Search
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Lost At Christmas (2020) in Movies
Nov 23, 2020
'Tis the season for Christmas cliche and Lost At Christmas certainly fits the bill... but stay tuned for a "pleasant" surprise?
When life changes very suddenly for two strangers they need to make their way back to their normal lives, but it's Christmas, and the simple journey home becomes something of an epic adventure across the Scottish Highlands.
I have realised that many years ago I found myself in a very similar situation to the one in this film, though thankfully I wasn't the one travelling anywhere. I have never really considered how difficult it might be to do this sort of journey... I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't do what this duo do... but you never know! So quite how believable this scenario is I can't say, but it does allow for the expected drama.
There's a great Doctor Who contingent in the cast and I loved Sylvester McCoy and Frazer Hines as Ernie and Frank. They're a fantastic little double act and McCoy definitely helped areas of the film that struggled. Jen, played by Natalie Clark, was quite a likeable character and I enjoyed the performance, but it was difficult to get anything more out of it once she was paired with our leading man. Rob, played by Kenny Boyle, was the chalk to Jen's cheese, he's gruff and mean but doesn't really have the redeemable qualities these characters have in reserve that make you root for them at the end of the film, coupled with the bland performance I found myself hoping that another stray singleton was going to appear and sweep Jen off her feet.
In my notes I tried to do some maths... maths in a film review?! I know! It baffled me too. There felt like discrepancies in Rob's timeline with his girlfriend when you compare their initial interaction and his reveal to Jen later on. It may just be me overthinking it, but when it came up my reaction was confusion, these things are easily foiled by vagueness but... *shrug*.
There's some beautiful scenery involved throughout the film but when you mix it with the obligatory Christmas film shenanigans you're not getting to enjoy a lot of it. Even its use in the opening titles wasn't great. The main backdrop of the pub is fun, though there are some issues with the use of space. Some shots make it seem expansive and some claustrophobic, and there's one shot in particular that made me audibly groan. Nearly everyone is in it, adults talking, teens (about four foot away from the rest of the cast) kissing... no... no kissing teens are putting themselves in that position, especially not these two. There would have been plenty of opportunity to have them in the back of this shot had the camera had a different angle.
The thing I think we should acknowledge about this film though is that it has some balls. Whenever I discuss romcoms and Christmas movies there are always a handful of scenarios that make me say "wouldn't it be great if these films did [insert realistic scenario here]?" Lost At Christmas went for it! Yeah... so it turns out... I want the cliche! Real-life sucks and actually, I'd rather bitch about things being unrealistic than see something that is much more likely to happen. Well done for doing it, but to quote my notes... "F*** THIS FILM!"
Lost At Christmas has so much potential in it. Let's take a look at my scale... You have bad Christmas films, very few fall into this category because they usually drop down so far that they get pushed back up the scale to "so bad they're good". Right next to "so bad they're good" is a general level for Hallmark-esque schmaltz (NOTE: this isn't to say that Hallmark movies won't break out into other areas, this is just a general descriptor for films that are pretty consistent in their watchability and themes... AKA: quality Sunday holiday fodder.) Then of course we have the Christmas classic level, that holds things like Home Alone, Klaus, Love Actually and Die Hard. Lost At Christmas is somewhere in the snowdrift between bad and schmaltz. With a bit more glitz and a few changes I could easily see this film being a hop, skip and a jump over the other side of Hallmark schmaltz as something you don't just watch because it started on the TV and you can't change the channel because you're holding down wrapping paper with one hand and have a spiral of sellotape in the other.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/lost-at-christmas-movie-review.html
When life changes very suddenly for two strangers they need to make their way back to their normal lives, but it's Christmas, and the simple journey home becomes something of an epic adventure across the Scottish Highlands.
I have realised that many years ago I found myself in a very similar situation to the one in this film, though thankfully I wasn't the one travelling anywhere. I have never really considered how difficult it might be to do this sort of journey... I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't do what this duo do... but you never know! So quite how believable this scenario is I can't say, but it does allow for the expected drama.
There's a great Doctor Who contingent in the cast and I loved Sylvester McCoy and Frazer Hines as Ernie and Frank. They're a fantastic little double act and McCoy definitely helped areas of the film that struggled. Jen, played by Natalie Clark, was quite a likeable character and I enjoyed the performance, but it was difficult to get anything more out of it once she was paired with our leading man. Rob, played by Kenny Boyle, was the chalk to Jen's cheese, he's gruff and mean but doesn't really have the redeemable qualities these characters have in reserve that make you root for them at the end of the film, coupled with the bland performance I found myself hoping that another stray singleton was going to appear and sweep Jen off her feet.
In my notes I tried to do some maths... maths in a film review?! I know! It baffled me too. There felt like discrepancies in Rob's timeline with his girlfriend when you compare their initial interaction and his reveal to Jen later on. It may just be me overthinking it, but when it came up my reaction was confusion, these things are easily foiled by vagueness but... *shrug*.
There's some beautiful scenery involved throughout the film but when you mix it with the obligatory Christmas film shenanigans you're not getting to enjoy a lot of it. Even its use in the opening titles wasn't great. The main backdrop of the pub is fun, though there are some issues with the use of space. Some shots make it seem expansive and some claustrophobic, and there's one shot in particular that made me audibly groan. Nearly everyone is in it, adults talking, teens (about four foot away from the rest of the cast) kissing... no... no kissing teens are putting themselves in that position, especially not these two. There would have been plenty of opportunity to have them in the back of this shot had the camera had a different angle.
The thing I think we should acknowledge about this film though is that it has some balls. Whenever I discuss romcoms and Christmas movies there are always a handful of scenarios that make me say "wouldn't it be great if these films did [insert realistic scenario here]?" Lost At Christmas went for it! Yeah... so it turns out... I want the cliche! Real-life sucks and actually, I'd rather bitch about things being unrealistic than see something that is much more likely to happen. Well done for doing it, but to quote my notes... "F*** THIS FILM!"
Lost At Christmas has so much potential in it. Let's take a look at my scale... You have bad Christmas films, very few fall into this category because they usually drop down so far that they get pushed back up the scale to "so bad they're good". Right next to "so bad they're good" is a general level for Hallmark-esque schmaltz (NOTE: this isn't to say that Hallmark movies won't break out into other areas, this is just a general descriptor for films that are pretty consistent in their watchability and themes... AKA: quality Sunday holiday fodder.) Then of course we have the Christmas classic level, that holds things like Home Alone, Klaus, Love Actually and Die Hard. Lost At Christmas is somewhere in the snowdrift between bad and schmaltz. With a bit more glitz and a few changes I could easily see this film being a hop, skip and a jump over the other side of Hallmark schmaltz as something you don't just watch because it started on the TV and you can't change the channel because you're holding down wrapping paper with one hand and have a spiral of sellotape in the other.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/lost-at-christmas-movie-review.html
Fred (860 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Red Dead Redemption 2 in Video Games
Dec 4, 2018
Beautiful humongous world (5 more)
Tons to do. Hours & hours of stuff.
Great acting and characters
Lots of Easter eggs
Wonderful music
Great story
That feckin robin (2 more)
Big world means lots of riding
New Austin is kind of dead
Rockstar let my mama's baby grow up to be a cowboy
Yes, I'm a little late to this party, but I wanted to play until I completed the game & today, I finally did. I've also played a few hours of the online beta, but I'll get to that later.
Let's start with what this game is about. It's an open world game, set in the old west. It's set before the events of Red Dead Redemption. In that game, you played as John Marston. In that game, John was a man trying to change his life. He was a criminal, a thief, a murderer, but he's gone straight In this game, you play as Arthur Morgan. A criminal in the same gang with John. He is a bad guy, no doubt. But throughout the game, he has many opportunities to do good. Of course, you can play him that way, or you can play him as a heartless bastard. This will effect some of the story, the dialogue & the ending of the game. I played the game as if Arthur was a good guy inside & the ending I got was very satisfying, very emotional.
For most of the story, you're on the run with your gang, setting up different camps throughout the map, evading rival gangs & the law. This is a great way to get to know the world, however, you're free to explore most of the map freely. It is enormous & gorgeous. Some of the best scenery I've seen in a game. Sometimes you will really feel you're living in a real world. And that's the greatest thing about this game. The immersion. You really feel like you're living the life of your character. And Rockstar did that by making you take care of your character. You shave, bathe, eat & take care of your horse. Yes, you name your horse, feed it, brush it, pet it. You get very attached to it, as it is your main way of getting around. If your horse dies, it's gone. And believe me, it hurts to lose your horse.
Rockstar fills the game with so many missions, side activities, random encounters & hidden Easter eggs that it will take you weeks to do them all. I've been playing since day one, an average of 6 to 7 hours a day, & today, 5 & a half weeks later, I finally got 100% in the game. To be honest, when I first started, I spent lots of time just riding around, finding activities & hidden goodies & enjoying the scenery. Like most of their games, there's a supernatural element to some things as well as supernatural encounters. Steampunk, monsters, etc... a little bit of everything. Some encounters are funny, some terrifying, all of them cool.
I think what makes this game different & better than it's predecessor is the characters themselves. I'm not talking about the main characters alone, I'm talking about the people who litter the world. In RDR, some of the characters were silly, off-the-wall & unnatural. They were cartoonish. In RDR2, the people are real. Some may be weird and a bit crazy, but they never feel fake. They never feel like a character. Because of this, the world lives. They breathe life into it with every interaction. From the
Civil War veterans to the blind beggar, to the racist jackass standing on the corner in Saint Denis handing out pro-white pamphlets. They really make you feel like you're there. Again, immersion.
Some of the things you can do besides the missions are rob people, trains, coaches, banks. Another thing is hunting. Hunting can be a great way to make money. During the game, there are many challenges that you can undertake as well. There's are 9 categories with 10 challenges to each that can be done at your leisure. I left a lot of these to do last. I honestly didn't think I'd be able to do some of them. They just seemed ridiculous. But funny enough, I did about 50 of the last challenges within 2 days. And when I finished, I expected my 100% trophy to pop up. But it didn't. I was at 99%. What the? Looking at my completion list, there was something under the collections section that said unknown collection. Searching the internet, I found that most sites didn't have it listed. But I finally found a site that did. The last collection was the hunting challenge. And this brings us to that feckin robin.
Okay, let me explain. The hunting challenge you are given is to kill 5 different lists of animals. Each animal must be a perfect carcass. Which means, they have to be of perfect quality before you kill them & you must not damage them while killing them. Well, all of these animals are small animals. And most of them are small birds. It was fairly easy to get most of these animals. But there was one that was a huge pain in the ass. Can you guess what it was? Yes, a robin. A small, fast bird that is so rare, there are pages & videos galore on finding one. Most of which as total bollocks. How do I know? I spent over 7 hours trying to find one. Going to all these spots, seeing 3 of them total, shooting one & ruining it's carcass, & missing the other 2 based on their disappearance through the trees. I was really going to give up. So close, but so far. Luckily, using some people's hints & coming up with my own, I finally figured out how to get him. And it then took me 15 minutes. Yes, 15 minutes with 7 hours of wasted time. I am putting this as a negative, because it was really ridiculous to try to hunt this thing. So aggrivating. I understand if they want to make something rare, but it's just not nice. I felt like Rockstar was pulling a joke on it's players.
But anyway, this still doesn't bring down my score of the game. It's one of the greatest games I've ever played. But Rockstar has many perfect 10 games under it's belt in my opinion, including RDR. Is this game better. Yes, I think so. But it's oh so close.
A quick word on RDR online. It's only in beta, so I can't give a true review yet. However, I'm finding it so much fun doing missions with other people. Of course, there are jackasses going around shooting people for no reason. It gives no benefit to do so. Not all of the features are in there yet, but I will be playing when it goes to full online & will giv an update.
Let's start with what this game is about. It's an open world game, set in the old west. It's set before the events of Red Dead Redemption. In that game, you played as John Marston. In that game, John was a man trying to change his life. He was a criminal, a thief, a murderer, but he's gone straight In this game, you play as Arthur Morgan. A criminal in the same gang with John. He is a bad guy, no doubt. But throughout the game, he has many opportunities to do good. Of course, you can play him that way, or you can play him as a heartless bastard. This will effect some of the story, the dialogue & the ending of the game. I played the game as if Arthur was a good guy inside & the ending I got was very satisfying, very emotional.
For most of the story, you're on the run with your gang, setting up different camps throughout the map, evading rival gangs & the law. This is a great way to get to know the world, however, you're free to explore most of the map freely. It is enormous & gorgeous. Some of the best scenery I've seen in a game. Sometimes you will really feel you're living in a real world. And that's the greatest thing about this game. The immersion. You really feel like you're living the life of your character. And Rockstar did that by making you take care of your character. You shave, bathe, eat & take care of your horse. Yes, you name your horse, feed it, brush it, pet it. You get very attached to it, as it is your main way of getting around. If your horse dies, it's gone. And believe me, it hurts to lose your horse.
Rockstar fills the game with so many missions, side activities, random encounters & hidden Easter eggs that it will take you weeks to do them all. I've been playing since day one, an average of 6 to 7 hours a day, & today, 5 & a half weeks later, I finally got 100% in the game. To be honest, when I first started, I spent lots of time just riding around, finding activities & hidden goodies & enjoying the scenery. Like most of their games, there's a supernatural element to some things as well as supernatural encounters. Steampunk, monsters, etc... a little bit of everything. Some encounters are funny, some terrifying, all of them cool.
I think what makes this game different & better than it's predecessor is the characters themselves. I'm not talking about the main characters alone, I'm talking about the people who litter the world. In RDR, some of the characters were silly, off-the-wall & unnatural. They were cartoonish. In RDR2, the people are real. Some may be weird and a bit crazy, but they never feel fake. They never feel like a character. Because of this, the world lives. They breathe life into it with every interaction. From the
Civil War veterans to the blind beggar, to the racist jackass standing on the corner in Saint Denis handing out pro-white pamphlets. They really make you feel like you're there. Again, immersion.
Some of the things you can do besides the missions are rob people, trains, coaches, banks. Another thing is hunting. Hunting can be a great way to make money. During the game, there are many challenges that you can undertake as well. There's are 9 categories with 10 challenges to each that can be done at your leisure. I left a lot of these to do last. I honestly didn't think I'd be able to do some of them. They just seemed ridiculous. But funny enough, I did about 50 of the last challenges within 2 days. And when I finished, I expected my 100% trophy to pop up. But it didn't. I was at 99%. What the? Looking at my completion list, there was something under the collections section that said unknown collection. Searching the internet, I found that most sites didn't have it listed. But I finally found a site that did. The last collection was the hunting challenge. And this brings us to that feckin robin.
Okay, let me explain. The hunting challenge you are given is to kill 5 different lists of animals. Each animal must be a perfect carcass. Which means, they have to be of perfect quality before you kill them & you must not damage them while killing them. Well, all of these animals are small animals. And most of them are small birds. It was fairly easy to get most of these animals. But there was one that was a huge pain in the ass. Can you guess what it was? Yes, a robin. A small, fast bird that is so rare, there are pages & videos galore on finding one. Most of which as total bollocks. How do I know? I spent over 7 hours trying to find one. Going to all these spots, seeing 3 of them total, shooting one & ruining it's carcass, & missing the other 2 based on their disappearance through the trees. I was really going to give up. So close, but so far. Luckily, using some people's hints & coming up with my own, I finally figured out how to get him. And it then took me 15 minutes. Yes, 15 minutes with 7 hours of wasted time. I am putting this as a negative, because it was really ridiculous to try to hunt this thing. So aggrivating. I understand if they want to make something rare, but it's just not nice. I felt like Rockstar was pulling a joke on it's players.
But anyway, this still doesn't bring down my score of the game. It's one of the greatest games I've ever played. But Rockstar has many perfect 10 games under it's belt in my opinion, including RDR. Is this game better. Yes, I think so. But it's oh so close.
A quick word on RDR online. It's only in beta, so I can't give a true review yet. However, I'm finding it so much fun doing missions with other people. Of course, there are jackasses going around shooting people for no reason. It gives no benefit to do so. Not all of the features are in there yet, but I will be playing when it goes to full online & will giv an update.
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…
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Dance of the Dead (2008) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
Jimmy Dunn (Jared Kusnitz) never seems to take anything seriously. He likes to spend more time in detention than he does in class. So it’s no surprise that Lindsey (Greyson Chadwick), the girl Jimmy was going to take to prom, decides to not go with him after realizing that Jimmy has no ambition. To make matters worse, something weird is going on in the graveyard next to the nuclear power plant in town. The dead are walking and they’re headed to the prom. The town is now in the hands of the losers who couldn’t get dates to the prom. There goes the neighborhood and here comes the pain; that is something that is certainly meant in more ways than one.
This is the type of horror film you have the urge to turn off as soon as it starts. Written by Joe Ballarini (My Little Pony: The Movie) and directed by Gregg Bishop (the “Dante the Great” segment of V/H/S Viral), Dance of the Dead is a part of the eight films that made up Ghost House Underground; horror films from all over the world chosen by Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert supposedly representing a “fresh” perspective of the horror genre. The problem is that most people would seek out one of these films and then never bother with the rest because why would you torture yourself any further?
The first 20 or so minutes of the film revolve around high school melodrama and the prom. This is supposedly where you get accustomed to the film’s humor, but it’s mostly nothing more than high school kids being obnoxious and unbearable. The graveyard scene is where things get even worse. Zombies start rising from beyond the grave and decomposing hands start bursting through headstones since that makes more sense than soil. Emerging from the ground simply wasn’t enough either; these zombies explode from their graves with smoke and a loud crash. Moments later during the same sequence, there are zombies jumping several feet into the air out of the ground, landing on their feet, and running after these kids. If it sounds cool in the slightest, then this description isn’t doing this dumpster fire justice.
The zombies are all over the place in Dance of the Dead. They start off as the zombies that run similar to the zombies in Zack Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead remake. Later on in the film, they stumble around and are slow like George Romero’s zombies. Even later after that, the zombies are running again while some attempt to speak, say, “Brains!” and then get in a car and drive off. Someone had pointed out that the zombies in the film who are fresh out of the ground run while older ones move slower, which only makes this turd milkshake slightly less nutty. Dance of the Dead also can’t decide what zombie films to pay homage to either. Return of the Living Dead has a massive influence, but the film clearly pays tribute to Night of the Living Dead when the kids reach a house and decide to board up all the windows and take shelter. It seems like the one consistent aspect this film has is to be inconsistent.
Did you know zombies can be held at bay solely by the power of rocking out? Three stoners in a band (a guitarist, a bassist, and a drummer) inadvertently discover that their music stops zombies in their tracks. A bit later in the film during the prom, the gymnasium is full of zombies. There’s music playing and it shows three zombies on stage playing musical instruments; a guitar, a bass, and a drum set. Fast forward a little more and the three stoners are back again playing their stoner rock and the zombies are back to being frozen during their performance. There’s no consistency when it comes to what they play or how it affects zombies.
“In extreme circumstances, the assailants can be stopped by removing the head or destroying the brain.” Do you remember this quote from Shaun of the Dead? Try to keep it in mind, especially the, “removing the head,” part. A guy gets his head torn off by a zombie and you’d think he’d be dead, but this actually turns his decapitated head into a zombie. He comes back later on; his headless corpse carrying his decapitated head around. It’s one thing to try and reinvent a genre, but when you have so many reinventions along with homage out to wazoo you’re basically throwing cow pies at a brick wall and seeing what sticks.
Zombies shouldn’t make out with each other. Vampires shouldn’t sparkle and Warm Bodies isn’t canon. Two students turn into zombies and still end up in a giant make out session after they’ve turned. The kiss turns awkward as they start chewing on each other mid-kiss. They start taking bites out of each other while they’re still sucking face. This is the scariest aspect of the film considering that maybe most of us don’t want our eyeballs chewed out of our skulls during something so intimate.
When the special effects aren’t being a complete eyesore from being so cheap and ugly, the gore in Dance of the Dead is decent. Blood splattering everywhere is pretty common throughout the film. The acting isn’t completely terrible either. It absolutely isn’t good by any means. Dance of the Dead is basically Degrassi with zombies and everything lame you’re expecting to tag along with that reference. Lucas Till (X-Men: First Class, MacGyver) has a brief cameo as one of the rockers in the film and he's probably the only cast member you'll recognize.
The jumbled mass of homage and redefining of zombie lore in Dance of the Dead throws a monkey wrench in calling the film stereotypical and cliché, but it certainly feels that way. It seems like a rejected, alternate, first draft of a film you’ve already seen rather than a film that attempts to stand on its own two legs. It may be fun for fans of campy horror films, but its originality is borderline offensive since Dance of the Dead seems to just combine everything you know about zombies or purposely does the opposite at an attempt at being a different chomp of undead horror. Unfortunately though, Dance of the Dead is too overwhelmingly absurd for its own good as its gore feels like the drunken antics of a washed up clown rather than a competent horror film.
Dance of the Dead is available to stream on Amazon Prime, YouTube, and Google Play for $1.99, Vudu for $2.99, and iTunes for $5.99. The DVD is $7.72 on Amazon while the Blu-ray (which is Region 2 only) is $25.52 from a third party seller. The DVD is $7.49 in new condition and with free shipping on eBay or $4 with $2.99 shipping pre-owned. If you enjoy terrible things, the eight disc set of all the Ghost House Underground titles are available as a boxed set on Amazon for $179.74 and on eBay for $39.99 in brand new condition and with free shipping.
This is the type of horror film you have the urge to turn off as soon as it starts. Written by Joe Ballarini (My Little Pony: The Movie) and directed by Gregg Bishop (the “Dante the Great” segment of V/H/S Viral), Dance of the Dead is a part of the eight films that made up Ghost House Underground; horror films from all over the world chosen by Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert supposedly representing a “fresh” perspective of the horror genre. The problem is that most people would seek out one of these films and then never bother with the rest because why would you torture yourself any further?
The first 20 or so minutes of the film revolve around high school melodrama and the prom. This is supposedly where you get accustomed to the film’s humor, but it’s mostly nothing more than high school kids being obnoxious and unbearable. The graveyard scene is where things get even worse. Zombies start rising from beyond the grave and decomposing hands start bursting through headstones since that makes more sense than soil. Emerging from the ground simply wasn’t enough either; these zombies explode from their graves with smoke and a loud crash. Moments later during the same sequence, there are zombies jumping several feet into the air out of the ground, landing on their feet, and running after these kids. If it sounds cool in the slightest, then this description isn’t doing this dumpster fire justice.
The zombies are all over the place in Dance of the Dead. They start off as the zombies that run similar to the zombies in Zack Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead remake. Later on in the film, they stumble around and are slow like George Romero’s zombies. Even later after that, the zombies are running again while some attempt to speak, say, “Brains!” and then get in a car and drive off. Someone had pointed out that the zombies in the film who are fresh out of the ground run while older ones move slower, which only makes this turd milkshake slightly less nutty. Dance of the Dead also can’t decide what zombie films to pay homage to either. Return of the Living Dead has a massive influence, but the film clearly pays tribute to Night of the Living Dead when the kids reach a house and decide to board up all the windows and take shelter. It seems like the one consistent aspect this film has is to be inconsistent.
Did you know zombies can be held at bay solely by the power of rocking out? Three stoners in a band (a guitarist, a bassist, and a drummer) inadvertently discover that their music stops zombies in their tracks. A bit later in the film during the prom, the gymnasium is full of zombies. There’s music playing and it shows three zombies on stage playing musical instruments; a guitar, a bass, and a drum set. Fast forward a little more and the three stoners are back again playing their stoner rock and the zombies are back to being frozen during their performance. There’s no consistency when it comes to what they play or how it affects zombies.
“In extreme circumstances, the assailants can be stopped by removing the head or destroying the brain.” Do you remember this quote from Shaun of the Dead? Try to keep it in mind, especially the, “removing the head,” part. A guy gets his head torn off by a zombie and you’d think he’d be dead, but this actually turns his decapitated head into a zombie. He comes back later on; his headless corpse carrying his decapitated head around. It’s one thing to try and reinvent a genre, but when you have so many reinventions along with homage out to wazoo you’re basically throwing cow pies at a brick wall and seeing what sticks.
Zombies shouldn’t make out with each other. Vampires shouldn’t sparkle and Warm Bodies isn’t canon. Two students turn into zombies and still end up in a giant make out session after they’ve turned. The kiss turns awkward as they start chewing on each other mid-kiss. They start taking bites out of each other while they’re still sucking face. This is the scariest aspect of the film considering that maybe most of us don’t want our eyeballs chewed out of our skulls during something so intimate.
When the special effects aren’t being a complete eyesore from being so cheap and ugly, the gore in Dance of the Dead is decent. Blood splattering everywhere is pretty common throughout the film. The acting isn’t completely terrible either. It absolutely isn’t good by any means. Dance of the Dead is basically Degrassi with zombies and everything lame you’re expecting to tag along with that reference. Lucas Till (X-Men: First Class, MacGyver) has a brief cameo as one of the rockers in the film and he's probably the only cast member you'll recognize.
The jumbled mass of homage and redefining of zombie lore in Dance of the Dead throws a monkey wrench in calling the film stereotypical and cliché, but it certainly feels that way. It seems like a rejected, alternate, first draft of a film you’ve already seen rather than a film that attempts to stand on its own two legs. It may be fun for fans of campy horror films, but its originality is borderline offensive since Dance of the Dead seems to just combine everything you know about zombies or purposely does the opposite at an attempt at being a different chomp of undead horror. Unfortunately though, Dance of the Dead is too overwhelmingly absurd for its own good as its gore feels like the drunken antics of a washed up clown rather than a competent horror film.
Dance of the Dead is available to stream on Amazon Prime, YouTube, and Google Play for $1.99, Vudu for $2.99, and iTunes for $5.99. The DVD is $7.72 on Amazon while the Blu-ray (which is Region 2 only) is $25.52 from a third party seller. The DVD is $7.49 in new condition and with free shipping on eBay or $4 with $2.99 shipping pre-owned. If you enjoy terrible things, the eight disc set of all the Ghost House Underground titles are available as a boxed set on Amazon for $179.74 and on eBay for $39.99 in brand new condition and with free shipping.
Rob P (30 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 6, 2019
Sheer scope and spectacle (2 more)
satisfying conclusion to the Infinity/Avengers saga
Pretty much a 90 minute end battle scene
Unfair arc for some characters (1 more)
The end of an era! #cry
Love you 3000 - *Seriously - S P O I L E R S*
Contains spoilers, click to show
Well, what a long, strange, amazing trip it's been.
Assuming that everyone who sees this film is invested in the MCU, this doesn't disappoint. Although I'm a fan of the comics, you can't really compare the comic universe to the cinematic universe in terms of plot, it stands alone with its own intricacies, strengths and weaknesses.
I don't have a lot of negative things to say about this one, it's an involving, dramatic, action packed and beautiful piece of work from the Russo brothers, but I'll start with the one or two gripes I had.
From the start, they went with an odd route, one that I wasn't expecting . *SPOILERS* - Thanos as we know him, dies in the first 15 minutes of the film. Honestly was not expecting that. Robbed the satisfaction of build up for me, but ultimately the build up starts again, as the Avengers then go about stopping an alternate timeline Thanos from BEFORE the events of Guardians of the Galaxy by going to retrieve the infinity stones from different points in time (and the MCU movies), before Thanos finds them, so all is not lost on that front, there's still a Thanos to face.
One gripe was the arc of one particular character - our big green rage machine. After the events of infinity war, you'll remember, Hulk was left somewhat lacking, after getting his arse handed to him by Thanos and then refusing to come out for the rest of the film. I felt there was atonement due for him. Here we see Banner has now found catharsis with the Hulk, by staying in Hulk form with his own personality in the five years since the snap. That's all well and good, but after the death of a certain other member of the Avengers after retrieving the Soulstone, I thought - right. Now Hulk will smash. Now we have to see him go ham on someone. Nothing. Not even an action shot of Hulk fighting in the entire last battle scene, which only would have taken 20 seconds out of an entire 90 minute battle. I would have liked to have seen Hulk Vs Thanos, even if for a brief moment, whether Banner came out on top or not. Banner actually using his own anger, which by his own admission in Avengers Assemble, he has. All the time. It felt an unfair way to end one of the major characters stories, for seemingly what would have taken so little to make. it's not like they lacked the CGI budget, after all. Instead, Scarlet Witch gets a showdown with Thanos, and she's not even a particularly major player within the Avengers team, again don't get me wrong, after Vision she deserves a shot. But Hulk more so... It seemed silly to me.
The other negative for me, was Thor. Another slightly disappointing arc for the god of thunder. I felt he was robbed of all the awesomeness Taika rejuvenated him with from Ragnarok, which then continued into Infinity War. They turned him into God of amazing lightning and patron saint of badassery, with a new axe that just gives him a look as cool as they other side of the pillow. Now, the Russo's have had him drink himself to death, making him bloated and filled with sadness and regret. Don't get me wrong. Thor has more reason than most to be that way, he's lost everything over his story arc. I think that by letting him kill Thanos at the beginning, they robbed him of his real purpose, which is to be the strongest of the avengers (arguably) and just be the badass we all know he is. The one positive thing about this, is Thor's new aesthetic actually makes him look like a viking, which was amazing. Braided beard, heavy set, long hair. Great stuff, made him feel much more realistic in that sense, just again I think it was a bit of an unfair arc for him. Although, as he's now set to join GOTG, there's plenty of time to atone.
That's my two cents on the negs of this one. Now for positives:
My god, the scope and sheer spectacle of the MCU films rarely disappoint, this is no exception. just some absolutely jaw dropping sequences, especially when you have the big three (Stark, Cap and Thor) trying to stop Thanos before the major battle scene. It's stuff to make you weep tears of pure joy.
Following on from that, the moment where it's confirmed the snap has been reversed and the portals open up, the armies of Wakanda come out chanting along with just EVERYBODY, and that Avengers music starts up... goosebumps just thinking about it.
The involvement and rounding of previous MCU films in the first half of the movie is intense and satisfying, as the group split up into different places in time to retrieve the stones. Lots of nods to different franchises, nice bit of exposition, and certain parts in particular are just happy, like seeing Tony talking to his father back in the 70's without him realising who he is. Wonderful Stuff.
We all knew there would be deaths, I felt that these were handled gracefully and tactfully, giving the best service for the characters and fans. At the same time, they were not predictable, which i felt was definitely important.
As a last word, anyone who's ever watched a marvel film or had interest in the comics needs to see this. There is a list published of the films you need to see beforehand to fully appreciate the time travel segments, but it's not absolutely necessary. It just helps you appreciate the thought that has gone into rounding off the biggest cinematic series in history, all the in jokes and nuances that the Russo's included to really make this serviceable to the fans.
The end of an era, and as a crescendo to the the symphony started by the rest of MCU, it's just plain beautiful.
Love you 3000, folks.
- Rob
Assuming that everyone who sees this film is invested in the MCU, this doesn't disappoint. Although I'm a fan of the comics, you can't really compare the comic universe to the cinematic universe in terms of plot, it stands alone with its own intricacies, strengths and weaknesses.
I don't have a lot of negative things to say about this one, it's an involving, dramatic, action packed and beautiful piece of work from the Russo brothers, but I'll start with the one or two gripes I had.
From the start, they went with an odd route, one that I wasn't expecting . *SPOILERS* - Thanos as we know him, dies in the first 15 minutes of the film. Honestly was not expecting that. Robbed the satisfaction of build up for me, but ultimately the build up starts again, as the Avengers then go about stopping an alternate timeline Thanos from BEFORE the events of Guardians of the Galaxy by going to retrieve the infinity stones from different points in time (and the MCU movies), before Thanos finds them, so all is not lost on that front, there's still a Thanos to face.
One gripe was the arc of one particular character - our big green rage machine. After the events of infinity war, you'll remember, Hulk was left somewhat lacking, after getting his arse handed to him by Thanos and then refusing to come out for the rest of the film. I felt there was atonement due for him. Here we see Banner has now found catharsis with the Hulk, by staying in Hulk form with his own personality in the five years since the snap. That's all well and good, but after the death of a certain other member of the Avengers after retrieving the Soulstone, I thought - right. Now Hulk will smash. Now we have to see him go ham on someone. Nothing. Not even an action shot of Hulk fighting in the entire last battle scene, which only would have taken 20 seconds out of an entire 90 minute battle. I would have liked to have seen Hulk Vs Thanos, even if for a brief moment, whether Banner came out on top or not. Banner actually using his own anger, which by his own admission in Avengers Assemble, he has. All the time. It felt an unfair way to end one of the major characters stories, for seemingly what would have taken so little to make. it's not like they lacked the CGI budget, after all. Instead, Scarlet Witch gets a showdown with Thanos, and she's not even a particularly major player within the Avengers team, again don't get me wrong, after Vision she deserves a shot. But Hulk more so... It seemed silly to me.
The other negative for me, was Thor. Another slightly disappointing arc for the god of thunder. I felt he was robbed of all the awesomeness Taika rejuvenated him with from Ragnarok, which then continued into Infinity War. They turned him into God of amazing lightning and patron saint of badassery, with a new axe that just gives him a look as cool as they other side of the pillow. Now, the Russo's have had him drink himself to death, making him bloated and filled with sadness and regret. Don't get me wrong. Thor has more reason than most to be that way, he's lost everything over his story arc. I think that by letting him kill Thanos at the beginning, they robbed him of his real purpose, which is to be the strongest of the avengers (arguably) and just be the badass we all know he is. The one positive thing about this, is Thor's new aesthetic actually makes him look like a viking, which was amazing. Braided beard, heavy set, long hair. Great stuff, made him feel much more realistic in that sense, just again I think it was a bit of an unfair arc for him. Although, as he's now set to join GOTG, there's plenty of time to atone.
That's my two cents on the negs of this one. Now for positives:
My god, the scope and sheer spectacle of the MCU films rarely disappoint, this is no exception. just some absolutely jaw dropping sequences, especially when you have the big three (Stark, Cap and Thor) trying to stop Thanos before the major battle scene. It's stuff to make you weep tears of pure joy.
Following on from that, the moment where it's confirmed the snap has been reversed and the portals open up, the armies of Wakanda come out chanting along with just EVERYBODY, and that Avengers music starts up... goosebumps just thinking about it.
The involvement and rounding of previous MCU films in the first half of the movie is intense and satisfying, as the group split up into different places in time to retrieve the stones. Lots of nods to different franchises, nice bit of exposition, and certain parts in particular are just happy, like seeing Tony talking to his father back in the 70's without him realising who he is. Wonderful Stuff.
We all knew there would be deaths, I felt that these were handled gracefully and tactfully, giving the best service for the characters and fans. At the same time, they were not predictable, which i felt was definitely important.
As a last word, anyone who's ever watched a marvel film or had interest in the comics needs to see this. There is a list published of the films you need to see beforehand to fully appreciate the time travel segments, but it's not absolutely necessary. It just helps you appreciate the thought that has gone into rounding off the biggest cinematic series in history, all the in jokes and nuances that the Russo's included to really make this serviceable to the fans.
The end of an era, and as a crescendo to the the symphony started by the rest of MCU, it's just plain beautiful.
Love you 3000, folks.
- Rob
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A True successor to the original
Halloween 1978 and little-known director John Carpenter terrifies thousands of impressionable horror fans with the introduction of ‘The Shape’. Jamie Lee Curtis becomes the new ‘scream queen’ and all is well in the world of the slasher genre.
Fast-forward to 2009 and Rob Zombie directs the sequel to his reasonably successful remake of Halloween, but it was poorly received by critics and audiences alike. Why? Well Zombie’s grungy, rock-anthem vibe didn’t really sit too well with Michael Myers and the result was a distasteful and messy outing that set the franchise back nearly 10 years.
Of course, in between 1978 and 2009, the series was ripped apart, put back together again until it was a shadow of its former self. Anyone remember Busta Rhymes doing a vague impression of a karate master in Halloween: Resurrection? Best forget about that.
Nevertheless, director David Gordon Green, a lifetime fan of Carpenter’s iconic original is in the chair to helm a direct sequel to the 1978 classic. That’s right, it forgoes every single film apart from the first. But is it a worthy sequel to one of the greatest horror films of all time?
It’s been 40 years since Laurie Strode survived a vicious attack from crazed killer Michael Myers on Halloween night. Locked up in an institution, Myers manages to escape when his bus transfer goes horribly wrong. Laurie now faces a terrifying showdown when the masked madman returns to Haddonfield. But this time, she’s ready for him.
Having Jamie Lee Curtis and John Carpenter back for this instalment is already a coup for Gordon Green. Clearly, they thought enough of the material that he and co-writer Danny McBride had produced to give one more shot at crafting a properly deserved sequel. And it works very well, so well in fact that we have, barring the original, the best Halloween movie to date.
Jamie Lee Curtis is absolutely fabulous as a world-weary Laurie Strode. Traumatised by the events of 40 years ago, she holds herself up in a cabin on the outskirts of Haddonfield, flanked by floodlights and CCTV cameras. The script does a very good job at showing how massive events can destroy an individual’s life and Curtis’ understated performance is a highlight here.
Judy Greer gets a nicely fleshed out role as Karen, Laurie’s daughter. She’s an incredibly talented actress and it’s a world away from the one-dimensional characters she’s been given to play in blockbusters like Jurassic World. The great thing about this film is that each of the main characters feels real. There’s no cheap sex scenes, the kills are well-placed and the dialogue is superbly written – you actually believe these are real people, rather than characters in a movie.
While the body count is high, Halloween doesn’t rely on the murders to progress the story forward. This is very much Laurie’s film as opposed to Michael’s and it works very well. There’s some nice juxtaposition as shots that would have involved Michael in the original, choose to put Laurie front and centre here. Halloween features some tasteful references to the original as well as its less-well received sequels. They’re not immediately obvious for those not too familiar with the series, but die-hards will enjoy seeing those homages pop up every now and then.
Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it
The film starts relatively slowly with a not quite successful side-plot involving two investigative journalists, but once Michael Myers gets his mask back, the film rarely lets up until the end. Populated by enough kills and scares to keep the audience happy, this is a Halloween movie that doesn’t rely too much on jump scares. There’s a few, but they’re nicely filmed which helps lift them above the mundane.
To look at, this is a film that is head and shoulders above anything else in the genre. Gordon Green uses incredibly fluid camera techniques that almost mimic those of the original. In one extended sequence, Myers moves in and out of shot as the camera follows him from house to house, selecting his next victim. With no cuts in between, it’s a stunning scene to watch and very effective.
Thankfully, the writing duo has decided to pass on giving Michael anything resembling a back story. The embodiment of ‘pure evil’ as Samuel Loomis once put it, Myers needn’t have any motives – and that’s what makes him so terrifying. In fact, his first kill here reaffirms his evil characteristics and it’s clear that David Gordon Green and Danny McBride were aiming for this take on the character.
Then there’s the score. John Carpenter has returned to craft new music for this instalment and it is by far the best score in the series, possibly even better than the original. That haunting Halloween theme tune is back, but upgraded with guitar riffs and electronic percussion. It’s a fabulous update that works perfectly with the modern characters and an older Michael.
While it’s true that the film isn’t out-and-out scary, the finale is exquisite as Laurie and Michael come face-to-face once again. Only the abrupt ending and forgetting of some key characters lets it down. After all, what’s the point in caring about a character and never learning of their fate?
Overall, Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it. While this is sure to make bucket loads at the box-office, it feels like it was crafted with care by a writing team and director that absolutely adores the series. It’s a must watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/20/halloween-2018-review-a-true-successor-to-the-original/
Fast-forward to 2009 and Rob Zombie directs the sequel to his reasonably successful remake of Halloween, but it was poorly received by critics and audiences alike. Why? Well Zombie’s grungy, rock-anthem vibe didn’t really sit too well with Michael Myers and the result was a distasteful and messy outing that set the franchise back nearly 10 years.
Of course, in between 1978 and 2009, the series was ripped apart, put back together again until it was a shadow of its former self. Anyone remember Busta Rhymes doing a vague impression of a karate master in Halloween: Resurrection? Best forget about that.
Nevertheless, director David Gordon Green, a lifetime fan of Carpenter’s iconic original is in the chair to helm a direct sequel to the 1978 classic. That’s right, it forgoes every single film apart from the first. But is it a worthy sequel to one of the greatest horror films of all time?
It’s been 40 years since Laurie Strode survived a vicious attack from crazed killer Michael Myers on Halloween night. Locked up in an institution, Myers manages to escape when his bus transfer goes horribly wrong. Laurie now faces a terrifying showdown when the masked madman returns to Haddonfield. But this time, she’s ready for him.
Having Jamie Lee Curtis and John Carpenter back for this instalment is already a coup for Gordon Green. Clearly, they thought enough of the material that he and co-writer Danny McBride had produced to give one more shot at crafting a properly deserved sequel. And it works very well, so well in fact that we have, barring the original, the best Halloween movie to date.
Jamie Lee Curtis is absolutely fabulous as a world-weary Laurie Strode. Traumatised by the events of 40 years ago, she holds herself up in a cabin on the outskirts of Haddonfield, flanked by floodlights and CCTV cameras. The script does a very good job at showing how massive events can destroy an individual’s life and Curtis’ understated performance is a highlight here.
Judy Greer gets a nicely fleshed out role as Karen, Laurie’s daughter. She’s an incredibly talented actress and it’s a world away from the one-dimensional characters she’s been given to play in blockbusters like Jurassic World. The great thing about this film is that each of the main characters feels real. There’s no cheap sex scenes, the kills are well-placed and the dialogue is superbly written – you actually believe these are real people, rather than characters in a movie.
While the body count is high, Halloween doesn’t rely on the murders to progress the story forward. This is very much Laurie’s film as opposed to Michael’s and it works very well. There’s some nice juxtaposition as shots that would have involved Michael in the original, choose to put Laurie front and centre here. Halloween features some tasteful references to the original as well as its less-well received sequels. They’re not immediately obvious for those not too familiar with the series, but die-hards will enjoy seeing those homages pop up every now and then.
Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it
The film starts relatively slowly with a not quite successful side-plot involving two investigative journalists, but once Michael Myers gets his mask back, the film rarely lets up until the end. Populated by enough kills and scares to keep the audience happy, this is a Halloween movie that doesn’t rely too much on jump scares. There’s a few, but they’re nicely filmed which helps lift them above the mundane.
To look at, this is a film that is head and shoulders above anything else in the genre. Gordon Green uses incredibly fluid camera techniques that almost mimic those of the original. In one extended sequence, Myers moves in and out of shot as the camera follows him from house to house, selecting his next victim. With no cuts in between, it’s a stunning scene to watch and very effective.
Thankfully, the writing duo has decided to pass on giving Michael anything resembling a back story. The embodiment of ‘pure evil’ as Samuel Loomis once put it, Myers needn’t have any motives – and that’s what makes him so terrifying. In fact, his first kill here reaffirms his evil characteristics and it’s clear that David Gordon Green and Danny McBride were aiming for this take on the character.
Then there’s the score. John Carpenter has returned to craft new music for this instalment and it is by far the best score in the series, possibly even better than the original. That haunting Halloween theme tune is back, but upgraded with guitar riffs and electronic percussion. It’s a fabulous update that works perfectly with the modern characters and an older Michael.
While it’s true that the film isn’t out-and-out scary, the finale is exquisite as Laurie and Michael come face-to-face once again. Only the abrupt ending and forgetting of some key characters lets it down. After all, what’s the point in caring about a character and never learning of their fate?
Overall, Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it. While this is sure to make bucket loads at the box-office, it feels like it was crafted with care by a writing team and director that absolutely adores the series. It’s a must watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/20/halloween-2018-review-a-true-successor-to-the-original/
Steven Fell (41 KP) rated Nothing is True & Everything is Possible by Enter Shikari in Music
Apr 21, 2020 (Updated Apr 21, 2020)
Mix of old and new styles of Shikari (3 more)
Songs that are going to be incredible live
Satellites message
Overall a solid set of songs
Will divide fans (2 more)
Pace is up and down
May be hard to sell for new listeners of the band
The definitive album?
Nothing is true and everything is possible is the 5th studio album by Enter Shikari was released on Friday 17th April 2020 containing 15 'songs'. While speaking about the album before release Rou the lead singer and only producer of the album described the album as the definitive Enter Shikari album. This statement is very important and for me changed how I listened to the album. For the most part I agree with Rou. It's an album full of songs that could fit into any of Shikari's previous albums or even their side project Shikari sound system. It also gives us clues into a new direction they may want to take.
This is also the problem NITEIP may face with dividing fans. Shikari's last album The Spark was met with some hesitation from the band's most devoted fans from being very different from say their earlier work like take to the skies and common dreads. Taking a more 'softer' approach and really letting Rou's voice carry the songs. The Spark happens to be my favourite Shikari album and I think Rou has one of the greatest lead singer voices in recent times and doesn't always get the recognition he deserves.
Two songs that I beileve may take diehard fans out of the album are crossing the Rubicon and The pressures on. Both are very 'poppy' and could easily be slotted onto a more main stream bands album. Although crossing the Rubicon has a little Easter egg back to labyrinth and a catchy chorus which will get stuck in your head. Crossing the Rubicon does feels weirdly out of place though, sandwhiched between the quite frankly phenomenal opening track the great unknown and the lead single the dreamers hotel which also deserves credit for being a tune that will surely make people 'pop' live, it is also rightly in my eyes the lead single.
Shikari gifted us with five songs just before release the great unknown, the dreamers hotel, the king, T.I.N.A and satellites. All of these songs are brilliant and really got me excited for the album but compared to the other tracks may leave people disappointed that this isn't the style throughout the album. However I found myself loving the slower pace to both parts of waltzing of the face of the earth. Marionettes is another two parter which is also slower to begin with in part one but builds brilliantly into Marionettes part 2s chorus which is an absolute blast and I find my self bellowing it out. It showcases both rou's incredible writing and beautiful voice with the line "our minds are firewood and now we spark the match, we set ourselves alight" being my favourite lyrics on the entire album.
Satellites the second single off the album released the day before the album dropped is a very passionate piece that was wrote by Rou and in his own words was to show his compassion towards the LGBTQ community. "So we don't hold hands in daylight" a line from the song in which rou's friend told him he was scared to do brings you instantly into one of Shikari's most meaningful and deeply involving songs throughout their discography. Another song that is surely going to be a hit and already been given great feedback online which also manages to show that Rou's writing is both on top form and evolving album to album.
T.I.N.A was my least favourite of the songs released before the album but is cleverly placed after Reprise 3 which is an Easter egg fans will crave and really makes T.I.N.A one of the standout tracks. The king my personal favourite from the album is a song that feels both familiar and fresh which I wish was placed last to close out the album but I also understand finishing with waltzing of the face of the earth part 2 as a come down song but this may again take people away from the album wanting to finish on a banger.
Modern living is one of the songs that really caught my ear on my first play through and even made me instantly replay it. It has a very nineties vibe which you could imagine a band like blur releasing. It is followed by apocholics anonymous which for me is a skipable track that although feeds from modern living doesn't add to it like reprise 3 does for T.I.N.A.
Elegcy for extinction is a completely different beast compared to anything Enter Shikari have released before. It's a orchestral piece with no lyrics that would easily fit on a film score and even sounds Disney esque to begin with before possibly finishing in a battle. Well that's how I saw it in my head. This is another song that may divide people but it's a compelling piece that makes me believe the band could easily venture into movie scores into the future which is something I didn't know I needed.
Special mention needs to go for creating an album where it feels every type type of instrument was used and to full effect. I also believe this is the album where Rob Rolfe really gets to shine on drums. To me it feels like you can hear his confidence come through in some of the most intense songs.
To summarise this does feel like a collection of Shikari styles which will both please and annoy fans. For me I found it a pleasant surprise and came at a time where we all needed a pick up. Shikari have always managed to blend genres of music and this is an album showcasing their talent to do just that, even managing to tackle classical. As for it being the definitive album I would have to agree with Rou with it being an album that manages to make me reminisce and look forward to the future.
Thanks for reading and I hope you enjoy the album. Stay safe.
Steve
This is also the problem NITEIP may face with dividing fans. Shikari's last album The Spark was met with some hesitation from the band's most devoted fans from being very different from say their earlier work like take to the skies and common dreads. Taking a more 'softer' approach and really letting Rou's voice carry the songs. The Spark happens to be my favourite Shikari album and I think Rou has one of the greatest lead singer voices in recent times and doesn't always get the recognition he deserves.
Two songs that I beileve may take diehard fans out of the album are crossing the Rubicon and The pressures on. Both are very 'poppy' and could easily be slotted onto a more main stream bands album. Although crossing the Rubicon has a little Easter egg back to labyrinth and a catchy chorus which will get stuck in your head. Crossing the Rubicon does feels weirdly out of place though, sandwhiched between the quite frankly phenomenal opening track the great unknown and the lead single the dreamers hotel which also deserves credit for being a tune that will surely make people 'pop' live, it is also rightly in my eyes the lead single.
Shikari gifted us with five songs just before release the great unknown, the dreamers hotel, the king, T.I.N.A and satellites. All of these songs are brilliant and really got me excited for the album but compared to the other tracks may leave people disappointed that this isn't the style throughout the album. However I found myself loving the slower pace to both parts of waltzing of the face of the earth. Marionettes is another two parter which is also slower to begin with in part one but builds brilliantly into Marionettes part 2s chorus which is an absolute blast and I find my self bellowing it out. It showcases both rou's incredible writing and beautiful voice with the line "our minds are firewood and now we spark the match, we set ourselves alight" being my favourite lyrics on the entire album.
Satellites the second single off the album released the day before the album dropped is a very passionate piece that was wrote by Rou and in his own words was to show his compassion towards the LGBTQ community. "So we don't hold hands in daylight" a line from the song in which rou's friend told him he was scared to do brings you instantly into one of Shikari's most meaningful and deeply involving songs throughout their discography. Another song that is surely going to be a hit and already been given great feedback online which also manages to show that Rou's writing is both on top form and evolving album to album.
T.I.N.A was my least favourite of the songs released before the album but is cleverly placed after Reprise 3 which is an Easter egg fans will crave and really makes T.I.N.A one of the standout tracks. The king my personal favourite from the album is a song that feels both familiar and fresh which I wish was placed last to close out the album but I also understand finishing with waltzing of the face of the earth part 2 as a come down song but this may again take people away from the album wanting to finish on a banger.
Modern living is one of the songs that really caught my ear on my first play through and even made me instantly replay it. It has a very nineties vibe which you could imagine a band like blur releasing. It is followed by apocholics anonymous which for me is a skipable track that although feeds from modern living doesn't add to it like reprise 3 does for T.I.N.A.
Elegcy for extinction is a completely different beast compared to anything Enter Shikari have released before. It's a orchestral piece with no lyrics that would easily fit on a film score and even sounds Disney esque to begin with before possibly finishing in a battle. Well that's how I saw it in my head. This is another song that may divide people but it's a compelling piece that makes me believe the band could easily venture into movie scores into the future which is something I didn't know I needed.
Special mention needs to go for creating an album where it feels every type type of instrument was used and to full effect. I also believe this is the album where Rob Rolfe really gets to shine on drums. To me it feels like you can hear his confidence come through in some of the most intense songs.
To summarise this does feel like a collection of Shikari styles which will both please and annoy fans. For me I found it a pleasant surprise and came at a time where we all needed a pick up. Shikari have always managed to blend genres of music and this is an album showcasing their talent to do just that, even managing to tackle classical. As for it being the definitive album I would have to agree with Rou with it being an album that manages to make me reminisce and look forward to the future.
Thanks for reading and I hope you enjoy the album. Stay safe.
Steve
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Red Dead Redemption 2 in Video Games
Oct 30, 2018 (Updated Nov 20, 2018)
Slow West
I have decided to do something totally different for my Red Dead 2 review; instead of just reviewing it as a whole once I am finished with it, I am going to start my review just now and then continually add to it the further through it I progress. There are a few reasons for this, firstly because this game is huge and is probably too vast to sum up in just a few paragraphs once I have completed the story. Secondly, because we would all be waiting weeks for me to review it; I am not going to be done with this thing anytime soon. Third is because it's something new, a break from my traditional structure of writing reviews. Finally, because I feel that my opinion on this game is going to change based on the different things that I experience during my playthrough, along with my score of the game. There will also most likely be spoilers as we move on through the game, so maybe just read up to where you have also played to. Once I have completed the game, I may write a summary of my thoughts at the bottom of this review, or I might just scrap this and write a whole new review from scratch, we shall see.
So far, I think I have played between 3 - 4 hours of the game and already I have been through a range of emotions. The game opened in a very cinematic fashion and I was on-board right away. The shots used and atmosphere that was present was very reminiscent of The Hateful 8. Then you get to a small group of shacks and are forced to play through the first few story missions consecutively, which act as tutorials for a lot of the games systems. This part is pretty laborious, but thankfully just as I was starting to get bored, you progress to Chapter 2 and the game opens up.
I must admit, I didn't enjoy the first few hours I spent wandering through the game's world. Arthur moves so damn slowly and every task takes an age to complete, in fact every part of the game seems slow. Horse riding to a location takes forever, the few moments of gunplay are sparse and the aiming controls are anything but smooth. Other than that, the time is spent chopping wood or doing other chores. The word CHORE, is actually adequate to describe the gameplay up to this point.
To break up this slow pace, I decided to go exploring and do some outlaw activities. The problem is that this game's witness/bounty system is ridiculous. You can't so much as lift a finger in the Valentine town centre without the lawmen hunting you and your bounty climbing higher and higher. I'm talking anything from accidently bumping someone with your horse to walking beside another citizen for too long - it is ridiculously harsh and Rockstar seem to favour 'realism,' over fun with this mechanic. So, because I am getting so much grief from the lawmen in Valentine and racking up a bounty way higher than I can afford at this early stage, I decide to go off the beaten path and look for loners to rob. The problem here is, even if you meticulously look around the area to make sure that the coast is clear and then rob your victim, someone out of the blue will appear, halfway across the map and run toward the nearest town to report you. So, naturally you hunt down that witness and kill them, then another witness sees this occur and start running to report you and the cycle continues until someone inevitably reports or shoots you. It's as if Rockstar don't want you to have fun and play the outlaw in their game about playing as an outlaw.
Reading back on what I've read so far, I feel like I have bashed this game pretty hard. As an aspiring game developer myself, I have an idea of what goes into a project like this and what Rockstar have achieved in that sense is truly astonishing and inspiring. The lighting work along with the cinematic camera and near photo-realistic graphics make this game a visual beauty. The world also feels genuinely alive, the voice acting is brilliant and the small touches and intricate level of detail present is insane. Presentation wise, this game is flawless.
Okay, at this point I am about 5 or 6 hours into the game. I am still on chapter 2 and have only done a couple more story missions, but I have done a good bit of exploring too. So far, I have experienced 2 bugs. One was when a story mission required me to get on a horse to take and sell at the Valentine stable and the horse was invisible during the cutscene and non-existent when it switched to gameplay. A quick restart solved this, but still the bug was present during a main story mission.
The other happened during a random stranger encounter. I was riding through an open area full of lumberjacks cutting down trees and one of the trees fell on a guy's leg. I got off my horse and ran over to help, but while doing so, I saw a bunch of bounty hunter symbols appear on the mini map. I ignored them and pressed the button prompt to help lift the tree, but while doing so, the bounty hunters appeared and fired their guns in the air. The rest of the men fled and I was left standing beside the guy that was trapped under the tree, unable to move or do anything. As I stood and spammed every button trying to make Arthur move, the bounty hunters just surrounded me and pointed their guns towards me, but none of them shot. We were left in this awkward standoff for a few minutes before I eventually gave up and had to restart. This second bug is probably the more egregious of the two I've had so far, as I now have no way of knowing if I am going to be able to get that random encounter again.
This is annoying as the random encounters are by far the best part of this game so far. I don't want to spoil too many of them here, but they range from exciting to terrifying to just plain sad and all of them are brilliant.
As I settle into Arthur as a character, I realise more and more how much I prefer and miss playing as John. John was cool where Arthur is goofy. John was smooth where Arthur is wooden. Don't get me wrong, Arthur is well written and acted, but I really think he would play better as a side character rather than a protagonist. Plus the way I play him totally contradicts his whole attitude. I'm playing him as a ruthless killer who shoots entire groups of people on sight and he is still a lovable, goofy rogue in cutscenes.
I have played a few more hours over the last few nights, I must be around 10 hours in now, (although there doesn't seem to be any way of checking that for sure.) I am still on Chapter 2 in terms of the story, but I have been doing a lot of exploring and have found/bought a decent amount of better gear and weapons for Arthur. It also turns out that there is some fast travel in this game, if you upgrade Dutch's tent via the camp ledger and then upgrade your own, (costs about $500 all in,) you can fast travel from the camp to any major location that you have previously visited. Unfortunately while I was fast travelling last night to a location, I experience the first occurrence of pop-in that I have seen so far in the game. I understand that this game is extremely vast and there is a great deal to load in, but when every other aspect of the game is so polished in terms of presentation, it stuck out like a sore thumb.
In terms of exploration, I have probably spent less than half of my 10 hours in the game so far doing story missions and instead spent the majority of my time just riding/walking around and taking in the sights, or speaking to strangers, or violently robbing and killing them at gunpoint whenever the notion takes me. Strawberry is a cool little town, it is quite similar to Valentine in terms of the size and the available shops etc. St Denis is another story. Located at the south-east corner of the map, it is a huge, bustling city with an overwhelming amount to take in. Without spoiling too much, it will also open up a few more opportunities for Arthur once you get there.
I have played a lot more of the game since I last updated this, I'd guess I am closer to 20 hours playtime than 10 at this point. I have finally progressed to Chapter 3, the gang has moved camp to near another small town called Rhodes, which has lots to see and do considering it's small size. That is one thing that Rockstar have undoubtedly nailed in this game, making these towns truly feel alive and like they continue to exist even when you are not riding through them. I'd go as far as to say that this open world feels more alive than any other one that I have spent time in.
The story missions up until this point are touch and go. Some are really fun and exciting and some are monotonous and boring and feel more like busywork than progress. I much prefer the side missions up to this point. The debt collecting missions and the bounty missions are satisfying and feel worthwhile. The robbery side missions that you do with certain gang members are also a nice, more engaging change from the slower pace of the story.
In terms of the game's characters, I am just as much of as a fan of John Marston as I was in the last game and I must admit that spending more time with Arthur has made him grow on me slightly. As for the rest of the gang though, it's a mixed bag. I like Sean, Charles, Javier and Lenny, but the rest are just annoying and a chore to be around. One major disappointment regarding the characters for me, is that I thought that this game was going to make me sympathise with Dutch and see things from his perspective, the way that MGS 3 did for Big Boss, but no. Apparently he was always an unlikable dick.
So far, I think I have played between 3 - 4 hours of the game and already I have been through a range of emotions. The game opened in a very cinematic fashion and I was on-board right away. The shots used and atmosphere that was present was very reminiscent of The Hateful 8. Then you get to a small group of shacks and are forced to play through the first few story missions consecutively, which act as tutorials for a lot of the games systems. This part is pretty laborious, but thankfully just as I was starting to get bored, you progress to Chapter 2 and the game opens up.
I must admit, I didn't enjoy the first few hours I spent wandering through the game's world. Arthur moves so damn slowly and every task takes an age to complete, in fact every part of the game seems slow. Horse riding to a location takes forever, the few moments of gunplay are sparse and the aiming controls are anything but smooth. Other than that, the time is spent chopping wood or doing other chores. The word CHORE, is actually adequate to describe the gameplay up to this point.
To break up this slow pace, I decided to go exploring and do some outlaw activities. The problem is that this game's witness/bounty system is ridiculous. You can't so much as lift a finger in the Valentine town centre without the lawmen hunting you and your bounty climbing higher and higher. I'm talking anything from accidently bumping someone with your horse to walking beside another citizen for too long - it is ridiculously harsh and Rockstar seem to favour 'realism,' over fun with this mechanic. So, because I am getting so much grief from the lawmen in Valentine and racking up a bounty way higher than I can afford at this early stage, I decide to go off the beaten path and look for loners to rob. The problem here is, even if you meticulously look around the area to make sure that the coast is clear and then rob your victim, someone out of the blue will appear, halfway across the map and run toward the nearest town to report you. So, naturally you hunt down that witness and kill them, then another witness sees this occur and start running to report you and the cycle continues until someone inevitably reports or shoots you. It's as if Rockstar don't want you to have fun and play the outlaw in their game about playing as an outlaw.
Reading back on what I've read so far, I feel like I have bashed this game pretty hard. As an aspiring game developer myself, I have an idea of what goes into a project like this and what Rockstar have achieved in that sense is truly astonishing and inspiring. The lighting work along with the cinematic camera and near photo-realistic graphics make this game a visual beauty. The world also feels genuinely alive, the voice acting is brilliant and the small touches and intricate level of detail present is insane. Presentation wise, this game is flawless.
Okay, at this point I am about 5 or 6 hours into the game. I am still on chapter 2 and have only done a couple more story missions, but I have done a good bit of exploring too. So far, I have experienced 2 bugs. One was when a story mission required me to get on a horse to take and sell at the Valentine stable and the horse was invisible during the cutscene and non-existent when it switched to gameplay. A quick restart solved this, but still the bug was present during a main story mission.
The other happened during a random stranger encounter. I was riding through an open area full of lumberjacks cutting down trees and one of the trees fell on a guy's leg. I got off my horse and ran over to help, but while doing so, I saw a bunch of bounty hunter symbols appear on the mini map. I ignored them and pressed the button prompt to help lift the tree, but while doing so, the bounty hunters appeared and fired their guns in the air. The rest of the men fled and I was left standing beside the guy that was trapped under the tree, unable to move or do anything. As I stood and spammed every button trying to make Arthur move, the bounty hunters just surrounded me and pointed their guns towards me, but none of them shot. We were left in this awkward standoff for a few minutes before I eventually gave up and had to restart. This second bug is probably the more egregious of the two I've had so far, as I now have no way of knowing if I am going to be able to get that random encounter again.
This is annoying as the random encounters are by far the best part of this game so far. I don't want to spoil too many of them here, but they range from exciting to terrifying to just plain sad and all of them are brilliant.
As I settle into Arthur as a character, I realise more and more how much I prefer and miss playing as John. John was cool where Arthur is goofy. John was smooth where Arthur is wooden. Don't get me wrong, Arthur is well written and acted, but I really think he would play better as a side character rather than a protagonist. Plus the way I play him totally contradicts his whole attitude. I'm playing him as a ruthless killer who shoots entire groups of people on sight and he is still a lovable, goofy rogue in cutscenes.
I have played a few more hours over the last few nights, I must be around 10 hours in now, (although there doesn't seem to be any way of checking that for sure.) I am still on Chapter 2 in terms of the story, but I have been doing a lot of exploring and have found/bought a decent amount of better gear and weapons for Arthur. It also turns out that there is some fast travel in this game, if you upgrade Dutch's tent via the camp ledger and then upgrade your own, (costs about $500 all in,) you can fast travel from the camp to any major location that you have previously visited. Unfortunately while I was fast travelling last night to a location, I experience the first occurrence of pop-in that I have seen so far in the game. I understand that this game is extremely vast and there is a great deal to load in, but when every other aspect of the game is so polished in terms of presentation, it stuck out like a sore thumb.
In terms of exploration, I have probably spent less than half of my 10 hours in the game so far doing story missions and instead spent the majority of my time just riding/walking around and taking in the sights, or speaking to strangers, or violently robbing and killing them at gunpoint whenever the notion takes me. Strawberry is a cool little town, it is quite similar to Valentine in terms of the size and the available shops etc. St Denis is another story. Located at the south-east corner of the map, it is a huge, bustling city with an overwhelming amount to take in. Without spoiling too much, it will also open up a few more opportunities for Arthur once you get there.
I have played a lot more of the game since I last updated this, I'd guess I am closer to 20 hours playtime than 10 at this point. I have finally progressed to Chapter 3, the gang has moved camp to near another small town called Rhodes, which has lots to see and do considering it's small size. That is one thing that Rockstar have undoubtedly nailed in this game, making these towns truly feel alive and like they continue to exist even when you are not riding through them. I'd go as far as to say that this open world feels more alive than any other one that I have spent time in.
The story missions up until this point are touch and go. Some are really fun and exciting and some are monotonous and boring and feel more like busywork than progress. I much prefer the side missions up to this point. The debt collecting missions and the bounty missions are satisfying and feel worthwhile. The robbery side missions that you do with certain gang members are also a nice, more engaging change from the slower pace of the story.
In terms of the game's characters, I am just as much of as a fan of John Marston as I was in the last game and I must admit that spending more time with Arthur has made him grow on me slightly. As for the rest of the gang though, it's a mixed bag. I like Sean, Charles, Javier and Lenny, but the rest are just annoying and a chore to be around. One major disappointment regarding the characters for me, is that I thought that this game was going to make me sympathise with Dutch and see things from his perspective, the way that MGS 3 did for Big Boss, but no. Apparently he was always an unlikable dick.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Tom and Jerry (2021) in Movies
Mar 11, 2021 (Updated Mar 27, 2021)
The animation looks nice (2 more)
Decent laughs
Gets the Tom and Jerry part of the movie right
Too predictable (2 more)
Bad plot
Barely above average movie overall
Visually Pleasing With Decent Laughs Sprinkled Throughout
Tom and Jerry is a 2021 live-action/CGI animated comedy movie directed by Tim Story and written by Kevin Costello. The film was produced by Chris DeFaria and Warner Animation Group, The Story Company, and Turner Entertainment Co. and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures. The movie stars Chloe Grace Moretz, Michael Pena, Colin Jost, Robe Delaney and Ken Jeong.
Kayla Forester (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a street smart woman doing odd jobs in Manhattan when she bumps into Tom while he's chasing Jerry in Central Park. Jerry, who picked a fight with Tom during a impromptu piano performance is also house hunting and in search of a new home. Kayla, is fortuitous when she goes to the Royal Gate Hotel for a "free" breakfast and presents a stolen resume as her own. She's given a position with helping event manager Terence Mendoza (Michael Pena) with a high profile wedding the very day that Jerry takes up residence in the hotel. Tom and Jerry's usual shenanigans ensue when Kayla hires Tom to "exterminate" him when Jerry begins stealing food and items causing concern about Ben (Colin Jost) and Preeta's (Pallavi Sharda) wedding and for the hotel's reputation to Mr. Dubros (Rob Delaney) the hotel's owner and general manager.
This was a movie that I watched on a whim and didn't have any expectations going into other than the animation looking really nice in the trailer when I first saw it. Also trying to get into the groove of getting back on doing my reviews on the regular again. I'm also a fan of both Chloe Grace Moretz from the Kick-Ass movies and Michael Pena from just about everything he comes out in. Plus I've always been a fan of Tom and Jerry, watching the cartoons as a kid was always fun and it's something that I can still enjoy anytime even though it's something that is really old. But enough of that and let's get to what I thought about the movie. I liked how the movie setup the Tom and Jerry character's similar to how it would in an episode. It showed both of them individually with their own goals before bringing them together. Tom is shown to have aspirations of becoming an accomplished pianist and Jerry is shown house hunting and looking for a new home to live in. That's when Jerry finds Tom pulling a scam in Central Park conning people as a "blind" piano player. Jerry tries to "cash in" on Tom's scheme and begins trying to get in on the action and adding himself and a little flair to the performance. That's when their usual antics ruin the opportunity for both of them. This was a pretty decent opening and I really liked how their animation looked and how the live-action aspect interacted with them, it was very visually pleasing. I really didn't like how it seemed Jerry was the agitator between the two or at least the one who starts the "rivalry" in this movie but I think I've always looked at him through rose colored glasses if you will since he is the smaller and more vulnerable of the two. The comedic antics were very spot on emulating a lot of classic moments from the cartoon with most not all working fairly well in a "real-world" setting. I think where this movie lost me the most was not the backdrop of the New York City being the setting or even the live-action part and actors like Chloe Grace Moretz and Michael Pena but the whole wedding plot being a primary focus of the film. I mean I can totally see it as a catalyst to the whole plot but for it to be the main focus didn't really thrill me. I thought the acting was decent and comedy was good but this movie didn't really strike me as a super funny movie, though it did have me laughing out loud at a couple of parts. I was happy that they also added Spike and the pretty white cat whose name is Toots which are regulars in the cartoon and a host of other cats as part of the alley cat gang who many of which looked familiar. The music soundtrack was good too and had a bunch of popular artists from music of today which didn't really go with the whole "vibe" of Tom and Jerry but didn't take a way from the movie either. Droopy the dog's cameo was also a nice added touch. All-in-all this movie was barely above average for me and I think that's me mainly having nostalgia for the characters and what the show used to be. Definitely not something I would see at theaters but if you have HBO Max you should give it a shot. I give this movie a 6/10.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
So I gave this movie a 6/10 which for me is above average but this movie barely met that criteria. It started off pretty good and funny with Jerry looking for a new place to live and dealing with a dodgy real estate rat. It was also cool to see Tom having dreams or aspirations of becoming a pianist and then seeing how they collide when Jerry tries to own in on his action on the whole blind piano player scheme. That was all classic Tom and Jerry. I also enjoyed the way they interacted with the whole live-action aspect of the film and how the people reacted to them and the environments and how that all worked out was pretty good to me in my opinion. The pigeon singing opening was also pretty funny and cool and when he sings again later in the movie was awesome. I really like Chloe Grace Moretz as Kayla Forester and thought that she did a pretty good job for acting with what was probably people wearing green screen costumes or props and Michael Pena was pretty funny as the event manager. The movie was pretty predictable except for one thing that I guess I would have known about if I bothered to see the second trailer but I never did, and that's the whole sub-plot of the wedding being such a big focus for the film. I don't have anything against weddings except for when it comes to Tv shows and how if any of them run long enough then there's going to be a wedding episode somewhere. But I really felt that it kind of took a way from the whole vibe of it being a Tom and Jerry movie. It was cool how they brought Spike and Toots into the picture by them being the pets of Ben and Preeta. It was pretty obvious when they introduced the bartend character Cameron that he would be Kayla's love interest but I'm kind of glad that they didn't lean too hard into that. I thought that it was pretty funny how Kayla made Tom and Jerry be friends and go out on the town on their own and it was kind of fun to see them get a long for a while but I knew it would never last. I also thought it was pretty messed up that Kayla let Terence take the blame for Spike, Tom and Jerry tearing up the hotel when it all started with Jerry who returned when she said Tom had taken care of him already. I could totally tell that Terence would become the villain of the movie after that but most of the movie is predictable anyways. There was surprisingly an after credits scene where Ben is charged for two different weddings by the hotel which is pretty funny too. Not a great movie by no means and definitely barely above average but if you have HBO Max you should give it a watch for nostalgia's sake especially if your an old Tom and Jerry fan. I gave it a 6/10.
https://youtu.be/nrdsTy_KpwQ
Kayla Forester (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a street smart woman doing odd jobs in Manhattan when she bumps into Tom while he's chasing Jerry in Central Park. Jerry, who picked a fight with Tom during a impromptu piano performance is also house hunting and in search of a new home. Kayla, is fortuitous when she goes to the Royal Gate Hotel for a "free" breakfast and presents a stolen resume as her own. She's given a position with helping event manager Terence Mendoza (Michael Pena) with a high profile wedding the very day that Jerry takes up residence in the hotel. Tom and Jerry's usual shenanigans ensue when Kayla hires Tom to "exterminate" him when Jerry begins stealing food and items causing concern about Ben (Colin Jost) and Preeta's (Pallavi Sharda) wedding and for the hotel's reputation to Mr. Dubros (Rob Delaney) the hotel's owner and general manager.
This was a movie that I watched on a whim and didn't have any expectations going into other than the animation looking really nice in the trailer when I first saw it. Also trying to get into the groove of getting back on doing my reviews on the regular again. I'm also a fan of both Chloe Grace Moretz from the Kick-Ass movies and Michael Pena from just about everything he comes out in. Plus I've always been a fan of Tom and Jerry, watching the cartoons as a kid was always fun and it's something that I can still enjoy anytime even though it's something that is really old. But enough of that and let's get to what I thought about the movie. I liked how the movie setup the Tom and Jerry character's similar to how it would in an episode. It showed both of them individually with their own goals before bringing them together. Tom is shown to have aspirations of becoming an accomplished pianist and Jerry is shown house hunting and looking for a new home to live in. That's when Jerry finds Tom pulling a scam in Central Park conning people as a "blind" piano player. Jerry tries to "cash in" on Tom's scheme and begins trying to get in on the action and adding himself and a little flair to the performance. That's when their usual antics ruin the opportunity for both of them. This was a pretty decent opening and I really liked how their animation looked and how the live-action aspect interacted with them, it was very visually pleasing. I really didn't like how it seemed Jerry was the agitator between the two or at least the one who starts the "rivalry" in this movie but I think I've always looked at him through rose colored glasses if you will since he is the smaller and more vulnerable of the two. The comedic antics were very spot on emulating a lot of classic moments from the cartoon with most not all working fairly well in a "real-world" setting. I think where this movie lost me the most was not the backdrop of the New York City being the setting or even the live-action part and actors like Chloe Grace Moretz and Michael Pena but the whole wedding plot being a primary focus of the film. I mean I can totally see it as a catalyst to the whole plot but for it to be the main focus didn't really thrill me. I thought the acting was decent and comedy was good but this movie didn't really strike me as a super funny movie, though it did have me laughing out loud at a couple of parts. I was happy that they also added Spike and the pretty white cat whose name is Toots which are regulars in the cartoon and a host of other cats as part of the alley cat gang who many of which looked familiar. The music soundtrack was good too and had a bunch of popular artists from music of today which didn't really go with the whole "vibe" of Tom and Jerry but didn't take a way from the movie either. Droopy the dog's cameo was also a nice added touch. All-in-all this movie was barely above average for me and I think that's me mainly having nostalgia for the characters and what the show used to be. Definitely not something I would see at theaters but if you have HBO Max you should give it a shot. I give this movie a 6/10.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
So I gave this movie a 6/10 which for me is above average but this movie barely met that criteria. It started off pretty good and funny with Jerry looking for a new place to live and dealing with a dodgy real estate rat. It was also cool to see Tom having dreams or aspirations of becoming a pianist and then seeing how they collide when Jerry tries to own in on his action on the whole blind piano player scheme. That was all classic Tom and Jerry. I also enjoyed the way they interacted with the whole live-action aspect of the film and how the people reacted to them and the environments and how that all worked out was pretty good to me in my opinion. The pigeon singing opening was also pretty funny and cool and when he sings again later in the movie was awesome. I really like Chloe Grace Moretz as Kayla Forester and thought that she did a pretty good job for acting with what was probably people wearing green screen costumes or props and Michael Pena was pretty funny as the event manager. The movie was pretty predictable except for one thing that I guess I would have known about if I bothered to see the second trailer but I never did, and that's the whole sub-plot of the wedding being such a big focus for the film. I don't have anything against weddings except for when it comes to Tv shows and how if any of them run long enough then there's going to be a wedding episode somewhere. But I really felt that it kind of took a way from the whole vibe of it being a Tom and Jerry movie. It was cool how they brought Spike and Toots into the picture by them being the pets of Ben and Preeta. It was pretty obvious when they introduced the bartend character Cameron that he would be Kayla's love interest but I'm kind of glad that they didn't lean too hard into that. I thought that it was pretty funny how Kayla made Tom and Jerry be friends and go out on the town on their own and it was kind of fun to see them get a long for a while but I knew it would never last. I also thought it was pretty messed up that Kayla let Terence take the blame for Spike, Tom and Jerry tearing up the hotel when it all started with Jerry who returned when she said Tom had taken care of him already. I could totally tell that Terence would become the villain of the movie after that but most of the movie is predictable anyways. There was surprisingly an after credits scene where Ben is charged for two different weddings by the hotel which is pretty funny too. Not a great movie by no means and definitely barely above average but if you have HBO Max you should give it a watch for nostalgia's sake especially if your an old Tom and Jerry fan. I gave it a 6/10.
https://youtu.be/nrdsTy_KpwQ
