Search
Search results
iCook - Recipes & Cooking with Neven
Food & Drink and Lifestyle
App
* Apple's "iPhone App of the Week" June 2011 * Shortlisted for "App of the Year" Eircom Spider...
Nutrients - Nutrition Facts
Food & Drink and Health & Fitness
App
Nutrients (previously called Foodle) is nutrition at your fingertips! How much sugar is in an apple?...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Deadpool 2 (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Insanely violent… insanely funny.
It’s a pretty good bet that the cinema-going public will be pretty evenly divided between those that think films like “Deadpool“, “Kingsman: The Secret Service” and “Kingsman: The Golden Circle” are enormous fun and those that think they are crass, puerile and appealing to all the basest instincts of human beings. I happen to fall into the first category, and “Deadpool 2” lives up to – and in some cases surpasses – the quality of the first film.
It’s a “family film” (LoL). Ryan Reynolds is back again as the eponymous superhero (aka Wade Wilson) and we start the film with him in a state of romantic bliss with Vanessa (Morena Baccarin). But things quickly go south, and what follows is a convoluted plot involving a local gangster, an Arnie-type character from the future (Josh Brolin) and an potentially dark X-powered child Firefist (Julian Dennison, “Hunt for the Wilderpeople”). Deadpool has to use all his powers to restore order to the planet. Given that his “power” is the ability to rejuvenate himself after surviving the most catastrophic injuries, you can predict that things will get messy!
Yes guys, it’s violent… very, very violent! But it’s done in such a “Tom and Jerry” style that it always comes out as a “Bluuugggghhhhaaaaa!” (* that’s supposed to be the noise of a huge guffaw) rather than an “Ugggh” (retch).
A particular high point for me was the assembly of the ‘X-Men-Lite’ team called “X-force”. The ‘interviews’ for this are hilarious, but the first sortie of the team to intercept a convoy moving prisoners** is even better. It’s just snort-your-Ben-and-Jerry’s-out-of-the-nose funny. This scene also includes precisely 1.8 seconds of a splendid cameo in the part of “Vanisher”!
There are many scenes, supported by numerous snide one-liners, that reference movie classics. A subliminal cameo(s) shot in the X-Men house is just brilliant. Equally brilliant but much more disturbing is a variant on that most famous scene from “Basic Instinct”…. this falls into the “can’t unsee” category of movie clips!
But the film rather over-eggs the comic asides, with a scattergun approach to the comedy that works 70% of the time but not for the other 30%. The best ones are Deadpool’s snide aside to camera. Where the script over-reaches is where the joke gets spread across the cast: one ensemble scene in particular in the flat of blind Al (Leslie Uggams) is: a) delivered so fast as to be practically unintelligible and b) falls as flat as a pancake as a result.
Josh Brolin must have signed a three-film baddie deal, since here he pops up again just weeks after his brilliant Thanos-turn in “Avengers: Infinity War“. And as for that performance, here he is superbly nuanced, with scenes that are truly touching (and with less CGI) .
Across the superhero ensemble, Zazie Beetz stands out as “Domino”. She really should be called “Lucky” though (and yes Andrea ‘Van Helsing’ Ware… I know you have the trademark on that character name! 🙂 ). Domino is my favourite character in the film… just so cool and stylish.
And credit where credit’s due, Ryan Reynolds (“Life“, “The Hitman’s Bodyguard“) is again outstanding as Deadpool. Given he is such a dish (not speaking personally here you understand) he is very brave to portray his character in such an self-deprecating and downbeat way. The final scene in the film (following some brilliant “tidying up the timeline” scenes) is so gloriously self-mocking that I LoLed myself all the way home. Outstanding.
As Marvel films go, it’s another corking comedy. But so close to the knuckle in places, I suspect this is not a character that will feature in the Infinity War sequel!
It’s a “family film” (LoL). Ryan Reynolds is back again as the eponymous superhero (aka Wade Wilson) and we start the film with him in a state of romantic bliss with Vanessa (Morena Baccarin). But things quickly go south, and what follows is a convoluted plot involving a local gangster, an Arnie-type character from the future (Josh Brolin) and an potentially dark X-powered child Firefist (Julian Dennison, “Hunt for the Wilderpeople”). Deadpool has to use all his powers to restore order to the planet. Given that his “power” is the ability to rejuvenate himself after surviving the most catastrophic injuries, you can predict that things will get messy!
Yes guys, it’s violent… very, very violent! But it’s done in such a “Tom and Jerry” style that it always comes out as a “Bluuugggghhhhaaaaa!” (* that’s supposed to be the noise of a huge guffaw) rather than an “Ugggh” (retch).
A particular high point for me was the assembly of the ‘X-Men-Lite’ team called “X-force”. The ‘interviews’ for this are hilarious, but the first sortie of the team to intercept a convoy moving prisoners** is even better. It’s just snort-your-Ben-and-Jerry’s-out-of-the-nose funny. This scene also includes precisely 1.8 seconds of a splendid cameo in the part of “Vanisher”!
There are many scenes, supported by numerous snide one-liners, that reference movie classics. A subliminal cameo(s) shot in the X-Men house is just brilliant. Equally brilliant but much more disturbing is a variant on that most famous scene from “Basic Instinct”…. this falls into the “can’t unsee” category of movie clips!
But the film rather over-eggs the comic asides, with a scattergun approach to the comedy that works 70% of the time but not for the other 30%. The best ones are Deadpool’s snide aside to camera. Where the script over-reaches is where the joke gets spread across the cast: one ensemble scene in particular in the flat of blind Al (Leslie Uggams) is: a) delivered so fast as to be practically unintelligible and b) falls as flat as a pancake as a result.
Josh Brolin must have signed a three-film baddie deal, since here he pops up again just weeks after his brilliant Thanos-turn in “Avengers: Infinity War“. And as for that performance, here he is superbly nuanced, with scenes that are truly touching (and with less CGI) .
Across the superhero ensemble, Zazie Beetz stands out as “Domino”. She really should be called “Lucky” though (and yes Andrea ‘Van Helsing’ Ware… I know you have the trademark on that character name! 🙂 ). Domino is my favourite character in the film… just so cool and stylish.
And credit where credit’s due, Ryan Reynolds (“Life“, “The Hitman’s Bodyguard“) is again outstanding as Deadpool. Given he is such a dish (not speaking personally here you understand) he is very brave to portray his character in such an self-deprecating and downbeat way. The final scene in the film (following some brilliant “tidying up the timeline” scenes) is so gloriously self-mocking that I LoLed myself all the way home. Outstanding.
As Marvel films go, it’s another corking comedy. But so close to the knuckle in places, I suspect this is not a character that will feature in the Infinity War sequel!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Split (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We are what we believe we are”.
M. Night Shyamalan fizzed into movie consciousness in 1999 with “The Sixth Sense” which – having rewatched it again recently – still has the power to unnerve and impress even after knowing the famous ‘twist’. Since that film and his next, “Unbreakable” in 2000, Shyamalan has ‘done a bit of an Orson Welles’ by never really living up to that early promise. Here with “Split” he returns to better form with a psychological thriller that is heavy on the psycho.
James McAvoy plays Kevin… and Dennis, and Patricia, and Hedwig, and Barry, and Orwell, and Jade, and… if the running time permitted… another 17 characters. But this is no “Kind Hearts and Coronets”: McAvoy plays all these varied personalities in the same body. For Kevin suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder, a rare condition where his different schisms not only affect his speech and attitude but also his whole physique. One personality for example is diabetic and needs insulin: all his others are fine.
Under the care of MPD specialist Dr Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley, “Carrie”), Kevin seems to be making good progress. But all is not as it seems. Dennis, one of the more evil of Kevin’s personalities, has kidnapped three teens – Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), Marcia (Jessica Sula) and Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) – and is holding them captive in his home.
It’s all going so well. Kevin (James McAvoy) getting much needed treatment from Dr Fletcher (Betty Buckley).
While Claire and Marcia are good friends, Casey is the wild-card in the pack: a moody and aloof teen that doesn’t fit in with the crowd. We see the abduction unfold largely through her intelligent and analytical eyes, with her experiences causing flashbacks to hunting trips in the woods as a five-year-old child with her father and uncle.
This is McAvoy’s film, with his different personalities being very well observed and the scenes where he switches from one to the other being particularly impressive as piece of acting. Of the youngsters, Anya Taylor-Joy is the most impressive, with the denouement of her particular sub-plot being my favourite part of the film.
Shyamalan, who also wrote the script, is treading a well worn cinematic path here (since often the MPD element is the surprise twist, to list any films here inevitably risks major spoilers – – but there is a decent list here). But this is a film that seems to have generated a lot of interest, particularly with a younger audience (I have seldom been quizzed more with the “Ooh, have you seen this yet” question). As a result this may be a modest sleeper hit.
Girl pray or Girl prey? Casey deep in the psycho’s lair.
Where I think the movie missteps is in its casting of the three cute and scantily dressed teens as the abductees. From the plot of the film that emerges this appears to be unnecessary and exploitative, especially since they are made to progressively dis-robe as the film progresses. The film would actually have been made more interesting if a family unit, or at least a mixed variety of individuals, had been taken.
Marcia (Jessica Sula) doesn’t necessarily appreciate the floral gift.
Unfortunately Shyamalan also over-gilds the lily for the finale by going from medical improbability into outright science fiction: and dilutes what was up to that point a stylish thriller. As a result it’s a decent popcorn film, and worth seeing for McAvoy’s clever performance, but its not going to go down in my book as a classic.
Watch out by the way for a nice final cameo scene: a clever reference to past glories.
James McAvoy plays Kevin… and Dennis, and Patricia, and Hedwig, and Barry, and Orwell, and Jade, and… if the running time permitted… another 17 characters. But this is no “Kind Hearts and Coronets”: McAvoy plays all these varied personalities in the same body. For Kevin suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder, a rare condition where his different schisms not only affect his speech and attitude but also his whole physique. One personality for example is diabetic and needs insulin: all his others are fine.
Under the care of MPD specialist Dr Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley, “Carrie”), Kevin seems to be making good progress. But all is not as it seems. Dennis, one of the more evil of Kevin’s personalities, has kidnapped three teens – Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), Marcia (Jessica Sula) and Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) – and is holding them captive in his home.
It’s all going so well. Kevin (James McAvoy) getting much needed treatment from Dr Fletcher (Betty Buckley).
While Claire and Marcia are good friends, Casey is the wild-card in the pack: a moody and aloof teen that doesn’t fit in with the crowd. We see the abduction unfold largely through her intelligent and analytical eyes, with her experiences causing flashbacks to hunting trips in the woods as a five-year-old child with her father and uncle.
This is McAvoy’s film, with his different personalities being very well observed and the scenes where he switches from one to the other being particularly impressive as piece of acting. Of the youngsters, Anya Taylor-Joy is the most impressive, with the denouement of her particular sub-plot being my favourite part of the film.
Shyamalan, who also wrote the script, is treading a well worn cinematic path here (since often the MPD element is the surprise twist, to list any films here inevitably risks major spoilers – – but there is a decent list here). But this is a film that seems to have generated a lot of interest, particularly with a younger audience (I have seldom been quizzed more with the “Ooh, have you seen this yet” question). As a result this may be a modest sleeper hit.
Girl pray or Girl prey? Casey deep in the psycho’s lair.
Where I think the movie missteps is in its casting of the three cute and scantily dressed teens as the abductees. From the plot of the film that emerges this appears to be unnecessary and exploitative, especially since they are made to progressively dis-robe as the film progresses. The film would actually have been made more interesting if a family unit, or at least a mixed variety of individuals, had been taken.
Marcia (Jessica Sula) doesn’t necessarily appreciate the floral gift.
Unfortunately Shyamalan also over-gilds the lily for the finale by going from medical improbability into outright science fiction: and dilutes what was up to that point a stylish thriller. As a result it’s a decent popcorn film, and worth seeing for McAvoy’s clever performance, but its not going to go down in my book as a classic.
Watch out by the way for a nice final cameo scene: a clever reference to past glories.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated God: A Human History in Books
Nov 5, 2017
An Ambiguous History
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Where did religion come from? This is the question Reza Aslan, a scholar of religions, attempts to answer in his latest publication, God: A Human History. To date, Aslan has tackled subjects such as the life of Jesus of Nazareth, and the origins, evolution and future of Islam. In this book, the author journeys back to the earliest evidence of human existence and, using a mix of resources, theories and investigations, tries to determine how our ancestors conceived the idea of gods and souls. Maintaining the idea that the majority of humans think of God as a divine version of ourselves, Aslan also looks at the way our perception of life after death has altered due to the changes in our governments and cultures.
Reza Aslan claims that he, a Muslim-devout-Christian-convert-turned-Sufi, is neither trying to prove or disprove the existence of God or gods. Instead, he is providing readers with a thorough history of religion with a strong suggestion that we, as believers, have fashioned God in our image, and not the other way around.
Insisting that belief systems are inherited from each previous generation, Aslan takes a look at ancient cave drawings where he, and many other theorists, surmise that a form of religion was already well underway. Lack of written word results in a lot of speculation and hypothesis as to what these, usually animal-like, drawings represent, however, many have come to the conclusion that early humans had some form of animistic belief system.
Although not a dig at religion, after all, the author is religious himself, the following chapters bring in to question the authenticity of past and present beliefs. With reference to various psychologists, Aslan poses the theory that ancient humans may have misinterpreted dreams as evidence of a spirit realm. With no one qualified to clarify the things they did not understand, anything without a clear explanation may have been attributed to a god or gods.
As the author describes how religious ideas may have developed from these primitive beliefs to the fully detailed faiths of today, he labels the human race as anthropocentric creatures that have based their religions on human traits and emotions. By reporting in this way, it comes across that the past ideas of the soul, spiritual realms, gods and so forth could not possibly be true, yet, as the final chapters suggest, Aslan is still adamant about the existence of God.
Aslan’s narrative speeds up, finally reaching the recognizable religions of today. Beginning with the Israelites, enslaved by the Egyptians, the author explains, using biblical references, how the first successful monotheistic religion came about. However, researchers have studied the early Bible texts and are inconclusive as to whether the God worshipped by the Jews was the only divine being or whether there were others of a similar standing.
Next, Aslan explores Christianity, posing more questions than he solves, for example, is God one or is God three (i.e. the Holy Trinity)? He defines and compares the definitions of monotheism and pantheism, eventually bringing in Islam and the development of Sufism, which he is not afraid of admitting he agrees with.
God: A Human History is disappointingly short, ending with the feeble conclusion that humans are born with the ability to be convinced of the existence of a divine being and the soul, but it is our own choice to decide whether or not to believe in them. The remaining third of the book is an abundance of notes on the texts, bibliographical references, and Reza Aslan’s personal opinions about the ideas and theories mentioned in his history of religion.
Although an extensive history on the origins of religion, God: A Human History leaves readers none the wiser as to whether their belief is founded in truth or whether it is something that has evolved over time due to lack of understanding about the world. Granted, it was not the aim of the book to prove or disprove the existence of God, however, it may unintentionally sow seeds of doubt or, potentially, anger devout believers. However, there is no attempt at persuading readers to believe one thing or another, thus making it suitable for people of all religion and none.
Where did religion come from? This is the question Reza Aslan, a scholar of religions, attempts to answer in his latest publication, God: A Human History. To date, Aslan has tackled subjects such as the life of Jesus of Nazareth, and the origins, evolution and future of Islam. In this book, the author journeys back to the earliest evidence of human existence and, using a mix of resources, theories and investigations, tries to determine how our ancestors conceived the idea of gods and souls. Maintaining the idea that the majority of humans think of God as a divine version of ourselves, Aslan also looks at the way our perception of life after death has altered due to the changes in our governments and cultures.
Reza Aslan claims that he, a Muslim-devout-Christian-convert-turned-Sufi, is neither trying to prove or disprove the existence of God or gods. Instead, he is providing readers with a thorough history of religion with a strong suggestion that we, as believers, have fashioned God in our image, and not the other way around.
Insisting that belief systems are inherited from each previous generation, Aslan takes a look at ancient cave drawings where he, and many other theorists, surmise that a form of religion was already well underway. Lack of written word results in a lot of speculation and hypothesis as to what these, usually animal-like, drawings represent, however, many have come to the conclusion that early humans had some form of animistic belief system.
Although not a dig at religion, after all, the author is religious himself, the following chapters bring in to question the authenticity of past and present beliefs. With reference to various psychologists, Aslan poses the theory that ancient humans may have misinterpreted dreams as evidence of a spirit realm. With no one qualified to clarify the things they did not understand, anything without a clear explanation may have been attributed to a god or gods.
As the author describes how religious ideas may have developed from these primitive beliefs to the fully detailed faiths of today, he labels the human race as anthropocentric creatures that have based their religions on human traits and emotions. By reporting in this way, it comes across that the past ideas of the soul, spiritual realms, gods and so forth could not possibly be true, yet, as the final chapters suggest, Aslan is still adamant about the existence of God.
Aslan’s narrative speeds up, finally reaching the recognizable religions of today. Beginning with the Israelites, enslaved by the Egyptians, the author explains, using biblical references, how the first successful monotheistic religion came about. However, researchers have studied the early Bible texts and are inconclusive as to whether the God worshipped by the Jews was the only divine being or whether there were others of a similar standing.
Next, Aslan explores Christianity, posing more questions than he solves, for example, is God one or is God three (i.e. the Holy Trinity)? He defines and compares the definitions of monotheism and pantheism, eventually bringing in Islam and the development of Sufism, which he is not afraid of admitting he agrees with.
God: A Human History is disappointingly short, ending with the feeble conclusion that humans are born with the ability to be convinced of the existence of a divine being and the soul, but it is our own choice to decide whether or not to believe in them. The remaining third of the book is an abundance of notes on the texts, bibliographical references, and Reza Aslan’s personal opinions about the ideas and theories mentioned in his history of religion.
Although an extensive history on the origins of religion, God: A Human History leaves readers none the wiser as to whether their belief is founded in truth or whether it is something that has evolved over time due to lack of understanding about the world. Granted, it was not the aim of the book to prove or disprove the existence of God, however, it may unintentionally sow seeds of doubt or, potentially, anger devout believers. However, there is no attempt at persuading readers to believe one thing or another, thus making it suitable for people of all religion and none.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Ada: Legend of a Healer in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Ada has the unique ability of being able to heal anything she touches. Having lived in the foster care system her whole life, she finally gets the opportunity to live with her aunt, Jessie, who is also a healer, and explains her special ability. But Ada and Jessie have different viewpoints on a healer's responsibility, and Ada decides she's had enough. She takes off on her own heading to Paris with only an address and a photograph to attempt to find her mother, who she discovers isn't dead.
There's just one problem: There's a man who wants to find her and use her as his personal fountain of youth.
Reviewing self-published books is a tricky business. There's a wide range of them: the really crappy ones that make the editor inside me want to cry, the mediocre ones that are just missing a story, and then the occasional gem that I'm so glad I managed to get my hands on. I've had one or two other gems: Ada makes the list, and is pretty high up on it.
I loved Ada's story. I read it almost completely in one sitting. I liked Ada, and admired her will power and strength. We didn't see eye to eye on everything, and I thought she was immature and disrespectful at times, but I could still relate to her well enough that I couldn't hate her for it. About halfway through the book, some characters were introduced that I didn't expect to stay in the story, simply because of the way they were brought in. But isn't that the way our lives work? We meet someone and aren't sure if we'll ever really see them again, but they end up as our friends, and sometimes it's someone really special? That was Ada and Daniel. Daniel is going to have to be added to my list of literary crushes. Not only is he good looking, he's a "bad boy" and a sweetheart at the same time. And he's got a delicious smile. And he does Parkour. And he's French.
The writing was clear and descriptive and easy to understand. It wasn't perfect and there were a few irritating sections with poor grammar, but it didn't distract from the overall piece enough to bring down the star rating.
One of the things I really liked was the pacing. Sometimes a book has an interesting plot, but it takes way too long for things to actually happen that you fall asleep, or have to read an entire series just to get the same amount of plot you're looking for in a single novel (coughtwilightcough). The pacing was really fast in Ada, almost to the point where I wished it was just a little slower so I could really concentrate on what Ada was thinking and feeling.
There was one very tiny part that I didn't like. At one point, Ada tries to practice healing herself, so she takes a pair of scissors to her arm. I thought this was completely inappropriate and very risky, because through Ada's interior monologue, it almost seemed to show self-cutting in a good light. Yes she was practicing healing herself and learning to ignore pain, and trying to figure out her power, and Ada thought it through well enough that the reader would understand why she was doing it, but it just seemed bold and risky. Because of that, I wouldn't want young young adults to read it—I feel like it would make them uncomfortable. I also can't help but wonder what kind of influence that will have on young readers.
Scattered through the book were some truly beautiful illustrations. I found myself flipping through them and just staring at them. They have a pen-and-ink with watercolor sort of feel to them: very lose and impressionistic, almost dreamlike, but with wild pen and scratches thrown through to add definition. Here are two of my favorites (very poor quality photos, though, so I apologize ahead of time).
All in all, I was very pleased and excited about Ada: Legend of a Healer, and I can't wait for the next book in the series.
Content/Recommendation: Some swearing, small reference to self-abuse. Ages 16+
There's just one problem: There's a man who wants to find her and use her as his personal fountain of youth.
Reviewing self-published books is a tricky business. There's a wide range of them: the really crappy ones that make the editor inside me want to cry, the mediocre ones that are just missing a story, and then the occasional gem that I'm so glad I managed to get my hands on. I've had one or two other gems: Ada makes the list, and is pretty high up on it.
I loved Ada's story. I read it almost completely in one sitting. I liked Ada, and admired her will power and strength. We didn't see eye to eye on everything, and I thought she was immature and disrespectful at times, but I could still relate to her well enough that I couldn't hate her for it. About halfway through the book, some characters were introduced that I didn't expect to stay in the story, simply because of the way they were brought in. But isn't that the way our lives work? We meet someone and aren't sure if we'll ever really see them again, but they end up as our friends, and sometimes it's someone really special? That was Ada and Daniel. Daniel is going to have to be added to my list of literary crushes. Not only is he good looking, he's a "bad boy" and a sweetheart at the same time. And he's got a delicious smile. And he does Parkour. And he's French.
The writing was clear and descriptive and easy to understand. It wasn't perfect and there were a few irritating sections with poor grammar, but it didn't distract from the overall piece enough to bring down the star rating.
One of the things I really liked was the pacing. Sometimes a book has an interesting plot, but it takes way too long for things to actually happen that you fall asleep, or have to read an entire series just to get the same amount of plot you're looking for in a single novel (coughtwilightcough). The pacing was really fast in Ada, almost to the point where I wished it was just a little slower so I could really concentrate on what Ada was thinking and feeling.
There was one very tiny part that I didn't like. At one point, Ada tries to practice healing herself, so she takes a pair of scissors to her arm. I thought this was completely inappropriate and very risky, because through Ada's interior monologue, it almost seemed to show self-cutting in a good light. Yes she was practicing healing herself and learning to ignore pain, and trying to figure out her power, and Ada thought it through well enough that the reader would understand why she was doing it, but it just seemed bold and risky. Because of that, I wouldn't want young young adults to read it—I feel like it would make them uncomfortable. I also can't help but wonder what kind of influence that will have on young readers.
Scattered through the book were some truly beautiful illustrations. I found myself flipping through them and just staring at them. They have a pen-and-ink with watercolor sort of feel to them: very lose and impressionistic, almost dreamlike, but with wild pen and scratches thrown through to add definition. Here are two of my favorites (very poor quality photos, though, so I apologize ahead of time).
All in all, I was very pleased and excited about Ada: Legend of a Healer, and I can't wait for the next book in the series.
Content/Recommendation: Some swearing, small reference to self-abuse. Ages 16+
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Repo! The Genetic Opera (2008) in Movies
May 12, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
Repo! The Genetic Opera is perhaps one of the most underrated films I’ve ever watched. The first time I watched it was at the behest of the elder of my younger brothers during my senior year of high school. At that time, I thought it was alright. The characters were hauntingly beautiful and the costumes delightfully dark, but beyond its appeal to my horror loving heart, I had little interest in re-watching it. The other day, I was browsing Shudder and came across it and decided to watch it for the sake of nostalgia. It was then that I picked up on the parody that my seventeen-year-old self missed entirely: for-profit healthcare.
Repo! takes place in 2056, where a planet-wide organ failure epidemic has led to drastic measures. In a time of need, a company by the name of GeneCo has come to the rescue. Offering payment plans to those that cannot afford their new organs, GeneCo saves the lives of those unfortunate souls. But what happens when they can’t meet their payments? Well, that’s what repo men are for, isn’t it?
So where does the parody come in? A similar system already exists in the way the American health care system is presently structured with its for-profit health insurance. Most insurance companies, like GeneCo, are not there for the benefit of their consumers, but for the filling of their pockets. As long as you can pay the premium (or the payment), your coverage remains intact and you’re able to get treatment and medication (or keep your organs in the world of Repo!). The moment you’re not able to do that, your coverage is often revoked (or your organs are repossessed). Of course, in the real world, this isn’t as brutal as it is in Repo! At least, not in most cases, but it can be just as scary. For myself, it’s often quite terrifying as I struggle to stay in remission from ulcerative pancolitis.
Moving on from the parody, there are other aspects of the movie that I feel are also accurate representations of today’s society – things that I feel Repo! was a bit ahead of its time on. The Largo family seems to represent the manner by which the wealthy feed upon the powerlessness of the poor. Also, am I the only one that, upon re-watching this film, can’t help but think of Trump when I’m looking at Rotti Largo? As a villain, Rotti is largely incompetent. He uses others to do what he can’t and often resorts to bullying to get what he wants, as can be seen in the blood contract with Blind Mag. Another example is how he manipulated Nathan and later Shiloh to break and control them, in hopes of controlling them. While it worked for the former of the two, Shiloh was not susceptible to his manipulation – yet another reference to something we’re seeing in today’s society in regards to Shiloh’s generation (that is present-day millennials) and the older generation, which is more mixed politically.
I think it’s also important that we take a moment to focus on Shiloh as a character. She is, perhaps, my least favorite character in this film. Then again, she was also in her rebellious teenage years and was, naturally, horrendously stereotyped. She loathed her father for keeping her bound to her room, even though she understood why and, even when she found out his sins and the lies he told her, she failed to turn against him – paying homage to the saying that “blood is thicker than water.” The end comics only state that she went into hiding, hinting that she was never to be heard from again – which is a shame. I’d like to think she’d become an activist, but… I guess that wasn’t her future.
One of my favorite things about this musical is the haunting and unearthly qualities that linger around Blind Mag and the Graverobber. This is a film I will watch again and again, even if others loathe it for being campy and over the top. In fact, I plan to show it to my Dad’s girlfriend’s kid.
Repo! takes place in 2056, where a planet-wide organ failure epidemic has led to drastic measures. In a time of need, a company by the name of GeneCo has come to the rescue. Offering payment plans to those that cannot afford their new organs, GeneCo saves the lives of those unfortunate souls. But what happens when they can’t meet their payments? Well, that’s what repo men are for, isn’t it?
So where does the parody come in? A similar system already exists in the way the American health care system is presently structured with its for-profit health insurance. Most insurance companies, like GeneCo, are not there for the benefit of their consumers, but for the filling of their pockets. As long as you can pay the premium (or the payment), your coverage remains intact and you’re able to get treatment and medication (or keep your organs in the world of Repo!). The moment you’re not able to do that, your coverage is often revoked (or your organs are repossessed). Of course, in the real world, this isn’t as brutal as it is in Repo! At least, not in most cases, but it can be just as scary. For myself, it’s often quite terrifying as I struggle to stay in remission from ulcerative pancolitis.
Moving on from the parody, there are other aspects of the movie that I feel are also accurate representations of today’s society – things that I feel Repo! was a bit ahead of its time on. The Largo family seems to represent the manner by which the wealthy feed upon the powerlessness of the poor. Also, am I the only one that, upon re-watching this film, can’t help but think of Trump when I’m looking at Rotti Largo? As a villain, Rotti is largely incompetent. He uses others to do what he can’t and often resorts to bullying to get what he wants, as can be seen in the blood contract with Blind Mag. Another example is how he manipulated Nathan and later Shiloh to break and control them, in hopes of controlling them. While it worked for the former of the two, Shiloh was not susceptible to his manipulation – yet another reference to something we’re seeing in today’s society in regards to Shiloh’s generation (that is present-day millennials) and the older generation, which is more mixed politically.
I think it’s also important that we take a moment to focus on Shiloh as a character. She is, perhaps, my least favorite character in this film. Then again, she was also in her rebellious teenage years and was, naturally, horrendously stereotyped. She loathed her father for keeping her bound to her room, even though she understood why and, even when she found out his sins and the lies he told her, she failed to turn against him – paying homage to the saying that “blood is thicker than water.” The end comics only state that she went into hiding, hinting that she was never to be heard from again – which is a shame. I’d like to think she’d become an activist, but… I guess that wasn’t her future.
One of my favorite things about this musical is the haunting and unearthly qualities that linger around Blind Mag and the Graverobber. This is a film I will watch again and again, even if others loathe it for being campy and over the top. In fact, I plan to show it to my Dad’s girlfriend’s kid.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
I'm a celebrity... Get me out of here
It’s been 22 years since Joe Johnston thrilled cinemagoers with a little film called Jumanji. Starring the late, great Robin Williams, it has amassed a huge following over the years and has become nearly as loved as its leading star.
What’s surprising given the film’s success is the lack of a sequel. For over 20 years the non-franchise stayed completely dormant until now. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle sees Columbia Pictures resurrect this classic property for a high-action, CGI-filled blockbuster. But is it actually any good?
Four high school kids discover an old video game console and are drawn into the game’s jungle setting, literally becoming the adult avatars they chose. What they discover is that you don’t just play Jumanji – you must survive it. To beat the game and return to the real world, they’ll have to go on the most dangerous adventure of their lives, discover what Alan Parrish left 20 years ago, and change the way they think about themselves – or they’ll be stuck in the game forever.
Considering the overwhelmingly negative response to the film’s first trailer, it’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces. The problem is, it really doesn’t feel anything like Jumanji and regularly feels like the producers down at Sony had dollar signs in their eyes more than anything else.
There’s only one reference to its now classic predecessor, an homage to Robin William’s Alan Parrish but this is such a fleeting indication of any connection to the 1995 film, it’s barely noticeable. The film may as well lose the Jumanji tag from its name and be done with it: of course that wouldn’t sell half as many tickets now would it?
Of the school-age characters, none of them make any impact before being sucked into Jumanji, now a video game, and director Jake Kasdan (Bad Teacher) wisely focusses on their avatar characters instead. Dwayne Johnson is always reliable and plays the fish-out-of-water nerd surprisingly well. He also has great chemistry with Kevin Hart and the two share some of the film’s best sequences.
Jack Black is hilarious as his inner female tries to break through at numerous points throughout the movie and Karen Gillan shows particular warmth as the awkward Martha. Nick Jonas also stars in a role originally destined for Tom Holland and continues to prove what a versatile actor he has become.
It’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces.
Jake Kasdan films the action confidently and with visual panache but the CGI at times is left wanting, disappointing in this day and age. A helicopter ride across a rhino-infested canyon is particularly fun to watch and the way in which the writers write the film around video game lore is exciting and makes for a pleasant distraction from an otherwise mediocre script.
What the film does have in abundance however is laughs. Indeed, they are of the Dairylea variety, cheesy, but sometimes that’s exactly what you need. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a very funny film that knows how to squeeze every last drop of humour from its writing.
It’s also very well paced. Apart from a few lapses in judgement where the screenwriters desperately try to make us feel emotion towards the characters – we don’t – the film really doesn’t have a boring moment to its name and at 119 minutes, that’s a real achievement.
Overall, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a film that is fun to watch, if a little lacking in originality. All the lead actors perform their roles well, with Jack Black being a particular highlight. Unfortunately, while I’m not usually one for sickly nostalgia, the film really needed to provide a few more tasteful references to its predecessor, especially considering its link to the wonderful Robin Williams.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/10/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle-review-im-a-celebrity-get-me-out-of-here/
What’s surprising given the film’s success is the lack of a sequel. For over 20 years the non-franchise stayed completely dormant until now. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle sees Columbia Pictures resurrect this classic property for a high-action, CGI-filled blockbuster. But is it actually any good?
Four high school kids discover an old video game console and are drawn into the game’s jungle setting, literally becoming the adult avatars they chose. What they discover is that you don’t just play Jumanji – you must survive it. To beat the game and return to the real world, they’ll have to go on the most dangerous adventure of their lives, discover what Alan Parrish left 20 years ago, and change the way they think about themselves – or they’ll be stuck in the game forever.
Considering the overwhelmingly negative response to the film’s first trailer, it’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces. The problem is, it really doesn’t feel anything like Jumanji and regularly feels like the producers down at Sony had dollar signs in their eyes more than anything else.
There’s only one reference to its now classic predecessor, an homage to Robin William’s Alan Parrish but this is such a fleeting indication of any connection to the 1995 film, it’s barely noticeable. The film may as well lose the Jumanji tag from its name and be done with it: of course that wouldn’t sell half as many tickets now would it?
Of the school-age characters, none of them make any impact before being sucked into Jumanji, now a video game, and director Jake Kasdan (Bad Teacher) wisely focusses on their avatar characters instead. Dwayne Johnson is always reliable and plays the fish-out-of-water nerd surprisingly well. He also has great chemistry with Kevin Hart and the two share some of the film’s best sequences.
Jack Black is hilarious as his inner female tries to break through at numerous points throughout the movie and Karen Gillan shows particular warmth as the awkward Martha. Nick Jonas also stars in a role originally destined for Tom Holland and continues to prove what a versatile actor he has become.
It’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces.
Jake Kasdan films the action confidently and with visual panache but the CGI at times is left wanting, disappointing in this day and age. A helicopter ride across a rhino-infested canyon is particularly fun to watch and the way in which the writers write the film around video game lore is exciting and makes for a pleasant distraction from an otherwise mediocre script.
What the film does have in abundance however is laughs. Indeed, they are of the Dairylea variety, cheesy, but sometimes that’s exactly what you need. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a very funny film that knows how to squeeze every last drop of humour from its writing.
It’s also very well paced. Apart from a few lapses in judgement where the screenwriters desperately try to make us feel emotion towards the characters – we don’t – the film really doesn’t have a boring moment to its name and at 119 minutes, that’s a real achievement.
Overall, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a film that is fun to watch, if a little lacking in originality. All the lead actors perform their roles well, with Jack Black being a particular highlight. Unfortunately, while I’m not usually one for sickly nostalgia, the film really needed to provide a few more tasteful references to its predecessor, especially considering its link to the wonderful Robin Williams.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/10/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle-review-im-a-celebrity-get-me-out-of-here/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Shuffle Grand Prix in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019 (Updated Jun 12, 2019)
I very rarely reference video games in my reviews. Mostly because I have never really been a big video gamer. I was always more into RPG style video games (Final Fantasy XI ftw), but some styles of video games I also enjoyed quite a bit. Among those were the battle racing style games of Crash Team Racing and Mario Kart. So much fun not only to race to the finish but also to plant traps and equip weapons to slow your opponents’ progress. Such is your plight as you play Shuffle Grand Prix by new-to-the-board-game-scene publisher Games by Bicycle.
DISCLAIMER: While I will not be delving completely into the rulebook and describing every rule and scenario, I will give you a good idea of how the game plays and what I think of it. -T
Okay let’s setup this game in our minds. Shuffle the large deck of Distance Cards (in denominations of 25, 50, 75, and 100 distance) to form a draw deck. Each player will draft a team of racer and co-pilot, which means taking the racer’s deck and co-pilot’s deck to form their team. Each pilot is a different character with different decks and different special abilities that can be used throughout the game. For example, my first team was the wizard and the musician. Place the driver’s character card on top of the wheel (health) card at maximum wheel strength, and tuck the co-pilot’s card underneath them. You cannot use the co-pilot’s ability until they become the driver (when your main pilot spins out due to your opponents and their dastardly play). Now shuffle the driver’s and co-pilot’s decks together (a la Smash Up) to form your personal draw deck, draw three cards, and you are ready to begin!
On your turn you will flip over the top Distance Card and place it in front of yourself. This is how far you have driven this turn, and ultimately is your VP stack. From there you may play cards from your hand to affect your own cards, the cards of your opponents, or place traps. You may equip items to your car (max 2), switch out equipment, or pass your turn ? This structure continues until there are no more Distance Cards to draw, then the game ends and you count Distance to see who is the winner! I have intentionally left some rules out because they are fun to discover and play – like making your opponent spin out (for trophies), nerfing your opponents, card combo play, etc.
Components: this game is relatively light on components as it is a large number of playing cards and a collection of trophy chits. The chits are good quality, and were definitely too numerous for our plays. The cards are of great quality, which is what you expect from Bicycle, the playing card giant. The art in this game is VERY quirky. I wouldn’t say the art is amazing, but it’s fun and fits the theme. Think Munchkin art. In fact, think of this game as a whole as a combination of CTR/Mario Kart meets Munchkin.
Overall, I really dig this game. It’s pretty fast-playing, though those AP-prone players will hold up the game a bit on their turns. The rules are light, the game play is really fun, and the flavor text on the cards is quite humorous. I thought out loud as we were playing that this is a replacement for Munchkin for me, and I like Munchkin a lot. The take-that/screw-your-neighbor aspect is certainly there, but even when you pile on it doesn’t seem to slow you down so much that you can no longer do much on your turn. I appreciate that. The eight provided playable character decks feels like I can play this game for a really long time with different combinations and enjoy it each time. So for the ease of play, enjoyment of play, different combos we are excited to try, and absolute silliness, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a bashin’ 14 / 18. Check it out!
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/06/06/shuffle-grand-prix-review/
DISCLAIMER: While I will not be delving completely into the rulebook and describing every rule and scenario, I will give you a good idea of how the game plays and what I think of it. -T
Okay let’s setup this game in our minds. Shuffle the large deck of Distance Cards (in denominations of 25, 50, 75, and 100 distance) to form a draw deck. Each player will draft a team of racer and co-pilot, which means taking the racer’s deck and co-pilot’s deck to form their team. Each pilot is a different character with different decks and different special abilities that can be used throughout the game. For example, my first team was the wizard and the musician. Place the driver’s character card on top of the wheel (health) card at maximum wheel strength, and tuck the co-pilot’s card underneath them. You cannot use the co-pilot’s ability until they become the driver (when your main pilot spins out due to your opponents and their dastardly play). Now shuffle the driver’s and co-pilot’s decks together (a la Smash Up) to form your personal draw deck, draw three cards, and you are ready to begin!
On your turn you will flip over the top Distance Card and place it in front of yourself. This is how far you have driven this turn, and ultimately is your VP stack. From there you may play cards from your hand to affect your own cards, the cards of your opponents, or place traps. You may equip items to your car (max 2), switch out equipment, or pass your turn ? This structure continues until there are no more Distance Cards to draw, then the game ends and you count Distance to see who is the winner! I have intentionally left some rules out because they are fun to discover and play – like making your opponent spin out (for trophies), nerfing your opponents, card combo play, etc.
Components: this game is relatively light on components as it is a large number of playing cards and a collection of trophy chits. The chits are good quality, and were definitely too numerous for our plays. The cards are of great quality, which is what you expect from Bicycle, the playing card giant. The art in this game is VERY quirky. I wouldn’t say the art is amazing, but it’s fun and fits the theme. Think Munchkin art. In fact, think of this game as a whole as a combination of CTR/Mario Kart meets Munchkin.
Overall, I really dig this game. It’s pretty fast-playing, though those AP-prone players will hold up the game a bit on their turns. The rules are light, the game play is really fun, and the flavor text on the cards is quite humorous. I thought out loud as we were playing that this is a replacement for Munchkin for me, and I like Munchkin a lot. The take-that/screw-your-neighbor aspect is certainly there, but even when you pile on it doesn’t seem to slow you down so much that you can no longer do much on your turn. I appreciate that. The eight provided playable character decks feels like I can play this game for a really long time with different combinations and enjoy it each time. So for the ease of play, enjoyment of play, different combos we are excited to try, and absolute silliness, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a bashin’ 14 / 18. Check it out!
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/06/06/shuffle-grand-prix-review/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Cthulhu Realms in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
Cthulhu – a theme that is deeply rooted in the board gaming world. There are SO MANY Cthulhu-based games and spin-offs of standard games. Some people really dig the theme, and some people really don’t. So where does this particular game fall on the spectrum? Keep reading to find out!
In Cthulhu Realms, a deck-building game, you are a Cthulhu cultist that is trying to drive your rivals literally insane. By gathering followers, collecting artifacts, and discovering new locations, you will gain enough power to influence the sanity of those who would oppose you! On your turn, you will play cards from your hand to Conjure (acquire new cards from the communal pool), Draw/Discard cards, Gain/Lose Sanity, or Abjure (permanently discard cards from the game). The game ends when a player is reduced to zero sanity – and the player who has retained their sanity is the winner!
I love deck-building games. I really do. I think it’s a neat mechanic that allows you to customize your strategy with every play. So I enjoy playing Cthulhu Realms because of that element. And that’s kind of where my enjoyment ends with this game. Don’t get me wrong – it’s a decent game. I just have a couple of issues with the actual cards and abilities. The cards themselves are very reliant on iconography to communicate powers/abilities. Props to the player boards for having a quick reference for the basic actions, but I still always keep the rule sheet on hand for the in-depth explanation as I play. And even then, the rule sheet still has a bit of ambiguity on how some of the powers work. I wish they’d provided a couple of examples because sometimes I still get confused by certain combinations of icons. Just a little more detail in the rule sheet could alleviate some of the ambiguity of the icon abilities.
For card abilities, each individual card can have anywhere from 1-3 special abilities. The tricky thing is that the abilities do not all have to be used at the same time. So I could use 1 ability from a card, use an ability from a different card, and then come back to my first card and use another of it’s printed abilities. And with a hand of 5 cards every turn (not counting additional cards you may draw…), it can be hard to keep track of which abilities you’ve already used that turn. On top of that, many of the abilities have prerequisites – you can’t use that specific ability unless you’ve already played/have in play the requisite card. Some abilities only have 1 prerequisite, but some have 2, which just adds another layer of bookkeeping to your turns. Not only are you trying to remember which card abilities you’ve already used, but you’re also trying to keep track of your cards/actions that turn that could unlock other card abilities. The rule sheet suggests sliding a card to one side of your play area once you’ve used one of its powers. But again, if it has more than 1 ability on it, you’ve got to remember which ones you’ve used/haven’t used yet, regardless of where they are in your play area. This is a competitive game overall, but with all of these elements to track on your turns, it saps the tension from the game and makes it feel a little more luck-based than strategic.
To alleviate some of my grievances, I think the game could just have more cards with fewer abilities on each. That would make it much easier to execute all of your turns. And eliminate some of the ability prerequisites – having them on most of the abilities just adds another element for you to keep track of, and it feels a little unnecessary. If the turns were a little more clear and concise, I would like this game a lot more. It’s not bad, it just gets bogged down a little bit with too much action on your turns. That’s why Purple Phoenix Games gives Cthulhu Realms a 6/12.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/22/cthulhu-realms-review/
In Cthulhu Realms, a deck-building game, you are a Cthulhu cultist that is trying to drive your rivals literally insane. By gathering followers, collecting artifacts, and discovering new locations, you will gain enough power to influence the sanity of those who would oppose you! On your turn, you will play cards from your hand to Conjure (acquire new cards from the communal pool), Draw/Discard cards, Gain/Lose Sanity, or Abjure (permanently discard cards from the game). The game ends when a player is reduced to zero sanity – and the player who has retained their sanity is the winner!
I love deck-building games. I really do. I think it’s a neat mechanic that allows you to customize your strategy with every play. So I enjoy playing Cthulhu Realms because of that element. And that’s kind of where my enjoyment ends with this game. Don’t get me wrong – it’s a decent game. I just have a couple of issues with the actual cards and abilities. The cards themselves are very reliant on iconography to communicate powers/abilities. Props to the player boards for having a quick reference for the basic actions, but I still always keep the rule sheet on hand for the in-depth explanation as I play. And even then, the rule sheet still has a bit of ambiguity on how some of the powers work. I wish they’d provided a couple of examples because sometimes I still get confused by certain combinations of icons. Just a little more detail in the rule sheet could alleviate some of the ambiguity of the icon abilities.
For card abilities, each individual card can have anywhere from 1-3 special abilities. The tricky thing is that the abilities do not all have to be used at the same time. So I could use 1 ability from a card, use an ability from a different card, and then come back to my first card and use another of it’s printed abilities. And with a hand of 5 cards every turn (not counting additional cards you may draw…), it can be hard to keep track of which abilities you’ve already used that turn. On top of that, many of the abilities have prerequisites – you can’t use that specific ability unless you’ve already played/have in play the requisite card. Some abilities only have 1 prerequisite, but some have 2, which just adds another layer of bookkeeping to your turns. Not only are you trying to remember which card abilities you’ve already used, but you’re also trying to keep track of your cards/actions that turn that could unlock other card abilities. The rule sheet suggests sliding a card to one side of your play area once you’ve used one of its powers. But again, if it has more than 1 ability on it, you’ve got to remember which ones you’ve used/haven’t used yet, regardless of where they are in your play area. This is a competitive game overall, but with all of these elements to track on your turns, it saps the tension from the game and makes it feel a little more luck-based than strategic.
To alleviate some of my grievances, I think the game could just have more cards with fewer abilities on each. That would make it much easier to execute all of your turns. And eliminate some of the ability prerequisites – having them on most of the abilities just adds another element for you to keep track of, and it feels a little unnecessary. If the turns were a little more clear and concise, I would like this game a lot more. It’s not bad, it just gets bogged down a little bit with too much action on your turns. That’s why Purple Phoenix Games gives Cthulhu Realms a 6/12.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/22/cthulhu-realms-review/