Search
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Terrible Candidates in Tabletop Games
Aug 28, 2020
2020 is a year that will definitely go down in the history books for many reasons. Amidst a global pandemic, a growing civil rights movement, and a hurricane-like storm that ravaged the state of Iowa on August 10th, we ALSO find ourselves in an election year. As if things couldn’t get any crazier, right? Get in the campaigning mood by checking out Terrible Candidates, and remember to get out and vote on November 3rd, America!
Disclaimer: We were provided a copy of Terrible Candidates for the purposes of this review. The components pictured are finalized and are what come in a production copy of the game. I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook, but rather provide an overview of the rules and general gameplay. -L
Terrible Candidates is a party game in which all players, candidates vying for the Presidency, participate in a series of public debates. At the end of the game, the player who has won the most debates is declared the new President! Setup is simple: Deal 5 Policy cards to each player, place the remaining Policy and Topic cards in the center of the table, place the Dumpster Fire of Democracy card within reach of all players to indicate the discard pile, and keep the President card off to the side.
The gameplay itself is just as simple! Select a pair of neighboring players to be the first debate Candidates. A Topic card is revealed, and the 2 Candidates select a Policy card from their hand to play in this debate. Once the Policy cards are selected, each Candidate gets 30 seconds to explain/debate their selected response to the Topic, providing as many talking points, facts (true or alternative) and other general jargon or nonsense to convince the Media (the non-Candidates for this turn) to vote for them. When both Candidates have made their debates, each member of the Media is allowed to ask one question, providing an extra chance for political shenanigans or hilarity. Once all questions have been asked, the Media votes on which Candidate they believe was the best of the pair, and that winning Candidate keeps the Topic card as their point. The game moves on to the next debate, rotating one person around the group to get a new pair of Candidates – one Candidate from the previous debate, and a new competitor. Play progresses in this manner until all players have participated in 2 debates, thus ending the round. Any players who have no Topic cards (meaning they didn’t win either of their debates in the round) is knocked out of the game, and the next round commences with the remaining players. The second round follows the steps of the first, and when all players have debated twice, the game ends. The player with the most Topic cards is declared the winner and becomes President!
I know that this game might seem like a lot, but it’s honestly not complicated. Each round works as follows: Debate, Question, Vote, and repeat until all players have done 2 debates. If there is one thing that is a must for a party game, it’s a simple set of rules and gameplay to maximize playing time, and Terrible Candidates has adhered to that policy (See what I did there?). The overall atmosphere of the game is reminiscent of CAH, but with a twist. In CAH, all players submit a card and one player is the ultimate judge for the turn, thus allowing players to cater to the personality/sense of humor of that one person. Terrible Candidates is a group effort, meaning that you have to get a majority of the votes in your favor to win the debate. Instead of focusing on one person, you have to be quick-witted and clever enough to find ways to influence all other players. That makes it feel like a more engaging game overall, since all players are involved in every step of the turn.
Obviously, this game has some political implications, but the gameplay can be whatever your group wants it to be. Playing with a group of highly political friends? Maybe it will turn into some intelligent debates and conversations throughout the night. Playing with the fam at a reunion or get-together? Go crazy, make up hilarious stories, and just have a good time. It all depends on your gaming group, and it can be whatever kind of game you want it to be – serious or silly. A caveat with this, as with CAH-esque games, is knowing your group and the kind of humor that is acceptable. Just make sure that however you decide to play, everyone involved is comfortable and having fun!
All in all, I think that Terrible Candidates is a fun and funny little game for everyone involved. As a Candidate, you put your improv skills to the test as you make ridiculous claims or present decent ideas in your 30-second time limit. As a member of the Media, you also get in on a little improv, coming up with a question to ask the Candidates, and then casting your vote for the most convincing side. This game can be so unpredictable, and that’s what helps keep it fresh, entertaining, and funny. Whether you are politically active or not, this game can result in some great times and good conversations among the group. If you’re up for it, take a chance and cast your vote for Terrible Candidates!
Disclaimer: We were provided a copy of Terrible Candidates for the purposes of this review. The components pictured are finalized and are what come in a production copy of the game. I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook, but rather provide an overview of the rules and general gameplay. -L
Terrible Candidates is a party game in which all players, candidates vying for the Presidency, participate in a series of public debates. At the end of the game, the player who has won the most debates is declared the new President! Setup is simple: Deal 5 Policy cards to each player, place the remaining Policy and Topic cards in the center of the table, place the Dumpster Fire of Democracy card within reach of all players to indicate the discard pile, and keep the President card off to the side.
The gameplay itself is just as simple! Select a pair of neighboring players to be the first debate Candidates. A Topic card is revealed, and the 2 Candidates select a Policy card from their hand to play in this debate. Once the Policy cards are selected, each Candidate gets 30 seconds to explain/debate their selected response to the Topic, providing as many talking points, facts (true or alternative) and other general jargon or nonsense to convince the Media (the non-Candidates for this turn) to vote for them. When both Candidates have made their debates, each member of the Media is allowed to ask one question, providing an extra chance for political shenanigans or hilarity. Once all questions have been asked, the Media votes on which Candidate they believe was the best of the pair, and that winning Candidate keeps the Topic card as their point. The game moves on to the next debate, rotating one person around the group to get a new pair of Candidates – one Candidate from the previous debate, and a new competitor. Play progresses in this manner until all players have participated in 2 debates, thus ending the round. Any players who have no Topic cards (meaning they didn’t win either of their debates in the round) is knocked out of the game, and the next round commences with the remaining players. The second round follows the steps of the first, and when all players have debated twice, the game ends. The player with the most Topic cards is declared the winner and becomes President!
I know that this game might seem like a lot, but it’s honestly not complicated. Each round works as follows: Debate, Question, Vote, and repeat until all players have done 2 debates. If there is one thing that is a must for a party game, it’s a simple set of rules and gameplay to maximize playing time, and Terrible Candidates has adhered to that policy (See what I did there?). The overall atmosphere of the game is reminiscent of CAH, but with a twist. In CAH, all players submit a card and one player is the ultimate judge for the turn, thus allowing players to cater to the personality/sense of humor of that one person. Terrible Candidates is a group effort, meaning that you have to get a majority of the votes in your favor to win the debate. Instead of focusing on one person, you have to be quick-witted and clever enough to find ways to influence all other players. That makes it feel like a more engaging game overall, since all players are involved in every step of the turn.
Obviously, this game has some political implications, but the gameplay can be whatever your group wants it to be. Playing with a group of highly political friends? Maybe it will turn into some intelligent debates and conversations throughout the night. Playing with the fam at a reunion or get-together? Go crazy, make up hilarious stories, and just have a good time. It all depends on your gaming group, and it can be whatever kind of game you want it to be – serious or silly. A caveat with this, as with CAH-esque games, is knowing your group and the kind of humor that is acceptable. Just make sure that however you decide to play, everyone involved is comfortable and having fun!
All in all, I think that Terrible Candidates is a fun and funny little game for everyone involved. As a Candidate, you put your improv skills to the test as you make ridiculous claims or present decent ideas in your 30-second time limit. As a member of the Media, you also get in on a little improv, coming up with a question to ask the Candidates, and then casting your vote for the most convincing side. This game can be so unpredictable, and that’s what helps keep it fresh, entertaining, and funny. Whether you are politically active or not, this game can result in some great times and good conversations among the group. If you’re up for it, take a chance and cast your vote for Terrible Candidates!
Kris Karcher (10 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jan 5, 2018
Better then it looks.
Contains spoilers, click to show
It’s been years since I’ve seen the original 1995 Jumanji, but from what I can remember as a 5-10 year old (not sure when I got around to owning the VHS) I enjoyed it. Robin Williams was on fire in the 90’s and turned in another comparable performance in this fun action adventure film. This new incarnation of the Jumanji tale changes direction a bit. For one it swaps the outdated board game that contains an entire jungle world inside it, for a more cultural relevant video game console that contains an entire jungle world inside it. I’m actually surprised they didn't use an iPad. 2017’s Jumanji also adds in a body swapping element. The teens that enter the game suddenly become adult video game characters. Complete with skills and weakness of varying degrees of usefulness.
Semantics aside, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is also a serviceable blockbuster flick. It’s a fun film that moves at a decent pace and avoids a lot of the typical dull spots most popcorn flicks fall victim to. The adult cast is a fun mixture of comedic talent and have some great chemistry together. The teenage cast less so but they have a more limited role in the film. I enjoyed watching the adult cast attempt to convey the teenagers “inside” them. Dwayne Johnson does this particularly well, playing a timid nerdy teenager trapped in the body of a jacked, smoldering, elite fighting machine. The film purposefully miscast each role. Kevin Hart play’s the avatar of a 6ft football star, Jack black stands in for a Mean Chick-esc selfie obsessed teenage girl, and the bad ass Karen Gillan plays the avatar of an insecure self-conscious teenage girl. The dichotomy of the characters real-life personalities always being at odds with their avatars new physical and mental attributes provides much of the comedy. Not all of it lands, but enough does and they don’t overdo it.
Once we enter the world of Jumanji the characters attempt to figure out how the “game” works. This leads to some humorous video game style exposition. I found this method of exposition to be unique and interesting. Incorporating NPC’s (Non-playable characters) whose sole purpose is to help players figure out what is going on and how to play the game was a fun and meta way to advance the story. It sort of reminds me of some of the things I enjoyed about 2012’s Wreck-It Ralph.
Then the gang runs into the other player in the game and another star of the film, Nick Jonas. Jonas plays Jefferson "Seaplane" McDonough who is the avatar of Zack a teenage boy sucked into the game in 1997 (Jonas uses 1997 lingo frequently. Radical.) and has lived in the jungle for what he claims to be “a few months”. This leads to the biggest missed opportunity of the film. Time apparently moves differently in Jumanji. A few months in Jumanji translates to 20 years in real life. When Zack is told he has been missing 20 years this should have been a major B plot. They do try and add some weight to the situation by showing how deeply affected Zack is by this news, but I feel they could have explored this dynamic a bit further. Especially when it comes to the ending. Which is a bit anticlimactic. Once they all end up working together to escape Jumanji they all are all transported back to their respective timelines and it would appear as though no time has passed. So it sort of ditches the whole being stuck in the game for 20 years angle and instead chooses to allow Zack to live a full and complete life starting from 1997. Also, the main cast seems to be unaffected timeline wise. All of this film took place while they were down in the basement serving their detentions. It would have made for a much more interesting ending if they return to their bodies and find out that in the real world they were gone for a longer period of time. Even just a week or so would have added an interesting dynamic to the pretty flat and standard ending. They do end up meeting up with grown-up Zack (Played by Colin Hanks) and there is a nice little payoff to the quasi-romance Nick Jonas and Jack Black had throughout the film. (Yes you read that correctly.) Alex named his daughter after Bethany who saved his life in the jungle.
The four teenagers all learn valuable life lessons inside the jungle. Fridge leans to appreciate his friend Spencer. Spencer learns to man up and take risks. Bethany learns to care about something other than herself and her popularity, and Martha learns to come out of her shell a bit and open up. While I often find these types of stories to be heavy-handed and snooze-worthy Jumanji manages to keep the gushy feel good stuff to a minimum. It’s there, and it’s obvious but it’s not in your face enough to bring down the movie.
Ultimately I will go ahead and recommend Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle if your into Action comedy that doesn't ever take itself too seriously. I repeat this is not a serious movie. But it is a mildly funny, family-friendly romp that I fully expect anyone who paid for a ticket to at least get their monies worth. Provided they came in with the right expectations.
Semantics aside, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is also a serviceable blockbuster flick. It’s a fun film that moves at a decent pace and avoids a lot of the typical dull spots most popcorn flicks fall victim to. The adult cast is a fun mixture of comedic talent and have some great chemistry together. The teenage cast less so but they have a more limited role in the film. I enjoyed watching the adult cast attempt to convey the teenagers “inside” them. Dwayne Johnson does this particularly well, playing a timid nerdy teenager trapped in the body of a jacked, smoldering, elite fighting machine. The film purposefully miscast each role. Kevin Hart play’s the avatar of a 6ft football star, Jack black stands in for a Mean Chick-esc selfie obsessed teenage girl, and the bad ass Karen Gillan plays the avatar of an insecure self-conscious teenage girl. The dichotomy of the characters real-life personalities always being at odds with their avatars new physical and mental attributes provides much of the comedy. Not all of it lands, but enough does and they don’t overdo it.
Once we enter the world of Jumanji the characters attempt to figure out how the “game” works. This leads to some humorous video game style exposition. I found this method of exposition to be unique and interesting. Incorporating NPC’s (Non-playable characters) whose sole purpose is to help players figure out what is going on and how to play the game was a fun and meta way to advance the story. It sort of reminds me of some of the things I enjoyed about 2012’s Wreck-It Ralph.
Then the gang runs into the other player in the game and another star of the film, Nick Jonas. Jonas plays Jefferson "Seaplane" McDonough who is the avatar of Zack a teenage boy sucked into the game in 1997 (Jonas uses 1997 lingo frequently. Radical.) and has lived in the jungle for what he claims to be “a few months”. This leads to the biggest missed opportunity of the film. Time apparently moves differently in Jumanji. A few months in Jumanji translates to 20 years in real life. When Zack is told he has been missing 20 years this should have been a major B plot. They do try and add some weight to the situation by showing how deeply affected Zack is by this news, but I feel they could have explored this dynamic a bit further. Especially when it comes to the ending. Which is a bit anticlimactic. Once they all end up working together to escape Jumanji they all are all transported back to their respective timelines and it would appear as though no time has passed. So it sort of ditches the whole being stuck in the game for 20 years angle and instead chooses to allow Zack to live a full and complete life starting from 1997. Also, the main cast seems to be unaffected timeline wise. All of this film took place while they were down in the basement serving their detentions. It would have made for a much more interesting ending if they return to their bodies and find out that in the real world they were gone for a longer period of time. Even just a week or so would have added an interesting dynamic to the pretty flat and standard ending. They do end up meeting up with grown-up Zack (Played by Colin Hanks) and there is a nice little payoff to the quasi-romance Nick Jonas and Jack Black had throughout the film. (Yes you read that correctly.) Alex named his daughter after Bethany who saved his life in the jungle.
The four teenagers all learn valuable life lessons inside the jungle. Fridge leans to appreciate his friend Spencer. Spencer learns to man up and take risks. Bethany learns to care about something other than herself and her popularity, and Martha learns to come out of her shell a bit and open up. While I often find these types of stories to be heavy-handed and snooze-worthy Jumanji manages to keep the gushy feel good stuff to a minimum. It’s there, and it’s obvious but it’s not in your face enough to bring down the movie.
Ultimately I will go ahead and recommend Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle if your into Action comedy that doesn't ever take itself too seriously. I repeat this is not a serious movie. But it is a mildly funny, family-friendly romp that I fully expect anyone who paid for a ticket to at least get their monies worth. Provided they came in with the right expectations.
Cumberland (1142 KP) created a post in The Smashbomb Book Club
Jun 13, 2019
Paul Kellett (118 KP) rated Descent: Journeys in the Dark (Second Edition) in Tabletop Games
May 4, 2019
Plenty of expansions (1 more)
Decent quality miniatures
App can be buggy (1 more)
One side can snowball after a couple of wins
Descent: Journeys In The Dark has been around a long time now, starting as a huge dungeon crawler and morphing into a tactical skirmish / objective-based campaign game. It is supposed to be played with 2-5 players with 1 player being the "Overlord", controlling all the monsters and playing nasty cards on the other players playing the group of heroes (at least 2 heroes required). The game is a fun dice-chucker with a decent amount of strategy and on the whole, well balanced.
With a couple of big-box and half a dozen small-box expansions, not to mention the various hero & monster packs, there is a ton of stuff available and if you own everything, you will be able to choose from 72 heroes with 22 different class decks; fight against 45 different monster types, and encounter around 15 lieutenants over a total of 182 different scenarios. That's plenty to keep you quiet for a while.
So many cards...
Descent: An Overview In The Dark
Descent is a scenario-based game where you work through a tree of different missions, choosing the next one based on whether the heroes or the Overlord worn the last. Each scenario will have specific objectives - anything from stealing an item and reaching the exit to interrogating prisoners and defeating a fearsome Lieutenant of the Overlord. Some of the monsters to be encountered are specified in the scenario text with other free groups able to be chosen from traits specific to that scenario. This gives some variety meaning you will never face exactly the same monsters if you replay the scenarios.
The good players choose a hero from the stack of basic skill types - Fighter, Healer, Scout or Mage and then choose from one of the many class decks for each type so the Fighter could be a Knight or a Berzerker, the Mage a Necromancer and the Healer a Bard, etc. These decks give each hero their skills and form their general strategy.
Meanwhile, the Overlord player chooses one of two Basic decks of cards that will form the base of his defence against the heroes. One deck is more about springing traps while the other has more things to enhance monster attacks. After choosing the basic deck, the Overlord can choose a specialist deck. These can be used to fine tune the Overlord's strategy and at first, only one card is available, the others will be purchased with experience points after each scenario. Finally, if the relevant expansion packs are available, the Overlord can choose a Lieutenant deck which adds further depth to his strategy and also offers the chance to bring a powerful figure into play later in the campaign.
Solo? How So? Redjak has the answer.
With all that going on, it sounds like a fairly daunting if not impossible task to play a solo game of Descent but a fan going by the name of Redjak created two card-driven AI decks - Redjak's Automated Monster Variant (RAMV) and Redjak's Automated Overlord Variant (RAOV). These decks both allow a player, or group of players to play the game as a fully co-operative experience with the cards replacing the Overlord player.
I will say that it is preferable if you have a grasp of the basic rules before jumping into these variants as there can be a lot going on if you are trying to learn the game and the solo rules at the same time. It's probably best to only choose two heroes at first as playing four heroes is more involved but ultimately more rewarding.
These variants are available to download and print out and are also available from the Printer Studio website if you search, although if you are not in the US, then shipping gets expensive.
RAMV
The Monster AI deck is the simpler of the two AI's, being just concerned with the monster actions and leaving out all the Overlord's cards. I haven't played much with this variant but the rules are fairly straightforward. You will set up 4 decks - an Event deck, a Dark Influence deck, a Conditions deck and a Monster deck.
After choosing a scenario to play, you draw cards from the Monster deck, finding ones with icons matching those of the current scenario. This keeps things random and you will always have different things to fight. The selected monster groups will then be placed in "Teams" underneath a row of team cards that will give them their activation order. Finally you will place the encounter objective card for the current scenario. This will give you specific things for each monster group to focus on in terms of stopping you from winning.
You will take your turn alternating hero and monster groups, drawing cards at various points when the monsters should react to attacks, certain scenario triggers ond other in-game events.
It is a fairly simple system but it works really well, giving a solid, straightforward dungeon crawl feel of exploring a map and fighting monsters while trying to complete your quest. Definitely a good starting point and good if you want a 'quick' dungeon crawl.
RAOV
This is the meat, the full experience. Although daunting at first, if you are familiar with the game rules (and have possibly played RAMV a bit), then it will make sense once you get stuck in.
RAOV differs over RAMV in only having one deck, but the rule book is more in depth describing how everything gets played.
You set up as normal, decide on what decks the Overlord will be playing with, draw his starting hand of cards placing them face up on the table. (This variant uses D10 dice anytime you have to make selections)
and take all your heroes actions. If at any point one of your actions would trigger an Overlord card, then that card is played and discarded. Having an open hand means that there are fewer surprises and the Overlord cant be as evil as a human player would be, but it is still tricky and knowing what cards might trigger forces you to think about your strategy in a different way.
Once the heroes have all activated, then the Overlord take its turn, playing any cards that would trigger at the start of the turn. Then, you flip over the top card of the AI deck and activate the first monster group. These cards have a primary target, shown by the corresponding hero symbol and several secondary targets. This gives the monster a focus for its actions. The main text of the card is a list of actions and essentially you work down the list doing whatever actions you are able. Each monster that activates will draw a new card and follow it's orders.
That in a nutshell is it. The Overlord's cards will trigger at the first available opportunity and the monsters will follow a list of options. Once you get used to it, it flows really well and doesn't feel too fiddly at all.
An Open Dungeon
As well as the two AI variants, Redjak also created Delven Deep - a deck of cards each displaying a different map tile that you can use to play a completely randomly generated dungeon crawl. I have yet to try this out, but it is another option if you don't fancy playing through a scripted scenario and just want to explore a random map, killing things.
For The Digital Generation
Fantasy Flight Games have also released an official, free companion app on Android, Steam and IOS that will take control of the Overlord player. This app comes with, I think 2 campaigns - a short training story and a larger, full campaign. Other campaigns a random dungeon generator are available to purchase in the app. None of the printed scenarios are playable using this app and it doesn't use any of the overlord cards, plot decks, event cards or encounter cards.
I will say that I am not a fan of apps for board games and it was actually this app in particular that soured me on the whole idea. Many people really enjoy this app and it has breathed a new lease of life into the game, but unfortunately on my first playthrough, it decided to crash near to the end of a campaign and I essentially lost 6 hours of gaming. I would have had to start all over again from the beginning. That was not a fun experience and put me off completely.
The app borrows heavily from Redjak's work, giving you a list of options to work through when activating the monsters, and various other triggers. Unlike the printed scenarios, all the maps in the digital stories are hidden until you explore them, so you never know what you will encounter. Also, there is a hidden timer in the program that means if you take too long exploring, fighting or whatever, then the game will start throwing nastier and nastier events at you. This makes the game much more of a race than its cardboard cousin and ramps up the difficulty at a fast pace making you feel like you never have enough time to do what you want.
In My opinion, RAOV is the best way to play Descent solo. It uses absolutely everything in the box and gives the most realistic feeling of playing the complete game.
With a couple of big-box and half a dozen small-box expansions, not to mention the various hero & monster packs, there is a ton of stuff available and if you own everything, you will be able to choose from 72 heroes with 22 different class decks; fight against 45 different monster types, and encounter around 15 lieutenants over a total of 182 different scenarios. That's plenty to keep you quiet for a while.
So many cards...
Descent: An Overview In The Dark
Descent is a scenario-based game where you work through a tree of different missions, choosing the next one based on whether the heroes or the Overlord worn the last. Each scenario will have specific objectives - anything from stealing an item and reaching the exit to interrogating prisoners and defeating a fearsome Lieutenant of the Overlord. Some of the monsters to be encountered are specified in the scenario text with other free groups able to be chosen from traits specific to that scenario. This gives some variety meaning you will never face exactly the same monsters if you replay the scenarios.
The good players choose a hero from the stack of basic skill types - Fighter, Healer, Scout or Mage and then choose from one of the many class decks for each type so the Fighter could be a Knight or a Berzerker, the Mage a Necromancer and the Healer a Bard, etc. These decks give each hero their skills and form their general strategy.
Meanwhile, the Overlord player chooses one of two Basic decks of cards that will form the base of his defence against the heroes. One deck is more about springing traps while the other has more things to enhance monster attacks. After choosing the basic deck, the Overlord can choose a specialist deck. These can be used to fine tune the Overlord's strategy and at first, only one card is available, the others will be purchased with experience points after each scenario. Finally, if the relevant expansion packs are available, the Overlord can choose a Lieutenant deck which adds further depth to his strategy and also offers the chance to bring a powerful figure into play later in the campaign.
Solo? How So? Redjak has the answer.
With all that going on, it sounds like a fairly daunting if not impossible task to play a solo game of Descent but a fan going by the name of Redjak created two card-driven AI decks - Redjak's Automated Monster Variant (RAMV) and Redjak's Automated Overlord Variant (RAOV). These decks both allow a player, or group of players to play the game as a fully co-operative experience with the cards replacing the Overlord player.
I will say that it is preferable if you have a grasp of the basic rules before jumping into these variants as there can be a lot going on if you are trying to learn the game and the solo rules at the same time. It's probably best to only choose two heroes at first as playing four heroes is more involved but ultimately more rewarding.
These variants are available to download and print out and are also available from the Printer Studio website if you search, although if you are not in the US, then shipping gets expensive.
RAMV
The Monster AI deck is the simpler of the two AI's, being just concerned with the monster actions and leaving out all the Overlord's cards. I haven't played much with this variant but the rules are fairly straightforward. You will set up 4 decks - an Event deck, a Dark Influence deck, a Conditions deck and a Monster deck.
After choosing a scenario to play, you draw cards from the Monster deck, finding ones with icons matching those of the current scenario. This keeps things random and you will always have different things to fight. The selected monster groups will then be placed in "Teams" underneath a row of team cards that will give them their activation order. Finally you will place the encounter objective card for the current scenario. This will give you specific things for each monster group to focus on in terms of stopping you from winning.
You will take your turn alternating hero and monster groups, drawing cards at various points when the monsters should react to attacks, certain scenario triggers ond other in-game events.
It is a fairly simple system but it works really well, giving a solid, straightforward dungeon crawl feel of exploring a map and fighting monsters while trying to complete your quest. Definitely a good starting point and good if you want a 'quick' dungeon crawl.
RAOV
This is the meat, the full experience. Although daunting at first, if you are familiar with the game rules (and have possibly played RAMV a bit), then it will make sense once you get stuck in.
RAOV differs over RAMV in only having one deck, but the rule book is more in depth describing how everything gets played.
You set up as normal, decide on what decks the Overlord will be playing with, draw his starting hand of cards placing them face up on the table. (This variant uses D10 dice anytime you have to make selections)
and take all your heroes actions. If at any point one of your actions would trigger an Overlord card, then that card is played and discarded. Having an open hand means that there are fewer surprises and the Overlord cant be as evil as a human player would be, but it is still tricky and knowing what cards might trigger forces you to think about your strategy in a different way.
Once the heroes have all activated, then the Overlord take its turn, playing any cards that would trigger at the start of the turn. Then, you flip over the top card of the AI deck and activate the first monster group. These cards have a primary target, shown by the corresponding hero symbol and several secondary targets. This gives the monster a focus for its actions. The main text of the card is a list of actions and essentially you work down the list doing whatever actions you are able. Each monster that activates will draw a new card and follow it's orders.
That in a nutshell is it. The Overlord's cards will trigger at the first available opportunity and the monsters will follow a list of options. Once you get used to it, it flows really well and doesn't feel too fiddly at all.
An Open Dungeon
As well as the two AI variants, Redjak also created Delven Deep - a deck of cards each displaying a different map tile that you can use to play a completely randomly generated dungeon crawl. I have yet to try this out, but it is another option if you don't fancy playing through a scripted scenario and just want to explore a random map, killing things.
For The Digital Generation
Fantasy Flight Games have also released an official, free companion app on Android, Steam and IOS that will take control of the Overlord player. This app comes with, I think 2 campaigns - a short training story and a larger, full campaign. Other campaigns a random dungeon generator are available to purchase in the app. None of the printed scenarios are playable using this app and it doesn't use any of the overlord cards, plot decks, event cards or encounter cards.
I will say that I am not a fan of apps for board games and it was actually this app in particular that soured me on the whole idea. Many people really enjoy this app and it has breathed a new lease of life into the game, but unfortunately on my first playthrough, it decided to crash near to the end of a campaign and I essentially lost 6 hours of gaming. I would have had to start all over again from the beginning. That was not a fun experience and put me off completely.
The app borrows heavily from Redjak's work, giving you a list of options to work through when activating the monsters, and various other triggers. Unlike the printed scenarios, all the maps in the digital stories are hidden until you explore them, so you never know what you will encounter. Also, there is a hidden timer in the program that means if you take too long exploring, fighting or whatever, then the game will start throwing nastier and nastier events at you. This makes the game much more of a race than its cardboard cousin and ramps up the difficulty at a fast pace making you feel like you never have enough time to do what you want.
In My opinion, RAOV is the best way to play Descent solo. It uses absolutely everything in the box and gives the most realistic feeling of playing the complete game.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alien Abduction (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Alien Abduction starts by informing us this is based on actual footage found, *sigh*. This before going off to show us footage that looks like is being shot through a pair of fingers with screaming in the background. All this and the camera gets dropped out the spacecraft. The film then decides to inform us about The Brown Mountain Lights a location in North Carolina that has a high disappearance rate. Time for the experts and locals to give us their stories about what has been happening and a theory behind what is happening. More reading before we find out who the camera belonged too.
Oh great now the film starts with the Morris family and their camcorder holiday being filmed by autistic 11 year old boy Riley (Polanski). The family which includes Katie (Sigismund), Corey (Eid), Jillian (Clare) and Peter (Holden) are camping out around the The Brown Mountain. On the first night the children see UFOs in the sky and film it but don’t seem to rewind and watch it. The family continues their trip and gets lost while travelling to the next location and the family finds themselves stranded very low on gas. What the family finds next is a string of abandoned cars blocking the road and investigating the tunnel they find themselves under attack from aliens.
We now have to deal with an over panicked family running for their lives against an enemy they can’t imagine beating. The family makes out hiding with generic redneck Sean (Bowser) where they have to survive the night.
Alien Abduction started off by really annoying me for first 5 odd minutes because of the amount of reading on a found footage film is too much. One thing that always annoys me with found footage is bad decision and this is filled with them starting very early on. Let’s list them panicking too much, turning the light on in the dark so the aliens know where you are, not turning around after finding plenty of abandoned cars and finally after the first light sighting why didn’t you just pack up and go home. I know a lot of these found footage films criticise why they carry on filming but I think this one gets away with it by making the kid autistic and needs to film everything to keep him happy. In the end this does have good scares but not original ones and you never really end up feeling truly scared as everything unfolds because you know how it ends thanks to the beginning. (4/10)
Actor Review
Katherine Sigismund: Katie Morris is the mother of the family who is all out to protect her family from the aliens, she tries to stay strong after the early loss of the father. Katherine does a solid job by making us feel like she really is the mother of the house. (6/10)
Corey Eid: Corey Morris is the eldest son who has to become the man after his father sacrifices himself to save the rest of the family. Corey does solid job and like most of the cast we really do believe they are just a family. (6/10)
Riley Polanski: Riley Morris is our autistic cameraman and we see nearly the whole film from his point of view, this helps use try and get into the idea of the fear he would be going through watching his family being picked off one by one. It is hard to rate someone behind the camera. (5/10)
Jillian Clare: Jillian Morris is the only daughter of the family who has to try and help keep Riley safe once the aliens start turning up. Jillian gives a solid performance but never really shines. (6/10)
Jeff Bowser: Sean is the nice redneck who lives in and around the mountains that helps the family try and survive the horror that is out there waiting for them. Jeff does a solid job and his character constantly turning up makes us believe they could survive. (6/10)
Support Cast: Alien Abduction doesn’t really have much of a supporting cast with the only character we actual meet in the father of the family who doesn’t last too long.
Director Review: Matty Beckerman – Matty does a solid job with the scares, but gave away too much information about the location because there was no reason or chance for the characters to learn about the history. (5/10)
Horror: Alien Abduction enters the found footage horror genre nicely but will end up going down as a standard one. (7/10)
Sci-Fi: Alien Abduction uses the alien abduction well but never really makes us see more than we need to about the ship. (6/10)
Thriller: Alien Abduction never lets you care about the characters because you know what happens at the end, not all found footage films need everyone to die. (6/10)
Settings: Alien Abduction puts us in a location that could very well have unexplained experiences happening there but surely people would suggest not going there on a camping trip. (8/10)
Suggestion: Alien Abduction is one for the found footage fans out there to try it isn’t special but does have its good moments. (Found Footage Fans Try)
Best Part: Not holding back with the first alien encounter.
Worst Part: Too much given away early on with the reading.
Kill Of The Film: Katie
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: Yes there are two.
Similar Too: VHS 2 Alien Abduction part.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 25 Minutes
Tagline: Fear The Lights
Overall: Found Footage falls from the sky here, literally.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/01/22/movie-reviews-101-halloween-midnight-horror-alien-abduction-2014/
Oh great now the film starts with the Morris family and their camcorder holiday being filmed by autistic 11 year old boy Riley (Polanski). The family which includes Katie (Sigismund), Corey (Eid), Jillian (Clare) and Peter (Holden) are camping out around the The Brown Mountain. On the first night the children see UFOs in the sky and film it but don’t seem to rewind and watch it. The family continues their trip and gets lost while travelling to the next location and the family finds themselves stranded very low on gas. What the family finds next is a string of abandoned cars blocking the road and investigating the tunnel they find themselves under attack from aliens.
We now have to deal with an over panicked family running for their lives against an enemy they can’t imagine beating. The family makes out hiding with generic redneck Sean (Bowser) where they have to survive the night.
Alien Abduction started off by really annoying me for first 5 odd minutes because of the amount of reading on a found footage film is too much. One thing that always annoys me with found footage is bad decision and this is filled with them starting very early on. Let’s list them panicking too much, turning the light on in the dark so the aliens know where you are, not turning around after finding plenty of abandoned cars and finally after the first light sighting why didn’t you just pack up and go home. I know a lot of these found footage films criticise why they carry on filming but I think this one gets away with it by making the kid autistic and needs to film everything to keep him happy. In the end this does have good scares but not original ones and you never really end up feeling truly scared as everything unfolds because you know how it ends thanks to the beginning. (4/10)
Actor Review
Katherine Sigismund: Katie Morris is the mother of the family who is all out to protect her family from the aliens, she tries to stay strong after the early loss of the father. Katherine does a solid job by making us feel like she really is the mother of the house. (6/10)
Corey Eid: Corey Morris is the eldest son who has to become the man after his father sacrifices himself to save the rest of the family. Corey does solid job and like most of the cast we really do believe they are just a family. (6/10)
Riley Polanski: Riley Morris is our autistic cameraman and we see nearly the whole film from his point of view, this helps use try and get into the idea of the fear he would be going through watching his family being picked off one by one. It is hard to rate someone behind the camera. (5/10)
Jillian Clare: Jillian Morris is the only daughter of the family who has to try and help keep Riley safe once the aliens start turning up. Jillian gives a solid performance but never really shines. (6/10)
Jeff Bowser: Sean is the nice redneck who lives in and around the mountains that helps the family try and survive the horror that is out there waiting for them. Jeff does a solid job and his character constantly turning up makes us believe they could survive. (6/10)
Support Cast: Alien Abduction doesn’t really have much of a supporting cast with the only character we actual meet in the father of the family who doesn’t last too long.
Director Review: Matty Beckerman – Matty does a solid job with the scares, but gave away too much information about the location because there was no reason or chance for the characters to learn about the history. (5/10)
Horror: Alien Abduction enters the found footage horror genre nicely but will end up going down as a standard one. (7/10)
Sci-Fi: Alien Abduction uses the alien abduction well but never really makes us see more than we need to about the ship. (6/10)
Thriller: Alien Abduction never lets you care about the characters because you know what happens at the end, not all found footage films need everyone to die. (6/10)
Settings: Alien Abduction puts us in a location that could very well have unexplained experiences happening there but surely people would suggest not going there on a camping trip. (8/10)
Suggestion: Alien Abduction is one for the found footage fans out there to try it isn’t special but does have its good moments. (Found Footage Fans Try)
Best Part: Not holding back with the first alien encounter.
Worst Part: Too much given away early on with the reading.
Kill Of The Film: Katie
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: Yes there are two.
Similar Too: VHS 2 Alien Abduction part.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 25 Minutes
Tagline: Fear The Lights
Overall: Found Footage falls from the sky here, literally.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/01/22/movie-reviews-101-halloween-midnight-horror-alien-abduction-2014/
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Emily, Gone in Books
Jun 7, 2019
I have been a fan of author Bette Lee Crosby since reading her book The Summer of New Beginnings. When I heard of her latest book, Emily, Gone, I knew I would have to read it sooner rather than later. Miss Crosby did not disappoint at all with this one.
Six month old Emily's parents are beyond exhausted due to a music festival very close to their house during 1971. After laying Emily down in her crib in her room, Emily's parents, Rachel and George Dixon, go to their room and finally have a good night's sleep. In the morning when Rachel checks on baby Emily, she is missing from her crib. Vicki gave birth to a stillborn baby girl about a month before Emily was born. When Vicki and her boyfriend decide to stop at a random house to get some food after the festival late one night, it's the perfect opportunity for her to steal baby Emily. What follows is a years long search for Emily all the while Emily is being raised by Vicki and her family. Will Rachel and George ever be united with their Emily?
I enjoyed the plot for Emily, Gone immensely. There are no plot holes or cliffhangers, and Bette Lee Crosby writes about 1971 and the subsequent years very well. It's as if I was transported back in time to that era. Everything flows together smoothly. I found myself wanting Rachel and George to be reunited with Emily quickly, but that wasn't the case. Back in 1971, things like the internet and Amber Alerts weren't a thing, so as frustrating as it was, I could see how hard it would be to recover a kidnapped child. I wish the story would have involved Murph, Vicki's boyfriend, a bit more. He's in the story for about halfway and that's about it. I would have liked to know about him in the epilogue at least. Also, I did find the ending a bit far fetched albeit it probable. It just seems like it would have been highly unlikely. Bette Lee Crosby does touch on the Christian faith lightly throughout this book which could explain the ending.
I found the characters in Emily, Gone to be written superbly. All of them were fleshed out enough to feel like a real person instead of a character in a book. My heart went out to Rachel throughout the years without her Emily. George, Emily's father, had better coping mechanisms, but I still felt bad to him. I can't imagine, and I don't even want to imagine what it would be like if someone kidnapped one of my kids. Mama Dixon was my favorite character in the book. I loved what a warm presence she was throughout the novel to her family. I felt like she was part of my family as well! Although Vicki was written well, I just did not like her. I found her to be very selfish, and I suppose that's because she was mentally ill after the stillborn birth of her baby girl. I kept silently pleading with her to do the right thing and return Emily. I kept wanting her to get caught so she could get the help she needed and the Dixons could have their baby back. I liked Murph, Vicki's boyfriend, but I wish he would have done the right thing and told someone what Vicki had done. In a way, I understand why he didn't turn Vicki in, but it would have been better for everyone in the long run. In a way, my heart also went out to Angela and Kenny for being pulled into Vicki's mess. They were also completely innocent of everything.
I found the pacing to be perfect from the very first page to the very last page. Every time I had to stop reading Emily, Gone I felt like I was leaving a long lost friend, and I couldn't wait to return.
Trigger warnings for Emily, Gone include some drug references, kidnapping, stillborn birth, mental illness, death, some alcohol use, slight references to child molestation, incest, and other sexual references (such as couples making love, nothing graphic).
Overall, Emily, Gone is a highly interesting read with an entertaining plot that will hold you tight and not let go of you until you're done reading! This is one of those stories that will tug at your heartstrings. I would definitely recommend Emily, Gone by Bette Lee Crosby to everyone aged 17+ who would love a fantastically written emotional story.
Six month old Emily's parents are beyond exhausted due to a music festival very close to their house during 1971. After laying Emily down in her crib in her room, Emily's parents, Rachel and George Dixon, go to their room and finally have a good night's sleep. In the morning when Rachel checks on baby Emily, she is missing from her crib. Vicki gave birth to a stillborn baby girl about a month before Emily was born. When Vicki and her boyfriend decide to stop at a random house to get some food after the festival late one night, it's the perfect opportunity for her to steal baby Emily. What follows is a years long search for Emily all the while Emily is being raised by Vicki and her family. Will Rachel and George ever be united with their Emily?
I enjoyed the plot for Emily, Gone immensely. There are no plot holes or cliffhangers, and Bette Lee Crosby writes about 1971 and the subsequent years very well. It's as if I was transported back in time to that era. Everything flows together smoothly. I found myself wanting Rachel and George to be reunited with Emily quickly, but that wasn't the case. Back in 1971, things like the internet and Amber Alerts weren't a thing, so as frustrating as it was, I could see how hard it would be to recover a kidnapped child. I wish the story would have involved Murph, Vicki's boyfriend, a bit more. He's in the story for about halfway and that's about it. I would have liked to know about him in the epilogue at least. Also, I did find the ending a bit far fetched albeit it probable. It just seems like it would have been highly unlikely. Bette Lee Crosby does touch on the Christian faith lightly throughout this book which could explain the ending.
I found the characters in Emily, Gone to be written superbly. All of them were fleshed out enough to feel like a real person instead of a character in a book. My heart went out to Rachel throughout the years without her Emily. George, Emily's father, had better coping mechanisms, but I still felt bad to him. I can't imagine, and I don't even want to imagine what it would be like if someone kidnapped one of my kids. Mama Dixon was my favorite character in the book. I loved what a warm presence she was throughout the novel to her family. I felt like she was part of my family as well! Although Vicki was written well, I just did not like her. I found her to be very selfish, and I suppose that's because she was mentally ill after the stillborn birth of her baby girl. I kept silently pleading with her to do the right thing and return Emily. I kept wanting her to get caught so she could get the help she needed and the Dixons could have their baby back. I liked Murph, Vicki's boyfriend, but I wish he would have done the right thing and told someone what Vicki had done. In a way, I understand why he didn't turn Vicki in, but it would have been better for everyone in the long run. In a way, my heart also went out to Angela and Kenny for being pulled into Vicki's mess. They were also completely innocent of everything.
I found the pacing to be perfect from the very first page to the very last page. Every time I had to stop reading Emily, Gone I felt like I was leaving a long lost friend, and I couldn't wait to return.
Trigger warnings for Emily, Gone include some drug references, kidnapping, stillborn birth, mental illness, death, some alcohol use, slight references to child molestation, incest, and other sexual references (such as couples making love, nothing graphic).
Overall, Emily, Gone is a highly interesting read with an entertaining plot that will hold you tight and not let go of you until you're done reading! This is one of those stories that will tug at your heartstrings. I would definitely recommend Emily, Gone by Bette Lee Crosby to everyone aged 17+ who would love a fantastically written emotional story.
BookblogbyCari (345 KP) rated A Short History of the World in Books
Aug 5, 2018
Best known for his classic fiction, HG Wells also wrote a non-fiction book summarising the history of the world, going from the history of the solar system, right up to the date the book was published in 1922.
As I hoped, the book often reads like a novel, with 67 distinct sections, each like a mini story. In order to fit the history of the whole world into one book, by nature the story telling ranges from nice and rapid, to a little too rapid. I found it rather like a catalogue of numerous interesting little nuggets of information. Despite covering events from all over the world, the topics often flow seamlessly from one topic to the next. Due to so many overlapping topics, this history of the world isn't told in a linear purely chronological pattern, but has to go backwards a little, now and again.
At various times throughout, the stories are gripping and Wells successfully brings history to life. I particularly liked the various sections on religious leaders. Appropriately, Wells tackles religion as would any unbiased historian-become storyteller. I also enjoyed the beginning, where Wells paints a crystal clear picture of our solar system and the vast empty space that our dramas are within. His description of our galaxy sounds nothing short of beautiful.
The book was meant to be predominantly factual, but Wells did include a substantial amount of speculation and opinion. This does not distract from the storyline, but adds value in generating the concepts of the time periods.
It covers progress and prosperity as much as carnage and decimation, and provides good explanations of everything it covers. (Although it would benefit from more illustrations). At times it feels detail heavy but also gives the reader a feel for each age - the book is not limited to which country went to war with which country and when, but also examines changes in ways of thinking through the ages. Including the Ancient Greek philosophers, Arabian progress in maths and science, the advent of experimental science, and the development of political and social ideas in Wells’ time.
I was reassured to learn that despite not studying the history of the world in its entirety in school, I was already familiar with much of the book’s content. Having said that, there were also topics where I really felt I was learning something. I read Wells’ opinion on why the Roman Empire fell, and how the industrial revolution was not merely a revolution in machinery, but rather a revolution in how people conducted their everyday lives. There were also some important figures from history described that were never mentioned in my school days, particularly Charlemagne and Roger Bacon.
Towards the end of the book, Wells correctly predicts another war like that of the Great War. However his final message was one of faith and hope in humanity’s progress.
With such a huge scope, Wells must have struggled with deciding what topics to include and what to exclude. I thought he ought to have included a touch more detail on Ancient Egypt, and on the causes of the Great War (World War 1). As a British person myself I would have liked to have seen more on British history.
Likewise, if the book were written now rather than 1922 I began to speculate on what he would and wouldn’t have included. I imagine there would certainly be a section on World War 2, rockets into space, the internet, and 9/11. He would have provided an excellently conducted section on how humans are destroying the planet.
One of the beauties of this book has to be its availability. If you type “short history of the world” into Google, the free PDF of this book takes up much of the first 2 pages of results. If you’re sketchy on world history, this book will fill in the main blanks, and is worth a read if this is your aim, especially if you wish to do so quickly. The fact that it’s split up into so many succinct sections also means that you can pick up and put down the book as often as opportunity allows. It also works well as a reference book, as it does not need to be read from cover to cover in order to look up one particular event or time period.
In summary, this book would be a welcome addition to bookshelf (or ebook library) of the general non-fiction fan or historian.
Find more of my book review on www.bookblogbycari.com
As I hoped, the book often reads like a novel, with 67 distinct sections, each like a mini story. In order to fit the history of the whole world into one book, by nature the story telling ranges from nice and rapid, to a little too rapid. I found it rather like a catalogue of numerous interesting little nuggets of information. Despite covering events from all over the world, the topics often flow seamlessly from one topic to the next. Due to so many overlapping topics, this history of the world isn't told in a linear purely chronological pattern, but has to go backwards a little, now and again.
At various times throughout, the stories are gripping and Wells successfully brings history to life. I particularly liked the various sections on religious leaders. Appropriately, Wells tackles religion as would any unbiased historian-become storyteller. I also enjoyed the beginning, where Wells paints a crystal clear picture of our solar system and the vast empty space that our dramas are within. His description of our galaxy sounds nothing short of beautiful.
The book was meant to be predominantly factual, but Wells did include a substantial amount of speculation and opinion. This does not distract from the storyline, but adds value in generating the concepts of the time periods.
It covers progress and prosperity as much as carnage and decimation, and provides good explanations of everything it covers. (Although it would benefit from more illustrations). At times it feels detail heavy but also gives the reader a feel for each age - the book is not limited to which country went to war with which country and when, but also examines changes in ways of thinking through the ages. Including the Ancient Greek philosophers, Arabian progress in maths and science, the advent of experimental science, and the development of political and social ideas in Wells’ time.
I was reassured to learn that despite not studying the history of the world in its entirety in school, I was already familiar with much of the book’s content. Having said that, there were also topics where I really felt I was learning something. I read Wells’ opinion on why the Roman Empire fell, and how the industrial revolution was not merely a revolution in machinery, but rather a revolution in how people conducted their everyday lives. There were also some important figures from history described that were never mentioned in my school days, particularly Charlemagne and Roger Bacon.
Towards the end of the book, Wells correctly predicts another war like that of the Great War. However his final message was one of faith and hope in humanity’s progress.
With such a huge scope, Wells must have struggled with deciding what topics to include and what to exclude. I thought he ought to have included a touch more detail on Ancient Egypt, and on the causes of the Great War (World War 1). As a British person myself I would have liked to have seen more on British history.
Likewise, if the book were written now rather than 1922 I began to speculate on what he would and wouldn’t have included. I imagine there would certainly be a section on World War 2, rockets into space, the internet, and 9/11. He would have provided an excellently conducted section on how humans are destroying the planet.
One of the beauties of this book has to be its availability. If you type “short history of the world” into Google, the free PDF of this book takes up much of the first 2 pages of results. If you’re sketchy on world history, this book will fill in the main blanks, and is worth a read if this is your aim, especially if you wish to do so quickly. The fact that it’s split up into so many succinct sections also means that you can pick up and put down the book as often as opportunity allows. It also works well as a reference book, as it does not need to be read from cover to cover in order to look up one particular event or time period.
In summary, this book would be a welcome addition to bookshelf (or ebook library) of the general non-fiction fan or historian.
Find more of my book review on www.bookblogbycari.com
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: The Front Runner starts after Gary Hart (Jackman) has missed out on the Vice-President position, four-years later in 1987, Gary is running for the Presidency, he is the clear favourite too, his team which includes Bill Dixon (Simmons) knows it is only a matter of time before he wins, while the opposition team is looking for weakness in his reputation.
Gary’s lead starts taking a hit when an early report of a potential affair emerges and before long every single newspaper in the country is trying to cover the story on different levels, some using it as a gossip column while others just want to question his own integrity. This will see Gary’s hope of becoming President come crashing down around him.
Thoughts on The Front Runner
Characters – These characters are based on real people, which will show certain ones in good and bad lights. Senator Gary Hart is running for Presidency, is has the whole campaign under complete control, which has all but guaranteed he would become the next President of the United States. Gary has the ability to spin any story that is placed on front of him, to show that he could bring America a brighter future. Gary however does have a secret with an affair which the press turn into a big story which sees him needing to try and recover from the spiralling situation he has created with his own wrong doing. Lee Hart is the wife of Gary, she has been part of a previous separation which made her suffer enough, she has however always stood by her man with strict rules for the future. Bill Dixon is the campaign manager for Gary, that wants to keep everything simple only this becomes difficult when the truth starts to come out. The Front Runner struggles with one big problem, we have such a large cast of characters it does make it hard to keep up with the almost nameless characters, we have three or four papers and their staff, the campaign team, the people involved in the potential affair, it just becomes completely keeping up with who is who.
Performances – Hugh Jackman is great to watch in the leading role, if he was given that one scene to try and make his character truly memorable it would have put him into a stronger respected performance for the year. Vera Farmiga does everything asked of her character which she doesn’t do anything wrong with. J.K. Simmons almost feels wasted in his role which should have been larger for what is going on. Most of the performances do seem to struggle for this reason.
Story – The story here follows a presidential candidate whose life becomes filed with speculation after an alleged affair that both sides denied saw him going from a guarantee winner to needing to withdraw, changing the way politics are portrayed in the papers forever. This story does put the spotlight on the moment that saw a change in how politics and journalist operated, the film even points out in the fact that previous Presidents asked for heads to be turned about affairs, but this alleged one saw the country turn on any person that was willing to cheat. The story does show how the three weeks changed the whole race, only it does try to put way too many characters into the film which does make it hard to keep up with who each person is and what side of the story they really are on.
Biopic/History – We follow a 3 week period in Gary Hart’s life, the three weeks that took him from being the next President to the moment he withdrew wanting to keep the false accusations about him out of the papers, this shows how quickly the public can turn on people and the media can make it happen, this plays into the history side of electing a President because we see how minds suddenly changed after how previous ones had acted.
Settings – The film does use the authentic settings, show how the press would hide for a story, while Gary would use the public to put an end to the stories being made up.
Scene of the Movie – Twisting the medias words.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too many characters.
Final Thoughts – This is a story which does feel like it should be told to more people, only this version of the story is completely over-saturated be characters making it hard to keep up with.
Overall: Political Thriller that just doesn’t pack the punch.
Gary’s lead starts taking a hit when an early report of a potential affair emerges and before long every single newspaper in the country is trying to cover the story on different levels, some using it as a gossip column while others just want to question his own integrity. This will see Gary’s hope of becoming President come crashing down around him.
Thoughts on The Front Runner
Characters – These characters are based on real people, which will show certain ones in good and bad lights. Senator Gary Hart is running for Presidency, is has the whole campaign under complete control, which has all but guaranteed he would become the next President of the United States. Gary has the ability to spin any story that is placed on front of him, to show that he could bring America a brighter future. Gary however does have a secret with an affair which the press turn into a big story which sees him needing to try and recover from the spiralling situation he has created with his own wrong doing. Lee Hart is the wife of Gary, she has been part of a previous separation which made her suffer enough, she has however always stood by her man with strict rules for the future. Bill Dixon is the campaign manager for Gary, that wants to keep everything simple only this becomes difficult when the truth starts to come out. The Front Runner struggles with one big problem, we have such a large cast of characters it does make it hard to keep up with the almost nameless characters, we have three or four papers and their staff, the campaign team, the people involved in the potential affair, it just becomes completely keeping up with who is who.
Performances – Hugh Jackman is great to watch in the leading role, if he was given that one scene to try and make his character truly memorable it would have put him into a stronger respected performance for the year. Vera Farmiga does everything asked of her character which she doesn’t do anything wrong with. J.K. Simmons almost feels wasted in his role which should have been larger for what is going on. Most of the performances do seem to struggle for this reason.
Story – The story here follows a presidential candidate whose life becomes filed with speculation after an alleged affair that both sides denied saw him going from a guarantee winner to needing to withdraw, changing the way politics are portrayed in the papers forever. This story does put the spotlight on the moment that saw a change in how politics and journalist operated, the film even points out in the fact that previous Presidents asked for heads to be turned about affairs, but this alleged one saw the country turn on any person that was willing to cheat. The story does show how the three weeks changed the whole race, only it does try to put way too many characters into the film which does make it hard to keep up with who each person is and what side of the story they really are on.
Biopic/History – We follow a 3 week period in Gary Hart’s life, the three weeks that took him from being the next President to the moment he withdrew wanting to keep the false accusations about him out of the papers, this shows how quickly the public can turn on people and the media can make it happen, this plays into the history side of electing a President because we see how minds suddenly changed after how previous ones had acted.
Settings – The film does use the authentic settings, show how the press would hide for a story, while Gary would use the public to put an end to the stories being made up.
Scene of the Movie – Twisting the medias words.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too many characters.
Final Thoughts – This is a story which does feel like it should be told to more people, only this version of the story is completely over-saturated be characters making it hard to keep up with.
Overall: Political Thriller that just doesn’t pack the punch.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
May 18, 2019
"I can save today, you can save the world"
Remember when some trickster claiming to be a former worker from Warner Bros. wrote an open letter saying that Wonder Woman was just another mess of a DC movie, et cetera? I remember how Patty Jenkins responded to that. She tweeted: "Just wait and you'll see".
Honestly, I don't know how anyone could even consider that there was the slightest chance of this movie not being good, and I'm gonna tell you why: this is the very first big female-led superhero movie, in which the title character also happens to be the greatest female superhero in history. If you really think that Patty Jenkins, also the first woman to ever direct a superhero movie of this caliber in a industry where women barely stand any chances to get to direct major blockbusters, would let this movie be anything less than great... You've got another thing coming, mate.
Wonder Woman is a traditional, oldschool superhero movie, but the first essentially feminist one at it, and they couldn't have chosen a better setting to tell this story, or a better character to star in it. The movie's social comments are strong and constantly present, but never forced, because it is only natural: by placing Diana, a princess raised in an island of warrior women, in the middle of the reality of World War I, the absurdities of the feminine role in the world - and so many other human corruptions - automatically come to light. The way Diana reacts to this world raises a great sense of awareness, with a touch of poignant humor to it. There is a very funny subtle arc of her wanting to take out her cloak, but not being able to because her armor is "barely any clothes", hinting not only at society's sexist feminine dressing code - which is still a thing today -, but also gradually adding power to the iconography of Wonder Woman in full costume; this is Wonder Woman's much awaited debut on the big screen in a solo movie, and like Superman and Batman before her, her first appearance needed to be something incredibly striking. Patty knew that, Gal knew that, and they made it happen. Even if we already saw her in BVS, the very first time Wonder Woman walks up in full costume here is undoubtedly one of the most iconic moments in superhero cinema.
Jenkins is extremely devoted to giving Wonder Woman the iconic debut film she deserves, and she nails it - there's quite a bit of remarkable shots and set pieces that let out the same imagetic power as in Donner's Superman, Burton's Batman or even Raimi's Spider-Man, and I must highlight the No Man's Land sequence. It's my favorite part of the movie; Jenkins and Heinberg carefully work on Diana's mindset as she first witness the horrors of human war, not being able to help everyone, horses being hurt so they can move faster, a mother and a child begging for help, and it all leads up to the powerful moment of a woman crossing the land no man could cross - and Heinberg's dialogue doesn't rely on obvious statements such as "fortunately I'm a woman" (I'm looking at you, Batwoman trailer), it simply lets the image strike us, because it is powerful enough by itself, and boy did that cause some serious goosebumps.
Speaking of dialogue... It's so terrific, so well written. The exchanges between Diana and Steve Trevor are very clever and funny, but most of all natural. All the characters are also extremely likable; Allan Heinberg's writing knows that not all of them can be given deep development, but nonetheless he gives them stories, personalities and purposes, and that - plus the charismatic performances - makes them very empathetic. The villains are not as remarkable as in some of the other DCEU films, but they didn't need to be; the movie doesn't require in-depth arcs from its villains. They have a strong presence when they're in scene and a well elaborated lore, and that's everything they need.
Contrary to the Nordic mythology depicted in the MCU, here we are talking about real gods, true deities, not superpowerful aliens that only strike a similar image - and that also brings a few narrative dangers along with it, after all, it was in greek mythological stories that the concept of Deus Ex Machina first appeared. Heinberg's screenplay, though, makes a few clever twists in that mythology to avoid easy solutions, which adds to the storytelling, the world building and the developing of the themes as well. The lore surrounding the God of War Ares, for example, is not a simple Diabolus Ex Machina as "he influences men to war and if you kill him every man goes back to being good and everything's alright", no, it's more narratively complicated and socially engaging than that.
And Gal Gadot... I'm at a loss for words. I'll confess right here that when she was first announced as Wonder Woman, I was one of the few who were very opposed to that casting. I've never been so wrong in my life, and I've never been so happy about it. She really is Wonder Woman. She's so graceful and adorable, but a major badass when she needs to be. The way she moves, the way she curiously looks at things, the way she speaks, and the way she incarnates Diana's evolving from her naive beginnings to the wise warrior... She's not only an icon, she's a true hero. Comparisons to Christopher Reeve's Superman were made for good reasons.
Chris Pine is also great, he walks perfectly in the line between funny and serious, Steve Trevor is a darling character and his chemistry with Gal is on point. Their relationship is very well constructed and becomes highly emotional by the end - there are scenes that filled my heart with joy, and others that made it ache.
The action is exciting and full of originality, and I like how Jenkins uses slow-motion differently than Zack Snyder. I know that Snyder helped her direct some of the action sequences, which is understandable since Jenkins had no experience with this type of movie, but you can tell it's not the same. In the fights themselves, there's this feel of sensibility to how these people react to Diana, and it's slightly different from the typical "regular people react to superhumans among them" trope. The cinematography is very keen on portraying the difference between Themyscira - an island of colors and natural beauty - and "jolly ol' London" - desaturated and smoggy, a scenario in which Diana's colorful armor shines in a most beautiful contrast.
And the soundtrack. Rupert Gregson-Williams made a beautiful score that brings out the best in every scene. It's heroic, very heartfelt, and loyal to the foundations of what makes superhero music so memorable. Gregson-Williams adds new themes to compose Wonder Woman's musical identity, but Hans Zimmer's main theme from BVS still lives, and it plays in some heart-pounding scenes. I love that they're dedicating that much attention to the musical continuity, because amongst Marvel's many qualities, they're doing a lousy job in that area. Wonder Woman's theme is the most catchy superhero theme in a long time, it quickly gained a lot of appreciation and by continuing on using it, Gregson-Williams collaborates to making Wonder Woman the strong cinematic icon she's setting out to be.
The irregular reception of previous DCEU movies also extols the impact of Wonder Woman, as do the distinct styles between the films. One of the DCEU's biggest virtues is that singularity of each film; be it a near disaster movie epic such as Man Of Steel, a complex deconstruction of heroic values such as Batman v Superman, an stylish chaos such as Suicide Squad or a traditional, graceful superhero film such as Wonder Woman, these movies are all in the same universe, and that very fact is an example of its richness. A lot of people will think Wonder Woman is the best DCEU movie of the lot, some will stick to BVS, others to MOS, maybe for some it's Shazam, but that's the fun of it: we can discuss this forever. Each of these movies mean different things to different people, we're way past simply labelling one as "better" and the other as "worse".
Wonder Woman, however, is not simply a movie about a very strong woman. It's an achievement for every woman. There were tons of girls dressed up as Wonder Woman in the theater, and just seeing how ecstatic they were after the movie brought me joy. There were tons of applause. It's a mark. Be that as it may, Wonder Woman will be remembered as the most impactful superhero film of its time. In 1978, Superman showed to the world how a man could fly; in 2017, Wonder Woman showed to the world how a woman can fight.
Honestly, I don't know how anyone could even consider that there was the slightest chance of this movie not being good, and I'm gonna tell you why: this is the very first big female-led superhero movie, in which the title character also happens to be the greatest female superhero in history. If you really think that Patty Jenkins, also the first woman to ever direct a superhero movie of this caliber in a industry where women barely stand any chances to get to direct major blockbusters, would let this movie be anything less than great... You've got another thing coming, mate.
Wonder Woman is a traditional, oldschool superhero movie, but the first essentially feminist one at it, and they couldn't have chosen a better setting to tell this story, or a better character to star in it. The movie's social comments are strong and constantly present, but never forced, because it is only natural: by placing Diana, a princess raised in an island of warrior women, in the middle of the reality of World War I, the absurdities of the feminine role in the world - and so many other human corruptions - automatically come to light. The way Diana reacts to this world raises a great sense of awareness, with a touch of poignant humor to it. There is a very funny subtle arc of her wanting to take out her cloak, but not being able to because her armor is "barely any clothes", hinting not only at society's sexist feminine dressing code - which is still a thing today -, but also gradually adding power to the iconography of Wonder Woman in full costume; this is Wonder Woman's much awaited debut on the big screen in a solo movie, and like Superman and Batman before her, her first appearance needed to be something incredibly striking. Patty knew that, Gal knew that, and they made it happen. Even if we already saw her in BVS, the very first time Wonder Woman walks up in full costume here is undoubtedly one of the most iconic moments in superhero cinema.
Jenkins is extremely devoted to giving Wonder Woman the iconic debut film she deserves, and she nails it - there's quite a bit of remarkable shots and set pieces that let out the same imagetic power as in Donner's Superman, Burton's Batman or even Raimi's Spider-Man, and I must highlight the No Man's Land sequence. It's my favorite part of the movie; Jenkins and Heinberg carefully work on Diana's mindset as she first witness the horrors of human war, not being able to help everyone, horses being hurt so they can move faster, a mother and a child begging for help, and it all leads up to the powerful moment of a woman crossing the land no man could cross - and Heinberg's dialogue doesn't rely on obvious statements such as "fortunately I'm a woman" (I'm looking at you, Batwoman trailer), it simply lets the image strike us, because it is powerful enough by itself, and boy did that cause some serious goosebumps.
Speaking of dialogue... It's so terrific, so well written. The exchanges between Diana and Steve Trevor are very clever and funny, but most of all natural. All the characters are also extremely likable; Allan Heinberg's writing knows that not all of them can be given deep development, but nonetheless he gives them stories, personalities and purposes, and that - plus the charismatic performances - makes them very empathetic. The villains are not as remarkable as in some of the other DCEU films, but they didn't need to be; the movie doesn't require in-depth arcs from its villains. They have a strong presence when they're in scene and a well elaborated lore, and that's everything they need.
Contrary to the Nordic mythology depicted in the MCU, here we are talking about real gods, true deities, not superpowerful aliens that only strike a similar image - and that also brings a few narrative dangers along with it, after all, it was in greek mythological stories that the concept of Deus Ex Machina first appeared. Heinberg's screenplay, though, makes a few clever twists in that mythology to avoid easy solutions, which adds to the storytelling, the world building and the developing of the themes as well. The lore surrounding the God of War Ares, for example, is not a simple Diabolus Ex Machina as "he influences men to war and if you kill him every man goes back to being good and everything's alright", no, it's more narratively complicated and socially engaging than that.
And Gal Gadot... I'm at a loss for words. I'll confess right here that when she was first announced as Wonder Woman, I was one of the few who were very opposed to that casting. I've never been so wrong in my life, and I've never been so happy about it. She really is Wonder Woman. She's so graceful and adorable, but a major badass when she needs to be. The way she moves, the way she curiously looks at things, the way she speaks, and the way she incarnates Diana's evolving from her naive beginnings to the wise warrior... She's not only an icon, she's a true hero. Comparisons to Christopher Reeve's Superman were made for good reasons.
Chris Pine is also great, he walks perfectly in the line between funny and serious, Steve Trevor is a darling character and his chemistry with Gal is on point. Their relationship is very well constructed and becomes highly emotional by the end - there are scenes that filled my heart with joy, and others that made it ache.
The action is exciting and full of originality, and I like how Jenkins uses slow-motion differently than Zack Snyder. I know that Snyder helped her direct some of the action sequences, which is understandable since Jenkins had no experience with this type of movie, but you can tell it's not the same. In the fights themselves, there's this feel of sensibility to how these people react to Diana, and it's slightly different from the typical "regular people react to superhumans among them" trope. The cinematography is very keen on portraying the difference between Themyscira - an island of colors and natural beauty - and "jolly ol' London" - desaturated and smoggy, a scenario in which Diana's colorful armor shines in a most beautiful contrast.
And the soundtrack. Rupert Gregson-Williams made a beautiful score that brings out the best in every scene. It's heroic, very heartfelt, and loyal to the foundations of what makes superhero music so memorable. Gregson-Williams adds new themes to compose Wonder Woman's musical identity, but Hans Zimmer's main theme from BVS still lives, and it plays in some heart-pounding scenes. I love that they're dedicating that much attention to the musical continuity, because amongst Marvel's many qualities, they're doing a lousy job in that area. Wonder Woman's theme is the most catchy superhero theme in a long time, it quickly gained a lot of appreciation and by continuing on using it, Gregson-Williams collaborates to making Wonder Woman the strong cinematic icon she's setting out to be.
The irregular reception of previous DCEU movies also extols the impact of Wonder Woman, as do the distinct styles between the films. One of the DCEU's biggest virtues is that singularity of each film; be it a near disaster movie epic such as Man Of Steel, a complex deconstruction of heroic values such as Batman v Superman, an stylish chaos such as Suicide Squad or a traditional, graceful superhero film such as Wonder Woman, these movies are all in the same universe, and that very fact is an example of its richness. A lot of people will think Wonder Woman is the best DCEU movie of the lot, some will stick to BVS, others to MOS, maybe for some it's Shazam, but that's the fun of it: we can discuss this forever. Each of these movies mean different things to different people, we're way past simply labelling one as "better" and the other as "worse".
Wonder Woman, however, is not simply a movie about a very strong woman. It's an achievement for every woman. There were tons of girls dressed up as Wonder Woman in the theater, and just seeing how ecstatic they were after the movie brought me joy. There were tons of applause. It's a mark. Be that as it may, Wonder Woman will be remembered as the most impactful superhero film of its time. In 1978, Superman showed to the world how a man could fly; in 2017, Wonder Woman showed to the world how a woman can fight.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Tales from the Loop in TV
Jan 22, 2021
Such is the competition for our attention on the major streaming services, and such is the daunting depth of choice, that sometimes something of real quality can slip through the net for a while. I like to think that eventually, everything gets the audience it deserves, because eventually enough people that appreciated it will find it and pass it on. But it is apparent that good things can go under the radar very easily for one reason or another.
Everything about the production and presentation of Amazon’s Tales From the Loop suggests they thought it might be a bigger hit, or at least they had enough faith in it to let it be different from the mass appeal conventions that apply to sci-fi shows. They have proved this many times in recent years, with shows like The Man In the High Castle and The Expanse favouring patient and mature story-telling over interminable flashbangs and whizzpops usually found in the more action based sci-fi on Netflix and others (The Handmaid’s Tale being another notable exception).
Having raised myself auto-didactically on the oldest traditions of science fiction writing in novel and short story form since my teenage years, I can say with some amateur authority that the point of using sci-fi ideas was always about the people and the parallels to social reality and politics that could be highlighted by putting them in a “what-if” situation. The lazer guns and spaceships and evil aliens were much more a product of Hollywood, and still are. Great science fiction writing can and usually does revolve around a very simple change to the world we know, an inversion or a convention or a technology that turns how we live on its head. At its best it is philosophical and moral poetry.
Tales From the Loop, inspired by the beguiling paintings of Swedish Artist Simon Stålenhag aspires to return to these principles, eschewing breakneck pace and unnecessary exposition at every turn – it is entirely content to confuse and sometimes even bore you with its patient, melancholy approach, testing almost if you are worthy to reach the prize of deeper meaning buried away in the final few episodes.
The idea of Stålenhag’s work is to juxtapose a familiar and mundane landscape with a detail of technology that does not exist in our reality. Often it is something broken, run-down or neglected, leaving a strange sadness and beauty behind that has you wondering who once made this and what was it for, and why is it no longer loved? The untold stories objects and hidden lives, secrets and desires that have been lost, is what this sensitive and delicate show is about. It is about the interconnection of lives caught in time, and the sci-fi / tech conceit is only the hanger that coat is put on. Which… I love.
The surface idea is that we are looking at the inhabitants of a small American town that once relied on farming and community, but now has been changed by the presence of an underground facility that deals with experimental physics and finding ways to make impossible things possible. They call it The Loop. It is never fully explained where it came from, or why, or what it is truly capable of – the mystery is always allowed to remain mostly a mystery – which, again, I love!
Many people in the town work at The Loop and rely on it for their livelihoods and collective economy, including Jonathon Pryce and Rebecca Hall, who are ostensibly the show’s main characters. But most folk have no idea what is really going on. Each episode focuses on one or two members of the community that interweave with one another; several important people begin as background dressing and become more prevalent as the full story of their lives and connections unfolds. But no one character is in every episode… which, you know, I love.
Their lives, that seem simple at first glance, are revealed to be complex tapestries of emotion and personal history, revolving around how The Loop has affected them and the things they love. The progression and unfolding of the detail is so deliberate and usually under-explained that very often you don’t realise the effect the full image will have. And when it does catch up with you it becomes a very moving and meaningful experience. Characters that you don’t understand or even like at first come into sharper focus as we reach the climax of the season and grow to learn why they are the way they are. The story arcs of Pryce and Hall in particular are very satisfying, tragic yet utterly beautiful to comprehend.
A lot of the criticism you will see about the show will concentrate on how slow it all is. I am totally convinced this is a deliberate artistic choice to weed out the thrill junkies. They are very welcome to go elsewhere, and it sounds as if many of them did, basing their reviews on one or two half watched episodes they couldn’t be bothered to engage with or wonder at. Which is why I think in time the respect for this as a work of art will come back around.
There is nothing to fault in the production at all. From the opening credits to the end of each episode, what you get is a very highly polished and considered look and feel, designed to evoke certain feelings over others – a wistfulness, an ennui, a bittersweet smile of knowing, perhaps. It invites you to watch patiently and relate, not to watch eagerly and expect… which, you know, I love.
The photography is crisp and well framed always; the music is subtle but effective; the dialogue is often sparing and well chosen (no detail is merely thrown away); and the direction is of a remarkably uniform vision, considering each episode is a different guest professional, including such prestigious names as Jodie Foster, Mark Romanek and Andrew Stanton.
I absolutely urge anyone that isn’t put off by a little sentiment to give this one a try. Sadness and regret in life is not something to shun and be afraid of, they are parts of human experience, and I love art that explores them as concepts. Put that art in a science fiction context and I am bound to love it even more. Like the final moments of Blade Runner, we know that one day all these moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. We have to take time to see the beauty while we can, even if that beauty is painful.
It may not be for you – I don’t think it is better or worse than other things, just more… me. There is every chance that if it isn’t you… you will hate it. If you do begin, however, please see it to the finish before casting judgement – the final episode directed by Jodie Foster is truly wonderful: a pay-off of such emotion after your investment of seven previous stories, tying it all together perfectly. Rarely have I felt so stupid for not understanding the point of something sooner, or been more pleased that I hadn’t. The final moment of the season is literally unforgettable, and gets richer in my imagination by the day.
Will there be a second season? There certainly could be. Was it enough of a success to justify the investment? Hmm, not sure. Either way, it either sits as a perfect self contained collection of fine, old-fashioned sci-fi stories, or I’d be happy to see it expand, as long as the temptation isn’t to listen to the negative reviews and pander to the fast-food mentality that has already rejected it without fully understanding it. Because nothing needs to change here. A thing of beauty, recommended to those who like beautiful and delicate things.
Everything about the production and presentation of Amazon’s Tales From the Loop suggests they thought it might be a bigger hit, or at least they had enough faith in it to let it be different from the mass appeal conventions that apply to sci-fi shows. They have proved this many times in recent years, with shows like The Man In the High Castle and The Expanse favouring patient and mature story-telling over interminable flashbangs and whizzpops usually found in the more action based sci-fi on Netflix and others (The Handmaid’s Tale being another notable exception).
Having raised myself auto-didactically on the oldest traditions of science fiction writing in novel and short story form since my teenage years, I can say with some amateur authority that the point of using sci-fi ideas was always about the people and the parallels to social reality and politics that could be highlighted by putting them in a “what-if” situation. The lazer guns and spaceships and evil aliens were much more a product of Hollywood, and still are. Great science fiction writing can and usually does revolve around a very simple change to the world we know, an inversion or a convention or a technology that turns how we live on its head. At its best it is philosophical and moral poetry.
Tales From the Loop, inspired by the beguiling paintings of Swedish Artist Simon Stålenhag aspires to return to these principles, eschewing breakneck pace and unnecessary exposition at every turn – it is entirely content to confuse and sometimes even bore you with its patient, melancholy approach, testing almost if you are worthy to reach the prize of deeper meaning buried away in the final few episodes.
The idea of Stålenhag’s work is to juxtapose a familiar and mundane landscape with a detail of technology that does not exist in our reality. Often it is something broken, run-down or neglected, leaving a strange sadness and beauty behind that has you wondering who once made this and what was it for, and why is it no longer loved? The untold stories objects and hidden lives, secrets and desires that have been lost, is what this sensitive and delicate show is about. It is about the interconnection of lives caught in time, and the sci-fi / tech conceit is only the hanger that coat is put on. Which… I love.
The surface idea is that we are looking at the inhabitants of a small American town that once relied on farming and community, but now has been changed by the presence of an underground facility that deals with experimental physics and finding ways to make impossible things possible. They call it The Loop. It is never fully explained where it came from, or why, or what it is truly capable of – the mystery is always allowed to remain mostly a mystery – which, again, I love!
Many people in the town work at The Loop and rely on it for their livelihoods and collective economy, including Jonathon Pryce and Rebecca Hall, who are ostensibly the show’s main characters. But most folk have no idea what is really going on. Each episode focuses on one or two members of the community that interweave with one another; several important people begin as background dressing and become more prevalent as the full story of their lives and connections unfolds. But no one character is in every episode… which, you know, I love.
Their lives, that seem simple at first glance, are revealed to be complex tapestries of emotion and personal history, revolving around how The Loop has affected them and the things they love. The progression and unfolding of the detail is so deliberate and usually under-explained that very often you don’t realise the effect the full image will have. And when it does catch up with you it becomes a very moving and meaningful experience. Characters that you don’t understand or even like at first come into sharper focus as we reach the climax of the season and grow to learn why they are the way they are. The story arcs of Pryce and Hall in particular are very satisfying, tragic yet utterly beautiful to comprehend.
A lot of the criticism you will see about the show will concentrate on how slow it all is. I am totally convinced this is a deliberate artistic choice to weed out the thrill junkies. They are very welcome to go elsewhere, and it sounds as if many of them did, basing their reviews on one or two half watched episodes they couldn’t be bothered to engage with or wonder at. Which is why I think in time the respect for this as a work of art will come back around.
There is nothing to fault in the production at all. From the opening credits to the end of each episode, what you get is a very highly polished and considered look and feel, designed to evoke certain feelings over others – a wistfulness, an ennui, a bittersweet smile of knowing, perhaps. It invites you to watch patiently and relate, not to watch eagerly and expect… which, you know, I love.
The photography is crisp and well framed always; the music is subtle but effective; the dialogue is often sparing and well chosen (no detail is merely thrown away); and the direction is of a remarkably uniform vision, considering each episode is a different guest professional, including such prestigious names as Jodie Foster, Mark Romanek and Andrew Stanton.
I absolutely urge anyone that isn’t put off by a little sentiment to give this one a try. Sadness and regret in life is not something to shun and be afraid of, they are parts of human experience, and I love art that explores them as concepts. Put that art in a science fiction context and I am bound to love it even more. Like the final moments of Blade Runner, we know that one day all these moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. We have to take time to see the beauty while we can, even if that beauty is painful.
It may not be for you – I don’t think it is better or worse than other things, just more… me. There is every chance that if it isn’t you… you will hate it. If you do begin, however, please see it to the finish before casting judgement – the final episode directed by Jodie Foster is truly wonderful: a pay-off of such emotion after your investment of seven previous stories, tying it all together perfectly. Rarely have I felt so stupid for not understanding the point of something sooner, or been more pleased that I hadn’t. The final moment of the season is literally unforgettable, and gets richer in my imagination by the day.
Will there be a second season? There certainly could be. Was it enough of a success to justify the investment? Hmm, not sure. Either way, it either sits as a perfect self contained collection of fine, old-fashioned sci-fi stories, or I’d be happy to see it expand, as long as the temptation isn’t to listen to the negative reviews and pander to the fast-food mentality that has already rejected it without fully understanding it. Because nothing needs to change here. A thing of beauty, recommended to those who like beautiful and delicate things.