Search
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Jun 8, 2019
"war is coming to the surface"
Aquaman is absolutely a disciple of the superhero formula we've seen used, reused and recycled over the past couple decades...but its formula done right. There's an inherent lunacy to a hero like Aquaman; his myth is built upon a lost Atlantean culture that's simultaneously advanced technologically and heavily influenced by ancient Greek mythology, and his powers included near-Superman levels of strength and invulnerability existing alongside an ability to communicate with marine life. This makes approaching his story from a gritty, realistic perspective damn near impossible.
Instead Wan and the writers behind Aquaman intelligently focus on world-building and following the tried-and-true "heroic journey"; complete with initial rejection of a prophesied role, slow but steady immersion into said role's culture, recognition of the need for growth and change, and eventual assumption of role. It's been seen before and it'll be seen again. But what propels Aquaman ahead of other films like it is the energy that Wan imbues it with. It's goofy without undermining the sincerity of Arthur's journey. It's fast-paced and simple-minded without sacrificing the weight and universality of this particular hero's myth. It's loud and colorful and *full* of CGI everything without reducing itself to an over-commercialized, artless heap of nothingness.
It's a big-ass blockbuster with personality. Momoa has charisma to spare; he owns the physicality and irreverence of this new imagining of the king of the ocean perfectly. Amber Heard is sexy and badass as Mera; something of a victim of a forced romance but also a compelling and strong protagonist in her own right. Patrick Wilson as Oceanmaster (call me....Oceanmaster) is given enough screen-time to develop that he's more than a punching bag for Aquaman; but actually a character with ambitions and a defined, fleshed-out purpose. The origin segment is tightly done and more than enough to set the stage for what is to come. And probably the strongest aspect of this picture, the costuming and world-building, is off the charts. Similar to the enduring fantasy films that precede this (LOTR, Star Wars, Avatar for a few examples) the undersea kingdoms are a place I want to return to. They aren't just my world dressed up with CGI and the occasional costuming flourish; they're entirely foreign and endlessly inventive. Probably a solid third of the film is simply Aquaman, and the audience, being told about this world and shown it by Mera. While that may not be artistically prestigious strategy for engaging audiences, it entertains and fascinates on a "turn off your brain and look at those pretty colors" sort of way. There's a simple glee in seeing sharks ridden like horses or an octopus pounding a war-time set of drums.
I always offer the disclaimer when writing about nerdy films that I love which is this: I am a nerd. While I wasn't particularly attached to Aquaman growing up; his journey, the nature of this sort of film and the cinematic universe he will be growing into are fundamentally important to me, and I like to embrace that bias rather than keep it in check with reduced ratings or "objective" analysis. Whether it be a giant, confusing and chaotic battle between underwater armies or the horrifying descent into "the trench"; you'll always find me looking up at the screen like a little kid. Or moments like Arthur meeting Mera and confronting is past, or taking upon the role of king while wielding the trident; I just love that sort of stuff. I'm a sucker for these beats and this formula; and all signs point to this continuing. So while I may like it more than most; I'd mostly like to say Aquaman still distinguishes itself as a particularly goofy, sprawling, mythic, and metal experience that deserved to be seen on the big-screen, and to be celebrated as the fantasy film it is. It's a great time, and a nice addition to the DC film franchise.
Instead Wan and the writers behind Aquaman intelligently focus on world-building and following the tried-and-true "heroic journey"; complete with initial rejection of a prophesied role, slow but steady immersion into said role's culture, recognition of the need for growth and change, and eventual assumption of role. It's been seen before and it'll be seen again. But what propels Aquaman ahead of other films like it is the energy that Wan imbues it with. It's goofy without undermining the sincerity of Arthur's journey. It's fast-paced and simple-minded without sacrificing the weight and universality of this particular hero's myth. It's loud and colorful and *full* of CGI everything without reducing itself to an over-commercialized, artless heap of nothingness.
It's a big-ass blockbuster with personality. Momoa has charisma to spare; he owns the physicality and irreverence of this new imagining of the king of the ocean perfectly. Amber Heard is sexy and badass as Mera; something of a victim of a forced romance but also a compelling and strong protagonist in her own right. Patrick Wilson as Oceanmaster (call me....Oceanmaster) is given enough screen-time to develop that he's more than a punching bag for Aquaman; but actually a character with ambitions and a defined, fleshed-out purpose. The origin segment is tightly done and more than enough to set the stage for what is to come. And probably the strongest aspect of this picture, the costuming and world-building, is off the charts. Similar to the enduring fantasy films that precede this (LOTR, Star Wars, Avatar for a few examples) the undersea kingdoms are a place I want to return to. They aren't just my world dressed up with CGI and the occasional costuming flourish; they're entirely foreign and endlessly inventive. Probably a solid third of the film is simply Aquaman, and the audience, being told about this world and shown it by Mera. While that may not be artistically prestigious strategy for engaging audiences, it entertains and fascinates on a "turn off your brain and look at those pretty colors" sort of way. There's a simple glee in seeing sharks ridden like horses or an octopus pounding a war-time set of drums.
I always offer the disclaimer when writing about nerdy films that I love which is this: I am a nerd. While I wasn't particularly attached to Aquaman growing up; his journey, the nature of this sort of film and the cinematic universe he will be growing into are fundamentally important to me, and I like to embrace that bias rather than keep it in check with reduced ratings or "objective" analysis. Whether it be a giant, confusing and chaotic battle between underwater armies or the horrifying descent into "the trench"; you'll always find me looking up at the screen like a little kid. Or moments like Arthur meeting Mera and confronting is past, or taking upon the role of king while wielding the trident; I just love that sort of stuff. I'm a sucker for these beats and this formula; and all signs point to this continuing. So while I may like it more than most; I'd mostly like to say Aquaman still distinguishes itself as a particularly goofy, sprawling, mythic, and metal experience that deserved to be seen on the big-screen, and to be celebrated as the fantasy film it is. It's a great time, and a nice addition to the DC film franchise.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A new franchise is reborn
It seems that the Marvel Cinematic Universe has kicked off a trend over in tinseltown. Shared franchises are all the rage at the moment, and why not. Marvel has taken over $10billion. DC has finally found its footing with Wonder Woman and Legendary are fusing Godzilla with Kong: Skull Island to create their own monster universe.
But for every success story there is a failed series that didn’t quite grab the cinema-going public with The Golden Compass and The Last Airbender immediately springing to mind. Nevertheless, Universal Pictures has pushed ahead with creating its own ‘Dark Universe’. Proceedings kick off with The Mummy. But how does this reboot fare?
Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artefacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner (Jake Johnson) come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella) who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
First-time director and long-time screenwriter Alex Kurtzman crafts a film that moves at breakneck speed, features a lot of nifty set-pieces and is an intriguing precursor to the next instalment of the franchise. It’s pretty good fun to be honest.
Tom Cruise is as reliable as ever, and does all the Tom Cruise staples; running, heavy breathing, shirtless preening, but the stand-out performance here is Russell Crowe’s Dr. Henry Jekyll (yes, that’s right). Despite being slightly underused, Crowe is a fantastic choice to play this multi-layered character. Elsewhere, Sofia Boutella is very good as Ahmanet.
Unfortunately, Jake Johnson (Jurassic World) and Cruise’s love interest Annabelle Wallis (King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) feel miscast with Wallis in particular having no believable chemistry with her co-star.
To look at The Mummy is first-rate. Gone are the campy special effects of the Brendan Fraser-era films, instead replaced with crisp CGI – though the dark and gloomy filming style hampers the obviously great effects. Nevertheless, the aircraft and subsequent crash sequences that have been marketed in the trailers are gripping and produced very well indeed.
Unfortunately, The Mummy relies heavily on jump scares, of which there are far too many, and the trade-off for that rollercoaster pace is a film that feels disjointed, relying on visually stunning action sequences to cover over cracks in the story. Some of the humour also falls flat.
Ultimately though, these are small gripes in a vastly entertaining popcorn flick that is a very solid starting point to a series that will include films like The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein and The Wolfman.
Whilst not the most original film you will see this year, The Mummy opens up some intriguing doors and whilst I’m in no rush to see it again, despite its competence, I’m excited to see how Universal will bring all of their iconic monsters back to the big screen in one unified franchise.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/10/a-new-franchise-is-reborn-the-mummy-review/
But for every success story there is a failed series that didn’t quite grab the cinema-going public with The Golden Compass and The Last Airbender immediately springing to mind. Nevertheless, Universal Pictures has pushed ahead with creating its own ‘Dark Universe’. Proceedings kick off with The Mummy. But how does this reboot fare?
Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artefacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner (Jake Johnson) come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella) who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
First-time director and long-time screenwriter Alex Kurtzman crafts a film that moves at breakneck speed, features a lot of nifty set-pieces and is an intriguing precursor to the next instalment of the franchise. It’s pretty good fun to be honest.
Tom Cruise is as reliable as ever, and does all the Tom Cruise staples; running, heavy breathing, shirtless preening, but the stand-out performance here is Russell Crowe’s Dr. Henry Jekyll (yes, that’s right). Despite being slightly underused, Crowe is a fantastic choice to play this multi-layered character. Elsewhere, Sofia Boutella is very good as Ahmanet.
Unfortunately, Jake Johnson (Jurassic World) and Cruise’s love interest Annabelle Wallis (King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) feel miscast with Wallis in particular having no believable chemistry with her co-star.
To look at The Mummy is first-rate. Gone are the campy special effects of the Brendan Fraser-era films, instead replaced with crisp CGI – though the dark and gloomy filming style hampers the obviously great effects. Nevertheless, the aircraft and subsequent crash sequences that have been marketed in the trailers are gripping and produced very well indeed.
Unfortunately, The Mummy relies heavily on jump scares, of which there are far too many, and the trade-off for that rollercoaster pace is a film that feels disjointed, relying on visually stunning action sequences to cover over cracks in the story. Some of the humour also falls flat.
Ultimately though, these are small gripes in a vastly entertaining popcorn flick that is a very solid starting point to a series that will include films like The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein and The Wolfman.
Whilst not the most original film you will see this year, The Mummy opens up some intriguing doors and whilst I’m in no rush to see it again, despite its competence, I’m excited to see how Universal will bring all of their iconic monsters back to the big screen in one unified franchise.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/10/a-new-franchise-is-reborn-the-mummy-review/
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Alice Takes Back Wonderland in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Review copy provided by the publisher via Netgalley
This review and more can be found at <a href="http://www.inwonderlandbookblog.com/2016/01/alice-takes-back-wonderland-review.html">In Wonderland</a>
Alice Takes Back Wonderland is one peculiar book – it took awhile for me to get into the story, but not bad overall (I've read worse).
The main character, Alice, is a little similar to Alyssa from Splintered – she talks to bugs and flowers, and they talk to her as well. And unlike Alyssa, who keeps her "ability" a secret, those around Alice assume she's a nutcase – she's been assumed to have schizophrenia along with ADHD. Alice also isn't related to Wonderland Alice – she just ended up going down the rabbit hole at seven and came back a completely different person.
Years later, just when Alice thinks everything in Wonderland was an imagination, the White Rabbit appears again to bring Alice back to save Wonderland. There, Ace of Spades has taken over the land and has been trying to "humanize" the creatures by taking the wonder out of them, thus taking Alice back down the rabbit hole once more.
When Hammons introduces us to Wonderland and Alice tries to reunite with the creatures she met when she was seven, it's really hard to get into the story (and at the beginning too – no fun). There's a lot of nonsense going on in Wonderland with very little sense – I haven't read Alice In Wonderland by Lewis Carroll myself, but I personally think Hammons did a pretty good job trying to capture the nonsensical aspect Carroll uses in the original story.
Now, in the case of getting me to read the story, however, I'm starting to think I should just call it off (much to Ella's dismay).
As soon as Alice leaves Wonderland to recruit other kingdoms (fairy tales), on the other hand, the story becomes less nonsensical and more of something that I could fully comprehend and wrap my head around. (I got the gist of Wonderland – I did not understand what all the creatures were saying.) Hammons introduces us Peter Pan and the Lost Boys, Pinocchio, Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty – all recognizable in some way. But that's not all the fairy tales involved.
Hammons also throws in heroes of myth and legend as well – people such as Joan the Ark, Hercules, King Arthur, Loki, etc. At that point, I pretty much took a step back (or almost) from the book. There are way too many tales involved in this battle to take back Wonderland and stop the Ace of Spades from taking the wonder out of everyone. Those characters don't play a major role like Peter Pan, Pinocchio, Snow White, and all the ones mentioned earlier, so it's less confusing. I just think Hammons should have kept it strictly at fairy tales rather than all of them.
(I'll give him this: all of them are individual kingdoms instead of mushed together into one. Less confusing.)
To make it worse, most of the characters also play multiple roles, which I won't say because I might spoil something. But still – too much myth and legend is mentioned in this vast world Hammons creates.
Overall, not bad for a book that takes far too many tales into its plot. It takes some time to get used to the story, but once you get past Wonderland's bit of remaining nonsense and enter Neverland and the Grimm Kingdom, the story has an adventure or two as Alice learns that maybe fairy tales aren't as literal as they seem.
This review and more can be found at <a href="http://www.inwonderlandbookblog.com/2016/01/alice-takes-back-wonderland-review.html">In Wonderland</a>
Alice Takes Back Wonderland is one peculiar book – it took awhile for me to get into the story, but not bad overall (I've read worse).
The main character, Alice, is a little similar to Alyssa from Splintered – she talks to bugs and flowers, and they talk to her as well. And unlike Alyssa, who keeps her "ability" a secret, those around Alice assume she's a nutcase – she's been assumed to have schizophrenia along with ADHD. Alice also isn't related to Wonderland Alice – she just ended up going down the rabbit hole at seven and came back a completely different person.
Years later, just when Alice thinks everything in Wonderland was an imagination, the White Rabbit appears again to bring Alice back to save Wonderland. There, Ace of Spades has taken over the land and has been trying to "humanize" the creatures by taking the wonder out of them, thus taking Alice back down the rabbit hole once more.
When Hammons introduces us to Wonderland and Alice tries to reunite with the creatures she met when she was seven, it's really hard to get into the story (and at the beginning too – no fun). There's a lot of nonsense going on in Wonderland with very little sense – I haven't read Alice In Wonderland by Lewis Carroll myself, but I personally think Hammons did a pretty good job trying to capture the nonsensical aspect Carroll uses in the original story.
Now, in the case of getting me to read the story, however, I'm starting to think I should just call it off (much to Ella's dismay).
As soon as Alice leaves Wonderland to recruit other kingdoms (fairy tales), on the other hand, the story becomes less nonsensical and more of something that I could fully comprehend and wrap my head around. (I got the gist of Wonderland – I did not understand what all the creatures were saying.) Hammons introduces us Peter Pan and the Lost Boys, Pinocchio, Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty – all recognizable in some way. But that's not all the fairy tales involved.
Hammons also throws in heroes of myth and legend as well – people such as Joan the Ark, Hercules, King Arthur, Loki, etc. At that point, I pretty much took a step back (or almost) from the book. There are way too many tales involved in this battle to take back Wonderland and stop the Ace of Spades from taking the wonder out of everyone. Those characters don't play a major role like Peter Pan, Pinocchio, Snow White, and all the ones mentioned earlier, so it's less confusing. I just think Hammons should have kept it strictly at fairy tales rather than all of them.
(I'll give him this: all of them are individual kingdoms instead of mushed together into one. Less confusing.)
To make it worse, most of the characters also play multiple roles, which I won't say because I might spoil something. But still – too much myth and legend is mentioned in this vast world Hammons creates.
Overall, not bad for a book that takes far too many tales into its plot. It takes some time to get used to the story, but once you get past Wonderland's bit of remaining nonsense and enter Neverland and the Grimm Kingdom, the story has an adventure or two as Alice learns that maybe fairy tales aren't as literal as they seem.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The Arthurian legend: but with Cockneys.
So, bit difficult to describe this one… so I asked my bloke Alfie from Londinium to explain what’s it all about…
“‘Ere, OK bruv. So this is dun by that geezer Guy Ritchie – yer know, the one that dun that Sherlock Holmes with the Iron Man geezer Robert Junior Downey, that one. His new film is a rip-roarin’ acshun movie what retells da Arfurian legend in a novel new way.
That Hulk bloke Eric Bana is Arfur’s farfer an’ ‘e’s ‘avin’ a few problems wiv ‘is bruvver Vortigern (Jude Law, who’s a bi’ ov a cockney ‘imself, but ‘ere speaks like a posh bloke. Know what I mean?) So ‘e (Vortigern dat is) gets some magical ‘elp from some slippery watery bints in a puddle and so ‘is dad puts ‘is God Forbid in a boat an’ sends ‘im down da river ter The Smoke ter live wiv some prozzies.
But ‘e grows up big an’ strong an’ ‘andy wiv a sword. His friends tell ‘im ter get aaaht ov town as da King’s blokes are lookin’ fer da young geezer who would be king. An’ e says like “Scapa Flow sowf ov da river at dis time ov night. Are yew mad?”. So e gets caught like an’ gets tested by some famous football bloke ter pull a big sword aaaht ov just a random bi’ ov stone (nod, nod, wink wink, nice twist – ssshhh!).
The Vortigern bloke is very cross an’ tries to kill ‘im but ‘e gets rescued by some bird who can make birds, lol, an’ other fings do what she wants. So can Arfur beat ‘is uncle? Gawdon Bennet, I’m not gon’a tell yew da whole darn fing! Yer’ll ‘ave ter go an’ watch i’ ter find out.”
Thanks Alfie. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
The quirky style of Guy Ritchie isn’t one that you would think would translate well to the Arthurian setting, and as the film starts you tend to think you were right! But if you give it a chance it wears you down into acceptance and then – ultimately – a lot of enjoyment.
Jude Law is deliciously evil mixed with a heavy dose of mad, and delivers the goods.
Charlie Hunnam who plays Arthur (no, I hadn’t heard of him either but he was in the “Lost City of Z”) does a decent job as the medieval hunk, although he seems at time to have taken voice coaching in ‘Olde-English’ from Russell Crowe, since the lad’s Geordie accent seems to wander from Cockney through central southern England to Liverpudlian at one point (definitely channelling a young John Lennon)! Relative newcomer, the Spanish actress Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is effectively weird as the mage.
Particularly noteworthy (no pun intended) is the superb action soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton (“Steve Jobs“, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.“) which propels the action really well and contains some standout moments.
Also a standout in the technical categories is the editing by James Herbert, who did both of Downey Junior’s “Sherlock Holmes” films (in a similar style) and also “Edge of Tomorrow“. The style is typified with Arthur’s growth to manhood in the streets of London which is stylishly done.
I saw the film in 3D – not a particularly favourite format – but quite well done, although falls into the “trying too hard” category at times with lots of drifting embers… you know the sort.
It’s not bloody Shakespeare. It’s not even the bloody Arthurian legend as you know it. But it is bloody good fun if you let it in.
“‘Ere, OK bruv. So this is dun by that geezer Guy Ritchie – yer know, the one that dun that Sherlock Holmes with the Iron Man geezer Robert Junior Downey, that one. His new film is a rip-roarin’ acshun movie what retells da Arfurian legend in a novel new way.
That Hulk bloke Eric Bana is Arfur’s farfer an’ ‘e’s ‘avin’ a few problems wiv ‘is bruvver Vortigern (Jude Law, who’s a bi’ ov a cockney ‘imself, but ‘ere speaks like a posh bloke. Know what I mean?) So ‘e (Vortigern dat is) gets some magical ‘elp from some slippery watery bints in a puddle and so ‘is dad puts ‘is God Forbid in a boat an’ sends ‘im down da river ter The Smoke ter live wiv some prozzies.
But ‘e grows up big an’ strong an’ ‘andy wiv a sword. His friends tell ‘im ter get aaaht ov town as da King’s blokes are lookin’ fer da young geezer who would be king. An’ e says like “Scapa Flow sowf ov da river at dis time ov night. Are yew mad?”. So e gets caught like an’ gets tested by some famous football bloke ter pull a big sword aaaht ov just a random bi’ ov stone (nod, nod, wink wink, nice twist – ssshhh!).
The Vortigern bloke is very cross an’ tries to kill ‘im but ‘e gets rescued by some bird who can make birds, lol, an’ other fings do what she wants. So can Arfur beat ‘is uncle? Gawdon Bennet, I’m not gon’a tell yew da whole darn fing! Yer’ll ‘ave ter go an’ watch i’ ter find out.”
Thanks Alfie. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
The quirky style of Guy Ritchie isn’t one that you would think would translate well to the Arthurian setting, and as the film starts you tend to think you were right! But if you give it a chance it wears you down into acceptance and then – ultimately – a lot of enjoyment.
Jude Law is deliciously evil mixed with a heavy dose of mad, and delivers the goods.
Charlie Hunnam who plays Arthur (no, I hadn’t heard of him either but he was in the “Lost City of Z”) does a decent job as the medieval hunk, although he seems at time to have taken voice coaching in ‘Olde-English’ from Russell Crowe, since the lad’s Geordie accent seems to wander from Cockney through central southern England to Liverpudlian at one point (definitely channelling a young John Lennon)! Relative newcomer, the Spanish actress Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is effectively weird as the mage.
Particularly noteworthy (no pun intended) is the superb action soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton (“Steve Jobs“, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.“) which propels the action really well and contains some standout moments.
Also a standout in the technical categories is the editing by James Herbert, who did both of Downey Junior’s “Sherlock Holmes” films (in a similar style) and also “Edge of Tomorrow“. The style is typified with Arthur’s growth to manhood in the streets of London which is stylishly done.
I saw the film in 3D – not a particularly favourite format – but quite well done, although falls into the “trying too hard” category at times with lots of drifting embers… you know the sort.
It’s not bloody Shakespeare. It’s not even the bloody Arthurian legend as you know it. But it is bloody good fun if you let it in.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Unmatched: Cobble & Fog in Tabletop Games
Mar 19, 2021
You know when you read a rulebook and you just know you are going to love the game? This was me whilst reading the rulebook for Unmatched: Cobble & Fog. I will go into more detail why I enjoy the game near the end of my review, but just know, I loved it from the start.
In Unmatched: Cobble & Fog (which I will be calling Unmatched from here) players will be taking on the roles of either Dracula and his Sisters, Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, Invisible Man, or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in a battle to the death to claim victory in this, “Who would win in a fight”-style skirmish fighting game. The last hero standing wins, so as one of my favorite characters in literary history says, “The game is afoot.”
DISCLAIMER: Even though this review is for the Cobble & Fog version of Unmatched, the rules are the same throughout the entire Unmatched family of games. I have the original Unmatched: Battle of Legends, Vol. 1 and it plays exactly the same. I prefer the characters in this version, so that’s why I am reviewing it specifically. -T
To setup, the players will choose which side of the board they wish to play and set it on the table. Next, players will choose their hero and gather all accoutrements associated with their choice. All heroes come with a deck of 30 action cards, a mini of their figure, a character card, at least one health dial (more if their sidekicks have more than one health point), and some characters will have sidekicks that have tokens, or tokens for other reasons. The youngest player places their mini on the space with the number 1 on the board, and then the rest of the players place theirs on subsequently-numbered spaces. Players shuffle their decks of action cards and draw five cards for their first hand.
On a turn a player may take two actions from the choice of: Maneuver, Scheme, Attack. When a player chooses to Maneuver they will draw a card into their hand, then move the amount of spaces noted on their character card (typically two spaces). These movement values may be boosted by also discarding additional cards for their boost value and adding it to the number of spaces moved.
All action cards will specify which character may use it for attack, defense, or Scheme action. These Scheme cards have a lightning bolt icon on them to indicate that they are played face-up to the table, resolved, and then discarded.
Finally, if a melee-based character is positioned adjacent to an opponent, or if a ranged character is in the same zone as an opponent, they may Attack said opponent. To Attack, the active player declares which opponent will be attacked, and each player involved will choose cards from their hands to use in the battle. The attacking player will need to use attack or versatile (either used for attack or defense) cards to try to inflict damage, while the defending player will need to play defense or versatile cards in defense. The difference of the values printed on the cards will determine which character wins the battle and if health points are to be deducted from the health dial.
Many cards will have action instructions that trigger either immediately during battle or even after the battle concludes. Resolve these actions when appropriate and try to stay on your feet.
Play continues in this fashion of moving around the board to gain cards or using the cards to scheme or attack/defend. The winning player is they who survives at the end and vanquishes all foes on the board.
Components. I love everything about the components in this game. The box is great. The insert is really incredible and well thought out. The cards are great quality and the game features spectacular art all around. The minis are cool and luckily are fitted inside colored bases to remind players which mini is theirs. The sidekick tokens are excellent thick plastic and color-matched to the bases of their hero counterparts. The board is nice and double-sided, and all the rest of the cardboard components are excellent.
It’s no secret here – I absolutely love this game. I have always been a big fan of Sherlock Holmes, and this set also includes other interesting characters to play. Each one is highly unique in style and that’s one of the reasons I am so intrigued by this system. I say system because this is not the only game in the Unmatched family. As of today the Unmatched system boasts all of these as playable characters from different sets: King Arthur, Alice, Medusa, and Sinbad from the “Battle of Legends, Vol 1” set; Robert Muldoon and raptors from the “Jurassic Park, InGen vs Raptors” set; the “Robin Hood vs Bigfoot” set; Bruce Lee; and Buffy, Spike, Willow, and Angel from the “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” set in addition to these here. I know more Jurassic Park sets are on the horizon, and I just cannot wait to see what other sets will be released in time.
Why do I love this game so much when I am not really a fan of moving and dueling games (I’m looking at you Mage Wars)? In these style of games I feel the movement is unnecessary as I just stand and fight. In this system, the only way to draw more cards from your deck is to enact the Maneuver action. There have been several times where I didn’t necessarily want to initiate a battle, but I saw opponents sitting with no cards in their hand. That means no defense cards can be played. Easy chunks of health taken by picking off the stationary few. Unmatched forces players to move around and I love that. Yes, there are opportunities to unleash giant blows or have double-digit health drops in battle, and that’s just delicious. Also there are times during play where mathing out exactly where to place your mini or sidekick is paramount to lay plans of ambush.
I mentioned earlier that I knew right away I would love this one. Opening the cover of the rulebook sold me immediately. As this set utilizes literary characters found in old timey Europe the game utilizes a period art style as well and I’m still fawning over it. Everything clicks for me and I can now understand why so many people were dying (not literally) to get copies of the game Unmatched is based on, Star Wars: Epic Duels. It is extremely fun and each character is interesting and unique. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a well-earned GOLDEN FEATHER AWARD! If you need a skirmish style game with excellent theme and art, you must grab this post haste. If you and I fall on the same side of the coin with our gaming preferences you NEED to have this in your collection.
I don’t know how many other sets I will be looking to add to my collection at this point, but I cannot tell you how excited I would be to pit Bigfoot against Bruce Lee. Or King Arthur against Dracula. It just feels epic and wonderful. Great job to the team at Restoration Games. This is a huge win for my collection.
In Unmatched: Cobble & Fog (which I will be calling Unmatched from here) players will be taking on the roles of either Dracula and his Sisters, Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, Invisible Man, or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in a battle to the death to claim victory in this, “Who would win in a fight”-style skirmish fighting game. The last hero standing wins, so as one of my favorite characters in literary history says, “The game is afoot.”
DISCLAIMER: Even though this review is for the Cobble & Fog version of Unmatched, the rules are the same throughout the entire Unmatched family of games. I have the original Unmatched: Battle of Legends, Vol. 1 and it plays exactly the same. I prefer the characters in this version, so that’s why I am reviewing it specifically. -T
To setup, the players will choose which side of the board they wish to play and set it on the table. Next, players will choose their hero and gather all accoutrements associated with their choice. All heroes come with a deck of 30 action cards, a mini of their figure, a character card, at least one health dial (more if their sidekicks have more than one health point), and some characters will have sidekicks that have tokens, or tokens for other reasons. The youngest player places their mini on the space with the number 1 on the board, and then the rest of the players place theirs on subsequently-numbered spaces. Players shuffle their decks of action cards and draw five cards for their first hand.
On a turn a player may take two actions from the choice of: Maneuver, Scheme, Attack. When a player chooses to Maneuver they will draw a card into their hand, then move the amount of spaces noted on their character card (typically two spaces). These movement values may be boosted by also discarding additional cards for their boost value and adding it to the number of spaces moved.
All action cards will specify which character may use it for attack, defense, or Scheme action. These Scheme cards have a lightning bolt icon on them to indicate that they are played face-up to the table, resolved, and then discarded.
Finally, if a melee-based character is positioned adjacent to an opponent, or if a ranged character is in the same zone as an opponent, they may Attack said opponent. To Attack, the active player declares which opponent will be attacked, and each player involved will choose cards from their hands to use in the battle. The attacking player will need to use attack or versatile (either used for attack or defense) cards to try to inflict damage, while the defending player will need to play defense or versatile cards in defense. The difference of the values printed on the cards will determine which character wins the battle and if health points are to be deducted from the health dial.
Many cards will have action instructions that trigger either immediately during battle or even after the battle concludes. Resolve these actions when appropriate and try to stay on your feet.
Play continues in this fashion of moving around the board to gain cards or using the cards to scheme or attack/defend. The winning player is they who survives at the end and vanquishes all foes on the board.
Components. I love everything about the components in this game. The box is great. The insert is really incredible and well thought out. The cards are great quality and the game features spectacular art all around. The minis are cool and luckily are fitted inside colored bases to remind players which mini is theirs. The sidekick tokens are excellent thick plastic and color-matched to the bases of their hero counterparts. The board is nice and double-sided, and all the rest of the cardboard components are excellent.
It’s no secret here – I absolutely love this game. I have always been a big fan of Sherlock Holmes, and this set also includes other interesting characters to play. Each one is highly unique in style and that’s one of the reasons I am so intrigued by this system. I say system because this is not the only game in the Unmatched family. As of today the Unmatched system boasts all of these as playable characters from different sets: King Arthur, Alice, Medusa, and Sinbad from the “Battle of Legends, Vol 1” set; Robert Muldoon and raptors from the “Jurassic Park, InGen vs Raptors” set; the “Robin Hood vs Bigfoot” set; Bruce Lee; and Buffy, Spike, Willow, and Angel from the “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” set in addition to these here. I know more Jurassic Park sets are on the horizon, and I just cannot wait to see what other sets will be released in time.
Why do I love this game so much when I am not really a fan of moving and dueling games (I’m looking at you Mage Wars)? In these style of games I feel the movement is unnecessary as I just stand and fight. In this system, the only way to draw more cards from your deck is to enact the Maneuver action. There have been several times where I didn’t necessarily want to initiate a battle, but I saw opponents sitting with no cards in their hand. That means no defense cards can be played. Easy chunks of health taken by picking off the stationary few. Unmatched forces players to move around and I love that. Yes, there are opportunities to unleash giant blows or have double-digit health drops in battle, and that’s just delicious. Also there are times during play where mathing out exactly where to place your mini or sidekick is paramount to lay plans of ambush.
I mentioned earlier that I knew right away I would love this one. Opening the cover of the rulebook sold me immediately. As this set utilizes literary characters found in old timey Europe the game utilizes a period art style as well and I’m still fawning over it. Everything clicks for me and I can now understand why so many people were dying (not literally) to get copies of the game Unmatched is based on, Star Wars: Epic Duels. It is extremely fun and each character is interesting and unique. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a well-earned GOLDEN FEATHER AWARD! If you need a skirmish style game with excellent theme and art, you must grab this post haste. If you and I fall on the same side of the coin with our gaming preferences you NEED to have this in your collection.
I don’t know how many other sets I will be looking to add to my collection at this point, but I cannot tell you how excited I would be to pit Bigfoot against Bruce Lee. Or King Arthur against Dracula. It just feels epic and wonderful. Great job to the team at Restoration Games. This is a huge win for my collection.
365Flicks (235 KP) rated Pandorica (2016) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Now that Chris and I have handed back the reigns of Another Damn Wrestling Show to its original hosts Matt, Joe and the other one. I no longer have to watch 12 hours of Wrestling each week so I decided to tackle my backlog of Movie reviews that some awesome very kind people have been sending. Today was the turn of Pandorica, a movie that to be fair had me at the trailer because its tells you everything without giving anything away. Best type of Trailer really (Yes that was a pop at Terminator Genisys).
I had no real expectations going into Pandorica and I came out of it very pleasantly surprised by Tom Paton’s Genre busting Futuristic Dystopian , Sci-Fi horror, Suspense, Action Filled tale of what happens when Humanity is De-Volved into its most basic instincts. Well I did say Genre Busting. One of the best things about this movie is that you really cant put it in any bracket (no matter how hard you try for the purpose of reviewing).
Set somewhere in the future we meet a small group of Natives from the Varosha tribe. Tribe leader Nus (Luke D’Silva) has brought his three bravest and best to take part in a Violent trial to determine who should be leader of the Tribe when Nus expires. As is always the way, the three in question have very differing personalities. Eiren (Jade Hobday) is as deadly as she is determined and somewhat sexy (think Milla Jovovich in Resident Evil, Keira Knightley in King Arthur, Rhona Mitra in Doomsday). She is up against the wreckless headstrong bad ass Ares (Marc Zammit) who believes he is the only man fit enough to lead, rounding off the trio is Thade (Adam Bond) a very loyal confidant to the tribe but its all a bit over his head. Once the trial begins everything really turns to shit as the 3 discover a strange woman being chased by band of Vicious Lunatics in creepy masks. They must band to together to stay alive, all the while trying to prove they are the best candidate for leader, Winner is left standing at daybreak… Hopefully.
It is hard for me to believe that this is Tom Paton’s first full length feature film. He has a very clear idea of what he is doing with getting the best out of his strong leading cast, the Cinematography in this movie is gorgeous at times showing Paton is well aware of his on location surroundings and can direct his movie as such to show us this. Sometimes just the swooping shots over the top of the trees keep make you pause to admire. He has taken a number of Genres mashed them up and made a solid as hell flick that not only stands on its own but also serves as what could potentially be a great intro to a new series of flicks hat breath new life into some of these Genres, especially the Dystopian World End-y ones in the same vein as Neil Marshalls Doomsday.
I don’t want to keep raving on too much because you guys should really see this flick. It is available on all good streaming sites and video on demand services and I guarantee you will get a kick out of it, even if only for the Bitchin as hell soundtrack. I wont lie the music alone sucks you right in. I really enjoyed the movie and can easily see a sequel in fact if you do enjoy the movie, I recommend you stick around till the end of the credits (No Spoilers).
I had no real expectations going into Pandorica and I came out of it very pleasantly surprised by Tom Paton’s Genre busting Futuristic Dystopian , Sci-Fi horror, Suspense, Action Filled tale of what happens when Humanity is De-Volved into its most basic instincts. Well I did say Genre Busting. One of the best things about this movie is that you really cant put it in any bracket (no matter how hard you try for the purpose of reviewing).
Set somewhere in the future we meet a small group of Natives from the Varosha tribe. Tribe leader Nus (Luke D’Silva) has brought his three bravest and best to take part in a Violent trial to determine who should be leader of the Tribe when Nus expires. As is always the way, the three in question have very differing personalities. Eiren (Jade Hobday) is as deadly as she is determined and somewhat sexy (think Milla Jovovich in Resident Evil, Keira Knightley in King Arthur, Rhona Mitra in Doomsday). She is up against the wreckless headstrong bad ass Ares (Marc Zammit) who believes he is the only man fit enough to lead, rounding off the trio is Thade (Adam Bond) a very loyal confidant to the tribe but its all a bit over his head. Once the trial begins everything really turns to shit as the 3 discover a strange woman being chased by band of Vicious Lunatics in creepy masks. They must band to together to stay alive, all the while trying to prove they are the best candidate for leader, Winner is left standing at daybreak… Hopefully.
It is hard for me to believe that this is Tom Paton’s first full length feature film. He has a very clear idea of what he is doing with getting the best out of his strong leading cast, the Cinematography in this movie is gorgeous at times showing Paton is well aware of his on location surroundings and can direct his movie as such to show us this. Sometimes just the swooping shots over the top of the trees keep make you pause to admire. He has taken a number of Genres mashed them up and made a solid as hell flick that not only stands on its own but also serves as what could potentially be a great intro to a new series of flicks hat breath new life into some of these Genres, especially the Dystopian World End-y ones in the same vein as Neil Marshalls Doomsday.
I don’t want to keep raving on too much because you guys should really see this flick. It is available on all good streaming sites and video on demand services and I guarantee you will get a kick out of it, even if only for the Bitchin as hell soundtrack. I wont lie the music alone sucks you right in. I really enjoyed the movie and can easily see a sequel in fact if you do enjoy the movie, I recommend you stick around till the end of the credits (No Spoilers).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ocean’s 8 (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Can 8 women do the work of 11, 12 or even 13 men?
The female empowerment #SheToo implications of the title are clearly writ large for this movie! The answer of course…. is a major spoiler, so we won’t go there.
Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock, “Gravity“), the previously unreferenced sister of arch-scoundrel Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the reboot trilogy, is released from prison after a 5 year stretch. This has given her plenty of time to plan her next job – a jewellry heist from the New York Met – in intricate detail. She recruits biker-chick Lou (Cate Blanchett , “Carol“) as her partner and they then proceed to recruit a team of expert crimimals: well… some are not criminals, but soon will be! Will they succeed, or will Debbie have an even longer time to plan her next heist?
Stiff as planks…. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett.
The movie unfortunately is rather like watching paint dry. It’s very glossy and expensive paint, I grant you, but compared to certainly Ocean’s 11 and even Ocean’s 13 it’s not in the premier league. There’s virtually nothing about the plot that leaves you surprised. Even the twists are merely “oh”s rather than “OH!’s”.
Stylistically the film attempts to model the Soderbergh split-screen visuals of his films, doing it quite well, and is accompanied by a similar jazz-style soundtrack which works effectively. Arguably, the well-chosen music by Daniel Pemberton (“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) is the best thing in the film.
When they said they were stealing from the Met…. perhaps I misunderstood?
Otherwise though, that’s where most of the similarities end, with there being limited character development to make you really care all that much whether the team win or lose. The script, by director Gary Ross (“The Hunger Games”) and Olivia Milch had a few clever lines that made me smile: but it’s not laugh-out-loud territory. So the story had better be good. Unfortunately, here Gary Ross’s story has so many implausible coincidences and incredulous leaps of intuition – “yeah, I’m from the hood innit but I have a grasp of magnetic resonance couplings learnt the hard way, from the street up!” – that belief is less suspended and more hung, drawn and quartered. This is not saying that the Ocean’s trilogy was without a few similar issues – reaching its nadir with Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s 12” – but this film is more consistently bonkers.
Hang on… I only count seven here?
I have to admit that the build up to the heist through the first half of the film left me sufficiently entertained, but that momentum suddenly fizzles out and the final reel becomes quite tedious. I also expected something to happen at the end, cameo-wise, that never did!
Acting wise, the best turn comes from Anne Hathaway (“Colossal“, “Les Miserables”) as a vainglorious actress but Helena Bonham Carter (“Suffragette“, “Harry Potter”) is also good value as the quirky fashion expert, coming across like some sort of ditzy Fatima Blush.
Good value – Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter.
I also liked Rihanna’s ‘Nine Ball’ character. Less successful for me was Bullock, who I felt came across as very wooden, and Blanchett, slightly less so. There are also some ‘B-list’ celebrities attending the Met-gala that are fun to watch out for, as well as two members of the earlier films’ cast.
After Diamonds but with nowhere to store an Umbrella: Rihanna knocks them dead on the red carpet.
So, it’s a disappointing effort from Gary Ross. All glitz and glamour but with little substance.
Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock, “Gravity“), the previously unreferenced sister of arch-scoundrel Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the reboot trilogy, is released from prison after a 5 year stretch. This has given her plenty of time to plan her next job – a jewellry heist from the New York Met – in intricate detail. She recruits biker-chick Lou (Cate Blanchett , “Carol“) as her partner and they then proceed to recruit a team of expert crimimals: well… some are not criminals, but soon will be! Will they succeed, or will Debbie have an even longer time to plan her next heist?
Stiff as planks…. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett.
The movie unfortunately is rather like watching paint dry. It’s very glossy and expensive paint, I grant you, but compared to certainly Ocean’s 11 and even Ocean’s 13 it’s not in the premier league. There’s virtually nothing about the plot that leaves you surprised. Even the twists are merely “oh”s rather than “OH!’s”.
Stylistically the film attempts to model the Soderbergh split-screen visuals of his films, doing it quite well, and is accompanied by a similar jazz-style soundtrack which works effectively. Arguably, the well-chosen music by Daniel Pemberton (“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) is the best thing in the film.
When they said they were stealing from the Met…. perhaps I misunderstood?
Otherwise though, that’s where most of the similarities end, with there being limited character development to make you really care all that much whether the team win or lose. The script, by director Gary Ross (“The Hunger Games”) and Olivia Milch had a few clever lines that made me smile: but it’s not laugh-out-loud territory. So the story had better be good. Unfortunately, here Gary Ross’s story has so many implausible coincidences and incredulous leaps of intuition – “yeah, I’m from the hood innit but I have a grasp of magnetic resonance couplings learnt the hard way, from the street up!” – that belief is less suspended and more hung, drawn and quartered. This is not saying that the Ocean’s trilogy was without a few similar issues – reaching its nadir with Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s 12” – but this film is more consistently bonkers.
Hang on… I only count seven here?
I have to admit that the build up to the heist through the first half of the film left me sufficiently entertained, but that momentum suddenly fizzles out and the final reel becomes quite tedious. I also expected something to happen at the end, cameo-wise, that never did!
Acting wise, the best turn comes from Anne Hathaway (“Colossal“, “Les Miserables”) as a vainglorious actress but Helena Bonham Carter (“Suffragette“, “Harry Potter”) is also good value as the quirky fashion expert, coming across like some sort of ditzy Fatima Blush.
Good value – Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter.
I also liked Rihanna’s ‘Nine Ball’ character. Less successful for me was Bullock, who I felt came across as very wooden, and Blanchett, slightly less so. There are also some ‘B-list’ celebrities attending the Met-gala that are fun to watch out for, as well as two members of the earlier films’ cast.
After Diamonds but with nowhere to store an Umbrella: Rihanna knocks them dead on the red carpet.
So, it’s a disappointing effort from Gary Ross. All glitz and glamour but with little substance.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Crushingly Mediocre
I’d read the bad reviews, but thought “Hey, it’s Tom Cruise – how bad could it be?” The answer is, “Pretty bad”.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Apr 17, 2019 (Updated Apr 17, 2019)
The script (4 more)
The CGI
The editing
The performances
Everything else
Actual Hell
If the Hellboy 2019 movie has one thing going for it, it's that it's impressive. It is impressive in the sense that it actually made me question the futility of time and why I was wasting my short time on this earth watching this atrocious piece of trash. There were several times when I was watching the film that I actually couldn't bring myself to believe how bad what I was witnessing onscreen really was. This might be the worst film I have ever seen.
It has without a doubt taken the crown of the worst superhero movie ever made from Fan4stic and is downright insulting. I cannot believe that they chose to make this dogshit over another one with Ron Perlman and Del Toro. Almost every single aspect of this movie is garbage and there are hardly any redeeming features.
Let's talk about the main character, this movie's version of Hellboy. We all knew going in that David Harbour had some pretty big shoes to fill left by Perlman and in Harbour's defence, pretty much the only slightly positive aspect of this thing is the fact that you can tell that Harbour is doing the very best with the piss poor material he has been given to work with. Most of his lines are awful and the way that his character is written as a moaning, whiny bitch is actually insulting to the character. Also, the excessive makeup he is wearing means that he is hardly able to emote with his mouth. When he is talking, his mouth simply opens and closes like a puppet and it is painfully obvious that the dialogue has been dubbed in later and it's not even been done very well. The other slight positive in this movie is seeing Hellboy in his full demonic getup with long horns and donning the flaming crown and sword was pretty cool, unfortunately this is only a fleeting glimpse of coolness before we get right back to the crap.
The other memorable part of the Del Toro Hellboy movies was the endearing supporting cast, unfortunately they have been substituted with an insufferable lot of replacements. The actress playing Alice may give the worst performance that I have ever seen in a comic book movie, (and I saw Polar!) Every single line that she uttered was extremely cringe-worthy and poorly delivered. Daniel Dae Kim was almost as bad as Hellboy's other sidekick. Again, a lot of his lines were ADR'd in later and it is really shoddily done. Ian McShane plays Broom, the scientist that found Hellboy and adopted him and he is sleepwalking his way through this role for the sake of an easy paycheck. As is Milla Jovovich, she plays a stereotypical villainous witch and she does nothing here that we haven't seen her do before in other movies.
Over my years of watching almost every comic book movie that releases, I have seen my fair share of cheap, cartoony looking CGI, but this takes the cake. Almost every scene in the movie features some kind of CGI creature and they are all on a similar level of quality to an unfinished student project. One of the moments it really stood out was the giant fight, where we were subjected to not only one bad CGI giant, but three of them. The scene is also shot in broad daylight, which really does the bad CGI no favours. Not once, did anything in this movie look better than anything in the Del Toro movies which came out 10+ years ago.
I'm going to spoil something here, because seriously who gives a fuck at this point? The absolute worst part of CGI though in the entire movie, is undoubtedly during one of the final scenes in the movie where Ian McShane comes back to speak to Hellboy as a ghost. The CG in this scene is genuinely on par with the Rock's CG in in the Scorpion King. Yes, it really is that bad.
The soundtrack is so misused here also. The songs themselves that are featured are all half decent songs, but they do not work in the context of this film and they add absolutely nothing to the scenes that they are used in. The editing is also horrible, there were several times that I was reminded of the cheap editing in shows like Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
The last thing that I want to talk about is the tone and humour, (or lack of,) present throughout the film. The movie opens with a flashback scene showing King Arthur chopping up the witch. The scene is being narrated by Ian McShane and it is chock-full of diabolically awful dialogue and insufferably cheesy line delivery. Whilst watching it I thought, "Oh they are really hamming it up here and going for a really corny tone for these flashback scenes." I then swiftly came to the soul-crushing conclusion that no, this was how the next 2 hours of this movie was going to go. The awful sense of humour is actually comparable to that in a poor quality kids film, with gross out burp and kiss jokes to boot. What happened to the darker, more horror orientated tone that we were teased with when the movie was in pre-production? Any semblance of that is sorely lacking here and it is a shame because I would have quite liked to have seen that movie and there is a good chance that it would have been a lot better than this dumpster fire.
Overall, please don't see this unless you hate yourself. It is two hours of your life that would be better spent doing literally anything else. At the end it has the audacity to tease a sequel which, (if there is a God,) will never happen.
It has without a doubt taken the crown of the worst superhero movie ever made from Fan4stic and is downright insulting. I cannot believe that they chose to make this dogshit over another one with Ron Perlman and Del Toro. Almost every single aspect of this movie is garbage and there are hardly any redeeming features.
Let's talk about the main character, this movie's version of Hellboy. We all knew going in that David Harbour had some pretty big shoes to fill left by Perlman and in Harbour's defence, pretty much the only slightly positive aspect of this thing is the fact that you can tell that Harbour is doing the very best with the piss poor material he has been given to work with. Most of his lines are awful and the way that his character is written as a moaning, whiny bitch is actually insulting to the character. Also, the excessive makeup he is wearing means that he is hardly able to emote with his mouth. When he is talking, his mouth simply opens and closes like a puppet and it is painfully obvious that the dialogue has been dubbed in later and it's not even been done very well. The other slight positive in this movie is seeing Hellboy in his full demonic getup with long horns and donning the flaming crown and sword was pretty cool, unfortunately this is only a fleeting glimpse of coolness before we get right back to the crap.
The other memorable part of the Del Toro Hellboy movies was the endearing supporting cast, unfortunately they have been substituted with an insufferable lot of replacements. The actress playing Alice may give the worst performance that I have ever seen in a comic book movie, (and I saw Polar!) Every single line that she uttered was extremely cringe-worthy and poorly delivered. Daniel Dae Kim was almost as bad as Hellboy's other sidekick. Again, a lot of his lines were ADR'd in later and it is really shoddily done. Ian McShane plays Broom, the scientist that found Hellboy and adopted him and he is sleepwalking his way through this role for the sake of an easy paycheck. As is Milla Jovovich, she plays a stereotypical villainous witch and she does nothing here that we haven't seen her do before in other movies.
Over my years of watching almost every comic book movie that releases, I have seen my fair share of cheap, cartoony looking CGI, but this takes the cake. Almost every scene in the movie features some kind of CGI creature and they are all on a similar level of quality to an unfinished student project. One of the moments it really stood out was the giant fight, where we were subjected to not only one bad CGI giant, but three of them. The scene is also shot in broad daylight, which really does the bad CGI no favours. Not once, did anything in this movie look better than anything in the Del Toro movies which came out 10+ years ago.
I'm going to spoil something here, because seriously who gives a fuck at this point? The absolute worst part of CGI though in the entire movie, is undoubtedly during one of the final scenes in the movie where Ian McShane comes back to speak to Hellboy as a ghost. The CG in this scene is genuinely on par with the Rock's CG in in the Scorpion King. Yes, it really is that bad.
The soundtrack is so misused here also. The songs themselves that are featured are all half decent songs, but they do not work in the context of this film and they add absolutely nothing to the scenes that they are used in. The editing is also horrible, there were several times that I was reminded of the cheap editing in shows like Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
The last thing that I want to talk about is the tone and humour, (or lack of,) present throughout the film. The movie opens with a flashback scene showing King Arthur chopping up the witch. The scene is being narrated by Ian McShane and it is chock-full of diabolically awful dialogue and insufferably cheesy line delivery. Whilst watching it I thought, "Oh they are really hamming it up here and going for a really corny tone for these flashback scenes." I then swiftly came to the soul-crushing conclusion that no, this was how the next 2 hours of this movie was going to go. The awful sense of humour is actually comparable to that in a poor quality kids film, with gross out burp and kiss jokes to boot. What happened to the darker, more horror orientated tone that we were teased with when the movie was in pre-production? Any semblance of that is sorely lacking here and it is a shame because I would have quite liked to have seen that movie and there is a good chance that it would have been a lot better than this dumpster fire.
Overall, please don't see this unless you hate yourself. It is two hours of your life that would be better spent doing literally anything else. At the end it has the audacity to tease a sequel which, (if there is a God,) will never happen.