Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (2021) in Movies
Aug 23, 2021
The latest film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has arrived with “Shang Chi and The Legend of the Ten Rings”.
The film introduces audiences to Shang Chi (Simu Liu); an easygoing San Francisco resident who spends his time parking cars and hanging out with his friend Katy (Awkwafina) and her family.
Life is steady if unspectacular until he is accosted on a city bus by a group looking to take a pendant his mother gave him. When Shang Chi shocks Katy and the occupants of the bus with his martial arts abilities; he attempts to find his sister Xialing (Meng’er Zhang); who runs an underground fight club. While Xialing is estranged from her brother; their father Wenwu (Tony Chiu-Wai Leung) has conspired to bring them and their pendants before him.
Their father uses the power of sacred devices known as the Ten Rings to rule for over a thousand years and destroys all who would oppose him thanks to their power and the army he has gathered over the centuries.
Wenwu wants to revive their long-dead mother as he is convinced that she is calling to him and he wants to be with her as he was able to be a better man and forsake the power and abilities the rings offered him.
When it is learned that Wenwu plans to go to a mythical realm that their mother came from and free her or burn the place to the ground; Shang Chi must make some hard choices between family and doing what he believes is right.
What follows is an action-filled thriller with plenty of mysticism and humor. The film has a very engaging visual style that combines Asian and Western cinematic styles which results in some very engaging visuals as well as action sequences.
What really sets the film apart from many Super Hero films is that the characters have a solid base to them as they have a complexity to them in regards to their past and their motivations. Their relationships with one another are key to the film as family, honor, and justice are key elements to the film but they are not given lip service but are developed well along with their characters.
While the final act may be a bit FX heavy for some; I found it in keeping with the story and the characters and the great Sir Ben Kingsley provides some very welcome comic relief in his return as Trevor.
Awkwafina is also great as she provides some very laugh-out-loud moments but is not afraid to mix it up when the situation calls for him. Simu Liu was very enjoyable in the lead role as he performed the physical aspects of his character well but added a restrained sensitivity to his character as he is a complicated individual who is conflicted by choices he made in his youth and the ramifications of them now as an adult.
There are bonus scenes that set up future adventures well including one that will no doubt have Marvel fans heatedly debating when the film premieres.
Once again Marvel has shown why they have had such a sustained success with their films as they have done a great job again of introducing a new character to the Cinematic Universe but also connecting him to their cinematic past and future.
4 stars out of 5
The film introduces audiences to Shang Chi (Simu Liu); an easygoing San Francisco resident who spends his time parking cars and hanging out with his friend Katy (Awkwafina) and her family.
Life is steady if unspectacular until he is accosted on a city bus by a group looking to take a pendant his mother gave him. When Shang Chi shocks Katy and the occupants of the bus with his martial arts abilities; he attempts to find his sister Xialing (Meng’er Zhang); who runs an underground fight club. While Xialing is estranged from her brother; their father Wenwu (Tony Chiu-Wai Leung) has conspired to bring them and their pendants before him.
Their father uses the power of sacred devices known as the Ten Rings to rule for over a thousand years and destroys all who would oppose him thanks to their power and the army he has gathered over the centuries.
Wenwu wants to revive their long-dead mother as he is convinced that she is calling to him and he wants to be with her as he was able to be a better man and forsake the power and abilities the rings offered him.
When it is learned that Wenwu plans to go to a mythical realm that their mother came from and free her or burn the place to the ground; Shang Chi must make some hard choices between family and doing what he believes is right.
What follows is an action-filled thriller with plenty of mysticism and humor. The film has a very engaging visual style that combines Asian and Western cinematic styles which results in some very engaging visuals as well as action sequences.
What really sets the film apart from many Super Hero films is that the characters have a solid base to them as they have a complexity to them in regards to their past and their motivations. Their relationships with one another are key to the film as family, honor, and justice are key elements to the film but they are not given lip service but are developed well along with their characters.
While the final act may be a bit FX heavy for some; I found it in keeping with the story and the characters and the great Sir Ben Kingsley provides some very welcome comic relief in his return as Trevor.
Awkwafina is also great as she provides some very laugh-out-loud moments but is not afraid to mix it up when the situation calls for him. Simu Liu was very enjoyable in the lead role as he performed the physical aspects of his character well but added a restrained sensitivity to his character as he is a complicated individual who is conflicted by choices he made in his youth and the ramifications of them now as an adult.
There are bonus scenes that set up future adventures well including one that will no doubt have Marvel fans heatedly debating when the film premieres.
Once again Marvel has shown why they have had such a sustained success with their films as they have done a great job again of introducing a new character to the Cinematic Universe but also connecting him to their cinematic past and future.
4 stars out of 5
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Death Of Stalin (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Death…. Torture…. Child Abuse…. LOL??
Armando Iannucci is most familiar to TV audiences on both sides of the pond for his cutting political satire of the likes of “Veep” and “The Thick of It”, with his only previous foray into directing movies being “In the Loop”: a spin-off of the latter series. Lovers of his work will know that he sails very close to the wind on many occasions, such that watching can be more of a squirm-fest than enjoyment.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.
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 year’s 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 “Sssshhed” since I was making too much noise during the live and ground-breaking “All you need is Love” telecast!
Ron Howard’s film focuses on “the touring years” 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 – whilst sensitively skipping some of the more ‘commonly seen’ materials, like the “jewelry shaking” clip – 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 Four’s performances (often moving, like Whoopi Goldberg’s) and the group’s “legacy” effect on modern-day art (in Richard Curtis’s 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 Beatle’s Rose Bowl performance in LA. There, in the newsreel footage of adoring fans, is the unmistakable face of the ‘before she was famous’ actress: at least I hope it really was her (as the clip’s timing implied) and not a lookalike, since that would be really disappointing!
Also featuring – although not enough for my liking – are Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, recounting their feelings about the events and what happened behind the closed doors of hotel rooms or – most notably – 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 didn’t even know there wasn’t a Beatle called Eric! Some of the group’s off the cuff responses were priceless: “What is the secret of your success?” asks one journo. “We don’t know” quips John. “If we knew we’d form another group and be managers.”
While the film has enormous energy in its first two thirds, it rather runs out of momentum in its final reel…. 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 Four’s 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 can’t comment on).
Ron Howard’s film focuses on “the touring years” 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 – whilst sensitively skipping some of the more ‘commonly seen’ materials, like the “jewelry shaking” clip – 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 Four’s performances (often moving, like Whoopi Goldberg’s) and the group’s “legacy” effect on modern-day art (in Richard Curtis’s 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 Beatle’s Rose Bowl performance in LA. There, in the newsreel footage of adoring fans, is the unmistakable face of the ‘before she was famous’ actress: at least I hope it really was her (as the clip’s timing implied) and not a lookalike, since that would be really disappointing!
Also featuring – although not enough for my liking – are Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, recounting their feelings about the events and what happened behind the closed doors of hotel rooms or – most notably – 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 didn’t even know there wasn’t a Beatle called Eric! Some of the group’s off the cuff responses were priceless: “What is the secret of your success?” asks one journo. “We don’t know” quips John. “If we knew we’d form another group and be managers.”
While the film has enormous energy in its first two thirds, it rather runs out of momentum in its final reel…. 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 Four’s 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 can’t comment on).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Nightmare Alley (2021) in Movies
Feb 4, 2022
Sum Does Not Add Up To The Total Of The Parts
If you ever want to understand the meaning of the term “the sum does not equal the total of the parts”, you need to look no further than the latest film from Guillermo Del Toro, the neo-noir thriller, NIGHTMARE ALLEY.
This film looked like it had all the right elements for a fantastic, adult film. A neo-noir thriller with a distinctive period look, helmed by a first rate director and featuring an A-List cast that are (for the most part) perfectly cast in their roles.
So why doesn’t this film rise above ordinary?
Ultimately, it is because this type of film, a neo-noir crime thriller where none of the characters are likeable or are easy to root for, is a tricky tightrope walk and, in this instance, Director del Toro opted to play it safe, focusing on mood and atmosphere, while strapping his talented cast with characters (and, ultimately, performances) that are middle-of-the road.
Bradley Cooper is the right performer in today’s world to play Stanton Carlisle, the drifter that becomes a carney that becomes a a con-man “Mentalist” who is drawn into a sinister plot by the mysterious Dr. Lilith Ritter (Cate Blanchett - also the right performer in today’s world to play this part). These 2 have decent (but not great) chemistry with each other, for you know (they way del Toro has Directed Blanchett’s performance) that she is up to something, thus keeping us at arm’s length.
But I am getting ahead of myself, for that is the 2nd half of this film, I haven’t even touched on the first half - which is part of the issue here as well.
The first hour of this 2 1/2 hour film is all set up as we follow Cooper’s character as he is introduced into a Circus sideshow of the 1940’s - and all of the characters therein. This is an interesting - if kind of slow - setup as we are treated to some interesting character building performances by some pretty terrific actors - Toni Colette, Ron Perlman, David Strathairn and, of course, the always good Willem DaFoe.
Oh, and I haven’t even mentioned Rooney Mara who is sort of the “through-line” between the 2 halves of this film, but her character is so vanilla, that one forgets her character event exists.
But…after an hour of setting up this world and these characters - the film pivots away from this area and goes to a whole different world…and a different plot. It is like a SuperHero Origin film where the first 1/2 of the film is the Origin and the 2nd half is the first adventure of said SuperHero.
And this just doesn’t work all that well in this film (even with a callback at the end), it is jarring and creates 2 different movies, neither of which rises above the average.
I lay the blame for all of this on Director Guillermo del Toro who appeared to be more interested in the look of this film (and the look is AMAZING) and just let the actors act, but not get in the way. The direction is bland, the performances are bland and the plot just doesn’t hold together.
Which is very disappointing, considering what “could have been”.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This film looked like it had all the right elements for a fantastic, adult film. A neo-noir thriller with a distinctive period look, helmed by a first rate director and featuring an A-List cast that are (for the most part) perfectly cast in their roles.
So why doesn’t this film rise above ordinary?
Ultimately, it is because this type of film, a neo-noir crime thriller where none of the characters are likeable or are easy to root for, is a tricky tightrope walk and, in this instance, Director del Toro opted to play it safe, focusing on mood and atmosphere, while strapping his talented cast with characters (and, ultimately, performances) that are middle-of-the road.
Bradley Cooper is the right performer in today’s world to play Stanton Carlisle, the drifter that becomes a carney that becomes a a con-man “Mentalist” who is drawn into a sinister plot by the mysterious Dr. Lilith Ritter (Cate Blanchett - also the right performer in today’s world to play this part). These 2 have decent (but not great) chemistry with each other, for you know (they way del Toro has Directed Blanchett’s performance) that she is up to something, thus keeping us at arm’s length.
But I am getting ahead of myself, for that is the 2nd half of this film, I haven’t even touched on the first half - which is part of the issue here as well.
The first hour of this 2 1/2 hour film is all set up as we follow Cooper’s character as he is introduced into a Circus sideshow of the 1940’s - and all of the characters therein. This is an interesting - if kind of slow - setup as we are treated to some interesting character building performances by some pretty terrific actors - Toni Colette, Ron Perlman, David Strathairn and, of course, the always good Willem DaFoe.
Oh, and I haven’t even mentioned Rooney Mara who is sort of the “through-line” between the 2 halves of this film, but her character is so vanilla, that one forgets her character event exists.
But…after an hour of setting up this world and these characters - the film pivots away from this area and goes to a whole different world…and a different plot. It is like a SuperHero Origin film where the first 1/2 of the film is the Origin and the 2nd half is the first adventure of said SuperHero.
And this just doesn’t work all that well in this film (even with a callback at the end), it is jarring and creates 2 different movies, neither of which rises above the average.
I lay the blame for all of this on Director Guillermo del Toro who appeared to be more interested in the look of this film (and the look is AMAZING) and just let the actors act, but not get in the way. The direction is bland, the performances are bland and the plot just doesn’t hold together.
Which is very disappointing, considering what “could have been”.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Prey (2022) in Movies
Aug 8, 2022
It's no secret that since the original and beloved Predator hit cinemas back in 1987, the franchise has seen a steady decline in quality, with each subsequent entry somehow managing to be less palatable than the one before. Not even IP crossovers could save it (although I'm still holding out hope for an Archie Vs Predator adaption someday.) It's a series that had been in dire need of a shake up for a long time, and that's exactly what Prey is. It swaps the modern settings we're used to, placing the action in the Comanche Nation in the early 1700s, it doubles down on the horror elements that have always bubbled beneath the surface, and most importantly, gives us the best and most memorable protagonist yet.
Naru, played by a truly fantastic Amber Midthunder, is a character who has something to prove. She falls down but doesn't accept defeat. She's relatable, determined, and ultimately, a perfect match for her enemy. One wonders who the prey that the title refers to truly is in this scenario. As such, the narrative plays out as a genuinely tense cat-and-mouse game between two abled warriors, both on the hunt, both trying to survive, and it's a joy to watch unfold.
The first third is a bit of a slow burn, allowing the audience to acclimate to the setting and culture. It gives everything a chance to breathe, and basks in some stunning vistas and beautiful cinematography. The vast majority of Prey was filmed on location in the Stoney Nakoda Nation in Canada. This gives the overall aesthetic a feeling of authenticity and wonder. The somewhat tepid pacing of the first third never gets boring, and remains engaging until things really kick off.
The first encounter the predator has with the human characters marks the start of something special, and from here on, the pedal is to the floor until the credits roll. The action scenes are as thrilling as they are brutal. This predator in particular feels more dangerous and ruthless than before, making minced meat of it's victims. The gore is impactful and the kills are creative. Some great sound editing ensures that even when the camera cuts away now and again, the violence is still felt in full. This is all complimented by the design of the predator. It's mask is more primitive than what we've seen in the past, meaning that even with all of it's high tech gadgets, the predator doesn't feel out of place. Everything climaxes in a hugely entertaining finale that would make Dutch proud. There are moments where Prey apes the original a bit, but it's all executed well, and never feels like it's grasping at nostalgic straws like some of the later sequels have done.
It's clear that there an abundance of positives exuded by Prey, a prequel that no one was chomping at the bit for, but a film that absolutely blows it's predecessors out of the water. Dan Trachtenberg has proven that he can step into a franchise and give us something new before with 10 Cloverfield Lane, and this just cements that claim. Prey is a well realised, and well put together project that is arguably the best entry in the entire Predator franchise, and one can only hope that any future installments are handled in the same way.
Naru, played by a truly fantastic Amber Midthunder, is a character who has something to prove. She falls down but doesn't accept defeat. She's relatable, determined, and ultimately, a perfect match for her enemy. One wonders who the prey that the title refers to truly is in this scenario. As such, the narrative plays out as a genuinely tense cat-and-mouse game between two abled warriors, both on the hunt, both trying to survive, and it's a joy to watch unfold.
The first third is a bit of a slow burn, allowing the audience to acclimate to the setting and culture. It gives everything a chance to breathe, and basks in some stunning vistas and beautiful cinematography. The vast majority of Prey was filmed on location in the Stoney Nakoda Nation in Canada. This gives the overall aesthetic a feeling of authenticity and wonder. The somewhat tepid pacing of the first third never gets boring, and remains engaging until things really kick off.
The first encounter the predator has with the human characters marks the start of something special, and from here on, the pedal is to the floor until the credits roll. The action scenes are as thrilling as they are brutal. This predator in particular feels more dangerous and ruthless than before, making minced meat of it's victims. The gore is impactful and the kills are creative. Some great sound editing ensures that even when the camera cuts away now and again, the violence is still felt in full. This is all complimented by the design of the predator. It's mask is more primitive than what we've seen in the past, meaning that even with all of it's high tech gadgets, the predator doesn't feel out of place. Everything climaxes in a hugely entertaining finale that would make Dutch proud. There are moments where Prey apes the original a bit, but it's all executed well, and never feels like it's grasping at nostalgic straws like some of the later sequels have done.
It's clear that there an abundance of positives exuded by Prey, a prequel that no one was chomping at the bit for, but a film that absolutely blows it's predecessors out of the water. Dan Trachtenberg has proven that he can step into a franchise and give us something new before with 10 Cloverfield Lane, and this just cements that claim. Prey is a well realised, and well put together project that is arguably the best entry in the entire Predator franchise, and one can only hope that any future installments are handled in the same way.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Scream (2022) in Movies
Jan 12, 2022
It is hard to believe it has been 25 years since “Scream” premiered and in doing so; brought new life into the slasher genre which had become stale due to an abundance of direct to DVD and cable releases combined with many uninspired and stale theatrical releases.
The movie was a massive success and launched a very successful trilogy and made the Ghostface killer and many moments from the series Pop Culture mainstays.
After a hiatus; “Scream 4” arrived and continued the series and in 2022; “Scream” has arrived which continues the story to the eager anticipation of fans.
When a young girl named Tara (Jenna Ortega); is brutally attacked in a fashion very similar to the Ghostface Killer; her sister Sam (Melissa Barrera); returns to Woodsboro to be by her side while Tara recuperates.
Sam is joined by her boyfriend Richie (Jack Quaid), who has no idea about the history of Woodsboro nor the popular “Stab” film series that is based on the events of the murders that have plagued the town.
Sam’s past troubles makes her return difficult and when Ghostface strikes again; she and Richie seek the help of Dewey (David Arquette); who has fallen on hard times and has split from Gayle (Courtney Cox). Despite his reluctance; Dewey gets involved and tells Sam the “rules” which would indicate the killer might be someone she knows and soon everyone in her and Tara’s circle becomes suspect even as the deaths start to increase.
This allows for some of the best moments of the film as the characters make references to several other modern and past horror franchises and discuss things from online Trolls, rabid fans, and other Pop Culture references which provides some tongue in cheek humor about the series and also establishes the world of “Scream” as one where people are well-versed in horror films old and new and have modified the rules based on sequel, prequel, and “Requel” rules for films.
As tensions and body count mounts; Gayle, Dewey, and Sidney (Neve Campbell) must face their fears to stop Ghostface before it is too late.
While the final act of the film is very over the top and at times absurd; it does provide plenty of the elements that fans have come to expect from the series. I was able to accurately see and predict almost all of the twists very early in the film and did not have many surprises as the film unfolded; I think many will still find enough enjoyment watching the tale unfold as after four films I have a pretty good idea of the formula for the series and also have many years of this as I saw the twists in “The Sixth Sense” and “The Village” very early in the films so I just seem to have a knack for this sort of thing.
While it does not break much in the way of new ground; the film does deliver what fans have come to expect and I did find in more enjoyable than “Scream 3” and there was more than enough to keep me entertained. There have been rumors that a sixth film has already been planned and if so: I will be more than ready for more.
3.5 out of 5
The movie was a massive success and launched a very successful trilogy and made the Ghostface killer and many moments from the series Pop Culture mainstays.
After a hiatus; “Scream 4” arrived and continued the series and in 2022; “Scream” has arrived which continues the story to the eager anticipation of fans.
When a young girl named Tara (Jenna Ortega); is brutally attacked in a fashion very similar to the Ghostface Killer; her sister Sam (Melissa Barrera); returns to Woodsboro to be by her side while Tara recuperates.
Sam is joined by her boyfriend Richie (Jack Quaid), who has no idea about the history of Woodsboro nor the popular “Stab” film series that is based on the events of the murders that have plagued the town.
Sam’s past troubles makes her return difficult and when Ghostface strikes again; she and Richie seek the help of Dewey (David Arquette); who has fallen on hard times and has split from Gayle (Courtney Cox). Despite his reluctance; Dewey gets involved and tells Sam the “rules” which would indicate the killer might be someone she knows and soon everyone in her and Tara’s circle becomes suspect even as the deaths start to increase.
This allows for some of the best moments of the film as the characters make references to several other modern and past horror franchises and discuss things from online Trolls, rabid fans, and other Pop Culture references which provides some tongue in cheek humor about the series and also establishes the world of “Scream” as one where people are well-versed in horror films old and new and have modified the rules based on sequel, prequel, and “Requel” rules for films.
As tensions and body count mounts; Gayle, Dewey, and Sidney (Neve Campbell) must face their fears to stop Ghostface before it is too late.
While the final act of the film is very over the top and at times absurd; it does provide plenty of the elements that fans have come to expect from the series. I was able to accurately see and predict almost all of the twists very early in the film and did not have many surprises as the film unfolded; I think many will still find enough enjoyment watching the tale unfold as after four films I have a pretty good idea of the formula for the series and also have many years of this as I saw the twists in “The Sixth Sense” and “The Village” very early in the films so I just seem to have a knack for this sort of thing.
While it does not break much in the way of new ground; the film does deliver what fans have come to expect and I did find in more enjoyable than “Scream 3” and there was more than enough to keep me entertained. There have been rumors that a sixth film has already been planned and if so: I will be more than ready for more.
3.5 out of 5
Passage to Passion - The Complete Collection
8.0
Rate It
Book
The heat level goes through the roof, and the action never stops! ARCTIC EXPOSURE To the rest...
Adult Contemporary Romance Collection
DaveySmithy (107 KP) rated Fight Club (1999) in Movies
Dec 3, 2024
An Explosive and Provocative Journey
Few films have managed to spark as much debate and cultural impact as David Fincher’s Fight Club. Released in 1999, this dark and audacious psychological thriller quickly evolved from a divisive box office release to a bona fide cult classic. Based on Chuck Palahniuk’s novel of the same name, Fight Club is more than just a movie—it’s an exploration of identity, consumerism, and the hidden chaos lurking within us all. Fincher’s meticulous direction, coupled with outstanding performances by Edward Norton and Brad Pitt, makes Fight Club a visceral and thought-provoking cinematic ride that lingers long after the credits roll.
The story is told through the eyes of the unnamed narrator (Norton), a white-collar worker trapped in a monotonous life. Crippled by insomnia and a desperate longing for purpose, his mundane existence takes a dramatic turn when he crosses paths with Tyler Durden (Pitt), a magnetic, anarchic soap maker. Together, they form the titular fight club—a raw, underground outlet for men to vent their frustrations by literally beating them out of each other. What begins as an unconventional form of therapy soon spirals into a chaotic and dangerous movement, leading the narrator down a path of self-destruction and shocking revelations.
Edward Norton delivers a career-best performance as the narrator, capturing the character’s descent into madness with unnerving precision. His dry wit and self-deprecating humor make him relatable, even as his actions become increasingly unhinged. But it’s Brad Pitt who truly steals the show as Tyler Durden. Charismatic, unpredictable, and dripping with swagger, Pitt embodies the fantasy of rebellion and freedom that so many viewers secretly crave. Together, the two actors create a mesmerizing dynamic, with Tyler representing everything the narrator wants to be—and fears he might become.
Helena Bonham Carter rounds out the core cast as Marla Singer, a nihilistic wildcard who both disrupts and grounds the narrator’s chaotic journey. Her chemistry with Norton is as compelling as it is unconventional, adding a layer of emotional complexity to an otherwise hyper-masculine narrative.
What sets Fight Club apart is its fearless critique of modern society. It skewers consumerism, masculinity, and the emptiness of the so-called “American Dream,” forcing viewers to confront uncomfortable truths about their own lives. Fincher’s direction is sharp and unrelenting, with the film’s gritty visual style perfectly complementing its nihilistic tone. The innovative use of CGI, fourth-wall-breaking moments, and hauntingly effective cinematography by Jeff Cronenweth keep the audience on edge, unsure of what to expect next.
Yet, Fight Club is not without flaws. Its provocative themes can feel overly blunt at times, and some viewers might find its violent and anarchistic undertones alienating. Additionally, while the infamous plot twist is masterfully executed, it risks overshadowing the film’s deeper messages upon rewatch.
The soundtrack, anchored by The Dust Brothers’ industrial score and the unforgettable use of The Pixies’ “Where Is My Mind?” in the climax, elevates the film to iconic status. These elements, combined with razor-sharp dialogue and endlessly quotable lines, solidify Fight Club as a masterpiece of late-90s cinema.
While it may not be for everyone, Fight Club is a bold, daring, and unforgettable experience that challenges societal norms and forces introspection. It’s an audacious 9/10 film—flawed but brilliant, much like the chaos it portrays.
The story is told through the eyes of the unnamed narrator (Norton), a white-collar worker trapped in a monotonous life. Crippled by insomnia and a desperate longing for purpose, his mundane existence takes a dramatic turn when he crosses paths with Tyler Durden (Pitt), a magnetic, anarchic soap maker. Together, they form the titular fight club—a raw, underground outlet for men to vent their frustrations by literally beating them out of each other. What begins as an unconventional form of therapy soon spirals into a chaotic and dangerous movement, leading the narrator down a path of self-destruction and shocking revelations.
Edward Norton delivers a career-best performance as the narrator, capturing the character’s descent into madness with unnerving precision. His dry wit and self-deprecating humor make him relatable, even as his actions become increasingly unhinged. But it’s Brad Pitt who truly steals the show as Tyler Durden. Charismatic, unpredictable, and dripping with swagger, Pitt embodies the fantasy of rebellion and freedom that so many viewers secretly crave. Together, the two actors create a mesmerizing dynamic, with Tyler representing everything the narrator wants to be—and fears he might become.
Helena Bonham Carter rounds out the core cast as Marla Singer, a nihilistic wildcard who both disrupts and grounds the narrator’s chaotic journey. Her chemistry with Norton is as compelling as it is unconventional, adding a layer of emotional complexity to an otherwise hyper-masculine narrative.
What sets Fight Club apart is its fearless critique of modern society. It skewers consumerism, masculinity, and the emptiness of the so-called “American Dream,” forcing viewers to confront uncomfortable truths about their own lives. Fincher’s direction is sharp and unrelenting, with the film’s gritty visual style perfectly complementing its nihilistic tone. The innovative use of CGI, fourth-wall-breaking moments, and hauntingly effective cinematography by Jeff Cronenweth keep the audience on edge, unsure of what to expect next.
Yet, Fight Club is not without flaws. Its provocative themes can feel overly blunt at times, and some viewers might find its violent and anarchistic undertones alienating. Additionally, while the infamous plot twist is masterfully executed, it risks overshadowing the film’s deeper messages upon rewatch.
The soundtrack, anchored by The Dust Brothers’ industrial score and the unforgettable use of The Pixies’ “Where Is My Mind?” in the climax, elevates the film to iconic status. These elements, combined with razor-sharp dialogue and endlessly quotable lines, solidify Fight Club as a masterpiece of late-90s cinema.
While it may not be for everyone, Fight Club is a bold, daring, and unforgettable experience that challenges societal norms and forces introspection. It’s an audacious 9/10 film—flawed but brilliant, much like the chaos it portrays.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in Books
Apr 19, 2019
Strong writing (1 more)
Good characters
Run-on sentences (1 more)
No explanations for paranormal activity
Contains spoilers, click to show
If you're looking for a scary story, 'The Haunting of Hill House' just doesn't add up.
The story is still worth reading because Jackson's story telling is something that is missing in literature today. The reader is introduced to characters that are different enough to be interesting; their development is just right that it leaves the reader satisfied. The story moves along well enough that the pace keeps us from getting bored. And each turn of the page keeps the reader guessing what is going to happen next- a must for any ghost story.
In 'The Haunting of Hill House,' Jackson mostly focuses on the character Eleanor - a woman who recently lost the sickly mother she had taken care of for years, to receiving an invitation for a paranormal experiment at the infamous Hill House. Eleanor also seems to be the main character affected by the house, not only having her name written on a wall, but also having her named called out by spirits during an automatic writing session with them.
Our first introduction to the Hill House happens as Eleanor arrives: "No Human eye can isolate the unhappy coincidence of line and place which suggests evil in the face of a house, and yet somehow a maniac juxtaposition, a badly turned angle, some chance meeting of roof and sky, turned Hill House into a place of despair, more frightening because the face of Hill House seemed awake, with a watchfulness from the blank windows and a touch of glee in the eyebrow of a cornice. Almost any house, caught unexpectedly or at an odd angle, can turn a deeply humorous look on a watching person; even a mischievous little chimney, or a dormer like a dimple, can catch up a beholder with a sense of fellowship; but a house arrogant and hating, never off guard, can only be evil. This house, which seemed somehow to have formed itself, flying together into its own powerful pattern under the hands of its builders, fitting itself into its own construction of lines and angles, reared its great head back against the sky without concession to humanity. It was a house without kindness, never meant to be lived in , not a fit place for people or for love or for hope. Exorcism cannot alter the countenance of a house; Hill House would stay as it was until it was destroyed."
We never see Hill House through any other character's eyes, and the viewpoints mostly come from Eleanor (a missed opportunity,I think). Everyone who arrives at the house feels uneasy about it: doors and curtains close on their own, unexplained banging noises down the hallways(only at night), the chattering and laughter of children, and with an oddly placed cold spot. Yet,to the reader's dismay, nothing is fully explained by the end of the story - no apparitions show up, no one seems harmed by anything unseen (although, the character, Luke, suddenly shows up with a bruised face that is never discussed), and the reader ends up wondering if this really is a product of mass psychosis. It almost seems like Jackson ended the story abruptly just to finish it(the book is only a little under 200 pages). She set up wonderful scenarios, but without explanations, we're left with a very empty feeling.
Nearing the end of the book, the doctor, John Montague, who has ran the entire experiment, has his wife,Mrs. Montague,arrive a few days later, who seems to know more about contacting spirits than he does: "The library? I think it might do; books are frequently very good carriers, you know. Materializations are often best produced in rooms where there are books. I cannot think of any time when materialization was in any way hampered by the presence of books." And with the arrival of Dr. Montague's wife, we get one of the major experiences in the entire book. Although her character is quite annoying- even seen through the eyes of other characters- she brings some of the most ghost story elements, one of which is her automatic writing sessions: "Planchette felt very strongly about a nun, John. Perhaps something of the sort- a dark, vague figure, even- has been seen in the neighborhood? Villagers terrified when staggering home late at night?" None of the characters, besides Mrs. Montague's companion, Arthur, believe her automatic writing sessions are real, even after Eleanor's name is brought up during one. As I stated before, without any explanations, the reader is even led to believe that nothing was meant to come of these sessions whatsoever.
The ghost story elements may not have been strong in the story, but the characters make up for them. They constantly question what they are experiencing and/or seeing, they question their surroundings, and they question each other -Jackson does an amazing job weaving paranoia into the story line.
One of the more shocking and unbelievable scenes is when Eleanor is suddenly not fearful of the house anymore: "And here I am, she thought. Here I am inside. It was not cold at all, but deliciously, fondly warm. It was light enough for her to see the iron stairway curving around and around up to the tower, and the little door at the top. Under her feet the stone floor moved caressingly, rubbing itself against the soles of her feet, and all around the soft air touched her, stirring her hair, drifting against her fingers, coming in a light breath across her mouth, and she danced in circles. No stone lions for me, she thought, no oleanders; I have broken the spell of Hill House and somehow come inside. I am home, she thought, and stopped in wonder at the thought. I am home, I am home, she thought; now to climb." It was as if Eleanor was a completely different person in just a few pages.
I do have a couple of problems with 'The Haunting of Hill House,' mostly centering around the use of run-on sentences and extra long paragraphs. The run-on sentences are a waste of time because Jackson seems to merely elaborate on something that could be easily explained or experienced with fewer words. The paragraphs, however, need to be broken up for scene transitioning purposes -when she transitions from one scene to the next, she can confuse the reader with them: one paragraph will have all the characters in the dining area, but in that same paragraph, just a few sentences down, Jackson has the characters suddenly in the parlor,drinking Brandy. Maybe the intention was to make the reader feel paranoid and uneasy like the characters in the book, but it was certainly not needed with the way of Jackson's style of writing.
With all that said, it's easy to see why this book is a popular classic. The writing is strong, using enough descriptions to put the reader in Hill House with all of its paranormal beings. And no matter who you are, you are able to find at least one of the lead characters as a favorite. I feel the book is a must-read for anyone interested in the paranormal, because Jackson brings out the occult interest that was going on around 1959 - when she published 'The Haunting of Hill House;' everything from cold spots to the use of a planchette for automatic writing.
I recommend this book, but if you're looking for scares, you must look elsewhere.
The story is still worth reading because Jackson's story telling is something that is missing in literature today. The reader is introduced to characters that are different enough to be interesting; their development is just right that it leaves the reader satisfied. The story moves along well enough that the pace keeps us from getting bored. And each turn of the page keeps the reader guessing what is going to happen next- a must for any ghost story.
In 'The Haunting of Hill House,' Jackson mostly focuses on the character Eleanor - a woman who recently lost the sickly mother she had taken care of for years, to receiving an invitation for a paranormal experiment at the infamous Hill House. Eleanor also seems to be the main character affected by the house, not only having her name written on a wall, but also having her named called out by spirits during an automatic writing session with them.
Our first introduction to the Hill House happens as Eleanor arrives: "No Human eye can isolate the unhappy coincidence of line and place which suggests evil in the face of a house, and yet somehow a maniac juxtaposition, a badly turned angle, some chance meeting of roof and sky, turned Hill House into a place of despair, more frightening because the face of Hill House seemed awake, with a watchfulness from the blank windows and a touch of glee in the eyebrow of a cornice. Almost any house, caught unexpectedly or at an odd angle, can turn a deeply humorous look on a watching person; even a mischievous little chimney, or a dormer like a dimple, can catch up a beholder with a sense of fellowship; but a house arrogant and hating, never off guard, can only be evil. This house, which seemed somehow to have formed itself, flying together into its own powerful pattern under the hands of its builders, fitting itself into its own construction of lines and angles, reared its great head back against the sky without concession to humanity. It was a house without kindness, never meant to be lived in , not a fit place for people or for love or for hope. Exorcism cannot alter the countenance of a house; Hill House would stay as it was until it was destroyed."
We never see Hill House through any other character's eyes, and the viewpoints mostly come from Eleanor (a missed opportunity,I think). Everyone who arrives at the house feels uneasy about it: doors and curtains close on their own, unexplained banging noises down the hallways(only at night), the chattering and laughter of children, and with an oddly placed cold spot. Yet,to the reader's dismay, nothing is fully explained by the end of the story - no apparitions show up, no one seems harmed by anything unseen (although, the character, Luke, suddenly shows up with a bruised face that is never discussed), and the reader ends up wondering if this really is a product of mass psychosis. It almost seems like Jackson ended the story abruptly just to finish it(the book is only a little under 200 pages). She set up wonderful scenarios, but without explanations, we're left with a very empty feeling.
Nearing the end of the book, the doctor, John Montague, who has ran the entire experiment, has his wife,Mrs. Montague,arrive a few days later, who seems to know more about contacting spirits than he does: "The library? I think it might do; books are frequently very good carriers, you know. Materializations are often best produced in rooms where there are books. I cannot think of any time when materialization was in any way hampered by the presence of books." And with the arrival of Dr. Montague's wife, we get one of the major experiences in the entire book. Although her character is quite annoying- even seen through the eyes of other characters- she brings some of the most ghost story elements, one of which is her automatic writing sessions: "Planchette felt very strongly about a nun, John. Perhaps something of the sort- a dark, vague figure, even- has been seen in the neighborhood? Villagers terrified when staggering home late at night?" None of the characters, besides Mrs. Montague's companion, Arthur, believe her automatic writing sessions are real, even after Eleanor's name is brought up during one. As I stated before, without any explanations, the reader is even led to believe that nothing was meant to come of these sessions whatsoever.
The ghost story elements may not have been strong in the story, but the characters make up for them. They constantly question what they are experiencing and/or seeing, they question their surroundings, and they question each other -Jackson does an amazing job weaving paranoia into the story line.
One of the more shocking and unbelievable scenes is when Eleanor is suddenly not fearful of the house anymore: "And here I am, she thought. Here I am inside. It was not cold at all, but deliciously, fondly warm. It was light enough for her to see the iron stairway curving around and around up to the tower, and the little door at the top. Under her feet the stone floor moved caressingly, rubbing itself against the soles of her feet, and all around the soft air touched her, stirring her hair, drifting against her fingers, coming in a light breath across her mouth, and she danced in circles. No stone lions for me, she thought, no oleanders; I have broken the spell of Hill House and somehow come inside. I am home, she thought, and stopped in wonder at the thought. I am home, I am home, she thought; now to climb." It was as if Eleanor was a completely different person in just a few pages.
I do have a couple of problems with 'The Haunting of Hill House,' mostly centering around the use of run-on sentences and extra long paragraphs. The run-on sentences are a waste of time because Jackson seems to merely elaborate on something that could be easily explained or experienced with fewer words. The paragraphs, however, need to be broken up for scene transitioning purposes -when she transitions from one scene to the next, she can confuse the reader with them: one paragraph will have all the characters in the dining area, but in that same paragraph, just a few sentences down, Jackson has the characters suddenly in the parlor,drinking Brandy. Maybe the intention was to make the reader feel paranoid and uneasy like the characters in the book, but it was certainly not needed with the way of Jackson's style of writing.
With all that said, it's easy to see why this book is a popular classic. The writing is strong, using enough descriptions to put the reader in Hill House with all of its paranormal beings. And no matter who you are, you are able to find at least one of the lead characters as a favorite. I feel the book is a must-read for anyone interested in the paranormal, because Jackson brings out the occult interest that was going on around 1959 - when she published 'The Haunting of Hill House;' everything from cold spots to the use of a planchette for automatic writing.
I recommend this book, but if you're looking for scares, you must look elsewhere.
Mothergamer (1595 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Dauntless in Video Games
Jun 21, 2019
My husband Ron plays a lot of Dauntless. I did try Dauntless out on PC and I did like it, but with the arthritis in my hands it was difficult to handle the controls and it is not easy to map out a controller for Dauntless so it's not very controller friendly for PC. When the announcement was made that Dauntless would be cross platform play I was thrilled. This meant I could try out the game fully on our PS4 and play the game with Ron while he played the game on PC. I seriously counted down the days until the cross platform play launch. Launch day came and honestly there were a lot of issues. People couldn't log in, there was an infinite loading screen upon login, there were lag spikes, and sometimes people got kicked from the game altogether. I decided I would wait a week before I tried to play the game. I guess everyone was excited for cross platform play and the servers got crushed under the weight which is understandable considering Dauntless got four million people all ready to get out there and enjoy the game.
When I did get to start the game, I was excited. Dauntless is free to play and is set in a fantasy world where a cataclysmic event has ripped the world apart and released giant monsters known as behemoths. You get to play as a slayer that takes down these behemoths. The first thing you get to do is create your character. There are a variety of choices with the faces, hair, and makeup for the character creation. I had fun choosing all the things to make my slayer look the way I wanted.
Once the character is created you are logged into the game with an introduction explaining the world of Dauntless and this comes with a tutorial on how to fight the behemoths, how to use flares to signal where the behemoth is to your team, and how to stagger them. The controls for PS4 are great and the tutorial flowed seamlessly for me. When the tutorial is over you are back in the town of Ramsgate where you can pick up quests and craft items you need for hunts such as armor, weapons, and tonics. There are also a couple of adorable dogs in the game that you can actually stop and pat. I pat the dogs every time I'm in the game because I love dogs even in video games.
Dauntless can be played as a solo player or multiplayer. For me, it's more fun with friends and while sometimes it's a bit of a wait to find a hunt match it's not terribly long and once you have your team you're ready to go. Before you start, you have a chance to check your weapons and armor to make sure that they will give you the advantage you need against behemoths. Depending on what their elemental is, you will want weapons that can combat that. For example with a frost behemoth weapons with fire elements on them are your best friend and having armor that protects against ice attacks are quite helpful. As your team is getting ready, the game will show you an element guide for the type of behemoth you're fighting and will show you your weapon and armor power. When the numbers are in green it means your gear is adequate for the hunt.
The behemoth fights are pretty straightforward as you work with your team to battle them. Each behemoth not only has its own unique elements, they also have various attacks they will use. Being able to recognize their movements when they are starting their special attack is vital so that you can dodge and go in for a counter attack. Breaking off parts of the monster is important as well because you will need those parts for crafting armor and weapons. The fights are a lot of fun and when you vanquish a behemoth it feels pretty rewarding. You do get ranked on how you did in the fight and so does your team. Don't be too discouraged if your rank isn't so good when you are first starting out. As you level and improve your armor and weapons that rank will go up. Patience is key.
Depending on the type of build you want for your weapons and armor, there are specific behemoths you will need to hunt in order to get the materials needed. The great thing about Dauntless is that it allows you to try out all the weapons and experiment with them to get a feel for each one and decide which weapons suit your play style. For me, I absolutely love chain blades because they allow me to move and dodge quickly while dishing out damage. Armor crafting is important too and there are a ton of choices in armor builds. You will need to talk to the smithing NPCs in order to craft the things you need and if you have the proper amount of materials, you can upgrade them. This is where the grind comes in. You should strive to constantly upgrade your weapons and armor so you can have an easier time in behemoth hunts.
Don't like the colors of the armor? No problem. You can change the color at any time if you have the color palette unlocked. You get a set of colors for free and others you can unlock doing quests or fighting heroic behemoths. If you check the rewards for the quests and heroic hunts you will see the dye color listed. The other way of course is to buy the colors with platinum and that does cost money. If you're strapped for cash, the free way while a bit of a grind is a great way to go and worth it if you would like to change the colors of your items.
There are daily rewards in Dauntless that you get from doing things such as patrols and login rewards. You get one reward per login from the NPC Gregario Flynt and the rewards range from cores you can unlock that give you cells to add to your weapons and armor or crafting materials. If you want to change your character design a bit, you can do that in Ramsgate. Approach a mirror that is near Gregario and it will take you to the character design screen and you can change and adjust your character for a whole new look.
It is a good idea to try everything out so you get a good feel for the game. You also get rewards when you level up your mastery of weapons so it is advised to try them all out so you can work on it and get some sweet rewards for it. Make sure to take breaks so you don't get burned out on the grind because there is a lot of grinding in Dauntless. However, it is such a fun grind and there is so much to see and do in it and the cross platform play adds to the fun because now no matter what platform you play on you can enjoy the game with everyone. I am off to hunt some more behemoths. See you at the next adventure!
When I did get to start the game, I was excited. Dauntless is free to play and is set in a fantasy world where a cataclysmic event has ripped the world apart and released giant monsters known as behemoths. You get to play as a slayer that takes down these behemoths. The first thing you get to do is create your character. There are a variety of choices with the faces, hair, and makeup for the character creation. I had fun choosing all the things to make my slayer look the way I wanted.
Once the character is created you are logged into the game with an introduction explaining the world of Dauntless and this comes with a tutorial on how to fight the behemoths, how to use flares to signal where the behemoth is to your team, and how to stagger them. The controls for PS4 are great and the tutorial flowed seamlessly for me. When the tutorial is over you are back in the town of Ramsgate where you can pick up quests and craft items you need for hunts such as armor, weapons, and tonics. There are also a couple of adorable dogs in the game that you can actually stop and pat. I pat the dogs every time I'm in the game because I love dogs even in video games.
Dauntless can be played as a solo player or multiplayer. For me, it's more fun with friends and while sometimes it's a bit of a wait to find a hunt match it's not terribly long and once you have your team you're ready to go. Before you start, you have a chance to check your weapons and armor to make sure that they will give you the advantage you need against behemoths. Depending on what their elemental is, you will want weapons that can combat that. For example with a frost behemoth weapons with fire elements on them are your best friend and having armor that protects against ice attacks are quite helpful. As your team is getting ready, the game will show you an element guide for the type of behemoth you're fighting and will show you your weapon and armor power. When the numbers are in green it means your gear is adequate for the hunt.
The behemoth fights are pretty straightforward as you work with your team to battle them. Each behemoth not only has its own unique elements, they also have various attacks they will use. Being able to recognize their movements when they are starting their special attack is vital so that you can dodge and go in for a counter attack. Breaking off parts of the monster is important as well because you will need those parts for crafting armor and weapons. The fights are a lot of fun and when you vanquish a behemoth it feels pretty rewarding. You do get ranked on how you did in the fight and so does your team. Don't be too discouraged if your rank isn't so good when you are first starting out. As you level and improve your armor and weapons that rank will go up. Patience is key.
Depending on the type of build you want for your weapons and armor, there are specific behemoths you will need to hunt in order to get the materials needed. The great thing about Dauntless is that it allows you to try out all the weapons and experiment with them to get a feel for each one and decide which weapons suit your play style. For me, I absolutely love chain blades because they allow me to move and dodge quickly while dishing out damage. Armor crafting is important too and there are a ton of choices in armor builds. You will need to talk to the smithing NPCs in order to craft the things you need and if you have the proper amount of materials, you can upgrade them. This is where the grind comes in. You should strive to constantly upgrade your weapons and armor so you can have an easier time in behemoth hunts.
Don't like the colors of the armor? No problem. You can change the color at any time if you have the color palette unlocked. You get a set of colors for free and others you can unlock doing quests or fighting heroic behemoths. If you check the rewards for the quests and heroic hunts you will see the dye color listed. The other way of course is to buy the colors with platinum and that does cost money. If you're strapped for cash, the free way while a bit of a grind is a great way to go and worth it if you would like to change the colors of your items.
There are daily rewards in Dauntless that you get from doing things such as patrols and login rewards. You get one reward per login from the NPC Gregario Flynt and the rewards range from cores you can unlock that give you cells to add to your weapons and armor or crafting materials. If you want to change your character design a bit, you can do that in Ramsgate. Approach a mirror that is near Gregario and it will take you to the character design screen and you can change and adjust your character for a whole new look.
It is a good idea to try everything out so you get a good feel for the game. You also get rewards when you level up your mastery of weapons so it is advised to try them all out so you can work on it and get some sweet rewards for it. Make sure to take breaks so you don't get burned out on the grind because there is a lot of grinding in Dauntless. However, it is such a fun grind and there is so much to see and do in it and the cross platform play adds to the fun because now no matter what platform you play on you can enjoy the game with everyone. I am off to hunt some more behemoths. See you at the next adventure!