthed hilarious dwarf
Exploitation at its finest
If Le Champion Likes it... What could be wrong with it
When sitting down to watch The Last Drive In with Joe Bob Briggs, you never know what you're going to get.
His weekly double feature show on Shudder can bring some surprises to my tv screen and for that I thank him.
This past week, he double featured Chopping Mall and Joel M Reed's classic torture fest Blood Sucking Freaks.
1976 was a weird time in horror. Classics such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre set the bar pretty high in the early 70's. So directors had to push the bar to try and compete with the instant classic.
Reed decided to make this film in the spirit of Master Gore technician Herschell Gordon Lewis. There is plenty of blood and gore to go around. People have been known to leave during a screening of this slashic. I for one, am not one of them. When I watch a movie, no matter how shitty it is. I have already made a commitment to sit through the bullshit and hope it gets better.
Freaks is just that kind of flick. But it makes you view it, you just have to see what Ralphus(the torturing wonder dwarf excellently played by the late Louis DeJesus) will do next to these women Sardu( Seamus....something or another... Yeah yeah, bad reviewer) has caged up in his basement.
The blood flows, the body parts roll and, yes, there is plenty of boobs and butts if that's your thing too.
I rated it 8/10 for a few reasons that some may not understand. I am a Horror Fanatic. No matter the plot, hole filled and silly... The script, if there is one... And the acting, if you could call it that... I seem to find the good in all films.
The gore, violence and total insanity that stems from the screen to your damaged brain is what should make the movie good/bad. And this movie is full of some of the most disgusting imagery that these eyes have ever fell upon. From playing backgammon for fingers to a woman guillotining herself because she was being spanked...and she had the rope holding the blade in her mouth... Heart removal, stretching, quartering, severed limbs and pulled out teeth... This flick has it all
Shout out to the cop who looks like David Berkowitz... I actually did a double take because at first glance I was like WTF???
Also a shout out to AEW Wrestler and all time wrestling G.O.A.T. Chris Jericho who, like me, is a huge fan of exploitation and gore films. And his own review of this film on his podcast, Talk is Jericho.
I recommend this film if you have a few hours to kill. I highly recommend you get Shudder... Its cheap 5.99 a month in Canada and its full of some great horror films and documentaries. But it's also the only place you can find THE LAST DRIVE-IN with Joe Bob Briggs... Friday nights at 9p.m. EST for the next 6-8 weeks.
Enjoy this film, horror fans. Because you will never see anything else like it....
His weekly double feature show on Shudder can bring some surprises to my tv screen and for that I thank him.
This past week, he double featured Chopping Mall and Joel M Reed's classic torture fest Blood Sucking Freaks.
1976 was a weird time in horror. Classics such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre set the bar pretty high in the early 70's. So directors had to push the bar to try and compete with the instant classic.
Reed decided to make this film in the spirit of Master Gore technician Herschell Gordon Lewis. There is plenty of blood and gore to go around. People have been known to leave during a screening of this slashic. I for one, am not one of them. When I watch a movie, no matter how shitty it is. I have already made a commitment to sit through the bullshit and hope it gets better.
Freaks is just that kind of flick. But it makes you view it, you just have to see what Ralphus(the torturing wonder dwarf excellently played by the late Louis DeJesus) will do next to these women Sardu( Seamus....something or another... Yeah yeah, bad reviewer) has caged up in his basement.
The blood flows, the body parts roll and, yes, there is plenty of boobs and butts if that's your thing too.
I rated it 8/10 for a few reasons that some may not understand. I am a Horror Fanatic. No matter the plot, hole filled and silly... The script, if there is one... And the acting, if you could call it that... I seem to find the good in all films.
The gore, violence and total insanity that stems from the screen to your damaged brain is what should make the movie good/bad. And this movie is full of some of the most disgusting imagery that these eyes have ever fell upon. From playing backgammon for fingers to a woman guillotining herself because she was being spanked...and she had the rope holding the blade in her mouth... Heart removal, stretching, quartering, severed limbs and pulled out teeth... This flick has it all
Shout out to the cop who looks like David Berkowitz... I actually did a double take because at first glance I was like WTF???
Also a shout out to AEW Wrestler and all time wrestling G.O.A.T. Chris Jericho who, like me, is a huge fan of exploitation and gore films. And his own review of this film on his podcast, Talk is Jericho.
I recommend this film if you have a few hours to kill. I highly recommend you get Shudder... Its cheap 5.99 a month in Canada and its full of some great horror films and documentaries. But it's also the only place you can find THE LAST DRIVE-IN with Joe Bob Briggs... Friday nights at 9p.m. EST for the next 6-8 weeks.
Enjoy this film, horror fans. Because you will never see anything else like it....
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Beatles: Eight Days A Week - The Touring Years (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A film worth getting into your life.
Reviewing documentaries is always a bit tricky, since it is often difficult to separate the quality of the film making from your emotional attachment to the subject material. In my case, my early life was saturated with Beatlemania. Although I was only 2 yearâs old in 1963 at the start of it all, I had three older siblings who ramped up the excitement so much that it permeated my young mind. I still remember being vehemently âSssshhedâ since I was making too much noise during the live and ground-breaking âAll you need is Loveâ telecast!
Ron Howardâs film focuses on âthe touring yearsâ which as depicted were truly manic, spanning from 1963 to 1966 before then skipping forward to 1969 for their final rooftop concert. This was in a time when airline travel was not the more comfortable and smoke-free environment it is today, so these worldwide trips much have been seriously grueling, even without the adoration that reached dangerous proportions when they reached their destinations.
Howard has clearly had his research team scour the world for archive clips since â whilst sensitively skipping some of the more âcommonly seenâ materials, like the âjewelry shakingâ clip â the film shows concert action I certainly had never seen before.
The film is also nicely interlaced with celebrity cameos recalling their linkage to the Fab Fourâs performances (often moving, like Whoopi Goldbergâs) and the groupâs âlegacyâ effect on modern-day art (in Richard Curtisâs case rather less convincing). One of the most striking of these is that of Sigourney Weaver recounting her attendance as a pre-teen at the Beatleâs Rose Bowl performance in LA. There, in the newsreel footage of adoring fans, is the unmistakable face of the âbefore she was famousâ actress: at least I hope it really was her (as the clipâs timing implied) and not a lookalike, since that would be really disappointing!
Also featuring â although not enough for my liking â are Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, recounting their feelings about the events and what happened behind the closed doors of hotel rooms or â most notably â a meat truck.
What shines through is the honesty and intelligence of Lennon and McCartney, typified by the idiotic questioning of journalists, some of who had done so little homework they didnât even know there wasnât a Beatle called Eric! Some of the groupâs off the cuff responses were priceless: âWhat is the secret of your success?â asks one journo. âWe donât knowâ quips John. âIf we knew weâd form another group and be managers.â
While the film has enormous energy in its first two thirds, it rather runs out of momentum in its final reelâŠ. a bit like the Beatles did in fact. It also has elements of gimmickry like the smoke rising from photo cigarettes which gets a tad tiresome after the tenth occurrence.
But this is a very watchable and enjoyable rock down memory lane for 50-somethings and for any fans old and young of the Fab Fourâs music. Highly Recommended. Note that the documentary itself is about 90 minutes in length, with another 30 minutes of live concert music tagged onto the end post-titles (which for travel reasons I was unfortunately unable to stay for so canât comment on).
Ron Howardâs film focuses on âthe touring yearsâ which as depicted were truly manic, spanning from 1963 to 1966 before then skipping forward to 1969 for their final rooftop concert. This was in a time when airline travel was not the more comfortable and smoke-free environment it is today, so these worldwide trips much have been seriously grueling, even without the adoration that reached dangerous proportions when they reached their destinations.
Howard has clearly had his research team scour the world for archive clips since â whilst sensitively skipping some of the more âcommonly seenâ materials, like the âjewelry shakingâ clip â the film shows concert action I certainly had never seen before.
The film is also nicely interlaced with celebrity cameos recalling their linkage to the Fab Fourâs performances (often moving, like Whoopi Goldbergâs) and the groupâs âlegacyâ effect on modern-day art (in Richard Curtisâs case rather less convincing). One of the most striking of these is that of Sigourney Weaver recounting her attendance as a pre-teen at the Beatleâs Rose Bowl performance in LA. There, in the newsreel footage of adoring fans, is the unmistakable face of the âbefore she was famousâ actress: at least I hope it really was her (as the clipâs timing implied) and not a lookalike, since that would be really disappointing!
Also featuring â although not enough for my liking â are Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, recounting their feelings about the events and what happened behind the closed doors of hotel rooms or â most notably â a meat truck.
What shines through is the honesty and intelligence of Lennon and McCartney, typified by the idiotic questioning of journalists, some of who had done so little homework they didnât even know there wasnât a Beatle called Eric! Some of the groupâs off the cuff responses were priceless: âWhat is the secret of your success?â asks one journo. âWe donât knowâ quips John. âIf we knew weâd form another group and be managers.â
While the film has enormous energy in its first two thirds, it rather runs out of momentum in its final reelâŠ. a bit like the Beatles did in fact. It also has elements of gimmickry like the smoke rising from photo cigarettes which gets a tad tiresome after the tenth occurrence.
But this is a very watchable and enjoyable rock down memory lane for 50-somethings and for any fans old and young of the Fab Fourâs music. Highly Recommended. Note that the documentary itself is about 90 minutes in length, with another 30 minutes of live concert music tagged onto the end post-titles (which for travel reasons I was unfortunately unable to stay for so canât comment on).
Laura Doe (1350 KP) rated Inside the Mind of Jeffrey Dahmer: The Cannibal Killer in Books
Mar 12, 2022
Jeffrey Dahmer is one of the serial killers that I didnât know too much about and this book was definitely a revelation. It takes you through from Dahmer being born right up to his death and a lot of the in between.
Iâve never read this author before but am aware of some of his other books and I think that this book was a good one to start with. I liked that we delved into Dahmerâs childhood and found some possible triggers from there but also that the author reinforced that not every child that suffers a specific trauma in their childhood becomes a serial killer, as I think it is important that the reader is reminded of this each time.
I also liked how there was a chapter for each of the victims and also in the appendix there were the charges in more detail for each victim too. Far too often when reading or watching documentaries about serial killers their victims are glossed over and forgotten while their killerâs name is remembered.
There were a few things that I disliked about this book, the main one being the whole chapter that seemed to be dedicated to slagging off psychiatrists and psychologists. While psychology is not an exact science and different people in the profession can come to different conclusions, I feel that the author spent too many pages trying to prove his point. I also felt that a lot of contempt for the profession was coming through in the writing, which, as somebody who wants to become a psychologist, is not something that I appreciated. I understand that everyone has their opinion on it, but I felt that far too much time was spent trying to get his point across.
There were also a few mistakes that made it hard to make sense of a few things, I understand that it has only just been published and there will be a few mistakes (there was a repeated word in a sentence that wasnât needed) but when it is an obvious mistake with a date (in the Anthony Hughes chapter it says that he was last seen on 24th September 1991 and then 2 chapters below it says that his family were notified of his death on 5th July 1991) it makes for very confusing reading.
I also found that a lot of the time Christopher Berry-Dee referred to the book written by Brian Masters, Iâm unsure if this was only because he hasnât spoken to Dahmer in person while Masters did but at times I felt like I should have just picked up his book instead. I also found that sometimes the author seemed to boast about which serial killers he had met in real life when he didnât need to.
Overall, I liked the humour in the book and found the writing style easy to get on with. It wasnât a pleasant book (what book about a serial killer is?) but it was well written. I would pick up other books by this author in the future. Thank you to The Motherload book club on Facebook for the opportunity to win this book in a giveaway and the publisher Ad Lib for my copy!
Iâve never read this author before but am aware of some of his other books and I think that this book was a good one to start with. I liked that we delved into Dahmerâs childhood and found some possible triggers from there but also that the author reinforced that not every child that suffers a specific trauma in their childhood becomes a serial killer, as I think it is important that the reader is reminded of this each time.
I also liked how there was a chapter for each of the victims and also in the appendix there were the charges in more detail for each victim too. Far too often when reading or watching documentaries about serial killers their victims are glossed over and forgotten while their killerâs name is remembered.
There were a few things that I disliked about this book, the main one being the whole chapter that seemed to be dedicated to slagging off psychiatrists and psychologists. While psychology is not an exact science and different people in the profession can come to different conclusions, I feel that the author spent too many pages trying to prove his point. I also felt that a lot of contempt for the profession was coming through in the writing, which, as somebody who wants to become a psychologist, is not something that I appreciated. I understand that everyone has their opinion on it, but I felt that far too much time was spent trying to get his point across.
There were also a few mistakes that made it hard to make sense of a few things, I understand that it has only just been published and there will be a few mistakes (there was a repeated word in a sentence that wasnât needed) but when it is an obvious mistake with a date (in the Anthony Hughes chapter it says that he was last seen on 24th September 1991 and then 2 chapters below it says that his family were notified of his death on 5th July 1991) it makes for very confusing reading.
I also found that a lot of the time Christopher Berry-Dee referred to the book written by Brian Masters, Iâm unsure if this was only because he hasnât spoken to Dahmer in person while Masters did but at times I felt like I should have just picked up his book instead. I also found that sometimes the author seemed to boast about which serial killers he had met in real life when he didnât need to.
Overall, I liked the humour in the book and found the writing style easy to get on with. It wasnât a pleasant book (what book about a serial killer is?) but it was well written. I would pick up other books by this author in the future. Thank you to The Motherload book club on Facebook for the opportunity to win this book in a giveaway and the publisher Ad Lib for my copy!
Erika (17788 KP) rated Sophie: A Murder In West Cork in TV
Jul 31, 2021
Sophie: A Murder in West Cork, is one of Netflixâs newest true crime series offerings. Consisting of three episodes, the series examines the murder case of Sophie Toscan Du Plantier, a French National that was murdered at her rural holiday getaway home in Schull, Ireland in 1996. Du Plantierâs murder was the first in over 100 years in the small town and remains technically unsolved.
The documentary series had a wide variety of talking heads, from Du Planierâs family, friends, locals, various members of the Garda, and surprisingly, the main suspect. Du Planierâs private life seemed complicated, and it was definitely going to be utilized against her throughout the entire thing.
The case was interesting, Du Planier was found in a bramble bush a few days before Christmas. With seemingly no leads, and a haphazard investigation, I didnât know how they would end up with a suspect. The first episode set everything up, establishing what the town was like by interviewing the locals. There was even a little spookiness brought in. A few days before her death, Du Planier had visited some ruins, and saw a white lady, which was an omen of death. Pretty interesting, and you wouldnât think it was pertinent, however, Du Planier took it seriously.
If you watch enough true crime documentaries, you know normally what a killer would do, revisit the scene, be overly helpful, etc. It was clear as soon as they introduced the journalist that he was indeed the suspect. However, when the second episode started, the series was taken over by the main suspect, journalist and âpoetâ, Ian Bailey. As one of Du Planierâs family members quipped, he loves to be interviewed.
Somehow, Bailey had all of this insider knowledge, and wrote somewhat salacious articles about Du Planier, painting her as this woman that entertained all sorts of men. He was also very adamant that the murder was French, and probably her partner or another intimate partner. Bailey was somewhat charismatic, but a complete weirdo. It is common for law enforcement to go after the âothersâ in society, so was he targeted because he was eccentric? Who knows?
It was clear that the Garda in this area had no idea as to what to do. They may have also had a little tunnel vision because the village creep was poking around the crime scene.
Iâm all for presenting all sides to a case, but having the suspect take over in a very charismatic way is not the best approach. The Garda in the area, inexperienced in investigating murders, was obviously not equipped to deal with the investigation. It was clear from the beginning that it was the primary reason the case hasnât been officially prosecuted in Ireland.
Whenever your documentary begins to get overtaken by the number one suspect, rather than the victim, I begin to have issues. It was also interesting that at the end of the series, there was actually a statement that Du Planier had been forgotten throughout the entire event, and while she was present, she wasnât the center of the story.
Bailey seems to be the most likely culprit, though, the Garda couldnât have convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt. It was interesting that somehow in France, the evidence was considered solid enough for a conviction.
I did generally enjoy the documentary series, but again, I have an issue with the main suspect overshadowing the victim. Also, I didnât feel like enough evidence was presented, and the majority of it was slightly repetitive. Iâm interested to see if the case is ever resolved. Based upon the series, probably not.
The documentary series had a wide variety of talking heads, from Du Planierâs family, friends, locals, various members of the Garda, and surprisingly, the main suspect. Du Planierâs private life seemed complicated, and it was definitely going to be utilized against her throughout the entire thing.
The case was interesting, Du Planier was found in a bramble bush a few days before Christmas. With seemingly no leads, and a haphazard investigation, I didnât know how they would end up with a suspect. The first episode set everything up, establishing what the town was like by interviewing the locals. There was even a little spookiness brought in. A few days before her death, Du Planier had visited some ruins, and saw a white lady, which was an omen of death. Pretty interesting, and you wouldnât think it was pertinent, however, Du Planier took it seriously.
If you watch enough true crime documentaries, you know normally what a killer would do, revisit the scene, be overly helpful, etc. It was clear as soon as they introduced the journalist that he was indeed the suspect. However, when the second episode started, the series was taken over by the main suspect, journalist and âpoetâ, Ian Bailey. As one of Du Planierâs family members quipped, he loves to be interviewed.
Somehow, Bailey had all of this insider knowledge, and wrote somewhat salacious articles about Du Planier, painting her as this woman that entertained all sorts of men. He was also very adamant that the murder was French, and probably her partner or another intimate partner. Bailey was somewhat charismatic, but a complete weirdo. It is common for law enforcement to go after the âothersâ in society, so was he targeted because he was eccentric? Who knows?
It was clear that the Garda in this area had no idea as to what to do. They may have also had a little tunnel vision because the village creep was poking around the crime scene.
Iâm all for presenting all sides to a case, but having the suspect take over in a very charismatic way is not the best approach. The Garda in the area, inexperienced in investigating murders, was obviously not equipped to deal with the investigation. It was clear from the beginning that it was the primary reason the case hasnât been officially prosecuted in Ireland.
Whenever your documentary begins to get overtaken by the number one suspect, rather than the victim, I begin to have issues. It was also interesting that at the end of the series, there was actually a statement that Du Planier had been forgotten throughout the entire event, and while she was present, she wasnât the center of the story.
Bailey seems to be the most likely culprit, though, the Garda couldnât have convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt. It was interesting that somehow in France, the evidence was considered solid enough for a conviction.
I did generally enjoy the documentary series, but again, I have an issue with the main suspect overshadowing the victim. Also, I didnât feel like enough evidence was presented, and the majority of it was slightly repetitive. Iâm interested to see if the case is ever resolved. Based upon the series, probably not.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Apollo 11 (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
This extraordinary documentary exploring the build up, launch and landing of the most famous mission in NASA history, and arguably the pinnacle of human space exploration to date, is a mesmeric and unique experience like no other factual film you have ever seen. You can find it tucked away on Netflix, and I urge you to do so if you ever found yourself wondering for one minute about the moon landing of â69 and what all the fuss was about.
Director Todd Douglas Miller makes the bold choice to do away with all narrative, cutaway interviews and commentaries, and just shows you what happened in gorgeous detail, with a kind of retro super 8 camera vibe, and a very evocative sountrack. The degree of unseen footage of the entire project is jaw-dropping, especially if there is something of a science or even science fiction geek within you.
Some of what you see and hear is, of course, so iconic that when you see or hear them you feel a sense of deja vu that feels like a dream in the context of the full story. The rest is so amazing to contemplate as something that humanity actually achieved that it is tempting to see it as an odd retro sci-fi movie with quite bad effects and a dull plot; the control room, suits, the rocket itself, the sense of endless patience, anticipation and waiting â you just wouldnât believe it would work if it was a fiction.
At several points I found myself reminding myself that it wasnât a fiction, and then marvelling at the entire world that existed at the end of the 60s, and how so essentially different it was, and how ancient it feels now. I wasnât quite born when all this happened, but it has been very much in my imagination all my life. I wanted to be an astronaut, as did most other kids in the Star Wars era of the late 70s and early 80s, and I only really gave up when I realised that meant being as smart and dedicated as Neil Armstrong and not as reckless and cool as Han Solo. Now I am older, I can appreciate things about it that I never could, and in understanding Human history, it is a riveting chapter.
What we see in this film is how detail and hard work and maths and safety precautions and thousands of team members made this happen. Every nut and bolt, and every drop of sweat and fuel is counted, recounted and considered. At times it seems mundane and without drama, boring even, and then the sheer scale of acheivement and wonder overtakes you as you catch yourself realising how incredible it was that any of this was done at all.
There is no political overtone or background here, no conspiracy theory, no other voice questioning the economic impact or wisdom of the entire endeavour, just a childlike but serious minded wonder at doing something because we could if we set our minds to it. And for that it has a beauty and transcendent elegance that rarely accompanies the subject. By the end, there is really only one word to describe the fact that over 50 years ago three men looked down on the Earthrise and beheld every other living thing in existence in one glance. And that word is: wow!
It is slow, for sure, but only because we have become used to pace and forced drama, from our fictions and our documentaries. Apollo 11 wonât be for everyone in that case, and may even be fairly called dull by some who canât relate to it in any way. For me it was a trance like epiphany I canât forget. Highly recommended if you are looking for something fascinating, educational and thought provoking out of your comfort zone and out of this world!
Director Todd Douglas Miller makes the bold choice to do away with all narrative, cutaway interviews and commentaries, and just shows you what happened in gorgeous detail, with a kind of retro super 8 camera vibe, and a very evocative sountrack. The degree of unseen footage of the entire project is jaw-dropping, especially if there is something of a science or even science fiction geek within you.
Some of what you see and hear is, of course, so iconic that when you see or hear them you feel a sense of deja vu that feels like a dream in the context of the full story. The rest is so amazing to contemplate as something that humanity actually achieved that it is tempting to see it as an odd retro sci-fi movie with quite bad effects and a dull plot; the control room, suits, the rocket itself, the sense of endless patience, anticipation and waiting â you just wouldnât believe it would work if it was a fiction.
At several points I found myself reminding myself that it wasnât a fiction, and then marvelling at the entire world that existed at the end of the 60s, and how so essentially different it was, and how ancient it feels now. I wasnât quite born when all this happened, but it has been very much in my imagination all my life. I wanted to be an astronaut, as did most other kids in the Star Wars era of the late 70s and early 80s, and I only really gave up when I realised that meant being as smart and dedicated as Neil Armstrong and not as reckless and cool as Han Solo. Now I am older, I can appreciate things about it that I never could, and in understanding Human history, it is a riveting chapter.
What we see in this film is how detail and hard work and maths and safety precautions and thousands of team members made this happen. Every nut and bolt, and every drop of sweat and fuel is counted, recounted and considered. At times it seems mundane and without drama, boring even, and then the sheer scale of acheivement and wonder overtakes you as you catch yourself realising how incredible it was that any of this was done at all.
There is no political overtone or background here, no conspiracy theory, no other voice questioning the economic impact or wisdom of the entire endeavour, just a childlike but serious minded wonder at doing something because we could if we set our minds to it. And for that it has a beauty and transcendent elegance that rarely accompanies the subject. By the end, there is really only one word to describe the fact that over 50 years ago three men looked down on the Earthrise and beheld every other living thing in existence in one glance. And that word is: wow!
It is slow, for sure, but only because we have become used to pace and forced drama, from our fictions and our documentaries. Apollo 11 wonât be for everyone in that case, and may even be fairly called dull by some who canât relate to it in any way. For me it was a trance like epiphany I canât forget. Highly recommended if you are looking for something fascinating, educational and thought provoking out of your comfort zone and out of this world!
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Crisis (2021) in Movies
Feb 19, 2021
Worth it just for Oldman
Crisis is a 2021 film from write, director and producer Nicholas Jarecki, who previously brought us 2012's Arbitrage starring Richard Gere. Crisis is a story about drugs, namely opioids, and follows three separate yet related narratives about opioids and their impact on US society. There's an undercover DEA agent posing as a drug trafficker arranging a Fentanyl smuggling operation between Canada and the US (Armie Hammer), a recovering addict architect determined to track down those responsible for her son's involvement in narcotics (Evangeline Lilly), and a university professor (Gary Oldman) who's research laboratory uncovers dangerous revelations about a new drug that they've been paid to research by a very influential drug company and their executives (Luke Evans).
The main purpose of Crisis appears to be highlighting two entirely juxtaposed real life issues with opioids - the illegal smuggling and import of street drugs and the completely legal yet questionable drugs introduced by drug companies with full support of the government. For most, neither of these stories should be particularly surprising as they're fairly common knowledge and have been featured in countless films and documentaries over the years, although I think this may be the first time the two stories have been shown together in a film. And for Crisis this really works - showing the two contrasting issues makes for a more interesting and unique story rather than concentrating solely on one that we've seen many times before, especially as its split into three separate narratives.
However, the problem with Crisis is that not all of the narratives are as engaging as intended. Evangeline Lilly puts in a wonderful and emotional performance as architect and mother Claire, but her narrative becomes a little unrealistic as she becomes bent on revenge at those responsible for involving her son in the drugs underworld. And unfortunately Armie Hammer's narrative as undercover federal agent Jake is nothing original, with a smuggling operation and drugs bust that we've seen in many other films, some of which I'm afraid have done it a lot better. The most interesting narrative though is that of Gary Oldman as Dr Tyrone Brower, whose struggle over whether to tell the truth about a new dangerous drug or take the money from his drug company employers is a surprisingly thrilling morality tale. It's helped by a superb turn from Oldman himself and a wonderful supporting role from Greg Kinnear (who I've adored since 1997's As Good As It Gets), and the verbal sparring scenes between Brower and Kinnear's university Dean are probably the best in the film. It's a shame however that Luke Evans isn't given as much to do with his part in this narrative, even with his questionable American accent.
The biggest problem I had with all of the narratives is that unlike similar films that intertwine related narratives that eventually intersect dramatically (think 2006's Best Picture Oscar winner Crash), the narratives here don't all come together in the way I was expecting, which was rather disappointing.
Cinematography-wise, director and writer Jarecki does a good job as the film looks and feels good, and really highlights the US and Canadian settings. The soundtrack only adds to the overall tense and suspenseful feel of the film, although it does feature the typical pulsing, drum beat style that seems to be standard for a modern thriller. And the script, while possibly a little clichéd especially around the drugs bust and smuggling, is good and with his supporting acting role as Jake's fellow DEA agent Stan, Nicholas Jarecki could be one to watch in future.
Overall, Crisis is a good thriller that tells the story of well-known drug issues in a different way and does well in highlighting real life concerns. For the most part it succeeds in bringing an interesting set of narratives together for a fairly gripping albeit slightly long film, and despite my preconceptions about how its intersecting storylines should play out, it is an enjoyable watch, although for the most part thanks to the talents of Gary Oldman.
The main purpose of Crisis appears to be highlighting two entirely juxtaposed real life issues with opioids - the illegal smuggling and import of street drugs and the completely legal yet questionable drugs introduced by drug companies with full support of the government. For most, neither of these stories should be particularly surprising as they're fairly common knowledge and have been featured in countless films and documentaries over the years, although I think this may be the first time the two stories have been shown together in a film. And for Crisis this really works - showing the two contrasting issues makes for a more interesting and unique story rather than concentrating solely on one that we've seen many times before, especially as its split into three separate narratives.
However, the problem with Crisis is that not all of the narratives are as engaging as intended. Evangeline Lilly puts in a wonderful and emotional performance as architect and mother Claire, but her narrative becomes a little unrealistic as she becomes bent on revenge at those responsible for involving her son in the drugs underworld. And unfortunately Armie Hammer's narrative as undercover federal agent Jake is nothing original, with a smuggling operation and drugs bust that we've seen in many other films, some of which I'm afraid have done it a lot better. The most interesting narrative though is that of Gary Oldman as Dr Tyrone Brower, whose struggle over whether to tell the truth about a new dangerous drug or take the money from his drug company employers is a surprisingly thrilling morality tale. It's helped by a superb turn from Oldman himself and a wonderful supporting role from Greg Kinnear (who I've adored since 1997's As Good As It Gets), and the verbal sparring scenes between Brower and Kinnear's university Dean are probably the best in the film. It's a shame however that Luke Evans isn't given as much to do with his part in this narrative, even with his questionable American accent.
The biggest problem I had with all of the narratives is that unlike similar films that intertwine related narratives that eventually intersect dramatically (think 2006's Best Picture Oscar winner Crash), the narratives here don't all come together in the way I was expecting, which was rather disappointing.
Cinematography-wise, director and writer Jarecki does a good job as the film looks and feels good, and really highlights the US and Canadian settings. The soundtrack only adds to the overall tense and suspenseful feel of the film, although it does feature the typical pulsing, drum beat style that seems to be standard for a modern thriller. And the script, while possibly a little clichéd especially around the drugs bust and smuggling, is good and with his supporting acting role as Jake's fellow DEA agent Stan, Nicholas Jarecki could be one to watch in future.
Overall, Crisis is a good thriller that tells the story of well-known drug issues in a different way and does well in highlighting real life concerns. For the most part it succeeds in bringing an interesting set of narratives together for a fairly gripping albeit slightly long film, and despite my preconceptions about how its intersecting storylines should play out, it is an enjoyable watch, although for the most part thanks to the talents of Gary Oldman.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mauritanian (2021) in Movies
Apr 14, 2021
Great acting from all four leads, especially Tahar Rahim (2 more)
Great use of screen ratios for flashbacks
Very thought provoking
War crimes don't just happen on the battlefield
Itâs 2001. Bush and Rumsfeld seek vengeance on the perpetrators of 9/11. Quite right too. But rounding up hundreds of suspects and incarcerating them for years, without charge, in GuantĂĄnamo Bay in Cuba was an appalling act for a supposedly first-world country.
âThe Mauritanianâ then is the true story of one such unfortunate â Mohamedou Ould Slahi, played by Tahar Rahim. We first join Slahi at a family wedding in Nouakchott (good âPointlessâ answer for the capital of Mauritania people!). âInvited for questioningâ by the American authorities, we next see Slahi in the Cuban stronghold.
Pro-bono lawyer Nancy Hollander (Jodie Foster) becomes a pariah by picking up his defence. Supporting her is assistant Teri Duncan (Shailene Woodley). Hollander is very formal and professionally aloof, not assuming his guilt or innocence. After meeting the man, and assuming his innocence, Duncan though is more emotionally involved. The man opposing them at trial is US Army prosecutor Stuart Couch (Benedict Cumberbatch). Couch, having lost one of his best friends aboard the South Tower plane, has an axe to grind.
As the pair battle unseen forces for access to documentation, they uncover more and more of the truth about life in GuantĂĄnamo Bay.
Positives:
- I've not read the book so I found the story gripping. As the related legal information is divulged, the movie drip-feeds flashbacks of Slahia's story, which is clever.
- Acting wise, "The Mauritanian" has top notch stuff. Tahir Rahim is excellent as Slahia. He portrays charismatic and confident businessman, brought down to earth with a bump. Not recognizing him with an Oscar nomination feels like a minor crime. He will have to make do with the BAFTA nomination. Also brilliant is Jodie Foster. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man pointed out, it's so nice to see an actress acting her age with confidence. The ever-watchable Shailene Woodley is also great, especially in a dramatic 'dismissal' scene. She adds some much needed warmth to the legal team. The southern drawl from Cumberbatch is a bit of a surprise and takes some getting used to. But it's still a strong performance from him.
- After ranting on last time at Zack Snyder's use of 4:3 screen ratios in "Justice League", here is an intelligent use of the technique. The film is in 16:9 ratio, but then pivots to 4:3 for all of the Guantanamo flashback scenes, reflecting the claustrophobia of Slahia's position.
- Real-life footage over the closing titles is absolutely fascinating.
Negatives:
- I personally didn't find this a particular negative, but I went into the film knowing it to be a "legal drama". So there would be lots of scenes, as in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", with courtroom debate and gavel-banging, right? Actually, there is almost none of that. Most of the legal action is in terms of the preparation of the case and the paperwork involved. (If this makes the movie sound excruciatingly dull... think again!)
- The Guantanamo story ends quite abruptly (with the above-mentioned jolt), and left me wanting to see more of the intervening time. It's not often that I complain about a film running too short, but here is one where just a little of "the Snyder treatment" might have been welcomed!
Additional Note for the squeamish: For those worried about seeing distressing scenes of torture (e.g. Fingernail extraction, etc), these are - although disturbing - more of the "psychological torment" type. So those of a squeamish disposition can still watch this one.
Summary Thoughts:
The fact that "The Mauritanian" is a true story hammers home just what the US has been up to over the last 20 years. War crimes are not only committed on the battlefield.
Director Kevin Macdonald is no stranger to documentaries ("Touching the Void", "Whitney"). He's also proved adept at bringing gripping true stories to the screen (having previously given us "The Last King of Scotland"). Here, the emotional journeys of the key characters are well observed making the movie 'highly recommended'.
For the full One Mann's Movies review see here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/09/the-mauritanian-america-are-you-squirming-with-embarrassment/
âThe Mauritanianâ then is the true story of one such unfortunate â Mohamedou Ould Slahi, played by Tahar Rahim. We first join Slahi at a family wedding in Nouakchott (good âPointlessâ answer for the capital of Mauritania people!). âInvited for questioningâ by the American authorities, we next see Slahi in the Cuban stronghold.
Pro-bono lawyer Nancy Hollander (Jodie Foster) becomes a pariah by picking up his defence. Supporting her is assistant Teri Duncan (Shailene Woodley). Hollander is very formal and professionally aloof, not assuming his guilt or innocence. After meeting the man, and assuming his innocence, Duncan though is more emotionally involved. The man opposing them at trial is US Army prosecutor Stuart Couch (Benedict Cumberbatch). Couch, having lost one of his best friends aboard the South Tower plane, has an axe to grind.
As the pair battle unseen forces for access to documentation, they uncover more and more of the truth about life in GuantĂĄnamo Bay.
Positives:
- I've not read the book so I found the story gripping. As the related legal information is divulged, the movie drip-feeds flashbacks of Slahia's story, which is clever.
- Acting wise, "The Mauritanian" has top notch stuff. Tahir Rahim is excellent as Slahia. He portrays charismatic and confident businessman, brought down to earth with a bump. Not recognizing him with an Oscar nomination feels like a minor crime. He will have to make do with the BAFTA nomination. Also brilliant is Jodie Foster. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man pointed out, it's so nice to see an actress acting her age with confidence. The ever-watchable Shailene Woodley is also great, especially in a dramatic 'dismissal' scene. She adds some much needed warmth to the legal team. The southern drawl from Cumberbatch is a bit of a surprise and takes some getting used to. But it's still a strong performance from him.
- After ranting on last time at Zack Snyder's use of 4:3 screen ratios in "Justice League", here is an intelligent use of the technique. The film is in 16:9 ratio, but then pivots to 4:3 for all of the Guantanamo flashback scenes, reflecting the claustrophobia of Slahia's position.
- Real-life footage over the closing titles is absolutely fascinating.
Negatives:
- I personally didn't find this a particular negative, but I went into the film knowing it to be a "legal drama". So there would be lots of scenes, as in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", with courtroom debate and gavel-banging, right? Actually, there is almost none of that. Most of the legal action is in terms of the preparation of the case and the paperwork involved. (If this makes the movie sound excruciatingly dull... think again!)
- The Guantanamo story ends quite abruptly (with the above-mentioned jolt), and left me wanting to see more of the intervening time. It's not often that I complain about a film running too short, but here is one where just a little of "the Snyder treatment" might have been welcomed!
Additional Note for the squeamish: For those worried about seeing distressing scenes of torture (e.g. Fingernail extraction, etc), these are - although disturbing - more of the "psychological torment" type. So those of a squeamish disposition can still watch this one.
Summary Thoughts:
The fact that "The Mauritanian" is a true story hammers home just what the US has been up to over the last 20 years. War crimes are not only committed on the battlefield.
Director Kevin Macdonald is no stranger to documentaries ("Touching the Void", "Whitney"). He's also proved adept at bringing gripping true stories to the screen (having previously given us "The Last King of Scotland"). Here, the emotional journeys of the key characters are well observed making the movie 'highly recommended'.
For the full One Mann's Movies review see here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/09/the-mauritanian-america-are-you-squirming-with-embarrassment/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Mountain Goats in Tabletop Games
Mar 14, 2021
Fun fact about me: I thoroughly enjoy watching nature documentaries. I just think theyâre so fascinating and I love getting to see all different kinds of animals from across the world. Some of my favorites have definitely been mountain goats. You know, those goats that somehow end up way up high on mountainsides that are basically sheer cliffs? How do they get up there? How do they not fall?? Maybe itâs just me, but those goats are extra intriguing to me. Along comes a game called Mountain Goats, so obviously, I had to try it.
Mountain Goats is a game in which players are racing to the top of 6 different mountains with their goats, in a bid to be the âking of the hill,â if you will. To setup the game, lay out the Mountain cards into a grid, as described in the rules. Place the point tokens at the top of their corresponding Mountain cards, set the Bonus point tokens to the side, and all players place one Goat meeple at the bottom of each set of Mountain cards. The game is now ready to start.
On your turn, you will roll the 4 dice of the game. Using those results, you will create groups of dice, in which the dice total dictates which of your Goats is moved. Once you have created your groups, you will move your Goat up one space on the corresponding Mountain. (For example, if one of my dice groups is a 3 and a 2, then I will move my Goat on Mountain 5 up one space). After moving all of your affected Goats, pass the dice to the next player. Simple, right? Yep! Now hereâs where it gets interesting. If you get a Goat to the top of a Mountain, you will collect a Point token from the corresponding pile. If an opponent is already at the top of a Mountain and you are able to move there, then you kick your opponent back to the bottom of that mountain, and claim the top spot for yourself, collecting a Point token as normal! AND if you create a dice set for a Mountain on which you are already at the top, you get to collect an additional Point token and keep your Goat at the top. How long can you hang onto that top spot? I guess youâll find out. If/when you collect at least 1 Point token from each of the 6 Mountains, you get to claim the highest-value Bonus point token still available.
Play continues in this manner until either all of the Bonus point tokens have been claimed, or when 3 Mountains have no more Point tokens remaining. Players count up all of their collected points, and the player with the highest score is the winner.
The thing I like about Mountain Goats the most is that it is so fast and easy to play/teach. The concept is easy to grasp, the mechanics are simple, and the gameplay is engaging. So right off the bat, this is a solid game for me. The next thing I like is that even though it is such a small, light game, youâve still got to have a strategy to succeed. With the Mountains numbered 5-10, you really have to think about how you want to group your dice. If your total falls below 5 or over 10, it wonât move any Goats! So if youâve got a 6, 6, 5, and 2, how can you best maximize your movement? Are you willing to sacrifice a die because it doesnât necessarily work with your strategy this turn? Or do you want to move as many Goats as possible every turn? Itâs really up to you, and that strategic flexibility heightens the gameplay for me.
The other thing I really like about Mountain Goats is the amount of player interaction, in a sort of take-that way. When you reach the top of a Mountain, if an opponent is already there, they get kicked back to the bottom! So not only do they have to start the climb over again, but they canât just sit pretty collecting Point tokens when possible. For me, the slight take-that element in this game is more friendly than cutthroat, and that really makes the overall gameplay experience more positive. Starting over from the bottom is, at most, only 4 cards from the top, so getting kicked down isnât totally detrimental to the game atmosphere.
Components. Theyâre great! The cards are nice and sturdy, the artwork colorful and numbering clear. The Point tokens are nice thick cardboard, the dice are big and clear, and the Goat meeples are chunky and fun to manipulate. I have yet to see a game from BoardGameTables.com that has poor production quality, and Mountain Goats is no exception.
All in all, I think this is a great and fun little game. The concept is cute, the gameplay itself is fun and engaging, and the small footprint and short playtime make it an enjoyable little game. And since the gist of the game is just counting/numbers, it can be played with relatively young gamers, which makes it a good family-friendly filler game. Purple Phoenix Games gives Mountain Goats an ascending 9 / 12. Give it a shot and see if youâve got what it takes to come out on top!
Mountain Goats is a game in which players are racing to the top of 6 different mountains with their goats, in a bid to be the âking of the hill,â if you will. To setup the game, lay out the Mountain cards into a grid, as described in the rules. Place the point tokens at the top of their corresponding Mountain cards, set the Bonus point tokens to the side, and all players place one Goat meeple at the bottom of each set of Mountain cards. The game is now ready to start.
On your turn, you will roll the 4 dice of the game. Using those results, you will create groups of dice, in which the dice total dictates which of your Goats is moved. Once you have created your groups, you will move your Goat up one space on the corresponding Mountain. (For example, if one of my dice groups is a 3 and a 2, then I will move my Goat on Mountain 5 up one space). After moving all of your affected Goats, pass the dice to the next player. Simple, right? Yep! Now hereâs where it gets interesting. If you get a Goat to the top of a Mountain, you will collect a Point token from the corresponding pile. If an opponent is already at the top of a Mountain and you are able to move there, then you kick your opponent back to the bottom of that mountain, and claim the top spot for yourself, collecting a Point token as normal! AND if you create a dice set for a Mountain on which you are already at the top, you get to collect an additional Point token and keep your Goat at the top. How long can you hang onto that top spot? I guess youâll find out. If/when you collect at least 1 Point token from each of the 6 Mountains, you get to claim the highest-value Bonus point token still available.
Play continues in this manner until either all of the Bonus point tokens have been claimed, or when 3 Mountains have no more Point tokens remaining. Players count up all of their collected points, and the player with the highest score is the winner.
The thing I like about Mountain Goats the most is that it is so fast and easy to play/teach. The concept is easy to grasp, the mechanics are simple, and the gameplay is engaging. So right off the bat, this is a solid game for me. The next thing I like is that even though it is such a small, light game, youâve still got to have a strategy to succeed. With the Mountains numbered 5-10, you really have to think about how you want to group your dice. If your total falls below 5 or over 10, it wonât move any Goats! So if youâve got a 6, 6, 5, and 2, how can you best maximize your movement? Are you willing to sacrifice a die because it doesnât necessarily work with your strategy this turn? Or do you want to move as many Goats as possible every turn? Itâs really up to you, and that strategic flexibility heightens the gameplay for me.
The other thing I really like about Mountain Goats is the amount of player interaction, in a sort of take-that way. When you reach the top of a Mountain, if an opponent is already there, they get kicked back to the bottom! So not only do they have to start the climb over again, but they canât just sit pretty collecting Point tokens when possible. For me, the slight take-that element in this game is more friendly than cutthroat, and that really makes the overall gameplay experience more positive. Starting over from the bottom is, at most, only 4 cards from the top, so getting kicked down isnât totally detrimental to the game atmosphere.
Components. Theyâre great! The cards are nice and sturdy, the artwork colorful and numbering clear. The Point tokens are nice thick cardboard, the dice are big and clear, and the Goat meeples are chunky and fun to manipulate. I have yet to see a game from BoardGameTables.com that has poor production quality, and Mountain Goats is no exception.
All in all, I think this is a great and fun little game. The concept is cute, the gameplay itself is fun and engaging, and the small footprint and short playtime make it an enjoyable little game. And since the gist of the game is just counting/numbers, it can be played with relatively young gamers, which makes it a good family-friendly filler game. Purple Phoenix Games gives Mountain Goats an ascending 9 / 12. Give it a shot and see if youâve got what it takes to come out on top!
Chad Miller (121 KP) Jul 23, 2019
Eleanor (1463 KP) Jul 24, 2019