Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Lion (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Lost in Train-station.
As January progresses, the quality Oscar films just keep on coming! India’s vibrant and teeming tapestry of life is a natural gift for film-makers, without a word needing to be spoken, and director Garth Davis – in an impressive feature film debut – utilizes that backdrop to the max.
In a true life story, five-year-old Saroo (Sunny Pawar, in an astonishingly adept child performance) is accidentally separated from his family in the Madhya Pradesh region of Western India and goes on a journey by train of hundreds of miles to Calcutta: a city full of people who don’t even speak his language.
Lost, alone and facing the perils of a street child in a dangerous city, Saroo is eventually adopted by a kindly Australian couple (played by Nicole Kidman (“Before I Go To Sleep“) and David Wenham (Faramir in “The Lord of the Rings”)).
Growing up in a comfortable, loving, but not – ultimately – idyllic home environment, Saroo (now Dev Patel, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) grows up and in his late teens goes to Melbourne University to study Hotel Management (Dev Patel? Hotel Management? What were the odds?!). While there, memories of the past resurface and an obsessive need to trace his Indian origins takes hold, disrupting both his career plans and his relationship with the love of his life Lucy (Rooney Mara, “Carol“). But with a remembered home-town name that doesn’t exist, only hazy memories of the train station he departed from, and thousands and thousands of train stations across India, how could he ever succeed?
India is enormously photogenic and cinematographer Greig Fraser (“Rogue One“, “Foxcatcher“) takes the maximum advantage of that with some memorable and dramatic landscapes: work that has been Oscar nominated. Also Oscar nominated and contributing strongly to the look and feel of the film is a well-judged and effectively used piano score by Volker Bertelmann and Dustin O’Halloran.
In the acting stakes, Dev Patel gives his best ever performance and his Oscar nomination – curiously for Best Supporting actor since, I presume, Sunny Pawar has the most screen time – is very well deserved. A moving performance, particularly at the tearful end of the movie, for which a box of tissues is recommended.
Nicole Kidman, not an actress I have ever hugely warmed to, is excellent here as the fragile adoptive mother, despite having to sport a crazy red curly wig. Another Oscar nomination.
Also worthy of note is young Abhishek Bharate as Saroo’s brother Guddu: the touching chemistry between the thieving young rascals at the start of the movie grounds the whole family relationship that’s sets up the emotional heart of the subsequent quest.
Luke Davies’ adapted screenplay is also Oscar nominated, although perhaps not as deserving to win as some of the other nominees. I would (naively perhaps) assume that adapting a screenplay from a true-life story must be an easier task, since the facts have to speak for themselves. But besides that, while the first half of the film, with the scenes in India, is exceptionally good, the Australian section became a more patchy with the motivations of Saroo’s actions and the impact they have on his adoptive family not feeling completely fleshed out.
While I’m sure being a street urchin in Calcutta in the mid-80’s was a horribly difficult and perilous existence, the screenplay paints the sense that that almost EVERY male in the city is either a pedophile or hopelessly corrupt: something that if I was a Calcutta resident I would likely take offence to.
However, this is a hugely involving and enjoyable movie, and a “Best Film” rounds off the impressive haul of six Oscar nominations. You might be cynical and view the subject matter as being comfortable Oscar-bait… but you can hardly argue about the absolute quality of the film-making on show here.
By the way, if you are curious as to where the title of the film comes from, you need to wait until the end titles: a masterly touch that I really liked!
The end titles also lay out the fact that the perils of street kids in India is still real and present, and the film is supporting charitable work to help. If you were moved by the film (as I was) you can make a donation at http://lionmovie.com (as I did)!
Highly recommended.
In a true life story, five-year-old Saroo (Sunny Pawar, in an astonishingly adept child performance) is accidentally separated from his family in the Madhya Pradesh region of Western India and goes on a journey by train of hundreds of miles to Calcutta: a city full of people who don’t even speak his language.
Lost, alone and facing the perils of a street child in a dangerous city, Saroo is eventually adopted by a kindly Australian couple (played by Nicole Kidman (“Before I Go To Sleep“) and David Wenham (Faramir in “The Lord of the Rings”)).
Growing up in a comfortable, loving, but not – ultimately – idyllic home environment, Saroo (now Dev Patel, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) grows up and in his late teens goes to Melbourne University to study Hotel Management (Dev Patel? Hotel Management? What were the odds?!). While there, memories of the past resurface and an obsessive need to trace his Indian origins takes hold, disrupting both his career plans and his relationship with the love of his life Lucy (Rooney Mara, “Carol“). But with a remembered home-town name that doesn’t exist, only hazy memories of the train station he departed from, and thousands and thousands of train stations across India, how could he ever succeed?
India is enormously photogenic and cinematographer Greig Fraser (“Rogue One“, “Foxcatcher“) takes the maximum advantage of that with some memorable and dramatic landscapes: work that has been Oscar nominated. Also Oscar nominated and contributing strongly to the look and feel of the film is a well-judged and effectively used piano score by Volker Bertelmann and Dustin O’Halloran.
In the acting stakes, Dev Patel gives his best ever performance and his Oscar nomination – curiously for Best Supporting actor since, I presume, Sunny Pawar has the most screen time – is very well deserved. A moving performance, particularly at the tearful end of the movie, for which a box of tissues is recommended.
Nicole Kidman, not an actress I have ever hugely warmed to, is excellent here as the fragile adoptive mother, despite having to sport a crazy red curly wig. Another Oscar nomination.
Also worthy of note is young Abhishek Bharate as Saroo’s brother Guddu: the touching chemistry between the thieving young rascals at the start of the movie grounds the whole family relationship that’s sets up the emotional heart of the subsequent quest.
Luke Davies’ adapted screenplay is also Oscar nominated, although perhaps not as deserving to win as some of the other nominees. I would (naively perhaps) assume that adapting a screenplay from a true-life story must be an easier task, since the facts have to speak for themselves. But besides that, while the first half of the film, with the scenes in India, is exceptionally good, the Australian section became a more patchy with the motivations of Saroo’s actions and the impact they have on his adoptive family not feeling completely fleshed out.
While I’m sure being a street urchin in Calcutta in the mid-80’s was a horribly difficult and perilous existence, the screenplay paints the sense that that almost EVERY male in the city is either a pedophile or hopelessly corrupt: something that if I was a Calcutta resident I would likely take offence to.
However, this is a hugely involving and enjoyable movie, and a “Best Film” rounds off the impressive haul of six Oscar nominations. You might be cynical and view the subject matter as being comfortable Oscar-bait… but you can hardly argue about the absolute quality of the film-making on show here.
By the way, if you are curious as to where the title of the film comes from, you need to wait until the end titles: a masterly touch that I really liked!
The end titles also lay out the fact that the perils of street kids in India is still real and present, and the film is supporting charitable work to help. If you were moved by the film (as I was) you can make a donation at http://lionmovie.com (as I did)!
Highly recommended.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Butterfly Effect (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
For most people, childhood is a time filled mainly with happy memories of carefree playing, a loving family, and counting the days until the next school vacation.
Sadly, not everyone has fond memories of their childhood as for some; the years of joy and laughter are filled with pain and sadness. Such is the case of Evan Treborn (Ashton Kutcher) a gifted and caring individual who suffers from memory lapses much like his institutionalized father before him.
A series of traumatic events occur forcing Evan and his mother to move from their home leaving his best friends Kayleigh and Lenny behind.
Years later Evan is a successful and popular student at the state college and has not had a blackout for seven years, which is about the time his mother, moved him from the old neighborhood. Evan is persuaded by a friend to read his old journal entries and in doing so starts to recover some of his lost memories.
With the understanding that he has blacked out traumatic events in his life, Evan returns to his old home to seek out his friends with the hope that his missing memories can be restored. Sadly Evans return does not go well and his questions cause consequences for those who can remember what exactly happened.
Desperate to make sense of what is happening, Evan studies his journals and discovers that he is able to travel back to the time he has blacked out, and proceeds to make changes that he believes will improve the long-term outcome.
Evan awakens to find himself with Kayleigh (Amy Smart) and learns that the two of them have been an item ever since his childhood. What at first seems like a dream come true soon sours when Evan realizes that the ripple effects from his changes in the past have affected others around him. Desperate to undo a situation that now threatens him as well, Evan begins a series of trips into his past in an effort to recover his memories and right the wrongs that he is slowly starting to remember. Evan soon finds himself in a situation gone wild as no matter what Evan changes in the past, things are not put right as improving things for one person often makes others suffer as a result of the altered history.
Skillfully written and directed by Eric Bress and J Mackye Gruber The Butterfly Effect is a stunning look into a troubled psyche and a study in the effects of childhood trauma. The film is equally gripping and disturbing and tackles a wide-range of controversial topics. There is no sugar coating to the film as the depths of Evans repressed memories are explored making the film one of the best Dramas in recent memory.
Kutcher is amazing as he handles a difficult and complex role with skill and passion showing that he is capable of so much more than the brain dead beefcake roles he has been cast in previously. Kutcher is the key that makes the film work as the entire film and supporting cast center on him and he pulls it off brilliantly. Strong supporting work by Amy Smart, Ethan Suplee, and Eldon Henson keep the film gripping and tense.
The only issue I had with the film was the ending, which seemed to me like a tacked on Hollywood ending and not in keeping with the tone of the film. That being said, “The Butterfly Effect is a strong film and one that will not easily be forgotten.
Sadly, not everyone has fond memories of their childhood as for some; the years of joy and laughter are filled with pain and sadness. Such is the case of Evan Treborn (Ashton Kutcher) a gifted and caring individual who suffers from memory lapses much like his institutionalized father before him.
A series of traumatic events occur forcing Evan and his mother to move from their home leaving his best friends Kayleigh and Lenny behind.
Years later Evan is a successful and popular student at the state college and has not had a blackout for seven years, which is about the time his mother, moved him from the old neighborhood. Evan is persuaded by a friend to read his old journal entries and in doing so starts to recover some of his lost memories.
With the understanding that he has blacked out traumatic events in his life, Evan returns to his old home to seek out his friends with the hope that his missing memories can be restored. Sadly Evans return does not go well and his questions cause consequences for those who can remember what exactly happened.
Desperate to make sense of what is happening, Evan studies his journals and discovers that he is able to travel back to the time he has blacked out, and proceeds to make changes that he believes will improve the long-term outcome.
Evan awakens to find himself with Kayleigh (Amy Smart) and learns that the two of them have been an item ever since his childhood. What at first seems like a dream come true soon sours when Evan realizes that the ripple effects from his changes in the past have affected others around him. Desperate to undo a situation that now threatens him as well, Evan begins a series of trips into his past in an effort to recover his memories and right the wrongs that he is slowly starting to remember. Evan soon finds himself in a situation gone wild as no matter what Evan changes in the past, things are not put right as improving things for one person often makes others suffer as a result of the altered history.
Skillfully written and directed by Eric Bress and J Mackye Gruber The Butterfly Effect is a stunning look into a troubled psyche and a study in the effects of childhood trauma. The film is equally gripping and disturbing and tackles a wide-range of controversial topics. There is no sugar coating to the film as the depths of Evans repressed memories are explored making the film one of the best Dramas in recent memory.
Kutcher is amazing as he handles a difficult and complex role with skill and passion showing that he is capable of so much more than the brain dead beefcake roles he has been cast in previously. Kutcher is the key that makes the film work as the entire film and supporting cast center on him and he pulls it off brilliantly. Strong supporting work by Amy Smart, Ethan Suplee, and Eldon Henson keep the film gripping and tense.
The only issue I had with the film was the ending, which seemed to me like a tacked on Hollywood ending and not in keeping with the tone of the film. That being said, “The Butterfly Effect is a strong film and one that will not easily be forgotten.
Darren (1599 KP) rated You're Not You (2014) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Story: You’re Not You starts on Kate’s (Swank) 35th birthday, a classic pianist that notice something isn’t right with her body, 18 months later Kate is in need of care, even with her husband Evan (Duhamel) needing to work, while finding a new carer to help with ALS care.
That new carer is college student Bec (Rossum) who parties every night and doesn’t come with an off switch. Bec is the only person Kate want to care for her as she is the only one that treats her like a person not a patient and after Kate learns Evan has been having an affair, it leaves Kate and Bec together to handle the caring and living the remaining time with the disease.
Thoughts on You’re Not You
Characters – Kate was a successful pianist, happily married and wonderful party host, she soon starts to get the first symptoms of ALS which comes on strong, she now needs constant caring, but is tired of the nurses that treat her like a patient, she chooses Bec who offers her friendship, while also offering Bec life advice in a time where she could be going with no direction. Bec is a directionless brash college student who gets given a chance to care of Kate, she becomes the biggest challenge of her life, teaching her responsibility and helping guide her in the right direction. Evan is the husband of Kate, he has tried to care for her the best he can, but can’t give up his job which has put a distance between the two, causing him to have had an affair.
Performances – Hilary Swank has two Oscars to her name, this performance here shows the talent she has once again, she is fantastic as the victim of the ALS disease. Emmy Rossum has made a name for herself on television, but here you feel she should have broken out because her performance is great to. Josh Duhamel is good as the character we want to hate through the film.
Story – The story throws the spotlight on ALS, we follow one person suffering from the disease who knows the sacrifices people will have to make to care for her, we see how people who are sick do want to be treated like people rather than just patients and giving them, this treatment will make their remaining time worthwhile. We do have a story about how the older (but not old) woman helps give the lost student a direction for her life. This is a story about the battle against a disease which is taking people everyday, how the people around them need there for them to make the remain time in their lives positive.
Settings – The settings in this film show the different lives both Kate and Bec have come from, how they are joined together in the same battle to support each other. I feel the settings help us understand the disease making made by the characters in the film.
Scene of the Movie – Enjoying a drink or two together.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The only thing I feel we would have liked more of would be the medical side of what could have been done to try and help as we have plenty of talks about experimental treatments.
Final Thoughts – This is a very good drama, we get to see how one person’s suffering could impact many people and how helpless they will feel while fighting it.
Overall: Powerful, heart-breaking and inspiring.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/21/youre-not-you-2014/
That new carer is college student Bec (Rossum) who parties every night and doesn’t come with an off switch. Bec is the only person Kate want to care for her as she is the only one that treats her like a person not a patient and after Kate learns Evan has been having an affair, it leaves Kate and Bec together to handle the caring and living the remaining time with the disease.
Thoughts on You’re Not You
Characters – Kate was a successful pianist, happily married and wonderful party host, she soon starts to get the first symptoms of ALS which comes on strong, she now needs constant caring, but is tired of the nurses that treat her like a patient, she chooses Bec who offers her friendship, while also offering Bec life advice in a time where she could be going with no direction. Bec is a directionless brash college student who gets given a chance to care of Kate, she becomes the biggest challenge of her life, teaching her responsibility and helping guide her in the right direction. Evan is the husband of Kate, he has tried to care for her the best he can, but can’t give up his job which has put a distance between the two, causing him to have had an affair.
Performances – Hilary Swank has two Oscars to her name, this performance here shows the talent she has once again, she is fantastic as the victim of the ALS disease. Emmy Rossum has made a name for herself on television, but here you feel she should have broken out because her performance is great to. Josh Duhamel is good as the character we want to hate through the film.
Story – The story throws the spotlight on ALS, we follow one person suffering from the disease who knows the sacrifices people will have to make to care for her, we see how people who are sick do want to be treated like people rather than just patients and giving them, this treatment will make their remaining time worthwhile. We do have a story about how the older (but not old) woman helps give the lost student a direction for her life. This is a story about the battle against a disease which is taking people everyday, how the people around them need there for them to make the remain time in their lives positive.
Settings – The settings in this film show the different lives both Kate and Bec have come from, how they are joined together in the same battle to support each other. I feel the settings help us understand the disease making made by the characters in the film.
Scene of the Movie – Enjoying a drink or two together.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The only thing I feel we would have liked more of would be the medical side of what could have been done to try and help as we have plenty of talks about experimental treatments.
Final Thoughts – This is a very good drama, we get to see how one person’s suffering could impact many people and how helpless they will feel while fighting it.
Overall: Powerful, heart-breaking and inspiring.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/21/youre-not-you-2014/
FINAL FANTASY VI
Games and Entertainment
App
==== We have received a report that the in-game language switches to English when the device is set...
KalJ95 (25 KP) rated The Last of Us Part II in Video Games
Jun 23, 2020
You Won't Find A Better Game In Terms Of Presentation. (4 more)
Level Design Is Astounding.
Like The First Game, This Will Create A Conversation For Years To Come
Sound Design Is Incredible.
Takes Risks, And Some Do Pay Off.
A Flawed Sequel. (4 more)
Awful Pacing.
Structure Of Narrative Is Bad.
Some Terrible Dialogue.
Shoehorned Agenda.
The last of The Last of Us.
The video game industry doesn't get enough credit as a source of entertainment, in my humble opinion. Time and time again, the industry has proven that it can produce something magical, memorable, mesmerising to play, and even more so, something engaging to watch as someone not even holding the controller. Naughty Dog’s 2013 masterpiece, The Last of Us, became an overnight classic game because it was cinematic in presentation, and a rollercoaster of emotions in narrative. I sat and played the remastered version on my PlayStation 4 in 2017, and fell in love with the chemistry, love and heartbreak Joel and Ellie took with them, as they crossed a post-apocalyptic America. I was satisfied with the conclusion, and felt the story of these two characters was finished. I didn't need, or ever want a sequel. Then a few months pass, The Last of Us Part II is announced. Obviously, I was ecstatic, but also concerned. Trailers came and went, delays happened over and over, and leaks began to drip onto the internet. I was even more concerned with the leaks, and how this game was taking shape, but I remained open minded, and began playing the game.
The Last of Us Part II is a strange beast. An ambitious, exquisite experience, mired by multiple flaws in structure, pacing and plot holes. I simultaneously adored and loathed the twenty five hour experience, and I’m ready to do it all again. Ellie’s thirst for revenge deals with many issues of morality and hate, and the consequences of ones actions. To coin a phrase, “violence begets violence”, and this is very violent. A flawed piece of art, that often shoehorns a political tick list so it can cater to a certain demographic of sexuality and gender. Whatever you think about Part II, it will create a conversation for years to come, for better or worse.
Narrative:
Ellie and Joel are settled in Jackson, Wyoming, living a relatively normal existence. Ellie is nineteen, and has a job, like the rest of the fighters in Jackson, by going out into the world on routes to clear out the wondering infected. When Ellie witnesses a violent event, she takes it into her own hands to take bloody revenge on the people responsible.
A big risk was taken by Naughty Dog to decide what they did for the first two hours, even the VP of the company, Neil Druckmann, said himself the game will be “divisive”, and that is probably an understatement judging by the fan backlash. I feel it worked to support the other twenty three hours, and shows the blurry line of being good and bad in this world.
Unfortunately, the narrative slogs through awful structuring and some dreadful, downright cringe-worthy dialogue. The structure goes back and forth from the present day, to months, and sometimes years previous, and this is all to cement the events that keep the narrative flowing. The flashbacks featuring Joel and Ellie give you brief moments of happiness, followed by devastating revelations. They are the best moments of the game, you can feel the warmth the characters have for each other, and the heartbreaking actions they take. It made me wonder why they simply didn't just create a game with these ideas in mind. Other flashbacks create more problems than they solve, particularly in the latter half of the game. The first half, for all its faults, really treats you to a vicious and bloodthirsty ride through Seattle, and you completely feel the motivation and drive Ellie has to complete the mission she's set out to do. Seattle is huge, and the perfect backdrop for this game.
Sadly, the second half of the game is an absolute mess. The whole experience becomes nothing more than “go to this location, collect something, go back” over and over again. Its a lazy trope that causes so much fatigue in terms of pacing, slowing down any momentum gained by the first half. The second half serves the most important purpose too, and while I did grow to understand the intention it was presenting me, I couldn't help but feel frequently bored of doing fetch quests. To remain as spoiler free as possible, the game is split into two perspectives of Ellie, and an entirely new character. Naughty Dog wants you to understand the perspectives of both sides, but the history thats been created with the original game, you cant help but sympathise with Ellie more. The fact that its half the game away from the main protagonist, and starts you fresh with a new character, with new skill sets and weapons, really feels out of place. This could of worked much better as an episodic entry, rather than just two stories, one after the other. I can understand people who love this way of storytelling, but for me it slows the pacing down.
Gameplay:
Part II is the most beautiful game I’ve ever played. Naughty Dog continue to set the bar extremely high in terms of surroundings and facial animations, and the seamless transitions from cutscene to gameplay made my jaw drop. Each facial movement shows the hurt, the honesty, the devastation the characters carry with them. It almost feels more like a film or tv series than a video game, featuring an excellent performance from Troy Baker, and a career defining show from Ashley Johnson. Unfortunately, some of the new cast members don't have enough time on screen to give a full understanding of their personality or perspective. Some are likeable, relatable even, but some are just annoying, saying some of the strangest, out of place dialogue.
In terms of its gameplay, Part II hasn't really changed anything from its predecessor. It feels the same, whether you enjoyed it first time round or not. I personally am in the middle ground, it works for what it is. The Last of Us has always been a game about surviving by any means necessary. Part II feels like multiple ideas all in one, all conflicting themselves. Let me explain:
The game actively tries to twist the act of killing people to make you seem like its an awful thing to do. This is an interesting idea that has been done many times before in games, but it works in the oddest of ways here. I have completed the game twice now, and found it almost impossible to not kill anyone, yet cutscenes display remorse within the characters after they’ve murdered someone. This conflicts the idea of the whole game, where one moment I'm slicing a persons throat with a knife, the next I do the exact same, but this time I regret that decision. Again, its adding less weight to the story, and actively contradicting everything that happens.
Extra Notes:
The environments of Part II are some of the best in a video game. A sandbox of lush greenery and worn down buildings follows the same formula that Naughty Dog designed in Uncharted: The Lost Legacy, where you can explore a massive space to do what you find the objectives, but also see the sights and collect items. The level design of the entire game is absolutely masterful, but this level astounded me graphically and structurally.
By this point, it probably feels like I utterly hated Part II. I did, and didn’t, and thats the line I'm sticking on. The Last of Us always presented a commentary as to the nature of relationships, love, life and death. At the core was Ellie and Joel, two wayward strangers forced together on a journey across America. Everyone has a reason to love that game, for me its their chemistry and progression. Joel was hardened, standoffish, only to warm to Ellie, and love her by the end. Ellie, the immune girl who's humorous, optimistic and full of life, who ultimately becomes cold, quiet and sceptical of Joel.
Part II presents a different commentary, one of revenge and hate. I firmly believe Part II is weak in most areas, a downgrade in fact compared to its counterpart, but its so beautiful and bleak, with so many incapsulated moments of joy, heartbreak, love, shock. Its uncompromising, relentless and essential for anyone with a PS4. This will be a game I will constantly change my opinion on the more I think about it. As I said at the beginning, I never felt a sequel was necessary, and I firmly believe the story must end here.
(P.S. I must mention that Naughty Dog and Sony have only themselves to blame when it comes to the reception Part II has received during its release and promotional material. Early reviewers were told that they could only go into detail about the first ten or so hours, not mentioning the other fifteen. The other fifteen hours are incredibly important to mention, and they either make or break this game, so not letting reviewers do their job feels disingenuous, and from my point of view shows that they had no faith in their product to be criticised. The promotional material is also hugely misleading. The trailers show a completely different game, and characters are swapped for others in key scenes. That is wrong, and once again, shows your audience you had zero faith in your product based on the actual plot of your game.)
The Last of Us Part II is a strange beast. An ambitious, exquisite experience, mired by multiple flaws in structure, pacing and plot holes. I simultaneously adored and loathed the twenty five hour experience, and I’m ready to do it all again. Ellie’s thirst for revenge deals with many issues of morality and hate, and the consequences of ones actions. To coin a phrase, “violence begets violence”, and this is very violent. A flawed piece of art, that often shoehorns a political tick list so it can cater to a certain demographic of sexuality and gender. Whatever you think about Part II, it will create a conversation for years to come, for better or worse.
Narrative:
Ellie and Joel are settled in Jackson, Wyoming, living a relatively normal existence. Ellie is nineteen, and has a job, like the rest of the fighters in Jackson, by going out into the world on routes to clear out the wondering infected. When Ellie witnesses a violent event, she takes it into her own hands to take bloody revenge on the people responsible.
A big risk was taken by Naughty Dog to decide what they did for the first two hours, even the VP of the company, Neil Druckmann, said himself the game will be “divisive”, and that is probably an understatement judging by the fan backlash. I feel it worked to support the other twenty three hours, and shows the blurry line of being good and bad in this world.
Unfortunately, the narrative slogs through awful structuring and some dreadful, downright cringe-worthy dialogue. The structure goes back and forth from the present day, to months, and sometimes years previous, and this is all to cement the events that keep the narrative flowing. The flashbacks featuring Joel and Ellie give you brief moments of happiness, followed by devastating revelations. They are the best moments of the game, you can feel the warmth the characters have for each other, and the heartbreaking actions they take. It made me wonder why they simply didn't just create a game with these ideas in mind. Other flashbacks create more problems than they solve, particularly in the latter half of the game. The first half, for all its faults, really treats you to a vicious and bloodthirsty ride through Seattle, and you completely feel the motivation and drive Ellie has to complete the mission she's set out to do. Seattle is huge, and the perfect backdrop for this game.
Sadly, the second half of the game is an absolute mess. The whole experience becomes nothing more than “go to this location, collect something, go back” over and over again. Its a lazy trope that causes so much fatigue in terms of pacing, slowing down any momentum gained by the first half. The second half serves the most important purpose too, and while I did grow to understand the intention it was presenting me, I couldn't help but feel frequently bored of doing fetch quests. To remain as spoiler free as possible, the game is split into two perspectives of Ellie, and an entirely new character. Naughty Dog wants you to understand the perspectives of both sides, but the history thats been created with the original game, you cant help but sympathise with Ellie more. The fact that its half the game away from the main protagonist, and starts you fresh with a new character, with new skill sets and weapons, really feels out of place. This could of worked much better as an episodic entry, rather than just two stories, one after the other. I can understand people who love this way of storytelling, but for me it slows the pacing down.
Gameplay:
Part II is the most beautiful game I’ve ever played. Naughty Dog continue to set the bar extremely high in terms of surroundings and facial animations, and the seamless transitions from cutscene to gameplay made my jaw drop. Each facial movement shows the hurt, the honesty, the devastation the characters carry with them. It almost feels more like a film or tv series than a video game, featuring an excellent performance from Troy Baker, and a career defining show from Ashley Johnson. Unfortunately, some of the new cast members don't have enough time on screen to give a full understanding of their personality or perspective. Some are likeable, relatable even, but some are just annoying, saying some of the strangest, out of place dialogue.
In terms of its gameplay, Part II hasn't really changed anything from its predecessor. It feels the same, whether you enjoyed it first time round or not. I personally am in the middle ground, it works for what it is. The Last of Us has always been a game about surviving by any means necessary. Part II feels like multiple ideas all in one, all conflicting themselves. Let me explain:
The game actively tries to twist the act of killing people to make you seem like its an awful thing to do. This is an interesting idea that has been done many times before in games, but it works in the oddest of ways here. I have completed the game twice now, and found it almost impossible to not kill anyone, yet cutscenes display remorse within the characters after they’ve murdered someone. This conflicts the idea of the whole game, where one moment I'm slicing a persons throat with a knife, the next I do the exact same, but this time I regret that decision. Again, its adding less weight to the story, and actively contradicting everything that happens.
Extra Notes:
The environments of Part II are some of the best in a video game. A sandbox of lush greenery and worn down buildings follows the same formula that Naughty Dog designed in Uncharted: The Lost Legacy, where you can explore a massive space to do what you find the objectives, but also see the sights and collect items. The level design of the entire game is absolutely masterful, but this level astounded me graphically and structurally.
By this point, it probably feels like I utterly hated Part II. I did, and didn’t, and thats the line I'm sticking on. The Last of Us always presented a commentary as to the nature of relationships, love, life and death. At the core was Ellie and Joel, two wayward strangers forced together on a journey across America. Everyone has a reason to love that game, for me its their chemistry and progression. Joel was hardened, standoffish, only to warm to Ellie, and love her by the end. Ellie, the immune girl who's humorous, optimistic and full of life, who ultimately becomes cold, quiet and sceptical of Joel.
Part II presents a different commentary, one of revenge and hate. I firmly believe Part II is weak in most areas, a downgrade in fact compared to its counterpart, but its so beautiful and bleak, with so many incapsulated moments of joy, heartbreak, love, shock. Its uncompromising, relentless and essential for anyone with a PS4. This will be a game I will constantly change my opinion on the more I think about it. As I said at the beginning, I never felt a sequel was necessary, and I firmly believe the story must end here.
(P.S. I must mention that Naughty Dog and Sony have only themselves to blame when it comes to the reception Part II has received during its release and promotional material. Early reviewers were told that they could only go into detail about the first ten or so hours, not mentioning the other fifteen. The other fifteen hours are incredibly important to mention, and they either make or break this game, so not letting reviewers do their job feels disingenuous, and from my point of view shows that they had no faith in their product to be criticised. The promotional material is also hugely misleading. The trailers show a completely different game, and characters are swapped for others in key scenes. That is wrong, and once again, shows your audience you had zero faith in your product based on the actual plot of your game.)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Ocean’s 8 (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Light and breezy but utterly forgettable
It’s a peculiar state of affairs, the film industry that is. While reboots, remakes, prequels and sequels seem to be garnering much disdain from the movie-going audience of late, studios still push ahead with them regardless.
I mean, look at poor Disney and the performance of Solo: A Star Wars Story if you need any indication of a tiring audience. Female-led reboots are all the rage now too with Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters being met with a dreadful run at the box office despite decent critical responses. Next up, we’ve got Ocean’s 8, a sequel no-one was really asking for but got anyway. Is it worth a watch?
Five years, eight months, 12 days and counting – that’s how long Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock) has been devising the biggest heist of her life. She knows what it’s going to take – a team of the best people in the field, starting with her partner-in-crime Lou Miller (Cate Blanchett). Together, they recruit a crew of specialists, including jeweller Amita, street con Constance, suburban mom Tammy (Sarah Paulson), hacker Nine Ball (Rihanna), and fashion designer Rose (Helena Bonham Carter). Their target: a necklace that’s worth more than $150 million.
Gary Ross, director of the first Hunger Games movie, takes over from Steven Soderbergh to helm a film that is perfectly passable popcorn fodder, but sadly nothing more. But, for the sake of this review, let’s start with the positives.
The cast is by far, the biggest selling point for this film. Filled to the brim with talent like Bullock, Blanchett and Paulson, it was always going to be a win-win situation pulling an ensemble like this together. Bullock is absolutely fabulous from the minute the film begins and Anne Hathaway is clearly having a ball playing an over-the-top version of herself. Helena Bonham Carter is surprisingly good as a failing Irish fashion designer and it’s always a joy seeing Sarah Paulson’s understated performances grace the big screen.
What’s not so good is the way the film treats its stars from different ethnicities however. Rihanna, Mindy Kaling (Amita) and Awkwafina (Constance) are sorely underused throughout. In fact, outside of Paulson, Awkwafina and Kaling provide the film with its most intriguing characters – but we learn very little about them apart from a few scenes studying their personal/professional lives.
It’s also best not to talk about James Corden and his hideously over-acted performance as fraud investigator John. Filled with cringeworthy dialogue, it’s a miracle his part is relatively short. Like a bad smell however, he lingers for much too long.
The biggest sin that Ocean’s 8 commits is its complete lack of plausibility
Then there’s the plot, or rather the script. In making these women the absolute best-of-the-best, there are no high stakes, no tension to be had or anything remotely resembling a narrow-escape.
There’s the obligatory ‘oh no’ moment as something looks like it’s going to go wrong, but it’s rectified so suddenly that any joy in watching the heist unfold is completely lost. Where the previous Ocean’s movies were riddled with tension, Ocean’s 8 is devoid of it.
Thankfully, the plan is fun if a little uninspiring to behold, filled with bland cinematography very similar to what was seen in the first Hunger Games film way back in 2012. It’s all just very staid, like the studio was simply ticking boxes on a checklist to make sure they got a film that would make them money, but was lacking anything in the way of originality.
But perhaps the biggest sin that Ocean’s 8 commits is its complete lack of plausibility. Article upon article has already been created in which writers dissect the film’s heist plan and come up with the same conclusion: it can’t be done. You don’t need those articles though, because the plot holes are big enough for anyone to see and that’s a real shame. This becomes increasingly evident in the film’s final 10 minutes which makes a mockery of everything that came before.
Overall, Ocean’s 8 is your typical summer blockbuster. It’s light, breezy and like a big tub of cottage cheese, devoid of any personality whatsoever. It’s saving grace is the cast. Managing to pull together an ensemble this good takes a lot of effort, and for that, it deserves some praise – faint praise, but praise nonetheless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/06/21/oceans-8-review-light-and-breezy-but-utterly-forgettable/
I mean, look at poor Disney and the performance of Solo: A Star Wars Story if you need any indication of a tiring audience. Female-led reboots are all the rage now too with Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters being met with a dreadful run at the box office despite decent critical responses. Next up, we’ve got Ocean’s 8, a sequel no-one was really asking for but got anyway. Is it worth a watch?
Five years, eight months, 12 days and counting – that’s how long Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock) has been devising the biggest heist of her life. She knows what it’s going to take – a team of the best people in the field, starting with her partner-in-crime Lou Miller (Cate Blanchett). Together, they recruit a crew of specialists, including jeweller Amita, street con Constance, suburban mom Tammy (Sarah Paulson), hacker Nine Ball (Rihanna), and fashion designer Rose (Helena Bonham Carter). Their target: a necklace that’s worth more than $150 million.
Gary Ross, director of the first Hunger Games movie, takes over from Steven Soderbergh to helm a film that is perfectly passable popcorn fodder, but sadly nothing more. But, for the sake of this review, let’s start with the positives.
The cast is by far, the biggest selling point for this film. Filled to the brim with talent like Bullock, Blanchett and Paulson, it was always going to be a win-win situation pulling an ensemble like this together. Bullock is absolutely fabulous from the minute the film begins and Anne Hathaway is clearly having a ball playing an over-the-top version of herself. Helena Bonham Carter is surprisingly good as a failing Irish fashion designer and it’s always a joy seeing Sarah Paulson’s understated performances grace the big screen.
What’s not so good is the way the film treats its stars from different ethnicities however. Rihanna, Mindy Kaling (Amita) and Awkwafina (Constance) are sorely underused throughout. In fact, outside of Paulson, Awkwafina and Kaling provide the film with its most intriguing characters – but we learn very little about them apart from a few scenes studying their personal/professional lives.
It’s also best not to talk about James Corden and his hideously over-acted performance as fraud investigator John. Filled with cringeworthy dialogue, it’s a miracle his part is relatively short. Like a bad smell however, he lingers for much too long.
The biggest sin that Ocean’s 8 commits is its complete lack of plausibility
Then there’s the plot, or rather the script. In making these women the absolute best-of-the-best, there are no high stakes, no tension to be had or anything remotely resembling a narrow-escape.
There’s the obligatory ‘oh no’ moment as something looks like it’s going to go wrong, but it’s rectified so suddenly that any joy in watching the heist unfold is completely lost. Where the previous Ocean’s movies were riddled with tension, Ocean’s 8 is devoid of it.
Thankfully, the plan is fun if a little uninspiring to behold, filled with bland cinematography very similar to what was seen in the first Hunger Games film way back in 2012. It’s all just very staid, like the studio was simply ticking boxes on a checklist to make sure they got a film that would make them money, but was lacking anything in the way of originality.
But perhaps the biggest sin that Ocean’s 8 commits is its complete lack of plausibility. Article upon article has already been created in which writers dissect the film’s heist plan and come up with the same conclusion: it can’t be done. You don’t need those articles though, because the plot holes are big enough for anyone to see and that’s a real shame. This becomes increasingly evident in the film’s final 10 minutes which makes a mockery of everything that came before.
Overall, Ocean’s 8 is your typical summer blockbuster. It’s light, breezy and like a big tub of cottage cheese, devoid of any personality whatsoever. It’s saving grace is the cast. Managing to pull together an ensemble this good takes a lot of effort, and for that, it deserves some praise – faint praise, but praise nonetheless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/06/21/oceans-8-review-light-and-breezy-but-utterly-forgettable/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Fantasy Ranch in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019 (Updated Jun 12, 2019)
Little known fact: my family used to be involved with local harness racing and horse training. Not much actually rubbed off on me, personally, but I do remember going to the stables to visit with the horses, and I was even allowed to ride the stable goat since I wasn’t yet big enough to get on the horses. Ahh, memories. So when I heard that a game existed with a horse ranching theme, I just HAD to get it to the table. Is it a good game though? Let’s find out! (spoilers: IT’S EXCELLENT!)
DISCLAIMER: The game comes with three modes of difficulty AND an included children’s game that also can be played on three modes of difficulty. For this review we are concentrating only on adult mode two. We felt mode one was too introductory, but we did not want to go all in right away on mode three. -T
As with most board games, you are trying to amass trophies (VP) and the winner at the end of five rounds is the rancher with the most trophies. On your turn you can take one Limited (standard) Action and as many Free Actions as you would like. Limited Actions include: buy a horse, buy a location on your ranch board, or farm your ranch for goods. Free Actions include: sell a horse, move horses to/from your home area to/from a different area on your ranch board, or trade goods at a 2:1 ratio. Once every player has taken their turn, you enter a show using the horses you have collected.
Buying a horse requires different amounts of food (in carrots) that you gain from different actions (farming your ranch, selling a horse). Luckily, spending food is a one-time action and you don’t have to feed your horses every turn. A great improvement over other “feed your villagers” games, in my opinion – yeah, I said it. Buying a location on your ranch board/playmat requires “tack,” which is symbolized by boot tokens (as seen below). You can always get more food and tack by farming your ranch, and you receive six goods of any combination, but that’s a Limited Action and prevents you from doing the other actions.
Selling a horse is easy, yet the separation anxiety is real, as you simply discard the horse for the amount of food it costs to purchase. Moving horses is easy too – your Home area of your ranch/playmat can only hold so many horses, so you will need to move horses of certain types to unlocked (purchased) matching areas on your ranch. This is important, as you cannot keep buying red horses or you will certainly run out of room for them, even if you unlock the red area on your ranch board. Plus unlocking sections of your ranch provides you with trophies at game end. The last free action is trading goods, which you do at a 2:1 ratio. So trade in two food for a tack or vice versa.
At shows you use horses for their specific specialty skills plus a die roll. Each horse has specialty in one area, and some skill in other areas. The number associated with a skill icon indicates the starting skill “strength” that you will add to your die roll. You roll all three dice of your color, take the highest result from the roll, and add the skill strength of the horse skill. That’s your score for the show. The highest number is awarded 1st place and the rewards printed, and so on and so forth for the other placing horses. This could result in more food or tack, or even your choice of horses for free from the sales barn.
On the very last turn of the game you will compete in three shows (instead of the normal two shows at the end of each turn) and can only use World Class horses, or buy your way into the show with food. The show process is the same, but it is the final push to earn as many trophies as possible before game end. And that’s it!
Components: This game is FULL of components. It’s a pretty stocked and heavy box, but still only the size of a Ticket to Ride box. The playmats, game boards, and cardboard chits are all of really great quality. The cards are great quality as well with photos of real existing horses (as well as the photos of real existing ranches on the giant ranch cards that are essentially beautiful player reference cards and resource holders). The best components of the game are the super cute little horeeples (oh no, that can’t possibly be correct). Horse-meeples. They come in different colors to match the areas on your ranch that you need to unlock and move them into so you don’t overcrowd your Home area. Even though my copy came with a green horse who lost his front legs, we know that he competes hard and lives his best life. The art is really really great and, though busy on the board at times, the game looks really good on the table. No qualms with the components on this one at all.
Here’s what I really like about this one. It’s a euro through and through, but it’s a euro that is actually exciting, with a unique theme, and one that I genuinely cannot wait to play again. I want to try mode three as soon as I can, and I really want to introduce my son to the game as soon as he is able to handle it. I am finding it really really hard to think of a game that comes ready to play three ways for adults, has components included to play the game three ways with children, and is actually super fun. I can’t think of any. This game is truly in a class by itself.
I love that no matter how tactical you play or how strategic you want to make it, sometimes the dice love/hate you and it could make all the difference. As you can see in the scores, we all love it (with the exception of my cousin Tony who rated it a three because of the dice – WHICH is odd because it is his father that was the harness racing jockey of the family). This review would have been live a week ago, but immediately after playing last weekend Josh said he would like to bring it home to play with his family. His wife is from Kentucky, and they kinda like horses and horse racing there. Well, his wife and son also rated this game out of 6. His wife gave Fantasy Ranch a 15 and his son rated it a 16. As that completely throws off my rating scale I did not add them, but as you can see we at Purple Phoenix Games give this one a very boot-kickin’ 19 / 24. If only we hadn’t invited Tony over to destroy the scores… We highly recommend you check this winner out. Seriously, it’s great.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/06/04/fantasy-ranch-review/
DISCLAIMER: The game comes with three modes of difficulty AND an included children’s game that also can be played on three modes of difficulty. For this review we are concentrating only on adult mode two. We felt mode one was too introductory, but we did not want to go all in right away on mode three. -T
As with most board games, you are trying to amass trophies (VP) and the winner at the end of five rounds is the rancher with the most trophies. On your turn you can take one Limited (standard) Action and as many Free Actions as you would like. Limited Actions include: buy a horse, buy a location on your ranch board, or farm your ranch for goods. Free Actions include: sell a horse, move horses to/from your home area to/from a different area on your ranch board, or trade goods at a 2:1 ratio. Once every player has taken their turn, you enter a show using the horses you have collected.
Buying a horse requires different amounts of food (in carrots) that you gain from different actions (farming your ranch, selling a horse). Luckily, spending food is a one-time action and you don’t have to feed your horses every turn. A great improvement over other “feed your villagers” games, in my opinion – yeah, I said it. Buying a location on your ranch board/playmat requires “tack,” which is symbolized by boot tokens (as seen below). You can always get more food and tack by farming your ranch, and you receive six goods of any combination, but that’s a Limited Action and prevents you from doing the other actions.
Selling a horse is easy, yet the separation anxiety is real, as you simply discard the horse for the amount of food it costs to purchase. Moving horses is easy too – your Home area of your ranch/playmat can only hold so many horses, so you will need to move horses of certain types to unlocked (purchased) matching areas on your ranch. This is important, as you cannot keep buying red horses or you will certainly run out of room for them, even if you unlock the red area on your ranch board. Plus unlocking sections of your ranch provides you with trophies at game end. The last free action is trading goods, which you do at a 2:1 ratio. So trade in two food for a tack or vice versa.
At shows you use horses for their specific specialty skills plus a die roll. Each horse has specialty in one area, and some skill in other areas. The number associated with a skill icon indicates the starting skill “strength” that you will add to your die roll. You roll all three dice of your color, take the highest result from the roll, and add the skill strength of the horse skill. That’s your score for the show. The highest number is awarded 1st place and the rewards printed, and so on and so forth for the other placing horses. This could result in more food or tack, or even your choice of horses for free from the sales barn.
On the very last turn of the game you will compete in three shows (instead of the normal two shows at the end of each turn) and can only use World Class horses, or buy your way into the show with food. The show process is the same, but it is the final push to earn as many trophies as possible before game end. And that’s it!
Components: This game is FULL of components. It’s a pretty stocked and heavy box, but still only the size of a Ticket to Ride box. The playmats, game boards, and cardboard chits are all of really great quality. The cards are great quality as well with photos of real existing horses (as well as the photos of real existing ranches on the giant ranch cards that are essentially beautiful player reference cards and resource holders). The best components of the game are the super cute little horeeples (oh no, that can’t possibly be correct). Horse-meeples. They come in different colors to match the areas on your ranch that you need to unlock and move them into so you don’t overcrowd your Home area. Even though my copy came with a green horse who lost his front legs, we know that he competes hard and lives his best life. The art is really really great and, though busy on the board at times, the game looks really good on the table. No qualms with the components on this one at all.
Here’s what I really like about this one. It’s a euro through and through, but it’s a euro that is actually exciting, with a unique theme, and one that I genuinely cannot wait to play again. I want to try mode three as soon as I can, and I really want to introduce my son to the game as soon as he is able to handle it. I am finding it really really hard to think of a game that comes ready to play three ways for adults, has components included to play the game three ways with children, and is actually super fun. I can’t think of any. This game is truly in a class by itself.
I love that no matter how tactical you play or how strategic you want to make it, sometimes the dice love/hate you and it could make all the difference. As you can see in the scores, we all love it (with the exception of my cousin Tony who rated it a three because of the dice – WHICH is odd because it is his father that was the harness racing jockey of the family). This review would have been live a week ago, but immediately after playing last weekend Josh said he would like to bring it home to play with his family. His wife is from Kentucky, and they kinda like horses and horse racing there. Well, his wife and son also rated this game out of 6. His wife gave Fantasy Ranch a 15 and his son rated it a 16. As that completely throws off my rating scale I did not add them, but as you can see we at Purple Phoenix Games give this one a very boot-kickin’ 19 / 24. If only we hadn’t invited Tony over to destroy the scores… We highly recommend you check this winner out. Seriously, it’s great.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/06/04/fantasy-ranch-review/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Firefly Adventures: Brigands and Browncoats in Tabletop Games
Sep 1, 2021
Okay! Yes. Firefly, a great IP. Check! Gale Force Nine, a publisher that brought a previous Firefly game to life and was pretty darn good. Check! Solo, Cooperative, or Competitive? Check! So far so good, so how does it stack up and have I finally found my gorram Firefly love?
Firefly Adventures: Brigands and Browncoats (from here just Firefly) is a miniatures skirmish game that can be played as a one-off game experience or as a campaign style story game. In it players will either control one or more Crew (the heroes of the show) or all of the Goons (the bad guys). For the solo experience I will be detailing here the solo player will control all characters on both sides. The Crew will be attempting to pull off The Rescue Job by rescuing an injured comrade hostage stashed in one of the 10 buildings on the board. After the hostage has been rescued all Crew and hostage must make it to the landing pad area before time for the Job runs out.
To setup, follow the instructions on the included Job pamphlet (there are four included in the box). The beginning of the Job will look similar to the photo below, though other components outside the board setup may be in whatever location fits the player best. After Equipment cards have been revealed and shopping completed, the game may begin in earnest, and best be quick – you only have 50 Moments to complete the Job!
Firefly is a turn-based minis game, but turns will probably never be in the same order. Each action taken by a character costs Moments in time, tracked by the brown Moments tracker around the board. Each character, be they Crew or Goons, will have their own Time Marker to show where in the 50 Moments the character currently resides. The character whose Time Marker is furthest in the rear of the pack will take their turn next. On a turn characters will have several choices of actions to take: Move, Complete a Test, Heal, Assist, or even Brawl and Shoot!
This Job focuses on gathering Intel from a terminal in one of the buildings or by chatting up nearby Cowboys. These Intel chips may be turned in for information to help narrow down exactly in which building the hostage is being held. Along the way, however, certain events may cause the Crew to have to “act heroic,” which means swapping out their gray “casual” mini for their green “heroic” mini in order to complete the event. Funny thing though, once a Crew member acts heroic, if ending their turn within line of sight of a Goon, that Goon becomes Alerted and joins the Timeline with their own mini and Time Marker. The Goons will now be trying to take out the beloved Crew member! As in the photo below, poor Mal is being surrounded by Goons with Zoe and Jayne nearby to help.
When all is said and done, Crew and Goons will be taking actions and spending Moments to do so. Should the Crew get to the landing pad with the hostage in tow the Crew wins! However, if time runs out on the Job (as it did with me twice) then the Job has failed. In either case the Crew may receive Rewards in various amounts of credits or Intel or other rewards that they may carry with to the next Job if playing a Story (several Jobs in succession).
Components. I am a HUGE fan of the components in this box. Not only are the minis great, the tokens chunky, and the artwork very good, but each 3D building is pre-assembled right out of the box. They nest very tightly and neatly within the box (whose bottom is also a very large building), but you will need to provide a bunch of baggies or other storage means because all the small components will be dumped into these buildings otherwise. I love all the components in this game, and they are all wonderful to handle… except one – the Time Markers. These are the tokens that represent the characters on the Moments tracker. As characters move along the tracker their Time Markers will be placed on a blank spot, or more often than not, on top of a stack of other Markers. No problem usually, unless your big man-hands tend not to be dextrous enough to grab the top Marker cleanly off the stack and it causes a giant mess of Time Markers on the board. I mean, not that it happened to me several times, of course…
In any case, Firefly is a marvelous scenario-based minis game that I have had nothing but great times playing – even solo! I honestly cannot imagine having more fun by adding more players, so this may be another “solo only” game for me. I will probably try it with my wife, maybe, or someone else once the COVID is gone. I love being able to figure out how best to maneuver each character in order to achieve the goals of the Job, but then something always causing me to have to act heroic and end my turn in LOS of a Goon, so now they are coming after me. I would not necessarily compare it to an action-programming game where you make plans only to have randomness obliterate them, but it certainly adds a giant amount of tactics to the game. In fact, during one play Mal alerted four Cowboys at once, and then the game was no longer a strategic stealthy experience but an all-out melee just to survive. I lost the Job, but only by a few Moments.
Ahh, this one is fabulous, and I am so happy that I have finally found that perfect-for-me Firefly game. If you are a fan of the Firefly mythos and are looking for a game that does it justice while having a ton of replayability, then please check out Firefly Adventures: Brigands and Browncoats. I am seriously also considering purchasing the expansions to add Book, Inara, Simon, and River. I mean, how could you NOT want to add River to your game?? I’ll be in my bunk.
Firefly Adventures: Brigands and Browncoats (from here just Firefly) is a miniatures skirmish game that can be played as a one-off game experience or as a campaign style story game. In it players will either control one or more Crew (the heroes of the show) or all of the Goons (the bad guys). For the solo experience I will be detailing here the solo player will control all characters on both sides. The Crew will be attempting to pull off The Rescue Job by rescuing an injured comrade hostage stashed in one of the 10 buildings on the board. After the hostage has been rescued all Crew and hostage must make it to the landing pad area before time for the Job runs out.
To setup, follow the instructions on the included Job pamphlet (there are four included in the box). The beginning of the Job will look similar to the photo below, though other components outside the board setup may be in whatever location fits the player best. After Equipment cards have been revealed and shopping completed, the game may begin in earnest, and best be quick – you only have 50 Moments to complete the Job!
Firefly is a turn-based minis game, but turns will probably never be in the same order. Each action taken by a character costs Moments in time, tracked by the brown Moments tracker around the board. Each character, be they Crew or Goons, will have their own Time Marker to show where in the 50 Moments the character currently resides. The character whose Time Marker is furthest in the rear of the pack will take their turn next. On a turn characters will have several choices of actions to take: Move, Complete a Test, Heal, Assist, or even Brawl and Shoot!
This Job focuses on gathering Intel from a terminal in one of the buildings or by chatting up nearby Cowboys. These Intel chips may be turned in for information to help narrow down exactly in which building the hostage is being held. Along the way, however, certain events may cause the Crew to have to “act heroic,” which means swapping out their gray “casual” mini for their green “heroic” mini in order to complete the event. Funny thing though, once a Crew member acts heroic, if ending their turn within line of sight of a Goon, that Goon becomes Alerted and joins the Timeline with their own mini and Time Marker. The Goons will now be trying to take out the beloved Crew member! As in the photo below, poor Mal is being surrounded by Goons with Zoe and Jayne nearby to help.
When all is said and done, Crew and Goons will be taking actions and spending Moments to do so. Should the Crew get to the landing pad with the hostage in tow the Crew wins! However, if time runs out on the Job (as it did with me twice) then the Job has failed. In either case the Crew may receive Rewards in various amounts of credits or Intel or other rewards that they may carry with to the next Job if playing a Story (several Jobs in succession).
Components. I am a HUGE fan of the components in this box. Not only are the minis great, the tokens chunky, and the artwork very good, but each 3D building is pre-assembled right out of the box. They nest very tightly and neatly within the box (whose bottom is also a very large building), but you will need to provide a bunch of baggies or other storage means because all the small components will be dumped into these buildings otherwise. I love all the components in this game, and they are all wonderful to handle… except one – the Time Markers. These are the tokens that represent the characters on the Moments tracker. As characters move along the tracker their Time Markers will be placed on a blank spot, or more often than not, on top of a stack of other Markers. No problem usually, unless your big man-hands tend not to be dextrous enough to grab the top Marker cleanly off the stack and it causes a giant mess of Time Markers on the board. I mean, not that it happened to me several times, of course…
In any case, Firefly is a marvelous scenario-based minis game that I have had nothing but great times playing – even solo! I honestly cannot imagine having more fun by adding more players, so this may be another “solo only” game for me. I will probably try it with my wife, maybe, or someone else once the COVID is gone. I love being able to figure out how best to maneuver each character in order to achieve the goals of the Job, but then something always causing me to have to act heroic and end my turn in LOS of a Goon, so now they are coming after me. I would not necessarily compare it to an action-programming game where you make plans only to have randomness obliterate them, but it certainly adds a giant amount of tactics to the game. In fact, during one play Mal alerted four Cowboys at once, and then the game was no longer a strategic stealthy experience but an all-out melee just to survive. I lost the Job, but only by a few Moments.
Ahh, this one is fabulous, and I am so happy that I have finally found that perfect-for-me Firefly game. If you are a fan of the Firefly mythos and are looking for a game that does it justice while having a ton of replayability, then please check out Firefly Adventures: Brigands and Browncoats. I am seriously also considering purchasing the expansions to add Book, Inara, Simon, and River. I mean, how could you NOT want to add River to your game?? I’ll be in my bunk.
Hadley (567 KP) rated Voices in the Snow in Books
Feb 16, 2021
Horror (2 more)
Well-written detail
Atmosphere
Awkward characters (1 more)
Some inconsistencies
Winter is beginning to really show up for 2021 by blanketing the States in snow, which made this novel seem fitting to read this month, along with the isolated climate of quarantine which the two main characters go through in Darcy Coates' Voices in the Snow. This story is the first book in a four book series that is full of horror and mystery, and I couldn't seem to put it down - - - after the first 100 pages, the story steers off in a direction I didn't see coming.
Voices in the Snow is set in today's world, but at the beginning of a dystopian future in the UK, which mostly takes place at a large, desolate manor that sits just outside a forest called Banksy Forest. From the second chapter until the end, readers make their home here with the two main characters Clare and Dorran, but very shortly into the story, we realize that they aren't the only 'people' in the house.
The main question of the novel is whether or not Dorran can be trusted - - - Clare wakes up in his family's manor after a car accident, and she can't exactly remember how the accident happened, but she also can't remember why she was driving out in a blizzard in the first place, but she does recall that she was on the phone with her sister, Beth, and we learn that her sister worries about Clare like she's her mother. Clare becomes focused on trying to somehow contact Beth to let her know she's still alive.
We find out later that Dorran comes from a prestigious family that makes their money from being in the wood distribution business. His family, the Morthornes, aren't a typical family. Not only does Dorran's relatives live at the manor during the warmer months, but so do the servants, all 60 of them. Dorran makes it obvious that he doesn't enjoy this type of lifestyle:
" ' All right. I guess not. Especially in this house. How large is it [the house] ?'
'Inconveniently large.' He shrugged. 'It does not only house our family, but the servants as well.'
Clare's eyebrows rose. 'Servants?'
'Staff,' he corrected quickly. Clare thought she saw a flicker of embarrassment, but it was hidden almost immediately. 'My apologies. That is another part of tradition that is well outdated. My mother wishes for the staff to be referred to as servants.' "
Soon the two are discussing whether or not they could survive for months at the manor due to the blizzard not seeming to let up, with this discussion, readers find out there is an inside garden located in the depths of the manor, unfortunately, food wasn't planted since the family and servants leave the home for the winter, but there are plenty of seeds to start cultivating. One day while Clare is trying to get the seeds planted, she decides to go get Dorran, who left to go check on the many furnaces that heat the manor, but Clare easily gets lost in the house she has barely walked around in, and ends up in a wine cellar: here, Clare hears scraping noises that lead her to a creature huddled in the dark.
" The figure turned toward her. Eyes glinted - - - horrible, inhuman eyes peering out from behind long, greasy hair. Then the figure darted away, escaping from her circle of light, disappearing into a narrow doorway in the stone wall.
A sharp, broken scream cut through the cold air. Clare didn't realize it had come from her until she felt the ache in her throat. She stumbled backward, and her shoulders hit one of the shelves. Muffled clinking noises surrounded her as the bottles rocked.
She couldn't stop shaking. The thudding footsteps echoed around her, beating fast, like her own heart. The scraping noise joined it, louder this time. It surrounded her and overwhelmed her. "
Although Clare tells Dorran what she saw, he doesn't believe her. He believes that the stress from the car accident has caused her to hallucinate. Clare slowly begins to tell herself that he's probably right, but then the human-like creatures begin to show up more and more, always disappearing right before Dorran can see them. Shortly after an incident with another one of the creatures, Clare runs into Banksy Forest, set on getting the radio she remembered having in her car, to contact her sister Beth.
There are so many twists and turns in this story that it makes it wonderfully unpredictable. If I said anymore about it, it would give away too many of the surprises waiting inside. Voices in the Snow may not have been the best title for this book, but it is a really well-written horror story. The only annoyance I had with the novel is the awkwardness between the two main characters, which didn't seem natural. Most of what happens between Clare and Dorran are seen a mile away before it happens. During some scenes, I found myself rolling my eyes at the dialogue between Clare and Dorran, but the horror in the story makes up for the predictability of the characters.
I highly recommend this book to horror lovers; the scenes of scares and creatures were well-detailed. I was not disappointed at all. There were only a few inconsistencies throughout, but I think they would be easily over looked for the story is really enjoyable. I look forward to reading the rest of the series.
Voices in the Snow is set in today's world, but at the beginning of a dystopian future in the UK, which mostly takes place at a large, desolate manor that sits just outside a forest called Banksy Forest. From the second chapter until the end, readers make their home here with the two main characters Clare and Dorran, but very shortly into the story, we realize that they aren't the only 'people' in the house.
The main question of the novel is whether or not Dorran can be trusted - - - Clare wakes up in his family's manor after a car accident, and she can't exactly remember how the accident happened, but she also can't remember why she was driving out in a blizzard in the first place, but she does recall that she was on the phone with her sister, Beth, and we learn that her sister worries about Clare like she's her mother. Clare becomes focused on trying to somehow contact Beth to let her know she's still alive.
We find out later that Dorran comes from a prestigious family that makes their money from being in the wood distribution business. His family, the Morthornes, aren't a typical family. Not only does Dorran's relatives live at the manor during the warmer months, but so do the servants, all 60 of them. Dorran makes it obvious that he doesn't enjoy this type of lifestyle:
" ' All right. I guess not. Especially in this house. How large is it [the house] ?'
'Inconveniently large.' He shrugged. 'It does not only house our family, but the servants as well.'
Clare's eyebrows rose. 'Servants?'
'Staff,' he corrected quickly. Clare thought she saw a flicker of embarrassment, but it was hidden almost immediately. 'My apologies. That is another part of tradition that is well outdated. My mother wishes for the staff to be referred to as servants.' "
Soon the two are discussing whether or not they could survive for months at the manor due to the blizzard not seeming to let up, with this discussion, readers find out there is an inside garden located in the depths of the manor, unfortunately, food wasn't planted since the family and servants leave the home for the winter, but there are plenty of seeds to start cultivating. One day while Clare is trying to get the seeds planted, she decides to go get Dorran, who left to go check on the many furnaces that heat the manor, but Clare easily gets lost in the house she has barely walked around in, and ends up in a wine cellar: here, Clare hears scraping noises that lead her to a creature huddled in the dark.
" The figure turned toward her. Eyes glinted - - - horrible, inhuman eyes peering out from behind long, greasy hair. Then the figure darted away, escaping from her circle of light, disappearing into a narrow doorway in the stone wall.
A sharp, broken scream cut through the cold air. Clare didn't realize it had come from her until she felt the ache in her throat. She stumbled backward, and her shoulders hit one of the shelves. Muffled clinking noises surrounded her as the bottles rocked.
She couldn't stop shaking. The thudding footsteps echoed around her, beating fast, like her own heart. The scraping noise joined it, louder this time. It surrounded her and overwhelmed her. "
Although Clare tells Dorran what she saw, he doesn't believe her. He believes that the stress from the car accident has caused her to hallucinate. Clare slowly begins to tell herself that he's probably right, but then the human-like creatures begin to show up more and more, always disappearing right before Dorran can see them. Shortly after an incident with another one of the creatures, Clare runs into Banksy Forest, set on getting the radio she remembered having in her car, to contact her sister Beth.
There are so many twists and turns in this story that it makes it wonderfully unpredictable. If I said anymore about it, it would give away too many of the surprises waiting inside. Voices in the Snow may not have been the best title for this book, but it is a really well-written horror story. The only annoyance I had with the novel is the awkwardness between the two main characters, which didn't seem natural. Most of what happens between Clare and Dorran are seen a mile away before it happens. During some scenes, I found myself rolling my eyes at the dialogue between Clare and Dorran, but the horror in the story makes up for the predictability of the characters.
I highly recommend this book to horror lovers; the scenes of scares and creatures were well-detailed. I was not disappointed at all. There were only a few inconsistencies throughout, but I think they would be easily over looked for the story is really enjoyable. I look forward to reading the rest of the series.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jackie (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Spoiler! Her husband gets shot.
“Jackie” tells the story of the spiralling grief, loss and anger of Jackie Kennedy driven by the assassination of JFK in Dallas in November 1963. Hopping backwards and forwards in flashback, the film centres on the first interview given by Jackie (Natalie Portman, “Black Swan”) to a ‘Time’ journalist (Billy Crudup, “Watchmen”, “Spotlight”).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).