Search
Search results
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated The Kringle Caper in Tabletop Games
Dec 18, 2021
Ahh, Christmas. Most people’s favorite holiday (at least in the U.S.), and one that I am learning to like more and more every year, but only because of my wife and children. I was not really much of a Christmas kind of guy – Halloween is my jam – but seeing little faces light up with excitement while in their tiny pajamas just makes the heart swell. I don’t want to ruin too much for you all, but something has happened at the North Pole and I know my children would appreciate it so much if you could help Santa out. Thanks!
The Kringle Caper is a Christmas-themed escape room type card game. It consists of 18 cards and I found it much more difficult than its sibling, The Independence Incident, which I reviewed in July.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook (as there is none), but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase from your FLGS. -T
To setup, open the flaps of the box containing the cards, navigate to the provided website to launch a web-based companion app, and the game may officially begin!
As I do not wish to spoil anything about the game, I will merely state here that following directions, completing puzzles, and knowing a little something about the Christmas holiday will benefit players immensely. Sorry I cannot say more, I would rather you all experience it for yourselves.
Components. This game consists of 18 double-sided cards and a nifty little box to hold it all. The cards are all nice quality, and feature very specific artwork on them. I have no complaints about the components at all here. Grand Gamers Guild always provide great quality games.
Ok, be mad at me if you like, but I just cannot bring myself to go into great detail about the game mechanics, how to play, or what is really included. Just know that this is probably a game you will play once and pass along, or keep several years between plays so that it doesn’t become too repetitive and easy to solve.
I know reviews like these could be considered a cash grab normally, but we don’t accept payment for any of our reviews, so I will use this section to lay out what I like and what I do not like about this installment. I just love the idea of these types of games: small decks that provide so many decisions to be made, or puzzles to solve, and riddles to mull over. Personally, I prefer The Independence Incident, but not because I think this version is weaker, but rather because I was much more successful solving the cards by myself. It is difficult to recruit some of the gamers in my life to play these types of games, so if it can be played solo, that’s the option I will take. That said, I’m sure most people enjoy things more if they are inherently good at them, and such is the case for my preference between the two. That said, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a festive, but sneaky, 4 / 6. I am glad to have played it, and look forward to passing it along to someone else who has yet to enjoy it.
I will say that I believe all gamers should try both versions, and I am excited to find and try the Halloween and Valentine’s Day versions as well. If you also enjoy these quick escape-room-style card games, give this one a shot, but please promise me you will also try the others as well. Now get out there and solve this mystery, little elf!
The Kringle Caper is a Christmas-themed escape room type card game. It consists of 18 cards and I found it much more difficult than its sibling, The Independence Incident, which I reviewed in July.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook (as there is none), but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase from your FLGS. -T
To setup, open the flaps of the box containing the cards, navigate to the provided website to launch a web-based companion app, and the game may officially begin!
As I do not wish to spoil anything about the game, I will merely state here that following directions, completing puzzles, and knowing a little something about the Christmas holiday will benefit players immensely. Sorry I cannot say more, I would rather you all experience it for yourselves.
Components. This game consists of 18 double-sided cards and a nifty little box to hold it all. The cards are all nice quality, and feature very specific artwork on them. I have no complaints about the components at all here. Grand Gamers Guild always provide great quality games.
Ok, be mad at me if you like, but I just cannot bring myself to go into great detail about the game mechanics, how to play, or what is really included. Just know that this is probably a game you will play once and pass along, or keep several years between plays so that it doesn’t become too repetitive and easy to solve.
I know reviews like these could be considered a cash grab normally, but we don’t accept payment for any of our reviews, so I will use this section to lay out what I like and what I do not like about this installment. I just love the idea of these types of games: small decks that provide so many decisions to be made, or puzzles to solve, and riddles to mull over. Personally, I prefer The Independence Incident, but not because I think this version is weaker, but rather because I was much more successful solving the cards by myself. It is difficult to recruit some of the gamers in my life to play these types of games, so if it can be played solo, that’s the option I will take. That said, I’m sure most people enjoy things more if they are inherently good at them, and such is the case for my preference between the two. That said, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a festive, but sneaky, 4 / 6. I am glad to have played it, and look forward to passing it along to someone else who has yet to enjoy it.
I will say that I believe all gamers should try both versions, and I am excited to find and try the Halloween and Valentine’s Day versions as well. If you also enjoy these quick escape-room-style card games, give this one a shot, but please promise me you will also try the others as well. Now get out there and solve this mystery, little elf!
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Kids Chronicles: Quest for the Moon Stones in Tabletop Games
Jan 13, 2022
The Kids Table series from Purple Phoenix Games seeks to lightly explore games that are focused toward children and families. We will do our best to give some good insight, but not bog your down with the millions of rules…
In Kids Chronicles: Quest of the Moon Stones (which I will just call “this game” from here on out if you please), players are new apprentices to Merlin, the old wizard keeping two neighboring kingdoms together and keeping them from warring with each other. In this game, players will be adventuring across the double-sided board solving riddles, completing quests, and meeting tons of great characters all with the assistance and guidance of a free app specifically designed for this game.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
Setup could not be easier for this game. First, download the Kids Chronicles app to your phone or tablet, lay out the board (initially on the side that looks like Summer), display the Character cards and Item cards face-up in their respective decks. You don’t even have to sort or shuffle them! And you’re done. The game is ready to be played! Open the app and let it guide you through each mission – but do start with the tutorial, especially if any player hasn’t played a hybrid board game like this before.
I do not want to give away too much information in this review, so I will keep this portion brief. Throughout the game players will be marching around to different parts of the board, speaking with characters, collecting items, and solving riddles by scanning the QR codes found on the cards and board locations. I really should stop here so as not to spoil any actual gameplay information.
I have reviewed many of these hybrid app-driven games from Lucky Duck Games (Chronicles of Crime, CoC: 1400, CoC: 1900, and CoC: 2400). None of them, however, are designed for children, nor recommended for children to even play. With those titles, very adult themes are played through, but this is not so here with this game. Kids Chronicles is VERY family friendly, and the app simply walks players through the entire setup and missions.
What I enjoy most about this game, especially after having played their bigger siblings, is that there is no time limit to have things completed. So players can travel across the land, scanning whatever they like, and not be penalized for it. You just can’t do that with the grown-up versions. Also, the art is excellent and colorful – perfect for a kids game. The stunning visual appeal, free-feeling adventuring, and introducing the hybridization of apps and board games to children all work together really well here.
Now, the box advises that this game is for ages 7+ but my little 5-year-old loves this one and asks to play it all the time. There is a lot of reading to be done from the app (it doesn’t read anything aloud), but that just adds to the fun for us, because I enjoy adding different voices to the characters. So in a way, this is very similar to reading a nighttime book, but just way more fun.
So, if you have little gamers at home that are ready for that next step, I recommend checking out Kids Chronicles. I am super happy that Lucky Duck Games is branching out into the children’s games market, and bringing that excellent scanning mechanic along for the ride. Once you get the hang of this style of game, I suggest you also then pick up a copy of one of the Chronicles of Crime games for your adult game nights. You can thank me later!
In Kids Chronicles: Quest of the Moon Stones (which I will just call “this game” from here on out if you please), players are new apprentices to Merlin, the old wizard keeping two neighboring kingdoms together and keeping them from warring with each other. In this game, players will be adventuring across the double-sided board solving riddles, completing quests, and meeting tons of great characters all with the assistance and guidance of a free app specifically designed for this game.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
Setup could not be easier for this game. First, download the Kids Chronicles app to your phone or tablet, lay out the board (initially on the side that looks like Summer), display the Character cards and Item cards face-up in their respective decks. You don’t even have to sort or shuffle them! And you’re done. The game is ready to be played! Open the app and let it guide you through each mission – but do start with the tutorial, especially if any player hasn’t played a hybrid board game like this before.
I do not want to give away too much information in this review, so I will keep this portion brief. Throughout the game players will be marching around to different parts of the board, speaking with characters, collecting items, and solving riddles by scanning the QR codes found on the cards and board locations. I really should stop here so as not to spoil any actual gameplay information.
I have reviewed many of these hybrid app-driven games from Lucky Duck Games (Chronicles of Crime, CoC: 1400, CoC: 1900, and CoC: 2400). None of them, however, are designed for children, nor recommended for children to even play. With those titles, very adult themes are played through, but this is not so here with this game. Kids Chronicles is VERY family friendly, and the app simply walks players through the entire setup and missions.
What I enjoy most about this game, especially after having played their bigger siblings, is that there is no time limit to have things completed. So players can travel across the land, scanning whatever they like, and not be penalized for it. You just can’t do that with the grown-up versions. Also, the art is excellent and colorful – perfect for a kids game. The stunning visual appeal, free-feeling adventuring, and introducing the hybridization of apps and board games to children all work together really well here.
Now, the box advises that this game is for ages 7+ but my little 5-year-old loves this one and asks to play it all the time. There is a lot of reading to be done from the app (it doesn’t read anything aloud), but that just adds to the fun for us, because I enjoy adding different voices to the characters. So in a way, this is very similar to reading a nighttime book, but just way more fun.
So, if you have little gamers at home that are ready for that next step, I recommend checking out Kids Chronicles. I am super happy that Lucky Duck Games is branching out into the children’s games market, and bringing that excellent scanning mechanic along for the ride. Once you get the hang of this style of game, I suggest you also then pick up a copy of one of the Chronicles of Crime games for your adult game nights. You can thank me later!
Annie Chanse (15 KP) rated Lovecraft's Monsters in Books
Dec 19, 2017
I received an ARC copy of this anthology in exchange for my honest opinion, and regrettably, I wasn't overly impressed with it. I made notes as I read, and those notes are what I will be posting here now:
Well, I'm about to start the third story, but I thought I'd keep a running commentary on each story so that when it came time to review it, I wouldn't forget how I felt about each individual one.
"Only the End of the World Again" by Neil Gaiman was good. Probably 4 stars. It wasn't the typical greatness that I USUALLY associate with Gaiman, but it was still a quick and enjoyable read. I read it aloud to my eight year old son (editing out the few naughty words, of course) and even he really loved it. There were a few places where he didn't understand what was going on, but overall, he thought it was a great story.
"Bulldozer" by Laird Barron was terrible. I couldn't make it through the story. The writing style was AWFUL. I know that it was supposed to be written -- in parts -- in a stream of consciousness style, but it was awful. I stopped about halfway through and just said screw it. I wouldn't even give this story a star at all.
Finished "Red Goat Black Goat" by Nadia Bulkin. While it had some nice creepy vibes, it was, overall, a 2 star story. I realize, as a short story, it is limited by length and time constraints, but the story just starts in the middle of a world about which the reader has no idea whatsoever. It's not what I would call a good story, although, as I said, there were a couple of moments when I had to look up from my completely dark bedroom and make sure I didn't hear bumps in the night, so it gets one extra star for that.
"The Same Deep Waters As You" was actually fantastic. It's been the best story in the anthology so far. I know, I know... me saying something is better than a Gaiman story is almost unheard of, but this story by Hodge was truly good from beginning to end. It was completely unique, and even though it was a short story, it was completely self-contained. It didn't leave me wondering what happened before the story started to get us to this place, and it ended perfectly, not in a 'to be continued' style. Also, just wow. The ending was a killer. I did NOT see it coming AT ALL. Five stars.
"A Quarter to Three" gets 2.5 stars simply because of Newman's writing style. She is very articulate, and I loved the tone of this story. The content of the story, however, wasn't that great. However, I feel compelled to give it an extra half a star -- bumping it up to 3 stars -- for this one, perfect line:
"It was easy to see what she had seen in him; it left a thin damp trail between his scuffed footprints." Ha. Loved it
"The Dappled Things" was a total bust. 1 star, and that is being generous. So boring I nearly fell asleep twice trying to get through the first two pages. Not worth the time it took to read it.
"Inelastic Collisions" was decent. I have nothing really bad to say about it, but I have nothing super great to say about it either. Three stars.
"Remnants" deserves about 3.5 stars. It's pretty decent. I like the story and the way the plot developed. However, I dislike how abruptly it ended. If the ending had been a little more well-rounded, it could have easily been a 4.5 star story.
"Love is Forbidden We Croak and Howl" -- eh. Two stars. Didn't really hold my interest that much. I kept drifting off...
"The Sect of the Idiot" was a solid three stars. Overall the story wasn't super, but I really, really, REALLY did love the detail paid to the dream sequence. It was beautiful and creepy and dark. Lovely bit of storytelling, that was.
"Jar of Salts" is easily 4.5 stars. Short little Lovecraftian poem, but such a pleasure to read.
Well, I'm finally finished with Lovecraft's Monsters, but honestly, after the last update I made, none of the other stories were really worth reading. I was, overall, a bit disappointed with the book. :-/
Well, I'm about to start the third story, but I thought I'd keep a running commentary on each story so that when it came time to review it, I wouldn't forget how I felt about each individual one.
"Only the End of the World Again" by Neil Gaiman was good. Probably 4 stars. It wasn't the typical greatness that I USUALLY associate with Gaiman, but it was still a quick and enjoyable read. I read it aloud to my eight year old son (editing out the few naughty words, of course) and even he really loved it. There were a few places where he didn't understand what was going on, but overall, he thought it was a great story.
"Bulldozer" by Laird Barron was terrible. I couldn't make it through the story. The writing style was AWFUL. I know that it was supposed to be written -- in parts -- in a stream of consciousness style, but it was awful. I stopped about halfway through and just said screw it. I wouldn't even give this story a star at all.
Finished "Red Goat Black Goat" by Nadia Bulkin. While it had some nice creepy vibes, it was, overall, a 2 star story. I realize, as a short story, it is limited by length and time constraints, but the story just starts in the middle of a world about which the reader has no idea whatsoever. It's not what I would call a good story, although, as I said, there were a couple of moments when I had to look up from my completely dark bedroom and make sure I didn't hear bumps in the night, so it gets one extra star for that.
"The Same Deep Waters As You" was actually fantastic. It's been the best story in the anthology so far. I know, I know... me saying something is better than a Gaiman story is almost unheard of, but this story by Hodge was truly good from beginning to end. It was completely unique, and even though it was a short story, it was completely self-contained. It didn't leave me wondering what happened before the story started to get us to this place, and it ended perfectly, not in a 'to be continued' style. Also, just wow. The ending was a killer. I did NOT see it coming AT ALL. Five stars.
"A Quarter to Three" gets 2.5 stars simply because of Newman's writing style. She is very articulate, and I loved the tone of this story. The content of the story, however, wasn't that great. However, I feel compelled to give it an extra half a star -- bumping it up to 3 stars -- for this one, perfect line:
"It was easy to see what she had seen in him; it left a thin damp trail between his scuffed footprints." Ha. Loved it
"The Dappled Things" was a total bust. 1 star, and that is being generous. So boring I nearly fell asleep twice trying to get through the first two pages. Not worth the time it took to read it.
"Inelastic Collisions" was decent. I have nothing really bad to say about it, but I have nothing super great to say about it either. Three stars.
"Remnants" deserves about 3.5 stars. It's pretty decent. I like the story and the way the plot developed. However, I dislike how abruptly it ended. If the ending had been a little more well-rounded, it could have easily been a 4.5 star story.
"Love is Forbidden We Croak and Howl" -- eh. Two stars. Didn't really hold my interest that much. I kept drifting off...
"The Sect of the Idiot" was a solid three stars. Overall the story wasn't super, but I really, really, REALLY did love the detail paid to the dream sequence. It was beautiful and creepy and dark. Lovely bit of storytelling, that was.
"Jar of Salts" is easily 4.5 stars. Short little Lovecraftian poem, but such a pleasure to read.
Well, I'm finally finished with Lovecraft's Monsters, but honestly, after the last update I made, none of the other stories were really worth reading. I was, overall, a bit disappointed with the book. :-/
theVman (16 KP) rated Twin Peaks - Season 3 in TV
May 22, 2017
The Cast (1 more)
The new mysterys
Lack of the familar Twin Peaks stuff (2 more)
The way the story unfolds
Very Slow
The first four episodes
Twin Peaks: The Return
*** Ive tried to write this as spoiler free as i can, you may find some in here but nothing that i think would ruin watching the show for you ***
I don’t think it will come to anyones surprise to say that the first four episodes of Twin Peaks return are strange. But maybe not in the way that we know and love.
I found these first four episodes difficult to enjoy not because they were bad, but because it was not what I was expecting at all. I wanted the key things that I love about Twin Peaks to be there, the returning characters, the iconic score by Angleo Badalamenti, the quirky weirdness grounded by soap opera like stories. I wanted the dark seriousness of murder, lust and money, beautifully intertwined with the ridiculousness of silent drape runners, saving the pine weasel and miss twin peaks contests.Unfortunately I found very little of any of what I wanted.
Yes Cooper is back or more accurately Kyle Maclachlan is back but has yet to act or sound anything like Special Agent Dale Cooper at all, the story calling for him to play a very lifeless rendition of his former glory. Other familiar faces have shown up along the way, but not very many and for not very long at all.
What we have is something very Lynchian, long drawn out scenes, especially in The Black Lodge that after extended moments of a droning humming score and lot of not a lot going on in slow motion followed by more not a lot going on but this time with a white horse or a talking lump of flesh on a leafless tree in the picture, it starts to feel like a lot of weird stuff just for sheer sake of being weird.
Fans of the previous seasons of Twin Peaks might be left wondering what is going on with the stories that were left open, is Leo still holding that rope in his mouth, what happened after the explosion in the bank vault, and what the hell has happened to Annie – well you wont find any of these answers here. Instead we are given a whole bunch of new characters, who’s stories we are still trying to figure out and how they are related to the events of Twin Peaks, which is a made into a bigger and more confusing mystery seeing as none of them actually take place in Twin Peaks at all. In fact, the most recognisable place in the first few hours is The Black Lodge, which features extensively in the first two episodes before “Cooper” bizarrely ends up in Las Vegas. Also knocking us out of our comfort zone and driving home the fact that this is not the same kind of Twin Peaks show we are used to, are the occasional F bombs being dropped and the coy sexiness that flowed through the show has been replaced with plain nudity.
We have been given vision that is pure David Lynch. He produces some fantastical imagery and some unnerving editing that is like watching Eraserhead, Lost Highway and Fire Walk With Me all at the same time on the same screen. As a piece of art it has its place amongst Lynch fans, but as a piece of entertainment for prime time television, it missed the mark for me, and as a return to Twin Peaks, it should be ashamed of itself, as apart from 30 seconds or so in episode 4 where here the familiar twangs of the original score, I didn’t feel like there was any return to that great tv show from the early 90s. There is the odd nugget of new that will keep me watching, Naomi Watts and Matthew Lillard have joined the team in what promises to be entertaining roles, there is a glass box that is being kept in some kind of secret bunker under constant video monitoring that seems to have something to do with The Black Lodge, the log lady is getting message from her log again, a body that doesn’t belong to its head and we are still hanging out at the Bang Bang Bar with Bobby, Shelley and James even if it was for far too brief at time.
Overall: It didn’t deliver on its promise, or give me what I wanted, but there is still a lot more episodes to come. I cant think of another show that would get away with such a slow build or lack of deliverance than the new third season of Twin Peaks.
*** Ive tried to write this as spoiler free as i can, you may find some in here but nothing that i think would ruin watching the show for you ***
I don’t think it will come to anyones surprise to say that the first four episodes of Twin Peaks return are strange. But maybe not in the way that we know and love.
I found these first four episodes difficult to enjoy not because they were bad, but because it was not what I was expecting at all. I wanted the key things that I love about Twin Peaks to be there, the returning characters, the iconic score by Angleo Badalamenti, the quirky weirdness grounded by soap opera like stories. I wanted the dark seriousness of murder, lust and money, beautifully intertwined with the ridiculousness of silent drape runners, saving the pine weasel and miss twin peaks contests.Unfortunately I found very little of any of what I wanted.
Yes Cooper is back or more accurately Kyle Maclachlan is back but has yet to act or sound anything like Special Agent Dale Cooper at all, the story calling for him to play a very lifeless rendition of his former glory. Other familiar faces have shown up along the way, but not very many and for not very long at all.
What we have is something very Lynchian, long drawn out scenes, especially in The Black Lodge that after extended moments of a droning humming score and lot of not a lot going on in slow motion followed by more not a lot going on but this time with a white horse or a talking lump of flesh on a leafless tree in the picture, it starts to feel like a lot of weird stuff just for sheer sake of being weird.
Fans of the previous seasons of Twin Peaks might be left wondering what is going on with the stories that were left open, is Leo still holding that rope in his mouth, what happened after the explosion in the bank vault, and what the hell has happened to Annie – well you wont find any of these answers here. Instead we are given a whole bunch of new characters, who’s stories we are still trying to figure out and how they are related to the events of Twin Peaks, which is a made into a bigger and more confusing mystery seeing as none of them actually take place in Twin Peaks at all. In fact, the most recognisable place in the first few hours is The Black Lodge, which features extensively in the first two episodes before “Cooper” bizarrely ends up in Las Vegas. Also knocking us out of our comfort zone and driving home the fact that this is not the same kind of Twin Peaks show we are used to, are the occasional F bombs being dropped and the coy sexiness that flowed through the show has been replaced with plain nudity.
We have been given vision that is pure David Lynch. He produces some fantastical imagery and some unnerving editing that is like watching Eraserhead, Lost Highway and Fire Walk With Me all at the same time on the same screen. As a piece of art it has its place amongst Lynch fans, but as a piece of entertainment for prime time television, it missed the mark for me, and as a return to Twin Peaks, it should be ashamed of itself, as apart from 30 seconds or so in episode 4 where here the familiar twangs of the original score, I didn’t feel like there was any return to that great tv show from the early 90s. There is the odd nugget of new that will keep me watching, Naomi Watts and Matthew Lillard have joined the team in what promises to be entertaining roles, there is a glass box that is being kept in some kind of secret bunker under constant video monitoring that seems to have something to do with The Black Lodge, the log lady is getting message from her log again, a body that doesn’t belong to its head and we are still hanging out at the Bang Bang Bar with Bobby, Shelley and James even if it was for far too brief at time.
Overall: It didn’t deliver on its promise, or give me what I wanted, but there is still a lot more episodes to come. I cant think of another show that would get away with such a slow build or lack of deliverance than the new third season of Twin Peaks.
Fred (860 KP) rated Most Haunted in TV
Jan 31, 2019
This is still on?
I am writing this review, as I could not believe this show is still airing. Although none of you probably even heard of it, or are of the misfortune to have only seen the newer episodes
When this show started in 2002, I used to download it from the internet & I watched with my friend & my brother. I believe it was the first of these "ghost hunting" shows, or at least it was the first I ever heard of. We watched because it was funny. I think my brother believed in ghosts, but we mainly watched because it was hilarious. The show's "star" Yvette, used to scream at every little thing. She was just an observer at first & seemed skeptical, but was always scared out of her mind. The show's real star was Derek Acorah. Derek was the team's medium, who would talk to the spirits through his personal guide in the afterlife, Sam. Derek would act like Sam was talking to him & Derek would make statements like "Let him in, Sam!" or "Keep him back, Sam!" The show was enjoyable because it seemed like they were really trying to look for ghosts. And I have little doubt that Yvette thought the show was for-real at the beginning. Sometimes they would find something, sometimes not. Derek would almost always find something, even something minor. All mediums do (because they're all fakes), but it was at least entertaining.
A few years into the show, and Yvette starts to get stuck-up. She's no longer the scaredy cat she was. She's now standing up to the ghosts. This is because she knows there are no such things as ghosts. Sure, she still screams here & there, but it's all fake now. "Oh, something touched me!" or "Oh, I heard a knock!" And now, the team finds something every episode (just like all these shows do, because they're full of shit). But you can also tell by this time, she's jealous of Derek & the fact that he's much more popular than she is. And so, she sets up a plot to discredit Derek & out him as a fake, which is easy, because he is a fake. And she knows it, because she's a fake. She does this with other members of the show & Derek leaves the show to be replaced by another fake medium (again, they're all fake). This is when I stopped watching the show. To set someone up, who you know is fake, while you are also fake, is despicable.
Anyway, I see today that the show is on Travel Channel. I put it on & it's an episode from 2007. Derek is not on the show & the replacement fake is on. I watch to see what it's like. Still the same B.S., still fake. Yvette is still fake screaming. The episode is full of the same fake nonsense, like where someone off camera drops something or knocks on something & they react like it was a ghost. There's one difference I notice now though. Yvette is somehow sensitive to the ghosts now. She can feel the energy around her now. Hahahaha! Yeah, okay. Anyway, during the episode, we hear a thumping sound. Yvette mentions "It sounds like a heartbeat." and the other phonies agree.
Then, there's another episode. This one from 2014, 7 years later. Same stuff going on. In fact, at one point, there is a thumping sound. And once again Yvette say "It sounds like a heartbeat." HAHAHA!
But even more fascinating, the show is still on! After that episode aired, they show a new episode that just aired in England a few days ago. And the same crap is still going on.
Now, we have a slew of these shows. Each one ripped this one off & each one lies and fakes just like this one. They all deserve no stars, but I am giving Most Haunted 3, because it was entertaining and watchable thanks to Derek. Yes, watchable until Yvette's head got too big, for being a fake. If you're into the night-vision, everywhere is haunted, fake gadget, noise & voices can only be ghost shows that clutter TV now, you can thank this show for starting it all. Some can be entertaining, but most are just fake science, masquerading as the real thing.
When this show started in 2002, I used to download it from the internet & I watched with my friend & my brother. I believe it was the first of these "ghost hunting" shows, or at least it was the first I ever heard of. We watched because it was funny. I think my brother believed in ghosts, but we mainly watched because it was hilarious. The show's "star" Yvette, used to scream at every little thing. She was just an observer at first & seemed skeptical, but was always scared out of her mind. The show's real star was Derek Acorah. Derek was the team's medium, who would talk to the spirits through his personal guide in the afterlife, Sam. Derek would act like Sam was talking to him & Derek would make statements like "Let him in, Sam!" or "Keep him back, Sam!" The show was enjoyable because it seemed like they were really trying to look for ghosts. And I have little doubt that Yvette thought the show was for-real at the beginning. Sometimes they would find something, sometimes not. Derek would almost always find something, even something minor. All mediums do (because they're all fakes), but it was at least entertaining.
A few years into the show, and Yvette starts to get stuck-up. She's no longer the scaredy cat she was. She's now standing up to the ghosts. This is because she knows there are no such things as ghosts. Sure, she still screams here & there, but it's all fake now. "Oh, something touched me!" or "Oh, I heard a knock!" And now, the team finds something every episode (just like all these shows do, because they're full of shit). But you can also tell by this time, she's jealous of Derek & the fact that he's much more popular than she is. And so, she sets up a plot to discredit Derek & out him as a fake, which is easy, because he is a fake. And she knows it, because she's a fake. She does this with other members of the show & Derek leaves the show to be replaced by another fake medium (again, they're all fake). This is when I stopped watching the show. To set someone up, who you know is fake, while you are also fake, is despicable.
Anyway, I see today that the show is on Travel Channel. I put it on & it's an episode from 2007. Derek is not on the show & the replacement fake is on. I watch to see what it's like. Still the same B.S., still fake. Yvette is still fake screaming. The episode is full of the same fake nonsense, like where someone off camera drops something or knocks on something & they react like it was a ghost. There's one difference I notice now though. Yvette is somehow sensitive to the ghosts now. She can feel the energy around her now. Hahahaha! Yeah, okay. Anyway, during the episode, we hear a thumping sound. Yvette mentions "It sounds like a heartbeat." and the other phonies agree.
Then, there's another episode. This one from 2014, 7 years later. Same stuff going on. In fact, at one point, there is a thumping sound. And once again Yvette say "It sounds like a heartbeat." HAHAHA!
But even more fascinating, the show is still on! After that episode aired, they show a new episode that just aired in England a few days ago. And the same crap is still going on.
Now, we have a slew of these shows. Each one ripped this one off & each one lies and fakes just like this one. They all deserve no stars, but I am giving Most Haunted 3, because it was entertaining and watchable thanks to Derek. Yes, watchable until Yvette's head got too big, for being a fake. If you're into the night-vision, everywhere is haunted, fake gadget, noise & voices can only be ghost shows that clutter TV now, you can thank this show for starting it all. Some can be entertaining, but most are just fake science, masquerading as the real thing.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Zombies Vs. Unicorns in Books
Feb 15, 2019
<b>Book Review</b>
I had heard about this feud soon after it started, so when news that a book was coming out I had to read it. C'mon, zombies and unicorns, this is a combination I couldn't miss out on. After a lackluster and disappointing start, with many stories I didn't like at all, I was starting to think I'd have a hard time finishing the book, even with the different authors. It wasn't until The Children of the Revolution by Maureen Johnson on page 147 that the stories picked up and I ended up enjoying the rest, though my enjoyment deviated from okay to great. The "arguments" between editors Holly Black (Team Unicorn) and Justine Larbalestier (Team Zombie) were usually quite amusing, though they themselves don't contribute to the book. I, for one, would have liked to have read their takes on their chosen teams.
I'm not going to review each story individually, but list them with my (very) basic impression of the story. The book has varying degrees of gore, cursing, sexual innuendo and references, bestiality (you read that right, but it's more referred to than shown, thank goodness), suicide, and other violent acts.
<u>Stories</u> (in order of appearance):
*The Highest Justice by Garth Nix (Marked as a unicorn story, this is actually both unicorn and zombie. A decent story.)
*Love Will Tear Us Apart by Alaya Dawn Johnson (Zombie. Did not care for this at all)
*Purity Test by Naomi Novik (Unicorn. Didn't hate this story, but wasn't fond of it either)
*Bougainvillea by Carrie Ryan (Zombie. Didn't like.)
*A Thousand Flowers by Margo Lanagan (Unicorn. Also wasn't fond of.)
*The Children of the Revolution by Maureen Johnson (Zombie. Rather twisted, but so am I, so I enjoyed it.)
*The Care and Feeding of Your Baby Killer Unicorn by Diana Peterfreund (Unicorn. My favorite story in the anthology.)
*Inoculata by Scott Westerfield (Zombie. Pretty good.)
*Princess Prettypants by Meg Cabot (Unicorn. Very tongue-in-cheek, I liked this story a lot.)
*Cold Hands by Cassandra Clare (Zombie. Interesting world created here. Definitely passed my likability test.)
*The Third Virgin by Kathleen Duey (Unicorn. An okay story.)
*Prom Night by Libba Bray (Zombie. Second favorite of the book and very close to a tie with Peterfreund's tale.)
The unicorn stories went in many different directions, with all sorts of unicorns, while most of the zombie stories stayed where you would expect them and had typical zombies, though there were a few surprises still in store. I went into this as Team Zombie, and while my favorite was a unicorn story, I still firmly remain with the shamblers. Overall, I ended up enjoying the majority of the book, so if you're interested in zombies, unicorns, or especially both, pick this up for an interesting assortment of stories.
3.5 stars for the print version
<b>Audio Review</b>
This unabridged CD set includes ten discs, which average a little over one story each, though generally there is one whole story bookended by the end of one preceding it and the start of another afterward that will continue onto the next disc. They have very short chapters, generally less than a minute and I could tell when each chapter ended and the next began, which didn't make for totally smooth listening but it also wasn't too bad either. I would have rather have had longer chapters that had a clearer starting and stopping point to make it easier to find my place again. Most of the readers, both male and female, sound fairly young, which makes sense since this is a YA anthology, but the majority also sounded as if they were reading to school children, which makes for annoying listening. I found most of the voices grating and unfortunately none of them are named for me to be more specific. However, the one male was fine and the woman who did Diana Peterfreund was good and I believe she also narrated one or two others in the book. The use of sound effects break up stories, a groan that also says "brains" for zombies and trumpets and a horse whinny for unicorns. Immediately after is the intro from the editors with their ongoing debate that became increasingly irritating as I read on; this may have to do with how they performed those discussions. As written word, these exchanges are far more entertaining. For the most part, I really didn't enjoy listening to this and much prefer reading it in print.
2 stars for audio
I had heard about this feud soon after it started, so when news that a book was coming out I had to read it. C'mon, zombies and unicorns, this is a combination I couldn't miss out on. After a lackluster and disappointing start, with many stories I didn't like at all, I was starting to think I'd have a hard time finishing the book, even with the different authors. It wasn't until The Children of the Revolution by Maureen Johnson on page 147 that the stories picked up and I ended up enjoying the rest, though my enjoyment deviated from okay to great. The "arguments" between editors Holly Black (Team Unicorn) and Justine Larbalestier (Team Zombie) were usually quite amusing, though they themselves don't contribute to the book. I, for one, would have liked to have read their takes on their chosen teams.
I'm not going to review each story individually, but list them with my (very) basic impression of the story. The book has varying degrees of gore, cursing, sexual innuendo and references, bestiality (you read that right, but it's more referred to than shown, thank goodness), suicide, and other violent acts.
<u>Stories</u> (in order of appearance):
*The Highest Justice by Garth Nix (Marked as a unicorn story, this is actually both unicorn and zombie. A decent story.)
*Love Will Tear Us Apart by Alaya Dawn Johnson (Zombie. Did not care for this at all)
*Purity Test by Naomi Novik (Unicorn. Didn't hate this story, but wasn't fond of it either)
*Bougainvillea by Carrie Ryan (Zombie. Didn't like.)
*A Thousand Flowers by Margo Lanagan (Unicorn. Also wasn't fond of.)
*The Children of the Revolution by Maureen Johnson (Zombie. Rather twisted, but so am I, so I enjoyed it.)
*The Care and Feeding of Your Baby Killer Unicorn by Diana Peterfreund (Unicorn. My favorite story in the anthology.)
*Inoculata by Scott Westerfield (Zombie. Pretty good.)
*Princess Prettypants by Meg Cabot (Unicorn. Very tongue-in-cheek, I liked this story a lot.)
*Cold Hands by Cassandra Clare (Zombie. Interesting world created here. Definitely passed my likability test.)
*The Third Virgin by Kathleen Duey (Unicorn. An okay story.)
*Prom Night by Libba Bray (Zombie. Second favorite of the book and very close to a tie with Peterfreund's tale.)
The unicorn stories went in many different directions, with all sorts of unicorns, while most of the zombie stories stayed where you would expect them and had typical zombies, though there were a few surprises still in store. I went into this as Team Zombie, and while my favorite was a unicorn story, I still firmly remain with the shamblers. Overall, I ended up enjoying the majority of the book, so if you're interested in zombies, unicorns, or especially both, pick this up for an interesting assortment of stories.
3.5 stars for the print version
<b>Audio Review</b>
This unabridged CD set includes ten discs, which average a little over one story each, though generally there is one whole story bookended by the end of one preceding it and the start of another afterward that will continue onto the next disc. They have very short chapters, generally less than a minute and I could tell when each chapter ended and the next began, which didn't make for totally smooth listening but it also wasn't too bad either. I would have rather have had longer chapters that had a clearer starting and stopping point to make it easier to find my place again. Most of the readers, both male and female, sound fairly young, which makes sense since this is a YA anthology, but the majority also sounded as if they were reading to school children, which makes for annoying listening. I found most of the voices grating and unfortunately none of them are named for me to be more specific. However, the one male was fine and the woman who did Diana Peterfreund was good and I believe she also narrated one or two others in the book. The use of sound effects break up stories, a groan that also says "brains" for zombies and trumpets and a horse whinny for unicorns. Immediately after is the intro from the editors with their ongoing debate that became increasingly irritating as I read on; this may have to do with how they performed those discussions. As written word, these exchanges are far more entertaining. For the most part, I really didn't enjoy listening to this and much prefer reading it in print.
2 stars for audio
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Big Trail (1930) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
“The Indians are my friends…” Breck Coleman – John Wayne
Not exactly a statement that would exemplify the Career of a man rightly or wrongly associated as being the Cowboy of the Cowboy and Indian movies. But there is no doubt that John Wayne was certainly one of the biggest western stars of cinema.
And The Big Trail is where it really begins for Wayne, but this 1930’s classic was a box office failure, coming not only at the dawn of sound film, but at the time of The Great Depression. It would be another decade by the time “The Duke” wold be born and John Wayne would take his crown as the western superstar which we all know today.
But The Big Trail, originally entitled The Oregon Trail, is not really a John Wayne vehicle. He was a relative unknown actor alongside stage talent, many of whom were drafted into Hollywood at this time simply because they could give a decent vocal performance, as many a silent star was falling, failing to adapt the talkies.
But again, sound is not the selling point of this movie. This was one of a handful of films which pioneered the 70mm film format, in this case, Fox Grandeur, or Grandeur 70. A none anamorphic widescreen format, which whilst not the first attempt, nor the first 70mm film format, it was the nearest to which would succeed later.
2oth Century Fox would change cinema in 1953 with the release of the first CinemaScope film, The Robe, a year after the debut of Cinerama, but Grandeur more closest resembles Todd AO, a format which is still technically used today though in a somewhat different way. The secret to CinemaScope’s later success was in many ways the reason for the failure of Grandeur and that was the fact that CinemaScope was an anamorphic process, screening the image from a regular 35mm film and expanding with the lens, therefore making it a lot cheaper to adapt existing projectors and auditoriums.
Grandeur on the other hand was a larger film format and required a complete upgrade to theatres and therefore, especially at the dawn of the depression era, was financially untenable. Only two theatres in the U.S. would ever show this film in its widescreen glory, with rest showing the alternate 35mm Academy version.
And this film, had SIX versions shot simultaneously, in four different languages, 35mm and 70mm, each requiring different takes with different cameras or casts. This was an incredible feet but one which would soon be reduced with the use of audio dubbing, subtitles and ability to pan and scan.
The problem with this film is simple. It has a loose plot but no real twists and turns. This is almost a documentary following the wagon train trail across the west as group of pioneers make their way to the better life and building the United States, or at least personifying the romantic version of it.
But the film’s pacing and visual style works best through the widescreen lens, a beautiful journey with the untamed west as backdrop, but this is not the the version that most people have seen. The majority only saw the 35mm version which is 20 minutes shorter, edited more quickly and simply doesn’t have the visual flare of the Grandeur version. And without this vast visual canvas, the thousands of extras and props are almost cut from the film, a film with now feels a bit pointless and bit wayward.
Starring an unknown, though despite his hammy acting, Wayne manages to hold his own, the pacing is rushed and the fact that this is an epic journey which we are embarking on with them is somewhat lost.
The widescreen version’s main failing is the sound, which is inferior and poorly mixed in comparison to the 35mm cut, which is crisper and louder, but sound was never going to this movie’s strength and it was still rudimentary at this point. But on a visual level, considering the age of the print, the cinematography is up there as being some of the best, with scale and dare I say, “grandeur” about it.
This is an interesting film to watch now, though unless you are a strong western fan, I would say that it will not thrill, though as a peace of cinematic history, it is littered with footnotes and it very watchable.
And The Big Trail is where it really begins for Wayne, but this 1930’s classic was a box office failure, coming not only at the dawn of sound film, but at the time of The Great Depression. It would be another decade by the time “The Duke” wold be born and John Wayne would take his crown as the western superstar which we all know today.
But The Big Trail, originally entitled The Oregon Trail, is not really a John Wayne vehicle. He was a relative unknown actor alongside stage talent, many of whom were drafted into Hollywood at this time simply because they could give a decent vocal performance, as many a silent star was falling, failing to adapt the talkies.
But again, sound is not the selling point of this movie. This was one of a handful of films which pioneered the 70mm film format, in this case, Fox Grandeur, or Grandeur 70. A none anamorphic widescreen format, which whilst not the first attempt, nor the first 70mm film format, it was the nearest to which would succeed later.
2oth Century Fox would change cinema in 1953 with the release of the first CinemaScope film, The Robe, a year after the debut of Cinerama, but Grandeur more closest resembles Todd AO, a format which is still technically used today though in a somewhat different way. The secret to CinemaScope’s later success was in many ways the reason for the failure of Grandeur and that was the fact that CinemaScope was an anamorphic process, screening the image from a regular 35mm film and expanding with the lens, therefore making it a lot cheaper to adapt existing projectors and auditoriums.
Grandeur on the other hand was a larger film format and required a complete upgrade to theatres and therefore, especially at the dawn of the depression era, was financially untenable. Only two theatres in the U.S. would ever show this film in its widescreen glory, with rest showing the alternate 35mm Academy version.
And this film, had SIX versions shot simultaneously, in four different languages, 35mm and 70mm, each requiring different takes with different cameras or casts. This was an incredible feet but one which would soon be reduced with the use of audio dubbing, subtitles and ability to pan and scan.
The problem with this film is simple. It has a loose plot but no real twists and turns. This is almost a documentary following the wagon train trail across the west as group of pioneers make their way to the better life and building the United States, or at least personifying the romantic version of it.
But the film’s pacing and visual style works best through the widescreen lens, a beautiful journey with the untamed west as backdrop, but this is not the the version that most people have seen. The majority only saw the 35mm version which is 20 minutes shorter, edited more quickly and simply doesn’t have the visual flare of the Grandeur version. And without this vast visual canvas, the thousands of extras and props are almost cut from the film, a film with now feels a bit pointless and bit wayward.
Starring an unknown, though despite his hammy acting, Wayne manages to hold his own, the pacing is rushed and the fact that this is an epic journey which we are embarking on with them is somewhat lost.
The widescreen version’s main failing is the sound, which is inferior and poorly mixed in comparison to the 35mm cut, which is crisper and louder, but sound was never going to this movie’s strength and it was still rudimentary at this point. But on a visual level, considering the age of the print, the cinematography is up there as being some of the best, with scale and dare I say, “grandeur” about it.
This is an interesting film to watch now, though unless you are a strong western fan, I would say that it will not thrill, though as a peace of cinematic history, it is littered with footnotes and it very watchable.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Who thought it was a good idea to remake Ben-Hur? Well, on paper, it would seem to be a possibility. Ben-Hur has been hitting our cinema screens since 1907, with three other theatrical versions before this one; a short silent effort in 1907, the 1925 silent epic and the blockbusting MGM epic from 1959.
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
May 4, 2019 (Updated May 4, 2019)
Surprisingly Strong Chemistry Between The Leads
Quite a few people that I have spoken with don't like either Charlize Theron or Seth Rogan as performers, so the idea of a pairing of the straight-laced, uptight politician played by Theron and the shlubby, weed-smoking slacker played by Rogan was like "nails on a chalkboard" to them.
And these people would be wrong, for LONG SHOT is a very entertaining, heartfelt romantic comedy that has one big surprise - the strong chemistry between the two leads.
Kind of the "anti-AMERICAN PRESIDENT" (the 1995 Michael Douglas/Annette Benning RomCom written by Aaron Sorkin), LONG SHOT tells the tale of Secretary of State, Charlotte Field (Theron) who embarks on a Presidential bid. When she polls low in "sense of humor" she decides to add a comedy writer to her staff to punch up her speeches. A chance encounter with her childhood next door neighbor leads Field to hire Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan). Will sparks fly? Can Fred remind Charlotte of why she chose politics in the first place?
What do you think? It's a RomCom afterall, but it's the journey and not the destination that is important.
And...his is a fun journey...mostly because of the performances of Theron and Rogan. Over the years, I have grown to really appreciate Theron - from dramas like NORTH COUNTRY and her Oscar-winning turn in MONSTER, to action flicks like MAD MAX:FURY ROAD and FATE OF THE FURIOUS, to comedies like A MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST and this film - there is nothing (apparently) that she can't do. She is really good in all of these - even if the material is not the greatest.
The surprise to me here was the performance of Rogan - it was "wacky", "stoner-ish" and "out there", but toned down and tempered - probably the sign of a good, strong Director at the helm. I bought Flarsky's journey in this story and the relationship between these two characters was believable because Rogan was able to match Theron's energy and show real chemistry between the two.
Other fine turns are given by O'Shea Jackson, Jr (STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON), as Rogan's buddy, Ravi Patel (TV's MASTER OF NONE) as one of Theron's support staff and (especially) June Diane Rapheal (TV's GRACE AND FRANKIE) who really shines in the unenviable role of the Theron's Chief of Staff who doesn't approve of putting Rogan's character on the team, but she plays the role with layers - not one-note - and so we get a real person, with conflicted feelings at time, and she rises above the typical type of character in this type of role.
The only disappointment for me was Bob Odenkirk's President (who is stepping down for - he hopes - a much bigger job, MOVIE STAR) and not because of Odenkirk's performance, he was fine with what he was given, but there wasn't much nuance written in this part and (compared to the layers shown/written by others) the one-note-ness of Odenkirk's character was noticeable. As was Andy Serkis as a heavily-made up, older media mogul who is trying to use his wealth to manipulate the events from behind the scene - this character (and make-up) was a "swing and a miss" for me. But, fortunately, neither Serkis nor Odenkirk have much screen time, so it was more of a "distraction" than an "annoyance" for me.
I mention the Director - so I better give credit to Jonathan Levine (the awful SNATCHED with Amy Shumer and Goldie Hawn) - I have not really enjoyed anything else he has Directed, but I have to give him credit for this one - he brings "the funny and the crude" without going overboard, driving the story efficiently while putting in enough yuks and (surprisingly) heart in this movie along the way.
Now...don't be fooled here...there is quite a bit of "crude, lewd and rude" behavior and jokes (a crucial plot point hangs on a "sex act"), so don't expect a gentile, Cary Grant/Katherine Hepburn battle of the sexes. Expect a funny (crude), sexy (lewd) and opinionated (rude) take on the modern political system and how a person can lose their soul if they choose to play the game.
With a large amount of heart - and strong performances/chemistry between the two leads - I was pleasantly surprised by LONG SHOT - and, if you can handle the crude, lude and rude, then you will have a good time at this film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And these people would be wrong, for LONG SHOT is a very entertaining, heartfelt romantic comedy that has one big surprise - the strong chemistry between the two leads.
Kind of the "anti-AMERICAN PRESIDENT" (the 1995 Michael Douglas/Annette Benning RomCom written by Aaron Sorkin), LONG SHOT tells the tale of Secretary of State, Charlotte Field (Theron) who embarks on a Presidential bid. When she polls low in "sense of humor" she decides to add a comedy writer to her staff to punch up her speeches. A chance encounter with her childhood next door neighbor leads Field to hire Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan). Will sparks fly? Can Fred remind Charlotte of why she chose politics in the first place?
What do you think? It's a RomCom afterall, but it's the journey and not the destination that is important.
And...his is a fun journey...mostly because of the performances of Theron and Rogan. Over the years, I have grown to really appreciate Theron - from dramas like NORTH COUNTRY and her Oscar-winning turn in MONSTER, to action flicks like MAD MAX:FURY ROAD and FATE OF THE FURIOUS, to comedies like A MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST and this film - there is nothing (apparently) that she can't do. She is really good in all of these - even if the material is not the greatest.
The surprise to me here was the performance of Rogan - it was "wacky", "stoner-ish" and "out there", but toned down and tempered - probably the sign of a good, strong Director at the helm. I bought Flarsky's journey in this story and the relationship between these two characters was believable because Rogan was able to match Theron's energy and show real chemistry between the two.
Other fine turns are given by O'Shea Jackson, Jr (STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON), as Rogan's buddy, Ravi Patel (TV's MASTER OF NONE) as one of Theron's support staff and (especially) June Diane Rapheal (TV's GRACE AND FRANKIE) who really shines in the unenviable role of the Theron's Chief of Staff who doesn't approve of putting Rogan's character on the team, but she plays the role with layers - not one-note - and so we get a real person, with conflicted feelings at time, and she rises above the typical type of character in this type of role.
The only disappointment for me was Bob Odenkirk's President (who is stepping down for - he hopes - a much bigger job, MOVIE STAR) and not because of Odenkirk's performance, he was fine with what he was given, but there wasn't much nuance written in this part and (compared to the layers shown/written by others) the one-note-ness of Odenkirk's character was noticeable. As was Andy Serkis as a heavily-made up, older media mogul who is trying to use his wealth to manipulate the events from behind the scene - this character (and make-up) was a "swing and a miss" for me. But, fortunately, neither Serkis nor Odenkirk have much screen time, so it was more of a "distraction" than an "annoyance" for me.
I mention the Director - so I better give credit to Jonathan Levine (the awful SNATCHED with Amy Shumer and Goldie Hawn) - I have not really enjoyed anything else he has Directed, but I have to give him credit for this one - he brings "the funny and the crude" without going overboard, driving the story efficiently while putting in enough yuks and (surprisingly) heart in this movie along the way.
Now...don't be fooled here...there is quite a bit of "crude, lewd and rude" behavior and jokes (a crucial plot point hangs on a "sex act"), so don't expect a gentile, Cary Grant/Katherine Hepburn battle of the sexes. Expect a funny (crude), sexy (lewd) and opinionated (rude) take on the modern political system and how a person can lose their soul if they choose to play the game.
With a large amount of heart - and strong performances/chemistry between the two leads - I was pleasantly surprised by LONG SHOT - and, if you can handle the crude, lude and rude, then you will have a good time at this film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Last Dragon (1985) in Movies
Jun 7, 2019
So Bad You Just Might Like it
In his quest to find “The Master” and expand his training, black martial arts expert Bruce Leroy (Taimak) has to square off against Sho’nuff the Shogun of Harlem. With me, yet?
Acting: 10
The performances aren’t what killed this movie. Julius Carry pulls off one of my all-time favorite roles as Sho-Nuff, playing a villain that’s not hard to hate. His nemesis, hero Bruce Leroy is played with a sweet innocence by Taimak who harbors a fierce fighting style similar to his idol who is none other than…well, you guessed it, Bruce Lee. Sometimes a bit overdone, I thought overall the acting fit the movie’s overblown proportions as a whole.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 5
Again, the problem isn’t the acting. It’s the characters portrayed by the actors. They are as cardboard as they come, seemingly like caricatures of actual roles. This can be summed up by one role in particular: Eddie Arkadian (Chris Murney). Part business-owner, part gangster, you look at his mean scowl and listen to his horrible lines thinking, “Why are they ruining this man’s career with this role? This is awful!” I can imagine there were a lot of career-ruining roles in this movie. I haven’t even mentioned Eddie’s girlfriend, Angela whose voice alone gives me the urge to punt a baby. I can imagine director Michael Schultz walking up to Faith Prince saying, “Great take! Now, could you do me a favor? Could you sound more like Miss Piggy in distress? Please and thank you!”
Cinematography/Visuals: 4
The style that Schultz tries to establish comes off as cheesy and overdone. He takes the phrase “A little dab’ll do ya” and decides to do the complete opposite. There is nothing special to see and too much to see at the same time. As confusing as that might sound, if you watch the movie, you’ll get it. While there are glimpses of cool effects, even those are drowned by poor cinematic direction. There is one scene towards the end where Bruce Leroy’s hands starts to glow. He slowly moves them in a wavy pattern which creates a cool effect….until he starts doing it super fast and literally multiplies himself in some crazy funhouse type of way. Whomp whomp.
Conflict: 6
Because the movie struggles to find it’s way juggling back and forth between soundtrack-driven, drama, comedy, and action movie, the conflict suffers as a result. The fighting scenes aren’t terrible when they happen but there is too much of everything else to really leave you satisfied with those scenes. I would have been happier with no attempted character or story development and just two pure hours of Bruce Leroy kicking peoples’ teeth out. When I watched the last showdown between Leroy and Sho’nuff, I thought they were really on to something. Unfortunately they got lost along the way.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 5
Love it or hate it (or both), you’ll be hard-pressed leaving the movie not quoting at least a handful of lines. It’s a movie that sticks to you whether you want it to or not. It does leave something of an impact, although not very lasting.
Pace: 3
Between Leroy searching for The Master and Eddie trying to get his girl a record deal, the movie really drags on in spots. I don’t say this often, but a little more linearity in this case would have been just fine. The Last Dragon suffers from a severe case of Much Ado About Nothing. Just when you think something is about to pop off, the scene ends with a whimper.
Plot: 2
As a kid, I thought the storyline was funny. Now I think it’s just plain sad. I don’t know how much thought went into that script, but reading through it should give any aspiring screenwriter hope that they too can make it big. Stories within ridiculous stories, a meh love story, and terrible motivations all around take a machete to the movie before it even had a chance.
Resolution: 7
Overall: 52
For my 100th review, I wanted to review a movie that had some kind of value to me. I grew up with The Last Dragon and, I have to say, it is a pretty damn fun movie. Fun, unfortunately, doesn’t always equate to good. There is a reason it has an 86% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes right now, though. No matter how you feel about it, there will come a point when you’re watching, even if it’s for five minutes, where you find yourself having an actual good time. Unfortunately it’s the other 103 minutes you have to worry about.
Acting: 10
The performances aren’t what killed this movie. Julius Carry pulls off one of my all-time favorite roles as Sho-Nuff, playing a villain that’s not hard to hate. His nemesis, hero Bruce Leroy is played with a sweet innocence by Taimak who harbors a fierce fighting style similar to his idol who is none other than…well, you guessed it, Bruce Lee. Sometimes a bit overdone, I thought overall the acting fit the movie’s overblown proportions as a whole.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 5
Again, the problem isn’t the acting. It’s the characters portrayed by the actors. They are as cardboard as they come, seemingly like caricatures of actual roles. This can be summed up by one role in particular: Eddie Arkadian (Chris Murney). Part business-owner, part gangster, you look at his mean scowl and listen to his horrible lines thinking, “Why are they ruining this man’s career with this role? This is awful!” I can imagine there were a lot of career-ruining roles in this movie. I haven’t even mentioned Eddie’s girlfriend, Angela whose voice alone gives me the urge to punt a baby. I can imagine director Michael Schultz walking up to Faith Prince saying, “Great take! Now, could you do me a favor? Could you sound more like Miss Piggy in distress? Please and thank you!”
Cinematography/Visuals: 4
The style that Schultz tries to establish comes off as cheesy and overdone. He takes the phrase “A little dab’ll do ya” and decides to do the complete opposite. There is nothing special to see and too much to see at the same time. As confusing as that might sound, if you watch the movie, you’ll get it. While there are glimpses of cool effects, even those are drowned by poor cinematic direction. There is one scene towards the end where Bruce Leroy’s hands starts to glow. He slowly moves them in a wavy pattern which creates a cool effect….until he starts doing it super fast and literally multiplies himself in some crazy funhouse type of way. Whomp whomp.
Conflict: 6
Because the movie struggles to find it’s way juggling back and forth between soundtrack-driven, drama, comedy, and action movie, the conflict suffers as a result. The fighting scenes aren’t terrible when they happen but there is too much of everything else to really leave you satisfied with those scenes. I would have been happier with no attempted character or story development and just two pure hours of Bruce Leroy kicking peoples’ teeth out. When I watched the last showdown between Leroy and Sho’nuff, I thought they were really on to something. Unfortunately they got lost along the way.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 5
Love it or hate it (or both), you’ll be hard-pressed leaving the movie not quoting at least a handful of lines. It’s a movie that sticks to you whether you want it to or not. It does leave something of an impact, although not very lasting.
Pace: 3
Between Leroy searching for The Master and Eddie trying to get his girl a record deal, the movie really drags on in spots. I don’t say this often, but a little more linearity in this case would have been just fine. The Last Dragon suffers from a severe case of Much Ado About Nothing. Just when you think something is about to pop off, the scene ends with a whimper.
Plot: 2
As a kid, I thought the storyline was funny. Now I think it’s just plain sad. I don’t know how much thought went into that script, but reading through it should give any aspiring screenwriter hope that they too can make it big. Stories within ridiculous stories, a meh love story, and terrible motivations all around take a machete to the movie before it even had a chance.
Resolution: 7
Overall: 52
For my 100th review, I wanted to review a movie that had some kind of value to me. I grew up with The Last Dragon and, I have to say, it is a pretty damn fun movie. Fun, unfortunately, doesn’t always equate to good. There is a reason it has an 86% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes right now, though. No matter how you feel about it, there will come a point when you’re watching, even if it’s for five minutes, where you find yourself having an actual good time. Unfortunately it’s the other 103 minutes you have to worry about.