Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated A Clockwork Orange (1971) in Movies
Jun 15, 2019
Alex DeLarge (Malcolm McDowell) is your average eighteen year old boy...if by average, you mean he fully embraces the old ultraviolence and wanders the streets with his three droogs causing havoc and doing whatever he likes; skipping school, breaking and entering, rape, and assault is just another average day in Alex's life. However, when a planned rape turns into an "accidental" murder, things start to turn fowl for Alex. His droogs turn on him and he winds up being caught by the police. He is then taken to a correctional facility where he spends the next few years, puts on the front that he's fully embraced the bible and that he's now a changed man. But when word makes round of the experimental Ludovico treatment, Alex realizes his chance at freedom and jumps through the proper hoops to get out of the penitentiary he finds himself in and get into the experimental facility where he can be "cured."
Alex is promised that he'll be a free man within a fortnight. The treatment consists of a drug known as Serum 114 being injected into the patient before making them sit through short films such as a man being beaten to a pulp, a woman being the sexual victim of several men, and a Nazi concentration camp film set to the soundtrack of Beethoven's ninth symphony. Alex begins to feel sick during the films and the doctors insist that it's part of the cure. Alex's love for music and Beethoven in general become one of the adverse effects of the treatment as the ninth symphony has the same effect on Alex as the urge to beat or rape someone would. Alex soon comes to realize that you can never go home again and that being a free man isn't all it's cracked up to be, especially after a treatment such as this.
It took 37 years after its initial theatrical release and 24 years of being alive on this planet (the original viewing of this film was in 2008) to finally get around to seeing A Clockwork Orange. The film starts and it makes the viewer feel like they've missed something entirely that everyone else already knows about, but as the film unravels it snowballs into a unique vision of cinema. There are shades of Altered States in A Clockwork Orange, but A Clockwork Orange feels much more polarizing in its presentation in comparison. Stanley Kubrick tries to shine this spotlight of beauty onto the most heinous of actions as the film’s classical score becomes the soundtrack to ferocious and almost inhuman desires. This is Kubrick’s adaptation of the 1962 novel of the same name written by Anthony Burgess and it’s incredible how the film is able to remain captivating over a two hour period.
The film has a stunning restoration on the two-disc Blu-ray anniversary edition. Kubrick always had a brilliant eye when it came to perspective and camera placement; the majority of that could be contributed to Kubrick’s frequent collaborations with cinematographer John Alcott. The long hallway shots and close-ups on memorably haunting facial expressions are some of the most significant scenes in the film. A Clockwork Orange is loaded with vibrant colors that make every frame jump off the screen despite the film nearing half a century in age. This was the first film to take advantage of Dolby Digital surround sound, which contributes to the film sounding as good as it does.
Even with Stanley Kubrick as director, A Clockwork Orange wouldn’t be the same without Malcolm McDowell. McDowell fits the Alex DeLarge role as perfectly as Robert Downey Jr fits Tony Stark; these actors are these characters. The speeches McDowell gives in the film along with how traumatized he is after the treatment process are two of the biggest takeaways after viewing the film. This was one of McDowell’s first on-screen roles, which is surprising given how enthralling he is. You will never think of, “Singin’ in the Rain,” the same way again after viewing A Clockwork Orange.
A Clockwork Orange is a unique expedition into insanity no matter how you look at it. The dialogue is unusual and the characters are this fantastic blend of bizarre and diabolical, but the film is consistently engrossing and never seems to lag. Prior to 1986, the A Clockwork Orange novel was published in the US without its final chapter and that’s the version of the film Kubrick adapted. Anthony Burgess praised Kubrick’s version of the film despite this, which is more than what Stephen King did with Kubrick’s adaptation of The Shining. Every shot in A Clockwork Orange grabs your attention largely in part to how it’s presented or the colors that leap off the screen. The novel is written in a way that’s difficult to read and that often translates on-screen. Like most of Kubrick’s work, A Clockwork Orange is for a specific audience. It is perhaps what Malcolm McDowell is known best for and probably shouldn’t be recommended to just anyone since it would likely soar over a modern day moviegoer. This isn’t the type of film to have on in the background while you text or play games on your phone. Ultraviolence is something you have to embrace and give your undivided attention to.
This is viewed by some as one of the greatest sci-fi films ever by some, but it isn’t any less pretentious than the rest of Stanley Kubrick’s work. A Clockwork Orange is mesmerizing with a performance from Malcolm McDowell that leaves a long lasting impact, but its affinity to utilize difficult to decipher jargon, nonstop innuendo being slammed into your face, and overuse of animalistic violence shackles the film from being more appealing to a wider audience. From a personal standpoint, A Clockwork Orange is one of Kubrick's best but it's easy to understand why it wouldn't be for everyone.
Alex is promised that he'll be a free man within a fortnight. The treatment consists of a drug known as Serum 114 being injected into the patient before making them sit through short films such as a man being beaten to a pulp, a woman being the sexual victim of several men, and a Nazi concentration camp film set to the soundtrack of Beethoven's ninth symphony. Alex begins to feel sick during the films and the doctors insist that it's part of the cure. Alex's love for music and Beethoven in general become one of the adverse effects of the treatment as the ninth symphony has the same effect on Alex as the urge to beat or rape someone would. Alex soon comes to realize that you can never go home again and that being a free man isn't all it's cracked up to be, especially after a treatment such as this.
It took 37 years after its initial theatrical release and 24 years of being alive on this planet (the original viewing of this film was in 2008) to finally get around to seeing A Clockwork Orange. The film starts and it makes the viewer feel like they've missed something entirely that everyone else already knows about, but as the film unravels it snowballs into a unique vision of cinema. There are shades of Altered States in A Clockwork Orange, but A Clockwork Orange feels much more polarizing in its presentation in comparison. Stanley Kubrick tries to shine this spotlight of beauty onto the most heinous of actions as the film’s classical score becomes the soundtrack to ferocious and almost inhuman desires. This is Kubrick’s adaptation of the 1962 novel of the same name written by Anthony Burgess and it’s incredible how the film is able to remain captivating over a two hour period.
The film has a stunning restoration on the two-disc Blu-ray anniversary edition. Kubrick always had a brilliant eye when it came to perspective and camera placement; the majority of that could be contributed to Kubrick’s frequent collaborations with cinematographer John Alcott. The long hallway shots and close-ups on memorably haunting facial expressions are some of the most significant scenes in the film. A Clockwork Orange is loaded with vibrant colors that make every frame jump off the screen despite the film nearing half a century in age. This was the first film to take advantage of Dolby Digital surround sound, which contributes to the film sounding as good as it does.
Even with Stanley Kubrick as director, A Clockwork Orange wouldn’t be the same without Malcolm McDowell. McDowell fits the Alex DeLarge role as perfectly as Robert Downey Jr fits Tony Stark; these actors are these characters. The speeches McDowell gives in the film along with how traumatized he is after the treatment process are two of the biggest takeaways after viewing the film. This was one of McDowell’s first on-screen roles, which is surprising given how enthralling he is. You will never think of, “Singin’ in the Rain,” the same way again after viewing A Clockwork Orange.
A Clockwork Orange is a unique expedition into insanity no matter how you look at it. The dialogue is unusual and the characters are this fantastic blend of bizarre and diabolical, but the film is consistently engrossing and never seems to lag. Prior to 1986, the A Clockwork Orange novel was published in the US without its final chapter and that’s the version of the film Kubrick adapted. Anthony Burgess praised Kubrick’s version of the film despite this, which is more than what Stephen King did with Kubrick’s adaptation of The Shining. Every shot in A Clockwork Orange grabs your attention largely in part to how it’s presented or the colors that leap off the screen. The novel is written in a way that’s difficult to read and that often translates on-screen. Like most of Kubrick’s work, A Clockwork Orange is for a specific audience. It is perhaps what Malcolm McDowell is known best for and probably shouldn’t be recommended to just anyone since it would likely soar over a modern day moviegoer. This isn’t the type of film to have on in the background while you text or play games on your phone. Ultraviolence is something you have to embrace and give your undivided attention to.
This is viewed by some as one of the greatest sci-fi films ever by some, but it isn’t any less pretentious than the rest of Stanley Kubrick’s work. A Clockwork Orange is mesmerizing with a performance from Malcolm McDowell that leaves a long lasting impact, but its affinity to utilize difficult to decipher jargon, nonstop innuendo being slammed into your face, and overuse of animalistic violence shackles the film from being more appealing to a wider audience. From a personal standpoint, A Clockwork Orange is one of Kubrick's best but it's easy to understand why it wouldn't be for everyone.
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated A Black Theology of Liberation in Books
Jun 29, 2018
James Cone is considered to be the founder of Black Liberation Theology, a variant of the Liberation Theology movement most widely connected with South American theologian Gustavo Gutierrez. Liberation Theology emphasizes those biblical concerns that white European flavored Christianity has often looked over– concerns like justice and liberation for the oppressed and downtrodden (Luke 4:16-21, Matthew 25:31-45, etc.). Though these emphases are quite important, in Liberation movements, they can often drown out other, extremely vital, elements of the Christian faith, as they clearly do in Cone’s Black Liberation Theology.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb in Books
Apr 13, 2019
"The crime itself was indefensible. The brilliant, spoiled and bored sons of two of Chicago's wealthiest families planned to commit the perfect crime both for the thrill of and to prove their perverse misunderstanding of Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy of the 'superman,' who was above all law so long as he made no mistake. Their plan, worked out over several months, was to kidnap and immediately kill one of their younger neighbors and hide his body. They would then demand and collect a ransom. The body would never be discovered, the crime would never be solved and only they would know that they had prevailed over ordinary human beings and their simple-minded legal system. But far from being the 'perfect crime,' the murder of 14-year-old Bobby Franks turned out to be amateurishly botched. Before any ransom could be paid, the boy's body was discovered in a culvert near where Nathan Leopold often went bird-watching. A pair of telltale glasses were found adjacent to the body. They were easily traced to Leopold who first came up with a paper-thin alibi and soon thereafter confessed to the crime. His fellow murderer likewise confessed. Each of the 'superboys' placed blame for the actual killing on the other." - Alan M. Dershowitz
If you mentioned the names Leopold and Loeb today, many people wouldn't know who you were talking about, but if you had mentioned them just thirty years ago, many people would recall the 'murder of the century.'
If you are a fan of the True Crime genre, you'll come across the case of two wealthy Chicago boys who thought they could get away with murder. (The trial is probably the most talked about trial to-date because this is the first time that psychology was brought before a court room.)
For a good part of the late 1920's, Leopold and Loeb were household names for good reason: they came from millionaire families, they were college graduates before they were 18-years-old, and their trial was the first time in history that the world saw psychology put in front of a judge. The trial was even more unforgettable due to a closing speech given by famous defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, which is reprinted in its entirety,spanning a hefty 93 pages.
Nathan Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb were two people who should have never met, according to the courtroom. The two met at about the age of fifteen, soon after they began to embark on criminal acts together, ranging from theft to arson. It's stated in 'the Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' that Loeb had created a fantasy world where he was a crime ringleader that was too smart for the police to catch. Readers get to judge for themselves whether or not they believe Loeb was the cause of their crimes, or if Leopold was the one really in charge.
After robbing Loeb's fraternity house together, Leopold and Loeb came up with a plan to kidnap a wealthy child that they could then ransom. "They began to devise elaborate plans for this kidnapping, and soon the planning became the all-important thing. They gave up the idea of kidnapping this particular person [a young man named William], and settled on the idea of kidnapping anyone who would fit in their kidnapping plans." Throughout the book, we find out that the boys were pretty desperate for a kidnapping victim, that they even thought about kidnapping one of their close friends:
"The plan of kidnaping Dick Rubel was given up because Dick Rubel's father was so tight we might not get any money from him."
Leopold and Loeb discussed everything from how they would receive the ransom, what weapons they would use, how they would get the victim inside a rented vehicle, and what they would do with the body afterwards. "In March, 1924, the patient [Loeb] conceived the idea of securing the money by having it thrown off a moving train. This idea was discussed in great detail, and gradually developed into a carefully systematized plan. As time wore on the plan became greatly modified from the original one. They discussed at considerable length the choice of a suitable subject for kidnapping. The patient's companion [Leopold] suggested that they kidnap a young girl instead of a boy, but the patient [Loeb] objected to this. His companion [Leopold] also suggested that they kidnap the patient's [Loeb] younger brother, but the patient apparently did not seriously consider doing this. They then considered half a dozen boys, any one of whom would do, for the following reasons: that they were physically small enough to be easily handled and their parents were extremely wealthy and would have no difficulty or disinclination to pay ransom money."
During the trial, Leopold and Loeb's psychological evaluations became the forefront of their guilty plea, stating that they were not responsible for their actions due to their upbringing and environment. "I submit the facts do not rest on the evidence of these boys alone. It is proven by the writings; it is proven by every act. It is proven by their companions, and there can by no question about it." Clarence Darrow explains in his famous closing statement. "We brought into this courtroom a number of their boy friends, whom they had known day by day, who had associated with them in the club house, were their constant companions, and they tell the same stories. They tell the story that neither of these two boys was responsible for his conduct."
'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' contains the portions of the psychiatric evaluations that were submitted in court,but the testimony of character witnesses is omitted. For a factual telling of a real life trial, this book is okay. If the reader pays attention, they may notice that some of the book contradicts itself, such as one page states that the car robe used to wrap up Franks' body was found buried near Lake Michigan,but then pages later, the book states it had been burned at Loeb's home.
The psychiatric reports are very repetitive,just using different words to describe the same things. Yet, these reports are the backbone of the trial and well worth a read. The evaluations and Darrow's extensive speech were what saved Leopold and Loeb from a death sentence.
There are very few books written about the 'murder of the century,' and even less about the 'lawyer of the century.' Leopold and Loeb, as well as Darrow, have faded into the obscurity of the True Crime genre, but because the boys' mental state was brought into question, we now accept forensic science/psychology in the court room today. I feel that only people who are truly interested in True Crime, or even have a fascination for the court room are the only ones who will enjoy 'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb.'
If you mentioned the names Leopold and Loeb today, many people wouldn't know who you were talking about, but if you had mentioned them just thirty years ago, many people would recall the 'murder of the century.'
If you are a fan of the True Crime genre, you'll come across the case of two wealthy Chicago boys who thought they could get away with murder. (The trial is probably the most talked about trial to-date because this is the first time that psychology was brought before a court room.)
For a good part of the late 1920's, Leopold and Loeb were household names for good reason: they came from millionaire families, they were college graduates before they were 18-years-old, and their trial was the first time in history that the world saw psychology put in front of a judge. The trial was even more unforgettable due to a closing speech given by famous defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, which is reprinted in its entirety,spanning a hefty 93 pages.
Nathan Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb were two people who should have never met, according to the courtroom. The two met at about the age of fifteen, soon after they began to embark on criminal acts together, ranging from theft to arson. It's stated in 'the Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' that Loeb had created a fantasy world where he was a crime ringleader that was too smart for the police to catch. Readers get to judge for themselves whether or not they believe Loeb was the cause of their crimes, or if Leopold was the one really in charge.
After robbing Loeb's fraternity house together, Leopold and Loeb came up with a plan to kidnap a wealthy child that they could then ransom. "They began to devise elaborate plans for this kidnapping, and soon the planning became the all-important thing. They gave up the idea of kidnapping this particular person [a young man named William], and settled on the idea of kidnapping anyone who would fit in their kidnapping plans." Throughout the book, we find out that the boys were pretty desperate for a kidnapping victim, that they even thought about kidnapping one of their close friends:
"The plan of kidnaping Dick Rubel was given up because Dick Rubel's father was so tight we might not get any money from him."
Leopold and Loeb discussed everything from how they would receive the ransom, what weapons they would use, how they would get the victim inside a rented vehicle, and what they would do with the body afterwards. "In March, 1924, the patient [Loeb] conceived the idea of securing the money by having it thrown off a moving train. This idea was discussed in great detail, and gradually developed into a carefully systematized plan. As time wore on the plan became greatly modified from the original one. They discussed at considerable length the choice of a suitable subject for kidnapping. The patient's companion [Leopold] suggested that they kidnap a young girl instead of a boy, but the patient [Loeb] objected to this. His companion [Leopold] also suggested that they kidnap the patient's [Loeb] younger brother, but the patient apparently did not seriously consider doing this. They then considered half a dozen boys, any one of whom would do, for the following reasons: that they were physically small enough to be easily handled and their parents were extremely wealthy and would have no difficulty or disinclination to pay ransom money."
During the trial, Leopold and Loeb's psychological evaluations became the forefront of their guilty plea, stating that they were not responsible for their actions due to their upbringing and environment. "I submit the facts do not rest on the evidence of these boys alone. It is proven by the writings; it is proven by every act. It is proven by their companions, and there can by no question about it." Clarence Darrow explains in his famous closing statement. "We brought into this courtroom a number of their boy friends, whom they had known day by day, who had associated with them in the club house, were their constant companions, and they tell the same stories. They tell the story that neither of these two boys was responsible for his conduct."
'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' contains the portions of the psychiatric evaluations that were submitted in court,but the testimony of character witnesses is omitted. For a factual telling of a real life trial, this book is okay. If the reader pays attention, they may notice that some of the book contradicts itself, such as one page states that the car robe used to wrap up Franks' body was found buried near Lake Michigan,but then pages later, the book states it had been burned at Loeb's home.
The psychiatric reports are very repetitive,just using different words to describe the same things. Yet, these reports are the backbone of the trial and well worth a read. The evaluations and Darrow's extensive speech were what saved Leopold and Loeb from a death sentence.
There are very few books written about the 'murder of the century,' and even less about the 'lawyer of the century.' Leopold and Loeb, as well as Darrow, have faded into the obscurity of the True Crime genre, but because the boys' mental state was brought into question, we now accept forensic science/psychology in the court room today. I feel that only people who are truly interested in True Crime, or even have a fascination for the court room are the only ones who will enjoy 'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb.'
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
Apr 29, 2019
It has "all the feels"
***There will be NO SPOILERS in this review***
AVENGERS: ENDGAME is an emotionally and artistically satisfying conclusion to 11 years and 22 films of the MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE.
Closing out "Phase III" in the MCU, the concluding chapter for most of the "original" MCU characters/actors, ENDGAME picks up the Avengers story right after the conclusion of AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR - a film which saw our heroes lose the battle to Thanos, who snapped his fingers and half the living beings in the Universe vanished.
Instead of downplaying the grief that a survivor would feel, Directors Joe and Anthony Russo (veterans of many MCU films) wisely decide to "lean into" this grief which gives this film something that is surprising for a SuperHero film - emotional resonance. You grieve with these characters that you have come to know - and love - and share their pain and sorrow.
It's a wise choice for it adds a layer to this film that many Superhero films fail to achieve. Along with action, fun characters that you want to root for, interesting visuals and (are you listening DC?) - HUMOR, this film has "all the feels" (to steal a phrase) and will leave the MCU fan (both hardcore and casual) satisfied with the experience.
Also...interestingly enough...this film stands on it's own quite well. The guy next to me in the theater was a "newbie" to the MCU, dragged to the theater with his friends to be "part of the crowd" in this experience. Over the first 5 minutes he was asking his buddy a million questions about who is who and what is what...but after that he just settled into his chair and enjoyed the ride for what it is - even jumping up and cheering at a spot late in the film where EVERYONE in the sold out IMAX showing I was in was tempted to jump out of their chair and cheer (yes - there is THAT kind of moment in this film).
There is also sorrow...loss...joy...relief...tension...excitement...as I said..."all the feels". I don't usually tear up at movies, but I felt some glistening in the corners of my eyes and a lump in my throat on more than 1 occasion - sometimes with sadness, but, sometimes, with joy and exuberance. Yes! I had tears of JOY jumping out of my eyes at a few moments in this film.
But, if it is Special Effects spectacle you are looking for - no worries. There are PLENTY including a finale that is worthy of being the Final Battle in the Final Film for this Phase of the series.
And...the humor...this film has a surprisingly large amount of light, happy moments as well. I give the Russo Brothers - and the MCU - credit for realizing that humor is a good counterbalance to sorrow, action and suspense. I also give them credit for what character they decided to use as the "comic relief" in this film. It's a good choice - and the performer tapped to play the humor is equal to the task.
But, of course, none of this matters if the characters aren't interesting enough to root for - and this film has it in spades. We've watched these characters grow, develop, bond and tear apart over the course of these past 11 years, so there is quite a bit of emotional investment in the characters - and this investment pays of handsomely (again...if you are a "casual" fan or a "newbie", you'll be fine). But...if you are like me and are "into" the MCU then there is payoff after payoff in this film that is extremely satisfying.
The actors in ENDGAME are, of course, at the top of their game. They know they are capping a special moment in their careers and they "bring it". Starting, of course, with Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man. His character goes through a wide variety of emotions through the course of this film and - if this is his last MCU film - he's going out in style. As is Chris Evans as Steve Rogers/Captain America. These two are at the heart of this film - and at the heart of the MCU - and they take center stage with aplomb, tweaking their characters while respecting all that came before. To be honest, I never really bought into the Iron Man vs. Captain America "Civil War" storyline, but they tie that up nicely.
Of course the other 4 "Original 6 Avengers" - Chris Hemsworth's THOR, Scarlett Johansson's BLACK WIDOW, Mark Ruffalo's BRUCE BANNER and Jeremy Renner's CLINT/HAWKEYE/RONIN - are on hand and they all have their moments and take their bows as appropriate throughout. I also have to give some "props" to Don Cheadle's James "Rhodey" Rhodes/WAR MACHINE - kind of an unsung performer in these films and is a welcome sight who would have been missed had he not been there.
The other "survivors of the snap" - Bradley Cooper's ROCKET RACOON, Karen Gillan's NEBULA and Paul Rudd's SCOTT LANG/ANT MAN - fit in with the "original" Avengers quite well. This group of 10 is fun to watch. Add to them Brie Larson's CAPTAIN MARVEL to mix the drink and the concoction was intoxicating to me. A small "quibble" and I do mean a "quibble" - Danai Gurira and her character OKOYE is underutlized/underused for my tastes, but...that is just a "quibble".
Oh...and James Brolin is back as "big bad" Thanos - a worthy adversary, both emotionally, intellectually and physically for this group of SuperHero's to outwit/outlast/outplay.
Finally...without giving away any plot points...this story figured out a way to reflect on/pay homage to previous films in this Universe. It was a clever way to bring back stories/characters/moments from the past and to give some of these performers and moments a nice "cameo" curtain call.
I better stop now before I give away plot points - needless to say I LOVED THIS FILM - it was a very satisfying way to say "thank you and goodbye" to 11 years (and 22 films) of marvelous film making.
I'm looking forward to what the next 11 years in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has to offer - the bar has been set at the highest level.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
AVENGERS: ENDGAME is an emotionally and artistically satisfying conclusion to 11 years and 22 films of the MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE.
Closing out "Phase III" in the MCU, the concluding chapter for most of the "original" MCU characters/actors, ENDGAME picks up the Avengers story right after the conclusion of AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR - a film which saw our heroes lose the battle to Thanos, who snapped his fingers and half the living beings in the Universe vanished.
Instead of downplaying the grief that a survivor would feel, Directors Joe and Anthony Russo (veterans of many MCU films) wisely decide to "lean into" this grief which gives this film something that is surprising for a SuperHero film - emotional resonance. You grieve with these characters that you have come to know - and love - and share their pain and sorrow.
It's a wise choice for it adds a layer to this film that many Superhero films fail to achieve. Along with action, fun characters that you want to root for, interesting visuals and (are you listening DC?) - HUMOR, this film has "all the feels" (to steal a phrase) and will leave the MCU fan (both hardcore and casual) satisfied with the experience.
Also...interestingly enough...this film stands on it's own quite well. The guy next to me in the theater was a "newbie" to the MCU, dragged to the theater with his friends to be "part of the crowd" in this experience. Over the first 5 minutes he was asking his buddy a million questions about who is who and what is what...but after that he just settled into his chair and enjoyed the ride for what it is - even jumping up and cheering at a spot late in the film where EVERYONE in the sold out IMAX showing I was in was tempted to jump out of their chair and cheer (yes - there is THAT kind of moment in this film).
There is also sorrow...loss...joy...relief...tension...excitement...as I said..."all the feels". I don't usually tear up at movies, but I felt some glistening in the corners of my eyes and a lump in my throat on more than 1 occasion - sometimes with sadness, but, sometimes, with joy and exuberance. Yes! I had tears of JOY jumping out of my eyes at a few moments in this film.
But, if it is Special Effects spectacle you are looking for - no worries. There are PLENTY including a finale that is worthy of being the Final Battle in the Final Film for this Phase of the series.
And...the humor...this film has a surprisingly large amount of light, happy moments as well. I give the Russo Brothers - and the MCU - credit for realizing that humor is a good counterbalance to sorrow, action and suspense. I also give them credit for what character they decided to use as the "comic relief" in this film. It's a good choice - and the performer tapped to play the humor is equal to the task.
But, of course, none of this matters if the characters aren't interesting enough to root for - and this film has it in spades. We've watched these characters grow, develop, bond and tear apart over the course of these past 11 years, so there is quite a bit of emotional investment in the characters - and this investment pays of handsomely (again...if you are a "casual" fan or a "newbie", you'll be fine). But...if you are like me and are "into" the MCU then there is payoff after payoff in this film that is extremely satisfying.
The actors in ENDGAME are, of course, at the top of their game. They know they are capping a special moment in their careers and they "bring it". Starting, of course, with Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man. His character goes through a wide variety of emotions through the course of this film and - if this is his last MCU film - he's going out in style. As is Chris Evans as Steve Rogers/Captain America. These two are at the heart of this film - and at the heart of the MCU - and they take center stage with aplomb, tweaking their characters while respecting all that came before. To be honest, I never really bought into the Iron Man vs. Captain America "Civil War" storyline, but they tie that up nicely.
Of course the other 4 "Original 6 Avengers" - Chris Hemsworth's THOR, Scarlett Johansson's BLACK WIDOW, Mark Ruffalo's BRUCE BANNER and Jeremy Renner's CLINT/HAWKEYE/RONIN - are on hand and they all have their moments and take their bows as appropriate throughout. I also have to give some "props" to Don Cheadle's James "Rhodey" Rhodes/WAR MACHINE - kind of an unsung performer in these films and is a welcome sight who would have been missed had he not been there.
The other "survivors of the snap" - Bradley Cooper's ROCKET RACOON, Karen Gillan's NEBULA and Paul Rudd's SCOTT LANG/ANT MAN - fit in with the "original" Avengers quite well. This group of 10 is fun to watch. Add to them Brie Larson's CAPTAIN MARVEL to mix the drink and the concoction was intoxicating to me. A small "quibble" and I do mean a "quibble" - Danai Gurira and her character OKOYE is underutlized/underused for my tastes, but...that is just a "quibble".
Oh...and James Brolin is back as "big bad" Thanos - a worthy adversary, both emotionally, intellectually and physically for this group of SuperHero's to outwit/outlast/outplay.
Finally...without giving away any plot points...this story figured out a way to reflect on/pay homage to previous films in this Universe. It was a clever way to bring back stories/characters/moments from the past and to give some of these performers and moments a nice "cameo" curtain call.
I better stop now before I give away plot points - needless to say I LOVED THIS FILM - it was a very satisfying way to say "thank you and goodbye" to 11 years (and 22 films) of marvelous film making.
I'm looking forward to what the next 11 years in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has to offer - the bar has been set at the highest level.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Matt Geiger (15 KP) rated Da 5 Bloods (2020) in Movies
Jun 27, 2020
Da 5 Bloods: Spike Lee Asks Us "What's Going On?"
Spike Lee could not have possibly known that current events and major progresses made in the Black Lives Matter movement would more than likely affect the way audiences perceive Da 5 Bloods, but it’s these developments that, for all of the film’s flaws, imbue it with a sense of urgency befitting of Lee’s filmmaking talents and the beliefs that his filmography has been expounding for decades. In the process of expressing such powerful statements, Lee, in turn, provides a long-overdue voice for the African American experience in the Vietnam War, a conflict that has been portrayed in popular film for about as long as it has been over, and yet strangely, has not been properly balanced in its representation of those who made up the largest percentage of those who served in it.
Continuing Lee’s trend of fusing the past and present together to show that things are definitely still yet to change, Da 5 Bloods finds four African American veterans returning to Vietnam to search for the remains of their commanding officer, “Stormin’” Norman (Chadwick Boseman), and the stash of gold that they found and collectively buried, gold that was initially offered to the indigenous Southern Vietnamese by the CIA as payment for their support of US troops, but taken by the “Bloods” as compensation for their needless sacrifices for a country that has never given them the treatment they deserve despite the fact that they played a pivotal role in helping to make it what it is today. The ultimate goal is nothing that hasn’t been depicted before, but the controversy of the Vietnam War and the experience of combat and violence spills over into today; some of the film’s most striking messages are effectively relayed through a handful of very committed performances from the well-casted ensemble, with Delroy Lindo serving as the beating emotional heart of the film. It’s a career-defining showcase for Lindo, who, as the PTSD-stricken Trump supporter Paul, carries the most weight on his shoulders. He wrestles with personal demons and survivor’s guilt for more than half of his life because of the choices he made during his time in the service, time he and the other Bloods couldn’t avoid because, unlike the privileged white men of America, they were not given the same opportunities to dodge the draft. The disenfranchisement and aimlessness that Lindo merely alludes to through his heart-wrenching performance provides the foundation for the complicated relationship Paul shares with his estranged son, David (Jonathan Majors in the film’s other award-worthy performance), who tags along for the ride in an effort to heal old wounds and bury a deeply-lodged hatchet.
The natural chemistry Lindo shares with the other Bloods (Clarke Peters, Norm Lewis, and Isiah Whitlock, Jr.) is palpable in both the past and present, which blend into one as the screen slides from one aspect ratio to another, shifting from flashbacks of one wartorn world to the present day, in which we find ourselves fighting a different, yet altogether similar kind of war. That these changes in aspect ratios never appear as visually perceived cuts is simply another one of the ways in which Spike Lee seamlessly reminds us that then and now are cut from the same cloth, complete with the same heart-wrenching tragedies that give way to the camaraderie that is necessary to ensure that the proper names get written back into history where they belong. How the four vets are visually represented in their recollections of their commander, which are stripped of the psychedelic imagery associated with previous Vietnam War films in order to cut deeper into understanding what the Bloods’ place in Vietnam is supposed to mean (if it means anything at all), further adds to Lee’s ability to find the haunting parallels between the two time periods that comprise the film.
Spike Lee gets at so many unique and timely concepts that seem perfectly applicable to what’s going on in the world, but where he stumbles is how he goes about explicating these ideas. As a storyteller, Lee is at his best when his narratives gradually develop at a reasonably decisive pace until the tension is fully amplified by the story’s climactic boiling point, at which point there’s no turning back. Such was the nature of Do the Right Thing and, more recently, BlacKkKlansman. The same cannot entirely be said for Da 5 Bloods, which struggles to find a consistent pace and tone during its first act, in which it tries to introduce all of the central ideas at once, along with some unnecessary side stories that carry little to no weight in comparison to the central task and are ultimately resolved in schmaltzy, unsatisfying ways. Moreover, while investment in the film can be maintained throughout, too often is this investment reinforced by the unnecessary moments that serve as detriments to the sequences of dramatic consequence and just might take you out of the story, causing you to restart your investment. Every act has at least one of these moments, with the final result unfortunately falling short of the expectations of some of the genres that are molded into the Bloods’ journey through the Vietnamese jungle. The overtly patriotic and quite distracting score from Terence Blanchard (regardless of whether or not its inclusion was intended as irony) does not help the matter, with many of the best scenes occurring either in silence or alongside the soulful tracks of Marvin Gaye’s What’s Going On album.
Even when Spike Lee stumbles in the execution of his argument, what ultimately matters is the argument itself; while the film begins and ends rather heavy-handedly, telling the viewer things they are bound to already know and incorporating footage that doesn’t need to be there for the point to get across, the sacrifices that Lee chooses to detail and their ramifications for the state of our country to today give the film a degree of value at a time like this, and he is the only director who could bring these issues to the forefront in such an entertaining way. It may not be as good or accessible as his best work, but the calls to action that he has long been affiliated with echo through jungles and cities in equal measure.
What did you guys think of Da 5 Bloods? Agree? Disagree?
Continuing Lee’s trend of fusing the past and present together to show that things are definitely still yet to change, Da 5 Bloods finds four African American veterans returning to Vietnam to search for the remains of their commanding officer, “Stormin’” Norman (Chadwick Boseman), and the stash of gold that they found and collectively buried, gold that was initially offered to the indigenous Southern Vietnamese by the CIA as payment for their support of US troops, but taken by the “Bloods” as compensation for their needless sacrifices for a country that has never given them the treatment they deserve despite the fact that they played a pivotal role in helping to make it what it is today. The ultimate goal is nothing that hasn’t been depicted before, but the controversy of the Vietnam War and the experience of combat and violence spills over into today; some of the film’s most striking messages are effectively relayed through a handful of very committed performances from the well-casted ensemble, with Delroy Lindo serving as the beating emotional heart of the film. It’s a career-defining showcase for Lindo, who, as the PTSD-stricken Trump supporter Paul, carries the most weight on his shoulders. He wrestles with personal demons and survivor’s guilt for more than half of his life because of the choices he made during his time in the service, time he and the other Bloods couldn’t avoid because, unlike the privileged white men of America, they were not given the same opportunities to dodge the draft. The disenfranchisement and aimlessness that Lindo merely alludes to through his heart-wrenching performance provides the foundation for the complicated relationship Paul shares with his estranged son, David (Jonathan Majors in the film’s other award-worthy performance), who tags along for the ride in an effort to heal old wounds and bury a deeply-lodged hatchet.
The natural chemistry Lindo shares with the other Bloods (Clarke Peters, Norm Lewis, and Isiah Whitlock, Jr.) is palpable in both the past and present, which blend into one as the screen slides from one aspect ratio to another, shifting from flashbacks of one wartorn world to the present day, in which we find ourselves fighting a different, yet altogether similar kind of war. That these changes in aspect ratios never appear as visually perceived cuts is simply another one of the ways in which Spike Lee seamlessly reminds us that then and now are cut from the same cloth, complete with the same heart-wrenching tragedies that give way to the camaraderie that is necessary to ensure that the proper names get written back into history where they belong. How the four vets are visually represented in their recollections of their commander, which are stripped of the psychedelic imagery associated with previous Vietnam War films in order to cut deeper into understanding what the Bloods’ place in Vietnam is supposed to mean (if it means anything at all), further adds to Lee’s ability to find the haunting parallels between the two time periods that comprise the film.
Spike Lee gets at so many unique and timely concepts that seem perfectly applicable to what’s going on in the world, but where he stumbles is how he goes about explicating these ideas. As a storyteller, Lee is at his best when his narratives gradually develop at a reasonably decisive pace until the tension is fully amplified by the story’s climactic boiling point, at which point there’s no turning back. Such was the nature of Do the Right Thing and, more recently, BlacKkKlansman. The same cannot entirely be said for Da 5 Bloods, which struggles to find a consistent pace and tone during its first act, in which it tries to introduce all of the central ideas at once, along with some unnecessary side stories that carry little to no weight in comparison to the central task and are ultimately resolved in schmaltzy, unsatisfying ways. Moreover, while investment in the film can be maintained throughout, too often is this investment reinforced by the unnecessary moments that serve as detriments to the sequences of dramatic consequence and just might take you out of the story, causing you to restart your investment. Every act has at least one of these moments, with the final result unfortunately falling short of the expectations of some of the genres that are molded into the Bloods’ journey through the Vietnamese jungle. The overtly patriotic and quite distracting score from Terence Blanchard (regardless of whether or not its inclusion was intended as irony) does not help the matter, with many of the best scenes occurring either in silence or alongside the soulful tracks of Marvin Gaye’s What’s Going On album.
Even when Spike Lee stumbles in the execution of his argument, what ultimately matters is the argument itself; while the film begins and ends rather heavy-handedly, telling the viewer things they are bound to already know and incorporating footage that doesn’t need to be there for the point to get across, the sacrifices that Lee chooses to detail and their ramifications for the state of our country to today give the film a degree of value at a time like this, and he is the only director who could bring these issues to the forefront in such an entertaining way. It may not be as good or accessible as his best work, but the calls to action that he has long been affiliated with echo through jungles and cities in equal measure.
What did you guys think of Da 5 Bloods? Agree? Disagree?
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Marvel United in Tabletop Games
Sep 1, 2021
This has probably been mentioned before, but I love Marvel superheroes. My favorite has got to be Spider-Man, hands down. Feel free to send me an email if you’d like to hear my thoughts on who is the best Spider-Man – Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield, or Tom Holland. I’m getting off topic here… Anyway – when I saw the massive Kickstarter campaign for Marvel United, I knew it was going to be big. Admittedly, I didn’t join in on the campaign (teacher salaries, amiright?), but I did snag a copy of the base game post-campaign. Does the game live up to my expectations? Or does it fall flat, like a DC movie? (OOOOOOH BURN)
Disclaimer: This review encompasses only the base game of Marvel United. There are a number of expansions, but they will not be addressed in this review. -L
Marvel United is a cooperative game in which players take on the roles of various Marvel superheroes tasked with stopping the main Villain from completing their Villainous Plot. Follow the setup instructions detailed in the rulebook, selecting a Villain with whom to battle, 6 random Locations, and whichever Heroes you decide to use to fight the big bad. Place Threat cards, Civilians, and Thugs on the various Locations as indicated, and place the Villain and Heroes as described in the rules. Shuffle the Master Plan deck and respective Hero decks, and each player draws a hand of 3 cards. Choose a Hero as the ‘starting’ Hero, and the game is now ready to begin!
Over a series of turns, players will be resolving Villain effects and playing Hero cards to perform actions. The game always begins with a Villain turn, and the first step is to reveal a Master Plan card, adding it to the Storyline (table). Master Plan cards have different effects to be resolved – move the Villain to a new Location, BAM! effects (usually attacking Heroes or advancing their Villainous Plot towards victory), and adding Civilians/Thugs to surrounding Locations. Once all effects on the Master Plan card are dealt with, the game moves to a Hero turn. During a Hero turn, the player will perform 4 steps: Draw a card, Play a Card, Resolve Actions, and Location Effects. To start, the player will draw a card from their Hero deck and add it to their hand. They then select a card from their hand to play, adding it to the end of the Storyline.
Looking at the symbols at the bottom of their played card, the Hero will now resolve their actions. Actions could be Movement (to an adjacent Location), Attack (Thugs/Henchmen or the Villain in their current Location), Heroic Actions (rescuing Civilians or working to clear the Threat on their current Location), or Wild (any of the previous actions). During this step, a cool twist comes into play – after all, the game is called Marvel United, right? When a Hero plays a card, they resolve the symbols on the bottom of their card AND the symbols on the bottom of the previously played Hero card! This simulates the various Heroes uniting their efforts to take down the Villain! So when selecting your card, be sure to check out the last card to see if you can create a sweet chain of actions for maximum benefit. The final step is to use Location effects, if applicable. Location effects are only available after the Threat to the Location has been cleared, and allows the player to perform special actions (draw extra cards, move to other Locations, etc.). If you end your turn on a Location that has been cleared, you may use its ability if you so choose.
In order to defeat the Villain, the Heroes must complete Missions. The 3 Missions in each game are to Rescue Civilians, Defeat Thugs, and Clear Threats. So with their actions on their turns, Heroes will be working to complete these Missions, moving them closer to victory. The turn sequence of the game is unique as well – the Villain will take a turn after every 3rd Hero turn, not opposite every single Hero. Keep that in mind as you decide which card to play when! The game essentially continues in this fashion (with a few extra effects) until either the Heroes win or they lose. Heroes win if they defeat the Villain! The Villain is defeated when at least 2 Missions are completed, and the Villain has been sufficiently damaged by Attacks. Heroes lose if the Villain completes their Villainous Plot, the deck of Master Plan cards has run out, or if any Hero starts their turn with no cards left to play. The Heroes either win together or lose together.
So I know that kind of sounds like a lot, but I promise that once you get playing, the game flows really well and is pretty intuitive. Marvel United can basically be broken down into 2 steps: Villain turn and Hero turn. All you are doing is playing cards and resolving actions to complete your goals. One of the coolest things about this gameplay is the fact that on your turn you resolve not only your played card, but also the previously played Hero card as well. It does a good job emulating the Heroes working together, and adds a strategic element to the overall gameplay. Maybe you wanted to play a certain card, but based on the last Hero card, you should play this one to benefit the group the most. Players really are all working together to defeat the Villain, instead of each playing their own Hero and going in for the fight one-on-one.
Another neat aspect of the game is the inclusion of the Missions. Heroes are not allowed to directly attack the Villain until at least 2 Missions have been completed. This ups the gameplay because it stops players from just going straight for the Villain from the start, not taking anything else into account. In ‘real life,’ Heroes are also concerned with saving Civilians and neutralizing threats, so the Mission requirement makes the gameplay feel more authentic. Well, as authentic as a superhero game can feel…. The variability of Locations and the random setup of Threats each game means that you likely won’t play the same game twice. Add in expansions too and you’ve got even more scenarios. With different Hero choices, you get to try out different combinations and find out which Heroes really work well together. The gameplay itself may be simple (draw cards, play cards, resolve cards) but the variety of Heroes, Villains, Locations, Threats, etc. keeps it engaging and entertaining.
As for components, I only have positive things to say. The Villain/Hero minis are chunky and cute, the artwork is all colorful and fun to look at, and the cardboard tokens are thick and crisp. All the symbolism in the game is clear, and the text is legible and easy to comprehend. One thing to consider is that this game can be a bit of a table hog if you let it. So just be prepared for a bit of a bigger footprint with this one. Overall, great production quality of the base game, and from what I’ve seen of the expansions, those are top notch as well.
Don’t let the cutesy artwork fool you – Marvel United isn’t an easy game by any means. It takes a decent amount of strategy to be successful, and it does really take a team effort. You stay engaged in the gameplay right up until the very end, and it’s more involved than you would think for being a lighter game. I am also a big fan of Marvel Legendary, and I have to say that this gives me those vibes, but in a more simplified and streamlined way. I’m not sure I would go as far as to call Marvel United “Marvel Legendary Jr.,” but it’s also not entirely a bad idea….. Overall though, I really liked Marvel United way more than I first anticipated. It’s light, yet strategic, and has some unique elements that keep you on your toes. I can’t wait to get my hands on some of the expansions to see how I can mix and match and create even more awesome scenarios! Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a heroic 16 / 18.
Disclaimer: This review encompasses only the base game of Marvel United. There are a number of expansions, but they will not be addressed in this review. -L
Marvel United is a cooperative game in which players take on the roles of various Marvel superheroes tasked with stopping the main Villain from completing their Villainous Plot. Follow the setup instructions detailed in the rulebook, selecting a Villain with whom to battle, 6 random Locations, and whichever Heroes you decide to use to fight the big bad. Place Threat cards, Civilians, and Thugs on the various Locations as indicated, and place the Villain and Heroes as described in the rules. Shuffle the Master Plan deck and respective Hero decks, and each player draws a hand of 3 cards. Choose a Hero as the ‘starting’ Hero, and the game is now ready to begin!
Over a series of turns, players will be resolving Villain effects and playing Hero cards to perform actions. The game always begins with a Villain turn, and the first step is to reveal a Master Plan card, adding it to the Storyline (table). Master Plan cards have different effects to be resolved – move the Villain to a new Location, BAM! effects (usually attacking Heroes or advancing their Villainous Plot towards victory), and adding Civilians/Thugs to surrounding Locations. Once all effects on the Master Plan card are dealt with, the game moves to a Hero turn. During a Hero turn, the player will perform 4 steps: Draw a card, Play a Card, Resolve Actions, and Location Effects. To start, the player will draw a card from their Hero deck and add it to their hand. They then select a card from their hand to play, adding it to the end of the Storyline.
Looking at the symbols at the bottom of their played card, the Hero will now resolve their actions. Actions could be Movement (to an adjacent Location), Attack (Thugs/Henchmen or the Villain in their current Location), Heroic Actions (rescuing Civilians or working to clear the Threat on their current Location), or Wild (any of the previous actions). During this step, a cool twist comes into play – after all, the game is called Marvel United, right? When a Hero plays a card, they resolve the symbols on the bottom of their card AND the symbols on the bottom of the previously played Hero card! This simulates the various Heroes uniting their efforts to take down the Villain! So when selecting your card, be sure to check out the last card to see if you can create a sweet chain of actions for maximum benefit. The final step is to use Location effects, if applicable. Location effects are only available after the Threat to the Location has been cleared, and allows the player to perform special actions (draw extra cards, move to other Locations, etc.). If you end your turn on a Location that has been cleared, you may use its ability if you so choose.
In order to defeat the Villain, the Heroes must complete Missions. The 3 Missions in each game are to Rescue Civilians, Defeat Thugs, and Clear Threats. So with their actions on their turns, Heroes will be working to complete these Missions, moving them closer to victory. The turn sequence of the game is unique as well – the Villain will take a turn after every 3rd Hero turn, not opposite every single Hero. Keep that in mind as you decide which card to play when! The game essentially continues in this fashion (with a few extra effects) until either the Heroes win or they lose. Heroes win if they defeat the Villain! The Villain is defeated when at least 2 Missions are completed, and the Villain has been sufficiently damaged by Attacks. Heroes lose if the Villain completes their Villainous Plot, the deck of Master Plan cards has run out, or if any Hero starts their turn with no cards left to play. The Heroes either win together or lose together.
So I know that kind of sounds like a lot, but I promise that once you get playing, the game flows really well and is pretty intuitive. Marvel United can basically be broken down into 2 steps: Villain turn and Hero turn. All you are doing is playing cards and resolving actions to complete your goals. One of the coolest things about this gameplay is the fact that on your turn you resolve not only your played card, but also the previously played Hero card as well. It does a good job emulating the Heroes working together, and adds a strategic element to the overall gameplay. Maybe you wanted to play a certain card, but based on the last Hero card, you should play this one to benefit the group the most. Players really are all working together to defeat the Villain, instead of each playing their own Hero and going in for the fight one-on-one.
Another neat aspect of the game is the inclusion of the Missions. Heroes are not allowed to directly attack the Villain until at least 2 Missions have been completed. This ups the gameplay because it stops players from just going straight for the Villain from the start, not taking anything else into account. In ‘real life,’ Heroes are also concerned with saving Civilians and neutralizing threats, so the Mission requirement makes the gameplay feel more authentic. Well, as authentic as a superhero game can feel…. The variability of Locations and the random setup of Threats each game means that you likely won’t play the same game twice. Add in expansions too and you’ve got even more scenarios. With different Hero choices, you get to try out different combinations and find out which Heroes really work well together. The gameplay itself may be simple (draw cards, play cards, resolve cards) but the variety of Heroes, Villains, Locations, Threats, etc. keeps it engaging and entertaining.
As for components, I only have positive things to say. The Villain/Hero minis are chunky and cute, the artwork is all colorful and fun to look at, and the cardboard tokens are thick and crisp. All the symbolism in the game is clear, and the text is legible and easy to comprehend. One thing to consider is that this game can be a bit of a table hog if you let it. So just be prepared for a bit of a bigger footprint with this one. Overall, great production quality of the base game, and from what I’ve seen of the expansions, those are top notch as well.
Don’t let the cutesy artwork fool you – Marvel United isn’t an easy game by any means. It takes a decent amount of strategy to be successful, and it does really take a team effort. You stay engaged in the gameplay right up until the very end, and it’s more involved than you would think for being a lighter game. I am also a big fan of Marvel Legendary, and I have to say that this gives me those vibes, but in a more simplified and streamlined way. I’m not sure I would go as far as to call Marvel United “Marvel Legendary Jr.,” but it’s also not entirely a bad idea….. Overall though, I really liked Marvel United way more than I first anticipated. It’s light, yet strategic, and has some unique elements that keep you on your toes. I can’t wait to get my hands on some of the expansions to see how I can mix and match and create even more awesome scenarios! Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a heroic 16 / 18.
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Ending The Game
Contains spoilers, click to show
Avengers: Endgame - the concluding installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's 'Infinity Saga', has made box office history, breaking a number of records on its' journey (thus far) of becoming the second highest grossing movie ever in a short period of time. Bringing together the story threads of 21 films before it 'Endgame' had a number of hurdles to overcome - not only did the Russo Brothers have to find a satisfying way to reverse the effects of 'The Decimation' (if you have to ask then you're probably reading the wrong review!) but they had to do so in a way that did not lessen the impact of 'Infinity War', whilst bringing to a close a number of character arcs for many well respected and founding members of Marvel's flagship superhero team and setting the course and direction for whatever comes next.
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!