Search
Search results
Piper (13 KP) rated Strangers: Prey at Night (2018) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Real-feeling Characters (2 more)
Escalating Tension
Some Excellent Scenes
Some Naff Shots (1 more)
Hammy Acting
Contains spoilers, click to show
I’ve heard a lot of trash about this movie, and only some of it is right. Don’t get me wrong - it has its downfalls. We’ll get to those. But it’s a genuinely fun horror movie and, considering the predictability of the slasher genre, it’s fairly terrifying: the suspense doesn’t let up from damn near the beginning. For full disclosure, I haven’t seen the original Strangers movie, and I’ve heard it’s a whole lot better than this 2018 sequel. But the fact that Prey at Night stands successfully alone as a movie means it doesn’t matter which order you watch them in - all I’d say is that it’s probably best not to pay much attention to the reviews on this one (as sefl-destructive as a comment like that might be). It’s impressive in its own right, and if this apparently-subpar sequel is anything to go by, the original must be worthwhile. I’ll let you know once I’ve actually seen it.
Now, onto the juicy stuff. There really isn’t a whole lot of bad to this movie, and what there is is fairly standard for modern horror movies. The plot is fairly predictable: people with knives hunt down people without (the good guys do have a single gun between them, and in a display that makes you genuinely shout at your television it never gets used); a dysfunctional American family gets torn completely apart; every single time you think the evil nasty villain man is dead, he stands up, just a little out of our good guy’s eyeline. It’s fairly repetitive - how much story can you get out of some knives and masks and a little bit of running? - and while it nicely strays from the standard twisty ending, there’s a hint of danger at the end that a) doesn’t make sense, b) doesn’t mean anything, and c) isn’t explored or explained so falls very short of what it’s trying to do. And that’s nearly all the bad out of the way, but I’d like to give an honourable mention to some very corny Raimi-esque camera zooms that, momentarily, take the viewer completely out of the film and just look terrible.
Having said that, most of the camerawork is good - shaky where it needs to be, dead straight when it works. There are some claustrophobic close-ups that leave you wondering just what the director’s hiding out of frame. And while watching a creepily-masked figure loom silently into frame can get a little less scary every time, it’s certainly well-shot. Despite the pitfalls, most of which are just so easy to slip into, the good parts to this movie mostly fall into the categories of character work and nice, understated gore. The bloody parts are suitably bloody, but they don’t become unrealistic. In fact, there are gory moments that seem meticulously well-crafted and you can almost feel the pain. The characters are annoying at times, they all have their own quirks and tightly-wound baggage, and there are places where their obviously set-up arcs just don’t get the resolution they need - hang on, why do I think this is a good film?
Here’s why. Because it’s real. People don’t always get resolution (okay, it isn’t always because one of the conflicting characters dies about five minutes into the experience, but we don’t always get closure, we don’t always get to fix relationships before it’s too late). The characters in this film are, despite everything, quite likeable once you get to know them, and there’s a truly heartbreaking moment fairly early on that can’t be shunned. The injuries these characters sustain throughout don’t just go away - they stick around, for the most part, slow them down, make them vulnerable. The setting is unassuming until you realise this family are literally the only characters in the film that aren’t dead (and quite beautifully mutilated) or wielding a knife/axe/pickup truck - and if you dare make the connection between a spooky trailer park and a certain Camp Crystal Lake, it makes sense. The slashers themselves are fairly unoriginal (I’m really trying not to stray into the negatives again) but they’re human. They can die. Their motives are revealed in a simple, nicely-put “Why not?” and it’s clear they don’t need a reason, this is just fun for them. The masks, obviously, add a little layer of creep, and there’s a swimming pool scene that really is quite beautifully done. Watching people get murdered to a corny, cheerful eighties soundtrack might get irritating, if it wasn’t established that that’s just a chilling preference of the primary slasher character. The popping-up-out-of-nowhere gimmick might get a little annoying if it wasn’t established that really, this is just that kind of movie. The fact that we never find out what Kenzie did to get her shipped off to boarding school, or who Tamara was (should I have seen the first movie? I’ll have to watch it soon or I just might be lambasted for my ignorance) didn't put us too out-of-place, because there are enough wonderful gore and inventive set-piece-driven slasher moments to remind you that, hang on, you don't really need to know. The tension builds, and it builds, and oh it keeps on building right until the end, and it’s the one thing about this film that's masterfully done.
At the end of the day, this isn’t a great movie. It’s certainly not perfect. But it’s good. It feels real, and it feels, in places, genuinely terrifying. It’s a fun watch and it hasn’t been ridiculously drawn-out like some recent films (I’m looking at you, Chapter Two) so it’s quick, it’s choppy, and there’s a half-decent scare every now and then. Will it scar you for life? Depends how you feel about Kim Wilde.
Now, onto the juicy stuff. There really isn’t a whole lot of bad to this movie, and what there is is fairly standard for modern horror movies. The plot is fairly predictable: people with knives hunt down people without (the good guys do have a single gun between them, and in a display that makes you genuinely shout at your television it never gets used); a dysfunctional American family gets torn completely apart; every single time you think the evil nasty villain man is dead, he stands up, just a little out of our good guy’s eyeline. It’s fairly repetitive - how much story can you get out of some knives and masks and a little bit of running? - and while it nicely strays from the standard twisty ending, there’s a hint of danger at the end that a) doesn’t make sense, b) doesn’t mean anything, and c) isn’t explored or explained so falls very short of what it’s trying to do. And that’s nearly all the bad out of the way, but I’d like to give an honourable mention to some very corny Raimi-esque camera zooms that, momentarily, take the viewer completely out of the film and just look terrible.
Having said that, most of the camerawork is good - shaky where it needs to be, dead straight when it works. There are some claustrophobic close-ups that leave you wondering just what the director’s hiding out of frame. And while watching a creepily-masked figure loom silently into frame can get a little less scary every time, it’s certainly well-shot. Despite the pitfalls, most of which are just so easy to slip into, the good parts to this movie mostly fall into the categories of character work and nice, understated gore. The bloody parts are suitably bloody, but they don’t become unrealistic. In fact, there are gory moments that seem meticulously well-crafted and you can almost feel the pain. The characters are annoying at times, they all have their own quirks and tightly-wound baggage, and there are places where their obviously set-up arcs just don’t get the resolution they need - hang on, why do I think this is a good film?
Here’s why. Because it’s real. People don’t always get resolution (okay, it isn’t always because one of the conflicting characters dies about five minutes into the experience, but we don’t always get closure, we don’t always get to fix relationships before it’s too late). The characters in this film are, despite everything, quite likeable once you get to know them, and there’s a truly heartbreaking moment fairly early on that can’t be shunned. The injuries these characters sustain throughout don’t just go away - they stick around, for the most part, slow them down, make them vulnerable. The setting is unassuming until you realise this family are literally the only characters in the film that aren’t dead (and quite beautifully mutilated) or wielding a knife/axe/pickup truck - and if you dare make the connection between a spooky trailer park and a certain Camp Crystal Lake, it makes sense. The slashers themselves are fairly unoriginal (I’m really trying not to stray into the negatives again) but they’re human. They can die. Their motives are revealed in a simple, nicely-put “Why not?” and it’s clear they don’t need a reason, this is just fun for them. The masks, obviously, add a little layer of creep, and there’s a swimming pool scene that really is quite beautifully done. Watching people get murdered to a corny, cheerful eighties soundtrack might get irritating, if it wasn’t established that that’s just a chilling preference of the primary slasher character. The popping-up-out-of-nowhere gimmick might get a little annoying if it wasn’t established that really, this is just that kind of movie. The fact that we never find out what Kenzie did to get her shipped off to boarding school, or who Tamara was (should I have seen the first movie? I’ll have to watch it soon or I just might be lambasted for my ignorance) didn't put us too out-of-place, because there are enough wonderful gore and inventive set-piece-driven slasher moments to remind you that, hang on, you don't really need to know. The tension builds, and it builds, and oh it keeps on building right until the end, and it’s the one thing about this film that's masterfully done.
At the end of the day, this isn’t a great movie. It’s certainly not perfect. But it’s good. It feels real, and it feels, in places, genuinely terrifying. It’s a fun watch and it hasn’t been ridiculously drawn-out like some recent films (I’m looking at you, Chapter Two) so it’s quick, it’s choppy, and there’s a half-decent scare every now and then. Will it scar you for life? Depends how you feel about Kim Wilde.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
It took me over a month to get around to seeing this last night at the cinema. Not because I didn’t want to see the end of the new trilogy and say goodbye to it in style, but because I feared it just wouldn’t be very good. Put simply, it isn’t very good. Some parts, in fact, are downright awful. But it isn’t terrible either. I can’t say I hated it – I had fun; I enjoyed it for what it was, and some small moments in isolation were very well done indeed. However…
The first thing that struck me was the pace and editing style, which seemed at last to fully embrace a Disney theme park ethos of let’s get to it and keep it moving. No notion of setting mood and re-establishing character, but rather a sense of we have a lot to fit in here so let’s get it out of the way as quickly as possible. It didn’t feel to me like it was allowed to sit at any point and just be brooding, or meaningful in any way. Which may work for the short attention spans of your average 9 year old, but for older fans who have literally waited 42 years to see an ending, it felt rushed, trivial and far too flippant.
The spectacle was very much there still. The landscape of alien worlds, creatures, droids and other necessary weirdness is all there in spades! It just feels like you would need to go back and press the pause button to see it all. And before we know what is happening (or why), Palpatine is back in business and everyone is looking for some lame GPS green triangle thingy. Forget almost everything in the story that has led to this point, this is an adventure that exists in a vacuum of space, and you either shrug and go with it, or get very annoyed. I chose the shrug.
Before we really settle into what is going on, we start to see the power of The Force flowing through Rey in ways it has never done before… she can heal, she virtually flies, and she can even teleport objects to a different physical place at will. She has become more like Neo from The Matrix than anything Skywalker. More like a Marvel superhero than anything grounded in an ancient mysticism that acts subtly at moments of great need. What that does is immediately lower the stakes, because if anything is possible, and therefore probable, there is no threat of failure. And if this movie lacks anything essential it is threat.
That said, the reanimation of Emperor Palpatine was nicely creepy, at least in a visual and vocal sense. And the journey of the excellent Adam Driver as Ben Solo / Kylo Ren remained the most interesting and satisfying thing about the whole reboot. I found myself just wanting to focus on him more and more, and felt frustrated when, typically, his key progression moments were over too soon or given away too cheaply from a dramatic context.
I have mixed feelings also about the level of mirroring and call-backs to moments from previous films. Some really worked, but many fell flat. It began to feel like a greatest hits checklist, which, of course, was a criticism of JJ Abrams’ directing style in The Force Awakens, too. He has been so much more concerned with giving fans sugary little treats, as opposed to cooking up a satisfying meal that nourishes in it’s own right – indicative of a 21st century audience that often demands its pudding before it has finished its greens.
Look, I enjoy a nostalgia trip as much as the next uber-geek, but I do also like my fantasy sci-fi to be based on an idea of weight and gravitas. Eschew that aspect and the climax is going to fall a little flat… which, I think it did. Our empathy for Rey, and in fact all of the new gang, is simply not as strong as it should have been. Daisy Ridley does a decent job, and I don’t blame her at all – I have no problem with any of the supporting cast either, but what a shame too many of them almost fade away into mere scene dressing by the end.
Very telling then, that my favourite bit by far was a 15 minute giggling fit brought on by that one, already infamous detail, when tiny weirdo Babu Frik completely misses the mood of the room and screeches his “Hey Heeeeeey!” Only to pop up again later with an equally hilarious repeat. Probably the funniest moment in any Star Wars film, bar none. Worth the ticket price alone, and I am still having regular flashbacks that leave me in fits of laughter!
So, that’s it is it? Over and done with? Well, they certainly wrapped it up in a bow, coming full circle in fairly satisfying style. With just a cheeky hint that the roots of a continuation at some point are buried within shallow reach. No doubt, amateur writers everywhere have already had a pop at what happens next. The Force is balanced, the prophecy fulfilled, but it wouldn’t take much to tip the galaxy back into turmoil, as soon as Disney fancies another few billion in ticket sales.
Personally, I don’t want to be cynical about a franchise that has been a part of me since I was 3 years old, and been such a good friend. However, I am perfectly fine with having it remain as a source for backstories and origin tales. The main saga is over, so let’s leave it alone. Episodes IV – VI will always remain the best; they won’t go anywhere. So any shortcomings can be easily solved… just watch The Empire Strikes Back again, not worrying about anything else, but revelling in just how perfect it is, and how lucky we are that it is there for us.
The first thing that struck me was the pace and editing style, which seemed at last to fully embrace a Disney theme park ethos of let’s get to it and keep it moving. No notion of setting mood and re-establishing character, but rather a sense of we have a lot to fit in here so let’s get it out of the way as quickly as possible. It didn’t feel to me like it was allowed to sit at any point and just be brooding, or meaningful in any way. Which may work for the short attention spans of your average 9 year old, but for older fans who have literally waited 42 years to see an ending, it felt rushed, trivial and far too flippant.
The spectacle was very much there still. The landscape of alien worlds, creatures, droids and other necessary weirdness is all there in spades! It just feels like you would need to go back and press the pause button to see it all. And before we know what is happening (or why), Palpatine is back in business and everyone is looking for some lame GPS green triangle thingy. Forget almost everything in the story that has led to this point, this is an adventure that exists in a vacuum of space, and you either shrug and go with it, or get very annoyed. I chose the shrug.
Before we really settle into what is going on, we start to see the power of The Force flowing through Rey in ways it has never done before… she can heal, she virtually flies, and she can even teleport objects to a different physical place at will. She has become more like Neo from The Matrix than anything Skywalker. More like a Marvel superhero than anything grounded in an ancient mysticism that acts subtly at moments of great need. What that does is immediately lower the stakes, because if anything is possible, and therefore probable, there is no threat of failure. And if this movie lacks anything essential it is threat.
That said, the reanimation of Emperor Palpatine was nicely creepy, at least in a visual and vocal sense. And the journey of the excellent Adam Driver as Ben Solo / Kylo Ren remained the most interesting and satisfying thing about the whole reboot. I found myself just wanting to focus on him more and more, and felt frustrated when, typically, his key progression moments were over too soon or given away too cheaply from a dramatic context.
I have mixed feelings also about the level of mirroring and call-backs to moments from previous films. Some really worked, but many fell flat. It began to feel like a greatest hits checklist, which, of course, was a criticism of JJ Abrams’ directing style in The Force Awakens, too. He has been so much more concerned with giving fans sugary little treats, as opposed to cooking up a satisfying meal that nourishes in it’s own right – indicative of a 21st century audience that often demands its pudding before it has finished its greens.
Look, I enjoy a nostalgia trip as much as the next uber-geek, but I do also like my fantasy sci-fi to be based on an idea of weight and gravitas. Eschew that aspect and the climax is going to fall a little flat… which, I think it did. Our empathy for Rey, and in fact all of the new gang, is simply not as strong as it should have been. Daisy Ridley does a decent job, and I don’t blame her at all – I have no problem with any of the supporting cast either, but what a shame too many of them almost fade away into mere scene dressing by the end.
Very telling then, that my favourite bit by far was a 15 minute giggling fit brought on by that one, already infamous detail, when tiny weirdo Babu Frik completely misses the mood of the room and screeches his “Hey Heeeeeey!” Only to pop up again later with an equally hilarious repeat. Probably the funniest moment in any Star Wars film, bar none. Worth the ticket price alone, and I am still having regular flashbacks that leave me in fits of laughter!
So, that’s it is it? Over and done with? Well, they certainly wrapped it up in a bow, coming full circle in fairly satisfying style. With just a cheeky hint that the roots of a continuation at some point are buried within shallow reach. No doubt, amateur writers everywhere have already had a pop at what happens next. The Force is balanced, the prophecy fulfilled, but it wouldn’t take much to tip the galaxy back into turmoil, as soon as Disney fancies another few billion in ticket sales.
Personally, I don’t want to be cynical about a franchise that has been a part of me since I was 3 years old, and been such a good friend. However, I am perfectly fine with having it remain as a source for backstories and origin tales. The main saga is over, so let’s leave it alone. Episodes IV – VI will always remain the best; they won’t go anywhere. So any shortcomings can be easily solved… just watch The Empire Strikes Back again, not worrying about anything else, but revelling in just how perfect it is, and how lucky we are that it is there for us.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bad Boys for Life (2020) in Movies
Mar 9, 2020
Welcome to Miami - again!
Will Smith seems to have been having a lacklustre period in his career. His genie from "Aladdin" got a rather lukewarm reception. And his last movie - "Gemini Man" - billed as a big summer blockbuster - failed to impress. True it wasn't a commercial disaster (raking in at the time of writing about 150% of budget), but it's still a film on a plane for me that, even if I'm bored, I'll say "nah" to.
Perhaps it's for this reason that Smith reached for an old and reliable property to dust off for another outing.
And, do you know, it's not half bad.
I only recently saw this one, right at the end of its UK cinema run, because frankly it appealed to me like being hit round the head with a cold fish. Martin Lawrence is an actor who just grates on me enormously. I'm sure he's a lovely chap; kind to animals; donates to charity; etc - but I generally just don't find him funny. (Here though he has a killer line about condom use that made me chuckle.) It feels to me like he is on implausible ground here re-treading the role of aging detective Marcus Burnett. One look at Burnett lumbering along and you would think "well, he'd never pass the medical" for the on-street role he's portrayed doing. His buddy is detective Mike Lowrey (Will Smith), who has a sordid past that is set to catch up on him.
Since we start the story in Colombia, where Isabel Aretas (Kate Del Castillo), the witchy wife of a notorious deceased drug baron, is sprung from prison by her son Armando (Jacob Scipio) in what I admit is a clever and novel way. The Aretas family is bent on revenge - - and a key target in their sites is Lowrey.
Burnett is newly a grandparent and hell-bent on retirement. But with Lowrey and his associates with a target on their backs, will there be one last chance to "Ride Together, Die Together"?
Not seen the first two movies? Not to worry! There are movies, like LOTR, where if you've missed the first two movies in the series you will be left in serious "WTF" territory in trying to watch the third. This is not one of those movies. The story is entirely self-contained, and refers to events never seen prior to the first film in the series.
But whether the movie is for you will depend on your tolerance for loud and brash visuals and music with the knob turned up to 12. Directors Adil and Bilall (Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah - Belgian film school buddies best known for the critically acclaimed 2015 feature "Black") - don't do anything by halves.
There is a scene in "Lost Series 3" in which Sawyer, Kate, and Alex have to bust young Karl out of the mysterious room 23 where he is being tortured by having his eyes kept open while watching a collage of images continually smashed into his eyeballs. This movie feels a little like that after a while.
This is not by any means a criticism that it's poorly done. There is some truly stunning cinematography of the Miami skyline by Belgian cinematographer Robrecht Heyvaert, including a 'pull-back' drone shot from a conversation on the top of a building that is quite AWESOME! And there are more than enough "fast action - then slo-mo - then fast again" shots to keep music-video junkies happy!
The music score by Lorne Balfe is also pumping, adding a dynamism to the frantic action scenes that keeps you entertained.
The screenplay by Chris Bremner, Peter Craig and Joe Carnahan is assuredly familiar: it's not going to win any prizes for originality. We've seen the cartel/revenge plotline played out in multiple movies over the years. And we've also seen the "buddy cops with aging partner taking retirement" angle from the "Lethal Weapon" series. This just sticks them together.
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence wise-crack their way through the comedy well-enough, though for me it never reaches the heights of the pairing of Smith and Tommy Lee Jones from MiB (or indeed Mel Gibson and Danny Glover from Lethal Weapon). Elsewhere we have Vanessa Hudgens as a cute cop, still trying to break through from "Disneyfication" into mainstream flicks. For one horrible moment, when I saw her name on the cast, I thought she might be the love interest to Smith. But no. That honour goes to Mexican beauty Paola Nuñez who, with only a 10 year age gap, becomes a less gag-worthy pairing. She plays a female leadership role (every 20's film now needs one) as the head of a new crime division.
Also good value is Joe Pantoliano reprising his role as Captain Howard - Lowrie's exasperated boss. Playing it by the numbers, every film like this has to have one!
Where the plot does add some interest is in a surprising scene mid-film and a twist that I didn't see coming. But this twist felt - in the context of the release date or the film - like a mistake (a "Spoiler Section" in my review on the One Mann's Movies web site discusses this).
All of this happens of course against a backdrop of a body count of bad guys being killed in ever more graphic and gory ways, while the good guys generally dodge every bullet, grenade and crashing helicopter heading their way.
It's that time of year when films are released to die. Where studios drop their movies that are never going to trouble the Academy and are not deemed worthy of summer or even late spring release. But they should have had more faith in this one, for it's not half bad. True, you may need a couple of paracetamols afterwards, but if your corneas and ear-drums can stand the pace, its not short on entertainment value.
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies link here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-bad-boys-for-life-2020/ ).
Perhaps it's for this reason that Smith reached for an old and reliable property to dust off for another outing.
And, do you know, it's not half bad.
I only recently saw this one, right at the end of its UK cinema run, because frankly it appealed to me like being hit round the head with a cold fish. Martin Lawrence is an actor who just grates on me enormously. I'm sure he's a lovely chap; kind to animals; donates to charity; etc - but I generally just don't find him funny. (Here though he has a killer line about condom use that made me chuckle.) It feels to me like he is on implausible ground here re-treading the role of aging detective Marcus Burnett. One look at Burnett lumbering along and you would think "well, he'd never pass the medical" for the on-street role he's portrayed doing. His buddy is detective Mike Lowrey (Will Smith), who has a sordid past that is set to catch up on him.
Since we start the story in Colombia, where Isabel Aretas (Kate Del Castillo), the witchy wife of a notorious deceased drug baron, is sprung from prison by her son Armando (Jacob Scipio) in what I admit is a clever and novel way. The Aretas family is bent on revenge - - and a key target in their sites is Lowrey.
Burnett is newly a grandparent and hell-bent on retirement. But with Lowrey and his associates with a target on their backs, will there be one last chance to "Ride Together, Die Together"?
Not seen the first two movies? Not to worry! There are movies, like LOTR, where if you've missed the first two movies in the series you will be left in serious "WTF" territory in trying to watch the third. This is not one of those movies. The story is entirely self-contained, and refers to events never seen prior to the first film in the series.
But whether the movie is for you will depend on your tolerance for loud and brash visuals and music with the knob turned up to 12. Directors Adil and Bilall (Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah - Belgian film school buddies best known for the critically acclaimed 2015 feature "Black") - don't do anything by halves.
There is a scene in "Lost Series 3" in which Sawyer, Kate, and Alex have to bust young Karl out of the mysterious room 23 where he is being tortured by having his eyes kept open while watching a collage of images continually smashed into his eyeballs. This movie feels a little like that after a while.
This is not by any means a criticism that it's poorly done. There is some truly stunning cinematography of the Miami skyline by Belgian cinematographer Robrecht Heyvaert, including a 'pull-back' drone shot from a conversation on the top of a building that is quite AWESOME! And there are more than enough "fast action - then slo-mo - then fast again" shots to keep music-video junkies happy!
The music score by Lorne Balfe is also pumping, adding a dynamism to the frantic action scenes that keeps you entertained.
The screenplay by Chris Bremner, Peter Craig and Joe Carnahan is assuredly familiar: it's not going to win any prizes for originality. We've seen the cartel/revenge plotline played out in multiple movies over the years. And we've also seen the "buddy cops with aging partner taking retirement" angle from the "Lethal Weapon" series. This just sticks them together.
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence wise-crack their way through the comedy well-enough, though for me it never reaches the heights of the pairing of Smith and Tommy Lee Jones from MiB (or indeed Mel Gibson and Danny Glover from Lethal Weapon). Elsewhere we have Vanessa Hudgens as a cute cop, still trying to break through from "Disneyfication" into mainstream flicks. For one horrible moment, when I saw her name on the cast, I thought she might be the love interest to Smith. But no. That honour goes to Mexican beauty Paola Nuñez who, with only a 10 year age gap, becomes a less gag-worthy pairing. She plays a female leadership role (every 20's film now needs one) as the head of a new crime division.
Also good value is Joe Pantoliano reprising his role as Captain Howard - Lowrie's exasperated boss. Playing it by the numbers, every film like this has to have one!
Where the plot does add some interest is in a surprising scene mid-film and a twist that I didn't see coming. But this twist felt - in the context of the release date or the film - like a mistake (a "Spoiler Section" in my review on the One Mann's Movies web site discusses this).
All of this happens of course against a backdrop of a body count of bad guys being killed in ever more graphic and gory ways, while the good guys generally dodge every bullet, grenade and crashing helicopter heading their way.
It's that time of year when films are released to die. Where studios drop their movies that are never going to trouble the Academy and are not deemed worthy of summer or even late spring release. But they should have had more faith in this one, for it's not half bad. True, you may need a couple of paracetamols afterwards, but if your corneas and ear-drums can stand the pace, its not short on entertainment value.
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies link here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-bad-boys-for-life-2020/ ).
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Live Die Repeat: Edge of Tomorrow (2014) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019
One of the best action films of Tom Cruise's incredible career. (4 more)
Emily Blunt is a true force to be reckoned with.
The film's aliens and special effects are simply outstanding.
Unexpectedly hilarious. Who knew watching Tom Cruise die repeatedly could be so funny?
Edge of Tomorrow feels like a video game made into an unforgettably great movie.
Edge of Tomorrow is one of the best action movies of Tom Cruise’s illustrious career and might just be the most fun you'll have at the movies all year.
Amidst the yearly barrage of unimaginative action movies, Edge of Tomorrow is a breath of fresh air. It’s smart, funny, and full of action-packed excitement. It is a definitive summer blockbuster and is one of the best action movies of Tom Cruise’s illustrious career. Based on the graphic novel All You Need is Kill by Hiroshi Sakurazaka, Edge of Tomorrow stars Tom Cruise as Major William Cage, who has earned his rank without ever having served a day in combat. All of that quickly comes to a change when he’s put on the frontlines of a war that threatens humanity’s entire existence. Thrust into combat, Cage is cowardly, and also comically unprepared. He fearfully fights for his life, but is quickly killed in the conflict, only to reawaken at the start of the same day. Cage is given another chance at life, with the benefit of having lived the day before and fully remembering it. This is not a gift bestowed upon Tom Cruise by the power of Scientology, nor by Tom Cruise’s near-invincibility in his films, but instead his character Cage inadvertently has tapped into a divine alien power through which he is able to re-spawn from death over and over again. Trapped In this seemingly infinite loop, Cage is able to learn from his mistakes and thereby has the power to single-handedly change the outcome of this war and save the human race from complete annihilation.
The brilliance of Edge of Tomorrow is in its execution. This is a movie that could have easily been tiresome considering it replays the same day continuously on repeat, but it’s handled in a way that makes it entertaining and engaging. It is superbly edited to keep the story moving and the laughs coming. Even as a huge fan of Tom Cruise, I had a marvelous time watching him die off again and again while thoroughly laughing at his expense. What makes it so funny is that Tom is completely in on the joke and is able to generously poke fun at himself. He is perfectly cast in this role, as it allows him to act totally crazy and completely spineless, while gradually transitioning into his usual kick-ass, cool Cruise persona. Edge of Tomorrow feels both exhilarating and original, although it is clearly inspired in part by some other films, such as the comedy classic Groundhog Day, and even The Matrix trilogy. However, having these influences doesn’t take away from the film’s enormous accomplishments. To call it an action sci-fi version of Groundhog Day is only to sell it short. In fact, Edge of Tomorrow might just be the most fun you’ll have at the movies all year.
The conflict in Edge of Tomorrow is an alien invasion that is obliterating humanity. The aliens, known as Mimics, have taken over most of Europe, and with the exception of one keystone battle, have easily routed human military forces. Rita Vrataski, played by Emily Blunt, led that decisive victory at Verdun, earning herself the moniker the “Angel of Verdun” after single-handedly killing hundreds of Mimics in humanity’s first and only victory against the alien species. How was one woman able to massacre these aliens that can lay waste to an armed infantry in minutes? Well, as Cage finds out, she previously had his ability to reset in death, although she no longer possesses that power. Nevertheless, with her knowledge and skill set acquired from her nearly infinite practice, she can transform Cage into Earth’s greatest weapon.
Edge of Tomorrow is a thoroughly impressive package, complete with superb special effects, a heart-pounding musical score, and outstanding performances from its lead characters. Tom Cruise carries the film with veteran expertise, making the film fun and deeply entertaining. Emily Blunt is a powerhouse as Rita, showcasing a heroic toughness with a survivor mentality. I don’t think there are many actresses in Hollywood that could play such a role as convincingly as Blunt does here. Meanwhile, Bill Paxton is as enjoyable to watch as ever. He plays Master Sergeant Farrell, who is Cage’s cocky commanding officer that takes great pleasure in giving him a hard time. As for the aliens in the movie, they look absolutely incredible, not to mention highly original. I think they’re some of the coolest aliens I’ve ever seen, and they’re also far more threatening than your typical movie alien. They’re deathly fast and unpredictable, which makes the film’s action all the more intense. Edge of Tomorrow actually feels very much like a video game, and not just because of the respawning feature. The characters are memorable, the stakes are high, and the action is so engrossing that you feel like you’re an active participant in it. The creativity and combat at work in this film are worthy of belonging in a blockbuster game series. It rarely lets up and is an adrenaline-fueled ride from beginning to end.
I’ll admit that Edge of Tomorrow far-exceeded my expectations. It’s cool in every way imaginable, from the story and the action to the aliens and characters. It will immerse you in its desolate, doomed world that unknowingly rests on the brink of total destruction. Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt are both in top form and make this a movie you won’t want to miss. Edge of Tomorrow is certain to become an instant action classic. One that I wholly look forward to watching again and again and again.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 6.30.14.)
The brilliance of Edge of Tomorrow is in its execution. This is a movie that could have easily been tiresome considering it replays the same day continuously on repeat, but it’s handled in a way that makes it entertaining and engaging. It is superbly edited to keep the story moving and the laughs coming. Even as a huge fan of Tom Cruise, I had a marvelous time watching him die off again and again while thoroughly laughing at his expense. What makes it so funny is that Tom is completely in on the joke and is able to generously poke fun at himself. He is perfectly cast in this role, as it allows him to act totally crazy and completely spineless, while gradually transitioning into his usual kick-ass, cool Cruise persona. Edge of Tomorrow feels both exhilarating and original, although it is clearly inspired in part by some other films, such as the comedy classic Groundhog Day, and even The Matrix trilogy. However, having these influences doesn’t take away from the film’s enormous accomplishments. To call it an action sci-fi version of Groundhog Day is only to sell it short. In fact, Edge of Tomorrow might just be the most fun you’ll have at the movies all year.
The conflict in Edge of Tomorrow is an alien invasion that is obliterating humanity. The aliens, known as Mimics, have taken over most of Europe, and with the exception of one keystone battle, have easily routed human military forces. Rita Vrataski, played by Emily Blunt, led that decisive victory at Verdun, earning herself the moniker the “Angel of Verdun” after single-handedly killing hundreds of Mimics in humanity’s first and only victory against the alien species. How was one woman able to massacre these aliens that can lay waste to an armed infantry in minutes? Well, as Cage finds out, she previously had his ability to reset in death, although she no longer possesses that power. Nevertheless, with her knowledge and skill set acquired from her nearly infinite practice, she can transform Cage into Earth’s greatest weapon.
Edge of Tomorrow is a thoroughly impressive package, complete with superb special effects, a heart-pounding musical score, and outstanding performances from its lead characters. Tom Cruise carries the film with veteran expertise, making the film fun and deeply entertaining. Emily Blunt is a powerhouse as Rita, showcasing a heroic toughness with a survivor mentality. I don’t think there are many actresses in Hollywood that could play such a role as convincingly as Blunt does here. Meanwhile, Bill Paxton is as enjoyable to watch as ever. He plays Master Sergeant Farrell, who is Cage’s cocky commanding officer that takes great pleasure in giving him a hard time. As for the aliens in the movie, they look absolutely incredible, not to mention highly original. I think they’re some of the coolest aliens I’ve ever seen, and they’re also far more threatening than your typical movie alien. They’re deathly fast and unpredictable, which makes the film’s action all the more intense. Edge of Tomorrow actually feels very much like a video game, and not just because of the respawning feature. The characters are memorable, the stakes are high, and the action is so engrossing that you feel like you’re an active participant in it. The creativity and combat at work in this film are worthy of belonging in a blockbuster game series. It rarely lets up and is an adrenaline-fueled ride from beginning to end.
I’ll admit that Edge of Tomorrow far-exceeded my expectations. It’s cool in every way imaginable, from the story and the action to the aliens and characters. It will immerse you in its desolate, doomed world that unknowingly rests on the brink of total destruction. Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt are both in top form and make this a movie you won’t want to miss. Edge of Tomorrow is certain to become an instant action classic. One that I wholly look forward to watching again and again and again.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 6.30.14.)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
The story of Valerian is a good one. We open on Mül, a idyllic place of peace and a simple life. But this peace is shattered when fire rains from the sky devastating the entire planet. The last moment of Mül sees the Princess, doomed to die in the explosion, release her energy into the universe, through time and space.
Valerian, sunning himself on his ship, is hit with a sudden vision of the cataclysm on Mül. Unsure about it's meaning he goes back to the task at hand, retrieving a relic from some disreputable people on the black market. The "converter" is the last of it's kind in the universe, it will eat anything and rapidly replicate it, and as such is a very valuable commodity.
The mission is to return the converter to Alpha station. But when they arrive they discover that the station has been infected with something right at its heart. It's spreading, and all those that enter do not come back. When events lead to Valerian being drawn into the infected area, Laureline isn't willing to give up hope, and she battles her way in. Once she's reunited with Valerian they work travel to the centre of the station and discover the shocking truth about how the infection began...
The film is based on Valerian and Laureline, a French sci-fi comic series written by Pierre Christin and illustrated by Jean-Claude Mézières. I have got the first one to read, but as is my tradition, I have yet to do so. The first one is available free on Kindle at the moment if anybody is that way inclined. I expect that it will get a much better reaction in Europe than it seem to have done in the States, which is a bit of a shame. Possibly the way to go would have been with bigger stars, but *shrugs shoulders* it's too late now.
As I said, the story itself is a good one, and while people are nit picking and saying there are plot holes... there aren't if you don't look for them. I have this horrible ability to just watch a film for what it is, if you just go and see something to have some fun you don't notice any of that. It's a horribly nice way to be able to live my life, I enjoy a lot more things that way.
What I'm about to say is going to contradict my overall feeling for the film... I didn't really enjoy Dane DeHaan or Cara Delevingne. I had originally thought that I hadn't seen DeHaan in anything before, but was soon getting recollections of The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Scrolling through Delevingne's few years of films I've only seen Suicide Squad, and her acting as a "real person" is quite a small piece in that. While I can't think of anyone who would have perfectly suited either role, I feel like many other actors could have done an equal, or better, performance.
You get a wonderful introduction to what the station is, and has become. And we're treated to the potted history of alien species, several of which would sit quite nicely in the Whoniverse. I'm quite looking forward to reading the graphic novel. I can see stories unfolding in the different sections of the station, and that works. It almost feels like it would have made an amazing TV series, because it is essentially Star Trek with glitzier aliens and ecosystems.
As far as the secondary characters go we're treated to several memorable moments. Including Ethan Hawke as Jolly the Pimp, which is as flamboyant as you'd expect. Clive Owen as Commander Filitt, stern and ruthless, the sort who would stab you in the back (or the front) for his own gain. Sam Spruell as General Okto-Bar, who acted his part incredibly well... I'm honestly surprised I've not seen any of the other things he's been in, but I will be checking them out. Rihanna as Bubble, I'm a little surprised about how much I heard about her being in this considering how short her role is. But the same is true of a few things I've seen recently. We first meet her at Jolly's den of iniquity, where the music video training definitely came in handy.
As a whole the film moves along smoothly, with only a few little bits that seemed like they didn't belong, or could have been cut out. Unlike other films though, these little additions didn't harm the overall product.
Here is where my love for the film takes a steep nose-drive. Imagine crying with joy to resting bitch-face in the space of a few seconds. The 3D was hideous. I can't even think of a nice thing to say about it.
When the scenes were general crowd shots or indoors, everything was fine... although these shots didn't really benefit from the effect. The exterior shots however, in my not so expert opinion, were a terrible idea. I found some of them actually painful to watch, particularly long range shots of Alpha with ships coming in to dock. It was near on impossible to deal with the perspective as there was so much happening. For the last half of the film I took my 3D glasses off every time these shots appeared on screen as my head was rapidly starting to hurt, and I wasn't the only one having trouble.
If it wasn't for the painful exterior shots I honestly would have forgotten I was watching the film in 3D. Unlike other 3D films, you weren't aware that things were coming out of the screen at you. Not once.
I really don't want to be so negative about this film, it was an enjoyable watch (without the optical illusion created by the 3D). I would recommend it to anyone who has a passing interest in sci-fi and adaptations of comics. And I feel like, if nothing else, it might get the graphic novels themselves more circulation outside of Europe.
But please... watch it in 2D.
Valerian, sunning himself on his ship, is hit with a sudden vision of the cataclysm on Mül. Unsure about it's meaning he goes back to the task at hand, retrieving a relic from some disreputable people on the black market. The "converter" is the last of it's kind in the universe, it will eat anything and rapidly replicate it, and as such is a very valuable commodity.
The mission is to return the converter to Alpha station. But when they arrive they discover that the station has been infected with something right at its heart. It's spreading, and all those that enter do not come back. When events lead to Valerian being drawn into the infected area, Laureline isn't willing to give up hope, and she battles her way in. Once she's reunited with Valerian they work travel to the centre of the station and discover the shocking truth about how the infection began...
The film is based on Valerian and Laureline, a French sci-fi comic series written by Pierre Christin and illustrated by Jean-Claude Mézières. I have got the first one to read, but as is my tradition, I have yet to do so. The first one is available free on Kindle at the moment if anybody is that way inclined. I expect that it will get a much better reaction in Europe than it seem to have done in the States, which is a bit of a shame. Possibly the way to go would have been with bigger stars, but *shrugs shoulders* it's too late now.
As I said, the story itself is a good one, and while people are nit picking and saying there are plot holes... there aren't if you don't look for them. I have this horrible ability to just watch a film for what it is, if you just go and see something to have some fun you don't notice any of that. It's a horribly nice way to be able to live my life, I enjoy a lot more things that way.
What I'm about to say is going to contradict my overall feeling for the film... I didn't really enjoy Dane DeHaan or Cara Delevingne. I had originally thought that I hadn't seen DeHaan in anything before, but was soon getting recollections of The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Scrolling through Delevingne's few years of films I've only seen Suicide Squad, and her acting as a "real person" is quite a small piece in that. While I can't think of anyone who would have perfectly suited either role, I feel like many other actors could have done an equal, or better, performance.
You get a wonderful introduction to what the station is, and has become. And we're treated to the potted history of alien species, several of which would sit quite nicely in the Whoniverse. I'm quite looking forward to reading the graphic novel. I can see stories unfolding in the different sections of the station, and that works. It almost feels like it would have made an amazing TV series, because it is essentially Star Trek with glitzier aliens and ecosystems.
As far as the secondary characters go we're treated to several memorable moments. Including Ethan Hawke as Jolly the Pimp, which is as flamboyant as you'd expect. Clive Owen as Commander Filitt, stern and ruthless, the sort who would stab you in the back (or the front) for his own gain. Sam Spruell as General Okto-Bar, who acted his part incredibly well... I'm honestly surprised I've not seen any of the other things he's been in, but I will be checking them out. Rihanna as Bubble, I'm a little surprised about how much I heard about her being in this considering how short her role is. But the same is true of a few things I've seen recently. We first meet her at Jolly's den of iniquity, where the music video training definitely came in handy.
As a whole the film moves along smoothly, with only a few little bits that seemed like they didn't belong, or could have been cut out. Unlike other films though, these little additions didn't harm the overall product.
Here is where my love for the film takes a steep nose-drive. Imagine crying with joy to resting bitch-face in the space of a few seconds. The 3D was hideous. I can't even think of a nice thing to say about it.
When the scenes were general crowd shots or indoors, everything was fine... although these shots didn't really benefit from the effect. The exterior shots however, in my not so expert opinion, were a terrible idea. I found some of them actually painful to watch, particularly long range shots of Alpha with ships coming in to dock. It was near on impossible to deal with the perspective as there was so much happening. For the last half of the film I took my 3D glasses off every time these shots appeared on screen as my head was rapidly starting to hurt, and I wasn't the only one having trouble.
If it wasn't for the painful exterior shots I honestly would have forgotten I was watching the film in 3D. Unlike other 3D films, you weren't aware that things were coming out of the screen at you. Not once.
I really don't want to be so negative about this film, it was an enjoyable watch (without the optical illusion created by the 3D). I would recommend it to anyone who has a passing interest in sci-fi and adaptations of comics. And I feel like, if nothing else, it might get the graphic novels themselves more circulation outside of Europe.
But please... watch it in 2D.
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated Beauty and The Beast in Books
Sep 10, 2019
Princess Callindra of Tempath is in for some trouble when she runs aways from her mother’s castle and gets kidnapped by a vampire demon who will sell her into slavery. Her only hope out of there is with the help of a mysterious and hairy demon named Brigg, who is not in the least happy to be helping a human. He has hated humans ever since his father was cursed by a human woman, who turned all of them into hairy beasts for life. But he was drawn to this woman, as vexing as she could be. Every part of him was drawn to her and yearned to protect her and make her his. His inner demon was sure that she was his mate. But that was impossible, wasn’t it? How could he have a human for a mate?
I’m a huge sucker for Beauty and Beast stories, as you probably know if you’ve read some of my other reviews. Seriously. You can win some girls over with chocolate and others over with hugs and kisses, but nothing does it for me like an insecure love interest and a woman who’s his salvation because of her unconditional love. (Okay, maybe I’m a little high maintenance). So of course I loved this story! Brigg was wonderfully sweet and conflicted, even though he needs to stop listening to his idiot brother. Cally is a fantastic damsel in distress even though sometimes she just needs to think of the obvious and frickin’ tell someone she doesn’t want to go back home because her mother’s a bitch and she’s part demon. But you know, aside from that, the characters are great.
It’s totally understandable why Brigg dislikes humans. I mean, the only real exposure he had of them was from Cally’s mom, who cursed him and his brother to be hairy beasts instead of the handsome, practically human-looking demons they really were. Frankly, I’d be pissed too. I also understand his confusion when he falls himself falling for Cally when he thinks she’s completely human, and the daughter of a crazy witch/queen to boot. Nevertheless, he still protects her. He saves her from slavery, risking the wrath of her kidnapper to do it, and he keeps her safe. He does this even though he doesn’t think she could ever love him in return.
She was a vision, an image plucked right from his dreams. Maybe a time– before the curse– he had imagined such a beauty being his…. But he was no longer that young Rain demon, that young demon with smooth skin and a face as human as hers. He was a beast, an ugly monster who didn’t deserve the look of interest Cally was flashing right now.
What can I say? I love the insecurities. They are as sexy as hell when done right.
But even though his intentions are good, Brigg is not the smartest demon in the hellhole. As soon as his brother Torc enters the scene, it takes Brigg all of two minutes to decide that Cally has placed a spell on him to use him to get home. This would make sense, except by this point both Brigg and Cally were safe. In a palace. As the guests of a prince. Who was giving her a lift home. She would need to continue on with the spell and the act because…. ?
Like I said, not that fast of a thinker. But Cally isn’t much better. More than anything she wants to avoid her old home, with her abusive mother who was going to put her into an arranged marriage which would only end badly for Cally. Now she’s in an impenetrable palace that’s owned by Sam, who has been nothing but kind to her. He thinks he’s still being kind when he arranges for her ride home. And Cally doesn’t bother to tell him she doesn’t want to go home! Clearly, she’s just being melodramatic. She’s not that desperate.
She had thought about telling Sam, considered asking for his help, but she had been such a burden since Brigg rescued her, Call was frightened of rejection.
You think Sam’s rejection is going to be worse than having your horns filed off again before getting married to a prince that will likely torture you for the rest of your life when he finds out you’re a demon. Clearly, you don’t have your priorities straight.
But seriously, I loved the characters! I’m telling you, it’s Beauty and the Beast! My standards might be a tad low with this story arc.
There was a lot of confusing things in the plot as well. Like what era does this take place in? Cally rides home in a carriage and Brigg and Torc use swords. But Cally also wears t-shirts and jeans and she uses an electric torch, aka flashlight. It’s difficult enough to learn all of the nooks and crannies of the world the author built. There shouldn’t be confusion like flashlights with swords as well. Also, I felt like there was a lot of potential for a longer, more developed story. The whole thing felt very short to me. We never find out why Brigg’s father got cursed to begin with, and I’d love to know more about Brigg’s past, like how did he go crazy and get everyone to be afraid of him? That was never explained. Also, I know it’s unlikely, but I really wished there was some confirmation that Brigg and Cally are not brother and sister. After all, we know Cally’s mom has a past with Brigg’s father, Cally’s own father is MIA, and her horns are the same color as Brigg’s. Probably not anything, but just enough to make me wonder.
I don’t know. I liked this story enough to read it twice– that’s a huge compliment from me– but after reading it a second time and writing this review I’m wondering how good it really was. Maybe I just read it at the right time but didn’t like it as much. I don’t know. So three out of five stars on this one?
I’m a huge sucker for Beauty and Beast stories, as you probably know if you’ve read some of my other reviews. Seriously. You can win some girls over with chocolate and others over with hugs and kisses, but nothing does it for me like an insecure love interest and a woman who’s his salvation because of her unconditional love. (Okay, maybe I’m a little high maintenance). So of course I loved this story! Brigg was wonderfully sweet and conflicted, even though he needs to stop listening to his idiot brother. Cally is a fantastic damsel in distress even though sometimes she just needs to think of the obvious and frickin’ tell someone she doesn’t want to go back home because her mother’s a bitch and she’s part demon. But you know, aside from that, the characters are great.
It’s totally understandable why Brigg dislikes humans. I mean, the only real exposure he had of them was from Cally’s mom, who cursed him and his brother to be hairy beasts instead of the handsome, practically human-looking demons they really were. Frankly, I’d be pissed too. I also understand his confusion when he falls himself falling for Cally when he thinks she’s completely human, and the daughter of a crazy witch/queen to boot. Nevertheless, he still protects her. He saves her from slavery, risking the wrath of her kidnapper to do it, and he keeps her safe. He does this even though he doesn’t think she could ever love him in return.
She was a vision, an image plucked right from his dreams. Maybe a time– before the curse– he had imagined such a beauty being his…. But he was no longer that young Rain demon, that young demon with smooth skin and a face as human as hers. He was a beast, an ugly monster who didn’t deserve the look of interest Cally was flashing right now.
What can I say? I love the insecurities. They are as sexy as hell when done right.
But even though his intentions are good, Brigg is not the smartest demon in the hellhole. As soon as his brother Torc enters the scene, it takes Brigg all of two minutes to decide that Cally has placed a spell on him to use him to get home. This would make sense, except by this point both Brigg and Cally were safe. In a palace. As the guests of a prince. Who was giving her a lift home. She would need to continue on with the spell and the act because…. ?
Like I said, not that fast of a thinker. But Cally isn’t much better. More than anything she wants to avoid her old home, with her abusive mother who was going to put her into an arranged marriage which would only end badly for Cally. Now she’s in an impenetrable palace that’s owned by Sam, who has been nothing but kind to her. He thinks he’s still being kind when he arranges for her ride home. And Cally doesn’t bother to tell him she doesn’t want to go home! Clearly, she’s just being melodramatic. She’s not that desperate.
She had thought about telling Sam, considered asking for his help, but she had been such a burden since Brigg rescued her, Call was frightened of rejection.
You think Sam’s rejection is going to be worse than having your horns filed off again before getting married to a prince that will likely torture you for the rest of your life when he finds out you’re a demon. Clearly, you don’t have your priorities straight.
But seriously, I loved the characters! I’m telling you, it’s Beauty and the Beast! My standards might be a tad low with this story arc.
There was a lot of confusing things in the plot as well. Like what era does this take place in? Cally rides home in a carriage and Brigg and Torc use swords. But Cally also wears t-shirts and jeans and she uses an electric torch, aka flashlight. It’s difficult enough to learn all of the nooks and crannies of the world the author built. There shouldn’t be confusion like flashlights with swords as well. Also, I felt like there was a lot of potential for a longer, more developed story. The whole thing felt very short to me. We never find out why Brigg’s father got cursed to begin with, and I’d love to know more about Brigg’s past, like how did he go crazy and get everyone to be afraid of him? That was never explained. Also, I know it’s unlikely, but I really wished there was some confirmation that Brigg and Cally are not brother and sister. After all, we know Cally’s mom has a past with Brigg’s father, Cally’s own father is MIA, and her horns are the same color as Brigg’s. Probably not anything, but just enough to make me wonder.
I don’t know. I liked this story enough to read it twice– that’s a huge compliment from me– but after reading it a second time and writing this review I’m wondering how good it really was. Maybe I just read it at the right time but didn’t like it as much. I don’t know. So three out of five stars on this one?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Would the last straight woman in Stockholm turn off the lights?
You’ve gotta love a Scandi-thriller. Well, that was until last year’s hopeless Michael Fassbender vehicle “The Snowman” which devalued the currency better than Brexit has done to the pound! The mother of them all though was the original “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy (in Swedish) in 2009. Although subject to a wholly unnecessary English remake two year’s later by David Fincher (with Mara Rooney and Daniel Craig) it was Noomi Rapace who struck the perfect note as the original anarchic and damaged Lisbeth Salander: a punk wielding a baseball bat like an alien-thing possessed (pun well and truly intended!).
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Post (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Landing the Hindenburg in a Thunderstorm.
What a combination: Streep, Hanks, Spielberg, Kaminski behind the camera, Williams behind the notes. What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Death Valley in Tabletop Games
Jan 18, 2022
This past summer, 2021, I had the opportunity to visit Las Vegas for the first time in my life. The casinos, the strip, the lights – everything was over-the-top and pretty impressive. But my trip took me beyond the city borders, as I got to visit several national parks and see some unique landmarks as well. One of which being Death Valley National Park. They’re not lying with the name – during my trip there, the temperature climbed to over 110°F. Does this pocket-sized game about the real-life location do justice to the scorching scenery? Keep reading to find out!
Death Valley is a game for 1-2 players in which you are documenting your journey across the Death Valley park. You will see different sights on your journey, and add cherished memories to your scrapbook. The player who amasses the most points by the end of the game is the winner! To setup for a game, shuffle the deck of Feature cards and reveal one face-up while the rest remain in a face-down deck. These cards make up the Desert. That’s it. The game is ready to start! Choose a starting player and get to sight-seeing!
Throughout the game, players will be adding Feature cards to their Journey tableau (places they have visited) and their Scrapbook tableau (the more memorable locations). On your turn, you will perform one of 2 actions: Travel or Rest. When you choose to Travel, you will select either the Feature card from the Desert (the face-up card), or draw the top card from the face-down deck and add it to your Journey. Conversely, when you choose to Rest, you will move a Feature card from your Journey into your Scrapbook. When moving Feature cards to your Scrapbook, you are allowed to hide other cards from your Journey underneath that card. Hiding cards can be beneficial for end-game points, or for preventing you from Busting. Many Feature cards have additional text at the bottom, that either provides ongoing abilities for the remainder of the game, or that provide extra scoring abilities at the end of the game. Choosing which Feature cards to move when and where is key!
After you have performed your chosen Action, you check to see if you Bust. If you have 3 Feature cards of the same type in your Journey and Scrapbook, you Bust! To resolve a Bust, you will discard from the game the right-most card in your Journey, and then will re-shuffle any remaining Journey cards back into the draw deck. So there’s a small element of push-your-luck in here! Once you resolve a Bust (if necessary), you will refresh the Desert – reveal a new face-up card if you just took the face-up card this turn. Your turn then ends, and play moves to your opponent. The game continues in this fashion, with players drawing/placing/moving Feature cards in their 2 tableaus, until only 1 card remains in the Desert. Points are then tallied: 1 point per Star on cards visible in your Journey, and points based on the extra scoring abilities of cards in your Journey and/or Scrapbook. The player with the highest score is declared the winner!
So, let’s get into this gameplay. For being a 2-player game, I appreciate that it’s not necessarily directly competitive. Yes, you want to score more points at the end of the game, but there really isn’t any player interaction, which keeps the energy level of the game more low-key. That being said, it’s decently strategic. Some Feature cards provide on-going abilities that can be used throughout the game, and can help you get some benefit out of a Bust. Certain card abilities rely on adjacency of other cards, so you have to know when/where to place a card to get the most points for the end of the game. That being said, you also have to make sure you don’t Bust. Luckily, you don’t resolve/check for a Bust until after you have performed your action, so perhaps you are able to sneak by with some clever planning. One part of the gameplay that misses the mark for me is the fact that you can only perform 1 Action per turn. I feel like that can really inhibit your ability to strategize, and makes it difficult to feel like you’re accomplishing something on your turns. Maybe if players had to perform both Actions per turn (either Travel/Rest, or vice versa), it would offer a few more options in terms of strategy. I just personally feel like taking only 1 Action per turn makes the gameplay a little too choppy, and makes it hard to really get into – especially when the game itself is so short. Maybe I’m not thinking strategically enough, but these are my thoughts thus far with Death Valley!
Components. As to be expected from ButtonShy – excellent quality of the cards and wallet. The artwork is colorful and thematic, and I just like looking at the different locations represented in the game. This game is satisfying to look at, and it earns high marks from me. Another neat thing? Each Feature card has a little interesting fact about its location, so you can learn a neat tidbit while playing the game!
Nothing can really compare to seeing Death Valley in person, but this game does offer a nice representation. The beauty of the location artwork coupled with the interesting facts has me intrigued outside of the game itself. The gameplay isn’t necessarily a home-run in my eyes, but it is strategic enough that I know I’ll keep pulling this one out from time to time. There is a solo mode, as well as a variant to give you more of a press-your-luck element, and I will definitely be trying those to see if they change my thoughts on this game. But for the time being, Purple Phoenix Games gives Death Valley a singed 4 / 6.
Death Valley is a game for 1-2 players in which you are documenting your journey across the Death Valley park. You will see different sights on your journey, and add cherished memories to your scrapbook. The player who amasses the most points by the end of the game is the winner! To setup for a game, shuffle the deck of Feature cards and reveal one face-up while the rest remain in a face-down deck. These cards make up the Desert. That’s it. The game is ready to start! Choose a starting player and get to sight-seeing!
Throughout the game, players will be adding Feature cards to their Journey tableau (places they have visited) and their Scrapbook tableau (the more memorable locations). On your turn, you will perform one of 2 actions: Travel or Rest. When you choose to Travel, you will select either the Feature card from the Desert (the face-up card), or draw the top card from the face-down deck and add it to your Journey. Conversely, when you choose to Rest, you will move a Feature card from your Journey into your Scrapbook. When moving Feature cards to your Scrapbook, you are allowed to hide other cards from your Journey underneath that card. Hiding cards can be beneficial for end-game points, or for preventing you from Busting. Many Feature cards have additional text at the bottom, that either provides ongoing abilities for the remainder of the game, or that provide extra scoring abilities at the end of the game. Choosing which Feature cards to move when and where is key!
After you have performed your chosen Action, you check to see if you Bust. If you have 3 Feature cards of the same type in your Journey and Scrapbook, you Bust! To resolve a Bust, you will discard from the game the right-most card in your Journey, and then will re-shuffle any remaining Journey cards back into the draw deck. So there’s a small element of push-your-luck in here! Once you resolve a Bust (if necessary), you will refresh the Desert – reveal a new face-up card if you just took the face-up card this turn. Your turn then ends, and play moves to your opponent. The game continues in this fashion, with players drawing/placing/moving Feature cards in their 2 tableaus, until only 1 card remains in the Desert. Points are then tallied: 1 point per Star on cards visible in your Journey, and points based on the extra scoring abilities of cards in your Journey and/or Scrapbook. The player with the highest score is declared the winner!
So, let’s get into this gameplay. For being a 2-player game, I appreciate that it’s not necessarily directly competitive. Yes, you want to score more points at the end of the game, but there really isn’t any player interaction, which keeps the energy level of the game more low-key. That being said, it’s decently strategic. Some Feature cards provide on-going abilities that can be used throughout the game, and can help you get some benefit out of a Bust. Certain card abilities rely on adjacency of other cards, so you have to know when/where to place a card to get the most points for the end of the game. That being said, you also have to make sure you don’t Bust. Luckily, you don’t resolve/check for a Bust until after you have performed your action, so perhaps you are able to sneak by with some clever planning. One part of the gameplay that misses the mark for me is the fact that you can only perform 1 Action per turn. I feel like that can really inhibit your ability to strategize, and makes it difficult to feel like you’re accomplishing something on your turns. Maybe if players had to perform both Actions per turn (either Travel/Rest, or vice versa), it would offer a few more options in terms of strategy. I just personally feel like taking only 1 Action per turn makes the gameplay a little too choppy, and makes it hard to really get into – especially when the game itself is so short. Maybe I’m not thinking strategically enough, but these are my thoughts thus far with Death Valley!
Components. As to be expected from ButtonShy – excellent quality of the cards and wallet. The artwork is colorful and thematic, and I just like looking at the different locations represented in the game. This game is satisfying to look at, and it earns high marks from me. Another neat thing? Each Feature card has a little interesting fact about its location, so you can learn a neat tidbit while playing the game!
Nothing can really compare to seeing Death Valley in person, but this game does offer a nice representation. The beauty of the location artwork coupled with the interesting facts has me intrigued outside of the game itself. The gameplay isn’t necessarily a home-run in my eyes, but it is strategic enough that I know I’ll keep pulling this one out from time to time. There is a solo mode, as well as a variant to give you more of a press-your-luck element, and I will definitely be trying those to see if they change my thoughts on this game. But for the time being, Purple Phoenix Games gives Death Valley a singed 4 / 6.
Eilidh G Clark (177 KP) rated The Panopticon in Books
May 13, 2017
This is my all time favouurite book.
Jenny Fagan stated in an interview in 2013 that prior to writing the novel The Panopticon (2012) she had one question, ‘is it possible to achieve autonomy?’ Fagan explores this question throughout her novel with the character of Anais Hendrix. I would also suggest that the author is metaphorically exploring whether Scotland can achieve autonomy as an independent nation. Autonomy, in relation to the individual, is self-governance- or being able to decide for oneself
At the beginning of the novel, the fifteen-year old Anais is governed by the state. In contemporary British society, a child under the age of sixteen, regardless of her social situation is, by law, governed by an adult/s. Anais has lived her life in the care system with the exception of a short period in which she lived with an adopted mother. It is for this reason that she is able to see society from outside of the family unit. By creating the motherless child, Fagan presents Anais as the ‘other’ from both a societal perspective- ‘communities dinnae like no-ones,’ and from the viewpoint of the protagonist, ‘What they really want is me dead,’ (TP, p.23). Without a family, and through a lack of legitimate information regarding her birth mother, Anais believes that she was created in a lab:
I’M AN experiment. I always have been, It’s a given, a liberty, a fact. They watch me. Not just in school or social-work reviews, courts or police cells – they watch everywhere. […] They’re there when I stare too long or too clearly, without flinching. […] They watch me, I know it, and I can’t find anywhere any more – where they can’t see, (TP, Prologue).
Note that in the above quotation, the protagonist describes her assumed identity as a ‘liberty’. Liberty, in this case, means freedom from the oppressive nature of the family. Although Anais desires the nurturing aspect of the family, ‘I just want my mum,’ (Tp, p.269), her lack of family exposes her to the nature of contemporary society as a constant monitoring of civilians. In the above quotation, the repetition of ‘they’ suggests that she feels outside of the norm. The most important aspect of the above quote however, is that it is told from the protagonist’s thoughts. While Fagan gives Anais a certain amount of autonomy through both the first-person narrator, and the vernacular, the reliability of the narrator is increased by presenting the characters inner thoughts. While this limited autonomy is important, full autonomy is restricted by age. Bever suggests that ‘the capacity for individuals to become autonomous seems radically dependent on the contingent historical circumstances and societies into which they are born. Anais’ awareness of herself as the ‘other’ allows her an insight into the oppressive role of society, which is normally hindered in childhood due to the role of the family and it’s teaching of norms and values.
The sense of otherness can also be looked at in regard to Scotland and its role within the UK. The UK is a family of four countries under one state. Regardless of Scotland’s devolution, it has still to comply with a large amount of UK policies. Scotland has different values and goals to that of the UK making it ‘other’. With a different cultural identity to its neighbours, many Scottish citizens are seeking independence to protect its dwindling identity, whilst for others, independence is political.
Anais’ awareness of social control causes her a feeling of shrinking. This, according to her social workers is an identity problem:
Fifty odd moves, three different names, born in a nuthouse to a nobody that was never seen again. Identity problem? I dinnae have an identity problem – I dinnae have an identity, (TP, p.99).
Anais’ reaction in the above statement describes her lack of knowledge of her ancestry. I would argue that her identity is forced upon her from the fifty-one times that she has moved home, the care system, the solitary time in which she was adopted, the relationships she has had - both female and male, her friends but more importantly, from the unreliable account of her birth from the monk in the metal institution. The lack of family does not alter the fact that she is alive, and that all the fragments of her past make up an identity. For Anais, ‘Families are overrated […] ‘I umnay fooled. Not by families,’(TP, p.63-64). Like Anais, Scotland’s identity is ambiguous. Independence will allow Scotland political autonomy, however, within a global economy, Scotland still has limited autonomy. As culturally ‘other’ however, Scotland has already achieved autonomy with or without a state through its language, its people and its traditions.
Fagan demonstrates the difficulty of total autonomy though Anais and the birthday game, a game in which she creates her own identity. When she turns sixteen years of age, Anais is free from societal care and flees from her imprisonment, ‘I am Frances Jones from Paris. I am not a face on a missing-person poster, I am not a number or a statistic in a file. I have no-one watching me, […] I−begin today,’ (TP, p.323-324). ‘I’ suggests singularity and is still opposite to ‘them’ or ‘we’. Autonomy is therefore, ambiguous; Anais is still living within the same system under a false identity, she is therefore, segregated from everyone that she knows. Moreover, by changing Anais’ name to a name that ‘means freedom.’ (TP, p.323), Fagan is pointing out the difference between freedom and autonomy. Freedom is an emotive word, and there are two concepts of freedom – freedom from, which in Anais’ situation means freedom from the system of observation. Freedom to, however, is more problematic as Anais can never be free from the neoliberal system of rules and law – as Scotland would see in the case of independence. I would therefore conclude that Anais/Scotland has always has limited autonomy through cultural identity and history. I believe autonomy can only reside within the system through cultural and individual imagination and not out with it.
What does this mean for Scotland? If Scotland is part of the global community, can it become an autonomous nation? Is there a solution or should Anais/Scotland accept that cultural autonomy is imagined or self-contained. Can a collective identity and imagination change the political system? Finally, can culture survive without independence?
Bibliography
Crupp, Tyler, ‘Autonomy and Contemporary Political Theory’, in Encyclopaedia of Political Theory, ed. Mark Bevor (London: Sage Publications, 2010)
Fagan, Jenni, The Panopticon (London: Windmill Books, 2013), p.6.
Windmill Books. (2013). Granta Best Young British Novelist Jenni Fagan, . accessed 22 November 2015. Published on Apr 16, 2013
At the beginning of the novel, the fifteen-year old Anais is governed by the state. In contemporary British society, a child under the age of sixteen, regardless of her social situation is, by law, governed by an adult/s. Anais has lived her life in the care system with the exception of a short period in which she lived with an adopted mother. It is for this reason that she is able to see society from outside of the family unit. By creating the motherless child, Fagan presents Anais as the ‘other’ from both a societal perspective- ‘communities dinnae like no-ones,’ and from the viewpoint of the protagonist, ‘What they really want is me dead,’ (TP, p.23). Without a family, and through a lack of legitimate information regarding her birth mother, Anais believes that she was created in a lab:
I’M AN experiment. I always have been, It’s a given, a liberty, a fact. They watch me. Not just in school or social-work reviews, courts or police cells – they watch everywhere. […] They’re there when I stare too long or too clearly, without flinching. […] They watch me, I know it, and I can’t find anywhere any more – where they can’t see, (TP, Prologue).
Note that in the above quotation, the protagonist describes her assumed identity as a ‘liberty’. Liberty, in this case, means freedom from the oppressive nature of the family. Although Anais desires the nurturing aspect of the family, ‘I just want my mum,’ (Tp, p.269), her lack of family exposes her to the nature of contemporary society as a constant monitoring of civilians. In the above quotation, the repetition of ‘they’ suggests that she feels outside of the norm. The most important aspect of the above quote however, is that it is told from the protagonist’s thoughts. While Fagan gives Anais a certain amount of autonomy through both the first-person narrator, and the vernacular, the reliability of the narrator is increased by presenting the characters inner thoughts. While this limited autonomy is important, full autonomy is restricted by age. Bever suggests that ‘the capacity for individuals to become autonomous seems radically dependent on the contingent historical circumstances and societies into which they are born. Anais’ awareness of herself as the ‘other’ allows her an insight into the oppressive role of society, which is normally hindered in childhood due to the role of the family and it’s teaching of norms and values.
The sense of otherness can also be looked at in regard to Scotland and its role within the UK. The UK is a family of four countries under one state. Regardless of Scotland’s devolution, it has still to comply with a large amount of UK policies. Scotland has different values and goals to that of the UK making it ‘other’. With a different cultural identity to its neighbours, many Scottish citizens are seeking independence to protect its dwindling identity, whilst for others, independence is political.
Anais’ awareness of social control causes her a feeling of shrinking. This, according to her social workers is an identity problem:
Fifty odd moves, three different names, born in a nuthouse to a nobody that was never seen again. Identity problem? I dinnae have an identity problem – I dinnae have an identity, (TP, p.99).
Anais’ reaction in the above statement describes her lack of knowledge of her ancestry. I would argue that her identity is forced upon her from the fifty-one times that she has moved home, the care system, the solitary time in which she was adopted, the relationships she has had - both female and male, her friends but more importantly, from the unreliable account of her birth from the monk in the metal institution. The lack of family does not alter the fact that she is alive, and that all the fragments of her past make up an identity. For Anais, ‘Families are overrated […] ‘I umnay fooled. Not by families,’(TP, p.63-64). Like Anais, Scotland’s identity is ambiguous. Independence will allow Scotland political autonomy, however, within a global economy, Scotland still has limited autonomy. As culturally ‘other’ however, Scotland has already achieved autonomy with or without a state through its language, its people and its traditions.
Fagan demonstrates the difficulty of total autonomy though Anais and the birthday game, a game in which she creates her own identity. When she turns sixteen years of age, Anais is free from societal care and flees from her imprisonment, ‘I am Frances Jones from Paris. I am not a face on a missing-person poster, I am not a number or a statistic in a file. I have no-one watching me, […] I−begin today,’ (TP, p.323-324). ‘I’ suggests singularity and is still opposite to ‘them’ or ‘we’. Autonomy is therefore, ambiguous; Anais is still living within the same system under a false identity, she is therefore, segregated from everyone that she knows. Moreover, by changing Anais’ name to a name that ‘means freedom.’ (TP, p.323), Fagan is pointing out the difference between freedom and autonomy. Freedom is an emotive word, and there are two concepts of freedom – freedom from, which in Anais’ situation means freedom from the system of observation. Freedom to, however, is more problematic as Anais can never be free from the neoliberal system of rules and law – as Scotland would see in the case of independence. I would therefore conclude that Anais/Scotland has always has limited autonomy through cultural identity and history. I believe autonomy can only reside within the system through cultural and individual imagination and not out with it.
What does this mean for Scotland? If Scotland is part of the global community, can it become an autonomous nation? Is there a solution or should Anais/Scotland accept that cultural autonomy is imagined or self-contained. Can a collective identity and imagination change the political system? Finally, can culture survive without independence?
Bibliography
Crupp, Tyler, ‘Autonomy and Contemporary Political Theory’, in Encyclopaedia of Political Theory, ed. Mark Bevor (London: Sage Publications, 2010)
Fagan, Jenni, The Panopticon (London: Windmill Books, 2013), p.6.
Windmill Books. (2013). Granta Best Young British Novelist Jenni Fagan, . accessed 22 November 2015. Published on Apr 16, 2013