Search
Search results
Comix Zone Classic
Games, Entertainment and Stickers
App
Enter the Comix Zone, in SEGA's classic arcade-style beat 'em up, now available on mobile for the...
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Tolkien (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
An Unexpectedly Dull Journey
Tolkien is a 2019 biographical/drama movie directed by Dome Karukoski and written by David Gleeson and Stephen Beresford. It's produced by Fox Searchlight Pictures and Chernin Entertainment and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The film stars Nicholas Hoult, Lily Collins, Colm Meaney, and Derek Jacobi.
As a young boy living in the countryside, J.R.R. Tolkien, learns multiple languages and how to read and write with his younger brother as they are taught by their mother. They are forced to move to the city so their mother can better provide for them when unfortunate events have them taken in by the Church and and stay at a boarding house. This is where, as a young student at King Edward's School, among a group of fellow outcasts, he finds friendship, love, and artistic inspiration. But his friends and their new brotherhood must endure the ups and downs of his position in society, his relationship with the love of his life Edith Bratt and later the outbreak of World War I.
I was really excited for this movie and having my hopes up and expectations might be the reason I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. For one I don't normally watch autobiographies but I have seen more that I liked in comparison to this film. I guess I thought they would show more about him coming up with the ideas for his books, which they showed very little of. Instead it was about the important events of his life which I guess is what biographies should do. For some reason though I felt like the storytelling dragged and it didn't do enough to keep you interested, very lackluster. I found that the story, acting, and dialogue were all well done but the movie suffered from the direction they went with and how they chose to show it. One thing I really liked was there were several instances where you could see what influenced him when he wrote the Lord of The Rings" books. It's an entertaining film with flair and ambition that teems with on the nose moments but is hindered by the usual biopic framework. I believe the quote from Rotten Tomatoes says it best, "Tolkien Has the period trappings and strong performances of a worthy biopic, but lacks the imagination required to truly do it's subject justice". I give it a 6/10.
As a young boy living in the countryside, J.R.R. Tolkien, learns multiple languages and how to read and write with his younger brother as they are taught by their mother. They are forced to move to the city so their mother can better provide for them when unfortunate events have them taken in by the Church and and stay at a boarding house. This is where, as a young student at King Edward's School, among a group of fellow outcasts, he finds friendship, love, and artistic inspiration. But his friends and their new brotherhood must endure the ups and downs of his position in society, his relationship with the love of his life Edith Bratt and later the outbreak of World War I.
I was really excited for this movie and having my hopes up and expectations might be the reason I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. For one I don't normally watch autobiographies but I have seen more that I liked in comparison to this film. I guess I thought they would show more about him coming up with the ideas for his books, which they showed very little of. Instead it was about the important events of his life which I guess is what biographies should do. For some reason though I felt like the storytelling dragged and it didn't do enough to keep you interested, very lackluster. I found that the story, acting, and dialogue were all well done but the movie suffered from the direction they went with and how they chose to show it. One thing I really liked was there were several instances where you could see what influenced him when he wrote the Lord of The Rings" books. It's an entertaining film with flair and ambition that teems with on the nose moments but is hindered by the usual biopic framework. I believe the quote from Rotten Tomatoes says it best, "Tolkien Has the period trappings and strong performances of a worthy biopic, but lacks the imagination required to truly do it's subject justice". I give it a 6/10.
Henry David Thoreau: A Life
Book
Walden. Yesterday I came here to live. That entry from the journal of Henry David Thoreau, and the...
LOUISE HAY AFFIRMATION MEDITATIONS: ESSENTIAL AFFIRMATIONS FOR HEALTH, LOVE, SUCCESS & SELF-ESTEEM
Lifestyle and Health & Fitness
App
Unleash your full potential for love, health, success and self-esteem with this revolutionary new...
Sri Rama Lila Ramayana
Podcast
This is the story of the Lord’s descent on earth as Rama, the seventh incarnation of Lord Vishnu,...
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Super Size Me (2004) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020
Look, no shit eating at McDonald's for 30 days straight with bare minimum activity is unhealthy - but this is still one of the most fun documentaries ever made and it's not like that's the only ace-in-the-hole this has anyway. Holds up even after three watches, Spurlock's nonchalant, breezy energy towards making himself a human test subject for such a ludicrous experiment in and of itself is entertaining. But couple that with his goofy gravitas and cavalcade of hilarity then this just becomes even more of a blast to watch. Undeniably this was instrumental in shaping the fast food world of today, but contrary to popular belief this is also still very informative with a lot of those type of facts that just make you disappointed in the human race. And even though so much has changed since then that this should theoretically be obsolete, it isn't - because not only does much of this still unfortunately hold true to this day, but it's beyond interesting as a time capsule of a time that seems like forever ago even though it was just in recent history, one that you can consistently compare to today's take on the subject. The blend between fast food hit piece and McDonald's diet journey is immaculate, and as with even the weakest of Spurlock docs it's clear that a chief goal here is to just create a movie that you can have a really good, memorable, and unique time watching. We watched this for health class in seventh grade and - to be frank - we were all a bunch of juvenile little shit-heads so this would have sated our appetitive for celebratory immaturity on its own; but then the teacher let us basically commentate on the movie *as* we watched it and that was one of the greatest school days I've ever had. Forever one of my favorites.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Arctic Scavengers in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
One of the best parts of the board gaming experience is finding a fun group of people with whom to play! Sometimes, though, coordinating a game night is easier said than done. We all must occasionally forego the group experience and face the world as the Lonely Only. But fear not! The world of solo-play is a vast and exciting realm! What follows is a chronicle of my journey into the solo-playing world – notes on gameplay, mechanics, rules, difficulty, and overall experience with solo variations of commonly multiplayer games! I hope this will provide some insight as you continue to grow your collection, or explore your already owned games!
Welcome to the Ice Age. No, not the animated movie. I’m talking about the real deal. Arctic Scavengers is set in a post-apocalyptic ice age where the cold is deadly and the resources are scarce. Any surviving humans have banded together to form ‘tribes’ that are competing for dominance in this frigid tundra. Can you and your tribe outwit your competitors to become the most powerful group? Or will a bigger and more menacing tribe overpower you and jeopardize your survival?
Disclaimer: The solo variant is only addressed in the Recon Expansion rules. There IS another expansion – HQ – but I have not used that content in my solo plays. This review only encompasses the Base Game and Recon Expansion.
Arctic Scavengers is a deck-building game where players are recruiting mercenaries to their tribes, searching for general resources, and battling other tribes for contested resources. Each turn has two main phases – Resource Gathering and Skirmish. During Resource Gathering, you play cards from your hand to either recruit new mercenaries or search the junkyard for general resources. Any remaining cards in your hand are then used during the Skirmish phase – where the player with the highest ‘fight’ value wins the contested resource for that round. At the end of the game, the player with the biggest tribe wins!
The solo variant has some minor differences, but is played essentially the same way. In a solo game, the contested resource cards are divided into 7 skirmishes to be encountered throughout the game. You can decide when to engage in a skirmish – it is not a requirement to encounter one each turn. After each skirmish, you either win and earn a contested resource, or lose and must permanently discard a card from your losing hand. The game ends when all 7 skirmishes have been encountered. The other difference is that each time you have to re-shuffle your discard pile, you must permanently remove the top card of your new deck from the game. Beyond those changes, the game remains the same. At the end of the game, all cards in your tribe are worth certain numbers of points – the goal is to beat your own personal best score.
In theory, this game sounds super cool! But when I actually got to play it solo, I was seriously underwhelmed. The game feels stagnant in the sense that there is no tension or urgency in your strategy. Since YOU get to decide when to engage in a skirmish, it is possible to just while away the time building up your deck until you have enough cards to beat every skirmish. Yes, you permanently discard a card each time you re-shuffle your discard pile, but if you are able to recruit one or two new cards each turn, it negates the penalty of discarding a card. The ability to choose when to engage in skirmishes is seriously over-powered because there is nothing stopping you from ignoring skirmishes and amassing cards for end-game scoring.
The other grievance I have with the game is regarding the Junkyard – the deck of cards where you ‘search’ for resources. The solo rules do not explicitly address setting up the Junkyard deck at all. So do you use one or not? Not having the Junkyard deck can be a serious hinderance – certain mercenaries cannot be recruited without certain resources. If you DO play with the Junkyard, how many cards do you use? Do you use the corresponding cards from the Base game and BOTH expansions? Only Base game and one expansion? Again, not explicitly addressed. I’ve tried using all of the Junkyard cards and that is difficult – there are just too many cards in that deck. I have gone entire games without coming across a necessary resource just because the size of the deck is too large (and I’m apparently a poor card-shuffler). The simple solution to this ambiguity would have been to just address it in the rulebook. But it’s not there, so I’m left guessing as to how I should set it up every time.
I really like the idea of this game. I really don’t like the solo variant though. Not having forced skirmishes makes the game extremely boring for me – I don’t really need a strategy since I can just recruit cards until I can draw a powerful hand. If there was a timeline for skirmishes – maybe something like “You must encounter one skirmish every other turn” – the game would be vastly different. I would actually need to strategize what cards to recruit and how I should delegate my cards on turns with a skirmish. In most games, I will reach a certain point where I choose to encounter a skirmish (that I know I will lose) just because I am starting to get bored. I appreciate the sentiment of including a solo variant, but this one just does not work.
Arctic Scavengers requires decent strategy and it offers good player interaction in group games. In a solo game, however, it is just imbalanced and boring. This is one solo variant that I would not recommend that you try, unless you are including drastic house rules.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/06/solo-chronicles-arctic-scavengers/
Welcome to the Ice Age. No, not the animated movie. I’m talking about the real deal. Arctic Scavengers is set in a post-apocalyptic ice age where the cold is deadly and the resources are scarce. Any surviving humans have banded together to form ‘tribes’ that are competing for dominance in this frigid tundra. Can you and your tribe outwit your competitors to become the most powerful group? Or will a bigger and more menacing tribe overpower you and jeopardize your survival?
Disclaimer: The solo variant is only addressed in the Recon Expansion rules. There IS another expansion – HQ – but I have not used that content in my solo plays. This review only encompasses the Base Game and Recon Expansion.
Arctic Scavengers is a deck-building game where players are recruiting mercenaries to their tribes, searching for general resources, and battling other tribes for contested resources. Each turn has two main phases – Resource Gathering and Skirmish. During Resource Gathering, you play cards from your hand to either recruit new mercenaries or search the junkyard for general resources. Any remaining cards in your hand are then used during the Skirmish phase – where the player with the highest ‘fight’ value wins the contested resource for that round. At the end of the game, the player with the biggest tribe wins!
The solo variant has some minor differences, but is played essentially the same way. In a solo game, the contested resource cards are divided into 7 skirmishes to be encountered throughout the game. You can decide when to engage in a skirmish – it is not a requirement to encounter one each turn. After each skirmish, you either win and earn a contested resource, or lose and must permanently discard a card from your losing hand. The game ends when all 7 skirmishes have been encountered. The other difference is that each time you have to re-shuffle your discard pile, you must permanently remove the top card of your new deck from the game. Beyond those changes, the game remains the same. At the end of the game, all cards in your tribe are worth certain numbers of points – the goal is to beat your own personal best score.
In theory, this game sounds super cool! But when I actually got to play it solo, I was seriously underwhelmed. The game feels stagnant in the sense that there is no tension or urgency in your strategy. Since YOU get to decide when to engage in a skirmish, it is possible to just while away the time building up your deck until you have enough cards to beat every skirmish. Yes, you permanently discard a card each time you re-shuffle your discard pile, but if you are able to recruit one or two new cards each turn, it negates the penalty of discarding a card. The ability to choose when to engage in skirmishes is seriously over-powered because there is nothing stopping you from ignoring skirmishes and amassing cards for end-game scoring.
The other grievance I have with the game is regarding the Junkyard – the deck of cards where you ‘search’ for resources. The solo rules do not explicitly address setting up the Junkyard deck at all. So do you use one or not? Not having the Junkyard deck can be a serious hinderance – certain mercenaries cannot be recruited without certain resources. If you DO play with the Junkyard, how many cards do you use? Do you use the corresponding cards from the Base game and BOTH expansions? Only Base game and one expansion? Again, not explicitly addressed. I’ve tried using all of the Junkyard cards and that is difficult – there are just too many cards in that deck. I have gone entire games without coming across a necessary resource just because the size of the deck is too large (and I’m apparently a poor card-shuffler). The simple solution to this ambiguity would have been to just address it in the rulebook. But it’s not there, so I’m left guessing as to how I should set it up every time.
I really like the idea of this game. I really don’t like the solo variant though. Not having forced skirmishes makes the game extremely boring for me – I don’t really need a strategy since I can just recruit cards until I can draw a powerful hand. If there was a timeline for skirmishes – maybe something like “You must encounter one skirmish every other turn” – the game would be vastly different. I would actually need to strategize what cards to recruit and how I should delegate my cards on turns with a skirmish. In most games, I will reach a certain point where I choose to encounter a skirmish (that I know I will lose) just because I am starting to get bored. I appreciate the sentiment of including a solo variant, but this one just does not work.
Arctic Scavengers requires decent strategy and it offers good player interaction in group games. In a solo game, however, it is just imbalanced and boring. This is one solo variant that I would not recommend that you try, unless you are including drastic house rules.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/06/solo-chronicles-arctic-scavengers/
eBiblia La Santa Biblia & Mapas Biblicos Gratis
Lifestyle
App
One of the best applications Bible hope this application change their lives we want to share with...
Lost - Season 1
8.5
Rate It
TV Season Watch
Oceanic Air flight 815 tore apart in mid-air and crashed on a Pacific island, leaving 48 passengers...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
I can’t claim to know much about musicals. I don’t actively avoid them, but I don’t go out of my way to see them either. The few that I have seen and liked don’t seem to sit well with the musical theater crowd either. For instance, recently in conversation my defense of Russell Crowe as Javert in the latest adaptation of Les Misérables was shot down in a matter of seconds. My wife, with some frequency, reminds me that my (until now) secret admiration of Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd is something that should never be declared in a public forum. For me, one of the best achievements in musical film will always be South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut; and though there is a general positivity about it, I’ve never seen it taken all that seriously as a contemporary musical (it was certainly a hell of a lot more memorable than 2003’s Best Picture winner, Chicago). So, if you haven’t already decided my opinion will be moot and stopped reading, I will, with the limited appreciation I have for this genre, give The Greatest Showman the fairest shake I can.
At a surprisingly short hour and forty-five minutes, this high-concept imagining of the meteoric rise of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), from the impoverished son of a tailor to one of the biggest names in the history of entertainment, should absolutely fly by. Tragically, it doesn’t. Beginning with an irresponsibly rushed first act that condenses decades of backstory into a few minutes, it dramatically stops dead between its second and third acts as we’re subjected to three songs in a row that not all that subtly beat us over the head with the inevitably that our leads are going to have to face some predictable, life-changing conflict before the big finale. Showman also suffers from the delusion that period pieces will be more engaging and relatable with a modern-inspired soundtrack, à la Baz Luhrmann’s misguided attempt at The Great Gatsby. The idea being that the music of the time, though antiquated to us now, would have sounded modern to people then, so why not put modern music, whether original or sourced, over period images in an attempt to bridge the gap between their world and ours? It’s a concept that might sound great on paper, but as Luhrmann already proved, the final results don’t so much complement each other as they expose each other’s weaknesses.
Its major flaw though, and why The Greatest Showman fails to be a great anything, is the insistence on force-feeding moments of attempted catharsis every 15-20 minutes, having earned almost none of them. A great many of the numbers are presented as such grand, climactic set pieces that they don’t feel as though they are working to serve a cohesive, larger whole. We are inundated with a blur of crescendo after crescendo and left little time to reflect on what we have just seen and heard before the film clumsily bounds off to the next song-and-dance laden plot point; and if you asked me to name any of the individual tunes now three days later, I’d be hard-pressed to do so. It’s an odd juxtaposition, and one I’ve very rarely experienced, wanting so badly for a film to end and at the same time wishing it had been given more time to fully realize its scope. Keep your ears open as well for an ill-advised line in which Barnum proudly compares himself to Napoleon. Isn’t Barnum supposed to be the “hero” of this piece, someone we are supposed to identify with and for whom we want to find success? Somebody please provide Showman’s writers a history lesson that didn’t just come off a Wikipedia page (for Barnum and Napoleon’s sakes).
With any negative criticism, I do like to try and go out on something positive, and if I have to concede anything to this movie, it’s that it finds its footing, albeit temporarily, while addressing issues of equality. Showman shines in the few moments where the supporting players portraying Barnum’s “oddities”, Keala Settle as Lettie Lutz in particular, are given the opportunity to stand toe-to-toe with the leads and, in many of these scenes, they rise above even the likes of Hugh Jackman. Another member of the cast who merits a little bit of praise (and I reserve the right to retract this at any time of my choosing, more than likely with whatever juvenile comedy he’ll be seen in next) is Zac Efron. Exposure to the likes of Nicole Kidman and John Cusack in 2012’s sadly overlooked The Paperboy, may finally be yielding results as he is the only lead who leaves an impression. Though his journey as a high society playwright begrudgingly brought into Barnum’s world definitely leans heavily on the saccharine side, it does provide a break of plausibility in amongst the unbridled chaos of the rest of the picture. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a much better movie that could have been made from expanding into its own feature the subplot of his character bucking the expectations of his status to fall in love with a circus performer.
At a surprisingly short hour and forty-five minutes, this high-concept imagining of the meteoric rise of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), from the impoverished son of a tailor to one of the biggest names in the history of entertainment, should absolutely fly by. Tragically, it doesn’t. Beginning with an irresponsibly rushed first act that condenses decades of backstory into a few minutes, it dramatically stops dead between its second and third acts as we’re subjected to three songs in a row that not all that subtly beat us over the head with the inevitably that our leads are going to have to face some predictable, life-changing conflict before the big finale. Showman also suffers from the delusion that period pieces will be more engaging and relatable with a modern-inspired soundtrack, à la Baz Luhrmann’s misguided attempt at The Great Gatsby. The idea being that the music of the time, though antiquated to us now, would have sounded modern to people then, so why not put modern music, whether original or sourced, over period images in an attempt to bridge the gap between their world and ours? It’s a concept that might sound great on paper, but as Luhrmann already proved, the final results don’t so much complement each other as they expose each other’s weaknesses.
Its major flaw though, and why The Greatest Showman fails to be a great anything, is the insistence on force-feeding moments of attempted catharsis every 15-20 minutes, having earned almost none of them. A great many of the numbers are presented as such grand, climactic set pieces that they don’t feel as though they are working to serve a cohesive, larger whole. We are inundated with a blur of crescendo after crescendo and left little time to reflect on what we have just seen and heard before the film clumsily bounds off to the next song-and-dance laden plot point; and if you asked me to name any of the individual tunes now three days later, I’d be hard-pressed to do so. It’s an odd juxtaposition, and one I’ve very rarely experienced, wanting so badly for a film to end and at the same time wishing it had been given more time to fully realize its scope. Keep your ears open as well for an ill-advised line in which Barnum proudly compares himself to Napoleon. Isn’t Barnum supposed to be the “hero” of this piece, someone we are supposed to identify with and for whom we want to find success? Somebody please provide Showman’s writers a history lesson that didn’t just come off a Wikipedia page (for Barnum and Napoleon’s sakes).
With any negative criticism, I do like to try and go out on something positive, and if I have to concede anything to this movie, it’s that it finds its footing, albeit temporarily, while addressing issues of equality. Showman shines in the few moments where the supporting players portraying Barnum’s “oddities”, Keala Settle as Lettie Lutz in particular, are given the opportunity to stand toe-to-toe with the leads and, in many of these scenes, they rise above even the likes of Hugh Jackman. Another member of the cast who merits a little bit of praise (and I reserve the right to retract this at any time of my choosing, more than likely with whatever juvenile comedy he’ll be seen in next) is Zac Efron. Exposure to the likes of Nicole Kidman and John Cusack in 2012’s sadly overlooked The Paperboy, may finally be yielding results as he is the only lead who leaves an impression. Though his journey as a high society playwright begrudgingly brought into Barnum’s world definitely leans heavily on the saccharine side, it does provide a break of plausibility in amongst the unbridled chaos of the rest of the picture. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a much better movie that could have been made from expanding into its own feature the subplot of his character bucking the expectations of his status to fall in love with a circus performer.