Search
Search results
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated Writings Of Thomas Paine Volume 4 (1794 1796); The Age Of Reason in Books
Jun 29, 2018
Thomas Paine was a political theorist who was perhaps best known for his support for the American Revolution in his pamphlet Common Sense. In what might be his second best known work, The Age of Reason, Paine argued in favor of deism and against the Christian religion and its conception of God. By deism it is meant the belief in a creator God who does not violate the laws of nature by communicating through revelation or miracles The book was very successful and widely read partly due to the fact that it was written in a style which appealed to a popular audience and often implemented a sarcastic, derisive tone to make its points.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) in Movies
Mar 26, 2021 (Updated Mar 26, 2021)
The movie as a whole is better than the original. (2 more)
The darker tone, R rating and additional scenes of violence and bloodshed.
The additional scenes for Cyborg's and Flash's story arc were welcome and did their characters justice.
4 hour length was way too long. (2 more)
The aspect ratio being in 4:3 instead of widescreen.
I didn't like certain things about the addition of Darkseid.
This Version Far Surpasses The Original Released
This movie was way better than the one that was released in theaters. I have to say it is a super long movie but honestly the time just flew by while I was watching it. I also broke it up into 2x two hour halves but another way would be to break it into 6 parts like it has been segmented into in the movie already with 5 chapters/parts and an epilogue. I think it helped that I didn't watch the original one right before I saw this one too. I didn't because I didn't want to be too "Justice Leagued" out and because I knew that it was going to be a 4 hour movie already. There were definitely some parts that felt like they needed to be included in the original for the story to make more sense and be more cohesive story-wise but there were more than a couple that were unnecessary and could have still been left on the cutting floor in my opinion. Now people that are expecting this to be a whole new movie will probably feel disappointed and that this movie is very much the same but fans of DC or the DCEU will more than likely enjoy this film over the original. I really like the way that they included more story and scenes for characters like Cyborg and Flash. I feel that they definitely helped in fleshing out their characters who got the short end of the stick the first time around and since their characters didn't have their own stand alone movies. I also feel they fixed the way Wonder Woman was portrayed and the tension between her and Batman in the movie. I know I could bring up more points here in this part of the review and although the movie was released in 2017 and most people have seen it already, I don't want to spoil it for those who might not have seen it and their first time is going to be this version. So with that being said I'll save the rest for the spoiler review section. And now for my score/rating, I'd have to say that this movie still had a lot of issues like unnecessary scenes and a long run time and some of them stick out like a sore thumb but I really liked it and say that this was a great movie, I'm probably a little bias because I generally enjoy comic book movies and like DC as well but I give it a 8/10. And this movie gets my "Must See Seal of Approval" but only if you are a fan of DC, the DC movies or film in general and have what it takes to sit through a 4 hour movie. Also I think it's worth getting a subscription to HBOMax, if only for 1 month at the price of $15 a month because if you sign up now you'll also be able to enjoy all the other content; plus you'll be able to see Godzilla vs Kong when it's released on March 31st and Mortal Kombat on April 16th.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
So I really enjoyed this movie and thought it was great. At 4 hours it was a monster of a film to get through but I'm definitely glad I watched it because it was way better than the first one that came out in theaters. One of the biggest reasons I think I liked it too was that it was rated R instead of PG-13 which is why we hear Batman and Cyborg drop F-bombs in the movie and why there is significantly more violence and bloodshed shown. The beginning was also different and had a different feel to it right away because in the original it had the memorial for Superman and in this one it doesn't. One thing that I didn't care for and thought was really annoying was how the movie wasn't widescreen but the 4:3 ratio but luckily I have a setting on my tv to change it to widescreen and I think that helped a lot. I know the composer was also changed from the original which I think was better but hard to say but the music definitely fit better. A big change was how the movie felt like it had less humor and really felt darker in tone. I think that at 4 hours long though they really added back or too many additional scenes that didn't need to be there and were completely unnecessary. The part after Bruce Wayne tries to recruit Aquaman and the Swedish or Norwegian girls sing that song was pretty unnecessary and could have been taken out as well as when Wonder Woman goes to the fire arrow place of the Amazons and walks down the stairs to look at the ancient murals. I liked how Bruce Wayne/Batman had more scenes with Alfred Pennyworth. The greatest addition to this movie in my opinion were the additional scenes for Cyborg's story arc and for Flash. These really helped flesh out their characters and do them justice especially for them not having had their own individual movies before this movie of forming the Justice League. I like how Flash saved Iris in that one scene in front of the pet shop. The flashbacks for Cyborg were really cool too and how they showed more of his Mom that we never got to see humanized him a lot more. One of my favorite things that they changed was black suit Superman, that was awesome that they added that, straight out of the comics. I liked how they showed more action scenes of Wonder Woman especially the extended version of her fighting off the terrorists in the museum or wherever it was they went to blow up the kids. I also liked how they changed the scenes of Batman and her and instead made it more about the team and them together. Another thing I really liked was how they showed Willem Dafoe's character Vulko and how he talked to Aquaman. That was one thing that really bothered me about the original was how Mera and Aquaman acted like they knew each other already but in Aquaman they barely met for the first time so it just really threw me off. That and how did he know to go to Atlantis right when Steppenwolf was about to attack. It also bothered me how the Amazons had such an epic battle against Steppenwolf to defend him taking the mother box and the Atlanteans didn't even put up a fight. With this correction they added the dialogue that Aquaman's brother Orm (Ocean Master) was already starting to make moves to take over the other kingdoms that he needed all his soldiers and wouldn't spare any to protect the mother box. I had mixed feelings about Steppenwolf's redesign but I think ultimately it was a good thing and you were able to see his motivations better and think he came out more of a badass and better bad guy. It was cool to see him communicate using the mother boxes and talk to Darkseid's other henchmen Desaad. One thing I really didn't like was how they did Darkseid dirty and showed him lose in the past instead of how it was Steppenwolf who lost in the original to the combined armies of Amazons, Greek Gods, humans and a Green Lantern. They didn't even show him use his Omega beams against them but he did use it against the Atlanteans in a vision of the future that Cyborg sees and it was awesome. I felt they watered down Darkseid from how hardcore he's supposed to be in the comics and cartoons, etc... I liked how in the end they showed how he had Desaad with him and Granny Goodness with him on the other side of the boom tube. I really didn't like how they had this whole thing about Darkseid not remembering which planet the mother boxes were on or where he had seen the "anti-life equation". It doesn't make sense to me that he would forget the planet where he got his ass kicked and almost died or at least was defeated. I heard a theory that maybe he didn't forget he just didn't want his followers to know he suffered a defeat and didn't let them know or killed everyone who knew but then it also didn't make sense that Steppenwolf remembered. It also never explained in this version how or why Steppenwolf fell out of favor with Darkseid and why he was trying so desperately to please him and his whole debt of having to conquer 100,000 worlds. I think this movie could have been cut down to 3 hours and been just as good, and think that 4 hours was a bit too much and that's considering 10% is in slow motion scenes (that's 24 minutes give or take). To me it looks like the success of this version of the movie could possibly generate enough buzz to get a sequel but Zack Snyder has already stated that he more than likely wouldn't come back to make it. As I said above I really dug this version and probably am a little biased and should maybe give it a point lower than what I scored/rated it but I give it a 8/10 and it get's my "Must See Seal of Approval".
https://youtu.be/EvpnLXHBYZU
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
So I really enjoyed this movie and thought it was great. At 4 hours it was a monster of a film to get through but I'm definitely glad I watched it because it was way better than the first one that came out in theaters. One of the biggest reasons I think I liked it too was that it was rated R instead of PG-13 which is why we hear Batman and Cyborg drop F-bombs in the movie and why there is significantly more violence and bloodshed shown. The beginning was also different and had a different feel to it right away because in the original it had the memorial for Superman and in this one it doesn't. One thing that I didn't care for and thought was really annoying was how the movie wasn't widescreen but the 4:3 ratio but luckily I have a setting on my tv to change it to widescreen and I think that helped a lot. I know the composer was also changed from the original which I think was better but hard to say but the music definitely fit better. A big change was how the movie felt like it had less humor and really felt darker in tone. I think that at 4 hours long though they really added back or too many additional scenes that didn't need to be there and were completely unnecessary. The part after Bruce Wayne tries to recruit Aquaman and the Swedish or Norwegian girls sing that song was pretty unnecessary and could have been taken out as well as when Wonder Woman goes to the fire arrow place of the Amazons and walks down the stairs to look at the ancient murals. I liked how Bruce Wayne/Batman had more scenes with Alfred Pennyworth. The greatest addition to this movie in my opinion were the additional scenes for Cyborg's story arc and for Flash. These really helped flesh out their characters and do them justice especially for them not having had their own individual movies before this movie of forming the Justice League. I like how Flash saved Iris in that one scene in front of the pet shop. The flashbacks for Cyborg were really cool too and how they showed more of his Mom that we never got to see humanized him a lot more. One of my favorite things that they changed was black suit Superman, that was awesome that they added that, straight out of the comics. I liked how they showed more action scenes of Wonder Woman especially the extended version of her fighting off the terrorists in the museum or wherever it was they went to blow up the kids. I also liked how they changed the scenes of Batman and her and instead made it more about the team and them together. Another thing I really liked was how they showed Willem Dafoe's character Vulko and how he talked to Aquaman. That was one thing that really bothered me about the original was how Mera and Aquaman acted like they knew each other already but in Aquaman they barely met for the first time so it just really threw me off. That and how did he know to go to Atlantis right when Steppenwolf was about to attack. It also bothered me how the Amazons had such an epic battle against Steppenwolf to defend him taking the mother box and the Atlanteans didn't even put up a fight. With this correction they added the dialogue that Aquaman's brother Orm (Ocean Master) was already starting to make moves to take over the other kingdoms that he needed all his soldiers and wouldn't spare any to protect the mother box. I had mixed feelings about Steppenwolf's redesign but I think ultimately it was a good thing and you were able to see his motivations better and think he came out more of a badass and better bad guy. It was cool to see him communicate using the mother boxes and talk to Darkseid's other henchmen Desaad. One thing I really didn't like was how they did Darkseid dirty and showed him lose in the past instead of how it was Steppenwolf who lost in the original to the combined armies of Amazons, Greek Gods, humans and a Green Lantern. They didn't even show him use his Omega beams against them but he did use it against the Atlanteans in a vision of the future that Cyborg sees and it was awesome. I felt they watered down Darkseid from how hardcore he's supposed to be in the comics and cartoons, etc... I liked how in the end they showed how he had Desaad with him and Granny Goodness with him on the other side of the boom tube. I really didn't like how they had this whole thing about Darkseid not remembering which planet the mother boxes were on or where he had seen the "anti-life equation". It doesn't make sense to me that he would forget the planet where he got his ass kicked and almost died or at least was defeated. I heard a theory that maybe he didn't forget he just didn't want his followers to know he suffered a defeat and didn't let them know or killed everyone who knew but then it also didn't make sense that Steppenwolf remembered. It also never explained in this version how or why Steppenwolf fell out of favor with Darkseid and why he was trying so desperately to please him and his whole debt of having to conquer 100,000 worlds. I think this movie could have been cut down to 3 hours and been just as good, and think that 4 hours was a bit too much and that's considering 10% is in slow motion scenes (that's 24 minutes give or take). To me it looks like the success of this version of the movie could possibly generate enough buzz to get a sequel but Zack Snyder has already stated that he more than likely wouldn't come back to make it. As I said above I really dug this version and probably am a little biased and should maybe give it a point lower than what I scored/rated it but I give it a 8/10 and it get's my "Must See Seal of Approval".
https://youtu.be/EvpnLXHBYZU
Mandy and G.D. Burkhead (26 KP) rated Poison Study (Study, #1) in Books
May 20, 2018
Shelf Life – The Chronicles of Ixia merits closer study
Contains spoilers, click to show
This review is for the entire Chronicles of Ixia series.
The first trilogy, comprised of Poison Study, Fire Study, and Magic Study, follows Yelena Zaltana. The second series, also called the Glass series, follows her friend Opal Cowan in Storm Glass, Sea Glass, and Spy Glass. The final trilogy, Shadow Study, Night Study, and Dawn Study, is where things get a bit odd. Maria V. Snyder had thrown in a few short stories/novellas throughout from different characters’ points of view. Perhaps she got bored of just sticking to one POV, or maybe fans wanted more from the other characters, so the third trilogy is from Yelena’s POV in first person and the POV’s of multiple characters (mainly Valek, Leif, and Janco, with a few others popping in from time to time) in third person.
I’m not sure which editor thought it would be a good idea to have POV switch from first person to third person in the same novel, but—yikes—is it jarring. Even with the wonky POV stuff in the third trilogy, these books are amazing and absolutely worth your time to read. Snyder’s world-building is compelling, detailed, and original. The books take place mostly between two pre-industrial countries: Ixia and Sitia. Ixia is a post-revolution country ruled by Commander Ambrose. His personal body guard and assassin is Valek. In the first novel Yelena is in prison for murder and is offered the choice to be the Commander’s food taster in exchange for her life. She agrees, and throughout the first book she and Valek begin to fall in love.
Ixia reminded me a lot of Communist Russia or China. In its attempts to throw away the corrupt government and society that came before, it has also thrown out all culture in the process. The country has been re-divided into districts with numbers instead of names, everyone is forced to wear a uniform, all art and extravagance has been destroyed, people have to have passes to travel between districts, and magic is forbidden. Anyone born with it is killed (or so the reader is led to believe). But Maria V. Snyder does a wonderful job of showing the good with the bad in this totalitarian dictatorship. Everyone has a job and nobody goes hungry, women are now equal to men, and violence and sexual assault are intolerable. This is why Yelena ends up in prison in the first place: she murdered the man that raped her. Now, this is probably my first major gripe with the series. We learn that Commander Ambrose loathes sexual assault and will execute anyone found guilty of it, but apparently killing a rapist in self-defense is also an executable offense. And all of that being said, Ambrose still has his own personal assassin. It all feels a bit contradictory, but again, that’s what I like about this series: it does an excellent job of peeling back the layers of her fictional societies and pointing out that governments and people in power tend to be hypocritical.
Now, the series name (or rather one of them) is Chronicles of Ixia, but honestly, it should have been called Chronicles of Sitia, because that is where most of the story takes place and is by far the more interesting and vibrant country. Sitia is part jungle, part desert, and full of magic. The peoples are divided into multiple clans or tribes that are all unique and compelling. In the second book, Yelena flees to Sitia after the Commander learns she has magic, and there she finds the family she was kidnapped from as a small child. They are part of the Zaltana clan, a group of people that live high in the trees in the jungle. Whenever I read about them, I would have to remind myself that they were not wood elves or dryads, because while there is magic in these books, there are no fantastical creatures: all characters are human or animal.
Another fascinating tribe is the Sandseeds, a group of nomads in the desert known for two major things: breeding super smart horses and having Storyweavers. The Storyweavers are people who have the magical ability to see the future and guide others, but who have to do it really cryptically because reasons (I appreciate that this gets pointed out by an annoyed Yelena multiple times). And of course, the Sandseed horses are fantastic; they choose their rider and able to mentally communicate with magical people. They even have their own horse names for people that they like.
Besides the different clans throughout Sitia, there is also the capitol, the Citadel, which is home to the magic school and the Sitian Council. While very different from Ixia, Sitia is by no means perfect. Its Council epitomizes everything annoying and dysfunctional about a bureaucracy. While the council members are elected and come from every clan in Sitia, they are at best useless and at worst actively impede the main characters.
The magic school is interesting, though the story doesn’t actually spend much time there. I like how magic was done in this series: it usually runs in families, most people with it have control over one or two things (ie. fire, mind-control, telepathy, etc.), but those who have the ability to master more can become Master Magicians after enduring a daunting trial. Magic is bound in people’s blood, so blood magic is a thing and is obviously bad, and magic (and a person’s soul) can be stolen using an intricate and gruesome blood ritual that involves prolonged torture, rape, and then murder.
The power blanket is another interesting concept used in this series. Essentially is resides over the entire world and is the essence of magic, so magicians can pull from it to augment their own magic. However, if they pull too much and lose control, they can flame out, killing themselves and temporarily damaging the blanket in the process. I thought this was a good literary tool to prevent magical characters from being too OP (at least most of the time).
I especially like the romantic relationships in this series. Valek and Yelena are of course the main couple. In the first book they fall in love, in the second book they get separated, and throughout the series they regularly cross paths and save one another. Yelena and Valek are heartmates, and as the series progresses they both have to mature and learn how to trust one another. My biggest complaint about the romance is that all sex scenes are just fade to black, which I personally find a bit boring.
The other major romantic relationship is between Opal and Devlen. This one was a bit awkward. Opal actually goes through a couple of guys first: a stormdancer named Kade and another glassmaker named Ulrick. And I really liked that the author included this. Many people have multiple partners before finding their soulmate, and a woman who does is not a slut. Her relationship with Devlen, however . . . Well, she’s a more forgiving person than me.
You see, it turns out that Devlen is the man who kidnapped Opal a few years earlier and tortured her because he was trying to steal her magic. But he didn’t actually enjoy torturing her and never raped her, which I guess makes it better? Well, he manages to switch bodies with Ulrick and, as Ulrick, tricks Opal into dating him, then, when he’s discovered, kidnaps and tortures her (again) to gain more power. But then she steals his magic, he spends some time in prison, and the combination of the two miraculously turn him into a good guy, claiming that magic is what made him evil in the first place.
I’m going to be honest, I didn’t completely buy his redemption arc even at the end of the third book in the Glass series, but by the ninth book they’re still together and he’s on the good guys’ side, so I guess it was real. And I have definitely watched/read much worse evil asshole to boyfriend stories. At least Devlen genuinely feels guilty for the horrible things he did in the past and attempts to make up for them, and in her defense, Opal has to do a lot of soul-searching before she can find it in her to forgive and trust him, and even more before she can develop romantic feelings for him (that aren’t based on deception, anyway). Also, Ulrick becomes a huge jerk because of his newfound magical abilities, tries to kill Opal, and later gets assassinated by Valek. I appreciate what Maria V. Snyder is trying to do here, which is to teach through her storytelling how good people can become evil, and evil people can redeem themselves and be good. Their romance was uncomfortable to read, but it was supposed to be uncomfortable, because that’s how all parties involved felt.
Now, let’s talk about Commander Ambrose. Towards the end of the first book, Yelena discovers that Ambrose is a female to male trans person. This is revealed to be why Ambrose hates magicians so much: he is afraid that one of them will read his mind and then reveal his secret (which is how Yelena discovers it). After I read the first book, I was really pleased that Snyder did such a good job of depicting a trans person, as that’s really only a small part of his character, and those who know (mainly Valek and Yelena) don’t make a big deal out of it.
And then . . . I really wish that the author would have just left the issue of the Commander being trans alone. Yelena discovers it in the first book, she keeps it to herself because it’s nobody else’s business, the end. But by creating this weird intricate background to explain why Ambrose is trans, Snyder just kind of shoots herself in the foot.
Throughout the rest of the series, I kept hoping for some other LGBTQ+ characters to show up to redeem the blunder with Ambrose. I actually believed that Ari and Janco were a gay couple for the longest time, what with their banter and often being referred to as partners. However, if this was the author’s intention, it was never really explicitly stated, and the partner thing just seems to refer to them being partners in combat and nothing else.
The first trilogy, comprised of Poison Study, Fire Study, and Magic Study, follows Yelena Zaltana. The second series, also called the Glass series, follows her friend Opal Cowan in Storm Glass, Sea Glass, and Spy Glass. The final trilogy, Shadow Study, Night Study, and Dawn Study, is where things get a bit odd. Maria V. Snyder had thrown in a few short stories/novellas throughout from different characters’ points of view. Perhaps she got bored of just sticking to one POV, or maybe fans wanted more from the other characters, so the third trilogy is from Yelena’s POV in first person and the POV’s of multiple characters (mainly Valek, Leif, and Janco, with a few others popping in from time to time) in third person.
I’m not sure which editor thought it would be a good idea to have POV switch from first person to third person in the same novel, but—yikes—is it jarring. Even with the wonky POV stuff in the third trilogy, these books are amazing and absolutely worth your time to read. Snyder’s world-building is compelling, detailed, and original. The books take place mostly between two pre-industrial countries: Ixia and Sitia. Ixia is a post-revolution country ruled by Commander Ambrose. His personal body guard and assassin is Valek. In the first novel Yelena is in prison for murder and is offered the choice to be the Commander’s food taster in exchange for her life. She agrees, and throughout the first book she and Valek begin to fall in love.
Ixia reminded me a lot of Communist Russia or China. In its attempts to throw away the corrupt government and society that came before, it has also thrown out all culture in the process. The country has been re-divided into districts with numbers instead of names, everyone is forced to wear a uniform, all art and extravagance has been destroyed, people have to have passes to travel between districts, and magic is forbidden. Anyone born with it is killed (or so the reader is led to believe). But Maria V. Snyder does a wonderful job of showing the good with the bad in this totalitarian dictatorship. Everyone has a job and nobody goes hungry, women are now equal to men, and violence and sexual assault are intolerable. This is why Yelena ends up in prison in the first place: she murdered the man that raped her. Now, this is probably my first major gripe with the series. We learn that Commander Ambrose loathes sexual assault and will execute anyone found guilty of it, but apparently killing a rapist in self-defense is also an executable offense. And all of that being said, Ambrose still has his own personal assassin. It all feels a bit contradictory, but again, that’s what I like about this series: it does an excellent job of peeling back the layers of her fictional societies and pointing out that governments and people in power tend to be hypocritical.
Now, the series name (or rather one of them) is Chronicles of Ixia, but honestly, it should have been called Chronicles of Sitia, because that is where most of the story takes place and is by far the more interesting and vibrant country. Sitia is part jungle, part desert, and full of magic. The peoples are divided into multiple clans or tribes that are all unique and compelling. In the second book, Yelena flees to Sitia after the Commander learns she has magic, and there she finds the family she was kidnapped from as a small child. They are part of the Zaltana clan, a group of people that live high in the trees in the jungle. Whenever I read about them, I would have to remind myself that they were not wood elves or dryads, because while there is magic in these books, there are no fantastical creatures: all characters are human or animal.
Another fascinating tribe is the Sandseeds, a group of nomads in the desert known for two major things: breeding super smart horses and having Storyweavers. The Storyweavers are people who have the magical ability to see the future and guide others, but who have to do it really cryptically because reasons (I appreciate that this gets pointed out by an annoyed Yelena multiple times). And of course, the Sandseed horses are fantastic; they choose their rider and able to mentally communicate with magical people. They even have their own horse names for people that they like.
Besides the different clans throughout Sitia, there is also the capitol, the Citadel, which is home to the magic school and the Sitian Council. While very different from Ixia, Sitia is by no means perfect. Its Council epitomizes everything annoying and dysfunctional about a bureaucracy. While the council members are elected and come from every clan in Sitia, they are at best useless and at worst actively impede the main characters.
The magic school is interesting, though the story doesn’t actually spend much time there. I like how magic was done in this series: it usually runs in families, most people with it have control over one or two things (ie. fire, mind-control, telepathy, etc.), but those who have the ability to master more can become Master Magicians after enduring a daunting trial. Magic is bound in people’s blood, so blood magic is a thing and is obviously bad, and magic (and a person’s soul) can be stolen using an intricate and gruesome blood ritual that involves prolonged torture, rape, and then murder.
The power blanket is another interesting concept used in this series. Essentially is resides over the entire world and is the essence of magic, so magicians can pull from it to augment their own magic. However, if they pull too much and lose control, they can flame out, killing themselves and temporarily damaging the blanket in the process. I thought this was a good literary tool to prevent magical characters from being too OP (at least most of the time).
I especially like the romantic relationships in this series. Valek and Yelena are of course the main couple. In the first book they fall in love, in the second book they get separated, and throughout the series they regularly cross paths and save one another. Yelena and Valek are heartmates, and as the series progresses they both have to mature and learn how to trust one another. My biggest complaint about the romance is that all sex scenes are just fade to black, which I personally find a bit boring.
The other major romantic relationship is between Opal and Devlen. This one was a bit awkward. Opal actually goes through a couple of guys first: a stormdancer named Kade and another glassmaker named Ulrick. And I really liked that the author included this. Many people have multiple partners before finding their soulmate, and a woman who does is not a slut. Her relationship with Devlen, however . . . Well, she’s a more forgiving person than me.
You see, it turns out that Devlen is the man who kidnapped Opal a few years earlier and tortured her because he was trying to steal her magic. But he didn’t actually enjoy torturing her and never raped her, which I guess makes it better? Well, he manages to switch bodies with Ulrick and, as Ulrick, tricks Opal into dating him, then, when he’s discovered, kidnaps and tortures her (again) to gain more power. But then she steals his magic, he spends some time in prison, and the combination of the two miraculously turn him into a good guy, claiming that magic is what made him evil in the first place.
I’m going to be honest, I didn’t completely buy his redemption arc even at the end of the third book in the Glass series, but by the ninth book they’re still together and he’s on the good guys’ side, so I guess it was real. And I have definitely watched/read much worse evil asshole to boyfriend stories. At least Devlen genuinely feels guilty for the horrible things he did in the past and attempts to make up for them, and in her defense, Opal has to do a lot of soul-searching before she can find it in her to forgive and trust him, and even more before she can develop romantic feelings for him (that aren’t based on deception, anyway). Also, Ulrick becomes a huge jerk because of his newfound magical abilities, tries to kill Opal, and later gets assassinated by Valek. I appreciate what Maria V. Snyder is trying to do here, which is to teach through her storytelling how good people can become evil, and evil people can redeem themselves and be good. Their romance was uncomfortable to read, but it was supposed to be uncomfortable, because that’s how all parties involved felt.
Now, let’s talk about Commander Ambrose. Towards the end of the first book, Yelena discovers that Ambrose is a female to male trans person. This is revealed to be why Ambrose hates magicians so much: he is afraid that one of them will read his mind and then reveal his secret (which is how Yelena discovers it). After I read the first book, I was really pleased that Snyder did such a good job of depicting a trans person, as that’s really only a small part of his character, and those who know (mainly Valek and Yelena) don’t make a big deal out of it.
And then . . . I really wish that the author would have just left the issue of the Commander being trans alone. Yelena discovers it in the first book, she keeps it to herself because it’s nobody else’s business, the end. But by creating this weird intricate background to explain why Ambrose is trans, Snyder just kind of shoots herself in the foot.
Throughout the rest of the series, I kept hoping for some other LGBTQ+ characters to show up to redeem the blunder with Ambrose. I actually believed that Ari and Janco were a gay couple for the longest time, what with their banter and often being referred to as partners. However, if this was the author’s intention, it was never really explicitly stated, and the partner thing just seems to refer to them being partners in combat and nothing else.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019
This is the X-Men movie you've always hoped for. (3 more)
James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender further prove they are worthy successors to Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan.
The action and special effects are brilliantly executed and undeniably satisfying.
An effective and engaging story with commendable performances all around.
This is what most superhero movies should strive to emulate. X-Men: Days of Future Past is a miraculous, thrilling, and rewarding experience that you’ll want to see again and again.
The future in X-Men: Days of Future Past is more desolate than ever. Mutants are being hunted to extinction, with the few remaining survivors living together as refugees as they try to escape their all-too-certain fate of captivity or death. They are hunted by Sentinels, versatile and powerful machines programmed to locate and imprison any and all mutants, as well as any humans that attempt to help them. The entire world has been transformed into an apocalyptic dystopia at the mercy of these machines. In order to prevent their inevitable demise, the mutants devise a plan that will rewrite the course of history by telepathically sending the consciousness of one of their own back in time in order to stop the Sentinels from ever rising to power. Doing so means averting the assassination of their designer, Dr. Bolivar Trask, and accomplishing this will require the disbanded X-Men crew to put aside their differences and reunite for a common goal; to save the fate of mutants.
X-Men: Days of Future Past is personally only the second X-Men film that I have seen, and I believe that’s to my disadvantage when watching it. That’s not to say the film isn’t accessible to people that are unfamiliar with X-Men, but you will certainly get the most out of it if you’ve seen the other films, or at least are somewhat knowledgeable about the super mutant group. Fortunately for me, even though I haven’t seen the original X-Men trilogy, nor the Wolverine spin-off films, I saw plenty of the popular X-Men cartoon of the ‘90s when growing up, and probably read more than a handful of the comics. Therefore I felt right at home with the story, even when it quickly thrusts the audience right into the thick of the action. I can imagine newcomers might at times feel a little overwhelmed, especially with such a wide array of unique characters, and so much going on. Although I do believe that the film manages to very effectively balance the action and characters, and create an immensely entertaining and engaging experience regardless of your history with X-Men.
I think it speaks of the true power and quality of the film when I say that after watching X-Men: Days of Future Past, I am now eager to watch all of the other entries in the movie series. Not only to help myself better understand the numerous references to past films, but because the film is so good and so expertly made that I don’t want to miss anything else. Make no mistake, X-Men: Days of Future Past is not only one of the best superhero movies ever made, it’s also the perfect homage to the X-Men. The film merges the two timelines seamlessly, combining the legendary cast of the original trilogy with the equally impressive cast of X-Men: First Class. It ties everything together so well and concludes in such an extraordinary manner that I would feel perfectly content if they ended the X-Men series entirely with Days of Future Past. While I don’t expect the already announced X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) to be able to top this one, I will admit that I am still more than excited to see what they have in store for the future.
Days of Future Past has an incredible, star-studded cast. It brings back the beloved X-Men stars of old, highlighted by Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, as well as with Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan reprising their roles as Professor X and Magneto. In addition, it includes the cast of X-Men: First Class, with James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender playing younger versions of Professor X and Magneto, while Jennifer Lawrence returns as Mystique. The more substantial newcomers include Game of Thrones star Peter Dinklage as Trask, the creator of the Sentinels, and Evan Peters, playing a teenage Quicksilver. Despite the film having a large number of characters, it doesn’t feel like any of them get the short end of the stick. While some of them may not get much screen-time, Days of Future Past still gives you a solid display of what each of the mutants are capable of. It’s a truly wonderful thing to be able to witness the new era of X-Men actors in the same film as their older counterparts, and it makes it all the more apparent just how remarkably well-cast McAvoy and Fassbender are for their roles. These two young stars in particular have especially large shoes to fill, but they each do an exceptional job. The way in which the film combines the young actors with the old makes it feel as though it’s honoring a proper passing of the torch from one generation to the next.
This action-packed film features some great acting performances, and even though there are a lot of characters, I don’t believe there is a single weak performance among them. The real star of the show is James McAvoy as young Charles Xavier, otherwise known as Professor X. McAvoy nails the inner-conflict of his character in what is surely the most demanding role of the movie. He portrays a convincing struggle of a great man who has lost his way and fallen into despair and desolation. He is a man torn apart by the tension between his feelings of compassion and his guilt-ridden capitulation. Fassbender, on the contrary, is unnerving and yet engrossing as the magnificent Magneto. I personally loved the way in which his character continuously throws a wrench into everyone’s plans by opting to take an alternative and selfish approach. I found him to be notably riveting during a tense scene that takes place on an airplane, where Fassbender really demonstrates his talent. Then of course, there’s everybody’s favorite mutant, Wolverine. Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine is wonderfully enthralling, insanely ripped, and appropriately arrogant. Jackman has turned Wolverine into a career-defining role. There is no doubt about it, he is Wolverine, and no one will ever do it better. Meanwhile, everybody’s favorite actress, Jennifer Lawrence, adds an emotional and memorable performance as Mystique. Lastly, newcomer Evan Peters is a real-stand out as Quicksilver, in a performance that surely will become an instant fan favorite. His big scene alone makes me wish I had seen the movie in 3D, and in fact, the movie is so good that I just might do that. The stellar cast of X-Men: Days of Future Past hit all the right notes, making the characters memorable, and personable.
The action in Days of Future Past is simply phenomenal. This is what most superhero movies should strive to emulate. What I admire most about the action of this film is that it’s smart. It’s well-thought-out and well-executed. It never feels derivative, nor uninspired. Everything has its purpose and has a tangible weight to it. Rather than cluttering the film with unnecessary action pieces, it instead focuses on making its important action sequences really memorable and really good. It also handles its use of violence extremely well, making it powerful and satisfying, without making it feel sugarcoated because of its PG-13 rating. The movie’s score is suitably powerful, helping to escalate the action and establish a tense, grandiose ambiance. The special effects seen here are outstanding. This is a big upgrade over First Class, not only in visual quality, but certainly also in scale. It reaches an epic level and yet it never hinders in quality or takes any shortcuts. It shows you what you want to see, and does it better than you’d ever expect. The result is a movie that’s as visually remarkable as it is entertaining. The true enemies of Days of Future Past, the Sentinels, look awesome. I don’t know how they looked in the older movies, if they’re even present at all, but I never liked their appearance in the comic books. I’m glad they’ve been completely reimagined from their original design, and I love how the movie demonstrates their ability to adapt to make them more efficient mutant-killing machines. The character Beast also looks better than ever, unlike in First Class where his appearance was embarrassingly bad, and borderline laughable. In X-Men: Days of Future Past, everything looks stellar. You won’t want to look away as you’re sitting on the edge of your seat in sheer delight.
The majority of the film is set in the 1970s, taking place after the events of X-Men: First Class, as the Vietnam War is coming to an end. Considering that the film deals with themes of discrimination, it’s fitting that this setting coincides with the Civil Rights movement, even though it’s not explicitly referenced. This was a time in American history when the country was divided, and it offers a strong parallel to the grim, segregated world depicted in the film’s present-day wasteland. The story of Days of Future Past is rather dark, dealing with an apocalyptic future fueled by fear, jealousy and hatred. Although, it still has its fair share of laughs, thanks to the always charming Wolverine and the lightning fast Quicksilver. The movie does an admirable job in recreating the ‘70s, and additionally with juggling the different time periods, while maintaining a steady, coherent pace. However, as much as I enjoyed the ending, I must say that using time travel as a method to clean up a series’ loose ends seems a little cheap, but it’s entirely forgivable given just how beautifully it all comes together. X-Men: Days of Future Past is ultimately a miraculous, thrilling, and rewarding experience that you’ll want to see again and again.
X-Men: Days of Future Past embodies everything I love about movies. It has great action, unforgettable characters, an engaging story, top-notch special effects, and a nice healthy dose of comedy, while never feeling unoriginal or insignificant. I really believe this movie is every X-Men fan’s dream come true. To be honest, I have never considered myself much of an X-Men fan. Now that I’ve seen Days of Future Past, I’m an X-Men fan for life.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.26.14.)
X-Men: Days of Future Past is personally only the second X-Men film that I have seen, and I believe that’s to my disadvantage when watching it. That’s not to say the film isn’t accessible to people that are unfamiliar with X-Men, but you will certainly get the most out of it if you’ve seen the other films, or at least are somewhat knowledgeable about the super mutant group. Fortunately for me, even though I haven’t seen the original X-Men trilogy, nor the Wolverine spin-off films, I saw plenty of the popular X-Men cartoon of the ‘90s when growing up, and probably read more than a handful of the comics. Therefore I felt right at home with the story, even when it quickly thrusts the audience right into the thick of the action. I can imagine newcomers might at times feel a little overwhelmed, especially with such a wide array of unique characters, and so much going on. Although I do believe that the film manages to very effectively balance the action and characters, and create an immensely entertaining and engaging experience regardless of your history with X-Men.
I think it speaks of the true power and quality of the film when I say that after watching X-Men: Days of Future Past, I am now eager to watch all of the other entries in the movie series. Not only to help myself better understand the numerous references to past films, but because the film is so good and so expertly made that I don’t want to miss anything else. Make no mistake, X-Men: Days of Future Past is not only one of the best superhero movies ever made, it’s also the perfect homage to the X-Men. The film merges the two timelines seamlessly, combining the legendary cast of the original trilogy with the equally impressive cast of X-Men: First Class. It ties everything together so well and concludes in such an extraordinary manner that I would feel perfectly content if they ended the X-Men series entirely with Days of Future Past. While I don’t expect the already announced X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) to be able to top this one, I will admit that I am still more than excited to see what they have in store for the future.
Days of Future Past has an incredible, star-studded cast. It brings back the beloved X-Men stars of old, highlighted by Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, as well as with Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan reprising their roles as Professor X and Magneto. In addition, it includes the cast of X-Men: First Class, with James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender playing younger versions of Professor X and Magneto, while Jennifer Lawrence returns as Mystique. The more substantial newcomers include Game of Thrones star Peter Dinklage as Trask, the creator of the Sentinels, and Evan Peters, playing a teenage Quicksilver. Despite the film having a large number of characters, it doesn’t feel like any of them get the short end of the stick. While some of them may not get much screen-time, Days of Future Past still gives you a solid display of what each of the mutants are capable of. It’s a truly wonderful thing to be able to witness the new era of X-Men actors in the same film as their older counterparts, and it makes it all the more apparent just how remarkably well-cast McAvoy and Fassbender are for their roles. These two young stars in particular have especially large shoes to fill, but they each do an exceptional job. The way in which the film combines the young actors with the old makes it feel as though it’s honoring a proper passing of the torch from one generation to the next.
This action-packed film features some great acting performances, and even though there are a lot of characters, I don’t believe there is a single weak performance among them. The real star of the show is James McAvoy as young Charles Xavier, otherwise known as Professor X. McAvoy nails the inner-conflict of his character in what is surely the most demanding role of the movie. He portrays a convincing struggle of a great man who has lost his way and fallen into despair and desolation. He is a man torn apart by the tension between his feelings of compassion and his guilt-ridden capitulation. Fassbender, on the contrary, is unnerving and yet engrossing as the magnificent Magneto. I personally loved the way in which his character continuously throws a wrench into everyone’s plans by opting to take an alternative and selfish approach. I found him to be notably riveting during a tense scene that takes place on an airplane, where Fassbender really demonstrates his talent. Then of course, there’s everybody’s favorite mutant, Wolverine. Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine is wonderfully enthralling, insanely ripped, and appropriately arrogant. Jackman has turned Wolverine into a career-defining role. There is no doubt about it, he is Wolverine, and no one will ever do it better. Meanwhile, everybody’s favorite actress, Jennifer Lawrence, adds an emotional and memorable performance as Mystique. Lastly, newcomer Evan Peters is a real-stand out as Quicksilver, in a performance that surely will become an instant fan favorite. His big scene alone makes me wish I had seen the movie in 3D, and in fact, the movie is so good that I just might do that. The stellar cast of X-Men: Days of Future Past hit all the right notes, making the characters memorable, and personable.
The action in Days of Future Past is simply phenomenal. This is what most superhero movies should strive to emulate. What I admire most about the action of this film is that it’s smart. It’s well-thought-out and well-executed. It never feels derivative, nor uninspired. Everything has its purpose and has a tangible weight to it. Rather than cluttering the film with unnecessary action pieces, it instead focuses on making its important action sequences really memorable and really good. It also handles its use of violence extremely well, making it powerful and satisfying, without making it feel sugarcoated because of its PG-13 rating. The movie’s score is suitably powerful, helping to escalate the action and establish a tense, grandiose ambiance. The special effects seen here are outstanding. This is a big upgrade over First Class, not only in visual quality, but certainly also in scale. It reaches an epic level and yet it never hinders in quality or takes any shortcuts. It shows you what you want to see, and does it better than you’d ever expect. The result is a movie that’s as visually remarkable as it is entertaining. The true enemies of Days of Future Past, the Sentinels, look awesome. I don’t know how they looked in the older movies, if they’re even present at all, but I never liked their appearance in the comic books. I’m glad they’ve been completely reimagined from their original design, and I love how the movie demonstrates their ability to adapt to make them more efficient mutant-killing machines. The character Beast also looks better than ever, unlike in First Class where his appearance was embarrassingly bad, and borderline laughable. In X-Men: Days of Future Past, everything looks stellar. You won’t want to look away as you’re sitting on the edge of your seat in sheer delight.
The majority of the film is set in the 1970s, taking place after the events of X-Men: First Class, as the Vietnam War is coming to an end. Considering that the film deals with themes of discrimination, it’s fitting that this setting coincides with the Civil Rights movement, even though it’s not explicitly referenced. This was a time in American history when the country was divided, and it offers a strong parallel to the grim, segregated world depicted in the film’s present-day wasteland. The story of Days of Future Past is rather dark, dealing with an apocalyptic future fueled by fear, jealousy and hatred. Although, it still has its fair share of laughs, thanks to the always charming Wolverine and the lightning fast Quicksilver. The movie does an admirable job in recreating the ‘70s, and additionally with juggling the different time periods, while maintaining a steady, coherent pace. However, as much as I enjoyed the ending, I must say that using time travel as a method to clean up a series’ loose ends seems a little cheap, but it’s entirely forgivable given just how beautifully it all comes together. X-Men: Days of Future Past is ultimately a miraculous, thrilling, and rewarding experience that you’ll want to see again and again.
X-Men: Days of Future Past embodies everything I love about movies. It has great action, unforgettable characters, an engaging story, top-notch special effects, and a nice healthy dose of comedy, while never feeling unoriginal or insignificant. I really believe this movie is every X-Men fan’s dream come true. To be honest, I have never considered myself much of an X-Men fan. Now that I’ve seen Days of Future Past, I’m an X-Men fan for life.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.26.14.)
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated If I Stay (2014) in Movies
Jun 28, 2019
The film's "live or die" premise is dumb, dangerous, and downright offensive. (4 more)
A totally lousy and illogical love story that lacks any heart.
The dialogue is almost as bad as Adam's 8-year-old-grade-level music lyrics.
It's far too frustrating and bland to be emotionally effective. The only pity I felt was for myself for having to sit through it for two hours.
If I Stay is unforgivable and reprehensible garbage. It should be avoided like the plague.
Had I not seen this film with a friend, it would have been the first movie I’ve ever walked out of. I haven’t hated a movie this much all year. If I Stay disappoints and offends on nearly every conceivable level.
Imagine yourself in a situation where your whole life is turned upside-down in an instant, and nothing will ever be the same again. That’s the troubling position young Mia Hall is faced with in If I Stay, after her and her family are involved in a terrible car accident. Mia wakes up from the crash, only to discover that she’s having some sort of transcendental experience, where she sees her own lifeless body being treated by paramedics. In her ghost-like form, no one is able to see or hear her, leaving her helpless as she watches her tragedy unfold. The devastating crash put her into a comatose state, and as she teeters on the verge of life and death, she’s informed by her nurse that whether or not she lives is entirely predicated on her will to survive. Based on the young adult novel by Gayle Forman, If I Stay asks us if life is still worth living even when all hope appears to be lost. Whether it’s really even worth it to endure life’s cruel hardship and heartache, and to muster the courage to face another day.
Well, if you answered that question with a resounding “yes!”, then like me, you’ll probably find this movie to be pretty darn stupid. Actually, regardless of your opinion on the matter, I think it would be hard for anyone to escape the fact that this movie is pretty darn stupid. However, as much as I find the central question of the movie to be absurd and even offensive, it didn’t detract from my interest in seeing the film. So let’s not make the assumption that I disliked this movie from the get-go, because that’s really just not true. Even though I may disagree with it, I can certainly sympathize with the idea of a teenager who is experiencing a life-shattering trauma and is afraid to continue living on afterward. However, I would personally argue that she hasn’t actually experienced any of that at all. She’s living in an extra dimensional safe-zone. Her horror can’t be real unless she makes it real by returning to life to face it. To look at it another way, couldn’t we say that if she chose death instead, that she never would have experienced the tragedy at all since she was stuck in a coma, and that she would be dead without ever knowing the fate of her family? That’s what I think, though I’ll admit it’s rather complicated as it draws upon unanswerable questions. To be frank, it’s a bogus scenario for a bogus movie that isn’t even worthy of that much thought, and clearly wasn’t ever given that much thought.
Before I digress on this topic, I’d like to look into a few of its implications, because I think it’s sending a terrible and dangerous message to its viewers, particularly the teenagers it’s targeted to. Basically, I believe the film is implying that death is a perfectly okay alternative to facing an undesirable change. I find that very idea to be immoral, irresponsible, and horribly atrocious. “Sorry your dad died, Timmy. If you can’t bear to live another day and want to end it all right here, well that’s okay with us. We understand and we won’t judge!” Are you kidding me? What kind of a message are they trying to send here? “Bad day? Just give up! Things are great here in Heaven! Join us today!” Is that really what they’re trying to tell us? How is anyone possibly okay with this? The film is essentially preaching that killing yourself is a perfectly acceptable option when life gets hard, and I have a really big problem with that. Whether we want to think about it or not, suicide is always an option we have in life, but that doesn’t mean that we should encourage it or try to pretend that it’s ever a favorable opportunity. Mia doesn’t even know what life will be like if she wakes up because she hasn’t lived it yet. Her fears are fully based off of negative assumptions. Yeah, maybe things will be really hard if she comes out of her coma. Maybe she’ll wish she was dead. Or maybe she’ll go through some difficult times, but then maybe things will get better and she’ll pick up the pieces and end up living a wonderful and happy life. Had she actually endured this new life and struggled with thoughts about suicide, I think it would have made for a far more compelling narrative, rather than all of this hypothetic nonsense. Either way, good or bad, life goes on. It’s up to us to adapt to it. Where there is hope, there is always possibility. With all that said, I would still contend that If I Stay’s premise is only the tip of the iceberg of its problems. This supposed tear-jerked failed to stir up any sympathy or sadness from me, and there are a few major reasons why.
First of all, it completely fails as a love story. The film is almost entirely devoid of romance, and has no believable connection between Mia and her boyfriend, Adam. Rather than being a Prince Charming type, Adam’s mostly just a jerk that she shouldn’t be wasting her time with in the first place. Yet the movie tries to make you believe that it’s love, and that this is what all normal relationships are like. It’s a complete crock. Movies like this give girls a false understanding of what love should be, and I find that to be an unforgivable offense. Adam’s the local hot shot rocker who falls for Mia, the talented young cello player who aspires to go to the renowned music school Julliard in New York. Adam manages to win her heart and the two of them start dating. Unfortunately though, their relationship can be pretty unpleasant to watch. Adam’s living the life of a local rock star and is blindly dragging Mia along for the ride, introducing the sweet, young girl to a world of parties, sex, and alcohol. Adam’s utterly oblivious to her disinterest in such a lifestyle and he rarely shows any concern for her feelings anyway. Yet she’s so foolishly committed to him that she follows this path of corruption, all for a guy who only thinks about himself. I thought this was supposed to be a love story, but it’s severely lacking in the love department. Just because Adam occasionally does something nice, we’re supposed to think he’s a good guy and forgive him for the majority of the time when he’s a lousy boyfriend and a loser? Of course, how romantic! Their whole relationship is lifeless and immensely frustrating. If living with him was my alternative to death, believe me, I’d choose death without hesitation.
Had I not seen this film with a friend, it would have been the first movie I’ve ever walked out of. I haven’t hated a movie this much all year. Even with my friend there, I still thought about leaving, then had a good laugh about the film’s title being so perfectly appropriate, as I contemplated to myself whether or not I should go. As much as I wanted to leave, I stuck it out all the way to the end. Then the entire audience ended up laughing at the ending, which goes to show I was far from the only one that thought this movie was a complete joke and waste of time. I had more than a few laughs at the film’s expense, from its dumb and derivative dialogue, to the way Chloe Grace Moretz slightly crosses her eyes whenever she’s upset. While I think I still remained open-minded about the film despite my issues with the story, I really don’t think the film itself was any good, nor does it appear to serve any purpose. Seriously, what’s the point of this movie? To give people hope that you can overcome obstacles in life? To justify suicide? I don’t know. Halfway through the movie, I was so disengaged from it that I was imagining how fun it would be to do cartwheels in the theater. That must be the lesson that I learned from all this. Well, that and to steer clear of crummy musicians, I suppose. While I’ve heard a lot of praise about the film’s soundtrack, I thought Adam’s band was quite horrendous. They do have a moment of redemption when they cover a Smashing Pumpkins song, which may have been the only good moment in this otherwise pitiful movie. I also found the lyrics of that song to be unusually appropriate to my misery when they said, “I’ll rip my eyes out, before I get out.” It’s almost funny that this might have been the only moment of the movie I could actually relate to: the thought of ripping my eyes out before being able to leave.
If I Stay is a movie that disappoints and offends on nearly every conceivable level. The saddest thing about this film is that garbage like this actually exists. Its pro-death agenda is just plain horrible and ill-conceived. It also troubles me greatly to think that teenage girls might watch this film and think that Mia and Adam’s tumultuous relationship is a desirable model of love. Lastly, I’d like to note that the If I Stay novel does have a follow-up book titled Where She Went. Wherever she goes, I sure hope it’s not back to theaters. If I have to sit through another If I Stay movie, I might just give up on life myself.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.5.14.)
Well, if you answered that question with a resounding “yes!”, then like me, you’ll probably find this movie to be pretty darn stupid. Actually, regardless of your opinion on the matter, I think it would be hard for anyone to escape the fact that this movie is pretty darn stupid. However, as much as I find the central question of the movie to be absurd and even offensive, it didn’t detract from my interest in seeing the film. So let’s not make the assumption that I disliked this movie from the get-go, because that’s really just not true. Even though I may disagree with it, I can certainly sympathize with the idea of a teenager who is experiencing a life-shattering trauma and is afraid to continue living on afterward. However, I would personally argue that she hasn’t actually experienced any of that at all. She’s living in an extra dimensional safe-zone. Her horror can’t be real unless she makes it real by returning to life to face it. To look at it another way, couldn’t we say that if she chose death instead, that she never would have experienced the tragedy at all since she was stuck in a coma, and that she would be dead without ever knowing the fate of her family? That’s what I think, though I’ll admit it’s rather complicated as it draws upon unanswerable questions. To be frank, it’s a bogus scenario for a bogus movie that isn’t even worthy of that much thought, and clearly wasn’t ever given that much thought.
Before I digress on this topic, I’d like to look into a few of its implications, because I think it’s sending a terrible and dangerous message to its viewers, particularly the teenagers it’s targeted to. Basically, I believe the film is implying that death is a perfectly okay alternative to facing an undesirable change. I find that very idea to be immoral, irresponsible, and horribly atrocious. “Sorry your dad died, Timmy. If you can’t bear to live another day and want to end it all right here, well that’s okay with us. We understand and we won’t judge!” Are you kidding me? What kind of a message are they trying to send here? “Bad day? Just give up! Things are great here in Heaven! Join us today!” Is that really what they’re trying to tell us? How is anyone possibly okay with this? The film is essentially preaching that killing yourself is a perfectly acceptable option when life gets hard, and I have a really big problem with that. Whether we want to think about it or not, suicide is always an option we have in life, but that doesn’t mean that we should encourage it or try to pretend that it’s ever a favorable opportunity. Mia doesn’t even know what life will be like if she wakes up because she hasn’t lived it yet. Her fears are fully based off of negative assumptions. Yeah, maybe things will be really hard if she comes out of her coma. Maybe she’ll wish she was dead. Or maybe she’ll go through some difficult times, but then maybe things will get better and she’ll pick up the pieces and end up living a wonderful and happy life. Had she actually endured this new life and struggled with thoughts about suicide, I think it would have made for a far more compelling narrative, rather than all of this hypothetic nonsense. Either way, good or bad, life goes on. It’s up to us to adapt to it. Where there is hope, there is always possibility. With all that said, I would still contend that If I Stay’s premise is only the tip of the iceberg of its problems. This supposed tear-jerked failed to stir up any sympathy or sadness from me, and there are a few major reasons why.
First of all, it completely fails as a love story. The film is almost entirely devoid of romance, and has no believable connection between Mia and her boyfriend, Adam. Rather than being a Prince Charming type, Adam’s mostly just a jerk that she shouldn’t be wasting her time with in the first place. Yet the movie tries to make you believe that it’s love, and that this is what all normal relationships are like. It’s a complete crock. Movies like this give girls a false understanding of what love should be, and I find that to be an unforgivable offense. Adam’s the local hot shot rocker who falls for Mia, the talented young cello player who aspires to go to the renowned music school Julliard in New York. Adam manages to win her heart and the two of them start dating. Unfortunately though, their relationship can be pretty unpleasant to watch. Adam’s living the life of a local rock star and is blindly dragging Mia along for the ride, introducing the sweet, young girl to a world of parties, sex, and alcohol. Adam’s utterly oblivious to her disinterest in such a lifestyle and he rarely shows any concern for her feelings anyway. Yet she’s so foolishly committed to him that she follows this path of corruption, all for a guy who only thinks about himself. I thought this was supposed to be a love story, but it’s severely lacking in the love department. Just because Adam occasionally does something nice, we’re supposed to think he’s a good guy and forgive him for the majority of the time when he’s a lousy boyfriend and a loser? Of course, how romantic! Their whole relationship is lifeless and immensely frustrating. If living with him was my alternative to death, believe me, I’d choose death without hesitation.
Had I not seen this film with a friend, it would have been the first movie I’ve ever walked out of. I haven’t hated a movie this much all year. Even with my friend there, I still thought about leaving, then had a good laugh about the film’s title being so perfectly appropriate, as I contemplated to myself whether or not I should go. As much as I wanted to leave, I stuck it out all the way to the end. Then the entire audience ended up laughing at the ending, which goes to show I was far from the only one that thought this movie was a complete joke and waste of time. I had more than a few laughs at the film’s expense, from its dumb and derivative dialogue, to the way Chloe Grace Moretz slightly crosses her eyes whenever she’s upset. While I think I still remained open-minded about the film despite my issues with the story, I really don’t think the film itself was any good, nor does it appear to serve any purpose. Seriously, what’s the point of this movie? To give people hope that you can overcome obstacles in life? To justify suicide? I don’t know. Halfway through the movie, I was so disengaged from it that I was imagining how fun it would be to do cartwheels in the theater. That must be the lesson that I learned from all this. Well, that and to steer clear of crummy musicians, I suppose. While I’ve heard a lot of praise about the film’s soundtrack, I thought Adam’s band was quite horrendous. They do have a moment of redemption when they cover a Smashing Pumpkins song, which may have been the only good moment in this otherwise pitiful movie. I also found the lyrics of that song to be unusually appropriate to my misery when they said, “I’ll rip my eyes out, before I get out.” It’s almost funny that this might have been the only moment of the movie I could actually relate to: the thought of ripping my eyes out before being able to leave.
If I Stay is a movie that disappoints and offends on nearly every conceivable level. The saddest thing about this film is that garbage like this actually exists. Its pro-death agenda is just plain horrible and ill-conceived. It also troubles me greatly to think that teenage girls might watch this film and think that Mia and Adam’s tumultuous relationship is a desirable model of love. Lastly, I’d like to note that the If I Stay novel does have a follow-up book titled Where She Went. Wherever she goes, I sure hope it’s not back to theaters. If I have to sit through another If I Stay movie, I might just give up on life myself.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.5.14.)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated TEN in Tabletop Games
Nov 28, 2021
When it comes to game mechanics, set collection is my JAM. Auction/bidding and push your luck, not so much….. So when Alderac Entertainment Group brought TEN into my life, I was a bit wary at first. A game of collecting sequences/sets of numbers? Awesome!! Add in bidding for Wildcards or pushing your luck to not Bust each turn? A bit too risky, at least for my gaming tastes. After having had the opportunity to play TEN, were my initial feelings misplaced? Spoiler: Yes. For me, TEN was a prime example of “Don’t judge a game by its mechanics.” Keep reading to find out why.
Disclaimer: We were provided with a copy of TEN for the purposes of this review. This is a final production copy, so what you see pictured is what you would receive in a retail copy of the game. -L
TEN is a push-your-luck game of set collection and auction/bidding in which players are trying to amass the most points by the end of the game. Points are earned by collecting sets of numeric sequences in the 4 colors of the game: Blue, Green, Pink, and Orange. Played over a series of turns, players will be drawing/collecting cards from the tableau, buying cards from the Market, or Busting if they push their luck a bit too far. To setup for a game, assemble the deck of cards as dictated by the player count and set it in the play area. Each player gets 5 Currency tokens with which to start the game, and are all dealt a random reference card. The player who was dealt the reference card with the Starting Player symbol will begin the game. Before getting into the actual gameplay, I want to mention the different card types, as to provide a better understanding when reading this review. In each of the 4 colors, there are card values numbered 1-9, with more copies of the lower numbers and fewer of the higher numbers. There are also Wildcards that can be used to represent any #/color, depending on the card. Some cards in the deck are Currency cards and show a value of 1-5 Currency. Should you choose to take these from the tableau, you collect that amount of Currency to be used for auctions or buying cards in later turns.
On your turn, you will perform a series of actions, the first of which is Draw a Card. You will draw a card from the top of the deck and place it in the tableau. If the card is a # card or a Currency card, you will then decide if you wish to continue drawing cards. If you do, draw the next card, and so on, until either you decide to stop or you Bust (more on this in a bit). As long as you do not Bust, you can decide when to stop drawing cards to the tableau. You may then take one of the following rewards: take all the # cards to your play area, or take Currency tokens (equal to the amount shown on the Currency cards in the tableau). When you take the # cards, they go into your play area and all other players will collect Currency tokens. You then have the opportunity to Buy a card from the Market (by paying the numeric value of the card) and add it to your play area. If you instead choose to collect Currency, you will take Currency equal to the total value of Currency in the tableau, and all other players receive nothing from your turn. All # cards are moved to the Market, and your turn ends. In the picture below, if I choose to take the # cards, I would take the Orange 2 and Blue 6 to my play area, and all other players would collect 7 Currency. Conversely, I could choose to take 7 Currency, and the # cards are added to the Market (on the right-hand side of the picture).
So how does Busting work? The tableau may never have a value of more than 10. Every # card you draw adds to your total value, and any Currency card drawn subtracts from the total. If you were to draw a # card that would give you a total value of more than 10, you Bust! OR if you ever have Currency cards that total more than 10, you Bust as well. So there’s a bit of math involved, with addition and subtraction, but you have to make sure you never get more than 10! For example, in the picture below, the net total value of the tableau is 1. (8 from # cards, -7 from Currency cards) If I were to draw a Currency card of 4-5, I would Bust, because that totals more than 10. In this pictured instance, any # card I draw would not make me Bust, as the highest total would only be a 10, given the current cards in play. If you ever push your luck too far and end up Busting, all # cards in the tableau are moved to the Market, and you gain a Bust token (worth 3 Currency). If you Busted with # cards, then all other players will collect Currency tokens, but if you Bust with Currency cards, nobody receives anything. After resolving a Bust, your turn ends and the game continues to the next player.
If, on your turn, you ever draw a Wildcard, your turn pauses and the Wildcard is auctioned. Each player will have one chance to either bid (increasing the bid from the previous) or pass. Whomever wins the auction must pay their bid, and they collect the Wildcard to their play area. Once the auction has been resolved, your turn continues as normal. It is possible to have multiple auctions on your turn – it all depends on the cards. The game continues in this fashion, players taking turns drawing cards, collecting cards/Currency, buying from the Market, bidding in auctions, etc., until the draw deck has been depleted. The active player finishes their turn as normal, but may not draw any more cards. Points are then tallied. All players will arrange their cards to create consecutive sequences of numbers in the 4 different colors. You receive 1 point per card in your longest sequence of each color. If you have a complete set of numbers 1-9 in a color, you get a bonus point. Players count up all their points, and the player with the highest value is the winner!
That kind of seems like a lot, but I promise it’s actually pretty intuitive when you get playing. Also, huge shoutout to AEG for providing such a well-done reference card – it includes a little flowchart to help you with how the turns flow. The gameplay itself is essentially pretty straightforward. You draw a card, and then react based on what it is. Bust? Collect a Bust token and your turn ends. No Bust? Decide if you want to keep drawing. Done pushing your luck? Collect either the # cards or Currency. Try to make sequential runs of numbers in the different colors – the more cards you get in sequence, the more points you’ll get at the end of the game. The thing that elevates TEN beyond a simple push-your-luck game to me is that it requires more strategy than just luck. You can see what cards are available in the Market – is there something you need to buy? You can see everyone else’s playing area – do they need any of the numbers you just revealed? You know how much Currency every player has – do you bid high on this Wildcard because your neighbor can’t outbid you? There is so much more than just luck in this game, and that is what takes it to the next level for me. I know that Travis has reviewed No, Thanks! in the past, and I would say that this gives me similar vibes, but way better in my opinion.
When it comes to playing games, I am generally not a huge risk-taker. I like making logical choices based on known information and end-game strategy. But something about this game just gets me. I think one element that makes me love this game is the different types of cards – # cards and Currency cards. When you’re pushing your luck and drawing cards, there’s an added element of excitement, because the two different types of cards affect the net total differently. It doesn’t all positively add to the net total, which makes me more likely to keep drawing in hopes that things will cancel out and I can maximize the turn. If everything all added together, and you just couldn’t get more than 10, I would probably only ever draw 2 cards per turn, max., just to make sure I didn’t Bust. But the fact that Currency cards subtract from the net total encourages players to keep pushing their luck, and either earning a big payoff or a big Bust. This game is exciting, engaging, and entertaining to play, and that makes it fun!
To touch on components, AEG always hits it out of the park – and TEN is no exception. The game is mostly just a bunch of cards, and some white/black Currency tokens. The tokens themselves are nice plastic, and are smooth and chunky in hand. The cards are thick and sturdy, and hold up to shuffling pretty well. The colors of the game are bright and vibrant, and they are very clear to differentiate between. It’s a nice pop of color on the table, and that adds to the overall enjoyment of the game. Each of the 4 colors, and the Wildcards for that matter, have a unique background design – which can help our colorblind friends who may not necessarily be able to differentiate between the colors. Just an added plus to help the gamers tell what cards belong to what colors! The game box is equally as colorful, and is eye-catching on the shelf. All in all, I’d say AEG gets a 10 for their production quality here. (Get it?)
I spoke earlier about judging a game by its mechanics, and how TEN really challenged me on that. I was expecting a game that I would like, but would be kind of just ok overall for me. What I got is a game that is highly strategic, yet also unpredictable at times. I am definitely a planner when it comes to strategy, but the unpredictability of this game is light, fun, and engaging for all players at all times. It just is fun to play. This is a game that I see staying in my collection for a long time, and hopefully getting to the table quite often when I need a quick filler that isn’t so light that it’s mindless, but not heavy enough that it’s a brain-burner. If you’re in the market for a fun little game that challenges all players, I would definitely recommend checking out TEN. Purple Phoenix Games rates our games on a scale of 1-6 (not 10 unfortunately in this case), and we give this one a solid 5 / 6.
Disclaimer: We were provided with a copy of TEN for the purposes of this review. This is a final production copy, so what you see pictured is what you would receive in a retail copy of the game. -L
TEN is a push-your-luck game of set collection and auction/bidding in which players are trying to amass the most points by the end of the game. Points are earned by collecting sets of numeric sequences in the 4 colors of the game: Blue, Green, Pink, and Orange. Played over a series of turns, players will be drawing/collecting cards from the tableau, buying cards from the Market, or Busting if they push their luck a bit too far. To setup for a game, assemble the deck of cards as dictated by the player count and set it in the play area. Each player gets 5 Currency tokens with which to start the game, and are all dealt a random reference card. The player who was dealt the reference card with the Starting Player symbol will begin the game. Before getting into the actual gameplay, I want to mention the different card types, as to provide a better understanding when reading this review. In each of the 4 colors, there are card values numbered 1-9, with more copies of the lower numbers and fewer of the higher numbers. There are also Wildcards that can be used to represent any #/color, depending on the card. Some cards in the deck are Currency cards and show a value of 1-5 Currency. Should you choose to take these from the tableau, you collect that amount of Currency to be used for auctions or buying cards in later turns.
On your turn, you will perform a series of actions, the first of which is Draw a Card. You will draw a card from the top of the deck and place it in the tableau. If the card is a # card or a Currency card, you will then decide if you wish to continue drawing cards. If you do, draw the next card, and so on, until either you decide to stop or you Bust (more on this in a bit). As long as you do not Bust, you can decide when to stop drawing cards to the tableau. You may then take one of the following rewards: take all the # cards to your play area, or take Currency tokens (equal to the amount shown on the Currency cards in the tableau). When you take the # cards, they go into your play area and all other players will collect Currency tokens. You then have the opportunity to Buy a card from the Market (by paying the numeric value of the card) and add it to your play area. If you instead choose to collect Currency, you will take Currency equal to the total value of Currency in the tableau, and all other players receive nothing from your turn. All # cards are moved to the Market, and your turn ends. In the picture below, if I choose to take the # cards, I would take the Orange 2 and Blue 6 to my play area, and all other players would collect 7 Currency. Conversely, I could choose to take 7 Currency, and the # cards are added to the Market (on the right-hand side of the picture).
So how does Busting work? The tableau may never have a value of more than 10. Every # card you draw adds to your total value, and any Currency card drawn subtracts from the total. If you were to draw a # card that would give you a total value of more than 10, you Bust! OR if you ever have Currency cards that total more than 10, you Bust as well. So there’s a bit of math involved, with addition and subtraction, but you have to make sure you never get more than 10! For example, in the picture below, the net total value of the tableau is 1. (8 from # cards, -7 from Currency cards) If I were to draw a Currency card of 4-5, I would Bust, because that totals more than 10. In this pictured instance, any # card I draw would not make me Bust, as the highest total would only be a 10, given the current cards in play. If you ever push your luck too far and end up Busting, all # cards in the tableau are moved to the Market, and you gain a Bust token (worth 3 Currency). If you Busted with # cards, then all other players will collect Currency tokens, but if you Bust with Currency cards, nobody receives anything. After resolving a Bust, your turn ends and the game continues to the next player.
If, on your turn, you ever draw a Wildcard, your turn pauses and the Wildcard is auctioned. Each player will have one chance to either bid (increasing the bid from the previous) or pass. Whomever wins the auction must pay their bid, and they collect the Wildcard to their play area. Once the auction has been resolved, your turn continues as normal. It is possible to have multiple auctions on your turn – it all depends on the cards. The game continues in this fashion, players taking turns drawing cards, collecting cards/Currency, buying from the Market, bidding in auctions, etc., until the draw deck has been depleted. The active player finishes their turn as normal, but may not draw any more cards. Points are then tallied. All players will arrange their cards to create consecutive sequences of numbers in the 4 different colors. You receive 1 point per card in your longest sequence of each color. If you have a complete set of numbers 1-9 in a color, you get a bonus point. Players count up all their points, and the player with the highest value is the winner!
That kind of seems like a lot, but I promise it’s actually pretty intuitive when you get playing. Also, huge shoutout to AEG for providing such a well-done reference card – it includes a little flowchart to help you with how the turns flow. The gameplay itself is essentially pretty straightforward. You draw a card, and then react based on what it is. Bust? Collect a Bust token and your turn ends. No Bust? Decide if you want to keep drawing. Done pushing your luck? Collect either the # cards or Currency. Try to make sequential runs of numbers in the different colors – the more cards you get in sequence, the more points you’ll get at the end of the game. The thing that elevates TEN beyond a simple push-your-luck game to me is that it requires more strategy than just luck. You can see what cards are available in the Market – is there something you need to buy? You can see everyone else’s playing area – do they need any of the numbers you just revealed? You know how much Currency every player has – do you bid high on this Wildcard because your neighbor can’t outbid you? There is so much more than just luck in this game, and that is what takes it to the next level for me. I know that Travis has reviewed No, Thanks! in the past, and I would say that this gives me similar vibes, but way better in my opinion.
When it comes to playing games, I am generally not a huge risk-taker. I like making logical choices based on known information and end-game strategy. But something about this game just gets me. I think one element that makes me love this game is the different types of cards – # cards and Currency cards. When you’re pushing your luck and drawing cards, there’s an added element of excitement, because the two different types of cards affect the net total differently. It doesn’t all positively add to the net total, which makes me more likely to keep drawing in hopes that things will cancel out and I can maximize the turn. If everything all added together, and you just couldn’t get more than 10, I would probably only ever draw 2 cards per turn, max., just to make sure I didn’t Bust. But the fact that Currency cards subtract from the net total encourages players to keep pushing their luck, and either earning a big payoff or a big Bust. This game is exciting, engaging, and entertaining to play, and that makes it fun!
To touch on components, AEG always hits it out of the park – and TEN is no exception. The game is mostly just a bunch of cards, and some white/black Currency tokens. The tokens themselves are nice plastic, and are smooth and chunky in hand. The cards are thick and sturdy, and hold up to shuffling pretty well. The colors of the game are bright and vibrant, and they are very clear to differentiate between. It’s a nice pop of color on the table, and that adds to the overall enjoyment of the game. Each of the 4 colors, and the Wildcards for that matter, have a unique background design – which can help our colorblind friends who may not necessarily be able to differentiate between the colors. Just an added plus to help the gamers tell what cards belong to what colors! The game box is equally as colorful, and is eye-catching on the shelf. All in all, I’d say AEG gets a 10 for their production quality here. (Get it?)
I spoke earlier about judging a game by its mechanics, and how TEN really challenged me on that. I was expecting a game that I would like, but would be kind of just ok overall for me. What I got is a game that is highly strategic, yet also unpredictable at times. I am definitely a planner when it comes to strategy, but the unpredictability of this game is light, fun, and engaging for all players at all times. It just is fun to play. This is a game that I see staying in my collection for a long time, and hopefully getting to the table quite often when I need a quick filler that isn’t so light that it’s mindless, but not heavy enough that it’s a brain-burner. If you’re in the market for a fun little game that challenges all players, I would definitely recommend checking out TEN. Purple Phoenix Games rates our games on a scale of 1-6 (not 10 unfortunately in this case), and we give this one a solid 5 / 6.
