Search
Search results
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Phoenix Resurrection: The Return of Jean Grey in Books
Nov 30, 2020
So, confession time, I had bought this on a Comixology sale a couple months before the whole "Death of the X-Men", etc., etc. I was not really following the recent X-debacles, but I am a Jean Grey fan from way (like when the whole "Dark Phoenix Saga" was coming out for the first time. Yeah, I'm OLD! lol) and well, I had pretty high hopes, y'know?
Unfortunately, I could not get into it at the time. Mind you, this was all pre-"Dawn of X"; as I am starting a big "Dawn of X" re-visit from HoX/PoX up to present, only without the dumpster fire that was FALLEN ANGELS, it made sense to try this one again! And, as I read it all in one afternoon, it's needless to say, but I am hella glad I did!
---
When I started reading it at first, I was apprehensive, as I saw some of Bendis' O5 X-Men were in it. It would appear my "apprehensive[ness]" was not really necessary as the O5 members included really had no memorable role to the story.
Matthew Rosenberg is an author's name I had heard in passing but had never had an occasion to read anything he'd written. Before embarking on this tale, I read Rosenberg's NEW MUTANTS: DEAD SOULS, giving me a taste (which I liked despite the unresolved cliffhanger ending) of his writing style and how he would handle writing for mutants.
I really liked his treatment of the characters! Beast felt in character, as did nearly everyone else. Even Old Man Logan, who was a great character in Millar's miniseries but who felt like a guest who didn't really know when to go home, was quite likable, bringing some real feels to the story, and the story's ending.
Do I think this was the worst way to bring back Jean? Good Lord, no! There have been a few other occasions over the years, which were closer to that notion! But this story? Yeah, it made sense (like <b>that</b> ever happens in comics!), giving Jean a return that felt proper as well as some genuine caring for her character's history as a whole!
And how about that art? WOW! I am not what you'd call a fan of Leinil Francis Yu's art style, finding it to be too "sketchy" at times. However, in the issues he turned in (Issues 1 and 5) were unlike any I had ever seen him draw before! While the other issues from Carlos Pacheco (Issue 2)Illustrator), Ramon Rosanas (Issue 4) and Joe Bennett (Issue 3 and Issue 5, alongside Yu) all seemed to tie together perfectly, never once swaying in art style, helping the story to remain visually consistent for all five of the issues of the the mini-series!
At the end of the day, I can find very little, if anything, to gripe about with PHOENIX RESURRECTION: THE RETURN OF JEAN GREY! It's a solid story that is all about characters we have grown up with and loved, as well as more than hearty helping of the feels! And, really, at the end of the day, isn't that what it's all about anyway?
Peace.
Unfortunately, I could not get into it at the time. Mind you, this was all pre-"Dawn of X"; as I am starting a big "Dawn of X" re-visit from HoX/PoX up to present, only without the dumpster fire that was FALLEN ANGELS, it made sense to try this one again! And, as I read it all in one afternoon, it's needless to say, but I am hella glad I did!
---
When I started reading it at first, I was apprehensive, as I saw some of Bendis' O5 X-Men were in it. It would appear my "apprehensive[ness]" was not really necessary as the O5 members included really had no memorable role to the story.
Matthew Rosenberg is an author's name I had heard in passing but had never had an occasion to read anything he'd written. Before embarking on this tale, I read Rosenberg's NEW MUTANTS: DEAD SOULS, giving me a taste (which I liked despite the unresolved cliffhanger ending) of his writing style and how he would handle writing for mutants.
I really liked his treatment of the characters! Beast felt in character, as did nearly everyone else. Even Old Man Logan, who was a great character in Millar's miniseries but who felt like a guest who didn't really know when to go home, was quite likable, bringing some real feels to the story, and the story's ending.
Do I think this was the worst way to bring back Jean? Good Lord, no! There have been a few other occasions over the years, which were closer to that notion! But this story? Yeah, it made sense (like <b>that</b> ever happens in comics!), giving Jean a return that felt proper as well as some genuine caring for her character's history as a whole!
And how about that art? WOW! I am not what you'd call a fan of Leinil Francis Yu's art style, finding it to be too "sketchy" at times. However, in the issues he turned in (Issues 1 and 5) were unlike any I had ever seen him draw before! While the other issues from Carlos Pacheco (Issue 2)Illustrator), Ramon Rosanas (Issue 4) and Joe Bennett (Issue 3 and Issue 5, alongside Yu) all seemed to tie together perfectly, never once swaying in art style, helping the story to remain visually consistent for all five of the issues of the the mini-series!
At the end of the day, I can find very little, if anything, to gripe about with PHOENIX RESURRECTION: THE RETURN OF JEAN GREY! It's a solid story that is all about characters we have grown up with and loved, as well as more than hearty helping of the feels! And, really, at the end of the day, isn't that what it's all about anyway?
Peace.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated The Boys - Season 2 in TV
Oct 10, 2020
Excellent, but not quite as good as the first
For me, the first series of The Boys was a brilliant surprise and the wait for this second series has been a rather frustrating and impatient experience, especially as Amazon decided not to release the entire series at once. Fortunately by the time the credits rolled on the series 2 finale, it was definitely worth the wait.
This second series follows on from the reveal at the end of the series 1 finale, and features more dodgy supes and the Boys trying to take down both them and Vought.
Series 2 is very similar to the first. It’s just as rude and crude as before, full of dark and often hilarious humour and the blood and gore ante seems to have been upped considerably. It definitely provides a refreshing change to the Marvel universe and the majority of other superheroes that stick to their PG or 12A ratings. This has a very smart and funny take on politics and also on pop culture and the media, and even superhero films don’t escape this unscathed when we see The Seven making their own movie.
The cast are as fantastic as they were in the first series. Antony Starr is outstanding as Homelander, playing the homicidal maniac with some semblance of a heart – after 2 series I think I both love and hate him in equal parts, he’s such a complex character. It was very nice to see Dominique McElligott get more to work with as Maeve as well and to see more depth to her character. The rest of the cast and the new additions do very well too - Goran Visjnic, Shawn Ashmore and Jim Beaver are especially welcome, and it was very clever of Eric Kripke to name Beaver’s character as Robert Singer, the same name as his character from Supernatural.
Despite this, I don’t think this series is perfect and I do think it’s a slight baby step down from the rather excellent first series. Some of the episodes feel like they drag a little, although they do end up picking up towards the end (usually with a bang). The final two episodes definitely try and make up for this and I think the finale itself was especially good as we get to see Stormfront get her much deserved comeuppance. I also think some of the interactions between Starlight and the other characters are slightly badly scripted and feel a little forced and cringeworthy, but I’m not entirely sure if this is on purpose to show how awkwardly Starlight interacts with others.
The Deep has also been done a disservice in this series. He starts off brilliantly and the scene with the whale in the third episode is downright genius, however as the series moves on we see less and less of him and he’s sorely missed. Admittedly when he does pop up in the later episodes he has some cracking lines, but it’s not enough. I also think that Shawn Ashmore as Lamplighter was fantastic for the brief time we saw him, and I really wish he’d been kept around for much longer.
The Boys series 2 is overall a very good series that for the most part lives up to it’s predecessor and after the final few scenes in episode 8, definitely leaves us crying out for more.
This second series follows on from the reveal at the end of the series 1 finale, and features more dodgy supes and the Boys trying to take down both them and Vought.
Series 2 is very similar to the first. It’s just as rude and crude as before, full of dark and often hilarious humour and the blood and gore ante seems to have been upped considerably. It definitely provides a refreshing change to the Marvel universe and the majority of other superheroes that stick to their PG or 12A ratings. This has a very smart and funny take on politics and also on pop culture and the media, and even superhero films don’t escape this unscathed when we see The Seven making their own movie.
The cast are as fantastic as they were in the first series. Antony Starr is outstanding as Homelander, playing the homicidal maniac with some semblance of a heart – after 2 series I think I both love and hate him in equal parts, he’s such a complex character. It was very nice to see Dominique McElligott get more to work with as Maeve as well and to see more depth to her character. The rest of the cast and the new additions do very well too - Goran Visjnic, Shawn Ashmore and Jim Beaver are especially welcome, and it was very clever of Eric Kripke to name Beaver’s character as Robert Singer, the same name as his character from Supernatural.
Despite this, I don’t think this series is perfect and I do think it’s a slight baby step down from the rather excellent first series. Some of the episodes feel like they drag a little, although they do end up picking up towards the end (usually with a bang). The final two episodes definitely try and make up for this and I think the finale itself was especially good as we get to see Stormfront get her much deserved comeuppance. I also think some of the interactions between Starlight and the other characters are slightly badly scripted and feel a little forced and cringeworthy, but I’m not entirely sure if this is on purpose to show how awkwardly Starlight interacts with others.
The Deep has also been done a disservice in this series. He starts off brilliantly and the scene with the whale in the third episode is downright genius, however as the series moves on we see less and less of him and he’s sorely missed. Admittedly when he does pop up in the later episodes he has some cracking lines, but it’s not enough. I also think that Shawn Ashmore as Lamplighter was fantastic for the brief time we saw him, and I really wish he’d been kept around for much longer.
The Boys series 2 is overall a very good series that for the most part lives up to it’s predecessor and after the final few scenes in episode 8, definitely leaves us crying out for more.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Every Time I Die (2019) in Movies
Oct 26, 2020
Not to be confused with No Time To Die, this indie supernatural thriller is lacking in big-budget polish and characters that you feel invested in, but manages to get by on an interesting concept and some sharp execution.
We begin with Sam (Drew Fonteiro), seeing what he sees as he gently blinks open his eyes to reveal Mia (Melissa Macedo) alongside him in bed. Sam has had a nightmare, and as he heads into the bathroom, he begins to experience an uncomfortable buzzing in his head, which leads to a blackout. When Sam comes around again, he’s crouched on the floor at work, with no memory as to how he arrived there. He’s wearing a paramedic uniform and holding a photo of two children, a brother and sister. On the back of the photo is written ‘remember Sara’.
Sam’s work colleague and friend, Jay (Marc Menchaca) invites Sam to join him and his wife Poppy (Michelle Macedo) at a lodge for the weekend. Poppy is the twin sister of Mia, who we saw in bed with Sam earlier and both Mia and her husband Tyler are also at the lodge. Tyler is a soldier, suffering from PTSD, and it’s clear that Sam and Mia have been having an affair behind his back, which now puts Sam in a bit of an awkward situation.
By this point, we’ve already witnessed Sam experiencing several more blackouts, including one while driving to the lodge. Each time, Sam has no recollection of what happened during the blackout, although a video recorded during one of the blackouts by his friends, shows that he does remain conscious and able to hold a conversation. Occasionally we get flashbacks and dream sequences which reveal that the brother and sister from the photo earlier are in fact Sam and his sister Sara, who drowned in a terrible accident when they were both children.
The first half of Every Time I Die is a slow, frustrating experience, not helped by the fact that the character of Sam is incredibly dull. Consequently, we feel no emotional connection to Sam, despite the childhood trauma he suffered and the turmoil he now experiences as an adult. Thankfully, the second half picks up when a jealous Tyler discovers that his wife has been cheating on him with Sam and murders Sam out by a lake in the forest. Thanks to the first-person perspective that was utilised earlier, we discover that Sam then transferred into the body of friend Jay, and must now try and convince his friends what Tyler has done. Not an easy task when Jay has a history of mental illness, leading the others to believe he’s had a relapse.
From there, Every Time I Die is just a roller coaster ride of clever ideas and twists, constantly dragged down by further flashbacks and confusing dream sequences, which are meant to help us and Sam understand what happened to him and his sister, but repeatedly stall the narrative momentum instead.
That being said, for the most part, I really enjoyed Every Time I Die. Aside from the slow first half, and the character of Sam, it’s well written, well crafted and with a satisfying, heart-warming finale.
We begin with Sam (Drew Fonteiro), seeing what he sees as he gently blinks open his eyes to reveal Mia (Melissa Macedo) alongside him in bed. Sam has had a nightmare, and as he heads into the bathroom, he begins to experience an uncomfortable buzzing in his head, which leads to a blackout. When Sam comes around again, he’s crouched on the floor at work, with no memory as to how he arrived there. He’s wearing a paramedic uniform and holding a photo of two children, a brother and sister. On the back of the photo is written ‘remember Sara’.
Sam’s work colleague and friend, Jay (Marc Menchaca) invites Sam to join him and his wife Poppy (Michelle Macedo) at a lodge for the weekend. Poppy is the twin sister of Mia, who we saw in bed with Sam earlier and both Mia and her husband Tyler are also at the lodge. Tyler is a soldier, suffering from PTSD, and it’s clear that Sam and Mia have been having an affair behind his back, which now puts Sam in a bit of an awkward situation.
By this point, we’ve already witnessed Sam experiencing several more blackouts, including one while driving to the lodge. Each time, Sam has no recollection of what happened during the blackout, although a video recorded during one of the blackouts by his friends, shows that he does remain conscious and able to hold a conversation. Occasionally we get flashbacks and dream sequences which reveal that the brother and sister from the photo earlier are in fact Sam and his sister Sara, who drowned in a terrible accident when they were both children.
The first half of Every Time I Die is a slow, frustrating experience, not helped by the fact that the character of Sam is incredibly dull. Consequently, we feel no emotional connection to Sam, despite the childhood trauma he suffered and the turmoil he now experiences as an adult. Thankfully, the second half picks up when a jealous Tyler discovers that his wife has been cheating on him with Sam and murders Sam out by a lake in the forest. Thanks to the first-person perspective that was utilised earlier, we discover that Sam then transferred into the body of friend Jay, and must now try and convince his friends what Tyler has done. Not an easy task when Jay has a history of mental illness, leading the others to believe he’s had a relapse.
From there, Every Time I Die is just a roller coaster ride of clever ideas and twists, constantly dragged down by further flashbacks and confusing dream sequences, which are meant to help us and Sam understand what happened to him and his sister, but repeatedly stall the narrative momentum instead.
That being said, for the most part, I really enjoyed Every Time I Die. Aside from the slow first half, and the character of Sam, it’s well written, well crafted and with a satisfying, heart-warming finale.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Buster's Mal Heart (2016) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Remember before the digital revolution and on demand TV channels when you had to stay up late and watch the films shown after midnight to see anything outside of the mainstream? Quite often they were awful, cheap, rambling experiences that maybe had one or two memorable scenes, or something so weird that you had to find out if any of your friends had seen it. Well, this is one of those films, except it was made in 2017 and I saw it in 2020 on Netflix.
I had added it to my watchlist some time during my obsession with Rami Malek and Mr Robot, knowing he had popped up in several cameo roles in big films over the years, but keen to see him take a lead role before the Oscar train of Bohemian Rhapsody and A-list fame. It is also that kind of film that arthouse cinemas would show during indie festivals or on late night double bills; stepping stones, hopefully, for all concerned to bigger things.
Writer director Sarah Adina Smith hasn’t quite made it yet, so you probably haven’t heard of her. She directed 2 episodes of Hanna, which I liked a lot, and will be talking about on The Wasteland at some point, and a few other bits of TV, but that’s about it. Judged on this oddity there is a good deal of vision and talent going on – but not yet an eye for total coherence.
Buster doesn’t know what it is, and neither do the critics, listing it as a mystery, a drama, a thriller, a sci-fi and a crime film, which… ok, yes, it has elements of all those, but isn’t really any of them, also. The titular character played by Malek is an ethereal enigma trapped in his own weird existence, and through a series of out of time and out of sequence flashbacks we come to understand his journey and descent into madness, after encountering a down at heel salesman with a big conspiracy theory to pedal, called The Inversion.
It remains shrouded in ambiguity and strangeness for most of the modest, but not off-putting, 96 minute running time, as Malek grows a beard, loses a beard and grows a beard again. Even when all is said and done, it takes a minute to put it all together and figure out what the point of it was. As something curious to let wash over you, I have to say I kinda liked it. Malek was as committed and interesting to watch as he always is, and I was just happy that films like this can still get made.
Ultimately, possibly a short film idea stretched too thin into a feature, which is an all too familiar phenomenon for new directors. But, an idea interesting and original enough to earn the right to be thought of as “showing potential”. If Smith ever does make it as big as say Jim Jarmusch or Kelly Reichardt then the arthouse geeks like me will be looking back on this with great interest. You just wonder how many people will see it at all, now the days of post midnight movies on a set channel are pretty much over?
I had added it to my watchlist some time during my obsession with Rami Malek and Mr Robot, knowing he had popped up in several cameo roles in big films over the years, but keen to see him take a lead role before the Oscar train of Bohemian Rhapsody and A-list fame. It is also that kind of film that arthouse cinemas would show during indie festivals or on late night double bills; stepping stones, hopefully, for all concerned to bigger things.
Writer director Sarah Adina Smith hasn’t quite made it yet, so you probably haven’t heard of her. She directed 2 episodes of Hanna, which I liked a lot, and will be talking about on The Wasteland at some point, and a few other bits of TV, but that’s about it. Judged on this oddity there is a good deal of vision and talent going on – but not yet an eye for total coherence.
Buster doesn’t know what it is, and neither do the critics, listing it as a mystery, a drama, a thriller, a sci-fi and a crime film, which… ok, yes, it has elements of all those, but isn’t really any of them, also. The titular character played by Malek is an ethereal enigma trapped in his own weird existence, and through a series of out of time and out of sequence flashbacks we come to understand his journey and descent into madness, after encountering a down at heel salesman with a big conspiracy theory to pedal, called The Inversion.
It remains shrouded in ambiguity and strangeness for most of the modest, but not off-putting, 96 minute running time, as Malek grows a beard, loses a beard and grows a beard again. Even when all is said and done, it takes a minute to put it all together and figure out what the point of it was. As something curious to let wash over you, I have to say I kinda liked it. Malek was as committed and interesting to watch as he always is, and I was just happy that films like this can still get made.
Ultimately, possibly a short film idea stretched too thin into a feature, which is an all too familiar phenomenon for new directors. But, an idea interesting and original enough to earn the right to be thought of as “showing potential”. If Smith ever does make it as big as say Jim Jarmusch or Kelly Reichardt then the arthouse geeks like me will be looking back on this with great interest. You just wonder how many people will see it at all, now the days of post midnight movies on a set channel are pretty much over?
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Fatman (2020) in Movies
Dec 21, 2020
I'll level with you on this one, I had no idea what I was in for, but Mel Gibson as a crazed looking Santa had me sold, so I went ahead a brought this one on DVD.
As Santa tries to keep his workshop afloat in ever trying naughty times. But as he diversifies his team, a new problem raises its ugly head, eternally naughty Billy is less than impressed by his coal and hires a hitman to take Santa out of the festivities for good.
The idea of making this sort of Christmas film is wonderful to me, the action-packed ride of a thriller with just enough festivity to make it a great alternative Christmas movie choice... *chef's kiss*
Bringing the added twist of children getting a little less nice every year, we see the stark reality that this brings to Santa's business model. It gives him the very modern concern of traditional businesses... and I really liked that angle.
Gibson in the gruff but jolly role of Santa fits well with this aesthetic, and the way he manages to turn Santa into a hardened action star really amused me. There were great subtleties in the character and I loved how we saw his changes, and how they dealt with the mystery of Santa as an eternal, all-knowing character. And for that matter, the elves and how they prove to be the most effective workforce on the planet.
Pitted against Santa we have Walton Goggins as our hitman and Chance Hurstfield as Billy... who is the first person I have wished a reindeer trampling on. Billy is the evil part of the baddie contingent, while the Skinny Man (as he's named on IMDb) really feels like he's just bad for the paycheck and you'd actually bring him round after a good talking to. Goggins has an interesting backstory to his character, and yet for some reason we never get a very satisfying look at it. An opportunity missed that leaves part of the storyline a little unanswered.
Almost instantly I was struck by the look of the film, the general muted tones with punctuations of red and green made for very strong visuals. The snow-covered scenery and rustic feel to Santa's compound was a lovely addition too, and it was a refreshing change to the vibrant and excessively cheery depiction of a "traditional" Santa's village.
While I loved the idea they were conjuring here, there were bits of the execution that didn't feel quite right. For an action film, it was missing some... kapow... literally. The explosions had no wow factor and seemed rather tame for this outlandish tale. The film also felt like it was trying to be too many different things. Billy's overly animated maniacal behaviour felt like it was trying to keep the film for a younger audience, but with a 15 rating that was out of their reach. This, coupled with the missing Goggins backstory felt like they weren't convinced by their own ideas. With the film being quite a short 1 hour 40 I think it could have stood a few additions here and there.
I'm definitely here for the menacing Father Christmas, and more actiony Christmas movies in my life. The way they switched this one up put a genuine smile on my face.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/12/fatman-movie-review.html
As Santa tries to keep his workshop afloat in ever trying naughty times. But as he diversifies his team, a new problem raises its ugly head, eternally naughty Billy is less than impressed by his coal and hires a hitman to take Santa out of the festivities for good.
The idea of making this sort of Christmas film is wonderful to me, the action-packed ride of a thriller with just enough festivity to make it a great alternative Christmas movie choice... *chef's kiss*
Bringing the added twist of children getting a little less nice every year, we see the stark reality that this brings to Santa's business model. It gives him the very modern concern of traditional businesses... and I really liked that angle.
Gibson in the gruff but jolly role of Santa fits well with this aesthetic, and the way he manages to turn Santa into a hardened action star really amused me. There were great subtleties in the character and I loved how we saw his changes, and how they dealt with the mystery of Santa as an eternal, all-knowing character. And for that matter, the elves and how they prove to be the most effective workforce on the planet.
Pitted against Santa we have Walton Goggins as our hitman and Chance Hurstfield as Billy... who is the first person I have wished a reindeer trampling on. Billy is the evil part of the baddie contingent, while the Skinny Man (as he's named on IMDb) really feels like he's just bad for the paycheck and you'd actually bring him round after a good talking to. Goggins has an interesting backstory to his character, and yet for some reason we never get a very satisfying look at it. An opportunity missed that leaves part of the storyline a little unanswered.
Almost instantly I was struck by the look of the film, the general muted tones with punctuations of red and green made for very strong visuals. The snow-covered scenery and rustic feel to Santa's compound was a lovely addition too, and it was a refreshing change to the vibrant and excessively cheery depiction of a "traditional" Santa's village.
While I loved the idea they were conjuring here, there were bits of the execution that didn't feel quite right. For an action film, it was missing some... kapow... literally. The explosions had no wow factor and seemed rather tame for this outlandish tale. The film also felt like it was trying to be too many different things. Billy's overly animated maniacal behaviour felt like it was trying to keep the film for a younger audience, but with a 15 rating that was out of their reach. This, coupled with the missing Goggins backstory felt like they weren't convinced by their own ideas. With the film being quite a short 1 hour 40 I think it could have stood a few additions here and there.
I'm definitely here for the menacing Father Christmas, and more actiony Christmas movies in my life. The way they switched this one up put a genuine smile on my face.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/12/fatman-movie-review.html
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Pretense in Tabletop Games
Sep 24, 2019
Have you ever invented something that already exists? I have. I invented the mechanism that is used in fast food joints where you can fill up the cups with just enough ice and pop (yes, it’s POP) per size of cup. So it only fills up enough ice and pop to fill a Small cup, for example. I invented that!! Until I saw that it was in use a year later after not doing anything about it. In any case, Pretense is a game that I should have invented. It’s one of those ideas where you think to yourself, “Well gall-darnit, why didn’t I think of that??”
This is a Button Shy game so you know it will be compact and fit into one of those nylon wallet things. Mine, however, was Kickstarted and came in and still resides in a clear plastic bag. No wallet. Oh well. It’s a small set of cards that you deal out to attendees of your game night when they arrive. Each player then reads their role cards to themselves and the game is on.
A game of Pretense is a meta-game that lasts the entire game night (or longer if you are hard core). When you have your role card you are trying to get someone to satisfy your role’s requirement so that you may catch them, announce your role, and then take their role card to assume their requirements. The “winner” is the person at the end of the game with the most amount of won role cards.
As you can see from the Klutz card above, if someone mentions that you suck at keeping your rolled dice on the table, you can announce that you are the Klutz, take their role card and continue playing as someone else. Well gall-darnit, why didn’t I think of that? It’s genius!
And it IS genius. It is a simple and sleek design that keeps everyone on their toes for the entire evening, trying to catch each other saying or doing something outrageous or quite normal – just to slap it in their faces and flaunt their gaming supremacy.
Components. Again, I have the Kickstarter Button Shy version of Pretense and it’s some cards in a basic clear plastic bag… well, sleeve. The cards are fine quality, and the art on them is quite good. They all have the same portraiture but with different subjects, and a nameplate above the game details. No issues on components or art here.
Pretense is a game that I can pull out with minimal (or no) explanation and have people plotting and sneaking all night long. I believe the boxed AEG version also provides role token (a la Werewolf) so everyone knows which roles are in play, but that’s no fun. It’s catching people when they aren’t thinking about what they’re doing that really makes this one shine. It will never make my Top 100 list, but I will also never let it go. I do love it and it has led to many hilarious accusations and subterfuge, so it will be mine for all time. As this game is difficult to really rate (due to it being more of an activity and not so much a game), I have left off any numeric values. This is a good time and you should defo try it out.
This is a Button Shy game so you know it will be compact and fit into one of those nylon wallet things. Mine, however, was Kickstarted and came in and still resides in a clear plastic bag. No wallet. Oh well. It’s a small set of cards that you deal out to attendees of your game night when they arrive. Each player then reads their role cards to themselves and the game is on.
A game of Pretense is a meta-game that lasts the entire game night (or longer if you are hard core). When you have your role card you are trying to get someone to satisfy your role’s requirement so that you may catch them, announce your role, and then take their role card to assume their requirements. The “winner” is the person at the end of the game with the most amount of won role cards.
As you can see from the Klutz card above, if someone mentions that you suck at keeping your rolled dice on the table, you can announce that you are the Klutz, take their role card and continue playing as someone else. Well gall-darnit, why didn’t I think of that? It’s genius!
And it IS genius. It is a simple and sleek design that keeps everyone on their toes for the entire evening, trying to catch each other saying or doing something outrageous or quite normal – just to slap it in their faces and flaunt their gaming supremacy.
Components. Again, I have the Kickstarter Button Shy version of Pretense and it’s some cards in a basic clear plastic bag… well, sleeve. The cards are fine quality, and the art on them is quite good. They all have the same portraiture but with different subjects, and a nameplate above the game details. No issues on components or art here.
Pretense is a game that I can pull out with minimal (or no) explanation and have people plotting and sneaking all night long. I believe the boxed AEG version also provides role token (a la Werewolf) so everyone knows which roles are in play, but that’s no fun. It’s catching people when they aren’t thinking about what they’re doing that really makes this one shine. It will never make my Top 100 list, but I will also never let it go. I do love it and it has led to many hilarious accusations and subterfuge, so it will be mine for all time. As this game is difficult to really rate (due to it being more of an activity and not so much a game), I have left off any numeric values. This is a good time and you should defo try it out.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I'd been on the fence about this one. The trailer King Of Thieves looked both good and bad in equal measures. Some of the clips they used weren't even particularly good when you saw them in the context of the whole films so I have no idea how they made it into such an important cut. Since seeing the Unlimited Screening I've seen the second trailer that is actually much better than the first. It's probably a god send that I didn't see it before the film otherwise I think I'd have been even more disappointed.
The film runs at a surprisingly short 1 hour 48 minutes, but don't worry, it feels like a lot longer than that. At one point I checked my phone for the time and nearly audibly swore (which probably would have been drowned out by the swearing of the film) about there being 20 minutes to go.
The idea is a great one, and the true life story behind it gives some opportunities for hilariously comedic moments, and yet somehow nothing was really fulfilled. I laughed a little, but I really didn't find it as amusing as some of the other cinema goers. The were a couple of voices in the darkness who were laughing hard that then set of a tiny ripple of tittering. I'm glad they enjoyed it so much, but I didn't once feel the need to laugh so hard.
Looking back on it I was left wondering something... did any of the police characters actually speak? The only things I remember were screamed words while arrests were made and lots of knowing looks and satisfied grins. Honestly can't remember any lines at all. I'm thinking they hired the main line-up and went "well that blew the acting budget, better cut all the other speaking parts."
Something that bugged me slightly was the use of spliced footage from the actor's younger days. It's a nice idea, but ultimately, when it was used undermined the message at the end of the film. Brian doesn't want them to be seen as old boys who are past their prime, so the film should have let them walk off to their sunset retirement not jumble it up with their younger selves and losing that moment between them all. It would have made perfect sense having the footage mixed into the scenes where the police were uncovering their identities and piecing the case together.
That line up was indeed fantastic, and that's why this film was so disappointing to me. All of them have done much better work than this. The script, or real lack thereof is what contributed the most to this let down. I'm not really sure that it should have two stars at all. In fact, no... *I'm revoking one of them, I've just been reading my criteria and I can't let it have two. ★☆☆☆☆ The story behind it and the cast potential don't make up for this lacklustre film.
What should you do?
There are some good scenes and a truly star studded cast, but even those don't really make up for the potential that this film squandered. If you like heist movies then it might be worth a watch but I feel like there are better ones out there to see.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
All that loot, obviously!
The film runs at a surprisingly short 1 hour 48 minutes, but don't worry, it feels like a lot longer than that. At one point I checked my phone for the time and nearly audibly swore (which probably would have been drowned out by the swearing of the film) about there being 20 minutes to go.
The idea is a great one, and the true life story behind it gives some opportunities for hilariously comedic moments, and yet somehow nothing was really fulfilled. I laughed a little, but I really didn't find it as amusing as some of the other cinema goers. The were a couple of voices in the darkness who were laughing hard that then set of a tiny ripple of tittering. I'm glad they enjoyed it so much, but I didn't once feel the need to laugh so hard.
Looking back on it I was left wondering something... did any of the police characters actually speak? The only things I remember were screamed words while arrests were made and lots of knowing looks and satisfied grins. Honestly can't remember any lines at all. I'm thinking they hired the main line-up and went "well that blew the acting budget, better cut all the other speaking parts."
Something that bugged me slightly was the use of spliced footage from the actor's younger days. It's a nice idea, but ultimately, when it was used undermined the message at the end of the film. Brian doesn't want them to be seen as old boys who are past their prime, so the film should have let them walk off to their sunset retirement not jumble it up with their younger selves and losing that moment between them all. It would have made perfect sense having the footage mixed into the scenes where the police were uncovering their identities and piecing the case together.
That line up was indeed fantastic, and that's why this film was so disappointing to me. All of them have done much better work than this. The script, or real lack thereof is what contributed the most to this let down. I'm not really sure that it should have two stars at all. In fact, no... *I'm revoking one of them, I've just been reading my criteria and I can't let it have two. ★☆☆☆☆ The story behind it and the cast potential don't make up for this lacklustre film.
What should you do?
There are some good scenes and a truly star studded cast, but even those don't really make up for the potential that this film squandered. If you like heist movies then it might be worth a watch but I feel like there are better ones out there to see.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
All that loot, obviously!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Robin Hood (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
At this point I feel like I've grown u with definitive versions of Robin Hood. Kevin Costner will always be a front runner, and Disney's foxified version brings a smile to my face every time. I was also lucky to have been shown Robin Hood Men In Tights when I was younger and will always appreciate Cary Elwes' rendition. Errol Flynn will always be the high point for class in the role. There's always that one we don't talk about... Russell Crowe, I'm looking at you. We probably should consider the small screen as well, after all should we be excluding Robin from Madi Marian and Her Merry Men?
After the one we don't talk about I had fairly low expectations for this. Did we really need to reboot this icon?
The answer is evidently a resounding yes. No one is more surprised about this than I am. He's still not the best Robin (sorry... Rob) but he's an excellent modern adaptation for those who don't want to go old school with their viewing.
Taron Egerton doesn't quite have the on-screen presence of a lord, he's something or a whipper-snapper in Robin terms. He'd be much more at home in an episode of Arrow. Watch out, Roy. In fact that would be my guess of what happened in the pitching of this one. "Arrow is basically Robin Hood, shall we just do that?"
Ben Mendelsohn proved himself to be an excellent villain in Ready Player One, and he's brought himself back to that high with the Sheriff of Nottingham. Cruel and egotistical he makes an easy focus for everyone's revolutionary efforts.
Friar Tuck... hmm. Tim Minchin was an interesting choice. My main issue is that he basically seems to have played it as Bill Bailey. That was something that stuck out from the very first time we saw him and from that point on all I could think was that they might as well have got Bill Bailey to do it.
I had hoped that like the trailer the film would feature some modern music as well as what turned out to be some very atmospheric background ensemble. Sadly not though. Maybe it's just me pining back to A Knight's Tale.
Round of applause for the cinematography. Everything flowed really well and that opening scene of war (which you can see some of in the trailer above) really drew you in. In fact, the whole scene felt very much more modern than bows and arrows and was a striking moment in the film.
If cinematography is at the top, the writing is somewhere near the bottom. Generally it was passable and I didn't really notice it. That sounds odd, but you know what I mean, sometimes it is just there and doesn't really leave a mark. Every now and then you'd get a curve ball of a line that made me recoil and stopped my enjoyment of the film. Speeches that should have had power in the words didn't, there was no feeling of being roused to action like so many great films are able to do.
As a final comment... why must you mess with the naturally accepted order of characters?
What you should do
Go for the action, not the script. It's quite impressive on the big screen and Jamie Foxx's John holds some quiet moments of humour that are worth seeing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would quite like John's ability to heal and not die. That seems like a massively impressive part of his character.
After the one we don't talk about I had fairly low expectations for this. Did we really need to reboot this icon?
The answer is evidently a resounding yes. No one is more surprised about this than I am. He's still not the best Robin (sorry... Rob) but he's an excellent modern adaptation for those who don't want to go old school with their viewing.
Taron Egerton doesn't quite have the on-screen presence of a lord, he's something or a whipper-snapper in Robin terms. He'd be much more at home in an episode of Arrow. Watch out, Roy. In fact that would be my guess of what happened in the pitching of this one. "Arrow is basically Robin Hood, shall we just do that?"
Ben Mendelsohn proved himself to be an excellent villain in Ready Player One, and he's brought himself back to that high with the Sheriff of Nottingham. Cruel and egotistical he makes an easy focus for everyone's revolutionary efforts.
Friar Tuck... hmm. Tim Minchin was an interesting choice. My main issue is that he basically seems to have played it as Bill Bailey. That was something that stuck out from the very first time we saw him and from that point on all I could think was that they might as well have got Bill Bailey to do it.
I had hoped that like the trailer the film would feature some modern music as well as what turned out to be some very atmospheric background ensemble. Sadly not though. Maybe it's just me pining back to A Knight's Tale.
Round of applause for the cinematography. Everything flowed really well and that opening scene of war (which you can see some of in the trailer above) really drew you in. In fact, the whole scene felt very much more modern than bows and arrows and was a striking moment in the film.
If cinematography is at the top, the writing is somewhere near the bottom. Generally it was passable and I didn't really notice it. That sounds odd, but you know what I mean, sometimes it is just there and doesn't really leave a mark. Every now and then you'd get a curve ball of a line that made me recoil and stopped my enjoyment of the film. Speeches that should have had power in the words didn't, there was no feeling of being roused to action like so many great films are able to do.
As a final comment... why must you mess with the naturally accepted order of characters?
What you should do
Go for the action, not the script. It's quite impressive on the big screen and Jamie Foxx's John holds some quiet moments of humour that are worth seeing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would quite like John's ability to heal and not die. That seems like a massively impressive part of his character.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Once Upon A Deadpool (Deadpool 2 PG-13 Version) (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
So you want to see a family friendly version of Deadpool 2? Well you're out of luck because after all their editing it didn't make it past the 12A certificate criteria and had to be released as a 15 again. It still deserved that 15, it wasn't exactly hiding it's sweary side very well, and the violence is still there, you just don't get splattered with as much blood.
The editing unfortunately leaves you with some obvious continuity errors. The one that bugged me the most was the scene where DP is shot through the hand. They've left out the CGI for the gaping hole but it appears later in the film.
But lets look at the extra content you get.
Fred Savage and DP cut into the film in a homage to The Princess Bride. It's an amusing addition and I really did enjoy the Matt Damon skit.
They also edited the Stan Lee mural to say RIP, it definitely made it stick out more as I completely missed it the first time I saw DP2 at the cinema.
We also got an extra three credit scenes. One before the existing ones and two after. I nearly left... I was convinced that the fourth one was the end and I stood up to leave just as the fifth one started, and someone shouted at me to sit down. I'm not even mad, I was shouting internally at myself too. I was so glad to have seen it. The end Stan Lee montage brought a tear to my eye and was horribly poignant footage.
Is it in any way an improvement on the original? Absolutely not. Was it worth watching at the cinema? Definitely, yes. The screen was packed with people who knew what they were getting and were just there to have fun. (Apart from the two people who left after about ten minutes... spoil-sports.) We laughed together like it was the first time we'd seen the film and it was a great experience. With tickets in our cinema currently £5 of free with your Unlimited card it was well worth seeing on the big screen for the experience.
I'm left actively annoyed now though because it'll probably be another DVD I have to buy. Really there is no way to make Deadpool family friendly without taking everything away that makes him so fun. The ideal scenario would have been to have the Fred Savage bits edited together with the relevant snippets of the film and had it as a 20 minutes extra when they released it to buy. That or create a MST3K style commentary track for the film where you just see DP silently miming actions to Savage while he's telling him the story and we're watching the film, then having DP physically pause the film when Savage asks him questions so that they can do the scenes. Okay, I'm calm again now.
What you should do
I don't know if they're going to release it to buy or stream, and it was a one hit wonder at the cinema so I'm not really sure what you'll be able to do about seeing it. Ultimately though it's probably just worth watching the original again in all it's sweary and bloody glory.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
From this adaptation I think I'd like to have the bleeping buzzer that Deadpool uses in the added scenes. That would really come in handy on a day to day basis.
The editing unfortunately leaves you with some obvious continuity errors. The one that bugged me the most was the scene where DP is shot through the hand. They've left out the CGI for the gaping hole but it appears later in the film.
But lets look at the extra content you get.
Fred Savage and DP cut into the film in a homage to The Princess Bride. It's an amusing addition and I really did enjoy the Matt Damon skit.
They also edited the Stan Lee mural to say RIP, it definitely made it stick out more as I completely missed it the first time I saw DP2 at the cinema.
We also got an extra three credit scenes. One before the existing ones and two after. I nearly left... I was convinced that the fourth one was the end and I stood up to leave just as the fifth one started, and someone shouted at me to sit down. I'm not even mad, I was shouting internally at myself too. I was so glad to have seen it. The end Stan Lee montage brought a tear to my eye and was horribly poignant footage.
Is it in any way an improvement on the original? Absolutely not. Was it worth watching at the cinema? Definitely, yes. The screen was packed with people who knew what they were getting and were just there to have fun. (Apart from the two people who left after about ten minutes... spoil-sports.) We laughed together like it was the first time we'd seen the film and it was a great experience. With tickets in our cinema currently £5 of free with your Unlimited card it was well worth seeing on the big screen for the experience.
I'm left actively annoyed now though because it'll probably be another DVD I have to buy. Really there is no way to make Deadpool family friendly without taking everything away that makes him so fun. The ideal scenario would have been to have the Fred Savage bits edited together with the relevant snippets of the film and had it as a 20 minutes extra when they released it to buy. That or create a MST3K style commentary track for the film where you just see DP silently miming actions to Savage while he's telling him the story and we're watching the film, then having DP physically pause the film when Savage asks him questions so that they can do the scenes. Okay, I'm calm again now.
What you should do
I don't know if they're going to release it to buy or stream, and it was a one hit wonder at the cinema so I'm not really sure what you'll be able to do about seeing it. Ultimately though it's probably just worth watching the original again in all it's sweary and bloody glory.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
From this adaptation I think I'd like to have the bleeping buzzer that Deadpool uses in the added scenes. That would really come in handy on a day to day basis.
Darren (1599 KP) rated St. Agatha (2018) in Movies
Oct 2, 2019
Characters – Mary is a pregnant young lady with a tragic past which saw her running from her abusive father, she seeks refuge to have her child, which sees her in a convent, only for this to be a worse hell than her previous life, she is stuck with the abusive religious nuns that want her baby, even renaming her Agatha. Mother Superior runs the convent, she has strict rules and expects the women to follow these rules or face punishment, she does however want the children to be born, which means the punishments won’t put the babies at risks, she has women under her control, but when it comes to Mary she must go to new extremes to keep her position of power in place. Catherine is one of the few women that offers Mary any help within the walls, she is also pregnant further along than Mary, meaning the two teaming up would mean more risk for her. We do have other girls that are under different levels of control, while we also have other nuns who are trying to prove their level of strictness to the Mother Superior.
Performances – Sabrina Kern in the leading role is great to watch, she brings the broken figure and shows us just how determined she is to make the most out of her life with her child. Carolyn Hennessy does bring us the strict figure required for her role which will show how capable to she to take control of the scenes through the film. the rest of the cast do a solid job throughout, they each get their moment to shine in the film’s story too.
Story – The story follows a young woman who seeks refuge in a convent to help her have her child only to find the convent is being controlled by nuns that don’t always follow the bible when it comes to helping the young women that come to them for help. With this story we do get to give until the personal life of Mary that does have a tragic past and does show how far she has had to go to fix the problems in her life. The main focus is on the convent which does keep us guessing to what the Mother Superior will do next because they want the babies and can’t risk damaging them, but do need to punish the women. We do get elements of the theme around the idea of cults which does play an important factor in just where the film ends up going. We also have women at different stages of pregnancy which shows us and Mary just what will happen to her if she stays.
Horror – The horror in the film follows the events in the convent, we get a mix of hauntings and torture, which are only making Mary look like she is losing her mind.
Settings – The film is set in the convent, we get to see how the locked doors keep people in and just how they are going to be forcing the woman to follow the rules.
Special Effects – The effects in this film are used to show the injuries which aren’t as graphic as they could have been, though they imply horrific injuries given.
Scene of the Movie – The baby is coming.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It could have gone a lot darker that is does go.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid enough horror that uses the themes of religious cults to make the horror seem more realistic and shocking.
Overall: Religious Cult 101
Performances – Sabrina Kern in the leading role is great to watch, she brings the broken figure and shows us just how determined she is to make the most out of her life with her child. Carolyn Hennessy does bring us the strict figure required for her role which will show how capable to she to take control of the scenes through the film. the rest of the cast do a solid job throughout, they each get their moment to shine in the film’s story too.
Story – The story follows a young woman who seeks refuge in a convent to help her have her child only to find the convent is being controlled by nuns that don’t always follow the bible when it comes to helping the young women that come to them for help. With this story we do get to give until the personal life of Mary that does have a tragic past and does show how far she has had to go to fix the problems in her life. The main focus is on the convent which does keep us guessing to what the Mother Superior will do next because they want the babies and can’t risk damaging them, but do need to punish the women. We do get elements of the theme around the idea of cults which does play an important factor in just where the film ends up going. We also have women at different stages of pregnancy which shows us and Mary just what will happen to her if she stays.
Horror – The horror in the film follows the events in the convent, we get a mix of hauntings and torture, which are only making Mary look like she is losing her mind.
Settings – The film is set in the convent, we get to see how the locked doors keep people in and just how they are going to be forcing the woman to follow the rules.
Special Effects – The effects in this film are used to show the injuries which aren’t as graphic as they could have been, though they imply horrific injuries given.
Scene of the Movie – The baby is coming.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It could have gone a lot darker that is does go.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid enough horror that uses the themes of religious cults to make the horror seem more realistic and shocking.
Overall: Religious Cult 101