Search
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Niche in Tabletop Games
Mar 3, 2021
I have a gamer confession to make and I am not sure how it will be received. Perhaps it isn’t a gamer confession at all. I will let you be the judge. I am not a fan of Sudoku. There! I said it, and I stand by it. I find it tedious and far too intelligent a game for me. However, if someone would just dumb it down enough for me to get it, I may actually enjoy it. Oh wait, Andy Hopwood did that for me already? Hot dog!
Niche is a puzzly abstracty Sudoku-y card sheddy game for two to seven players that can be played in as few as 10 minutes. In it players attempt to shed their hand and score the most points by adding cards to established lines of cards. As with most of Andy Hopwood’s games, though, there is a twist.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup the dealer will shuffle the deck and, well, deal out seven cards to each player. The cards not dealt form a deck and from this deck a starter card is flipped to the table. Setup is complete and the game may now begin!
On a turn each player will need to perform three steps: Select, Place, Score. When Selecting a card from their hand the player will need to observe the last played card. This card will essentially inform the player of what CANNOT be played. For example (per the photo above), if a yellow triangle was just played, then the next card played can be NEITHER yellow nor a triangle. So from their hand the active player will select a group of cards that can be played this turn and choose one to add adjacently to the most recently played card.
The player then must Place their card such that they do not add the same card to the line that already exists within the line. For an example here (per the photo below), the most recently played card is a blue circle. In hand are two blue squares, a yellow square, and a red square. As the previous card is blue the only choices left are the yellow and red square. However, the card played previous to the blue circle was a yellow square, so that leaves our player with only one choice: the red square connected to the blue circle. Now, the player could actually use the yellow square, but would need to place it below the blue circle forming the beginning of a new line. I will explain why that is a less strategic play.
When players perform the third step in a turn, Scoring, they will count up all cards in the lines extended by their card, both vertically and horizontally. In our previous example the red square continues a line of two cards so their score for that placement is three. Should they place the yellow square below they will only score two as they have added onto only one card. Fans of Azul will be familiar with this scoring system. Players are expected to keep track of their own scores each turn.
Should a player not have any legal plays using cards in their hand they must pass, and await their next turn. Play continues in this manner of players performing these three steps in a turn until a player sheds their entire hand of cards. All other players will have one more chance to play one card to score points. Players add up all the points they have scored throughout the game and the player with the most points is the winner!
Components. This is a deck of cards in a tuckbox. The cards are all fine quality, and the iconography could not be much clearer. I have zero qualms with the components here.
Gameplay is super quick and puzzly, with a great weight for its type of game. This will not be a centerpiece title of the game night, but will offer filler style gameplay for gamers mulling about or waiting for the next game to begin. I enjoy the simplicity of the rules coupled with the puzzly and thinky nature of each turn. Obviously the name of the game is scoring points, so you want to add to an already-long line instead of having to begin a new off-shoot somewhere, but it is near impossible to anticipate what other players will place on their turns. Therefore, more strategic players will find either solace or frustration from the more tactical style of play here.
I do want to mention that this game was originally designed for an event benefiting The Foundation for Conductive Education in the UK. Quote taken from the BGG profile for Niche: “The game aims to promote and support The Foundation for Conductive Education. This method works with children and adults who have conditions such as Cerebral Palsy, Stroke, M.S. or Parkinsons, helping them to lead more independent lives.” I know this organization holds a special place in the designer’s heart and I just wanted to take a moment to give a shout-out to this amazing organization and this amazing person who created a game for the benefit of others. I applaud both entities, and hope for much success.
That said, Niche is a game that can be played with any type of gamer in almost any situation. It takes up little table space (at most nine cards in a line) and is rules-light. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an extended 8 / 12. If you are a fan of Sudoku and would like to explore a little card game that gives this reviewer the same vibe (but infinitely more fun) then I urge you to grab a copy of Niche. Not only will you be purchasing a good little game, but your purchase also goes toward furthering an organization that is doing very important work in the UK. And if you would like to feel very smart, play Niche with me sometime and watch me struggle to play the right card.
Niche is a puzzly abstracty Sudoku-y card sheddy game for two to seven players that can be played in as few as 10 minutes. In it players attempt to shed their hand and score the most points by adding cards to established lines of cards. As with most of Andy Hopwood’s games, though, there is a twist.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup the dealer will shuffle the deck and, well, deal out seven cards to each player. The cards not dealt form a deck and from this deck a starter card is flipped to the table. Setup is complete and the game may now begin!
On a turn each player will need to perform three steps: Select, Place, Score. When Selecting a card from their hand the player will need to observe the last played card. This card will essentially inform the player of what CANNOT be played. For example (per the photo above), if a yellow triangle was just played, then the next card played can be NEITHER yellow nor a triangle. So from their hand the active player will select a group of cards that can be played this turn and choose one to add adjacently to the most recently played card.
The player then must Place their card such that they do not add the same card to the line that already exists within the line. For an example here (per the photo below), the most recently played card is a blue circle. In hand are two blue squares, a yellow square, and a red square. As the previous card is blue the only choices left are the yellow and red square. However, the card played previous to the blue circle was a yellow square, so that leaves our player with only one choice: the red square connected to the blue circle. Now, the player could actually use the yellow square, but would need to place it below the blue circle forming the beginning of a new line. I will explain why that is a less strategic play.
When players perform the third step in a turn, Scoring, they will count up all cards in the lines extended by their card, both vertically and horizontally. In our previous example the red square continues a line of two cards so their score for that placement is three. Should they place the yellow square below they will only score two as they have added onto only one card. Fans of Azul will be familiar with this scoring system. Players are expected to keep track of their own scores each turn.
Should a player not have any legal plays using cards in their hand they must pass, and await their next turn. Play continues in this manner of players performing these three steps in a turn until a player sheds their entire hand of cards. All other players will have one more chance to play one card to score points. Players add up all the points they have scored throughout the game and the player with the most points is the winner!
Components. This is a deck of cards in a tuckbox. The cards are all fine quality, and the iconography could not be much clearer. I have zero qualms with the components here.
Gameplay is super quick and puzzly, with a great weight for its type of game. This will not be a centerpiece title of the game night, but will offer filler style gameplay for gamers mulling about or waiting for the next game to begin. I enjoy the simplicity of the rules coupled with the puzzly and thinky nature of each turn. Obviously the name of the game is scoring points, so you want to add to an already-long line instead of having to begin a new off-shoot somewhere, but it is near impossible to anticipate what other players will place on their turns. Therefore, more strategic players will find either solace or frustration from the more tactical style of play here.
I do want to mention that this game was originally designed for an event benefiting The Foundation for Conductive Education in the UK. Quote taken from the BGG profile for Niche: “The game aims to promote and support The Foundation for Conductive Education. This method works with children and adults who have conditions such as Cerebral Palsy, Stroke, M.S. or Parkinsons, helping them to lead more independent lives.” I know this organization holds a special place in the designer’s heart and I just wanted to take a moment to give a shout-out to this amazing organization and this amazing person who created a game for the benefit of others. I applaud both entities, and hope for much success.
That said, Niche is a game that can be played with any type of gamer in almost any situation. It takes up little table space (at most nine cards in a line) and is rules-light. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an extended 8 / 12. If you are a fan of Sudoku and would like to explore a little card game that gives this reviewer the same vibe (but infinitely more fun) then I urge you to grab a copy of Niche. Not only will you be purchasing a good little game, but your purchase also goes toward furthering an organization that is doing very important work in the UK. And if you would like to feel very smart, play Niche with me sometime and watch me struggle to play the right card.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Flatliners (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The undiscovered country… which they shouldn’t have returned to.
The movies have depicted the hereafter in varied ways over the years. From the bleached white warehouses of Powell and Pressburger’s “A Matter of Life and Death” in 1946 and Warren Beatty’s “Heaven Can Wait” in 1978 to – for me – the peak of the game: Vincent Ward’s mawkish but gorgeously rendered oil-paint version of heaven in 1998’s “What Dreams May Come”. Joel Schmacher’s 1990’s “Flatliners” saw a set of “brat pack” movie names of the day (including Kevin Bacon, Julia Roberts, William Baldwin and Kiefer Sutherland) as experimenting trainee doctors, cheating death to experience the afterlife and getting more than they bargained for. The depictions of the afterlife were unmemorable: in that I don’t remember them much! (I think there was some sort of spooky tree involved, but that’s about it!)
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Nanuk in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
Oh, Nanuk. Why are you so disliked? Is it because some gamers can’t separate Steve Jackson Games from Munchkin? Are you then destined to just be “okay” because your cousin is so polarizing? No. I will stand up for you AND your other cousin Revolution! (review coming)! You are a good game. Repeat after me, “I am a good game.” Good. ?
Nanuk, technically, is a polar bear. The same found on the cover of the game box. He is attempting to nom on an Inuit hunter. But worry not, in this game Nanuk does not eat people. Just the animals that have been hunted by the people to be brought back to the village as a result of your pig-headed boasting. Oh, you say you can bring back 17 fish in three days? I say you’re doomed.
I do not want to get in a habit of explaining games in my reviews, but I feel like Nanuk could benefit from it, so I will be quickly paraphrasing.
In Nanuk play goes around the table where each player must increase either the number of animals (and you can change the animal type) or the number of days of “the Hunt.” Example, I increase the current boast from three deer in one day to four birds in one day. Once a player no longer thinks the combination of animals and days will a successful hunt make, they must flip over their voting token to the doomed side. The last player to have upped the ante is the Hunt Leader and the naysayer is the, idk, Doom Leader I think. Then everyone evaluates the animal and Inuksuk (the awesome humanoid stone statue) cards to determine if they should join the Hunt or Doom team, flipping their voting token thusly. Every player then must contribute at least one card from their hand that will be shuffled together as the results of the Hunt. Should the boast parameters be met between the cards contributed and cards drawn from the deck (equal to the number of days boasted) the Hunt team wins and spoils are split among the team members. If not, the Doom team wins the spoils. At the end of the game you are hoping to have amassed sets and pairs of animals to score the most VP. There are a couple other rules that I will leave you to discover, but that is the… meat… of them.
I received my copy of Nanuk cheaply from a BGG auction many years ago. I was not sure exactly what to expect of it, but I was diggin the cover art. Once we played it, and played it again, and more, I began to love it more and more. It’s not a long game, the rules are relatively simple, and it is very much a social game. I wouldn’t necessarily call it a “party game” because that term just has different connotations to me, but it will play 5-8 players quite comfortably. Many times I have a group of 6 or more and this always delivers. Please give this one a try and I know you will enjoy it.
Someday we will start making lists and such, and this will go on my list of favorite games that support a larger play count. That said, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a 12 / 18 (because Laura has not yet played it).
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/16/nanuk-review/
Nanuk, technically, is a polar bear. The same found on the cover of the game box. He is attempting to nom on an Inuit hunter. But worry not, in this game Nanuk does not eat people. Just the animals that have been hunted by the people to be brought back to the village as a result of your pig-headed boasting. Oh, you say you can bring back 17 fish in three days? I say you’re doomed.
I do not want to get in a habit of explaining games in my reviews, but I feel like Nanuk could benefit from it, so I will be quickly paraphrasing.
In Nanuk play goes around the table where each player must increase either the number of animals (and you can change the animal type) or the number of days of “the Hunt.” Example, I increase the current boast from three deer in one day to four birds in one day. Once a player no longer thinks the combination of animals and days will a successful hunt make, they must flip over their voting token to the doomed side. The last player to have upped the ante is the Hunt Leader and the naysayer is the, idk, Doom Leader I think. Then everyone evaluates the animal and Inuksuk (the awesome humanoid stone statue) cards to determine if they should join the Hunt or Doom team, flipping their voting token thusly. Every player then must contribute at least one card from their hand that will be shuffled together as the results of the Hunt. Should the boast parameters be met between the cards contributed and cards drawn from the deck (equal to the number of days boasted) the Hunt team wins and spoils are split among the team members. If not, the Doom team wins the spoils. At the end of the game you are hoping to have amassed sets and pairs of animals to score the most VP. There are a couple other rules that I will leave you to discover, but that is the… meat… of them.
I received my copy of Nanuk cheaply from a BGG auction many years ago. I was not sure exactly what to expect of it, but I was diggin the cover art. Once we played it, and played it again, and more, I began to love it more and more. It’s not a long game, the rules are relatively simple, and it is very much a social game. I wouldn’t necessarily call it a “party game” because that term just has different connotations to me, but it will play 5-8 players quite comfortably. Many times I have a group of 6 or more and this always delivers. Please give this one a try and I know you will enjoy it.
Someday we will start making lists and such, and this will go on my list of favorite games that support a larger play count. That said, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a 12 / 18 (because Laura has not yet played it).
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/16/nanuk-review/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Thaw (Seasons of Love, #2) in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Abby is an introverted librarian happily living a regular life in Brooklyn. But things change when she attends a charity gala with a friend and meets Gabrielle, a famous actress and model. The two connect on the dance floor, and Abby is immediately taken by this lovely woman known in modeling circles as the Ice Queen. And while she can see how Gabrielle has earned this nickname, she also senses a softer side to her. Gabrielle asks Abby on a date, and the two begin to get to know each other, discovering they have a lot of similar interests. But even though Gabrielle seems to let her guard down around Abby, she also has problems opening up about her past. Meanwhile, while Abby finds Gabrielle fascinating, she's worried what will happen to their relationship when she admits she's asexual. She's also dealing with issues in her own personal life related to her library position. Can these two women overcome a variety of obstacles to find love?
This novel definitely follows the trope of a regular gal falling for the rich, remote, often angry lesbian: you have to surrender yourself to that and you'll enjoy the book more (much like watching a romantic comedy). There is a little too much focus at times on the fact that Gabrielle runs hot and cold, and her personal dynamics can be slightly weird at points. Still, even while occasionally annoyed, I found myself intrigued and interested at her reticence and wondering at its cause.
However, the real star of this show isn't Gabrielle, but Abby. Abby is just a real sweetheart. She's truly the force of the book. I personally identified with her and adored her love of books, avoidance of makeup, and general introverted self. She was a well-written character, and I found myself wanting to protect her. The fact she's asexual is interesting, and it really cast a light on a sexual orientation that I knew very little about. It was a good learning experience, honestly.
Much like said romantic comedies I mentioned earlier, a lot of this plot is predictable, but the book was written well-enough that I didn't mind: it's what I had signed up for, after all, and I was happy to be along for the ride. I still was really excited for the outcome and read the entire thing in about 24 hours. Besides, the novel has a hidden depth to it, giving us an interesting commentary on society's expectations about sex and relationships. Plus, Springer inserts some hidden inside jokes about books, literary series, and such. A lot of the novel just made me smile, between Abby, the asides, and the overall resolution. It was surprising and for the most part, very enjoyable. Probably a 3.75 stars, but bumped up to 4 stars due to the way it made me feel. I will definitely seek out the other novels in Springer's Season of Love series (this was actually #2, but it seemed to stand-alone just fine).
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 04/24/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
This novel definitely follows the trope of a regular gal falling for the rich, remote, often angry lesbian: you have to surrender yourself to that and you'll enjoy the book more (much like watching a romantic comedy). There is a little too much focus at times on the fact that Gabrielle runs hot and cold, and her personal dynamics can be slightly weird at points. Still, even while occasionally annoyed, I found myself intrigued and interested at her reticence and wondering at its cause.
However, the real star of this show isn't Gabrielle, but Abby. Abby is just a real sweetheart. She's truly the force of the book. I personally identified with her and adored her love of books, avoidance of makeup, and general introverted self. She was a well-written character, and I found myself wanting to protect her. The fact she's asexual is interesting, and it really cast a light on a sexual orientation that I knew very little about. It was a good learning experience, honestly.
Much like said romantic comedies I mentioned earlier, a lot of this plot is predictable, but the book was written well-enough that I didn't mind: it's what I had signed up for, after all, and I was happy to be along for the ride. I still was really excited for the outcome and read the entire thing in about 24 hours. Besides, the novel has a hidden depth to it, giving us an interesting commentary on society's expectations about sex and relationships. Plus, Springer inserts some hidden inside jokes about books, literary series, and such. A lot of the novel just made me smile, between Abby, the asides, and the overall resolution. It was surprising and for the most part, very enjoyable. Probably a 3.75 stars, but bumped up to 4 stars due to the way it made me feel. I will definitely seek out the other novels in Springer's Season of Love series (this was actually #2, but it seemed to stand-alone just fine).
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 04/24/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
Debbiereadsbook (1487 KP) rated Give It To Me (MacAteer Brothers #5) in Books
Jul 12, 2021
saved the best for last!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This is book 5, the final book, in the MacAteer Brothers series. While not strictly NECESSARY, I recommend you read all four of the other books before this one. It will give you a better understanding of just for fast these men fall in love. Also, some references to the other couple's stories are made here, but not fully explained and if you have read them, you might wonder, you know?
We met Angus in the last book, when he and his twin, Patrick, came to work with Connor, Owen and Garrett at their growing home improvement business. Rhyleigh is co-owner at the yoga gym the girls go to. Angus has a powerful reaction to Rhyleigh, but Rhyleigh's to Angus is more of a dawning realisation about what he could do for her, TO her.
When Rhyleigh indulges in her one true secret, someone else pushes her buttons and suddenly she has TWO men who she dreams about. And when Rhyleigh's mother and sister upset her so bad that she does something stupid, everything changes.
These books have been wonderful to read. They are all 4 and 5 star reads, and I *think*, for me, the best was saved for last, I really do!
I loved Angus and Rhyleigh, together and as individuals. Angus knows, he KNOWS Rhyleigh is his, and Patrick (his book, Risk It All, runs alongside this one, so he's flirting at the beginning!) gets the look from Angus to tell him she is Angus'. Patrick gets the message 🙂
Angus gets to know Rhyleigh secret, and he knows that he can really set her free, he can give her what she didn't get from others. He just needs her to let him.
Rhyleigh does something stupid, and I broke for her, I really did. Her mother and sister really are nasty pieces of work, and poor Rhyleigh bears the brunt of that nastiness. After a particularly nasty attack (verbal, but still) Rhyleigh makes a dreadful decision that Angus saves her from. At that point, Angus broke me too, because his heart broke when Rhyleigh does what she does, and he wasn't sure he could get to her in time.
It's quite an emotional book. But also a hawt one! BUT, while the level of heat is possible the highest of all 5 books, the actual smexy stuff is quite low. I mean, there is heat and passion, and when Angus gives Rhyleigh want she so desperately wants, the temp is off the charts, but there is just that one scene between them and I bloody LOVED that!
In a couple of the other books, I said I would have loved the books without any smexy stuff, and I stand by that here. So long as Angus gives Rhyleigh what she needs, cos I needed that bit too! That bit was sensual and emotional and the connection between them was amazing.
I'm starting to ramble, and rambling does not a good review make, so I'll leave you with this:
Read
These
Books!
I still need to go back and read Stud (The second Dragon Runners book) because that book is about Eva, the only MacAteer sister. She pops up here and there throughout this series, but I need to round them all out, I think.
5 full and shiny stars
PS, loved the epilogue!
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
This is book 5, the final book, in the MacAteer Brothers series. While not strictly NECESSARY, I recommend you read all four of the other books before this one. It will give you a better understanding of just for fast these men fall in love. Also, some references to the other couple's stories are made here, but not fully explained and if you have read them, you might wonder, you know?
We met Angus in the last book, when he and his twin, Patrick, came to work with Connor, Owen and Garrett at their growing home improvement business. Rhyleigh is co-owner at the yoga gym the girls go to. Angus has a powerful reaction to Rhyleigh, but Rhyleigh's to Angus is more of a dawning realisation about what he could do for her, TO her.
When Rhyleigh indulges in her one true secret, someone else pushes her buttons and suddenly she has TWO men who she dreams about. And when Rhyleigh's mother and sister upset her so bad that she does something stupid, everything changes.
These books have been wonderful to read. They are all 4 and 5 star reads, and I *think*, for me, the best was saved for last, I really do!
I loved Angus and Rhyleigh, together and as individuals. Angus knows, he KNOWS Rhyleigh is his, and Patrick (his book, Risk It All, runs alongside this one, so he's flirting at the beginning!) gets the look from Angus to tell him she is Angus'. Patrick gets the message 🙂
Angus gets to know Rhyleigh secret, and he knows that he can really set her free, he can give her what she didn't get from others. He just needs her to let him.
Rhyleigh does something stupid, and I broke for her, I really did. Her mother and sister really are nasty pieces of work, and poor Rhyleigh bears the brunt of that nastiness. After a particularly nasty attack (verbal, but still) Rhyleigh makes a dreadful decision that Angus saves her from. At that point, Angus broke me too, because his heart broke when Rhyleigh does what she does, and he wasn't sure he could get to her in time.
It's quite an emotional book. But also a hawt one! BUT, while the level of heat is possible the highest of all 5 books, the actual smexy stuff is quite low. I mean, there is heat and passion, and when Angus gives Rhyleigh want she so desperately wants, the temp is off the charts, but there is just that one scene between them and I bloody LOVED that!
In a couple of the other books, I said I would have loved the books without any smexy stuff, and I stand by that here. So long as Angus gives Rhyleigh what she needs, cos I needed that bit too! That bit was sensual and emotional and the connection between them was amazing.
I'm starting to ramble, and rambling does not a good review make, so I'll leave you with this:
Read
These
Books!
I still need to go back and read Stud (The second Dragon Runners book) because that book is about Eva, the only MacAteer sister. She pops up here and there throughout this series, but I need to round them all out, I think.
5 full and shiny stars
PS, loved the epilogue!
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated X-Men: Supernovas in Books
Nov 30, 2020
Holy cow!! I read this back when it originally when it was published, back in '04. Or rather, I didn't read it, as it was at a time where I was starting to tire of the post-MESSIAH COMPLEX/SECOND COMING X-Men world. I felt Utopia was a good idea, but it never truly gelled in the same way that as the Mutant Nation that is Krakoa in Hickman's "Dawn of X". And dear God, I can stand most things to some degree, but I still <u>can not</u> accept Namor as a mutant! So, long story short (really?? now?? after all that??), re-visiting X-MEN: SUPERNOVA was a good read!
First thing I enjoyed was the fact that this was where the Children of the Vault first come into play! Such a cool-assed concept, so cool that, sixteen years later (oh come on, dear man, time doesn't even apply the Children of the Vault!), Jonathan Hickman brought them back in X-MEN #4! Brilliant!! And, seriously? I don't a number of X-fans really <b>abhor</b> the whole concept of the Children of the Vault and any appearances/re-appearances they show up in!
While I was not as much of a fan of Carey's X-Men contributions as I wanted to be (another reason I dropped X-Men in '04), I quite loved this collection, as the first half of the book is the 6-part "Supernovas" story, while the remainder was the next few issues in that run of Carey's that seemed to have nothing whatsoever to do with the Children of the Vault or anything <i>Supernova</i>ish! Yeah, sorry to anyone expecting this review to be about the whole book, but I checked out as soon as "Supernova" ended.
One of the things that really drew me back to this was how tight Chris Bachalo's art was for the "Supernova" story arc! He's one of those artists that I have found people either like or definitely <b>not</b> like his style! Me? I've liked him since his days during GENERATION X (man, I still love the way he drew Emma Frost!!) in the 90's!
I've seen some of his recent work, and while I don't love all of it, I still share a fondness for unique way he draws! And, as I said, I feel that this was some of his best! From his tricked out as hell action scenes to his capturing of the oddness and otherworldliness of the Children of the Vault, these pages do <u>not</u> disappoint visually!
Overall, a good read that was not bogged down by being set in and around Utopia or any of the usual bickering and <i>hot mess</i> was any of the X-books written at that time! Heck, you may enjoy the story in the second half of the book! And best case scenario, if you see it on sale (whether digitally or in print), pick it up for Bachalo's amazingly awesome art!
Ok, gang, Imma done! We can resume the craziness and hard-to-believe-it's-actually-happening that is the COVID-19 pandemic! Oh, and you're welcome for the distraction I provided..! :)
First thing I enjoyed was the fact that this was where the Children of the Vault first come into play! Such a cool-assed concept, so cool that, sixteen years later (oh come on, dear man, time doesn't even apply the Children of the Vault!), Jonathan Hickman brought them back in X-MEN #4! Brilliant!! And, seriously? I don't a number of X-fans really <b>abhor</b> the whole concept of the Children of the Vault and any appearances/re-appearances they show up in!
While I was not as much of a fan of Carey's X-Men contributions as I wanted to be (another reason I dropped X-Men in '04), I quite loved this collection, as the first half of the book is the 6-part "Supernovas" story, while the remainder was the next few issues in that run of Carey's that seemed to have nothing whatsoever to do with the Children of the Vault or anything <i>Supernova</i>ish! Yeah, sorry to anyone expecting this review to be about the whole book, but I checked out as soon as "Supernova" ended.
One of the things that really drew me back to this was how tight Chris Bachalo's art was for the "Supernova" story arc! He's one of those artists that I have found people either like or definitely <b>not</b> like his style! Me? I've liked him since his days during GENERATION X (man, I still love the way he drew Emma Frost!!) in the 90's!
I've seen some of his recent work, and while I don't love all of it, I still share a fondness for unique way he draws! And, as I said, I feel that this was some of his best! From his tricked out as hell action scenes to his capturing of the oddness and otherworldliness of the Children of the Vault, these pages do <u>not</u> disappoint visually!
Overall, a good read that was not bogged down by being set in and around Utopia or any of the usual bickering and <i>hot mess</i> was any of the X-books written at that time! Heck, you may enjoy the story in the second half of the book! And best case scenario, if you see it on sale (whether digitally or in print), pick it up for Bachalo's amazingly awesome art!
Ok, gang, Imma done! We can resume the craziness and hard-to-believe-it's-actually-happening that is the COVID-19 pandemic! Oh, and you're welcome for the distraction I provided..! :)
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated The Informer (2019) in Movies
Sep 10, 2019
A real hidden gem.
I went into this film knowing very little about it, other than the two-line blurb on my local cinema's website. Released to a muted fanfare, this twisty-turny crime drama is a surprisingly gripping and taut thriller, with some stand-out performances from the cast.
Joel Kinnaman plays Pete Koslow, an ex-con that we soon discover is working undercover for the FBI to help take down a mob boss in New York City. Not much is known (or, frustratingly, revealed) about Koslow's backstory, but Kinnaman plays the part very well. It's not as in-depth as maybe it could've been, but his personal arc is a fresh and original spin on a tried-and-tested formula, and it is, at times, compelling to watch.
Needless to say, Koslow's arrangement with the FBI goes sour before too long, and he's left alone in prison with multiple groups of enemies with their own agendas trying to kill him. The second half of the film, where the twists and turns and clever plotting flows more freely, reminded me of Will Smith's "Enemy of the State" and Liam Neeson's "A Walk Among The Tombstones", in terms of the complex approach and execution to resolving a seemingly inescapable situation.
The story was told to great effect, with the gritty tone and the deliberate pacing perfectly suiting this competent thriller.
Ana de Armas is terrific as Koslow's long-suffering and admiringly-loyal partner, Sofia. She has a look of naivety and innocence throughout, with her perma-watering wide eyes and youthful good looks, yet she is as tough as they come and the perfect match for Kinnaman's lead.
Clive Owen also deserves a mention for another consistent performance, despite him being woefully underused here. He steals every scene he's in, playing a menacing background antagonist incredibly well.
For me, this movie was let down by two things. First, its ending, which felt sudden and rushed, as if it stopped mid-sentence. It's not the kind of film that warrants a sequel, nor was it, I imagine, made with the intention of one. So to leave so many questions unanswered serves little purpose and ultimately leaves you disappointed after what was otherwise a very, very clever film.
Secondly, Rosamund Pike's performance left a lot to be desired. Because of her outstanding lack of on-screen charisma, you never truly connect with her character, Agent Wilcox. Her handling of Koslow's operation felt hollow. She showed no emotional range whatsoever, and wore the same expression throughout the entire film. Consequently, the journey of her character and the impact her decisions have on both other people, and the movie's eventual outcome, felt empty and pointless.
Despite that, this is a real hidden gem. As I noted earlier, this wasn't what you would call a "big" release. It came out under the radar and, as a result, was the subject of very few expectations. But what you have here is an intelligent thriller that provides an original take on a typical storyline that delivers in almost every way it intended to.
This is the film you stream off Netflix on a Friday night while eating a takeaway after a hard week at work.
Joel Kinnaman plays Pete Koslow, an ex-con that we soon discover is working undercover for the FBI to help take down a mob boss in New York City. Not much is known (or, frustratingly, revealed) about Koslow's backstory, but Kinnaman plays the part very well. It's not as in-depth as maybe it could've been, but his personal arc is a fresh and original spin on a tried-and-tested formula, and it is, at times, compelling to watch.
Needless to say, Koslow's arrangement with the FBI goes sour before too long, and he's left alone in prison with multiple groups of enemies with their own agendas trying to kill him. The second half of the film, where the twists and turns and clever plotting flows more freely, reminded me of Will Smith's "Enemy of the State" and Liam Neeson's "A Walk Among The Tombstones", in terms of the complex approach and execution to resolving a seemingly inescapable situation.
The story was told to great effect, with the gritty tone and the deliberate pacing perfectly suiting this competent thriller.
Ana de Armas is terrific as Koslow's long-suffering and admiringly-loyal partner, Sofia. She has a look of naivety and innocence throughout, with her perma-watering wide eyes and youthful good looks, yet she is as tough as they come and the perfect match for Kinnaman's lead.
Clive Owen also deserves a mention for another consistent performance, despite him being woefully underused here. He steals every scene he's in, playing a menacing background antagonist incredibly well.
For me, this movie was let down by two things. First, its ending, which felt sudden and rushed, as if it stopped mid-sentence. It's not the kind of film that warrants a sequel, nor was it, I imagine, made with the intention of one. So to leave so many questions unanswered serves little purpose and ultimately leaves you disappointed after what was otherwise a very, very clever film.
Secondly, Rosamund Pike's performance left a lot to be desired. Because of her outstanding lack of on-screen charisma, you never truly connect with her character, Agent Wilcox. Her handling of Koslow's operation felt hollow. She showed no emotional range whatsoever, and wore the same expression throughout the entire film. Consequently, the journey of her character and the impact her decisions have on both other people, and the movie's eventual outcome, felt empty and pointless.
Despite that, this is a real hidden gem. As I noted earlier, this wasn't what you would call a "big" release. It came out under the radar and, as a result, was the subject of very few expectations. But what you have here is an intelligent thriller that provides an original take on a typical storyline that delivers in almost every way it intended to.
This is the film you stream off Netflix on a Friday night while eating a takeaway after a hard week at work.
Pete Thompson (4339 KP) rated The Stand in TV
Feb 10, 2021
I've never written a full review before as I let my score tell the story for the film/TV show in my view and don't like to influence people by what I write, simply put watch it and make your own judgement but with this steaming pile of crap I've had to do this just to get the anger and loathing off my chest.
I heard this was being redone and was looking forward to it having an update and a larger budget than the 94 version (which I love) I thought it wouldn't be as good but would be a solid installment.
I listen to audio books now as I dont get time to read with work and my toddler keeping me busy so I got The Stand to listen to; to get the story back into my head properly and get the juices flowing. I had read it back in the 90s but had forgotten things about it and just had memories of the 94 mini series and had put the scenes from that into the book. Anyway the cast list came out with their characters and just looking through them I said the only 1 that might be ok was Whoopi Goldberg as Mother Abigail. The rest I wasn't keen on and in the case of Larry and The Judge being the wrong race and sex respectively made me irrate and Glen being too young but thought I better wait and see. Oh my god I was proven wrong not being keen was great until I actually watched this mess. Main characters that don't get much screen time Nick, Flagg, Tom, Mother Abigail, Larry and Stu compared to the book and 94 series. Harold gets waaaay too much screen time, Lloyd is just an irritating man child twerp, Tom needs to be punched whats with the hands together bow like he is chinese? And trashcan man oh my word who the hell thought that was the performance required? I can honestly say I wouldnt even swap the peripheral actors from 94 for the main cast in this.
The original story had a beginning, middle and end. The 94 series did it the same. Welcome to 2020/21 series and a director that thinks he's being clever starting the show at the midway point and having flash backs but only for certain characters at certain times in each episode. Even knowing the book and 94 series didn't help to keep track of where the story was and what time frame. I sst there getting more and more angry at the stupid style but what made it worse is the liberties taken to change the story no tunnel sequence for Larry now a sewer so 80s/90s horror cliche, Mother Abigail is in a retirement home not still living independently in her own home baking her own bread. Nick and Tom being in the same town from the start not meeting on the road in the case for Nick, no sherif and doctor that Nick meets after his beating on the road not in a bar as shown in this version. Video cameras being used by Harold to spy on the committee and to monitor his home were never in the book he read Franny' diary on the road and she breaks into his house 1st not Larry. Randall Flagg is supposed to be feared by the good side but this version is laughable as you barely see him and when he is there there is no feeling of threat and underlying malice from him, I expected a lot better from Skarsgard after his brother knocked it out the park with Stephen Kings IT remake. He just didn't seem to really be arsed about the character and was there for a paycheck.
Anyway sorry for such a long rant but loving the book and 94 series this pile of dog s**t should be scrubbed from all records and forgotten about the only redeeming things it has going for it is the music and thats usually a song just as the episode is about to end and the evil side looks a lot more like it would for people without moral compasses and surpasses the 94 series on this part only.
I give it a 2 / 10 and it only gets that due to the music. A very disappointing reboot when all you had to do was follow a great book with the right casting.
I heard this was being redone and was looking forward to it having an update and a larger budget than the 94 version (which I love) I thought it wouldn't be as good but would be a solid installment.
I listen to audio books now as I dont get time to read with work and my toddler keeping me busy so I got The Stand to listen to; to get the story back into my head properly and get the juices flowing. I had read it back in the 90s but had forgotten things about it and just had memories of the 94 mini series and had put the scenes from that into the book. Anyway the cast list came out with their characters and just looking through them I said the only 1 that might be ok was Whoopi Goldberg as Mother Abigail. The rest I wasn't keen on and in the case of Larry and The Judge being the wrong race and sex respectively made me irrate and Glen being too young but thought I better wait and see. Oh my god I was proven wrong not being keen was great until I actually watched this mess. Main characters that don't get much screen time Nick, Flagg, Tom, Mother Abigail, Larry and Stu compared to the book and 94 series. Harold gets waaaay too much screen time, Lloyd is just an irritating man child twerp, Tom needs to be punched whats with the hands together bow like he is chinese? And trashcan man oh my word who the hell thought that was the performance required? I can honestly say I wouldnt even swap the peripheral actors from 94 for the main cast in this.
The original story had a beginning, middle and end. The 94 series did it the same. Welcome to 2020/21 series and a director that thinks he's being clever starting the show at the midway point and having flash backs but only for certain characters at certain times in each episode. Even knowing the book and 94 series didn't help to keep track of where the story was and what time frame. I sst there getting more and more angry at the stupid style but what made it worse is the liberties taken to change the story no tunnel sequence for Larry now a sewer so 80s/90s horror cliche, Mother Abigail is in a retirement home not still living independently in her own home baking her own bread. Nick and Tom being in the same town from the start not meeting on the road in the case for Nick, no sherif and doctor that Nick meets after his beating on the road not in a bar as shown in this version. Video cameras being used by Harold to spy on the committee and to monitor his home were never in the book he read Franny' diary on the road and she breaks into his house 1st not Larry. Randall Flagg is supposed to be feared by the good side but this version is laughable as you barely see him and when he is there there is no feeling of threat and underlying malice from him, I expected a lot better from Skarsgard after his brother knocked it out the park with Stephen Kings IT remake. He just didn't seem to really be arsed about the character and was there for a paycheck.
Anyway sorry for such a long rant but loving the book and 94 series this pile of dog s**t should be scrubbed from all records and forgotten about the only redeeming things it has going for it is the music and thats usually a song just as the episode is about to end and the evil side looks a lot more like it would for people without moral compasses and surpasses the 94 series on this part only.
I give it a 2 / 10 and it only gets that due to the music. A very disappointing reboot when all you had to do was follow a great book with the right casting.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Set a Watch in Tabletop Games
Sep 26, 2019
Purple Phoenix Games Solo Chronicles
I love a good fantasy-themed game. We’ve all, at some point in our lives, probably dreamed of being adventurers – traveling across the land, fighting monsters, and saving all of humanity. Sounds like it could maybe be fun to me. So whenever I see a game that emulates that theme, I am drawn to it. Such was definitely the case when I stumbled across Set a Watch as I was perusing Kickstarter one day, and the rest is history.
The kingdom is under attack. Hoards of creatures are amassing at locations around the realm in an attempt to resurrect ancient Unhallowed monsters. Their ultimate goal? To take control of the world. You and your fellow adventurers have been tasked with stopping this uprising. By traveling to these various locations, you will attempt to clear the area of evil-doers and maintain peace in the kingdom. Keep a vigilant watch, and your team will be successful. But if you wane for even a moment, all could be lost.
DISCLAIMER: This review uses the Deluxe version of Set a Watch that we backed on Kickstarter. Some components may differ from components found other versions. -T
Set A Watch is a cooperative game for 1-4 players in which players must secure nine locations around the realm to prevent the release of the deadly Unhallowed monsters. The party always consists of 4 adventurers, regardless of actual player count. In each round, one adventurer will stay back at camp, resting and taking strategic actions, while the other 3 adventurers take watch and fight off the creatures attempting to infiltrate the camp by using special abilities and powers to aid in battle. The game ends in victory if the adventurers have successfully secured all locations. If, at the end of a round, all adventurers on watch are exhausted, the camp is overrun and the game is lost.
So how does solo play differ from multiplayer games? It doesn’t! A solo game of Set A Watch plays identically to a multiplayer game – the solo player just controls all 4 adventurers at once instead of being split up among the players. Obviously, as a solo player, you have to make all of the decisions, which is sometimes nicer than playing with other people. You get to play whatever strategy YOU want to, without having to compromise with other players. On the flip side, that could be treacherous if your strategy is too bold/too meek or if you get in a tight spot and are at a loss for what to do next. Other than the aspect of solo decision-making, the gameplay remains unchanged. One adventurer still rests at camp while the other 3 stand watch and battle monsters.
Typically, I am not a fan of solo games in which you are forced to play multiple characters. That just feels like kind of a cop-out way to say ‘Yeah, we have a solo mode’ when in reality you’re still playing a multiplayer game, just by yourself. That being said, I actually don’t mind this aspect in Set A Watch. Why? Because there really are no ‘turns’ to track. One adventurer stays at camp and acts first, but the other 3 go to battle and act whenever/however they want. There is no real turn order. I make the characters act when and how I want them to, and that really opens the rounds up to a lot of freedom. I don’t have to sacrifice special powers/abilities because it wasn’t that character’s ‘turn’ – I can come up with some sweet combos, utilizing whichever characters I need to, to really do some damage. The lack of turns makes this a truly cooperative game, even when playing solo.
Overall, I love Set A Watch. It was, admittedly, a little intimidating at first, but once I got the hang of it, it plays great! The components are nice and sturdy, the box transforms into the game board, and the artwork is very nicely done. Set A Watch is a game I would definitely play either multiplayer or solo, and not as a last resort. The gameplay is engaging, the strategic options give you a different game every play, and the theme itself is just exciting to me. I am very happy with this Kickstarter purchase, and I look forward to any expansions/reimplementations that could be in the works!
The kingdom is under attack. Hoards of creatures are amassing at locations around the realm in an attempt to resurrect ancient Unhallowed monsters. Their ultimate goal? To take control of the world. You and your fellow adventurers have been tasked with stopping this uprising. By traveling to these various locations, you will attempt to clear the area of evil-doers and maintain peace in the kingdom. Keep a vigilant watch, and your team will be successful. But if you wane for even a moment, all could be lost.
DISCLAIMER: This review uses the Deluxe version of Set a Watch that we backed on Kickstarter. Some components may differ from components found other versions. -T
Set A Watch is a cooperative game for 1-4 players in which players must secure nine locations around the realm to prevent the release of the deadly Unhallowed monsters. The party always consists of 4 adventurers, regardless of actual player count. In each round, one adventurer will stay back at camp, resting and taking strategic actions, while the other 3 adventurers take watch and fight off the creatures attempting to infiltrate the camp by using special abilities and powers to aid in battle. The game ends in victory if the adventurers have successfully secured all locations. If, at the end of a round, all adventurers on watch are exhausted, the camp is overrun and the game is lost.
So how does solo play differ from multiplayer games? It doesn’t! A solo game of Set A Watch plays identically to a multiplayer game – the solo player just controls all 4 adventurers at once instead of being split up among the players. Obviously, as a solo player, you have to make all of the decisions, which is sometimes nicer than playing with other people. You get to play whatever strategy YOU want to, without having to compromise with other players. On the flip side, that could be treacherous if your strategy is too bold/too meek or if you get in a tight spot and are at a loss for what to do next. Other than the aspect of solo decision-making, the gameplay remains unchanged. One adventurer still rests at camp while the other 3 stand watch and battle monsters.
Typically, I am not a fan of solo games in which you are forced to play multiple characters. That just feels like kind of a cop-out way to say ‘Yeah, we have a solo mode’ when in reality you’re still playing a multiplayer game, just by yourself. That being said, I actually don’t mind this aspect in Set A Watch. Why? Because there really are no ‘turns’ to track. One adventurer stays at camp and acts first, but the other 3 go to battle and act whenever/however they want. There is no real turn order. I make the characters act when and how I want them to, and that really opens the rounds up to a lot of freedom. I don’t have to sacrifice special powers/abilities because it wasn’t that character’s ‘turn’ – I can come up with some sweet combos, utilizing whichever characters I need to, to really do some damage. The lack of turns makes this a truly cooperative game, even when playing solo.
Overall, I love Set A Watch. It was, admittedly, a little intimidating at first, but once I got the hang of it, it plays great! The components are nice and sturdy, the box transforms into the game board, and the artwork is very nicely done. Set A Watch is a game I would definitely play either multiplayer or solo, and not as a last resort. The gameplay is engaging, the strategic options give you a different game every play, and the theme itself is just exciting to me. I am very happy with this Kickstarter purchase, and I look forward to any expansions/reimplementations that could be in the works!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Impressive visuals, but rather disappointing as an overall package.
Like father, like son?
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!