Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated the PC version of Fallout 76 in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
The Fallout series has made the leap online with Fallout 76 and it is an ambitious attempt to take the franchise in a new direction. Set as a resident of Vault 76; players will craft a character and be amongst the first to venture into the Post-Apocalyptic world set in the Virginia wilderness as they attempt to help rebuild a new society.
Along the way players will encounter all manner of mutated creatures and threats that have zero qualms about tearing a player to pieces or bringing an arsenal of weapons to take down players.
Anyone who has played any of the series will know that gathering, trading, and crafting is essential to survival as being able to buy, repair, and exchange weapons and armor is essential as they will break and need to be upgraded frequently.
This is always a trick for some players such as myself as I never know what to fully prioritize when I encounter scrap and can quickly become overburdened. This makes for some very tough choices as player movement will be very restricted and players will be unable to Fast Travel to previously explored areas of the map.
There is also the matter of needing to ensure that an adequate supply of food, beverages, and medicines are available to restore health as in a radiated area; even stopping for lunch can cause potential damage and mutations to happen.
There are numerous weapons available to players from crude Pipe Guns to more advanced energy weapons and machine guns and knives. I have found that Melee weapons such as an Axe or a Sledgehammer can do wonders as they do pack a solid punch but are slow and unyielding.
The map is extremely vast and filled with many areas to explore from old towns to hotels, shops, a mall, an airport, train stations, and pretty much anything else you would expect in a typical community.
One of the biggest issues in the game is the numerous bugs which hampered the game at launch. Bethesda has worked to fix them through several patches but issues still remain as I write this so players will have to understand that this is part of the game and being addressed but they will likely encounter issues along the way.
The game has taken a considerable amount of abuse for the state of the game at launch and while I freely admit there are issues; I have had a lot of fun playing the game and have logged a considerable amount of time in it. Despite the frustrations; I have been drawn back to the game time and again to play more. Players I have encountered have been generally helpful and friendly and the game has not become an open Free For All as the Bounty systems in place make it less appealing for players to pick off inexperienced players who are out minding their own business. Some higher-level players have been very generous in passing and have initiated trades to give me High-Level weapons even though I was not able to use them until I reached a higher level.
There are various Pop-Up events that happen where players can get some nice rewards and slipping into your Power Armor to take down a pack of Scorchers is always a fun experience.
In many ways this is one of the hardest reviews I have had to write as I can see how some people can be disappointed with the game and will take serious issues with the bugs and general direction. I also see the fun in the game and the progress being made with the updates and enjoy the game despite the issues. If you are patient and temper your expectations with the understanding that the game players have now is not the game they will have several months down the road, then Fallout 76 may be the escapist game you are looking for.
http://sknr.net/2018/12/31/fallout-76/
Along the way players will encounter all manner of mutated creatures and threats that have zero qualms about tearing a player to pieces or bringing an arsenal of weapons to take down players.
Anyone who has played any of the series will know that gathering, trading, and crafting is essential to survival as being able to buy, repair, and exchange weapons and armor is essential as they will break and need to be upgraded frequently.
This is always a trick for some players such as myself as I never know what to fully prioritize when I encounter scrap and can quickly become overburdened. This makes for some very tough choices as player movement will be very restricted and players will be unable to Fast Travel to previously explored areas of the map.
There is also the matter of needing to ensure that an adequate supply of food, beverages, and medicines are available to restore health as in a radiated area; even stopping for lunch can cause potential damage and mutations to happen.
There are numerous weapons available to players from crude Pipe Guns to more advanced energy weapons and machine guns and knives. I have found that Melee weapons such as an Axe or a Sledgehammer can do wonders as they do pack a solid punch but are slow and unyielding.
The map is extremely vast and filled with many areas to explore from old towns to hotels, shops, a mall, an airport, train stations, and pretty much anything else you would expect in a typical community.
One of the biggest issues in the game is the numerous bugs which hampered the game at launch. Bethesda has worked to fix them through several patches but issues still remain as I write this so players will have to understand that this is part of the game and being addressed but they will likely encounter issues along the way.
The game has taken a considerable amount of abuse for the state of the game at launch and while I freely admit there are issues; I have had a lot of fun playing the game and have logged a considerable amount of time in it. Despite the frustrations; I have been drawn back to the game time and again to play more. Players I have encountered have been generally helpful and friendly and the game has not become an open Free For All as the Bounty systems in place make it less appealing for players to pick off inexperienced players who are out minding their own business. Some higher-level players have been very generous in passing and have initiated trades to give me High-Level weapons even though I was not able to use them until I reached a higher level.
There are various Pop-Up events that happen where players can get some nice rewards and slipping into your Power Armor to take down a pack of Scorchers is always a fun experience.
In many ways this is one of the hardest reviews I have had to write as I can see how some people can be disappointed with the game and will take serious issues with the bugs and general direction. I also see the fun in the game and the progress being made with the updates and enjoy the game despite the issues. If you are patient and temper your expectations with the understanding that the game players have now is not the game they will have several months down the road, then Fallout 76 may be the escapist game you are looking for.
http://sknr.net/2018/12/31/fallout-76/
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Girl With All the Gifts (2017) in Movies
Nov 1, 2020
A unique concept that doesn't fail on delivery. (2 more)
Good acting from everyone including the little girl Senna Nanua/ Melanie.
Good action, good fight choreography and gun fight scenes.
Some of the make-up special effects weren't the best. (1 more)
Some things didn't make sense to me when thinking back to the walkie-talkie scene.
Surpasses Expectations and Surprisingly Good (7/10)
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Girl With All The Gifts is a 2016 British Sci-Fi Horror movie directed by Colm McCarthy and written by Mike Carey. It was produced by BFI Film Forever, Creative England, Altitude and Poison Chef and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures and Saban Films. The movie stars Gemma Arterton, Glenn Close and Paddy Considine and Sennia Nanua.
In a post-apocalyptic future, that has been ravaged by a mysterious fungal disease, those infected have turned into fast, mindless zombies, called "hungries.” A small group of hybrid children who crave human flesh but retain the ability to think and feel, go to school at an army base in rural Britain. There they're subjected to cruel experiments by Dr. Caroline Caldwell (Glenn Close). An exceptional girl named Melanie (Sennia Nanua), grows particularly close to school teacher Helen Justineau (Gemma Arterton) and forms a special bond. When the base is invaded, the trio escape with the assistance of Sgt. Eddie Parks (Paddy Considine) and embark on a perilous journey of survival, during which Melanie must come to terms with who she and what she is.
This movie was really good. I really liked the concept and felt it delivered on the premise and didn't fall through. The little girl Melanie played by Sennia Nanua did an excellent job and I was surprised with how much I wound up liking her character. Gemma Arterton was very good as Helen too and Glenn Close just blew me away as the scientist Dr. Caroline Caldwell. Some of the zombie makeup and special effects weren't the best in certain scenes when they slow walk through some dormant zombies but nothing that horrible that I saw. And I didn't like a couple of scenes with another kind of zombies too but more of that in the spoilers section. The action was really spot on and this movie didn't shy away from blood or gore but also didn't seem to really overly depict any gruesome scenes. It did however show the aftermath of some particularly nasty kills. I have to say this was one of the better zombie movies I've seen and I give it a 7/10 as well as my "Must See Seal of Approval". Definitely check out this zombie movie.
Spoiler Section Review:
As I said above, I really liked this zombie movie. The whole concept intrigued me as it looked like they were a bunch of children prisoners in the trailer. And the part where they man puts his arm in front of them and they start chomping at it made me think that they were somehow part zombies or something; which they were. Really the little girl Melanie made the movie work because her character was so interesting. I enjoyed seeing her character growth and how she viewed the world and how they others interacted with her. It's so awkward in the beginning seeing how the soldiers and others react to them even though their children yet when you see the soldier make that point to the teacher you realize with the rest of the audience that these aren't normal children. I really like how they show she has these instincts that she tries really hard to fight against and how it's too hard sometimes. The action is pretty decent in this movie and some pretty cool fight scenes from some of the kid zombies was a cool surprise too and rather epic. The ending totally threw me off and I never thought It would end like that but now that I think about it, it did kind of foreshadow it by Glenn Close telling Melanie how the seed spores would open, still to end the world by lighting that spore tower on fire was shocking to say the least. Like I said I give this movie a 7/10 and it gets my "Must See Seal of Approval" and definitely see this movie if you haven't already.
In a post-apocalyptic future, that has been ravaged by a mysterious fungal disease, those infected have turned into fast, mindless zombies, called "hungries.” A small group of hybrid children who crave human flesh but retain the ability to think and feel, go to school at an army base in rural Britain. There they're subjected to cruel experiments by Dr. Caroline Caldwell (Glenn Close). An exceptional girl named Melanie (Sennia Nanua), grows particularly close to school teacher Helen Justineau (Gemma Arterton) and forms a special bond. When the base is invaded, the trio escape with the assistance of Sgt. Eddie Parks (Paddy Considine) and embark on a perilous journey of survival, during which Melanie must come to terms with who she and what she is.
This movie was really good. I really liked the concept and felt it delivered on the premise and didn't fall through. The little girl Melanie played by Sennia Nanua did an excellent job and I was surprised with how much I wound up liking her character. Gemma Arterton was very good as Helen too and Glenn Close just blew me away as the scientist Dr. Caroline Caldwell. Some of the zombie makeup and special effects weren't the best in certain scenes when they slow walk through some dormant zombies but nothing that horrible that I saw. And I didn't like a couple of scenes with another kind of zombies too but more of that in the spoilers section. The action was really spot on and this movie didn't shy away from blood or gore but also didn't seem to really overly depict any gruesome scenes. It did however show the aftermath of some particularly nasty kills. I have to say this was one of the better zombie movies I've seen and I give it a 7/10 as well as my "Must See Seal of Approval". Definitely check out this zombie movie.
Spoiler Section Review:
As I said above, I really liked this zombie movie. The whole concept intrigued me as it looked like they were a bunch of children prisoners in the trailer. And the part where they man puts his arm in front of them and they start chomping at it made me think that they were somehow part zombies or something; which they were. Really the little girl Melanie made the movie work because her character was so interesting. I enjoyed seeing her character growth and how she viewed the world and how they others interacted with her. It's so awkward in the beginning seeing how the soldiers and others react to them even though their children yet when you see the soldier make that point to the teacher you realize with the rest of the audience that these aren't normal children. I really like how they show she has these instincts that she tries really hard to fight against and how it's too hard sometimes. The action is pretty decent in this movie and some pretty cool fight scenes from some of the kid zombies was a cool surprise too and rather epic. The ending totally threw me off and I never thought It would end like that but now that I think about it, it did kind of foreshadow it by Glenn Close telling Melanie how the seed spores would open, still to end the world by lighting that spore tower on fire was shocking to say the least. Like I said I give this movie a 7/10 and it gets my "Must See Seal of Approval" and definitely see this movie if you haven't already.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Hunger Games franchise has come at a time that is almost certain to gather box-office success. After Harry Potter finished two years ago and The Twilight Saga bowed out just 12 months ago, teenagers and young adults have been craving for a new series of blockbusters to ‘sink their teeth into’.
The first film of this new dawn, based on Suzanne Collins’ successful book, was released in March last year and greeted with warm reviews and a staggering box-office performance, a gross just shy of $700m to be a little more precise.
However, rumoured tensions between director Gary Ross and studio Color Force meant that despite its impressive takings, he was not to helm its sequel, Catching Fire. Taking over from him is Francis Lawrence, director of I am Legend, Constantine and Water for Elephants, but can he better what preceded him?
The series centres around an annual ‘games’, in which people aged between 12 and 18 must fight to the death in a custom made arena, leaving only one victor, who is showered with riches for the rest of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence, returning to the series after her first Oscar win this year, plays Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young teen who fresh from winning the previous Hunger Games tournament alongside her beau Peeta Mellark, played by Josh Hutcherson, travel through the land of Panem (a post-apocalyptic America) to spread their story and persuade others to take part in the vicious tournament.
However, after angering the Capitol, run by cold-hearted President Snow (Donald Sutherland) who becomes increasingly concerned that an up-rising is brewing, it is decided that previous victors must once again take part, to show that even they are not above the law.
For those fresh to the series, I warn you not to watch this film without seeing the first, as much of the plot will be near incomprehensible and your enjoyment will suffer as a result.
The film starts slowly, giving enough backstory before the inevitable return to the arena. Thankfully despite its large running time of 146 minutes, it never falters and after allowing the audience to see how the world has changed, it is back into the new and improved arena for the 75th Hunger Games.
Gone is the shaky handy-cam of director Gary Ross, and in its place we are treated to sweeping shots of numerous landscapes; from the coal-mining community of District 12, to the bright lights of the Capitol and even the large arena which has been given a radical overhaul to make it even more challenging than ever.
The acting is simply sublime by all accounts. Jennifer Lawrence, fresh from the honour of an Oscar plays Katniss with such a subtle grace that she is mesmerising to watch, a real treat for fans of J-Law and of course Suzanne Collins’ character. Liam Hemsworth returns to the series as Katniss’ secret love interest Gale, but he is sorely underused. Josh Hutcherson’s Peeta Mellark is as irritating as ever and lacks a backbone, but this is more to do with the script than Hutcherson’s abilities as an actor.
Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci also return, with the latter being a real stand-out in a film which is filled with quirky and unusual characters.
Those of you who have read my review of the previous film will know that I wasn’t a fan of its lacklustre special effects. Thankfully my prayers were answered and due to a budget that has almost doubled, the effects are glorious. The Capitol is perhaps the best use of the CGI, where the first film looked like a Star Wars: Episode I rip-off, here we really feel like the city is living and breathing for the very first time.
Unfortunately, it seems like the special effects team are still struggling with CGI fire as the computer generated flames are still laughable in their realism.
At 146 minutes, Catching Fire was always going to numb your backside, but you don’t care, the film is an absolute treat to watch. Director Francis Lawrence has retained the violent nature of the series despite its ridiculous 12A certification and manages to get around those limitations with style and flair.
Yes, if I was pushed I’d say it was a little over-long, the CGI flames still look ridiculous and the ending is far too abrupt, but if those are the only faults I can find in a film, then clearly it is more than worth the increasingly expensive price of a cinema admission ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/11/23/hunger-games-catching-fire-review/
The first film of this new dawn, based on Suzanne Collins’ successful book, was released in March last year and greeted with warm reviews and a staggering box-office performance, a gross just shy of $700m to be a little more precise.
However, rumoured tensions between director Gary Ross and studio Color Force meant that despite its impressive takings, he was not to helm its sequel, Catching Fire. Taking over from him is Francis Lawrence, director of I am Legend, Constantine and Water for Elephants, but can he better what preceded him?
The series centres around an annual ‘games’, in which people aged between 12 and 18 must fight to the death in a custom made arena, leaving only one victor, who is showered with riches for the rest of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence, returning to the series after her first Oscar win this year, plays Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young teen who fresh from winning the previous Hunger Games tournament alongside her beau Peeta Mellark, played by Josh Hutcherson, travel through the land of Panem (a post-apocalyptic America) to spread their story and persuade others to take part in the vicious tournament.
However, after angering the Capitol, run by cold-hearted President Snow (Donald Sutherland) who becomes increasingly concerned that an up-rising is brewing, it is decided that previous victors must once again take part, to show that even they are not above the law.
For those fresh to the series, I warn you not to watch this film without seeing the first, as much of the plot will be near incomprehensible and your enjoyment will suffer as a result.
The film starts slowly, giving enough backstory before the inevitable return to the arena. Thankfully despite its large running time of 146 minutes, it never falters and after allowing the audience to see how the world has changed, it is back into the new and improved arena for the 75th Hunger Games.
Gone is the shaky handy-cam of director Gary Ross, and in its place we are treated to sweeping shots of numerous landscapes; from the coal-mining community of District 12, to the bright lights of the Capitol and even the large arena which has been given a radical overhaul to make it even more challenging than ever.
The acting is simply sublime by all accounts. Jennifer Lawrence, fresh from the honour of an Oscar plays Katniss with such a subtle grace that she is mesmerising to watch, a real treat for fans of J-Law and of course Suzanne Collins’ character. Liam Hemsworth returns to the series as Katniss’ secret love interest Gale, but he is sorely underused. Josh Hutcherson’s Peeta Mellark is as irritating as ever and lacks a backbone, but this is more to do with the script than Hutcherson’s abilities as an actor.
Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci also return, with the latter being a real stand-out in a film which is filled with quirky and unusual characters.
Those of you who have read my review of the previous film will know that I wasn’t a fan of its lacklustre special effects. Thankfully my prayers were answered and due to a budget that has almost doubled, the effects are glorious. The Capitol is perhaps the best use of the CGI, where the first film looked like a Star Wars: Episode I rip-off, here we really feel like the city is living and breathing for the very first time.
Unfortunately, it seems like the special effects team are still struggling with CGI fire as the computer generated flames are still laughable in their realism.
At 146 minutes, Catching Fire was always going to numb your backside, but you don’t care, the film is an absolute treat to watch. Director Francis Lawrence has retained the violent nature of the series despite its ridiculous 12A certification and manages to get around those limitations with style and flair.
Yes, if I was pushed I’d say it was a little over-long, the CGI flames still look ridiculous and the ending is far too abrupt, but if those are the only faults I can find in a film, then clearly it is more than worth the increasingly expensive price of a cinema admission ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/11/23/hunger-games-catching-fire-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Hunger Games (2012) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Director Gary Ross had his work cut out trying to create a film which brought to life the startling realism of Suzanne Collins’ successful trilogy of novels and here we have the first, The Hunger Games.
This film has come at a time where movie fans have been released from the clawing hooks of the Harry Potter franchise and the finale of the Twilight Saga is now on the horizon. Some would say, it’s the perfect time to begin a new franchise and for the most part, they’re right. Move over witches and vampires, there’s a new, more mature kid ready to take your crowns.
I for one went into The Hunger Games trilogy blindfolded. I have not read the books so this review is purely based on the film I saw before me and I must say; I was mightily impressed.
The film is set some way in the future and the world is a much different place; in a place called Panem (a post-apocalyptic North America) is where we find 12 Districts full of variety with different races living alongside each other, just as we have today. However, there is a more sinister side to things as we learn that once a year; The Hunger Games tournament takes place.
For those of you not familiar with the event itself, here’s a brief description. Each year, one boy and one girl aged between 12 and 18 from each district fights to the death until there is one winner, showered with riches for the remainder of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence of X-Men First Class fame stars as Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young girl brought up in the coal mining community of District 12. After her young sister is picked to represent District 12, she decides the only thing to do is nominate herself and save her from certain death. Her male counterpart is Peeta Mellark played by a mature looking Josh Hutcherson of Journey to the Centre of the Earth fame.
Once the pair have been selected, they are taken to Capitol, a city brimming with the wealthy, a stark contrast to the coal mining community our District 12 heroes come from. Woody Harrelson stars as a previous winner of the games and the District 12 mentor, he takes it upon himself to train the ‘tributes’ and prepare them for the task ahead.
Once in battle, all chaos ensues and this is where the film begins to partially unravel. The actors and actresses all do excellent jobs, in particular Lawrence plays Katniss exceptionally well, her soft side comes through but you never forget her harsher, hunter like persona. Unfortunately, the action is held back by the ridiculous 12A certification the film has been lumbered with. It has become the case, as with The Woman in Black earlier this year that films based on best-selling and well known books or with teen stars have to be given this frankly dire classification. The violence is toned down to such a level that it becomes unrealistic and from what I have read, The Hunger Games is a much more brutal and unforgiving experience as a novel.
Other negatives include some shoddy CGI and too much hand based camera work, the battles at the beginning of the games are messy and not enjoyable to sit through. It’s a disappointing lapse in a film which is actually very good indeed.
Thankfully, the lengthy running time allows the final third to pick up nicely to leave you with a lasting impression.
The Hunger Games had the unenviable task of being on the receiving end of comparisons to Harry Potter and the Twilight franchises, and to an extent it has done its source material proud. Does it live up to the much-loved world of Hogwarts? Probably not. Does it live up to the lust and romance of the Twilight Saga? Most definitely. It sits, right smack in the middle and that’s not a bad place to be.
Gary Ross has produced a fine blockbuster with excellent performances from the cast and some fabulous design choices. Yes, it’s a little too long, there are some shoddy special effects and the character development lacks depth, but for fans of the series and newcomers alike, it moves the game on and is an enjoyable experience.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/04/05/the-hunger-games-2012-review/
This film has come at a time where movie fans have been released from the clawing hooks of the Harry Potter franchise and the finale of the Twilight Saga is now on the horizon. Some would say, it’s the perfect time to begin a new franchise and for the most part, they’re right. Move over witches and vampires, there’s a new, more mature kid ready to take your crowns.
I for one went into The Hunger Games trilogy blindfolded. I have not read the books so this review is purely based on the film I saw before me and I must say; I was mightily impressed.
The film is set some way in the future and the world is a much different place; in a place called Panem (a post-apocalyptic North America) is where we find 12 Districts full of variety with different races living alongside each other, just as we have today. However, there is a more sinister side to things as we learn that once a year; The Hunger Games tournament takes place.
For those of you not familiar with the event itself, here’s a brief description. Each year, one boy and one girl aged between 12 and 18 from each district fights to the death until there is one winner, showered with riches for the remainder of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence of X-Men First Class fame stars as Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young girl brought up in the coal mining community of District 12. After her young sister is picked to represent District 12, she decides the only thing to do is nominate herself and save her from certain death. Her male counterpart is Peeta Mellark played by a mature looking Josh Hutcherson of Journey to the Centre of the Earth fame.
Once the pair have been selected, they are taken to Capitol, a city brimming with the wealthy, a stark contrast to the coal mining community our District 12 heroes come from. Woody Harrelson stars as a previous winner of the games and the District 12 mentor, he takes it upon himself to train the ‘tributes’ and prepare them for the task ahead.
Once in battle, all chaos ensues and this is where the film begins to partially unravel. The actors and actresses all do excellent jobs, in particular Lawrence plays Katniss exceptionally well, her soft side comes through but you never forget her harsher, hunter like persona. Unfortunately, the action is held back by the ridiculous 12A certification the film has been lumbered with. It has become the case, as with The Woman in Black earlier this year that films based on best-selling and well known books or with teen stars have to be given this frankly dire classification. The violence is toned down to such a level that it becomes unrealistic and from what I have read, The Hunger Games is a much more brutal and unforgiving experience as a novel.
Other negatives include some shoddy CGI and too much hand based camera work, the battles at the beginning of the games are messy and not enjoyable to sit through. It’s a disappointing lapse in a film which is actually very good indeed.
Thankfully, the lengthy running time allows the final third to pick up nicely to leave you with a lasting impression.
The Hunger Games had the unenviable task of being on the receiving end of comparisons to Harry Potter and the Twilight franchises, and to an extent it has done its source material proud. Does it live up to the much-loved world of Hogwarts? Probably not. Does it live up to the lust and romance of the Twilight Saga? Most definitely. It sits, right smack in the middle and that’s not a bad place to be.
Gary Ross has produced a fine blockbuster with excellent performances from the cast and some fabulous design choices. Yes, it’s a little too long, there are some shoddy special effects and the character development lacks depth, but for fans of the series and newcomers alike, it moves the game on and is an enjoyable experience.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/04/05/the-hunger-games-2012-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Michael Bay had a lot to prove with the third instalment of his big bot franchise. The scathing reviews of Revenge of the Fallen from nearly every critic who went to see it proved that even giant robots aren’t safe from the picky eyes of the global audience. Now, I may get lambasted for this but I preferred number 2 to number 1, so let’s see if number 3 can impress.
Here, Bay returns to helm the latest addition: Dark of the Moon, it’s a good film nonetheless but it’s sci-fi themes, more so than in either of the previous offerings fail to provide enough impact to make it the best in the series.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon picks up three years after the last film and a lot has changed. Sam Witwicky again played by the fantastic Shia LeBeouf is now living in Washington, envious of his new girlfriend Carly Spencer and her fabulous lifestyle. Carly, played by newcomer Rosie Huntington-Whitely is about as wooden as a character can get; Whitely’s performance is very laboured and her on screen scenes suffer as a result; she’s a disappointment in a film that doesn’t really require it’s characters to do much; so that shows how bad she actually is.
Megan Fox is actually missed this time around, but it’s not too much of a problem because Rosie’s character is given exactly the same clothes, the same pout and practically the same lines.
Michael Bay has also lined up the legendary John Malkovich as Sam’s troubled new boss, his screen time is worth a watch but he feels wasted considering his lines amount to about 10 minutes of screen time. Patrick Dempsey also stars as good guy gone back; Dylan Gould.
The special effects coupled with the fantastic 3D make Transformers 3 a spectacle to watch, the bots are seamlessly integrated into the picture alongside their human counterparts and deliver once again, these films really are the pinnacle now for special effects.
Bay has managed to fashion a half coherent story out of the toy franchise which many critics were sceptical of, but it works really well. The film focuses on the space race of the 60’s and the reasons why the US wanted to beat everyone to the moon. In short, the Decepticons are looking for something that crash-landed on the moon; if they find it, then Cybertron will be reborn, using Earth as a template; oh no!
The last hour is just carnage, carnage, carnage as the entire city of Chicago is plunged into a post-apocalyptic world where the Decepticons rule and the Autobots are, alongside humans as slaves. Here, Bay really showcases his prowess for stunning cinematography and first class special effects, one scene in particular, involving a glass skyscraper is particularly awe-inspiring.
Speaking of the robots themselves, all the favourites return with their fantastic voice acting. Peter Cullen delivers Optimus Prime in his usual, gruff manner and a welcome addition is Star Trek’s Leonard Nimoy as veteran Autobot leader Sentinel Prime. Hugo Weaving also returns as a rough looking Megatron.
The problem that blights Transformers 3 is that there’s too much going on. I found myself lost in parts of the story because the film is constantly rushing to get to the next plot line. It’s frustrating that a film franchise criticised for its lack of story is penalised for having too much of one this time around, but this is the case here. As such, some of the best characters don’t get screen time. Josh Duhamel is only in the film for 5 minutes at a time, whilst Sam’s parents only get brief appearances which is a tragic shame as they are, all in all, the best human characters in the franchise.
Overall, Transformers has become one of my favourite film franchises of all time; it delivers on its promise and doesn’t pretend it’s going to be something else. Yes, they’re far too long (this one is just short of 3 hours), they’re exceptionally loud and mind-numbingly obnoxious but that’s what you should want from an action film. Transformers 3 delivers, and it delivers it like a smack in the face; but it falls down in a couple of areas where the others didn’t.
Michael Bay is a very talented film director who gives the best out of everything, but in response to his critics from the last movie, he has developed too much of the story and as such, it feels disjointed and ultimately a little disappointing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/07/07/transformers-dark-of-the-moon-2011/
Here, Bay returns to helm the latest addition: Dark of the Moon, it’s a good film nonetheless but it’s sci-fi themes, more so than in either of the previous offerings fail to provide enough impact to make it the best in the series.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon picks up three years after the last film and a lot has changed. Sam Witwicky again played by the fantastic Shia LeBeouf is now living in Washington, envious of his new girlfriend Carly Spencer and her fabulous lifestyle. Carly, played by newcomer Rosie Huntington-Whitely is about as wooden as a character can get; Whitely’s performance is very laboured and her on screen scenes suffer as a result; she’s a disappointment in a film that doesn’t really require it’s characters to do much; so that shows how bad she actually is.
Megan Fox is actually missed this time around, but it’s not too much of a problem because Rosie’s character is given exactly the same clothes, the same pout and practically the same lines.
Michael Bay has also lined up the legendary John Malkovich as Sam’s troubled new boss, his screen time is worth a watch but he feels wasted considering his lines amount to about 10 minutes of screen time. Patrick Dempsey also stars as good guy gone back; Dylan Gould.
The special effects coupled with the fantastic 3D make Transformers 3 a spectacle to watch, the bots are seamlessly integrated into the picture alongside their human counterparts and deliver once again, these films really are the pinnacle now for special effects.
Bay has managed to fashion a half coherent story out of the toy franchise which many critics were sceptical of, but it works really well. The film focuses on the space race of the 60’s and the reasons why the US wanted to beat everyone to the moon. In short, the Decepticons are looking for something that crash-landed on the moon; if they find it, then Cybertron will be reborn, using Earth as a template; oh no!
The last hour is just carnage, carnage, carnage as the entire city of Chicago is plunged into a post-apocalyptic world where the Decepticons rule and the Autobots are, alongside humans as slaves. Here, Bay really showcases his prowess for stunning cinematography and first class special effects, one scene in particular, involving a glass skyscraper is particularly awe-inspiring.
Speaking of the robots themselves, all the favourites return with their fantastic voice acting. Peter Cullen delivers Optimus Prime in his usual, gruff manner and a welcome addition is Star Trek’s Leonard Nimoy as veteran Autobot leader Sentinel Prime. Hugo Weaving also returns as a rough looking Megatron.
The problem that blights Transformers 3 is that there’s too much going on. I found myself lost in parts of the story because the film is constantly rushing to get to the next plot line. It’s frustrating that a film franchise criticised for its lack of story is penalised for having too much of one this time around, but this is the case here. As such, some of the best characters don’t get screen time. Josh Duhamel is only in the film for 5 minutes at a time, whilst Sam’s parents only get brief appearances which is a tragic shame as they are, all in all, the best human characters in the franchise.
Overall, Transformers has become one of my favourite film franchises of all time; it delivers on its promise and doesn’t pretend it’s going to be something else. Yes, they’re far too long (this one is just short of 3 hours), they’re exceptionally loud and mind-numbingly obnoxious but that’s what you should want from an action film. Transformers 3 delivers, and it delivers it like a smack in the face; but it falls down in a couple of areas where the others didn’t.
Michael Bay is a very talented film director who gives the best out of everything, but in response to his critics from the last movie, he has developed too much of the story and as such, it feels disjointed and ultimately a little disappointing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/07/07/transformers-dark-of-the-moon-2011/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Warm Bodies (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Considering how many movies are typically released in the first quarter of the year, Warm Bodies is by far the best movie of 2013 so far. “Zombie Love Story” was the first term that came to my mind when I was first made aware of the movie, but it is so much more than that. Part “Romeo and Juliet”, part “Zombieland”, this adaptation of Isaac Marion’s critically acclaimed young adult novel is a humorous and surprisingly fresh zombie movie that gives its own unique look at love.
R, the zombie in our “Romeo” role, is your typical walker (excuse me while I borrow terms from another hit zombie medium). He moves around without purpose, mostly spending his days at the airport. He carries “conversations” with another zombie, M, and his internal monologue certainly lets the viewer know that zombies are fully aware of what they are. As a result of their condition, they no longer have control over what they do. Nor does R try to make excuses for it; they are what they are. This is demonstrated when he and a horde of walkers attack a group of humans. In this group is Julie, who as I am sure you have guessed is our “Juliet”. R immediately falls for her and is determined to have her reciprocate the feelings. This might prove to be difficult, considering that humans and zombies at their core just want to kill each other. It is this feeling, this emotion, that humans thought zombies incapable of, that begins to change R, and other zombies around him.
After the attack, R takes Julie back to his… er, safe haven comes to mind, but it’s really just an abandoned airplane sitting on a tarmac filled with wacky items that R has collected in the time since he became a zombie. Writer/Director Jonathan Levine, who adapted Marion’s novel, has managed to create very smart, witty dialogue, but in a cute way as he did with The Wackness (which Levine also wrote). The sincerity of the dialogue in the movie keeps you interested in a growing relationship that’s way, way outside the box. There is plenty of violence in the movie too, as we see R attack a human, bite their arm, and hide their brains away for a snack later. Speaking of brain, the film explains that when a zombie eats a human’s brains, they remember our memories. This is kind of important.
Despite being a very different romantic comedy, the film also delivers a healthy horror flick. Zombies are not the only thing that is a result of the zombie outbreak. In this post-apocalyptic world there is another threat: bonies. Bonies are zombies that are so far gone they do not care anymore. They’ve given up, have peeled off their skin and attack anything with beating hearts. R says it best in the film. “Zombies do this also, but at least they are conflicted about eating it.” Even though the bonies are fully CG creations, and utterly obviously so, Levine has done it in such a way that you only get quick glances, which is a nice way to keep the PG-13 rating considering all of the blood flowing in the film.
Nicholas Hoult is fantastic in the lead role of R, and he finds a way to turn on the creepy just as easily as he can turn the funny on. Everything our “Romeo” character is supposed to be is remarkably portrayed by Hoult. Of course it helps to have a great supporting cast, Teresa Palmer strong and sweet as Julie and John Malkovich as her father who is the hardened general who is leading the human survivors.
Warm Bodies is a great zombie movie, with an excellent sound track to set the mood throughout the film. But it’s more than that. It is also a charming story of unconventional love. Telling the story from R’s point of view gives it a very fresh feel, but it’s the thought and care that Levine and the cast members put into it that make it such a superb film. Warm Bodies is a love story between woman and monster, and the screenwriting and execution delivers a charm that cannot be denied. Warm Bodies is funny, but it’s also sweet, a bit dark at times, and highly original. All of this combined makes it the first must-see film of 2013.
R, the zombie in our “Romeo” role, is your typical walker (excuse me while I borrow terms from another hit zombie medium). He moves around without purpose, mostly spending his days at the airport. He carries “conversations” with another zombie, M, and his internal monologue certainly lets the viewer know that zombies are fully aware of what they are. As a result of their condition, they no longer have control over what they do. Nor does R try to make excuses for it; they are what they are. This is demonstrated when he and a horde of walkers attack a group of humans. In this group is Julie, who as I am sure you have guessed is our “Juliet”. R immediately falls for her and is determined to have her reciprocate the feelings. This might prove to be difficult, considering that humans and zombies at their core just want to kill each other. It is this feeling, this emotion, that humans thought zombies incapable of, that begins to change R, and other zombies around him.
After the attack, R takes Julie back to his… er, safe haven comes to mind, but it’s really just an abandoned airplane sitting on a tarmac filled with wacky items that R has collected in the time since he became a zombie. Writer/Director Jonathan Levine, who adapted Marion’s novel, has managed to create very smart, witty dialogue, but in a cute way as he did with The Wackness (which Levine also wrote). The sincerity of the dialogue in the movie keeps you interested in a growing relationship that’s way, way outside the box. There is plenty of violence in the movie too, as we see R attack a human, bite their arm, and hide their brains away for a snack later. Speaking of brain, the film explains that when a zombie eats a human’s brains, they remember our memories. This is kind of important.
Despite being a very different romantic comedy, the film also delivers a healthy horror flick. Zombies are not the only thing that is a result of the zombie outbreak. In this post-apocalyptic world there is another threat: bonies. Bonies are zombies that are so far gone they do not care anymore. They’ve given up, have peeled off their skin and attack anything with beating hearts. R says it best in the film. “Zombies do this also, but at least they are conflicted about eating it.” Even though the bonies are fully CG creations, and utterly obviously so, Levine has done it in such a way that you only get quick glances, which is a nice way to keep the PG-13 rating considering all of the blood flowing in the film.
Nicholas Hoult is fantastic in the lead role of R, and he finds a way to turn on the creepy just as easily as he can turn the funny on. Everything our “Romeo” character is supposed to be is remarkably portrayed by Hoult. Of course it helps to have a great supporting cast, Teresa Palmer strong and sweet as Julie and John Malkovich as her father who is the hardened general who is leading the human survivors.
Warm Bodies is a great zombie movie, with an excellent sound track to set the mood throughout the film. But it’s more than that. It is also a charming story of unconventional love. Telling the story from R’s point of view gives it a very fresh feel, but it’s the thought and care that Levine and the cast members put into it that make it such a superb film. Warm Bodies is a love story between woman and monster, and the screenwriting and execution delivers a charm that cannot be denied. Warm Bodies is funny, but it’s also sweet, a bit dark at times, and highly original. All of this combined makes it the first must-see film of 2013.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Mortal Engines (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Take a moment and imagine a world where most of humanity has been wiped off the map and those that remain are forced to survive on the remaining resources of a civilization that has been torn apart. In this new existence, leftover technology is coveted like diamonds and massive predator cities prey on weaker smaller cities to steal whatever meager resources they still possess. This is the world of Mortal Engines, the latest Peter Jackson blockbuster based on the young adult novel of the same name by Philip Reeves.
Mortal Engines takes place roughly a thousand years after the conclusion of the Sixty Minute War that decimated the earth and now civilization has banded into two very distinct groups. There are those in the “Traction Cities”, which are behemoth mobile cities that scour what remains of Europe gobbling up smaller cities to convert them and their resources into fuel that keeps the larger cities moving. Then there is the Anti-Traction League, a group that believes in preserving what little resources remain and living in “Traction-less” cities…a.k.a. cities built on land. London is the main Traction City and it is led by Thaddeus Valentine (Hugo Weaving) and his desire to tear down a great wall that is the only barrier between London and the surplus of resources that he so desperately needs.
After London devours one of the smaller cities, we are introduced to Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar), whose one goal in life is to kill Thaddeus Valentine, the man who murdered her mother. After her failed assassination attempt on his life, she teams up with historian Tom Natsworthy (Robert Sheehan) to not only survive, but also to prevent Valentine’s plan to recreate the war that took down humanity in the first place. This is a big job for the unlikely duo and on top of everything else, Hester is being hunted by a zombie/terminator hybrid named Shrike who wants nothing more than to kill her.
If it sounds like a lot to follow over the course of the two hours and nine-minute run time, you’d be right. In fact, without a lot of backstory which those who have read the novels will really benefit from, it can be a bit too much to take in. It comes across as a combination of Mad Max and the video game Dishonored, but it is lacking an excellent story to back up all of the post-apocalyptic action. That’s not to say that the story is bad, but it is by far the weakest part of the film and a huge missed opportunity to elevate a pretty good movie to the classic Peter Jackson masterpiece status we usually get from him. Considering the genius of Mr. Jackson this movie could have been so much more.
But now on to the good stuff…
Visually speaking Mortal Engines is a true work of art. Taking the steampunk Victorian era backdrop and adding in large mobile cities crashing through trees and forests gives us visuals that are not only magnificent, but also awe inspiring. I was lucky enough to see Mortal Engines in IMAX and the larger screen only helped to emphasize how truly awesome these large rolling cities are. This is a movie that is meant to be seen on the big screen, and with Mortal Engines, the bigger the better. The sound design matches the visuals in its epic scale, as it is loud and menacing. You can actually feel the rumble of the large treads as they move across the earth, and the crunching of smaller cities as the massive cities devour all that crosses their path. The casting and the acting were another positive as the good characters were ones you wanted to root for and the bad characters you hope would get what’s coming to them. All in all, there is quite a bit to like in this film and if nothing else you are sure to have a good time taking in all of the scenery.
In summary, Mortal Engines is a movie that feels as though it had so much potential but couldn’t quite live up to it. It definitely feels more like a summer blockbuster, full of explosions and action, instead of the deeper holiday releases that we usually get around this time. It’s the kind of movie that you go to see for the sheer spectacle of it all as long as you are willing to overlook any plot or story depth. Unfortunately, this leaves the quandary of whether or not it’s worth the full price of admission (or even more if you are planning to see it in IMAX) and my answer to that is…it depends. If you have any interest in seeing it at all then Mortal Engines is definitely a movie you should see on the big screen. On the other hand, it might be worth it to just wait to see it on pay-per-view or Blu-ray even though it may lose a lot of what makes the movie so much fun in the first place. While the movie could have been better, I have definitely seen worse and if the idea of massive rolling cities and steampunk set pieces are your thing, then Mortal Engines is certainly worth a look.
Mortal Engines takes place roughly a thousand years after the conclusion of the Sixty Minute War that decimated the earth and now civilization has banded into two very distinct groups. There are those in the “Traction Cities”, which are behemoth mobile cities that scour what remains of Europe gobbling up smaller cities to convert them and their resources into fuel that keeps the larger cities moving. Then there is the Anti-Traction League, a group that believes in preserving what little resources remain and living in “Traction-less” cities…a.k.a. cities built on land. London is the main Traction City and it is led by Thaddeus Valentine (Hugo Weaving) and his desire to tear down a great wall that is the only barrier between London and the surplus of resources that he so desperately needs.
After London devours one of the smaller cities, we are introduced to Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar), whose one goal in life is to kill Thaddeus Valentine, the man who murdered her mother. After her failed assassination attempt on his life, she teams up with historian Tom Natsworthy (Robert Sheehan) to not only survive, but also to prevent Valentine’s plan to recreate the war that took down humanity in the first place. This is a big job for the unlikely duo and on top of everything else, Hester is being hunted by a zombie/terminator hybrid named Shrike who wants nothing more than to kill her.
If it sounds like a lot to follow over the course of the two hours and nine-minute run time, you’d be right. In fact, without a lot of backstory which those who have read the novels will really benefit from, it can be a bit too much to take in. It comes across as a combination of Mad Max and the video game Dishonored, but it is lacking an excellent story to back up all of the post-apocalyptic action. That’s not to say that the story is bad, but it is by far the weakest part of the film and a huge missed opportunity to elevate a pretty good movie to the classic Peter Jackson masterpiece status we usually get from him. Considering the genius of Mr. Jackson this movie could have been so much more.
But now on to the good stuff…
Visually speaking Mortal Engines is a true work of art. Taking the steampunk Victorian era backdrop and adding in large mobile cities crashing through trees and forests gives us visuals that are not only magnificent, but also awe inspiring. I was lucky enough to see Mortal Engines in IMAX and the larger screen only helped to emphasize how truly awesome these large rolling cities are. This is a movie that is meant to be seen on the big screen, and with Mortal Engines, the bigger the better. The sound design matches the visuals in its epic scale, as it is loud and menacing. You can actually feel the rumble of the large treads as they move across the earth, and the crunching of smaller cities as the massive cities devour all that crosses their path. The casting and the acting were another positive as the good characters were ones you wanted to root for and the bad characters you hope would get what’s coming to them. All in all, there is quite a bit to like in this film and if nothing else you are sure to have a good time taking in all of the scenery.
In summary, Mortal Engines is a movie that feels as though it had so much potential but couldn’t quite live up to it. It definitely feels more like a summer blockbuster, full of explosions and action, instead of the deeper holiday releases that we usually get around this time. It’s the kind of movie that you go to see for the sheer spectacle of it all as long as you are willing to overlook any plot or story depth. Unfortunately, this leaves the quandary of whether or not it’s worth the full price of admission (or even more if you are planning to see it in IMAX) and my answer to that is…it depends. If you have any interest in seeing it at all then Mortal Engines is definitely a movie you should see on the big screen. On the other hand, it might be worth it to just wait to see it on pay-per-view or Blu-ray even though it may lose a lot of what makes the movie so much fun in the first place. While the movie could have been better, I have definitely seen worse and if the idea of massive rolling cities and steampunk set pieces are your thing, then Mortal Engines is certainly worth a look.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Light of My Life (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
It is difficult to talk about Casey Affleck in a positive light as a movie-maker without mentioning the heightened media storm that surrounded him in 2017, at the time of #metoo and his own moment of personal glory in winning the Best Actor Oscar for his excellent performance in Manchester By the Sea. The Oscar was deserved, as was the criticism. The latter affecting the sweetness of the former entirely, and perhaps explaining why a recent Academy Award winner would be so quiet for the next 3 years.
The facts are that he settled out of court for two sexual harassment claims, that in interviews later he would admit some guilt and shame towards. He never tried to hide it and seemed genuinely regretful of his part in whatever crimes took place. He never tried to deny it or belittle it or excuse it as something small and insignificant, he owned up and hung his head.
For which I’d be tempted to say, yes, he behaved like an asshole and abused his position, but is worthy of forgiveness, on probation that he learned from the mistake and never remotely did anything like it again. However, the media doesn’t forget, and in a personal and professional way he has been persona non grata ever since.
Like many others in the spotlight before him for nefarious reasons, I believe emphatically in saying it is possible to separate a person from their work. If someone has done something where they need to be in jail, then let the system take care of it, otherwise let them get on with life and continue to work. Affleck is such a talented actor that it is his performances that spring to mind above anything else by far, and that probably won’t change. I’d absolutely hate to think his negative reputation prevented him from doing the best work of his life.
One way to ensure some relative solitude and privacy whilst remaining at work, then, is to write, produce, direct and star in a small personal film about a father and daughter, alone for 90% of the movie, in a post apocalyptic wilderness. Affleck is the nameless “dad” to the pre-teen daughter he dotes on and will do anything to protect, named “Rag”, for reasons that are explained beautifully in the narrative.
Played by promising newcomer Anna Pniowsky, it is a testament to Affleck’s skill and sensitivity as actor and director that Rag always feels as important and centre stage as the “star” of the show. The film begins very unusually with a 7 minute static dialogue between the two, which demonstrates the relationship and energy of the film perfectly, and in such an interesting way. Pniowsky gives as good as she gets in terms of detailed characterisation, and the dynamic between the two is an absolute delight.
Inevitably, this film is always going to be seen as a poor cousin to The Road, starring Viggo Mortensen, from 2009. It is very similar, it can’t be denied. Even the idea of the parent ensuring “the light / fire” is kept alive within the child, considering that the survival of humanity in all senses is paramount, and supercedes the notion of survival at any cost. Dignity, kindness and non-violence must be maintained, or they will be lost. It is a message worth passing on – enough to make Affleck want to fly so close to the themes and tone of a bigger, well liked film. He must certainly have been aware of how similar they are.
It doesn’t always work, and I did find myself wishing for more action, or at least incident, rather than all the static talking scenes. Although they were often beautifully done, there were just one too many of them to keep the film fully engaging. The use of flashback, where we see the past they came from and the absent mother (presumed long dead) played by Elizabeth Moss, who does not get enough screen time to leave a mark, also doesn’t fully ring true.
Where it does work is in the simple beauty of the relationship between father and daughter. Her innocence and growing curiosity about the tainted world she is inheriting, and his single minded insistence on teaching her things his way and keeping her oblivious to the harshness of life for as long as possible. We begin to suspect his methods are not always the best, and that inevitably the time is coming where for good or bad she will have to find her own path without him.
Which leads to a very touching last 20 minutes I can’t possibly explain without leaving spoilers. If it wasn’t two hours but 90 minutes I believe the idea would have had more impact and not outstay its welcome. As it is, it is just a little flabby in the edit to be described as “great”, and might be otherwise described as slightly indulgent and naive, directorially. It is a tough one to pin down, because whilst I don’t think there is much wrong with it, I also don’t think there is enough right to fully recommend it to a wide audience.
I’m putting this one in the box marked “little seen gems”, intersecting with the one marked “near miss with potential”. When in a patient mood, this could be a film you relate to and enjoy. Just don’t go in expecting too much to happen and concentrate on what it means to be a parent in a cruel world. In that sense it has a lot to say and is well worth your time.
The facts are that he settled out of court for two sexual harassment claims, that in interviews later he would admit some guilt and shame towards. He never tried to hide it and seemed genuinely regretful of his part in whatever crimes took place. He never tried to deny it or belittle it or excuse it as something small and insignificant, he owned up and hung his head.
For which I’d be tempted to say, yes, he behaved like an asshole and abused his position, but is worthy of forgiveness, on probation that he learned from the mistake and never remotely did anything like it again. However, the media doesn’t forget, and in a personal and professional way he has been persona non grata ever since.
Like many others in the spotlight before him for nefarious reasons, I believe emphatically in saying it is possible to separate a person from their work. If someone has done something where they need to be in jail, then let the system take care of it, otherwise let them get on with life and continue to work. Affleck is such a talented actor that it is his performances that spring to mind above anything else by far, and that probably won’t change. I’d absolutely hate to think his negative reputation prevented him from doing the best work of his life.
One way to ensure some relative solitude and privacy whilst remaining at work, then, is to write, produce, direct and star in a small personal film about a father and daughter, alone for 90% of the movie, in a post apocalyptic wilderness. Affleck is the nameless “dad” to the pre-teen daughter he dotes on and will do anything to protect, named “Rag”, for reasons that are explained beautifully in the narrative.
Played by promising newcomer Anna Pniowsky, it is a testament to Affleck’s skill and sensitivity as actor and director that Rag always feels as important and centre stage as the “star” of the show. The film begins very unusually with a 7 minute static dialogue between the two, which demonstrates the relationship and energy of the film perfectly, and in such an interesting way. Pniowsky gives as good as she gets in terms of detailed characterisation, and the dynamic between the two is an absolute delight.
Inevitably, this film is always going to be seen as a poor cousin to The Road, starring Viggo Mortensen, from 2009. It is very similar, it can’t be denied. Even the idea of the parent ensuring “the light / fire” is kept alive within the child, considering that the survival of humanity in all senses is paramount, and supercedes the notion of survival at any cost. Dignity, kindness and non-violence must be maintained, or they will be lost. It is a message worth passing on – enough to make Affleck want to fly so close to the themes and tone of a bigger, well liked film. He must certainly have been aware of how similar they are.
It doesn’t always work, and I did find myself wishing for more action, or at least incident, rather than all the static talking scenes. Although they were often beautifully done, there were just one too many of them to keep the film fully engaging. The use of flashback, where we see the past they came from and the absent mother (presumed long dead) played by Elizabeth Moss, who does not get enough screen time to leave a mark, also doesn’t fully ring true.
Where it does work is in the simple beauty of the relationship between father and daughter. Her innocence and growing curiosity about the tainted world she is inheriting, and his single minded insistence on teaching her things his way and keeping her oblivious to the harshness of life for as long as possible. We begin to suspect his methods are not always the best, and that inevitably the time is coming where for good or bad she will have to find her own path without him.
Which leads to a very touching last 20 minutes I can’t possibly explain without leaving spoilers. If it wasn’t two hours but 90 minutes I believe the idea would have had more impact and not outstay its welcome. As it is, it is just a little flabby in the edit to be described as “great”, and might be otherwise described as slightly indulgent and naive, directorially. It is a tough one to pin down, because whilst I don’t think there is much wrong with it, I also don’t think there is enough right to fully recommend it to a wide audience.
I’m putting this one in the box marked “little seen gems”, intersecting with the one marked “near miss with potential”. When in a patient mood, this could be a film you relate to and enjoy. Just don’t go in expecting too much to happen and concentrate on what it means to be a parent in a cruel world. In that sense it has a lot to say and is well worth your time.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Arctic Scavengers in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
One of the best parts of the board gaming experience is finding a fun group of people with whom to play! Sometimes, though, coordinating a game night is easier said than done. We all must occasionally forego the group experience and face the world as the Lonely Only. But fear not! The world of solo-play is a vast and exciting realm! What follows is a chronicle of my journey into the solo-playing world – notes on gameplay, mechanics, rules, difficulty, and overall experience with solo variations of commonly multiplayer games! I hope this will provide some insight as you continue to grow your collection, or explore your already owned games!
Welcome to the Ice Age. No, not the animated movie. I’m talking about the real deal. Arctic Scavengers is set in a post-apocalyptic ice age where the cold is deadly and the resources are scarce. Any surviving humans have banded together to form ‘tribes’ that are competing for dominance in this frigid tundra. Can you and your tribe outwit your competitors to become the most powerful group? Or will a bigger and more menacing tribe overpower you and jeopardize your survival?
Disclaimer: The solo variant is only addressed in the Recon Expansion rules. There IS another expansion – HQ – but I have not used that content in my solo plays. This review only encompasses the Base Game and Recon Expansion.
Arctic Scavengers is a deck-building game where players are recruiting mercenaries to their tribes, searching for general resources, and battling other tribes for contested resources. Each turn has two main phases – Resource Gathering and Skirmish. During Resource Gathering, you play cards from your hand to either recruit new mercenaries or search the junkyard for general resources. Any remaining cards in your hand are then used during the Skirmish phase – where the player with the highest ‘fight’ value wins the contested resource for that round. At the end of the game, the player with the biggest tribe wins!
The solo variant has some minor differences, but is played essentially the same way. In a solo game, the contested resource cards are divided into 7 skirmishes to be encountered throughout the game. You can decide when to engage in a skirmish – it is not a requirement to encounter one each turn. After each skirmish, you either win and earn a contested resource, or lose and must permanently discard a card from your losing hand. The game ends when all 7 skirmishes have been encountered. The other difference is that each time you have to re-shuffle your discard pile, you must permanently remove the top card of your new deck from the game. Beyond those changes, the game remains the same. At the end of the game, all cards in your tribe are worth certain numbers of points – the goal is to beat your own personal best score.
In theory, this game sounds super cool! But when I actually got to play it solo, I was seriously underwhelmed. The game feels stagnant in the sense that there is no tension or urgency in your strategy. Since YOU get to decide when to engage in a skirmish, it is possible to just while away the time building up your deck until you have enough cards to beat every skirmish. Yes, you permanently discard a card each time you re-shuffle your discard pile, but if you are able to recruit one or two new cards each turn, it negates the penalty of discarding a card. The ability to choose when to engage in skirmishes is seriously over-powered because there is nothing stopping you from ignoring skirmishes and amassing cards for end-game scoring.
The other grievance I have with the game is regarding the Junkyard – the deck of cards where you ‘search’ for resources. The solo rules do not explicitly address setting up the Junkyard deck at all. So do you use one or not? Not having the Junkyard deck can be a serious hinderance – certain mercenaries cannot be recruited without certain resources. If you DO play with the Junkyard, how many cards do you use? Do you use the corresponding cards from the Base game and BOTH expansions? Only Base game and one expansion? Again, not explicitly addressed. I’ve tried using all of the Junkyard cards and that is difficult – there are just too many cards in that deck. I have gone entire games without coming across a necessary resource just because the size of the deck is too large (and I’m apparently a poor card-shuffler). The simple solution to this ambiguity would have been to just address it in the rulebook. But it’s not there, so I’m left guessing as to how I should set it up every time.
I really like the idea of this game. I really don’t like the solo variant though. Not having forced skirmishes makes the game extremely boring for me – I don’t really need a strategy since I can just recruit cards until I can draw a powerful hand. If there was a timeline for skirmishes – maybe something like “You must encounter one skirmish every other turn” – the game would be vastly different. I would actually need to strategize what cards to recruit and how I should delegate my cards on turns with a skirmish. In most games, I will reach a certain point where I choose to encounter a skirmish (that I know I will lose) just because I am starting to get bored. I appreciate the sentiment of including a solo variant, but this one just does not work.
Arctic Scavengers requires decent strategy and it offers good player interaction in group games. In a solo game, however, it is just imbalanced and boring. This is one solo variant that I would not recommend that you try, unless you are including drastic house rules.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/06/solo-chronicles-arctic-scavengers/
Welcome to the Ice Age. No, not the animated movie. I’m talking about the real deal. Arctic Scavengers is set in a post-apocalyptic ice age where the cold is deadly and the resources are scarce. Any surviving humans have banded together to form ‘tribes’ that are competing for dominance in this frigid tundra. Can you and your tribe outwit your competitors to become the most powerful group? Or will a bigger and more menacing tribe overpower you and jeopardize your survival?
Disclaimer: The solo variant is only addressed in the Recon Expansion rules. There IS another expansion – HQ – but I have not used that content in my solo plays. This review only encompasses the Base Game and Recon Expansion.
Arctic Scavengers is a deck-building game where players are recruiting mercenaries to their tribes, searching for general resources, and battling other tribes for contested resources. Each turn has two main phases – Resource Gathering and Skirmish. During Resource Gathering, you play cards from your hand to either recruit new mercenaries or search the junkyard for general resources. Any remaining cards in your hand are then used during the Skirmish phase – where the player with the highest ‘fight’ value wins the contested resource for that round. At the end of the game, the player with the biggest tribe wins!
The solo variant has some minor differences, but is played essentially the same way. In a solo game, the contested resource cards are divided into 7 skirmishes to be encountered throughout the game. You can decide when to engage in a skirmish – it is not a requirement to encounter one each turn. After each skirmish, you either win and earn a contested resource, or lose and must permanently discard a card from your losing hand. The game ends when all 7 skirmishes have been encountered. The other difference is that each time you have to re-shuffle your discard pile, you must permanently remove the top card of your new deck from the game. Beyond those changes, the game remains the same. At the end of the game, all cards in your tribe are worth certain numbers of points – the goal is to beat your own personal best score.
In theory, this game sounds super cool! But when I actually got to play it solo, I was seriously underwhelmed. The game feels stagnant in the sense that there is no tension or urgency in your strategy. Since YOU get to decide when to engage in a skirmish, it is possible to just while away the time building up your deck until you have enough cards to beat every skirmish. Yes, you permanently discard a card each time you re-shuffle your discard pile, but if you are able to recruit one or two new cards each turn, it negates the penalty of discarding a card. The ability to choose when to engage in skirmishes is seriously over-powered because there is nothing stopping you from ignoring skirmishes and amassing cards for end-game scoring.
The other grievance I have with the game is regarding the Junkyard – the deck of cards where you ‘search’ for resources. The solo rules do not explicitly address setting up the Junkyard deck at all. So do you use one or not? Not having the Junkyard deck can be a serious hinderance – certain mercenaries cannot be recruited without certain resources. If you DO play with the Junkyard, how many cards do you use? Do you use the corresponding cards from the Base game and BOTH expansions? Only Base game and one expansion? Again, not explicitly addressed. I’ve tried using all of the Junkyard cards and that is difficult – there are just too many cards in that deck. I have gone entire games without coming across a necessary resource just because the size of the deck is too large (and I’m apparently a poor card-shuffler). The simple solution to this ambiguity would have been to just address it in the rulebook. But it’s not there, so I’m left guessing as to how I should set it up every time.
I really like the idea of this game. I really don’t like the solo variant though. Not having forced skirmishes makes the game extremely boring for me – I don’t really need a strategy since I can just recruit cards until I can draw a powerful hand. If there was a timeline for skirmishes – maybe something like “You must encounter one skirmish every other turn” – the game would be vastly different. I would actually need to strategize what cards to recruit and how I should delegate my cards on turns with a skirmish. In most games, I will reach a certain point where I choose to encounter a skirmish (that I know I will lose) just because I am starting to get bored. I appreciate the sentiment of including a solo variant, but this one just does not work.
Arctic Scavengers requires decent strategy and it offers good player interaction in group games. In a solo game, however, it is just imbalanced and boring. This is one solo variant that I would not recommend that you try, unless you are including drastic house rules.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/06/solo-chronicles-arctic-scavengers/
Bill & Hillary : So This Is That Thing Called Love
Darwin Porter and Danforth Prince
Book
On the campus of Yale University, in 1970, an "odd couple," Hillary Rodham and Bill ("Bubba")...