Search
A Celebration of Mothers in Rhyme (Mariana Books Rhyming #11)
6.0
Rate It
Book
Mothers hold a special place in the world. When you think of many of your fondest memories, your...
Children Seasons Rhyming
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Relic Runners in Tabletop Games
Jun 24, 2021
YES! More adventuring games! I do love adventure games. Relic Runners has players, well, running all over the board searching for, well, relics to add to their collections to bring back to their homelands and become renowned elite adventuristas! One of my wife’s favorite games, a Days of Wonder title, and one for which I have lukewarm feelings. But why?
Relic Runners is a route-building, pick-up-and-deliver, set collection game that puts players in a central camp and has them exploring outward and around the jungle building familiar pathways and exploiting riches from temples and ruins searching for those sweet sweet relics. The winner is the player who collects the most amount of VP from coins, temple pieces, and relics. So let’s get exploring!
To setup, populate the board with toolboxes, shrines, and ruins per the rulebook. Give each player a playmat and all components of matching color. The explorer bust will begin the game in the camp in the middle of the board along with two rations per player. On each playmat place the pathways and rations in their spots, and the toolbox tokens in their spot with one (or more depending on player special power) at the bottom of the Progression Table. The game can now begin!
The game ends when, depending on player count, a specific number of relics have been claimed by the players. Relics are claimed by completing Relic Expeditions, though we always call them Relic Runs, because that’s kinda the title of the game. In order to make a Relic Run players will need to have explored ruins and removed layers of shrines in order to reveal the relics. Movement is unique in Relic Runners because players may move from one location to the next for free if it is a “familiar” path marked with a pathway token in their color plus one space either before or after the familiar pathways. So a player can effectively run through five or six spots on the board if they had previously been able to place pathway tokens on the paths between the spots. This is how effective Relic Runs are accomplished.
When players pass along water trails they may encounter toolboxes. When these toolboxes are flipped to their inactive side the player will be able to move one of their toolbox tokens up the Progression Table to add effectiveness to their player. These tech tree increments could include increased ability to explore and find additional supplies, improve movement, or even give players more actions and bonuses.
Players will be running all around the board trying to uncover shrine tiles for points and abilities, upgrading their characters for efficiency, and attempting multiple Relic Runs as often as possible to bring the game’s end. The player with the most coin, combinations of relics, and temple layers is the winner!
Components. I mentioned in my opener that this is a Days of Wonder game. So? Well, Days of Wonder only produce ONE new title every year, and they seem to put all their eggs into that one big game (not including expansions for other titles throughout the year). Relic Runners is no different. The components are truly wonderful. The board and cardboard bits are great. The temples are unique and interesting. The plastic bits that begin on playmats and the base camp are quite fine. The relics, however, are simply spectacular. There are four types of relics in the game and 20 relics are included in the box. It’s all very impressive and I have had no issues with the components here nor with any Days of Wonder game. They really know what they’re doing.
The gameplay, to me, is just not my thing. Like I mentioned earlier, my wife absolutely adores this game. I can see why she does, but I feel there are other adventure style games that I would prefer to play. Now, Relic Runners is a good game. Josh rated it a six, so he loves it too. For me some of the movement mechanics are weird in that you have to move every turn so that you can’t just travel to a shrine and dismantle it over three turns. I get it. I do, but I just don’t like it. It doesn’t make thematic sense that an explorer would run to a shrine, begin work, then leave it unattended for other explorers to finish the job. So there’s a disconnect for me.
Also, I would have loved to have seen more variation in the player Progression Table. Make each character truly unique to appeal to replayability and different players’ play styles. Obviously I’m no designer, but that would have made a difference for me.
I love the components, am just okay with the art style, and am okay or less with the gameplay. But, Josh and Kristin both love it, and it will certainly appeal to many gamers. I won’t be getting rid of it, but I also won’t be suggesting we play it very often at all. However, if your collection needs a unique adventure style game featuring some interesting movement mechanics and superb components, pick up a copy of Relic Runners. Purple Phoenix Games gives it a 14 / 18. I was hoping for more Indiana Jones but I got cross-country Dora the Explorer.
Relic Runners is a route-building, pick-up-and-deliver, set collection game that puts players in a central camp and has them exploring outward and around the jungle building familiar pathways and exploiting riches from temples and ruins searching for those sweet sweet relics. The winner is the player who collects the most amount of VP from coins, temple pieces, and relics. So let’s get exploring!
To setup, populate the board with toolboxes, shrines, and ruins per the rulebook. Give each player a playmat and all components of matching color. The explorer bust will begin the game in the camp in the middle of the board along with two rations per player. On each playmat place the pathways and rations in their spots, and the toolbox tokens in their spot with one (or more depending on player special power) at the bottom of the Progression Table. The game can now begin!
The game ends when, depending on player count, a specific number of relics have been claimed by the players. Relics are claimed by completing Relic Expeditions, though we always call them Relic Runs, because that’s kinda the title of the game. In order to make a Relic Run players will need to have explored ruins and removed layers of shrines in order to reveal the relics. Movement is unique in Relic Runners because players may move from one location to the next for free if it is a “familiar” path marked with a pathway token in their color plus one space either before or after the familiar pathways. So a player can effectively run through five or six spots on the board if they had previously been able to place pathway tokens on the paths between the spots. This is how effective Relic Runs are accomplished.
When players pass along water trails they may encounter toolboxes. When these toolboxes are flipped to their inactive side the player will be able to move one of their toolbox tokens up the Progression Table to add effectiveness to their player. These tech tree increments could include increased ability to explore and find additional supplies, improve movement, or even give players more actions and bonuses.
Players will be running all around the board trying to uncover shrine tiles for points and abilities, upgrading their characters for efficiency, and attempting multiple Relic Runs as often as possible to bring the game’s end. The player with the most coin, combinations of relics, and temple layers is the winner!
Components. I mentioned in my opener that this is a Days of Wonder game. So? Well, Days of Wonder only produce ONE new title every year, and they seem to put all their eggs into that one big game (not including expansions for other titles throughout the year). Relic Runners is no different. The components are truly wonderful. The board and cardboard bits are great. The temples are unique and interesting. The plastic bits that begin on playmats and the base camp are quite fine. The relics, however, are simply spectacular. There are four types of relics in the game and 20 relics are included in the box. It’s all very impressive and I have had no issues with the components here nor with any Days of Wonder game. They really know what they’re doing.
The gameplay, to me, is just not my thing. Like I mentioned earlier, my wife absolutely adores this game. I can see why she does, but I feel there are other adventure style games that I would prefer to play. Now, Relic Runners is a good game. Josh rated it a six, so he loves it too. For me some of the movement mechanics are weird in that you have to move every turn so that you can’t just travel to a shrine and dismantle it over three turns. I get it. I do, but I just don’t like it. It doesn’t make thematic sense that an explorer would run to a shrine, begin work, then leave it unattended for other explorers to finish the job. So there’s a disconnect for me.
Also, I would have loved to have seen more variation in the player Progression Table. Make each character truly unique to appeal to replayability and different players’ play styles. Obviously I’m no designer, but that would have made a difference for me.
I love the components, am just okay with the art style, and am okay or less with the gameplay. But, Josh and Kristin both love it, and it will certainly appeal to many gamers. I won’t be getting rid of it, but I also won’t be suggesting we play it very often at all. However, if your collection needs a unique adventure style game featuring some interesting movement mechanics and superb components, pick up a copy of Relic Runners. Purple Phoenix Games gives it a 14 / 18. I was hoping for more Indiana Jones but I got cross-country Dora the Explorer.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Barnyard Roundup in Tabletop Games
Apr 12, 2021
I live in Illinois. I can see cornfields from my house. I do not live on a farm, but have visited farms in the past. There is more to Illinois than Chicago and corn. That all said, farming games tickle me so much and I just enjoy playing them. So imagine my interest level when you combine a publisher known for excellent productions, the designer from said publisher, a member of an art studio in my top three favorite board game artists (Kwanchai and The Mico for the others), and a theme that I already enjoy. This is going to be great! Right?
Barnyard Roundup is a silly game of bluffing and hand management set on a farm. In it players are farmhands trying to help Farmer Brown sell the most animals at market. They do this by bluffing their hands in trade deals with other farmhands, thus making no friends in the process. The player with the most points at the end of the game, when all cards from the draw deck have been drawn, will be the winner!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup place the five Animal Bonus cards in a line with the Set Bonus cards nearby. Shuffle the large deck of animal cards and deal out cards according to the rulebook per the number of players in the game. The Burglar and Excuse Me tokens are sorted and dealt out with the remainders face-down near the other cards. Remove eight cards from the draw deck and decide who will be the start player. The game may now begin!
Barnyard Roundup turns are quite simple: take two or three actions and end the turn. The first action is mandatory and it is Passing Cards to another player. Choose anywhere from one to six cards, place them face-down on the table in front of the player with whom to be traded, and announce the number and type of cards to be traded. For example, a player may say, “This is four chickens.” The targeted player now must decide whether that group actually IS a group of four chickens or if they believe the trader (not traitor) is bluffing. If so the targeted player may say, “That is NOT four chickens.” Once the agree/disagree statement has been made the cards are flipped over to see which player will be adding the cards to their pens. If the targeted player guessed correctly then they will received all the animal cards that were passed to them. That is, unless the cards were actually CROWS. Crows are worth -5 VP at the end of the game (see the photo below) and will be taken into the pen of the defeated player in the trade. In addition to crows (bad) the game includes Copy Cats (good) which can be wild cards to be placed with other animals and they copy the animal in their group. When the trade is resolved the active player may choose to perform the next step, but it is not mandatory.
Players must note that any time a player gains crows that would extend their collection of crows to any multiple of 3 that player must then draw another Action Token (Burglar, Excuse Me, Scarecrow) from the supply. If a Scarecrow is drawn it is immediately revealed and three crows are discarded from that player’s collection. The Excuse Me token may be used during a trade, but before cards are revealed, by a player not involved in the trade. When they announce, “Excuse Me,” they immediately take the place of the targeted player and will decide whether the trade is correct as announced or is a bluff.
Should they wish, the active player may now Play a Burglar Token from their collection in order to target another player and ask for all of their animals of a specific type – “I wish to procure all of your cows” That player must then immediately hand over all their cows, or else may tell the active player to Go Fish. Okay, that last part isn’t in the rules, but I started doing it and it stuck for me.
The third and final step of a turn is simply to Draw Cards and End Your Turn. Draw cards back up to the hand limit of 5 or 6 and end the turn. Play then passes to the next player.
Play continues in this fashion until the last card has been drawn. The game ends immediately and players tally their points per the rulebook to arrive at an ultimate winner!
Components. This game is a bunch of cards and some tokens in a double-wide+ tuckbox. I love the art, and that makes sense as it is illustrated by Lina Cossette, half of Mr. Cuddington. If you don’t know about Mr. Cuddington, please check out their website. The cards are good quality, as are the tokens. But that box. Now, it LOOKS great, and is a fine size. But a tuckbox? I would have preferred a lidded box, or even one of those with the magnetic fold-out lids. But it’s a tuckbox and the opening flap dented upon its first opening. Oy. I could give a chef’s kiss to everything else though.
Now, there’s a reason why I rated this game a 4 and my wife a 6: she beats me every single time we play and I just cannot find the strategy to take her down. Am I just horrible at bluffing games? Does she just dominate me at ALL games? I’m not sure, but this one certainly highlights the fact that she’s just better than me. I can still hear her haunting and taunting me with, “OH MY GOSH I LOVE THIS GAME! I’M SOOOOO GOOD AT IT!” Meanwhile I am sitting pretty with a whole flock of crows laughing at me like I am the Scarecrow from Wizard of Oz. Perhaps I am truly brainless as well.
That said, the game is enjoyable. I do like to play bluffing games, but I’m the poor soul who would rather play straight than do ANY sort of bluffing at all. Except when I have lulled my prey into trusting my every declaration. Then pull out the big guns and laugh my way to the bank. Well, I tried that several times and no dice. But I do enjoy playing, and I do keep coming back for more torture. And if that isn’t a sign of a good game, then what is?
All in all the game is quick, light on rules, and features wonderful art style. This is the game I will probably use to introduce my children (or new gamers) to bluffing games as the theme is easily digestible and when you get stuck with the negative points you don’t feel super bad about it. It is easy to pronounce that Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a squawkin’-good 10 / 12. If you are looking for a light introductory game to teach bluffing or to hit that sweet-spot, then I recommend you check out Barnyard Roundup from Druid City Games. I ain’t a-bluffin’ ya.
Barnyard Roundup is a silly game of bluffing and hand management set on a farm. In it players are farmhands trying to help Farmer Brown sell the most animals at market. They do this by bluffing their hands in trade deals with other farmhands, thus making no friends in the process. The player with the most points at the end of the game, when all cards from the draw deck have been drawn, will be the winner!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup place the five Animal Bonus cards in a line with the Set Bonus cards nearby. Shuffle the large deck of animal cards and deal out cards according to the rulebook per the number of players in the game. The Burglar and Excuse Me tokens are sorted and dealt out with the remainders face-down near the other cards. Remove eight cards from the draw deck and decide who will be the start player. The game may now begin!
Barnyard Roundup turns are quite simple: take two or three actions and end the turn. The first action is mandatory and it is Passing Cards to another player. Choose anywhere from one to six cards, place them face-down on the table in front of the player with whom to be traded, and announce the number and type of cards to be traded. For example, a player may say, “This is four chickens.” The targeted player now must decide whether that group actually IS a group of four chickens or if they believe the trader (not traitor) is bluffing. If so the targeted player may say, “That is NOT four chickens.” Once the agree/disagree statement has been made the cards are flipped over to see which player will be adding the cards to their pens. If the targeted player guessed correctly then they will received all the animal cards that were passed to them. That is, unless the cards were actually CROWS. Crows are worth -5 VP at the end of the game (see the photo below) and will be taken into the pen of the defeated player in the trade. In addition to crows (bad) the game includes Copy Cats (good) which can be wild cards to be placed with other animals and they copy the animal in their group. When the trade is resolved the active player may choose to perform the next step, but it is not mandatory.
Players must note that any time a player gains crows that would extend their collection of crows to any multiple of 3 that player must then draw another Action Token (Burglar, Excuse Me, Scarecrow) from the supply. If a Scarecrow is drawn it is immediately revealed and three crows are discarded from that player’s collection. The Excuse Me token may be used during a trade, but before cards are revealed, by a player not involved in the trade. When they announce, “Excuse Me,” they immediately take the place of the targeted player and will decide whether the trade is correct as announced or is a bluff.
Should they wish, the active player may now Play a Burglar Token from their collection in order to target another player and ask for all of their animals of a specific type – “I wish to procure all of your cows” That player must then immediately hand over all their cows, or else may tell the active player to Go Fish. Okay, that last part isn’t in the rules, but I started doing it and it stuck for me.
The third and final step of a turn is simply to Draw Cards and End Your Turn. Draw cards back up to the hand limit of 5 or 6 and end the turn. Play then passes to the next player.
Play continues in this fashion until the last card has been drawn. The game ends immediately and players tally their points per the rulebook to arrive at an ultimate winner!
Components. This game is a bunch of cards and some tokens in a double-wide+ tuckbox. I love the art, and that makes sense as it is illustrated by Lina Cossette, half of Mr. Cuddington. If you don’t know about Mr. Cuddington, please check out their website. The cards are good quality, as are the tokens. But that box. Now, it LOOKS great, and is a fine size. But a tuckbox? I would have preferred a lidded box, or even one of those with the magnetic fold-out lids. But it’s a tuckbox and the opening flap dented upon its first opening. Oy. I could give a chef’s kiss to everything else though.
Now, there’s a reason why I rated this game a 4 and my wife a 6: she beats me every single time we play and I just cannot find the strategy to take her down. Am I just horrible at bluffing games? Does she just dominate me at ALL games? I’m not sure, but this one certainly highlights the fact that she’s just better than me. I can still hear her haunting and taunting me with, “OH MY GOSH I LOVE THIS GAME! I’M SOOOOO GOOD AT IT!” Meanwhile I am sitting pretty with a whole flock of crows laughing at me like I am the Scarecrow from Wizard of Oz. Perhaps I am truly brainless as well.
That said, the game is enjoyable. I do like to play bluffing games, but I’m the poor soul who would rather play straight than do ANY sort of bluffing at all. Except when I have lulled my prey into trusting my every declaration. Then pull out the big guns and laugh my way to the bank. Well, I tried that several times and no dice. But I do enjoy playing, and I do keep coming back for more torture. And if that isn’t a sign of a good game, then what is?
All in all the game is quick, light on rules, and features wonderful art style. This is the game I will probably use to introduce my children (or new gamers) to bluffing games as the theme is easily digestible and when you get stuck with the negative points you don’t feel super bad about it. It is easy to pronounce that Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a squawkin’-good 10 / 12. If you are looking for a light introductory game to teach bluffing or to hit that sweet-spot, then I recommend you check out Barnyard Roundup from Druid City Games. I ain’t a-bluffin’ ya.
HerCrazyReviews (247 KP) rated Turtles All The Way Down in Books
Aug 24, 2019
Marketed As A Mystery But It Isn't (2 more)
Unhealthy Friendships
Unsatisfactory Ending
Mental Illness Representation But No Mystery
Contains spoilers, click to show
As a casual fan who has watched a few of John Green’s YouTube videos and read a few books of his, I can honestly say he seems like such a genuinely honest and funny person. Plus, I have read a book or two of his in the past (Example: Paper Towns) and while I did enjoy this book there were quite a few things that made me stray away from a five or even four-star review.
The first thing that I felt was a let down in this novel was the fact that the book was actually not a mystery novel but instead dealt with more of Aza’s own anxiety. While I do love the fact that the book dealt with the topic of anxiety and mental illness in what I felt like was a realistic way I am disappointed that there was not as much mystery. To me, it seemed like the book was marketed around the fact that Aza was trying to solve the mystery of Russell Pickett and where he went. I incorrectly assumed that this novel would be some kind of Scooby-Doo mystery. We did see the characters wonder about Mr. Pickett’s “magical” escape and we did get an ending where everything was wrapped up and solved but it didn’t seem like the characters worked that hard towards it and the book was more about Aza’s own self-realization.
Speaking (or technically typing) about Aza’s struggle with anxiety and mental health I felt like the book did a good job of realistically representing the struggles and many difficulties people experience. I will say that I have personally never had a problem with mental illness and while I do have people I love and care for go through it my experiences are mainly from trying to help them. Therefore, I am not necessarily an accurate source when it comes to the reality of mental illness. I am able to see what my loved ones experience but those are on two different scales.
The simple fact is there is nothing pretty about struggling with mental illness. No matter how hard people try no one is able to always able to stay above the rainbow. Everyone has their bad days and Aza’s experiences, while cringe-worthy in some cases (Ex: digging into her fingernail and swallowing hand sanitizer) is the reality for many people.
While I am pleased by the fact that this book dealt with mental illness and the struggles that come along with it there are a few things that I am disappointed by besides the let down on the mystery front. Overall, the ending was not satisfying. While yes, we were able to see Aza grow and confront the fact that she will always have bad days and good days I felt like certain endings or wrap-ups were not satisfactory. One huge thing I felt strongly about was Aza’s relationships. With Daisy, her best friend, we eventually find out she has been writing about Aza in her fanfiction. But that isn’t the issue. The issue is that Daisy finally exposes her true feelings about her best friend. Turns out Daisy more or less has a lot of bottled up issues resolving Aza and reading Aza’s reaction to this is simply heartbreaking. I also felt that the ending where they simply go back to being friends was not good enough for me. If I found out one of my best friends had been writing hurtful things about me behind my back I would, of course, do what Aza did and confront them but I also do not think I could go back to being friends. Friendships are based on trust and respect for one another and Daisy was not being a true friend.
Now that I have gotten through my thoughts and let downs of the novel there were redeeming qualities. As mentioned above I am a huge fan of representation from several different areas such as mental health as is represented in this novel. This book gave representation to people who on a regular basis may not receive the care they are entitled to or feel like they are alone in the world. This book gives these people ownage and that is a truly beautiful thing. John Green, I believe, wrote this based on his own experiences with anxiety (though obviously, it is not his exact account) and I, therefore, feel like this is a fairly accurate source to read when wondering about the realities of anxiety. Now, I know this book is fiction but I personally feel like it did a great job on that front, which is what I believe John Green was aiming for.
Would I Recommend It?: Maybe. I do enjoy certain aspects of this book such as the amazing representation of mental illness such as OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder) and anxiety. Not to mention I truly loved the mentions of fanfiction. However, there were a few bits here and there that made my rating decrease down to three-stars. One of the main things was the fact that the book, from my point of view, appeared to be marketed with the mystery factor and while it was solved the solution was a letdown and the book wasn’t truly focused on the mystery. Plus, Aza’s relationships with her friends seemed to be unhealthy and the last chapter or two of the book did not hold a satisfactory ending for me.
The first thing that I felt was a let down in this novel was the fact that the book was actually not a mystery novel but instead dealt with more of Aza’s own anxiety. While I do love the fact that the book dealt with the topic of anxiety and mental illness in what I felt like was a realistic way I am disappointed that there was not as much mystery. To me, it seemed like the book was marketed around the fact that Aza was trying to solve the mystery of Russell Pickett and where he went. I incorrectly assumed that this novel would be some kind of Scooby-Doo mystery. We did see the characters wonder about Mr. Pickett’s “magical” escape and we did get an ending where everything was wrapped up and solved but it didn’t seem like the characters worked that hard towards it and the book was more about Aza’s own self-realization.
Speaking (or technically typing) about Aza’s struggle with anxiety and mental health I felt like the book did a good job of realistically representing the struggles and many difficulties people experience. I will say that I have personally never had a problem with mental illness and while I do have people I love and care for go through it my experiences are mainly from trying to help them. Therefore, I am not necessarily an accurate source when it comes to the reality of mental illness. I am able to see what my loved ones experience but those are on two different scales.
The simple fact is there is nothing pretty about struggling with mental illness. No matter how hard people try no one is able to always able to stay above the rainbow. Everyone has their bad days and Aza’s experiences, while cringe-worthy in some cases (Ex: digging into her fingernail and swallowing hand sanitizer) is the reality for many people.
While I am pleased by the fact that this book dealt with mental illness and the struggles that come along with it there are a few things that I am disappointed by besides the let down on the mystery front. Overall, the ending was not satisfying. While yes, we were able to see Aza grow and confront the fact that she will always have bad days and good days I felt like certain endings or wrap-ups were not satisfactory. One huge thing I felt strongly about was Aza’s relationships. With Daisy, her best friend, we eventually find out she has been writing about Aza in her fanfiction. But that isn’t the issue. The issue is that Daisy finally exposes her true feelings about her best friend. Turns out Daisy more or less has a lot of bottled up issues resolving Aza and reading Aza’s reaction to this is simply heartbreaking. I also felt that the ending where they simply go back to being friends was not good enough for me. If I found out one of my best friends had been writing hurtful things about me behind my back I would, of course, do what Aza did and confront them but I also do not think I could go back to being friends. Friendships are based on trust and respect for one another and Daisy was not being a true friend.
Now that I have gotten through my thoughts and let downs of the novel there were redeeming qualities. As mentioned above I am a huge fan of representation from several different areas such as mental health as is represented in this novel. This book gave representation to people who on a regular basis may not receive the care they are entitled to or feel like they are alone in the world. This book gives these people ownage and that is a truly beautiful thing. John Green, I believe, wrote this based on his own experiences with anxiety (though obviously, it is not his exact account) and I, therefore, feel like this is a fairly accurate source to read when wondering about the realities of anxiety. Now, I know this book is fiction but I personally feel like it did a great job on that front, which is what I believe John Green was aiming for.
Would I Recommend It?: Maybe. I do enjoy certain aspects of this book such as the amazing representation of mental illness such as OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder) and anxiety. Not to mention I truly loved the mentions of fanfiction. However, there were a few bits here and there that made my rating decrease down to three-stars. One of the main things was the fact that the book, from my point of view, appeared to be marketed with the mystery factor and while it was solved the solution was a letdown and the book wasn’t truly focused on the mystery. Plus, Aza’s relationships with her friends seemed to be unhealthy and the last chapter or two of the book did not hold a satisfactory ending for me.
Tyler Fletcher (8 KP) rated Artemis Fowl (2020) in Movies
Jun 14, 2020
Character development (1 more)
Forgettable story
Another Live-Action Disney Adaption Bomb
Contains spoilers, click to show
What is it about fantasy novels that makes them so difficult to translate effectively to the silver screen? It’s not impossible – J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series and Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings adaptations are proof that it can be done. More often than not, however, the result is as limp and truncated as Kenneth Branagh’s Artemis Fowl – a few standout moments set adrift in a sea of underdeveloped characters, incomplete backstory elements, and abbreviated world building. Although the problem lies primarily in the difficulties associated with condensing an epic tale into a short-ish movie, the lack of elegance with which that is accomplished makes Artemis Fowl a failure for anyone hoping for the next great fantasy film.
The treatment accorded to Artemis Fowl (the movie condenses elements from the first two volumes of an eight-novel cycle into a single film) recalls a Disney misfire from more than three decades ago. Although The Black Cauldron was animated, it suffered from many of the same problems evident in Artemis Fowl: an oversimplification of the backstory, a rushed narrative with poorly realized characters, and a overall lack of faithfulness to the source material. The Black Cauldron worked better because it at least had a clean ending. Artemis Fowl suffers by trying to both provide a credible stopping point (in case there are no additional films) and offering a lead-in to additional adventures (in case there are additional films).
In the books, 12-year old Artemis (played by Ferdia Shaw, the grandson of Robert Shaw) is presented as an anti-hero (although, over the course of the saga, his villainous attributes fade to be replaced by heroic ones). Here, he’s more of a misunderstood boy-genius whose role as the protagonist is never in question. All of his edges have been smoothed out. The story focuses on Artemis’ efforts to locate and rescue his father, Artemis Fowl Sr. (Colin Farrell), an infamous art thief who has been kidnapped by the twisted evil fairy Opal Koboi. Her ransom for releasing him is that Artemis must locate and obtain a powerful McGuffin. He is joined in his efforts by Lower Elements Police (LEP) fairy police officer Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), giant dwarf Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), and strongman Domovoi Butler (Nonso Anozie).
Artemis Fowl diverges considerably from the two books that form its basis, Artemis Fowl and Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. Although author Eoin Colfer reportedly “approved” the changes, they push the film into an alternate universe from the one occupied by the novels. Even with the pruning of subplots and condensation of the narrative, 100 minutes is too short to tell the story effectively. None of the characters are well-developed, including Artemis. The boy’s relationship with Holly Short evolves with whiplash-inducing rapidity – one moment, they’re enemies (actually, she’s his prisoner), the next they’re friends. The film’s frenetic pace might work for ADD viewers and preteens but there’s no time for world-building or anything more than the most basic exposition. As a result, Artemis Fowl feels rushed to the point of being exhausting and strangely confusing despite the relatively straightforward storyline.
Kenneth Branagh was undoubtedly selected to direct the film based on his success with two earlier Disney properties: the live-action Cinderella and Marvel’s Thor. Perhaps because Branagh had no input into the screenplay (which was completed before he came on board), the movie lacks the complex psychological qualities he normally brings to his films. Visually, Artemis Fowl is impressive. However, although the fairy world of Haven is beautifully rendered, it appears all-too-briefly. The film’s most impressive sequence, a throwdown with a seemingly invincible troll, is a standout by any definition, but it represents only about five minutes of screen time and there’s nothing else that comes close – not even the muted climax.
As is often the case, Branagh’s presence at the top results in some impressive names in the cast. The young leads are newcomers – this is Ferdia Shaw’s first movie (and it shows – his performance is occasionally wooden) and Lara McDonnell’s third (she’s better, evidencing an indomitable pluckiness) – but the rest of the cast is populated with veterans. Josh Gad, another Disney regular, has the most openly comedic role of the film as Mulch Diggums. Colin Farrell is called on for limited duty as Artemis’ mostly-absent father. Nonso Anozie, who has a history with Branagh, plays Artemis’ protector and advisor. Finally, Judi Dench adds a dose of class as Holly’s no-nonsense boss.
It has taken Artemis Fowl nearly 20 years to traverse the route from page to screen and one senses that neither fans nor newcomers will be especially pleased with the end result. Recognizing that the film faced rough seas, Disney postponed the movie’s originally planned August 2019 release to May 2020 then, when the coronavirus made that impossible, the studio elected to shift the film to its Disney+ platform. Although partially a face-saving gesture (Artemis Fowl would likely have had a similar box office reception to Disney’s underwhelming 2018 release, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms), it at least allows the film to find a large audience in a low-pressure situation.
The bottom line seems to be that, while Disney has shown an aptitude for making many different kinds of movies, fantasy epics aren’t among them. This is one genre the Magic Kingdom should perhaps avoid, leaving such properties to studios that have shown better success (such as Warner Brothers). Artemis Fowl could have been the beginning of a movie franchise but, based on the first installment, it’s more likely a one-and-done outing. Disney can't quite get away from the John Carters can they?
THIS FILM IS AN EXCEPTIONAL BOMB
The treatment accorded to Artemis Fowl (the movie condenses elements from the first two volumes of an eight-novel cycle into a single film) recalls a Disney misfire from more than three decades ago. Although The Black Cauldron was animated, it suffered from many of the same problems evident in Artemis Fowl: an oversimplification of the backstory, a rushed narrative with poorly realized characters, and a overall lack of faithfulness to the source material. The Black Cauldron worked better because it at least had a clean ending. Artemis Fowl suffers by trying to both provide a credible stopping point (in case there are no additional films) and offering a lead-in to additional adventures (in case there are additional films).
In the books, 12-year old Artemis (played by Ferdia Shaw, the grandson of Robert Shaw) is presented as an anti-hero (although, over the course of the saga, his villainous attributes fade to be replaced by heroic ones). Here, he’s more of a misunderstood boy-genius whose role as the protagonist is never in question. All of his edges have been smoothed out. The story focuses on Artemis’ efforts to locate and rescue his father, Artemis Fowl Sr. (Colin Farrell), an infamous art thief who has been kidnapped by the twisted evil fairy Opal Koboi. Her ransom for releasing him is that Artemis must locate and obtain a powerful McGuffin. He is joined in his efforts by Lower Elements Police (LEP) fairy police officer Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), giant dwarf Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), and strongman Domovoi Butler (Nonso Anozie).
Artemis Fowl diverges considerably from the two books that form its basis, Artemis Fowl and Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. Although author Eoin Colfer reportedly “approved” the changes, they push the film into an alternate universe from the one occupied by the novels. Even with the pruning of subplots and condensation of the narrative, 100 minutes is too short to tell the story effectively. None of the characters are well-developed, including Artemis. The boy’s relationship with Holly Short evolves with whiplash-inducing rapidity – one moment, they’re enemies (actually, she’s his prisoner), the next they’re friends. The film’s frenetic pace might work for ADD viewers and preteens but there’s no time for world-building or anything more than the most basic exposition. As a result, Artemis Fowl feels rushed to the point of being exhausting and strangely confusing despite the relatively straightforward storyline.
Kenneth Branagh was undoubtedly selected to direct the film based on his success with two earlier Disney properties: the live-action Cinderella and Marvel’s Thor. Perhaps because Branagh had no input into the screenplay (which was completed before he came on board), the movie lacks the complex psychological qualities he normally brings to his films. Visually, Artemis Fowl is impressive. However, although the fairy world of Haven is beautifully rendered, it appears all-too-briefly. The film’s most impressive sequence, a throwdown with a seemingly invincible troll, is a standout by any definition, but it represents only about five minutes of screen time and there’s nothing else that comes close – not even the muted climax.
As is often the case, Branagh’s presence at the top results in some impressive names in the cast. The young leads are newcomers – this is Ferdia Shaw’s first movie (and it shows – his performance is occasionally wooden) and Lara McDonnell’s third (she’s better, evidencing an indomitable pluckiness) – but the rest of the cast is populated with veterans. Josh Gad, another Disney regular, has the most openly comedic role of the film as Mulch Diggums. Colin Farrell is called on for limited duty as Artemis’ mostly-absent father. Nonso Anozie, who has a history with Branagh, plays Artemis’ protector and advisor. Finally, Judi Dench adds a dose of class as Holly’s no-nonsense boss.
It has taken Artemis Fowl nearly 20 years to traverse the route from page to screen and one senses that neither fans nor newcomers will be especially pleased with the end result. Recognizing that the film faced rough seas, Disney postponed the movie’s originally planned August 2019 release to May 2020 then, when the coronavirus made that impossible, the studio elected to shift the film to its Disney+ platform. Although partially a face-saving gesture (Artemis Fowl would likely have had a similar box office reception to Disney’s underwhelming 2018 release, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms), it at least allows the film to find a large audience in a low-pressure situation.
The bottom line seems to be that, while Disney has shown an aptitude for making many different kinds of movies, fantasy epics aren’t among them. This is one genre the Magic Kingdom should perhaps avoid, leaving such properties to studios that have shown better success (such as Warner Brothers). Artemis Fowl could have been the beginning of a movie franchise but, based on the first installment, it’s more likely a one-and-done outing. Disney can't quite get away from the John Carters can they?
THIS FILM IS AN EXCEPTIONAL BOMB
Object-oriented Actionscript 3.0
Todd Yard, Peter Elst and Sas Jacobs
Book
* Learn object-oriented programming in ActionScript 3.0* Covers both the Flash and Flex...
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Hunters of the Lost Creatures in Tabletop Games
May 8, 2022
If you are reading this, then we can agree on a few things: board games are cool and interesting, silly themes are usually fun, and we are all kids at heart. I appreciate other gamers so much because we all share a common bond of experiencing good and bad games, good and bad rules, as well as good and bad explanations of these rules. I would spoil it up top here if I let on which of these categories our featured game falls into, right? So keep reading.
Hunters of the Lost Creatures is a silly set collection card game for three to four players. In it, players assume the roles of zoological park curators charged with collecting unique creatures for their parks. They do this by bidding on and drafting creature cards, playing take-that style cards on their opponents, and blocking their cards from being manipulated by others.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, players choose one hunter card from each of the four hunting zones: Sea, Forest, Plains, and Air, as well as three “Park Closed” cards. The creature cards are to be split by zone and shuffled, with one special card (Turnado and Cat-a-Pult) added. These shuffled decks are then placed on the table and the top card revealed from each deck. Players decide turn order and the game may begin!
Hands are mostly played simultaneously, with players choosing either a hunter or special card from their hand and placing it face-down in front of themselves. All cards are revealed simultaneously and the card effects are applied. If a player has revealed a hunter, and no other players have the same-colored background/terrain type, that player receives the matching card from those on offer and places it in their park (tableau), or ANY OTHER PLAYER’S park. If ALL players have chosen the same terrain type hunters, the card on offer is removed from the game entirely. However, if not all hunters match, but at least one matches, the matching hunters’ players receive no cards.
Should a player choose to play a special card, their effects are triggered once per game. These include Turnado (switch any two creatures in any two parks), Cat-a-Pult (discards any creature from any player’s park), Thieves (steal any one terrain-matching creature and places it in the Thieves player’s park) and Closed Park (protects the player from the effects of aforementioned special cards). Again, these special cards may only be played once per game, so special consideration is needed as part of their strategy.
The game continues in this fashion of players throwing cards, messing with each other using special cards, and protecting themselves from said special cards until only one stack of creature cards remains. The game ends and points are tallied per the scoring table in the rulebook. The winner is promoted to Head Creature Park Guy and is carried around by the other players. Okay, that’s not at all true. They just win the game.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of Hunters of the Lost Creatures, so all components shown here are subject to change at any time. That said, I received a huge deck of cards in a cute black cloth bag. The cards are all decent quality, and not super glossy, which I appreciate. The art on these cards are all whimsical and silly, which match the silly and punny titles for each. Some of these punny titles can be seen in our photos, with my favorites being the Dandylion (a well-“dressed” weed with a cane and lion face) and the Cougar (which is subtle, but portrays an adult apex big cat with a smaller and younger cat hanging on it). If you enjoy these somewhat intellectual, and sometimes visual, puns you will enjoy these cards.
What I have found in playing through this several times is that it is best when all players are taught the game backwards…ly. I mean to say that players need to know the premise, but most importantly, the scoring system before even the setup. Points are scored for having a run of 1-2-3, a straight of 0-1-2-3-10, at least one card from each terrain type, and for the printed value on the cards. It is more than simply collecting all the favorite cards or even highest value 10 cards. So there is strategy in collecting the best assortment of creatures for scoring purposes, which is great because otherwise this game is not really a game at all.
As players play their hunters to draft creatures, I have found that many players choose to chase the same cards over and over. It becomes obvious that most players will be vying for the value 10 cards, so the players who figure this out and grab the second best card is usually happier with the hand. Of course, more strategy is employed once the special cards are played, as they each mess with opponents in different ways. So even though I may not have acquired that 10 of Forest, I might grab the Turnado and switch out a value 0 or -10 card for that sparkling value 10. Wait, negative 10? Yep. Sometimes life just smacks you around and you get stuck with a -10 card to really punish your great play. Not that it ever happened to me, and not that I would be bitter about it.
The real game hinges on the usage of the special cards. When do you play them? Whom do you target? Turnabout is fair play, after all, and no alliances can be formed whilst playing Hunters of the Lost Creatures. Now, it is hinted at in the rulebook that preview copies ship with entry-level rules, which mean (to me) that more advanced rules may be coming in the final game, or at least some variants to spice up the gameplay. If true, then this game becomes much more interesting to me. Don’t get me wrong. I have enjoyed almost all of my plays, but be warned that playing with spiteful gamers may end poorly for a fun-filled game night.
All in all, I am excited to see how the campaign for Hunters of the Lost Creatures fares, as I believe many gamers and non-gamers alike will enjoy it. I would be super jazzed to grab a final copy if it does in fact ship with alternate or advanced rules, or if the creatures of the same value had unique names and art. That would really satisfy. Keep the bag or go traditional cardboard box, it matters not to me. Just beef up the card quality, add even more uniqueness and fanciful art and you’ve got a fan in me. Grab your copy during the Kickstarter campaign launching May 10, 2022!
Hunters of the Lost Creatures is a silly set collection card game for three to four players. In it, players assume the roles of zoological park curators charged with collecting unique creatures for their parks. They do this by bidding on and drafting creature cards, playing take-that style cards on their opponents, and blocking their cards from being manipulated by others.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, players choose one hunter card from each of the four hunting zones: Sea, Forest, Plains, and Air, as well as three “Park Closed” cards. The creature cards are to be split by zone and shuffled, with one special card (Turnado and Cat-a-Pult) added. These shuffled decks are then placed on the table and the top card revealed from each deck. Players decide turn order and the game may begin!
Hands are mostly played simultaneously, with players choosing either a hunter or special card from their hand and placing it face-down in front of themselves. All cards are revealed simultaneously and the card effects are applied. If a player has revealed a hunter, and no other players have the same-colored background/terrain type, that player receives the matching card from those on offer and places it in their park (tableau), or ANY OTHER PLAYER’S park. If ALL players have chosen the same terrain type hunters, the card on offer is removed from the game entirely. However, if not all hunters match, but at least one matches, the matching hunters’ players receive no cards.
Should a player choose to play a special card, their effects are triggered once per game. These include Turnado (switch any two creatures in any two parks), Cat-a-Pult (discards any creature from any player’s park), Thieves (steal any one terrain-matching creature and places it in the Thieves player’s park) and Closed Park (protects the player from the effects of aforementioned special cards). Again, these special cards may only be played once per game, so special consideration is needed as part of their strategy.
The game continues in this fashion of players throwing cards, messing with each other using special cards, and protecting themselves from said special cards until only one stack of creature cards remains. The game ends and points are tallied per the scoring table in the rulebook. The winner is promoted to Head Creature Park Guy and is carried around by the other players. Okay, that’s not at all true. They just win the game.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of Hunters of the Lost Creatures, so all components shown here are subject to change at any time. That said, I received a huge deck of cards in a cute black cloth bag. The cards are all decent quality, and not super glossy, which I appreciate. The art on these cards are all whimsical and silly, which match the silly and punny titles for each. Some of these punny titles can be seen in our photos, with my favorites being the Dandylion (a well-“dressed” weed with a cane and lion face) and the Cougar (which is subtle, but portrays an adult apex big cat with a smaller and younger cat hanging on it). If you enjoy these somewhat intellectual, and sometimes visual, puns you will enjoy these cards.
What I have found in playing through this several times is that it is best when all players are taught the game backwards…ly. I mean to say that players need to know the premise, but most importantly, the scoring system before even the setup. Points are scored for having a run of 1-2-3, a straight of 0-1-2-3-10, at least one card from each terrain type, and for the printed value on the cards. It is more than simply collecting all the favorite cards or even highest value 10 cards. So there is strategy in collecting the best assortment of creatures for scoring purposes, which is great because otherwise this game is not really a game at all.
As players play their hunters to draft creatures, I have found that many players choose to chase the same cards over and over. It becomes obvious that most players will be vying for the value 10 cards, so the players who figure this out and grab the second best card is usually happier with the hand. Of course, more strategy is employed once the special cards are played, as they each mess with opponents in different ways. So even though I may not have acquired that 10 of Forest, I might grab the Turnado and switch out a value 0 or -10 card for that sparkling value 10. Wait, negative 10? Yep. Sometimes life just smacks you around and you get stuck with a -10 card to really punish your great play. Not that it ever happened to me, and not that I would be bitter about it.
The real game hinges on the usage of the special cards. When do you play them? Whom do you target? Turnabout is fair play, after all, and no alliances can be formed whilst playing Hunters of the Lost Creatures. Now, it is hinted at in the rulebook that preview copies ship with entry-level rules, which mean (to me) that more advanced rules may be coming in the final game, or at least some variants to spice up the gameplay. If true, then this game becomes much more interesting to me. Don’t get me wrong. I have enjoyed almost all of my plays, but be warned that playing with spiteful gamers may end poorly for a fun-filled game night.
All in all, I am excited to see how the campaign for Hunters of the Lost Creatures fares, as I believe many gamers and non-gamers alike will enjoy it. I would be super jazzed to grab a final copy if it does in fact ship with alternate or advanced rules, or if the creatures of the same value had unique names and art. That would really satisfy. Keep the bag or go traditional cardboard box, it matters not to me. Just beef up the card quality, add even more uniqueness and fanciful art and you’ve got a fan in me. Grab your copy during the Kickstarter campaign launching May 10, 2022!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Operation Avalanche (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
You’ve heard me say it before. I’ll say it again. Before this year is out, I’ll say it in perhaps another article. The ‘found footage genre’ of movies was played out in perhaps its most notable appearance as well as its debut in the original ‘Blair Witch Project’. Now they’re gearing-up for another round of ‘beating a dead horse’ with a remake would you believe? However, I’m not here writing this article to go on and on and plague your eyes with an entire article complaining about the issue. No. Why you ask? For the unique reason which is since I’ve been writing reviews for movies, ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ has given me the good fortune to screen movies incorporating said genre that present ORIGINAL ideas. Today’s film for your consideration does so in the form of a unique period piece incorporating one of the most notorious conspiracy theories in the world with a pivotal moment in history. Not just in American history but global history.
July 20th, 1969. Less than 10 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis in the midst of the Cold War the great ‘space race’ between the two world superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States, is on. NASA astronauts Michael Collins, Buzz Aldrin, and Neil Armstrong journey to the moon aboard the Apollo 11 spacecraft where Neil Armstrong becomes the first human being in history to set foot on the moon. That’s what the history books say. However, almost immediately after the crew of Apollo 11 returned to Earth there were many individuals on both sides who claimed not only was it not possible to land human beings safely on the moon and return them to Earth, but that NASA had faked the entire event in conjunction with other organizations and agencies within the American intelligence and military communities. This is where the basis for today’s film originates.
‘Operation Avalanche’ is an American-Canadian found footage/conspiracy thriller film directed by Matt Johnson who also starred in and co-wrote the film with Josh Boles. The film also stars Owen Williams, Jared Raab, Andrew Appelle, Madeleine Sims-Fewer, Krista Madison, Tom Bolton, and Sharon Belle. The film begins in 1967. The Central Intelligence Agency suspects that a Soviet mole has infiltrated NASA and is providing the Russians with information on American rocket technology. Four employees of the CIA are sent in undercover as a documentary film crew to determine if the agency’s suspicions are true and to determine the mole’s identity. Instead, what the discover sends shockwaves through the agency’s upper echelons and could potentially lead to a Soviet victory in the space race and bring to light one of the biggest conspiracies imaginable.
This movie is a brilliantly conceived and executed piece of film making. It not only includes historical news footage from the event, but combines it with a bit of guerrilla film-making. The film was shot in Toronto, Washington DC, and Houston, Texas. They were able to shoot on site at NASA by claiming they were shooting a documentary which was not entirely untrue. Essential they sort of broke the ‘fourth wall’ three times. The characters in the film were documentary film makers going undercover to shoot a documentary under the guise of a documentary film crew. The attention to detail from the locations, to the music, to the people themselves (how they looked, talked, and dressed) was something that one would imagine would’ve taken a larger budget. These folks pulled it off brilliantly essentially creating a period piece within the film. You get a genuine sense that the characters are who they act like they are in the particular time and place. Four CIA operatives looking to move up in the agency by moving themselves into place to be assigned to an undercover operation with low risk to themselves with the slight possibility of danger but then get caught up in a secret far bigger than anything they originally anticipated. The senses are heightened, the pace increases, and the conspiracy begins to unfold. The film is most definitely worth checking out. It kinda slows down a bit too much at certain points but all in all an excellent film. I’m going to give it 3 1/2 out of 5 stars. It’s certainly what I’d like to call a ‘thinking persons movie’. If you’re a fan of history, conspiracy theory, or both this film is certainly worth watching.
July 20th, 1969. Less than 10 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis in the midst of the Cold War the great ‘space race’ between the two world superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States, is on. NASA astronauts Michael Collins, Buzz Aldrin, and Neil Armstrong journey to the moon aboard the Apollo 11 spacecraft where Neil Armstrong becomes the first human being in history to set foot on the moon. That’s what the history books say. However, almost immediately after the crew of Apollo 11 returned to Earth there were many individuals on both sides who claimed not only was it not possible to land human beings safely on the moon and return them to Earth, but that NASA had faked the entire event in conjunction with other organizations and agencies within the American intelligence and military communities. This is where the basis for today’s film originates.
‘Operation Avalanche’ is an American-Canadian found footage/conspiracy thriller film directed by Matt Johnson who also starred in and co-wrote the film with Josh Boles. The film also stars Owen Williams, Jared Raab, Andrew Appelle, Madeleine Sims-Fewer, Krista Madison, Tom Bolton, and Sharon Belle. The film begins in 1967. The Central Intelligence Agency suspects that a Soviet mole has infiltrated NASA and is providing the Russians with information on American rocket technology. Four employees of the CIA are sent in undercover as a documentary film crew to determine if the agency’s suspicions are true and to determine the mole’s identity. Instead, what the discover sends shockwaves through the agency’s upper echelons and could potentially lead to a Soviet victory in the space race and bring to light one of the biggest conspiracies imaginable.
This movie is a brilliantly conceived and executed piece of film making. It not only includes historical news footage from the event, but combines it with a bit of guerrilla film-making. The film was shot in Toronto, Washington DC, and Houston, Texas. They were able to shoot on site at NASA by claiming they were shooting a documentary which was not entirely untrue. Essential they sort of broke the ‘fourth wall’ three times. The characters in the film were documentary film makers going undercover to shoot a documentary under the guise of a documentary film crew. The attention to detail from the locations, to the music, to the people themselves (how they looked, talked, and dressed) was something that one would imagine would’ve taken a larger budget. These folks pulled it off brilliantly essentially creating a period piece within the film. You get a genuine sense that the characters are who they act like they are in the particular time and place. Four CIA operatives looking to move up in the agency by moving themselves into place to be assigned to an undercover operation with low risk to themselves with the slight possibility of danger but then get caught up in a secret far bigger than anything they originally anticipated. The senses are heightened, the pace increases, and the conspiracy begins to unfold. The film is most definitely worth checking out. It kinda slows down a bit too much at certain points but all in all an excellent film. I’m going to give it 3 1/2 out of 5 stars. It’s certainly what I’d like to call a ‘thinking persons movie’. If you’re a fan of history, conspiracy theory, or both this film is certainly worth watching.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Not buggering it up.
As Doctor Who repeatedly points out, time is most definitely a tricksy thing. As I think I’ve commented on before, the events of 1940-45 are not in my lifetime but were sufficiently fresh to my parents that they were still actively talked about… so they still appear “current” to me. But I find it astonishing to realize that to a teen viewer this film is equivalent in timeframe to the sinking of the Titanic! #ancienthistory! So I suspect your connection to this film will be strongly affected by your age, and that was definitely reflected in the average age at my showing which must have been at least 60.
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated The Other Boleyn Girl in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Going into <b>The Other Boleyn Girl</b> I already knew that the historical details weren't very factual, but I had this laying around and needed something both light and set in the past, so I figured this would do nicely. The writing itself is perfectly fine, and mostly, I did enjoy the book. Although, for the first half, it seemed as if everyone only wore red and by the end I got so sick of hearing about Anne's "B" for Boleyn necklace I could scream.
Mary Boleyn, the narrator, is a strange character: sympathetic and of reasonable intelligence one minute, a moronic irritant the next. Personality-wise she went up and down and back and forth. First she was fine not being the King's favorite anymore and seeming to want to leave the court life for the country to be with her children, then she was jealous of a title Anne received, years after the affair between Mary and Henry was over. Possibly this was put in as part of the rivalry between the sisters, but it didn't contextually fit. Her development could have used more work and she didn't mature or change much throughout the whole book, especially between the years 1522 to 1533. I seriously got tired of everybody's patronizing and calling her a fool all the time. They should have just named the book, <b>The Foolish Boleyn Girl</b>. I find it hard to believe Mary was so ignorant the king would have continued to have her as mistress for four years, give or take. She had to offer something other than good looks and being great in the bedroom. Anne herself sure was a piece of work, and even though she was pretty much evil throughout the book, I did still feel sorry for her at the end. Jane Parker was a one-dimensional malicious harpy who wasn't given a reason why she was that way; she was just the resident baddy to the Boleyns. To me, it felt like defamation of character.
Politics and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church were merely mentioned in passing as court life and its primary players took center stage. The whole incest plot, I could have done without. Now if it were the absolute truth then it'd be okay, but since it's highly debatable and based on hearsay, I found it unnecessary and gratuitous. Around the two-thirds mark, the pace let up and it became more sluggish and boring, and it wasn't until the last sixty pages that it recaptured my attention again.
As long as readers know going into this book that the history has been twisted around and invented for pure sensation, then it's fine as a fictional read, but take any "facts" with a grain of salt. While it was an okay read, I didn't love it, but it managed to divert my attention for a few days.
One last note dealing with the fourth question in the Q&A with Philippa Gregory in the back of the book:
<blockquote>How about Mary and Anne's brother, George? Did he really sleep with his sister so that she could give Henry a son?
<i>Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way--she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.</i></blockquote>
Obvious? How in the world is that obvious? You cannot be serious, Ms. Gregory. Now I'm far from an expert in Tudor England, but I cannot imagine that being a common practice. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this time could tell me if that ever happened, because it just boggles my mind that George would be the "<i>obvious choice</i>." Not to mention, who the hell did Anne supposedly kill? I hadn't heard that anywhere. Even my searches are coming up blank.
Mary Boleyn, the narrator, is a strange character: sympathetic and of reasonable intelligence one minute, a moronic irritant the next. Personality-wise she went up and down and back and forth. First she was fine not being the King's favorite anymore and seeming to want to leave the court life for the country to be with her children, then she was jealous of a title Anne received, years after the affair between Mary and Henry was over. Possibly this was put in as part of the rivalry between the sisters, but it didn't contextually fit. Her development could have used more work and she didn't mature or change much throughout the whole book, especially between the years 1522 to 1533. I seriously got tired of everybody's patronizing and calling her a fool all the time. They should have just named the book, <b>The Foolish Boleyn Girl</b>. I find it hard to believe Mary was so ignorant the king would have continued to have her as mistress for four years, give or take. She had to offer something other than good looks and being great in the bedroom. Anne herself sure was a piece of work, and even though she was pretty much evil throughout the book, I did still feel sorry for her at the end. Jane Parker was a one-dimensional malicious harpy who wasn't given a reason why she was that way; she was just the resident baddy to the Boleyns. To me, it felt like defamation of character.
Politics and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church were merely mentioned in passing as court life and its primary players took center stage. The whole incest plot, I could have done without. Now if it were the absolute truth then it'd be okay, but since it's highly debatable and based on hearsay, I found it unnecessary and gratuitous. Around the two-thirds mark, the pace let up and it became more sluggish and boring, and it wasn't until the last sixty pages that it recaptured my attention again.
As long as readers know going into this book that the history has been twisted around and invented for pure sensation, then it's fine as a fictional read, but take any "facts" with a grain of salt. While it was an okay read, I didn't love it, but it managed to divert my attention for a few days.
One last note dealing with the fourth question in the Q&A with Philippa Gregory in the back of the book:
<blockquote>How about Mary and Anne's brother, George? Did he really sleep with his sister so that she could give Henry a son?
<i>Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way--she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.</i></blockquote>
Obvious? How in the world is that obvious? You cannot be serious, Ms. Gregory. Now I'm far from an expert in Tudor England, but I cannot imagine that being a common practice. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this time could tell me if that ever happened, because it just boggles my mind that George would be the "<i>obvious choice</i>." Not to mention, who the hell did Anne supposedly kill? I hadn't heard that anywhere. Even my searches are coming up blank.