Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) in Movies
Mar 4, 2018
Groundbreaking Special Effects (1 more)
Music
Truly...a masterpiece
Over the years, many, many words have been written and said about the 1968 Stanley Kubrick opus, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but after re-watching it, there is only 1 word I would write about it...
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) in Movies
Jul 4, 2018
A Masterpiece
Over the years, many, many words have been written and said about the 1968 Stanley Kubrick opus, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but after re-watching it, there is only 1 word I would write about it...
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Ghost Stories (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
For years, mankind has pondered over the existence of ghosts, demons and the paranormal. Many have claimed to have experienced it firsthand, while others dedicate their lives and careers to debunking those experiences. It seems to be a question that no one has been able to answer or prove one way or the other, and this fear of the unknown has been the basis of a number of popular horror stories.
Based on the stage play of the same name, ‘Ghost Stories’ follows skeptic Professor Phillip Goodman’s (Nyman) investigation of three unsolved cases, each one detailing a different haunting. After meeting with his idol and fellow skeptic Charles Cameron, and feeling deflated when he begins to question his lifelong skepticism, Goodman meets with former night watchman Tony Matthews (Whitehouse), teenager Simon Rifkind (Lawther), and businessman Mike Priddle (Freeman) to learn about their firsthand experiences with the supernatural. The film is split into three segments, allowing each character to explain their case through the use of flashbacks where we get to see exactly what happened to the characters.
Throughout these flashbacks, Nyman and Dyson have utilised a number of popular horror techniques that will make you jump out of your seat, or hide behind your hands. There’s a serious feeling of unease throughout the entire film, and you have no idea what’s going to happen next. Even as an avid fan of the genre, I found myself genuinely terrified during a large portion of the film. ‘Ghost Stories’ knows exactly how to pace a horror film, and how to leave an audience uncomfortable yet unable to look away from the screen. Whilst the jump scare is inevitable, the film doesn’t overuse these and instead finds ways to build tension and fear, which actually heightens the experience because you find yourself trying to predict when something’s going to pop out at you. It leaves you on edge for the entire ninety minutes, which in my mind, is exactly what a horror film should do.
The stories told by each of the men are gripping, and the actors all do exceptional jobs of portraying their characters. Each of the men interviewed by Goodman are very different in their class backgrounds, beliefs and personalities, but are united in their adamancy that they did experience hauntings and that they left them completely shaken up afterwards. This reinforces the idea that the supernatural can target anyone, and leave anyone feeling helpless. Particular praise has to be given to Alex Lawther; after seeing him in season 3 of ‘Black Mirror’ I had high hopes, and he delivered. He’s certainly one to watch and I look forward to seeing what he gets up to next.
‘Ghost Stories’ is incredibly British in nature, mixing the right amount of dry humour and satire into what is an utterly terrifying experience overall. Other critics have said it’s the best British horror film in years, and I couldn’t agree more. It’s an incredibly gripping story that has a lot of twists and turns, and tugs at all of your heartstrings. Alongside the characters, I went through a number of emotions and felt fully invested in their lives. These are all characters that feel familiar, they’re your average human, which throws realism into the mix. Being able to identify with characters in a horror film makes your fear 100 times worse.
This film is best experienced with as little context as possible, if you walk into it completely blind, I believe you’ll get maximum enjoyment out of it. The trailers have done a great job at keeping it as vague as possible, which was a bonus. There’s nothing worse than trailers giving everything away in a few seconds. ‘Ghost Stories’ does have a twist ending, but I thought this was done brilliantly and I personally was unable to predict it. Nyman and Dyson have put so much effort into crafting an intense, thrilling, mysterious story and it’s seriously paid off. I’m now hoping ‘Ghost Stories’ will be returning to the stage soon, because I’ll be first in line for a ticket!
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/ghost-stories/
Based on the stage play of the same name, ‘Ghost Stories’ follows skeptic Professor Phillip Goodman’s (Nyman) investigation of three unsolved cases, each one detailing a different haunting. After meeting with his idol and fellow skeptic Charles Cameron, and feeling deflated when he begins to question his lifelong skepticism, Goodman meets with former night watchman Tony Matthews (Whitehouse), teenager Simon Rifkind (Lawther), and businessman Mike Priddle (Freeman) to learn about their firsthand experiences with the supernatural. The film is split into three segments, allowing each character to explain their case through the use of flashbacks where we get to see exactly what happened to the characters.
Throughout these flashbacks, Nyman and Dyson have utilised a number of popular horror techniques that will make you jump out of your seat, or hide behind your hands. There’s a serious feeling of unease throughout the entire film, and you have no idea what’s going to happen next. Even as an avid fan of the genre, I found myself genuinely terrified during a large portion of the film. ‘Ghost Stories’ knows exactly how to pace a horror film, and how to leave an audience uncomfortable yet unable to look away from the screen. Whilst the jump scare is inevitable, the film doesn’t overuse these and instead finds ways to build tension and fear, which actually heightens the experience because you find yourself trying to predict when something’s going to pop out at you. It leaves you on edge for the entire ninety minutes, which in my mind, is exactly what a horror film should do.
The stories told by each of the men are gripping, and the actors all do exceptional jobs of portraying their characters. Each of the men interviewed by Goodman are very different in their class backgrounds, beliefs and personalities, but are united in their adamancy that they did experience hauntings and that they left them completely shaken up afterwards. This reinforces the idea that the supernatural can target anyone, and leave anyone feeling helpless. Particular praise has to be given to Alex Lawther; after seeing him in season 3 of ‘Black Mirror’ I had high hopes, and he delivered. He’s certainly one to watch and I look forward to seeing what he gets up to next.
‘Ghost Stories’ is incredibly British in nature, mixing the right amount of dry humour and satire into what is an utterly terrifying experience overall. Other critics have said it’s the best British horror film in years, and I couldn’t agree more. It’s an incredibly gripping story that has a lot of twists and turns, and tugs at all of your heartstrings. Alongside the characters, I went through a number of emotions and felt fully invested in their lives. These are all characters that feel familiar, they’re your average human, which throws realism into the mix. Being able to identify with characters in a horror film makes your fear 100 times worse.
This film is best experienced with as little context as possible, if you walk into it completely blind, I believe you’ll get maximum enjoyment out of it. The trailers have done a great job at keeping it as vague as possible, which was a bonus. There’s nothing worse than trailers giving everything away in a few seconds. ‘Ghost Stories’ does have a twist ending, but I thought this was done brilliantly and I personally was unable to predict it. Nyman and Dyson have put so much effort into crafting an intense, thrilling, mysterious story and it’s seriously paid off. I’m now hoping ‘Ghost Stories’ will be returning to the stage soon, because I’ll be first in line for a ticket!
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/ghost-stories/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alone in the Dark (2005) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: I am going to first look at this only as a story, no opinions on the CGI or casting choices. If you were to look at the story as a solo idea you get a solid action horror. Now I hear people going ‘no its just crap’ so let’s look at the details. First off we have an idea of scientific experiment on children to create sleepers, but something goes wrong so we don’t see why it happened until more discoveries in the future. Then we have a search for hidden treasures of a lost ancient people. Add in a paranormal investigator, a secret government paranormal investigating team and the search for a truth. Now looking at those factors we should have a good story not special but enjoyable. Now with terrible casting decisions, awful CGI and a script that could have been written but a child everything goes south fast. As an idea for a story this is good, but as an execution of a story it’s bad. (5/10)
Actor Review
Christian Slater: Edward Carnby a paranormal investigator who has been trying to uncover the truth about his childhood, this puts him in danger as this time he has got closer than ever before. He must team up with his old organisation to final uncover the truth that has lost him the memories of his childhood. Slater strolls for this role without showing any of the skills that made him a star in the early 90s. (5/10)
slater
Tara Reid: Aline Cedrac assistant curator at the museum who also happens to be Edward’s girlfriend, she gets caught up in the middle of the battle after she uncover the location of the door. Going to take a deep breath before going for this one, just no how did this happen? Try your luck in romantic comedies. (2/10)
reid
Stephen Dorff: Commander Burke leader of a military team trying to keep the monsters away from the public, old partner of Edward but after seeing the truth he teams up with them to uncover the truth. Stephen can act and has proven it many times, just need to give him something to work with. (4/10)
dorff
Frank C Turner: Sam an old connection within the organisation that still communicates with Edward, he fills in the science gaps and you can guess what happens to him by the end. Basic supporting performance. (4/10)
fisher
Matthew Walker: Professor Hudgens scientist trying to open the door to the truth about the ancient people, he will do anything to get his answers including sacrificing anybody who gets in his way. As villains go this is generic one that doesn’t need too much to make them special. (4/10)
profes
Director Review: Uwe Boll – He not only managed to mess up a relatively easy story with awful CGI and lack of directing ideas. (2/10)
Action: Plenty of guns being fired, not sure if they ever hit anything as everything is in the pitch black. (3/10)
Horror: Doesn’t give you any scares, frights, well made with the acting. (1/10)
Settings: The settings used for the gun fights are used well, because they would make real settings for such a discover if someone wanted to keep it quiet. (6/10)
Special Effects: Terrible special effects that I only saw one good one and that was a soldier’s head split in two. (1/10)
Suggestion: I think if you are bored one night and this is on it would be acceptable to watch it as it slips close to the line of so bad you have to see. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: The idea
Worst Part: The CGI, Acting and Execution of the idea.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Actually has one sequel
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $10 Million
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Can mankind defeat the army of darkness unleashed by an ancient evil cult?
Overall: Not only did this film destroy the source material, it ruined any chance the video game had of returning.
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/11/09/alone-in-the-dark-2005/
Actor Review
Christian Slater: Edward Carnby a paranormal investigator who has been trying to uncover the truth about his childhood, this puts him in danger as this time he has got closer than ever before. He must team up with his old organisation to final uncover the truth that has lost him the memories of his childhood. Slater strolls for this role without showing any of the skills that made him a star in the early 90s. (5/10)
slater
Tara Reid: Aline Cedrac assistant curator at the museum who also happens to be Edward’s girlfriend, she gets caught up in the middle of the battle after she uncover the location of the door. Going to take a deep breath before going for this one, just no how did this happen? Try your luck in romantic comedies. (2/10)
reid
Stephen Dorff: Commander Burke leader of a military team trying to keep the monsters away from the public, old partner of Edward but after seeing the truth he teams up with them to uncover the truth. Stephen can act and has proven it many times, just need to give him something to work with. (4/10)
dorff
Frank C Turner: Sam an old connection within the organisation that still communicates with Edward, he fills in the science gaps and you can guess what happens to him by the end. Basic supporting performance. (4/10)
fisher
Matthew Walker: Professor Hudgens scientist trying to open the door to the truth about the ancient people, he will do anything to get his answers including sacrificing anybody who gets in his way. As villains go this is generic one that doesn’t need too much to make them special. (4/10)
profes
Director Review: Uwe Boll – He not only managed to mess up a relatively easy story with awful CGI and lack of directing ideas. (2/10)
Action: Plenty of guns being fired, not sure if they ever hit anything as everything is in the pitch black. (3/10)
Horror: Doesn’t give you any scares, frights, well made with the acting. (1/10)
Settings: The settings used for the gun fights are used well, because they would make real settings for such a discover if someone wanted to keep it quiet. (6/10)
Special Effects: Terrible special effects that I only saw one good one and that was a soldier’s head split in two. (1/10)
Suggestion: I think if you are bored one night and this is on it would be acceptable to watch it as it slips close to the line of so bad you have to see. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: The idea
Worst Part: The CGI, Acting and Execution of the idea.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Actually has one sequel
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $10 Million
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Can mankind defeat the army of darkness unleashed by an ancient evil cult?
Overall: Not only did this film destroy the source material, it ruined any chance the video game had of returning.
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/11/09/alone-in-the-dark-2005/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Daybreakers (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
In the not too distant future, the majority of the population are vampires and the world has been modified to adjust to the daylight. Remaining humans are "farmed" for blood, but the supply is running thin and the human race is on the verge of extinction. Dr. Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) is a hematologist that works at Bromley Marks, the empire of Charles Bromley (Sam Neill), and is put in charge of finding a blood substitute, but has come up empty handed up until this point. Dalton is convinced that the vampire race has its work cut out for them with the blood supply being so low. He runs into a small group of humans one night at work and is eventually introduced to Lionel "Elvis" Cormac (Willem Dafoe), a former vampire who has something better than a blood substitute; a cure. Now Dalton finds himself risking everything on an experimental treatment that could be the key to saving mankind.
Daybreakers had all the ingredients of a film that should be loved by any horror fan. First and foremost, it's a new vampire movie that isn't Twilight. On top of that, it's R-rated so it doesn't pull any punches when it comes to blood and gore (and trust me, there's quite a bit). It also offers a bit of a new twist on what was otherwise exhausted when it comes to stories relating to vampires. With all that being said, however, it still wasn't as good as it should have been.
It was great to see Willem Dafoe and Sam Neill not only as part of the cast, but also both have decent amounts of screen time. Sam Neill was in John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness, which is a favorite of mine that managed to make me a fan of the Irish actor. Willem Dafoe just seems underrated and doesn't get the credit he deserves. Not that his role in this will really change anyone's minds regarding him as a great actor or anything, but that's jumping the gun a bit. The story is the film's strong point, but is still pretty flawed. Humans being farmed for blood and dying out is a great concept. The cure is rather different and unique than what you've become used to in vampire films, which lead to an interesting third act. The ending is probably where the film could potentially make someone dislike the film. Not everyone is going to like the finale, but it was a nice change of pace to not have the same recycled storyline or ending for once.
Regarding the acting though, there isn't much of it. Willem Dafoe shows a little personality and has a one-liner or two that will get a few laughs. Sam Neill also shows some signs of life and fits the role as the main villain of the film rather well. Every other character felt rather flat and showed no depth at all. While the blood used in the film was a fantastic color, some of the special effects seemed rather cheesy at times. Mainly the scene where a vampire is hanging from the ceiling fighting Ethan Hawke and his brother comes to mind. The cuts were quick, which seemed to try and cover up the fact, but it still stuck out. That may be nitpicking a bit since it was pretty top notch the rest of the time. The Underworld films (at least the first two) come to mind as they left the same kind of bitter aftertaste and seemed to suffer similar problems.
It's a shame Daybreakers didn't live up to its potential. It contains a strong cast and delivers an original take on something that's been associated with horror for nearly 200 years. The acting is what seems to hurt the film the most though since the way everyone says their lines makes it seem like they don't want to be there. It's still worth viewing, but you may want to rent before buying. In all honesty, it may be worth supporting just to get an R-rated vampire film a bit more recognition and slightly dim the spotlight currently shining on whatever teenage vampire franchise is currently taking off for whatever reason.
Daybreakers had all the ingredients of a film that should be loved by any horror fan. First and foremost, it's a new vampire movie that isn't Twilight. On top of that, it's R-rated so it doesn't pull any punches when it comes to blood and gore (and trust me, there's quite a bit). It also offers a bit of a new twist on what was otherwise exhausted when it comes to stories relating to vampires. With all that being said, however, it still wasn't as good as it should have been.
It was great to see Willem Dafoe and Sam Neill not only as part of the cast, but also both have decent amounts of screen time. Sam Neill was in John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness, which is a favorite of mine that managed to make me a fan of the Irish actor. Willem Dafoe just seems underrated and doesn't get the credit he deserves. Not that his role in this will really change anyone's minds regarding him as a great actor or anything, but that's jumping the gun a bit. The story is the film's strong point, but is still pretty flawed. Humans being farmed for blood and dying out is a great concept. The cure is rather different and unique than what you've become used to in vampire films, which lead to an interesting third act. The ending is probably where the film could potentially make someone dislike the film. Not everyone is going to like the finale, but it was a nice change of pace to not have the same recycled storyline or ending for once.
Regarding the acting though, there isn't much of it. Willem Dafoe shows a little personality and has a one-liner or two that will get a few laughs. Sam Neill also shows some signs of life and fits the role as the main villain of the film rather well. Every other character felt rather flat and showed no depth at all. While the blood used in the film was a fantastic color, some of the special effects seemed rather cheesy at times. Mainly the scene where a vampire is hanging from the ceiling fighting Ethan Hawke and his brother comes to mind. The cuts were quick, which seemed to try and cover up the fact, but it still stuck out. That may be nitpicking a bit since it was pretty top notch the rest of the time. The Underworld films (at least the first two) come to mind as they left the same kind of bitter aftertaste and seemed to suffer similar problems.
It's a shame Daybreakers didn't live up to its potential. It contains a strong cast and delivers an original take on something that's been associated with horror for nearly 200 years. The acting is what seems to hurt the film the most though since the way everyone says their lines makes it seem like they don't want to be there. It's still worth viewing, but you may want to rent before buying. In all honesty, it may be worth supporting just to get an R-rated vampire film a bit more recognition and slightly dim the spotlight currently shining on whatever teenage vampire franchise is currently taking off for whatever reason.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Little Monsters (2019) in Movies
Nov 15, 2019
Verdict: Delightful
Story: Little Monsters starts when a washed up musician Dave (England) breaks up with his girlfriend Sara (Townsend) moving in with his sister Tess (Stewart) and her son Felix (Le Torraca), after getting his heart broken, Dave gets left on his last warning with Tess and after he meets Felix’s teacher Miss Caroline (Nyong’o) he ends up agreeing to go on a school trip.
When the trip seems to be going well, the school kids, Miss Caroline and Dave must find safety as zombies have broken free and heading to the petting zoo, joined by celebrity children’s host Teddy McGiggle (Gad) they must stay safe or face death.
Thoughts on Little Monsters
Characters – Miss Caroline is the kindergarten teacher that has the respect from all her students, treating them like nothing is going wrong no matter what is happening, she will always remain calm, with a smile on her face she takes complete control of the zombie outbreak. She has seen the father hit on her in the past which makes it easy for her to ignore them. Dave was once in a metal band, he had a girlfriend he always fought with him leading to him moving in with his sister and nephew. He is a terrible role model for Felix with his swearing, not listening and accepting it ok for a 5-year-old to play zombie games. He wants to get to know Miss Caroline and over this school trip he learns that there is more to life. Teddy McGiggle is a children’s entertainer who is world famous with every kid loving his work, when the zombies arrive, he shows the worst in mankind. The kids are all brilliant without being annoying like most would become in zombie films.
Performances – Lupita Nyong’o is wonderful to watch being a ray of sunshine through the film, bring a character that is completely different to anything we have seen before. Alexander England is excellent too, being someone, you could never see around children, getting so many laughs in the film. Josh Gad is great too, though it does seem like his character is slightly too much over the top at times. The young actors look like they are having a ball which is important for a film like this.
Story – The story here follows a teacher, a washed up musician and a group of school kids that get trapped during a zombie outbreak in a petting zoo. The best way to describe this story would be that we be, that we are focused on the human factors over the zombies, who are just background problem. We get to see how one man must learn about his life and start taking it more serious after years of wasting his time. We see zombies tackled a different way without needing to give us any sort of flashy zombie kill, which most all try to do, this is a character piece that shows positivity can give you hope no matter what is in your way. If you don’t end up smiling by the end of this film, it will be a surprise.
Comedy/Horror – The comedy is the highlight of this film, we get plenty of laughs, being part of the idea of Dave saying things or doing things around children along with how relaxing the survival attempts end up looking.
Settings – The film is mostly set on a petting zoo, which is meant to be a happy place for the children, despite it turning into a nightmare situation for the adults once the zombies come out.
Special Effects – The zombies are done with great practical effects, while any of the violence is withheld away from the camera.
Scene of the Movie – The tractor rescue.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It seems like we didn’t need Teddy’s character if we are being completely honest.
Final Thoughts – This is a truly delightful watch, with loveable characters, adorable kids and a fresh take on the zombie genre, showing it is about the characters, not the zombies.
Overall: Enjoyable from start to finish.
Story: Little Monsters starts when a washed up musician Dave (England) breaks up with his girlfriend Sara (Townsend) moving in with his sister Tess (Stewart) and her son Felix (Le Torraca), after getting his heart broken, Dave gets left on his last warning with Tess and after he meets Felix’s teacher Miss Caroline (Nyong’o) he ends up agreeing to go on a school trip.
When the trip seems to be going well, the school kids, Miss Caroline and Dave must find safety as zombies have broken free and heading to the petting zoo, joined by celebrity children’s host Teddy McGiggle (Gad) they must stay safe or face death.
Thoughts on Little Monsters
Characters – Miss Caroline is the kindergarten teacher that has the respect from all her students, treating them like nothing is going wrong no matter what is happening, she will always remain calm, with a smile on her face she takes complete control of the zombie outbreak. She has seen the father hit on her in the past which makes it easy for her to ignore them. Dave was once in a metal band, he had a girlfriend he always fought with him leading to him moving in with his sister and nephew. He is a terrible role model for Felix with his swearing, not listening and accepting it ok for a 5-year-old to play zombie games. He wants to get to know Miss Caroline and over this school trip he learns that there is more to life. Teddy McGiggle is a children’s entertainer who is world famous with every kid loving his work, when the zombies arrive, he shows the worst in mankind. The kids are all brilliant without being annoying like most would become in zombie films.
Performances – Lupita Nyong’o is wonderful to watch being a ray of sunshine through the film, bring a character that is completely different to anything we have seen before. Alexander England is excellent too, being someone, you could never see around children, getting so many laughs in the film. Josh Gad is great too, though it does seem like his character is slightly too much over the top at times. The young actors look like they are having a ball which is important for a film like this.
Story – The story here follows a teacher, a washed up musician and a group of school kids that get trapped during a zombie outbreak in a petting zoo. The best way to describe this story would be that we be, that we are focused on the human factors over the zombies, who are just background problem. We get to see how one man must learn about his life and start taking it more serious after years of wasting his time. We see zombies tackled a different way without needing to give us any sort of flashy zombie kill, which most all try to do, this is a character piece that shows positivity can give you hope no matter what is in your way. If you don’t end up smiling by the end of this film, it will be a surprise.
Comedy/Horror – The comedy is the highlight of this film, we get plenty of laughs, being part of the idea of Dave saying things or doing things around children along with how relaxing the survival attempts end up looking.
Settings – The film is mostly set on a petting zoo, which is meant to be a happy place for the children, despite it turning into a nightmare situation for the adults once the zombies come out.
Special Effects – The zombies are done with great practical effects, while any of the violence is withheld away from the camera.
Scene of the Movie – The tractor rescue.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It seems like we didn’t need Teddy’s character if we are being completely honest.
Final Thoughts – This is a truly delightful watch, with loveable characters, adorable kids and a fresh take on the zombie genre, showing it is about the characters, not the zombies.
Overall: Enjoyable from start to finish.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Men in Black III (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Fifteen years after bursting onto the scene, award winning actors Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones are back in black in Men In Black 3! Alien-busting agents J (Will Smith) and K (Tommy Lee Jones) are here once again to protect the galaxy, and the people of Earth, in this action-packed, hilarious and attention-grabbing adventure that is sure to redeem itself from its previous sequel flop.
Men In Black 3 features a time travel plot, with a comedic twist, that focuses on the relationship between Agent J, and surly old character, Agent K. Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones have fantastic and seamless chemistry that makes it easy to dispel disbelief and emerse yourself into this secret world of aliens among us.
The film starts off with what seams like a casual conversation, between wise cracking charismatic Agent J and always grumpy Agent K, but soon leads to Agent K stonewalling J’s questions about K’s past by stating, “Don’t ask questions you don’t want to know the answers to.” As Will Smith’s character persists, our curiosity grows, and a conspiracy of a cover up and clues to Agent K’s dark past unfolds.
Meanwhile, one of the most feared criminals in the galaxy, Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement), has just escaped from a maximum security prison that was built on the moon to detain him. Boris wants nothing more than to seek revenge on the person responsible for his 40 year incarceration and kill the man responsible for the loss of his arm, Agent K. Through a murderous rage Boris secures a time travel device and jumps back in time to 1969, where he rewrites history by killing K in hopes that his Boglodite alien kind will fulfill their mission to use and destroy present day Earth. The only person aware that time has been altered is, of course, Agent J who ends up traveling back in time to stop Boris the Animal. In doing so, Agent J unites with the younger Agent K (Josh Brolin) and has to work together to ultimately save mankind. Josh Brolin’s performance was spot on. He gave an uncanny impression of Jones, right down to the mannerisms and facial expressions. He was very entertaining to watch.
When I first heard about a third Men in Black movie, I didn’t expect much out of this 10 year dormant franchise. Mainly because the second movie left so little to be desired, due to its horrible storyline and less than stellar performances by the lead characters. I honestly cannot remember a single enjoyable moment from Men in Black 2, someone must have neuralized me!
Barry Sonnenfeld is back in the director’s seat, hoping to redeem himself from the disaster that was Men in Black 2. He attempts to return to the original formula that made the first Men in Black movie fun, original and entertaining. Proving to have succeeded in creating a more worthwhile storyline, there are however moments within the movie that seem a bit thrown together, times in the plot that could have been expanded upon but may have ended up on the editing room floor.
Kudos to the special effects and art direction team for once again creating amusingly and outlandish aliens that were the real stars of the show. The special effects, such as Boris’ dart spitting spider-like creature that lives inside his hand, were particularly gruesome.
Both Sonnenfeld and Smith, who serve as producers, were aiming at providing more substance to the third installment. They wanted to delve into the relationship between J and K and why K has such a bitter and distant persona, especially after having been partners for 15 years. The real reasons will shock you. I won’t spoil the surprising end, but it was a touching twist that I did not see coming. It made me appreciate both characters and had me walking out of the theater feeling pumped up from all of the action, giddy from all of the laughs and moved from the heartfelt ending. They pulled it off without being sappy, a well rounded action comedy, suitable for the whole family.
Men In Black 3 features a time travel plot, with a comedic twist, that focuses on the relationship between Agent J, and surly old character, Agent K. Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones have fantastic and seamless chemistry that makes it easy to dispel disbelief and emerse yourself into this secret world of aliens among us.
The film starts off with what seams like a casual conversation, between wise cracking charismatic Agent J and always grumpy Agent K, but soon leads to Agent K stonewalling J’s questions about K’s past by stating, “Don’t ask questions you don’t want to know the answers to.” As Will Smith’s character persists, our curiosity grows, and a conspiracy of a cover up and clues to Agent K’s dark past unfolds.
Meanwhile, one of the most feared criminals in the galaxy, Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement), has just escaped from a maximum security prison that was built on the moon to detain him. Boris wants nothing more than to seek revenge on the person responsible for his 40 year incarceration and kill the man responsible for the loss of his arm, Agent K. Through a murderous rage Boris secures a time travel device and jumps back in time to 1969, where he rewrites history by killing K in hopes that his Boglodite alien kind will fulfill their mission to use and destroy present day Earth. The only person aware that time has been altered is, of course, Agent J who ends up traveling back in time to stop Boris the Animal. In doing so, Agent J unites with the younger Agent K (Josh Brolin) and has to work together to ultimately save mankind. Josh Brolin’s performance was spot on. He gave an uncanny impression of Jones, right down to the mannerisms and facial expressions. He was very entertaining to watch.
When I first heard about a third Men in Black movie, I didn’t expect much out of this 10 year dormant franchise. Mainly because the second movie left so little to be desired, due to its horrible storyline and less than stellar performances by the lead characters. I honestly cannot remember a single enjoyable moment from Men in Black 2, someone must have neuralized me!
Barry Sonnenfeld is back in the director’s seat, hoping to redeem himself from the disaster that was Men in Black 2. He attempts to return to the original formula that made the first Men in Black movie fun, original and entertaining. Proving to have succeeded in creating a more worthwhile storyline, there are however moments within the movie that seem a bit thrown together, times in the plot that could have been expanded upon but may have ended up on the editing room floor.
Kudos to the special effects and art direction team for once again creating amusingly and outlandish aliens that were the real stars of the show. The special effects, such as Boris’ dart spitting spider-like creature that lives inside his hand, were particularly gruesome.
Both Sonnenfeld and Smith, who serve as producers, were aiming at providing more substance to the third installment. They wanted to delve into the relationship between J and K and why K has such a bitter and distant persona, especially after having been partners for 15 years. The real reasons will shock you. I won’t spoil the surprising end, but it was a touching twist that I did not see coming. It made me appreciate both characters and had me walking out of the theater feeling pumped up from all of the action, giddy from all of the laughs and moved from the heartfelt ending. They pulled it off without being sappy, a well rounded action comedy, suitable for the whole family.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film that leaves you in two minds.
After all the terrible reviews of this movie (“The Times” reviewer described it as “excreble” which is harsh indeed) I was steeling myself to reach for my 1* rating. I was happy to find that it wasn’t quite as bad as I was expecting it to be. Indeed parts of it were positively good fun.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who “won’t be missed”… with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brock’s future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel “Spider-Man 3”. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production “with” Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as “tonally inconsistent”…. which is posh-critic language for “it’s fecking all over the place”! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like it’s decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an “item”. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (“Dan” from “Veep”) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the “really bad guy” Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in “Rogue One”, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit “monkey” as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no “monkey” at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming “Into the Spider Verse” cartoon feature tacked onto the end – at least of this Cineworld showing – which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig Göransson (who’s previously done “Black Panther” and “Creed”): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddie’s theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical “don’t want to know” approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasn’t nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who “won’t be missed”… with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brock’s future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel “Spider-Man 3”. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production “with” Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as “tonally inconsistent”…. which is posh-critic language for “it’s fecking all over the place”! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like it’s decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an “item”. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (“Dan” from “Veep”) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the “really bad guy” Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in “Rogue One”, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit “monkey” as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no “monkey” at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming “Into the Spider Verse” cartoon feature tacked onto the end – at least of this Cineworld showing – which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig Göransson (who’s previously done “Black Panther” and “Creed”): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddie’s theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical “don’t want to know” approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasn’t nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Space Kraken in Tabletop Games
Jul 22, 2021
The overall story is not unfamiliar. Scientists create a genetically-modified creature to help solve a global problem, creature is somehow mutated through radioactive exposure, creature poses a threat to mankind, mankind must eliminate the creature. Now take that monster to space and BAM – we’ve got the origins on Space Kraken. Humanity has been forced to space in search of a new inhabitable planet. But alien races await you in the vast unknown, and the Space Kraken is always lurking…
Disclaimer: We were provided with a demo version of Space Kraken. The gameplay is that of the full version, just with a shorter storyline and fewer variations. What you see pictured below may not be identical to what will be received in the finalized version. Also, the game can be played solo or with multiple players – this preview will be covering the solo-only mode of play. I do not intend to cover the entire rulebook, but rather provide an overview of the mechanics and gameplay. -L
Space Kraken is a sci-fi dungeon crawler encompassed in a spiral-bound book. The only additional components you need are 2d6, 1d20, and a pencil with a decent eraser. To start a new game, you will first get set up for the campaign. There are 6 Flights (game modes) to choose from and you select one with which to play. Different Flights affect the start of game conditions, which will affect the overall gameplay. For example, one Flight might offer bonuses to your ability scores, while another could give you stronger weapons right from the start. Once you’ve selected your Flight, you will then set up your Story Lines. These will help dictate the story of your overall campaign, and will be influenced by your strategies and decisions along the way. From crucial plot points to opportunities for ‘side quests,’ the Story Lines work to drive the narrative. The next step is to create your crew. You choose 3 heroes to start with, and will ‘build’ them by giving them attributes, equipment, and skills. The specific parameters are detailed in the rules. After the crew is created, the game is officially ready to begin!
A game of Space Kraken is played over a series of turns, broken down into 5 phases. The first phase of a turn is to Activate Story Lines. These are tracked across a series of 4 tables of coordinates. Find the coordinate on the appropriate table for your Story Line, and proceed as necessary. Some coordinates link to Events that require you to make decisions, roll dice, execute commands, while other coordinates will just link to a new coordinate to be used next turn. Once you have Activated and resolved all your Story Lines for the turn, the game moves to the Ship Construction phase. At the start of the game, you will most likely skip this phase, but as the game progresses and you earn funds, you will be able to upgrade and modify your spaceship during this part of the turn.
The third phase of a turn is to Perform Your Own Action. You can choose to either: Initiate Space Flight, Land at an Already-Discovered Location, or Activate a Story Line Again. Initiating space flight gives you the opportunity to explore different regions of space, discover/explore new locations, and sometimes even engage in space combat. You could choose to land at an already-discovered location, which allows you to visit many of the ‘dungeons’. Or you can activate a story line again, which lets you advance one of your story lines forward. After you perform your own action, phase 4 begins – Quick Visit a Shop, Ammo Dealer, or Quest Master. This one is pretty self-explanatory. You can trade or purchase goods from locations you have visited, or you could visit the Quest Master for ‘side quests.’ And then finally the last turn phase is Quest Timer. Any quests you have that were not advanced in this turn get a mark for Lost Time – after 5 marks they are erased! So prioritize wisely when it comes to your quest completion. A new turn now begins, following the same phase structure as detailed above. The game continues until either you have defeated the Space Kraken, or your entire crew and/or ship has perished.
At first glance, Space Kraken is kind of daunting and intimidating. There’s a bit of a learning curve as you figure out this gameplay system before you can really dive in to play. That being said, once you understand how the different aspects work – Space Flight, Combat, Story Lines, Dungeon Exploration, etc. – it will all click together. This isn’t a game you just pick up and decide to play on a whim, it’s one that takes focus and dedication to complete a play-through. Just something to keep in mind! As with most campaign-style games, the question of replayability is always in the forefront, and I think that Space Kraken really handles it very well. The Story Lines alone offer a range of variability that ensures no two games will be the same. How you build your crew and ship could influence decisions made with regards to Story Lines, which in turn leads you down a unique path with a plethora of opportunities. The mechanic for generating new locations to explore (the dungeon crawling element) also provides a variety of places to explore, alien races to interact with, and physical elements like atmosphere. The chances for generating the exact same location more than once are pretty slim, I would say. All of these elements just add to the replayability of Space Kraken and keep it fresh and unique for each play-through.
Guiding the overall gameplay are your dice. Some Story Lines offer 2 solutions, and you will roll the dice to see with which one you end up. To generate a new location, you roll the dice a number of times, looking at the corresponding tables in order to build the map for your current foray into space. Obviously, combat, either in ships or on the ground, will use dice to help dictate the flow of battle and the outcomes of said fights. That is how you can get so much replayability from this game – dice rolling. The range of Story Lines and locations coupled with dice rolls really create a one-of-a-kind gameplay experience, no matter how many times you play through. You’ll never play the same game twice….well, unless your dice results are the exact same for every roll as they were the previous game.
Let’s touch on components for a minute. As stated above, this is only a demo version of the game. That being said, the game is encompassed in a spiral-bound book, and that is what the complete game will be like too. The only things you need to play besides the book are a couple of d6, a d20, and a pencil! I think it’s neat that so much gameplay can be packed into a single book. Between sessions if you’re not able to leave the book on your table, simply mark your page, fold everything back into the book, and you’re good to go! What do I mean by fold everything back into the book? Several of the pages in this game have fold-outs of additional materials to be pulled out when necessary. I really like that if you don’t currently need a page, it doesn’t need to be showing. It helps keep the game a little more focused, visually, in my opinion. My only complaint is that a couple of times, a fold-out section may overlap another fold-out section, meaning that you have to end up flipping pages anyway. A small price to pay for an all-in-one game book! My other qualm is that as you play, you will write in the book. After you complete a play-through, you can go back and play again – just erase everything and start over. My concern is that with repeated erasing on the pages, the quality will wear down and could be unusable after a certain number of plays. Maybe that’s not a problem for other gamers, but that is something that jumped into my head when playing this.
Overall thoughts? Space Kraken is pretty cool. There is a bit of a learning curve as you delve into the new system, but once you’ve got the general mechanics/gameplay down, the rest is pretty straight-forward. The fact that the entire game is encompassed in one book is a neat element too. It allows you to ‘save’ your progress and come back to it without the hassle of setting up a million components. Having only played the solo version of the game, I’m curious to see how the multiplayer side works, so that may just be my next play-through! If you’re in the market for a campaign-style game, without requiring tons of table space and eons of time to play through, consider checking out Space Kraken. It successfully funded on Kickstarter and the late pledges are now open!
Disclaimer: We were provided with a demo version of Space Kraken. The gameplay is that of the full version, just with a shorter storyline and fewer variations. What you see pictured below may not be identical to what will be received in the finalized version. Also, the game can be played solo or with multiple players – this preview will be covering the solo-only mode of play. I do not intend to cover the entire rulebook, but rather provide an overview of the mechanics and gameplay. -L
Space Kraken is a sci-fi dungeon crawler encompassed in a spiral-bound book. The only additional components you need are 2d6, 1d20, and a pencil with a decent eraser. To start a new game, you will first get set up for the campaign. There are 6 Flights (game modes) to choose from and you select one with which to play. Different Flights affect the start of game conditions, which will affect the overall gameplay. For example, one Flight might offer bonuses to your ability scores, while another could give you stronger weapons right from the start. Once you’ve selected your Flight, you will then set up your Story Lines. These will help dictate the story of your overall campaign, and will be influenced by your strategies and decisions along the way. From crucial plot points to opportunities for ‘side quests,’ the Story Lines work to drive the narrative. The next step is to create your crew. You choose 3 heroes to start with, and will ‘build’ them by giving them attributes, equipment, and skills. The specific parameters are detailed in the rules. After the crew is created, the game is officially ready to begin!
A game of Space Kraken is played over a series of turns, broken down into 5 phases. The first phase of a turn is to Activate Story Lines. These are tracked across a series of 4 tables of coordinates. Find the coordinate on the appropriate table for your Story Line, and proceed as necessary. Some coordinates link to Events that require you to make decisions, roll dice, execute commands, while other coordinates will just link to a new coordinate to be used next turn. Once you have Activated and resolved all your Story Lines for the turn, the game moves to the Ship Construction phase. At the start of the game, you will most likely skip this phase, but as the game progresses and you earn funds, you will be able to upgrade and modify your spaceship during this part of the turn.
The third phase of a turn is to Perform Your Own Action. You can choose to either: Initiate Space Flight, Land at an Already-Discovered Location, or Activate a Story Line Again. Initiating space flight gives you the opportunity to explore different regions of space, discover/explore new locations, and sometimes even engage in space combat. You could choose to land at an already-discovered location, which allows you to visit many of the ‘dungeons’. Or you can activate a story line again, which lets you advance one of your story lines forward. After you perform your own action, phase 4 begins – Quick Visit a Shop, Ammo Dealer, or Quest Master. This one is pretty self-explanatory. You can trade or purchase goods from locations you have visited, or you could visit the Quest Master for ‘side quests.’ And then finally the last turn phase is Quest Timer. Any quests you have that were not advanced in this turn get a mark for Lost Time – after 5 marks they are erased! So prioritize wisely when it comes to your quest completion. A new turn now begins, following the same phase structure as detailed above. The game continues until either you have defeated the Space Kraken, or your entire crew and/or ship has perished.
At first glance, Space Kraken is kind of daunting and intimidating. There’s a bit of a learning curve as you figure out this gameplay system before you can really dive in to play. That being said, once you understand how the different aspects work – Space Flight, Combat, Story Lines, Dungeon Exploration, etc. – it will all click together. This isn’t a game you just pick up and decide to play on a whim, it’s one that takes focus and dedication to complete a play-through. Just something to keep in mind! As with most campaign-style games, the question of replayability is always in the forefront, and I think that Space Kraken really handles it very well. The Story Lines alone offer a range of variability that ensures no two games will be the same. How you build your crew and ship could influence decisions made with regards to Story Lines, which in turn leads you down a unique path with a plethora of opportunities. The mechanic for generating new locations to explore (the dungeon crawling element) also provides a variety of places to explore, alien races to interact with, and physical elements like atmosphere. The chances for generating the exact same location more than once are pretty slim, I would say. All of these elements just add to the replayability of Space Kraken and keep it fresh and unique for each play-through.
Guiding the overall gameplay are your dice. Some Story Lines offer 2 solutions, and you will roll the dice to see with which one you end up. To generate a new location, you roll the dice a number of times, looking at the corresponding tables in order to build the map for your current foray into space. Obviously, combat, either in ships or on the ground, will use dice to help dictate the flow of battle and the outcomes of said fights. That is how you can get so much replayability from this game – dice rolling. The range of Story Lines and locations coupled with dice rolls really create a one-of-a-kind gameplay experience, no matter how many times you play through. You’ll never play the same game twice….well, unless your dice results are the exact same for every roll as they were the previous game.
Let’s touch on components for a minute. As stated above, this is only a demo version of the game. That being said, the game is encompassed in a spiral-bound book, and that is what the complete game will be like too. The only things you need to play besides the book are a couple of d6, a d20, and a pencil! I think it’s neat that so much gameplay can be packed into a single book. Between sessions if you’re not able to leave the book on your table, simply mark your page, fold everything back into the book, and you’re good to go! What do I mean by fold everything back into the book? Several of the pages in this game have fold-outs of additional materials to be pulled out when necessary. I really like that if you don’t currently need a page, it doesn’t need to be showing. It helps keep the game a little more focused, visually, in my opinion. My only complaint is that a couple of times, a fold-out section may overlap another fold-out section, meaning that you have to end up flipping pages anyway. A small price to pay for an all-in-one game book! My other qualm is that as you play, you will write in the book. After you complete a play-through, you can go back and play again – just erase everything and start over. My concern is that with repeated erasing on the pages, the quality will wear down and could be unusable after a certain number of plays. Maybe that’s not a problem for other gamers, but that is something that jumped into my head when playing this.
Overall thoughts? Space Kraken is pretty cool. There is a bit of a learning curve as you delve into the new system, but once you’ve got the general mechanics/gameplay down, the rest is pretty straight-forward. The fact that the entire game is encompassed in one book is a neat element too. It allows you to ‘save’ your progress and come back to it without the hassle of setting up a million components. Having only played the solo version of the game, I’m curious to see how the multiplayer side works, so that may just be my next play-through! If you’re in the market for a campaign-style game, without requiring tons of table space and eons of time to play through, consider checking out Space Kraken. It successfully funded on Kickstarter and the late pledges are now open!
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated Holding Out for a Hero (Jelvia: Not Human #1) in Books
Jan 9, 2020
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
WARNING: FOR READERS 18 YEARS OLD AND OLDER ONLY!
Normally I would put who I believe the target readers are at the end of my review, but because of the genre of this book things are going to be a little different. The target readers for this book are adults, 18 years old and older. This book is labeled as an erotica. There are vivid sex scenes with mild bondage and kinky play throughout this book. You have been warned.
Jelvia Not Human 1: Holding Out for a Hero by T. E. Kessler was originally published under the author name of L. Wise and with a different cover. Most erotica fantasy books use vampires or werewolves as a main character type but this book introduced is an entirely new race, the Jelvia. From reading this book I have learned that they are similar to humans and appearance, only they are significantly taller. I don't want to give away too much about who or what they are as I enjoyed learning about them during the book.
Macy, a journalist for a newspaper called the London Echo, lives with her friend Courtney. One night Courtney is attacked by a group of guys outside of a store. Suddenly her attack flee and Courtney find herself face to face with a Jelvia. Now Macy's sets out to prove that Jelvias are not the dangerous threat to mankind that everyone seems to think they are. After William, the owner of the paper Macy works for, sees a video of Macy speaking to a Jelvia he invite her to work directly for him. He has this idea of a special team for a paper that will report the truth on Jelvias all of the fear inducing media hype other papers publish.
As it turns out William is not exactly who he says he is. He askes Macy to get close to a Jelvia to get information from him. As it turns out the Jelvia, named Narcifer, has received the same orders in regards to Macy. Things get even more complicated when Macy and Narcifer fall for each other and realize that both of their bosses are using them. The two races do not approve of or trust the other, so now it is up to Macy and Narcifer decide if their love is worth everything they may lose. Can they approve to humans that the Jelvia are not as dangerous as they are made out to be? Can they prove to the Jelvias that look down on humans that humans are not just wheat creatures that are in the way or a danger to their own race?
What I liked best about this book is that it stayed true to the erotica style. Many erotica books tend to fall too much toward the side of a mushy romance instead. It also contained a strong storyline that remained interesting. The sex, while it was consistent, was not the main focus of the story and was appropriate in its timing. What I liked least about the book is actually a common complaint of mine. Parts of the story were repeated multiple times as information was spread from one person to another. To me this starts to make a book drag and I find myself wanting to skim over paragraphs or even pages at a time.
Overall I rate this book a 3 out of 4. It is hard to find an erotica book that bounces the sex and story well. This book is very well balanced and the plot was strong. Only reason why it got a 3 instead of a 4 was because of it being repetitive. I do look forward to reading more of this series as it becomes available and hope that I have a chance to review the rest of the books. I am very interested and where Macy's relationship will lead and if humans and Jelvia ever become mostly tolerant of each other.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
Normally I would put who I believe the target readers are at the end of my review, but because of the genre of this book things are going to be a little different. The target readers for this book are adults, 18 years old and older. This book is labeled as an erotica. There are vivid sex scenes with mild bondage and kinky play throughout this book. You have been warned.
Jelvia Not Human 1: Holding Out for a Hero by T. E. Kessler was originally published under the author name of L. Wise and with a different cover. Most erotica fantasy books use vampires or werewolves as a main character type but this book introduced is an entirely new race, the Jelvia. From reading this book I have learned that they are similar to humans and appearance, only they are significantly taller. I don't want to give away too much about who or what they are as I enjoyed learning about them during the book.
Macy, a journalist for a newspaper called the London Echo, lives with her friend Courtney. One night Courtney is attacked by a group of guys outside of a store. Suddenly her attack flee and Courtney find herself face to face with a Jelvia. Now Macy's sets out to prove that Jelvias are not the dangerous threat to mankind that everyone seems to think they are. After William, the owner of the paper Macy works for, sees a video of Macy speaking to a Jelvia he invite her to work directly for him. He has this idea of a special team for a paper that will report the truth on Jelvias all of the fear inducing media hype other papers publish.
As it turns out William is not exactly who he says he is. He askes Macy to get close to a Jelvia to get information from him. As it turns out the Jelvia, named Narcifer, has received the same orders in regards to Macy. Things get even more complicated when Macy and Narcifer fall for each other and realize that both of their bosses are using them. The two races do not approve of or trust the other, so now it is up to Macy and Narcifer decide if their love is worth everything they may lose. Can they approve to humans that the Jelvia are not as dangerous as they are made out to be? Can they prove to the Jelvias that look down on humans that humans are not just wheat creatures that are in the way or a danger to their own race?
What I liked best about this book is that it stayed true to the erotica style. Many erotica books tend to fall too much toward the side of a mushy romance instead. It also contained a strong storyline that remained interesting. The sex, while it was consistent, was not the main focus of the story and was appropriate in its timing. What I liked least about the book is actually a common complaint of mine. Parts of the story were repeated multiple times as information was spread from one person to another. To me this starts to make a book drag and I find myself wanting to skim over paragraphs or even pages at a time.
Overall I rate this book a 3 out of 4. It is hard to find an erotica book that bounces the sex and story well. This book is very well balanced and the plot was strong. Only reason why it got a 3 instead of a 4 was because of it being repetitive. I do look forward to reading more of this series as it becomes available and hope that I have a chance to review the rest of the books. I am very interested and where Macy's relationship will lead and if humans and Jelvia ever become mostly tolerant of each other.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
Andy K (10823 KP) Mar 4, 2018
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) Mar 4, 2018