Search
Search results
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated The Wife Between Us in Books
Apr 9, 2019
This book is about a woman. A woman who was married to man whom she loved dearly. She loved him so much she couldn't see his flaws or how she was changing. This book is also about a woman who is about to marry said man. But his ex wants her to see all the things she didn't before it's too late. This book is also about a woman who loves this man unconditionally flaws and all. Just when you think you know which woman is which, you will be surprised. All together, these three women are centered around this one man. This one man who is rich and powerful and full of flaws.
Thank you to NetGalley and St. Martins Press for the opportunity to read and review this book.
I will admit that the book started off very slowly for me. The story was interesting enough, but there wasn't much there to make me pick up the book instead of watch a tv show. At about the 1/2 way point, there was a twist in the story that made me perk up a bit and changed my view on the whole story. Things really got into full swing then and I couldn't put it down. I had to see where the plot was going and what was going to happen at the end. It really leaves you on the edge of your seat.
It's hard to write a review about this book without giving too much away. You think you know what is going on, but in actuality you have no idea.
Richard is the man. He is handsome, rich, powerful. He was raised by his older sister after their parents where killed in car crash. Richard has been married twice before and he is now engaged to Emma. Richard's "crazy" ex-wife doesn't want to see this marriage take place and will stop at nothing to warn Emma, even if it makes her look crazier than Richards claims she is. Who will win in the end?
Thank you to NetGalley and St. Martins Press for the opportunity to read and review this book.
I will admit that the book started off very slowly for me. The story was interesting enough, but there wasn't much there to make me pick up the book instead of watch a tv show. At about the 1/2 way point, there was a twist in the story that made me perk up a bit and changed my view on the whole story. Things really got into full swing then and I couldn't put it down. I had to see where the plot was going and what was going to happen at the end. It really leaves you on the edge of your seat.
It's hard to write a review about this book without giving too much away. You think you know what is going on, but in actuality you have no idea.
Richard is the man. He is handsome, rich, powerful. He was raised by his older sister after their parents where killed in car crash. Richard has been married twice before and he is now engaged to Emma. Richard's "crazy" ex-wife doesn't want to see this marriage take place and will stop at nothing to warn Emma, even if it makes her look crazier than Richards claims she is. Who will win in the end?
ClareR (5589 KP) rated The Echo Chamber in Books
Jan 14, 2024
How on earth can John Boyne write a book about a thoroughly , rich, famous and unpleasant family, for it to be a hilarious satire on the state of modern life that I wanted to keep listening to. It helped enormously that Richard E. Grant was narrating. He was perfect. I mean, in real life he seems really lovely, but in this audiobook, his narration exactly reflects the Cleverley family’s selfishness and disregard for anyone other than themselves.
The whole family is obsessed with social media, permanently glued to their phones - all except for the youngest member of the family who gets his kicks elsewhere. Achilles starts off as the most likeable family member, but it soon becomes apparent that he’s as bad as the rest.
I laughed throughout this: it really is very funny. The insights into social media are spot on, and has actually made me think about how much time I spend on it (whatever it was, it’s a lot less now - with the added bonus that I read more!). I can see that some would find this controversial. There were times when I wanted to block out what these people had said or done. I was far too caught up in it though, and wanted to see what they could possibly do next!
Another outstanding book from John Boyne!
The whole family is obsessed with social media, permanently glued to their phones - all except for the youngest member of the family who gets his kicks elsewhere. Achilles starts off as the most likeable family member, but it soon becomes apparent that he’s as bad as the rest.
I laughed throughout this: it really is very funny. The insights into social media are spot on, and has actually made me think about how much time I spend on it (whatever it was, it’s a lot less now - with the added bonus that I read more!). I can see that some would find this controversial. There were times when I wanted to block out what these people had said or done. I was far too caught up in it though, and wanted to see what they could possibly do next!
Another outstanding book from John Boyne!
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Days of Heaven (1978) in Movies
Jul 7, 2019
Gorgeous sprawling vistas
While I am still a Terrence Malick novice, I truly appreciate the small amount of his films I have seen. Having recently watched The Tree of Life which I found amazing I thought I would look up a few more to see what I was missing.
In or around 1916 middle America, an expansive wheat farm is worked for harvesting by hoards of day laborers. The landowner takes a fancy to one of his prettiest workers and asks her to stay on along with her brother and little sister. Little does the man know the other man is indeed her beau instead of her brother. A love triangle develops after she marries the rich man that slowly builds in tension until the poor couple's relationship is uncovered.
Peril comes to the farm in the form of locusts which threaten the crops and a subsequent fire which could destroy the fields completely.
I have found when I watch a Malick film, an very important supporting character is the landscape, atmosphere and world of nature around their human counterparts. In this film, the majestic fields are supplemented with shots of animals in the fields, vast sky and cloud formations and even unseen plants fighting to break through the soil.
I think these elements add much to deepen the immersion of the audience into the story Malick is telling and helps you accept the world around them quickly.
Richard Gere, Brooke Adams and the handsome Sam Shepard (they all looked so young) were beautifully photographed and played their parts well as we believed their emotions completely.
A truly magnificent film!
In or around 1916 middle America, an expansive wheat farm is worked for harvesting by hoards of day laborers. The landowner takes a fancy to one of his prettiest workers and asks her to stay on along with her brother and little sister. Little does the man know the other man is indeed her beau instead of her brother. A love triangle develops after she marries the rich man that slowly builds in tension until the poor couple's relationship is uncovered.
Peril comes to the farm in the form of locusts which threaten the crops and a subsequent fire which could destroy the fields completely.
I have found when I watch a Malick film, an very important supporting character is the landscape, atmosphere and world of nature around their human counterparts. In this film, the majestic fields are supplemented with shots of animals in the fields, vast sky and cloud formations and even unseen plants fighting to break through the soil.
I think these elements add much to deepen the immersion of the audience into the story Malick is telling and helps you accept the world around them quickly.
Richard Gere, Brooke Adams and the handsome Sam Shepard (they all looked so young) were beautifully photographed and played their parts well as we believed their emotions completely.
A truly magnificent film!
Darren (1599 KP) rated Wings (1927) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
Verdict: Beautiful Portray of Love & War
Story: Wings starts as two young men Jack Powell (Rogers) and David Armstrong (Arlen) both sign up to become fighter pilots in the First World War, they are from different backgrounds, with Jack working with his hands, which has seen him get the attention of Mary Preston (Bow) and David being rich, with the pair both seeking the attention of Sylvia Lewis (Ralston).
What starts out in rivalry soon becomes friendship between the two men as through their training, they learn they need to be on the same side and want the same thing from their time in the service. They are followed by Mary who has taken up a job where she delivers medical supplies to troops, all while her love for Jack continues to grow.
Thoughts on Wings
Characters – Mary Preston has worked with Jack Powell for years, they work on cars and her love for Jack is clear, she doesn’t get the attention she desires of him though, with the men at war, she uses her driving skills to deliver medical supplies, hoping to find Jack too, which sees her needing to find a way to act more lady like for the era. Jack Powell is from the working class bracket of people, he has always been great with cars and mechanics, which sees him sign up for the air force during world war 1, he will do what he can get impress the rich Sylvia to whom he loves and after years of rivalry with David, they will become friends. David Armstrong has come from a rich family, he is set to be marrying Sylvia one day if the families have their say, he sees Jack as a rival, until they fight side by side in the skies. Sylvia is the woman that both men are fighting for the attention of, they both see her as the perfect woman and will go to lengths to impress her.
Performances – This being a silent movie, all the work from the actors in the film comes from face expressions and movements, which they are all fantastic with, Clara Bow shows the pain of being in love with somebody who doesn’t want you, while Charles Rogers and Richard Arlen show the rivalry men can have when it comes to women.
Story – The story here follows two men from different backgrounds, one rich one working class, that are both fighting for the same woman, who join the air force to impress, where they become friends and learn the horrors of war. This is a story that is one that shows that love can be something people will always do crazy things for, it shows how the war bought enemies together and for a movie made in 1927, showed us a strong female character willing to go into war, unlike many films for years to come. Being a silent movie, we do get the expression and action doing a lot of the storytelling around the dialogue which is interesting because it keeps away a lot of unnecessary dialogue certain war films turn too.
Romance/War – The romance in this film shows how people will do strange things for love, you might not always see it right under your nose either, with the war being the main location that our characters all go to impress, the dog fight scenes are brilliant to watch, with the use of music making a big impact on the quality too.
Settings – The film uses the settings you would expect to see the war fought at, while we see the ground shots, it is when we are in the sky watching the dog fights that we get to feel the peril the characters are going through.
Scene of the Movie – Any of the dog fights.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does play into stereotypes of other nationalities.
Final Thoughts – This is a genius war movie that rightly deserved to win the first Oscar, it brings us a story that shows how much people would have risked for war and just how far they would go for love.
Overall: Brilliant.
Story: Wings starts as two young men Jack Powell (Rogers) and David Armstrong (Arlen) both sign up to become fighter pilots in the First World War, they are from different backgrounds, with Jack working with his hands, which has seen him get the attention of Mary Preston (Bow) and David being rich, with the pair both seeking the attention of Sylvia Lewis (Ralston).
What starts out in rivalry soon becomes friendship between the two men as through their training, they learn they need to be on the same side and want the same thing from their time in the service. They are followed by Mary who has taken up a job where she delivers medical supplies to troops, all while her love for Jack continues to grow.
Thoughts on Wings
Characters – Mary Preston has worked with Jack Powell for years, they work on cars and her love for Jack is clear, she doesn’t get the attention she desires of him though, with the men at war, she uses her driving skills to deliver medical supplies, hoping to find Jack too, which sees her needing to find a way to act more lady like for the era. Jack Powell is from the working class bracket of people, he has always been great with cars and mechanics, which sees him sign up for the air force during world war 1, he will do what he can get impress the rich Sylvia to whom he loves and after years of rivalry with David, they will become friends. David Armstrong has come from a rich family, he is set to be marrying Sylvia one day if the families have their say, he sees Jack as a rival, until they fight side by side in the skies. Sylvia is the woman that both men are fighting for the attention of, they both see her as the perfect woman and will go to lengths to impress her.
Performances – This being a silent movie, all the work from the actors in the film comes from face expressions and movements, which they are all fantastic with, Clara Bow shows the pain of being in love with somebody who doesn’t want you, while Charles Rogers and Richard Arlen show the rivalry men can have when it comes to women.
Story – The story here follows two men from different backgrounds, one rich one working class, that are both fighting for the same woman, who join the air force to impress, where they become friends and learn the horrors of war. This is a story that is one that shows that love can be something people will always do crazy things for, it shows how the war bought enemies together and for a movie made in 1927, showed us a strong female character willing to go into war, unlike many films for years to come. Being a silent movie, we do get the expression and action doing a lot of the storytelling around the dialogue which is interesting because it keeps away a lot of unnecessary dialogue certain war films turn too.
Romance/War – The romance in this film shows how people will do strange things for love, you might not always see it right under your nose either, with the war being the main location that our characters all go to impress, the dog fight scenes are brilliant to watch, with the use of music making a big impact on the quality too.
Settings – The film uses the settings you would expect to see the war fought at, while we see the ground shots, it is when we are in the sky watching the dog fights that we get to feel the peril the characters are going through.
Scene of the Movie – Any of the dog fights.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does play into stereotypes of other nationalities.
Final Thoughts – This is a genius war movie that rightly deserved to win the first Oscar, it brings us a story that shows how much people would have risked for war and just how far they would go for love.
Overall: Brilliant.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Saltburn (2023) in Movies
Dec 29, 2023
Interesting...Intriguing...and Dark
Actress/Writer/Director Emerald Fennell is turning into an artistic voice that bears noticing and with SALTBURN - her follow-up to PROMISING YOUNG WOMAN (the film that won her the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay) - Fennell’s artistic voice is in full bloom.
Starring Barry Keoghan (Oscar nominated for THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN), SALTBURN tells the story of an Oxford student who befriends the rich, cool kid (Jacob Elordi, EUPHORIA) who invites him back to his family compound, SALTBURN, for the summer with his eccentric (to say the least) family.
As written and directed by Fennell, SALTBURN is a satire on the elite rich, showing them in their extravagant, quirky isolation in their compound, looking down on the common folk from their piles of money (or…in some cases…oblivious of the common folk because of their money) while peeling back the layers to show the unhappiness and manipulation underneath.
Fennell layers this story richly, slowly folding back facades and layers to show the ugliness of inherently unhappy people who cover their unhappiness up with wealth, money and parties.
Into this world comes Oliver Quick (Keoghan) who is the audiences’ conduit into this level of living - and who has secrets of his own.
Keoghan is interesting to watch (as always) and the family…Elordi, Sadie Soverall (his sister) and Archie Madekwe (another outsider who is jealous of Oliver’s appearance) all are good looking, good enough performers who live the hedonistic lifestyle and deny the consequences and responsibilities thereof.
When a film needs an “ice queen” as the matriarch of a family, Rosamund Pike is, inevitably, brought in and she brings the goods to Saltburn. She is perfectly cast as the mother of the family who says what she thinks, does not show what she is feeling and doesn’t give a darn about anyone else. She is suitably balanced by the off-balanced, quirky performance of the always good Richard E. Grant as the patriarch of the family who is (usually) lost in his own little world of whatever fantasy he is currently involved in.
But if this was just a film about a quirky family, it would be a fun, interesting romp. But…in Fennell’s hands, it becomes something much more sinister - and much more interesting - to watch.
Saltburn is a film that one must sit with after watching to digest what was just witnessed, but…ultimately…is one that is very interesting….and intriguing…and dark.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Starring Barry Keoghan (Oscar nominated for THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN), SALTBURN tells the story of an Oxford student who befriends the rich, cool kid (Jacob Elordi, EUPHORIA) who invites him back to his family compound, SALTBURN, for the summer with his eccentric (to say the least) family.
As written and directed by Fennell, SALTBURN is a satire on the elite rich, showing them in their extravagant, quirky isolation in their compound, looking down on the common folk from their piles of money (or…in some cases…oblivious of the common folk because of their money) while peeling back the layers to show the unhappiness and manipulation underneath.
Fennell layers this story richly, slowly folding back facades and layers to show the ugliness of inherently unhappy people who cover their unhappiness up with wealth, money and parties.
Into this world comes Oliver Quick (Keoghan) who is the audiences’ conduit into this level of living - and who has secrets of his own.
Keoghan is interesting to watch (as always) and the family…Elordi, Sadie Soverall (his sister) and Archie Madekwe (another outsider who is jealous of Oliver’s appearance) all are good looking, good enough performers who live the hedonistic lifestyle and deny the consequences and responsibilities thereof.
When a film needs an “ice queen” as the matriarch of a family, Rosamund Pike is, inevitably, brought in and she brings the goods to Saltburn. She is perfectly cast as the mother of the family who says what she thinks, does not show what she is feeling and doesn’t give a darn about anyone else. She is suitably balanced by the off-balanced, quirky performance of the always good Richard E. Grant as the patriarch of the family who is (usually) lost in his own little world of whatever fantasy he is currently involved in.
But if this was just a film about a quirky family, it would be a fun, interesting romp. But…in Fennell’s hands, it becomes something much more sinister - and much more interesting - to watch.
Saltburn is a film that one must sit with after watching to digest what was just witnessed, but…ultimately…is one that is very interesting….and intriguing…and dark.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Nov 21, 2018
For the "true" Potter fan
It is a misnomer to call FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD a "Harry Potter" movie. True, it is a film that takes place in the "Harry Potter-verse", but it should, more accurately, be called an "Albus Dumbledore" movie.
"Crimes of Grindelwald" (or COG as I will call it from now on) has a tone more in keeping with the later films in the Harry Potter original grouping of films. Gone is the "fun" and "whimsey" of building a world based on magic. In is a dark, grainy and grey film that focuses on relationship building that will pay off down the road. Keep in mind that this is the 2nd film of a proposed 5 film series, so there's quite a bit of "set-up" and very little payoff here.
Because of all of this, the younger members of the audience in the theater I saw COGS in were antsey in their seats (as were the "casual" Harry Potter viewers who were just there to see "Magic Battles").
But...and this is a BIG but...those of us (including me) who are "into" the world that J.K. Rowling has built were rewarded with a rich, complex tapestry of backstory and legend building, bringing in characters that were merely mentioned in the original books (and films) and filling out parts of this universe to make it much, much richer, indeed.
And that's the problem with this film - and the problem that this film is going to have in finding an audience. I have heard criticisms such as "it's too dense", "it moves too slow" and there are "too many characters". And that is justified, if you're a casual fan. If you're "into it", then those criticisms don't hold water.
I've also heard that Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, the "hero" of the Fantastic Beasts franchise is too bland to hold the center of these films. I couldn't disagree more. I found that Redmayne's characterization of the magizooligist to be interesting and quirky. True, his characterization is subtle, maybe too subtle for some, but it was intriguing and interesting for me.
Returning from the first film are Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as comrades of Scamandars. They were "serviceable" in the first film and they are "serviceable" in the 2nd film.
It is the newcomers to this series that were of most interest to me starting with Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore. I liked his interpretation of this character - he has the same "mysterious" atmosphere about him that Richard Harris (and later) Michael Gambon brought to the character. Johnny Depp is also well cast as the titular bad guy, Grindelwald. Finally, Zoe Kravitz gives a strong performance as a conflicted wizard constantly battling her compulsion to be "good" and "bad".
David Yates returns to helm his 6th "Potter" film and he shows that he knows what he's doing. The world is rich (if grainy) and the action moves along as fast as the script allows. He does have a tendency to become enamored with the CGI aspects of the world he is building, but that is part of the charm of these films.
Remember, this is the 2nd of 5 films, so don't expect loose ends to be tied up. Expect cliff-hangers.
Letter Grade A- (B- if you are a casual fan)
8 (out of 10) stars (6 stars if you are a casual fan) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
"Crimes of Grindelwald" (or COG as I will call it from now on) has a tone more in keeping with the later films in the Harry Potter original grouping of films. Gone is the "fun" and "whimsey" of building a world based on magic. In is a dark, grainy and grey film that focuses on relationship building that will pay off down the road. Keep in mind that this is the 2nd film of a proposed 5 film series, so there's quite a bit of "set-up" and very little payoff here.
Because of all of this, the younger members of the audience in the theater I saw COGS in were antsey in their seats (as were the "casual" Harry Potter viewers who were just there to see "Magic Battles").
But...and this is a BIG but...those of us (including me) who are "into" the world that J.K. Rowling has built were rewarded with a rich, complex tapestry of backstory and legend building, bringing in characters that were merely mentioned in the original books (and films) and filling out parts of this universe to make it much, much richer, indeed.
And that's the problem with this film - and the problem that this film is going to have in finding an audience. I have heard criticisms such as "it's too dense", "it moves too slow" and there are "too many characters". And that is justified, if you're a casual fan. If you're "into it", then those criticisms don't hold water.
I've also heard that Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, the "hero" of the Fantastic Beasts franchise is too bland to hold the center of these films. I couldn't disagree more. I found that Redmayne's characterization of the magizooligist to be interesting and quirky. True, his characterization is subtle, maybe too subtle for some, but it was intriguing and interesting for me.
Returning from the first film are Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as comrades of Scamandars. They were "serviceable" in the first film and they are "serviceable" in the 2nd film.
It is the newcomers to this series that were of most interest to me starting with Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore. I liked his interpretation of this character - he has the same "mysterious" atmosphere about him that Richard Harris (and later) Michael Gambon brought to the character. Johnny Depp is also well cast as the titular bad guy, Grindelwald. Finally, Zoe Kravitz gives a strong performance as a conflicted wizard constantly battling her compulsion to be "good" and "bad".
David Yates returns to helm his 6th "Potter" film and he shows that he knows what he's doing. The world is rich (if grainy) and the action moves along as fast as the script allows. He does have a tendency to become enamored with the CGI aspects of the world he is building, but that is part of the charm of these films.
Remember, this is the 2nd of 5 films, so don't expect loose ends to be tied up. Expect cliff-hangers.
Letter Grade A- (B- if you are a casual fan)
8 (out of 10) stars (6 stars if you are a casual fan) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Robin Hood: Hero of the People in Tabletop Games
Jun 13, 2019
“Yer a hero, Travis!” … said no Hagrid to me ever in my life. However, I do enjoy playing heroes in my board games. As Robin Hood you live by few rules: rob from the rich, give to the poor, and save your fellow Merry Men. That dastardly Sheriff of Nottingham is out to foil and jail you and your crew. Can you use your skills to rob enough from the rich, recruit your fellows, and keep your bounty on your head low enough to win the game? Such is your plight in this one-player game from first-time designer, Rodney Owen.
Disclaimer: This review is for a Kickstarter preview. We are not being paid for this preview, but we were sent the game from the designer. Components and rules may be changed before the product and project is finished. -T
As this game is not yet in full production, I will paraphrase the rulebook here for you so you can get an idea of how the game plays. Then I will give my opinions on this little card game.
Robin Hood: Hero of the People is a one-player card game that is played over three phases. To win the game you must have all Merry Men and Maid Marian recruited and active, while the bounty on your head is less than 500. You lose by seeing the bounty at or above 1,000 or by playing through the entire deck of Story Cards without winning. You may set the difficulty level by choosing how much you would like the bounty to start at before you begin play (100, 200, or 300). The rulebook instructs you how to setup the game using several piles of cards to create the play area. Deal yourself three Loot (skill) cards and the game is on!
The first phase of the game is Robbing from the Rich. During this phase you draw three (or more depending on other cards currently in play) Loot cards from the big deck. These cards consist of different skills to use later – like Archery, Strength, Swords, etc. You will also find Gold and Influence cards. These Loot cards are needed to recruit Maid Marian and all the Merry Men, as well as used for negating powerful negative Story Card effects in the third phase of the game. Once you have drawn your Loot cards, you may play up to three of them into your Inventory in front of you (unless a card instructs you otherwise). Only your cards in the Inventory will be used to recruit and rescue Merry Men, or be affected by Story Cards.
You have placed your skills and bargaining cards in the Inventory. It is now time to use them to recruit your Merry Men! The second phase is the Actions phase. You have several options of actions to take on your turn, but you may only take one action. One option is to recruit Merry Men characters. Each character card begins the game face-down in a grid. The card backs show the recruitment costs (paid in skills) for each. They all have different skill cost combinations on each back so you must choose your Inventory cards carefully in the first phase. During the game some characters may become jailed through the Story Cards. Also on the backs of the character cards are the costs to rescue your friends from jail, and the costs are different than the recruitment costs. This throws a wrench into your plans as you are trying to recruit and protect all your Merry Men, just to have them thrown in jail and made unavailable to you. Curse you, Sheriff of Nottingham!
Also during this phase, in addition to recruiting and rescuing your allies, you may purchase King Richard cards, Sherwood Forest cards, or decrease your bounty. King Richard cards are very very costly (requiring up to nine skills to purchase!) but also very powerful and very helpful to your cause. There are three of these in the game and when you have used one you must discard it out of the game. Do you have an abundance of skills and Loot cards to use? Would you like to protect your Merry Men from becoming jailed? Well during this phase you may also purchase Sherwood Forest cards to begin building a hideout. It costs two Strength skills, but once you have acquired all six Sherwood Forest cards, most of the Merry Men are protected from being jailed. Huzzah! The final option you have in this phase is spending any three Loot cards from your Inventory to reduce your bounty by 100.
The third and final phase is the Story Card phase. During setup you are instructed to separate this deck into two piles, shuffle them independently, and place the Story Cards in set one on top of the story cards in set two. Set one cards are annoyances that can bleed you of skill cards or raise the bounty on your head. Annoying! The cards in set two are far worse, as they will jail your unprotected Merry Men and set you back further from victory… also whilst raising your bounty. Super annoying!! Curse you again, Sheriff!!
If no win or lose conditions have been met at this time, you will return to the first phase with this additional rule: switch your active character (you start the game with Robin Hood) with another character you have recruited in the grid. Each character has a different special ability to be used on your next turn as well as a different set of skills printed on the face that you may use as discounts for recruitment, rescues, and purchasing of King Richard and Sherwood Forest cards. Example: Much the Miller shows 1x Sword and 1x Strength. You can use his skills as a discount to purchase a Sherwood Forest card by spending just one Strength card from your Inventory. Time to stick it to the Sheriff!
So how does it all shake down? Overall I say the game is really good. It is unfinished, and has not yet made it to Kickstarter, and I suspect that has something to do with any drawbacks I have experienced. Upon reading the provided rulebook and attempting Game 1, I had several rules questions. Rodney was quick to provide answers and it made the game so much more playable and enjoyable. Since it is a solo game only, every decision you make directly impacts how the game is played (duh, right?). There’s nobody else to mess with your plans, nor help them succeed. There’s no AI or ghost player. Just you versus the game. I have played this many times now on different difficulty levels and have won and lost on each. It would seem balanced, however…
There are a few strategies I attempted to use on my different plays to see how they might add to the complexity and change the results. I noticed that I won more when I completely ignored Sherwood Forest and King Richard’s cards. Yes, one of the King Richard cards reduces the bounty by quite a bit, and that’s just in one turn, but the cost is so mighty that I rarely found them enticing enough to pull the trigger. Same goes for Sherwood Forest. Though the cards cost a paltry two Strength, I found that I needed those Strength cards to recruit or rescue my Men and could not justify spending two per card (and six total cards to build the hideout) for that protection. Your play style may vary, and I am itching to play again to try new things out. Maybe I’m wrong about Sherwood Forest. I think that’s a really great trait for a game – to have its players thinking about different strategies while not playing, and just waiting for when they can play again.
I have to say, I am very excited to see this go to Kickstarter, and to learn what Rodney has in mind for improvements to the components, or rule tweaks, and the almighty stretch goals. I might be backing this one, even though I have a great working version of it now…
Disclaimer: This review is for a Kickstarter preview. We are not being paid for this preview, but we were sent the game from the designer. Components and rules may be changed before the product and project is finished. -T
As this game is not yet in full production, I will paraphrase the rulebook here for you so you can get an idea of how the game plays. Then I will give my opinions on this little card game.
Robin Hood: Hero of the People is a one-player card game that is played over three phases. To win the game you must have all Merry Men and Maid Marian recruited and active, while the bounty on your head is less than 500. You lose by seeing the bounty at or above 1,000 or by playing through the entire deck of Story Cards without winning. You may set the difficulty level by choosing how much you would like the bounty to start at before you begin play (100, 200, or 300). The rulebook instructs you how to setup the game using several piles of cards to create the play area. Deal yourself three Loot (skill) cards and the game is on!
The first phase of the game is Robbing from the Rich. During this phase you draw three (or more depending on other cards currently in play) Loot cards from the big deck. These cards consist of different skills to use later – like Archery, Strength, Swords, etc. You will also find Gold and Influence cards. These Loot cards are needed to recruit Maid Marian and all the Merry Men, as well as used for negating powerful negative Story Card effects in the third phase of the game. Once you have drawn your Loot cards, you may play up to three of them into your Inventory in front of you (unless a card instructs you otherwise). Only your cards in the Inventory will be used to recruit and rescue Merry Men, or be affected by Story Cards.
You have placed your skills and bargaining cards in the Inventory. It is now time to use them to recruit your Merry Men! The second phase is the Actions phase. You have several options of actions to take on your turn, but you may only take one action. One option is to recruit Merry Men characters. Each character card begins the game face-down in a grid. The card backs show the recruitment costs (paid in skills) for each. They all have different skill cost combinations on each back so you must choose your Inventory cards carefully in the first phase. During the game some characters may become jailed through the Story Cards. Also on the backs of the character cards are the costs to rescue your friends from jail, and the costs are different than the recruitment costs. This throws a wrench into your plans as you are trying to recruit and protect all your Merry Men, just to have them thrown in jail and made unavailable to you. Curse you, Sheriff of Nottingham!
Also during this phase, in addition to recruiting and rescuing your allies, you may purchase King Richard cards, Sherwood Forest cards, or decrease your bounty. King Richard cards are very very costly (requiring up to nine skills to purchase!) but also very powerful and very helpful to your cause. There are three of these in the game and when you have used one you must discard it out of the game. Do you have an abundance of skills and Loot cards to use? Would you like to protect your Merry Men from becoming jailed? Well during this phase you may also purchase Sherwood Forest cards to begin building a hideout. It costs two Strength skills, but once you have acquired all six Sherwood Forest cards, most of the Merry Men are protected from being jailed. Huzzah! The final option you have in this phase is spending any three Loot cards from your Inventory to reduce your bounty by 100.
The third and final phase is the Story Card phase. During setup you are instructed to separate this deck into two piles, shuffle them independently, and place the Story Cards in set one on top of the story cards in set two. Set one cards are annoyances that can bleed you of skill cards or raise the bounty on your head. Annoying! The cards in set two are far worse, as they will jail your unprotected Merry Men and set you back further from victory… also whilst raising your bounty. Super annoying!! Curse you again, Sheriff!!
If no win or lose conditions have been met at this time, you will return to the first phase with this additional rule: switch your active character (you start the game with Robin Hood) with another character you have recruited in the grid. Each character has a different special ability to be used on your next turn as well as a different set of skills printed on the face that you may use as discounts for recruitment, rescues, and purchasing of King Richard and Sherwood Forest cards. Example: Much the Miller shows 1x Sword and 1x Strength. You can use his skills as a discount to purchase a Sherwood Forest card by spending just one Strength card from your Inventory. Time to stick it to the Sheriff!
So how does it all shake down? Overall I say the game is really good. It is unfinished, and has not yet made it to Kickstarter, and I suspect that has something to do with any drawbacks I have experienced. Upon reading the provided rulebook and attempting Game 1, I had several rules questions. Rodney was quick to provide answers and it made the game so much more playable and enjoyable. Since it is a solo game only, every decision you make directly impacts how the game is played (duh, right?). There’s nobody else to mess with your plans, nor help them succeed. There’s no AI or ghost player. Just you versus the game. I have played this many times now on different difficulty levels and have won and lost on each. It would seem balanced, however…
There are a few strategies I attempted to use on my different plays to see how they might add to the complexity and change the results. I noticed that I won more when I completely ignored Sherwood Forest and King Richard’s cards. Yes, one of the King Richard cards reduces the bounty by quite a bit, and that’s just in one turn, but the cost is so mighty that I rarely found them enticing enough to pull the trigger. Same goes for Sherwood Forest. Though the cards cost a paltry two Strength, I found that I needed those Strength cards to recruit or rescue my Men and could not justify spending two per card (and six total cards to build the hideout) for that protection. Your play style may vary, and I am itching to play again to try new things out. Maybe I’m wrong about Sherwood Forest. I think that’s a really great trait for a game – to have its players thinking about different strategies while not playing, and just waiting for when they can play again.
I have to say, I am very excited to see this go to Kickstarter, and to learn what Rodney has in mind for improvements to the components, or rule tweaks, and the almighty stretch goals. I might be backing this one, even though I have a great working version of it now…
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Inside Out (2015) in Movies
Apr 1, 2020
The Most Emotionally Resonant Pixar Film
When listing the PIXAR films that have the most emotional resonance, the films I hear mentioned most often are TOY STORY 3, WALL-E and the first 20 minutes of UP. While all of those are most definitely emotionally resonant, I would argue that INSIDE OUT is the most emotionally resonant of all the Pixar films.
And not just because the main characters in the film are emotions.
Telling the tale of 11 year old Riley, who's life is upended when her family moves from Minnesota to San Fransico, INSIDE OUT follows this journey through the eyes of Riley's 5 chief emotions - Joy, Sadness, Anger, Disgust and Fear.
As is customary in Pixar films, the voice cast in this film is outstanding. Amy Poehler (well known as the ever-optimistic Leslie Knope in the marvelous TV Series PARKS & RECREATION) is perfectly cast as Joy. Her never ending well of optimism is perfectly placed - and never gets tiresome. As does the voice work of Lewis Black (Anger), Bill Hader (Fear) and Mindy Kahling (Disgust). They are all marvelous. But the revelation of this film for me is the voicework of Phyllis Smith (THE OFFICE) as Sadness. She brings just the right amount of weight and...well...sadness...to her character without bogging down (and bringing down) the proceedings. These 5 work together well (especially Poehler and Smith).
Special notice needs to be made of the voice work of the unique talent that is Richard Kind as the character BingBong. I will not ruin any of the surprise of this character, but I will say I could not think of any other voice for this character - he is that perfect for it.
Credit, of course, for all of this needs to be given to Director Pete Docter (currently the Chief Creative Officer at Pixar). He has shown he has the ability to really tug at the heartstrings with his previous Pixar effort, UP, and he expands on this promise in this film bringing an emotionally rich film that has many, many moments of humor spliced within. He'll be at the helm of the upcoming SOUL and I can't wait to see it.
I'm glad I revisited INSIDE OUT, it is a stronger, better film than I remembered. You'll like it - and your kids will, too!
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And not just because the main characters in the film are emotions.
Telling the tale of 11 year old Riley, who's life is upended when her family moves from Minnesota to San Fransico, INSIDE OUT follows this journey through the eyes of Riley's 5 chief emotions - Joy, Sadness, Anger, Disgust and Fear.
As is customary in Pixar films, the voice cast in this film is outstanding. Amy Poehler (well known as the ever-optimistic Leslie Knope in the marvelous TV Series PARKS & RECREATION) is perfectly cast as Joy. Her never ending well of optimism is perfectly placed - and never gets tiresome. As does the voice work of Lewis Black (Anger), Bill Hader (Fear) and Mindy Kahling (Disgust). They are all marvelous. But the revelation of this film for me is the voicework of Phyllis Smith (THE OFFICE) as Sadness. She brings just the right amount of weight and...well...sadness...to her character without bogging down (and bringing down) the proceedings. These 5 work together well (especially Poehler and Smith).
Special notice needs to be made of the voice work of the unique talent that is Richard Kind as the character BingBong. I will not ruin any of the surprise of this character, but I will say I could not think of any other voice for this character - he is that perfect for it.
Credit, of course, for all of this needs to be given to Director Pete Docter (currently the Chief Creative Officer at Pixar). He has shown he has the ability to really tug at the heartstrings with his previous Pixar effort, UP, and he expands on this promise in this film bringing an emotionally rich film that has many, many moments of humor spliced within. He'll be at the helm of the upcoming SOUL and I can't wait to see it.
I'm glad I revisited INSIDE OUT, it is a stronger, better film than I remembered. You'll like it - and your kids will, too!
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
JT (287 KP) rated The Lincoln Lawyer (2011) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
When Edward Norton [SPOILER ALERT] raised a smirk at the end of Primal Fear to reveal himself as a sick and twisted killer it capped a sublime performance from an actor that would go on to do bigger and better things.
Primal Fear was a courtroom thriller that held you all the way to the bitter end, and as that solemn expression washed over poor Richard Gere‘s face at the end you could only stand up and applaud.
The Lincoln Lawyer travels down a similar premise, but despite all the twists and turns in a plot based on the novel by Michael Connelly it fails to keep the tension high enough to satisfy us to a pay off that is only blip on the thriller spectrum, I personally wanted something bigger.
Maybe you’re seduced by his Texan drawl or his searing good looks, either way its a solid performance from someone whose comfortable in this type of atmosphere
McConaughey plays Mick Haller a defence attourney working out the back of his sleak looking black Lincoln, and whose job it is to pretty much keep the scum of the earth on the streets, something which has obviously damaged his marraige with Maggie McPherson (Tomei). His reputation though is flipped over mid way through and we suddenly get an insight into a man that is as much a doting father as he is a great defence attorney.
Well alright, alright, alright!
When he’s asked to defend rich boy Louis Roulet (Phillippe) for beating a prostitute to within an inch of her life he suddenly gets a conscience when he realizes that the clean cut image might be a façade to something much more sinister. The film itself is not bad at all, and in parts it’s actually very good with McConaughey calling on his supporting cast for help which includes John Leguizamo and William H. Macy.
McConaughey’s court presence is smooth and charismatic, which would probably make him quite a good litigator in the real world. Maybe you’re seduced by his Texan drawl or his searing good looks, either way its a solid performance from someone who’s comfortable in this type of atmosphere.
Phillippe is certainly no Norton, and you know right off the bat that he’s as guilty as hell but its a good turn from him nonetheless. As thrillers go its up there and is thoroughly enjoyable, most notably for McConaughey’s performance which is a role that has been a long time coming for him, and one that he nails right to the court room wall.
Primal Fear was a courtroom thriller that held you all the way to the bitter end, and as that solemn expression washed over poor Richard Gere‘s face at the end you could only stand up and applaud.
The Lincoln Lawyer travels down a similar premise, but despite all the twists and turns in a plot based on the novel by Michael Connelly it fails to keep the tension high enough to satisfy us to a pay off that is only blip on the thriller spectrum, I personally wanted something bigger.
Maybe you’re seduced by his Texan drawl or his searing good looks, either way its a solid performance from someone whose comfortable in this type of atmosphere
McConaughey plays Mick Haller a defence attourney working out the back of his sleak looking black Lincoln, and whose job it is to pretty much keep the scum of the earth on the streets, something which has obviously damaged his marraige with Maggie McPherson (Tomei). His reputation though is flipped over mid way through and we suddenly get an insight into a man that is as much a doting father as he is a great defence attorney.
Well alright, alright, alright!
When he’s asked to defend rich boy Louis Roulet (Phillippe) for beating a prostitute to within an inch of her life he suddenly gets a conscience when he realizes that the clean cut image might be a façade to something much more sinister. The film itself is not bad at all, and in parts it’s actually very good with McConaughey calling on his supporting cast for help which includes John Leguizamo and William H. Macy.
McConaughey’s court presence is smooth and charismatic, which would probably make him quite a good litigator in the real world. Maybe you’re seduced by his Texan drawl or his searing good looks, either way its a solid performance from someone who’s comfortable in this type of atmosphere.
Phillippe is certainly no Norton, and you know right off the bat that he’s as guilty as hell but its a good turn from him nonetheless. As thrillers go its up there and is thoroughly enjoyable, most notably for McConaughey’s performance which is a role that has been a long time coming for him, and one that he nails right to the court room wall.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Shape of Water (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A mystical tale of fish and fingers.
With perfect timing after scooping 13 Oscar nominations, “The Shape of Water” arrives for preview screenings in the UK. Is it worth all the hype?
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!