Search
Search results
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Villagers in Tabletop Games
Jan 16, 2020
The saying is, “It takes a village…” but that village didn’t just magically appear overnight. Creating a prosperous and thriving community takes not only time, but hard work, ingenuity, and a little bit of luck! Villagers is a game that takes you through that process, as you strive to create a village of renown.
Disclaimer: I do not intent to rehash the entire rulebook in this review, but rather provide an overview of the gameplay, and how it differs between multiplayer and solo play. -L
Villagers is a game of card drafting and tableau building in which players are competing to build the most prosperous village in the land. The game is played over a series of rounds, each broken up into the Draft Phase and the Build Phase. During the Draft Phase, players take turns drafting villagers from the available card stacks into their hands. During the Build Phase, players can add villagers from their hand to their tableau. Certain cards can be chained together, and provide more powers and/or end-game points – but they must be added to the village in chain order. At two points throughout the game, the First and Second Market Phases, all players will collect money depending on which cards they have in their villages. The game ends immediately after the Second Market Phase is completed, and the player with the most money is the winner!
As a solo game, Villagers plays very similarly to group play, with only a couple of differences. First, the solo player is battling against The Countess, an AI character, to create the best village. The Countess is incorporated into the game in a unique way. During the Draft Phase, whenever you draft a villager to your hand, you also select an available villager to go straight into the village of the Countess. The Build Phase is carried out as normal. At the end of every round, you blindly draw a face-down card from the Reserve (draw deck), and it automatically goes into the Countess’ village as well. The other twist to a solo game of Villagers is that there are Event cards in play each round. Events are resolved after the Build Phase, before beginning the next round, and are often detrimental to the player – like making you pay extra gold to unlock padlocks, for example. The First and Second Market Phases work the same as they do in a multiplayer game, and the game ends immediately after the Second Market Phase. If you have managed to accrue more money than the Countess, then you have won!
I want to start off by saying that I love Villagers. Card drafting and set collection are my JAM, and this is a game that highlights those really well without making it too complicated. Even when playing solo, those mechanics still feel balanced, and that makes the overall game enjoyable. From my previous Solo Chronicles, I have stated how much I dislike “Beat your own high score” solo modes, so I was extremely happy when I saw that Villagers pitted the solo player against an AI character – the Countess. For the most part, I think that the Countess works really well in this game. When you draft a card, the Countess gets a card as well. But the best part about that is that you get to choose which card goes to the Countess. That means that you are able to keep some semblance of strategy in your game, because you have the power to decide what cards go where, for the most part.
The other neat thing about solo play is the inclusion of Event cards in the game – which are not present in group play. The Events add an extra element that you have to take into account for the given round. Depending on the Event, it could compromise your strategy quite a bit, but that’s what keeps it interesting. You can’t just get into a groove and grind through the rounds, drafting everything you want, when you want. You have to adapt your strategy based upon the Event(s) in play, and the Countess’ village.
The only downside for me is that at the end of every round, the Countess gets the top face-down card from the Reserve, and depending on what card that is, it could throw a wrench into the strategy you’ve been working hard to set up. I guess that mimics a multiplayer game in a sense, though, because you can’t always control what your opponents will do. The biggest downside about solo play for me has nothing to do with actual gameplay, but rather table space. Every card that goes into the Countess’ village is a stand-alone, meaning that they do not chain together like cards in your village will. So depending on how long the game goes, the Countess’ village will get to be pretty large, and hog lots of the table. I think that just means I need a bigger table though…
All that being said – is Villagers a good game for solo play? I would say mostly yes. Strategy is still required for success, but adaptability of that strategy is what keeps the game engaging and entertaining. Nothing can quite replace the multiplayer experience, but playing against the AI character keeps the competitiveness alive in the game. As someone who does a lot of solo playing these days, I am glad that I have added Villagers to my collection. If you haven’t gotten a chance to play Villagers yet, I would highly recommend checking it out. Solo or multiplayer, it’s a great time!
Disclaimer: I do not intent to rehash the entire rulebook in this review, but rather provide an overview of the gameplay, and how it differs between multiplayer and solo play. -L
Villagers is a game of card drafting and tableau building in which players are competing to build the most prosperous village in the land. The game is played over a series of rounds, each broken up into the Draft Phase and the Build Phase. During the Draft Phase, players take turns drafting villagers from the available card stacks into their hands. During the Build Phase, players can add villagers from their hand to their tableau. Certain cards can be chained together, and provide more powers and/or end-game points – but they must be added to the village in chain order. At two points throughout the game, the First and Second Market Phases, all players will collect money depending on which cards they have in their villages. The game ends immediately after the Second Market Phase is completed, and the player with the most money is the winner!
As a solo game, Villagers plays very similarly to group play, with only a couple of differences. First, the solo player is battling against The Countess, an AI character, to create the best village. The Countess is incorporated into the game in a unique way. During the Draft Phase, whenever you draft a villager to your hand, you also select an available villager to go straight into the village of the Countess. The Build Phase is carried out as normal. At the end of every round, you blindly draw a face-down card from the Reserve (draw deck), and it automatically goes into the Countess’ village as well. The other twist to a solo game of Villagers is that there are Event cards in play each round. Events are resolved after the Build Phase, before beginning the next round, and are often detrimental to the player – like making you pay extra gold to unlock padlocks, for example. The First and Second Market Phases work the same as they do in a multiplayer game, and the game ends immediately after the Second Market Phase. If you have managed to accrue more money than the Countess, then you have won!
I want to start off by saying that I love Villagers. Card drafting and set collection are my JAM, and this is a game that highlights those really well without making it too complicated. Even when playing solo, those mechanics still feel balanced, and that makes the overall game enjoyable. From my previous Solo Chronicles, I have stated how much I dislike “Beat your own high score” solo modes, so I was extremely happy when I saw that Villagers pitted the solo player against an AI character – the Countess. For the most part, I think that the Countess works really well in this game. When you draft a card, the Countess gets a card as well. But the best part about that is that you get to choose which card goes to the Countess. That means that you are able to keep some semblance of strategy in your game, because you have the power to decide what cards go where, for the most part.
The other neat thing about solo play is the inclusion of Event cards in the game – which are not present in group play. The Events add an extra element that you have to take into account for the given round. Depending on the Event, it could compromise your strategy quite a bit, but that’s what keeps it interesting. You can’t just get into a groove and grind through the rounds, drafting everything you want, when you want. You have to adapt your strategy based upon the Event(s) in play, and the Countess’ village.
The only downside for me is that at the end of every round, the Countess gets the top face-down card from the Reserve, and depending on what card that is, it could throw a wrench into the strategy you’ve been working hard to set up. I guess that mimics a multiplayer game in a sense, though, because you can’t always control what your opponents will do. The biggest downside about solo play for me has nothing to do with actual gameplay, but rather table space. Every card that goes into the Countess’ village is a stand-alone, meaning that they do not chain together like cards in your village will. So depending on how long the game goes, the Countess’ village will get to be pretty large, and hog lots of the table. I think that just means I need a bigger table though…
All that being said – is Villagers a good game for solo play? I would say mostly yes. Strategy is still required for success, but adaptability of that strategy is what keeps the game engaging and entertaining. Nothing can quite replace the multiplayer experience, but playing against the AI character keeps the competitiveness alive in the game. As someone who does a lot of solo playing these days, I am glad that I have added Villagers to my collection. If you haven’t gotten a chance to play Villagers yet, I would highly recommend checking it out. Solo or multiplayer, it’s a great time!
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943) in Movies
Oct 15, 2020
Lon Chaney Jr. (1 more)
Bela Lugosi
Huge Disappointment
Contains spoilers, click to show
Frankenstien Meets The Wolf Man- was a huge disappointment but ill get to that later. First lets talk about the film.
The plot: Lawrence Stewart Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) is plagued by a physical oddity that turns him into a crazed werewolf after sundown. His desire to rid himself of this ailment leads him to the castle owned by mad scientist Dr. Frankenstein. Frankenstein, it turns out, is now dead, yet Talbot believes that the scientist's daughter, Baroness Elsa Frankenstein (Ilona Massey), can help him. However, his quest to right himself puts him on a collision course with Frankenstein's monster (Bela Lugosi).
This was the first of a series of "ensemble" monster films combining characters from several film series. This film, therefore, is both the fifth in the series of films based upon Mary Shelley's 1818 book Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, directly after The Ghost of Frankenstein, and a sequel to The Wolf Man.
As ultimately edited and released, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man is told in two almost equal parts. The opening scenes tell the story of Talbot's resurrection, killing spree, hospitalization, and escape across Europe. Much time is spent with a secondary policeman, Inspector Owen, and on scenes with a desperate Talbot hospitalized by Dr. Mannering. The discovery of the Monster and pursuit of Dr. Frankenstein's scientific notes do not begin until thirty-five minutes into the film. The second half introduces the Monster, Elsa, and the village of Vasaria and its inhabitants.
Immediately following his success in Dracula, Bela Lugosi had been the first choice to play the Monster in Universal's original Frankenstein film, but Lugosi famously turned down the nonspeaking, heavily made-up role: as conceived by the original director Robert Florey, the Monster was nothing more than a mindless killing machine and not suitable for Lugosi's rising stardom and career as a leading actor, and the original make-up for Lugosi's screen test was closely based on the doll-like clay robot in The Golem.
Eight years later, Lugosi joined the film as the Monster's twisted companion Ygor in Son of Frankenstein. He returned to the role in the sequel, The Ghost of Frankenstein, in which Ygor's brain is implanted into the Monster (now Chaney), causing the creature to take on Lugosi/Ygor's voice. After plans for Chaney to play both the Monster and the Wolf Man in the next film fell through for logistical reasons (Chaney demurred), the natural next step was for Lugosi, who turned 60 during the film's production, to take on the part that he once was slated to originate.
The original script — and indeed the film as originally filmed — had the Monster performing dialogue throughout the film, including references to the events of Ghost and indicating that the Monster is now blind (a side effect of the brain transplant as revealed at the end of the previous film, and the reason for his iconic stiff-armed "Frankenstein walk"). According to Siodmak, a studio screening audience reacted negatively to this, finding the idea of the Monster speaking with a Hungarian accent unintentionally funny (although the Monster spoke with Lugosi's voice at the end of Ghost, the audiences had been carefully prepared for it by the plot of the film). This has been generally accepted as the reason virtually all scenes in which Lugosi speaks were deleted (though two brief scenes remain in the film that show Lugosi's mouth moving without sound). All references to his being blind were also eliminated, rendering the Monster's groping gestures unmotivated for those unfamiliar with the ending of the previous film. Close-ups of Lugosi's eyes during the revitalization scene and his evil, knowing leer to Patric Knowles were supposed to indicate that his vision had been restored, but in the ultimate context of the film this means nothing. Consequently, Lugosi is onscreen literally for only a few minutes, leaving the Wolf Man as the film's primary focus.
Lugosi suffered exhaustion at some point during the filming, and his absence from the set, combined with his physical limitations at age 60, required the liberal use of stand-ins.
This would be the final Universal horror film in which the Monster played a major role; in the subsequent films The House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula, the Monster, played by Glenn Strange, is brought back to life only in the final scenes (in the 1948 Universal comedy Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (the second and final film in which Lugosi plays Dracula), Strange has a larger role and the creature once again speaks, albeit with very limited dialogue, twice muttering, "Yes, Master."). It was also the last Universal horror film to feature an actual member of the Frankenstein family as a character.
A tribute to this meeting of two horror film legends happens near the beginning of the film Alien vs. Predator, when this film is seen playing on a television at the satellite receiving station. In the US version of the 1962 film King Kong vs. Godzilla (another pairing of prominent monsters), the music from the fight scene at the end of the film also plays during the final fight between Godzilla and Kong.
So the reason why this movie was a huge disappointments that it was universal first ensemble. A meet between two iconic monsters and boy did it disappointment. Their didnt meet until the last 5 minutes, no scratch that the last minute. Yes you read that right, the last minute their meet. Huge disappointment. It was also slow. I dont recordmend watching this one and skip it. The only reason im giving it a 5 is because of Lon Chaney Jr. and Bela Lugosi.
The plot: Lawrence Stewart Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) is plagued by a physical oddity that turns him into a crazed werewolf after sundown. His desire to rid himself of this ailment leads him to the castle owned by mad scientist Dr. Frankenstein. Frankenstein, it turns out, is now dead, yet Talbot believes that the scientist's daughter, Baroness Elsa Frankenstein (Ilona Massey), can help him. However, his quest to right himself puts him on a collision course with Frankenstein's monster (Bela Lugosi).
This was the first of a series of "ensemble" monster films combining characters from several film series. This film, therefore, is both the fifth in the series of films based upon Mary Shelley's 1818 book Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, directly after The Ghost of Frankenstein, and a sequel to The Wolf Man.
As ultimately edited and released, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man is told in two almost equal parts. The opening scenes tell the story of Talbot's resurrection, killing spree, hospitalization, and escape across Europe. Much time is spent with a secondary policeman, Inspector Owen, and on scenes with a desperate Talbot hospitalized by Dr. Mannering. The discovery of the Monster and pursuit of Dr. Frankenstein's scientific notes do not begin until thirty-five minutes into the film. The second half introduces the Monster, Elsa, and the village of Vasaria and its inhabitants.
Immediately following his success in Dracula, Bela Lugosi had been the first choice to play the Monster in Universal's original Frankenstein film, but Lugosi famously turned down the nonspeaking, heavily made-up role: as conceived by the original director Robert Florey, the Monster was nothing more than a mindless killing machine and not suitable for Lugosi's rising stardom and career as a leading actor, and the original make-up for Lugosi's screen test was closely based on the doll-like clay robot in The Golem.
Eight years later, Lugosi joined the film as the Monster's twisted companion Ygor in Son of Frankenstein. He returned to the role in the sequel, The Ghost of Frankenstein, in which Ygor's brain is implanted into the Monster (now Chaney), causing the creature to take on Lugosi/Ygor's voice. After plans for Chaney to play both the Monster and the Wolf Man in the next film fell through for logistical reasons (Chaney demurred), the natural next step was for Lugosi, who turned 60 during the film's production, to take on the part that he once was slated to originate.
The original script — and indeed the film as originally filmed — had the Monster performing dialogue throughout the film, including references to the events of Ghost and indicating that the Monster is now blind (a side effect of the brain transplant as revealed at the end of the previous film, and the reason for his iconic stiff-armed "Frankenstein walk"). According to Siodmak, a studio screening audience reacted negatively to this, finding the idea of the Monster speaking with a Hungarian accent unintentionally funny (although the Monster spoke with Lugosi's voice at the end of Ghost, the audiences had been carefully prepared for it by the plot of the film). This has been generally accepted as the reason virtually all scenes in which Lugosi speaks were deleted (though two brief scenes remain in the film that show Lugosi's mouth moving without sound). All references to his being blind were also eliminated, rendering the Monster's groping gestures unmotivated for those unfamiliar with the ending of the previous film. Close-ups of Lugosi's eyes during the revitalization scene and his evil, knowing leer to Patric Knowles were supposed to indicate that his vision had been restored, but in the ultimate context of the film this means nothing. Consequently, Lugosi is onscreen literally for only a few minutes, leaving the Wolf Man as the film's primary focus.
Lugosi suffered exhaustion at some point during the filming, and his absence from the set, combined with his physical limitations at age 60, required the liberal use of stand-ins.
This would be the final Universal horror film in which the Monster played a major role; in the subsequent films The House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula, the Monster, played by Glenn Strange, is brought back to life only in the final scenes (in the 1948 Universal comedy Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (the second and final film in which Lugosi plays Dracula), Strange has a larger role and the creature once again speaks, albeit with very limited dialogue, twice muttering, "Yes, Master."). It was also the last Universal horror film to feature an actual member of the Frankenstein family as a character.
A tribute to this meeting of two horror film legends happens near the beginning of the film Alien vs. Predator, when this film is seen playing on a television at the satellite receiving station. In the US version of the 1962 film King Kong vs. Godzilla (another pairing of prominent monsters), the music from the fight scene at the end of the film also plays during the final fight between Godzilla and Kong.
So the reason why this movie was a huge disappointments that it was universal first ensemble. A meet between two iconic monsters and boy did it disappointment. Their didnt meet until the last 5 minutes, no scratch that the last minute. Yes you read that right, the last minute their meet. Huge disappointment. It was also slow. I dont recordmend watching this one and skip it. The only reason im giving it a 5 is because of Lon Chaney Jr. and Bela Lugosi.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Corsairs of Valeria in Tabletop Games
Apr 2, 2021
If you look at my current Top 10 List (at date of publication), you will see that my #1 game is Valeria Card Kingdoms. I just love the lore, mechanics, artwork, and gameplay so much that it easily rose to my #1 spot after just 1 play! So I am definitely a sucker for all things Valeria. Quests of Valeria, Villagers of Valeria – you name it, I’ve got it. So when the latest VCK expansion was on Kickstarter, with the option to add a new little Valeria-verse themed dice game, I knew I was all in. Does Corsairs of Valeria live up to the hype of its predecessors?
Corsairs of Valeria is a dice rolling game in which players are racing to sail the Valerian islands and collect 6 treasure chests before any of the other pirate captains do. The first person to do so will claim the position of Commodore, and its associated status and power! To setup the game, each player receives a Ship board and ship meeple in their chosen color, 2 silver, and is randomly given a Captain card for the game. Each Captain card gives players a different special power to be used throughout the game. Ship boards have 2 dials to track Treasures and Grog. Set up the Start Island, shuffle and select 3 island Tracks to be placed above the Start, and finally end the lineup with Skull Island. Place 2 silver on Skull Island, and the game is ready to begin!
Each turn has four phases: Roll, Re-roll, Actions, End turn. First, gather all 5 dice and roll them. In the Re-roll phase, players may pay 1 Grog to re-roll any or all of their dice. You may re-roll as many times as you wish per turn, as long as you have Grog to spend. Once you are satisfied with your die rolls, you perform the actions shown on each die. Cursed dice must be executed first – for any dice that have a Skull on them, you must pay 1 silver to Skull Island per skull face shown. After Skulls are resolved, the rest of the die faces may be executed in any order you wish, as long as you resolve all the same symbols at the same time. The Grog symbol allows you to gain 1 Grog, the Silver symbol allows you to gain 1 silver, and the Map symbols allows you to move your ship meeple 1 space on the island track. Certain islands on the track provide additional resources once they are passed, so collect those as applicable. A Cannon symbol allows you to attack – either an opponent or a Merchant ship. To attack an opponent, you must roll at least 3 cannon symbols, and the chosen opponent then must give you all of their silver. To attack a Merchant ship, you must be sharing a space on the track with a Merchant ship, and you collect the resources printed on the ship for the number of cannons you spend to attack. After you have executed all of your dice actions, pass the dice to the next player and your turn is over.
At any point during the game, when you acquire 5 silver, you immediately trade them in for 1 treasure. Treasure is tracked on your ship board. The first player to reach 6 treasures wins the game! If, during the game, a player reaches Skull Island before 6 treasures have been claimed, a few things happen. First, that player receives all of the silver on Skull Island. Next, all ships are moved back to the Start Island, the 3 island Tracks are flipped to their opposite sides, and 2 silver are once again placed on Skull Island. The game continues in turn order, just now with new Tracks in play. If any player reaches Skull Island for a second time during the game, then the game ends once that player finishes their turn. In that case, if 6 treasures still have not been claimed, the player with the most Treasure wins.
I’m just going to start this off by saying that I love Corsairs of Valeria. Just like the other members of the Valeria family, this one checks off all the boxes that I love: great artwork, solid mechanics, and enjoyable immersion in the universe of Valeria. Let’s talk about gameplay first. At its core, Corsairs of Valeria is a dice rolling game, which is a luck-based mechanic. However, this game does provide options to employ strategies through the Captain powers and re-roll phase that give the player a little bit more control over what they can do each turn. Maybe you’re bad at rolling dice, but having the option to pay 1 Grog to re-roll any/all dice can get you out of a bad jam. Or maybe you have a powerful Captain ability that can really dictate your strategy and offer a path to success. It’s not just about the dice rolls, but about what you do to use those rolls to your benefit. So overall that just makes the game feel more engaging and enjoyable to me because I as a player have the ability to strategize each turn, I am not just at the mercy of the dice.
Another thing that I love about Corsairs of Valeria is that it is so simple, quick, and light to play. The rules seem a little involved at first, but ultimately here’s how a turn plays out: roll dice, re-roll if desired, perform actions/collect resources, end turn. The symbology is straight-forward, the turn phases are logical and concise, and there really is no down-time between turns. It requires strategy but still feels light enough to be a good palate cleanser or introductory game for newer gamers. And an awesome thing with quick games is that it is so easy to play several games in a row. I play at least 3 games of Corsairs before I decide to move on to the next game in my queue.
The consistency and continuity between all of the Valeria games is a huge plus for me. I love the artwork and appreciate that Daily Magic Games keeps bring back the same artist to create a cohesive universe! All of the Valeria games stand alone from each other, but the style and artwork make them all feel like a united entity.
Maybe I am a bit biased because VCK is my #1 game right now, but I think that Corsairs of Valeria is great. It is easily in my Top 20 games, and could continue moving up the list with more plays. It’s fast and light, yet strategic and engaging enough that it keeps me excited and energized throughout. There’s not a down moment when playing this game because ultimately, it’s a race! Keep an eye on the opponents, decide which strategy is best with your given die roll, and get a move on to get those treasures and best your rival captains. Purple Phoenix Games gives Corsairs of Valeria a sea-worthy 10 / 12.
Corsairs of Valeria is a dice rolling game in which players are racing to sail the Valerian islands and collect 6 treasure chests before any of the other pirate captains do. The first person to do so will claim the position of Commodore, and its associated status and power! To setup the game, each player receives a Ship board and ship meeple in their chosen color, 2 silver, and is randomly given a Captain card for the game. Each Captain card gives players a different special power to be used throughout the game. Ship boards have 2 dials to track Treasures and Grog. Set up the Start Island, shuffle and select 3 island Tracks to be placed above the Start, and finally end the lineup with Skull Island. Place 2 silver on Skull Island, and the game is ready to begin!
Each turn has four phases: Roll, Re-roll, Actions, End turn. First, gather all 5 dice and roll them. In the Re-roll phase, players may pay 1 Grog to re-roll any or all of their dice. You may re-roll as many times as you wish per turn, as long as you have Grog to spend. Once you are satisfied with your die rolls, you perform the actions shown on each die. Cursed dice must be executed first – for any dice that have a Skull on them, you must pay 1 silver to Skull Island per skull face shown. After Skulls are resolved, the rest of the die faces may be executed in any order you wish, as long as you resolve all the same symbols at the same time. The Grog symbol allows you to gain 1 Grog, the Silver symbol allows you to gain 1 silver, and the Map symbols allows you to move your ship meeple 1 space on the island track. Certain islands on the track provide additional resources once they are passed, so collect those as applicable. A Cannon symbol allows you to attack – either an opponent or a Merchant ship. To attack an opponent, you must roll at least 3 cannon symbols, and the chosen opponent then must give you all of their silver. To attack a Merchant ship, you must be sharing a space on the track with a Merchant ship, and you collect the resources printed on the ship for the number of cannons you spend to attack. After you have executed all of your dice actions, pass the dice to the next player and your turn is over.
At any point during the game, when you acquire 5 silver, you immediately trade them in for 1 treasure. Treasure is tracked on your ship board. The first player to reach 6 treasures wins the game! If, during the game, a player reaches Skull Island before 6 treasures have been claimed, a few things happen. First, that player receives all of the silver on Skull Island. Next, all ships are moved back to the Start Island, the 3 island Tracks are flipped to their opposite sides, and 2 silver are once again placed on Skull Island. The game continues in turn order, just now with new Tracks in play. If any player reaches Skull Island for a second time during the game, then the game ends once that player finishes their turn. In that case, if 6 treasures still have not been claimed, the player with the most Treasure wins.
I’m just going to start this off by saying that I love Corsairs of Valeria. Just like the other members of the Valeria family, this one checks off all the boxes that I love: great artwork, solid mechanics, and enjoyable immersion in the universe of Valeria. Let’s talk about gameplay first. At its core, Corsairs of Valeria is a dice rolling game, which is a luck-based mechanic. However, this game does provide options to employ strategies through the Captain powers and re-roll phase that give the player a little bit more control over what they can do each turn. Maybe you’re bad at rolling dice, but having the option to pay 1 Grog to re-roll any/all dice can get you out of a bad jam. Or maybe you have a powerful Captain ability that can really dictate your strategy and offer a path to success. It’s not just about the dice rolls, but about what you do to use those rolls to your benefit. So overall that just makes the game feel more engaging and enjoyable to me because I as a player have the ability to strategize each turn, I am not just at the mercy of the dice.
Another thing that I love about Corsairs of Valeria is that it is so simple, quick, and light to play. The rules seem a little involved at first, but ultimately here’s how a turn plays out: roll dice, re-roll if desired, perform actions/collect resources, end turn. The symbology is straight-forward, the turn phases are logical and concise, and there really is no down-time between turns. It requires strategy but still feels light enough to be a good palate cleanser or introductory game for newer gamers. And an awesome thing with quick games is that it is so easy to play several games in a row. I play at least 3 games of Corsairs before I decide to move on to the next game in my queue.
The consistency and continuity between all of the Valeria games is a huge plus for me. I love the artwork and appreciate that Daily Magic Games keeps bring back the same artist to create a cohesive universe! All of the Valeria games stand alone from each other, but the style and artwork make them all feel like a united entity.
Maybe I am a bit biased because VCK is my #1 game right now, but I think that Corsairs of Valeria is great. It is easily in my Top 20 games, and could continue moving up the list with more plays. It’s fast and light, yet strategic and engaging enough that it keeps me excited and energized throughout. There’s not a down moment when playing this game because ultimately, it’s a race! Keep an eye on the opponents, decide which strategy is best with your given die roll, and get a move on to get those treasures and best your rival captains. Purple Phoenix Games gives Corsairs of Valeria a sea-worthy 10 / 12.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014) in Movies
Jun 29, 2019
There's a lot of good, fun, over-the-top, explosive action! (2 more)
Age of Extinction features an incredible showcase of special effects.
Great acting from Tucci and Grammar, and a solid new star for the franchise with Mark Wahlberg.
With a 2 hour and 45 minute run-time, the movie goes on far too long and loses steam before the finale. (1 more)
The plot is completely overloaded with enough content to easily cover two films.
Transformers: Age of Extinction is a fun summer movie that sticks to Michael Bay's usual mode of operation, but it's jam-packed and overly ambitious, stretching the run time far longer than it ever should.
After the events of Transformers: Dark of the Moon, referred to in the film as The Battle of Chicago, the surviving Autobots are being hunted to extinction. The United States government is bent on exterminating all Transformers, good and bad, believing them to be an unwelcome global threat. All the while, the hypocritical government has simultaneously partnered with a wealthy inventor who is trying to create his own superior, man-made variations of Transformers. Furthermore, they’re working with the help of the Transformer bounty hunter Lockdown to search out and annihilate Optimus Prime, the famed leader of the Autobots. Prime has been forced into hiding and has sent out a distress call encouraging his comrades to follow suit. When amateur inventor Cade Yeager inadvertently stumbles upon a disguised Optimus Prime, he helps to repair the damaged Transformer who must reunite with his remaining allies to fight for their right to live.
Before I dive into this review, I think I should inform you that I have not seen any of the previous Transformers movies. I should also note that I’m something of a Transformers hater. Despite pressure from family and friends who have praised the movie series, I have deliberately avoided every single one of the films. I never liked the cartoon as a kid, and while Transformers’ amalgamation of cars and robots may be a dream combination for most guys, I have very little interest in either. However, as a critic, I cannot let my own biases get in the way of giving fair judgment. After having watched Transformers: Age of Extinction, I can thankfully report that the film actually wasn’t half bad. While it’s not going to make a Transformers fan out of me, it was an entertaining, albeit overly-long, movie-going experience.
Age of Extinction is an action-packed ride, filled with the kind of over-the-top entertainment you would expect from a Michael Bay film. While Bay has developed something of a bad rap, there’s no denying his knack for fun and ridiculous action sequences. He’s a man who spares no expense when it comes to explosions and special effects, and this is where Bay is at his best. Love him or hate him, it’s hard to argue with his results as he’s surely one of the most successful directors of all time. However, clocking in at two hours and forty-five minutes, the high-speed action of Age of Extinction is exhausting and becomes tiresome long before the finale. Even when Bay slows things down, he keeps the camera overly busy with particle effects and constant movement. While all of that looks great in IMAX 3D, it feels like an endless visual barrage that is frankly a lot to take in. How many lens flares must a man endure in one movie? I understand the desire to make every shot exciting and visually striking, but I think Bay is trying to tackle too much on camera.
Similarly, Age of Extinction is trying to squeeze too much into its plot, which could almost be broken up into two entirely separate movies. We have the hunt for Optimus Prime and the Transformers by Lockdown and the CIA; Cade Yeager’s discovery of Prime and their ensuing alliance; the love story between Cade’s daughter and her boyfriend; the emergence of the Dinobots; as well as the man-made construction of new Transformers. The result is a fast-paced action movie that is convoluted and far too long. That’s not to say that what is there is bad, though. Awful love story aside, all of the other components of the story are solid and even pretty interesting. Kelsey Grammer puts in a good performance as the head of the CIA who is responsible for the extermination of the Transformers. Similarly, Stanley Tucci is great as Joshua Joyce, the brilliant inventor who is recreating human-controlled Transformers for military use. Yet I can’t help but think that Joyce’s plot would have been perhaps been better to save for a sequel. Sure, it offers a nice parallel between the two inventors and it also creates an opportunity for them to introduce some all-new Transformers, but aren’t the Dinobots enough? There’s so much going on in the film that the eagerly-anticipated Dinobots aren’t given much screen time at all. There is just an unreasonable amount of narratives going on in this movie, to the point where it’s hard to follow, and even harder to stay interested in. Instead of sitting on the edge of your seat during the climactic showdown, you’re probably going to be looking at your watch and wondering how much longer this movie can possibly go on.
While I’m no expert on Transformers, I think the film does an admirable job in bringing the robotic characters to life. Their appearance and animation are both impressive, and they’re typically a pretty fun bunch. I have to admit, though, that I was a bit jarred by the angry and violent demeanor of Optimus Prime. I thought he was supposed to be the good guy everyone looked up to? In Age of Extinction, he clearly has some anger management issues. While he might be the most skilled warrior out there, he sure doesn’t seem like much of a role model. Peter Cullen, the original voice of Optimus Prime, has one again returned to voice the character. John Goodman gives a stand-out voice performance as Hound, in a role he seemed to have a lot of fun with, and Ken Watanabe voices the Samurai-like Transformer known as Drift. All in all, there are a lot of Transformers in the movie, but there is hardly ample time to get to know most of them. I imagine many of them have been introduced in previous films, but for a newcomer like myself, I had a hard time distinguishing between quite a few of them. Then there are the Dinobots, which look awesome, but we’re not given a chance to know much of anything about them. It’s a shame that they’re reduced to feeling like unnecessary bookends to an already overly-crammed movie.
On the human side of things, Mark Wahlberg is enjoyable as the struggling inventor who scavengers through whatever he can to try to create a breakthrough invention. He brings a charming and heroic presence to his role, making him a character we can identify with and root for as he tries to assist the highly-targeted Transformers. T.J. Miller’s Lucas makes for a mildly humorous companion to Cade, although much of the film’s attempts at comedy feel forced and aren’t very funny. Then there’s Nicola Peltz as the skimpily-dressed, rebellious but brainy and innocent, party girl daughter Tessa. She fits right into Bay’s stereotypical sexist female lead who serves as little more than a damsel in distress and eye candy. Still, I don’t know who is worse; Tessa, or her rally car racing boyfriend Shane, played by Jack Reynor. I felt just as frustrated by them as Wahlberg does playing Tessa’s disgruntled and disapproving father. These two lovebirds are an annoying and unwanted addition that only further drag out the plot. While it was at first vaguely amusing to watch Cade freak out as the over-protective father, that shtick ended up getting old real quick. While Wahlberg makes a good new face for the franchise, I hope to God that he comes alone for the next one.
Transformers: Age of Extinction is a fun summer movie. Director Michael Bay sticks to his usual mode of operation with ridiculous action sequences, top of the line special effects, and a whole lot of explosions. If you’re looking for a movie with more flash than substance, Age of Extinction should be right up your alley. It’s jam-packed and overly ambitious, stretching the run time far longer than it ever should, but if offers plenty of dumb, fun entertainment. Transformers fans should be pleased, although the series still has yet to make a fan out of me.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.22.14.)
Before I dive into this review, I think I should inform you that I have not seen any of the previous Transformers movies. I should also note that I’m something of a Transformers hater. Despite pressure from family and friends who have praised the movie series, I have deliberately avoided every single one of the films. I never liked the cartoon as a kid, and while Transformers’ amalgamation of cars and robots may be a dream combination for most guys, I have very little interest in either. However, as a critic, I cannot let my own biases get in the way of giving fair judgment. After having watched Transformers: Age of Extinction, I can thankfully report that the film actually wasn’t half bad. While it’s not going to make a Transformers fan out of me, it was an entertaining, albeit overly-long, movie-going experience.
Age of Extinction is an action-packed ride, filled with the kind of over-the-top entertainment you would expect from a Michael Bay film. While Bay has developed something of a bad rap, there’s no denying his knack for fun and ridiculous action sequences. He’s a man who spares no expense when it comes to explosions and special effects, and this is where Bay is at his best. Love him or hate him, it’s hard to argue with his results as he’s surely one of the most successful directors of all time. However, clocking in at two hours and forty-five minutes, the high-speed action of Age of Extinction is exhausting and becomes tiresome long before the finale. Even when Bay slows things down, he keeps the camera overly busy with particle effects and constant movement. While all of that looks great in IMAX 3D, it feels like an endless visual barrage that is frankly a lot to take in. How many lens flares must a man endure in one movie? I understand the desire to make every shot exciting and visually striking, but I think Bay is trying to tackle too much on camera.
Similarly, Age of Extinction is trying to squeeze too much into its plot, which could almost be broken up into two entirely separate movies. We have the hunt for Optimus Prime and the Transformers by Lockdown and the CIA; Cade Yeager’s discovery of Prime and their ensuing alliance; the love story between Cade’s daughter and her boyfriend; the emergence of the Dinobots; as well as the man-made construction of new Transformers. The result is a fast-paced action movie that is convoluted and far too long. That’s not to say that what is there is bad, though. Awful love story aside, all of the other components of the story are solid and even pretty interesting. Kelsey Grammer puts in a good performance as the head of the CIA who is responsible for the extermination of the Transformers. Similarly, Stanley Tucci is great as Joshua Joyce, the brilliant inventor who is recreating human-controlled Transformers for military use. Yet I can’t help but think that Joyce’s plot would have been perhaps been better to save for a sequel. Sure, it offers a nice parallel between the two inventors and it also creates an opportunity for them to introduce some all-new Transformers, but aren’t the Dinobots enough? There’s so much going on in the film that the eagerly-anticipated Dinobots aren’t given much screen time at all. There is just an unreasonable amount of narratives going on in this movie, to the point where it’s hard to follow, and even harder to stay interested in. Instead of sitting on the edge of your seat during the climactic showdown, you’re probably going to be looking at your watch and wondering how much longer this movie can possibly go on.
While I’m no expert on Transformers, I think the film does an admirable job in bringing the robotic characters to life. Their appearance and animation are both impressive, and they’re typically a pretty fun bunch. I have to admit, though, that I was a bit jarred by the angry and violent demeanor of Optimus Prime. I thought he was supposed to be the good guy everyone looked up to? In Age of Extinction, he clearly has some anger management issues. While he might be the most skilled warrior out there, he sure doesn’t seem like much of a role model. Peter Cullen, the original voice of Optimus Prime, has one again returned to voice the character. John Goodman gives a stand-out voice performance as Hound, in a role he seemed to have a lot of fun with, and Ken Watanabe voices the Samurai-like Transformer known as Drift. All in all, there are a lot of Transformers in the movie, but there is hardly ample time to get to know most of them. I imagine many of them have been introduced in previous films, but for a newcomer like myself, I had a hard time distinguishing between quite a few of them. Then there are the Dinobots, which look awesome, but we’re not given a chance to know much of anything about them. It’s a shame that they’re reduced to feeling like unnecessary bookends to an already overly-crammed movie.
On the human side of things, Mark Wahlberg is enjoyable as the struggling inventor who scavengers through whatever he can to try to create a breakthrough invention. He brings a charming and heroic presence to his role, making him a character we can identify with and root for as he tries to assist the highly-targeted Transformers. T.J. Miller’s Lucas makes for a mildly humorous companion to Cade, although much of the film’s attempts at comedy feel forced and aren’t very funny. Then there’s Nicola Peltz as the skimpily-dressed, rebellious but brainy and innocent, party girl daughter Tessa. She fits right into Bay’s stereotypical sexist female lead who serves as little more than a damsel in distress and eye candy. Still, I don’t know who is worse; Tessa, or her rally car racing boyfriend Shane, played by Jack Reynor. I felt just as frustrated by them as Wahlberg does playing Tessa’s disgruntled and disapproving father. These two lovebirds are an annoying and unwanted addition that only further drag out the plot. While it was at first vaguely amusing to watch Cade freak out as the over-protective father, that shtick ended up getting old real quick. While Wahlberg makes a good new face for the franchise, I hope to God that he comes alone for the next one.
Transformers: Age of Extinction is a fun summer movie. Director Michael Bay sticks to his usual mode of operation with ridiculous action sequences, top of the line special effects, and a whole lot of explosions. If you’re looking for a movie with more flash than substance, Age of Extinction should be right up your alley. It’s jam-packed and overly ambitious, stretching the run time far longer than it ever should, but if offers plenty of dumb, fun entertainment. Transformers fans should be pleased, although the series still has yet to make a fan out of me.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.22.14.)
ELLDBRY (0 KP) rated The Godfather (1972) in Movies
Apr 16, 2020
10/10
Contains spoilers, click to show
"I believe in America…."
What is it about someone you care about that sets them apart? Are they family, a friend, or someone you feel just needs help? What causes you to go the extra mile to put someone else ahead of yourself? You may find the answers in your religion, your upbringing, or in movies. For example, say your daughter goes out on a date with a guy and she is violently beaten by him and one of his friends. You go see her in the hospital and she cannot even weep because of the pain. So trying to keep your cool you press charges and try by the legal means to bring the young men to justice. It doesn't happen, their sentences are suspended. That may make you lose faith in the system that is supposed to protect you. So now you go to someone else who could help. This person is a bigshot, a pezzonovante in his own way but outside the system. You explain what happened and what you did, and all he says is 'why didn't you come to me first?' How many times in your life have some of us gone to others that don't care and asked for help instead of going to the ones that actually care. And the problem is solved. Imagine for another example that your father is in the hospital and men are coming to kill him. And you are the only one there that can help him. Imagine that you had your own dreams and your own goals that were different to what your father wanted. But in this moment you put all that aside to help your father survive. You assure him that everything will be ok and you are with him now. You bluff out the men trying to kill him and your father is saved. Most of us may never have to defend our dads from someone trying to kill him. But seeing someone laying helpless in a hospital bed in need of help we can all relate to. Every son, every daughter, every parent, every sibling, every friend. You see everybody wants to talk about the gangster mafia element of The Godfather, and say that is what it is all about. But family plays an even bigger role in the story by being the driving force behind the main characters. Family, love, loyalty, sacrifice all these elements are used in the movie to bring a standard boring mafia shootout movie to the level of greatest movie of all time. Francis Ford Coppola used as much he could to bring this point home. The wedding scene was not made up by any means but instead taken from other weddings witnessed by every Italian who has ever been to a wedding. Bringing envelopes filled with money to the bride, nieces dancing on the feet of uncle's, people waiting in line to see the father of the bride, sandwiches in white paper being tossed around. 'two gabagool, one proshootoh!' Then go to the kitchen to make spaghetti. Need a recipe? Try 'a little of oil then fry some garlic, throw in some tomatoes and tomato paste, fry it, make sure it does not stick, get it to boil, put in all your sausage and meatballs, add some wine and a little bit of sugar and that's the trick.' That recipe has been in Italian kitchens long before the cameras rolled. Need an idea for some quality time with the kids, well go to work do what you have to do and pick up some cannolis before you get home. Just remember to leave the gun and take the cannolis. Coppola always said he had to be good or no cannolis when his dad got home to share with the family. Coppola also put in his own family to work, his dad scored the movie, his sister Talia was Connie, and his daughter played the baby in the baptism scene. The family was on both sides of the family. But for me the movie revolves around Don Vito Corleone and Marlon Brando. Mario Puzo based the character of Don Corleone on his mother, everytime the Don opened his mouth all that came out was the passion of his mother, her wisdom, her ruthlessness, and her unconquerable love for her family and for life itself. Therefore only the greatest actor of the day will do to play the part. Coppola agreed and suggested either Brando or Laurence Olivier. Olivier was considered and it would have been interesting but he eventually passed on the role. Only two men wanted Brando, Coppola and Puzo. Brando had a history of being difficult and the studio executives nearly vetoed his casting. Coppola was able to make a deal with in order to cast Brando. Brando had to agree to do the movie for nothing, he had to put up a bond in order to cover cost overruns, and he had to do a screen test. They only got to the screen test because Brando transformed himself from a forty year old man into a sixty year old mafia don before their eyes in a matter of minutes. When the executives saw the footage they said ‘no no no, WOW THAT'S INCREDIBLE!’ Brando would be The Godfather. But Brando still needed a little extra help. If you watch the movie, everytime Don Corleone is speaking and stops and looks off in the distance he is reading from a card with his lines on it. He still won an oscar though. Two scenes are my favorite in the movie. One is the scene in the restaurant, I feel like I don’t need to explain it, because it is the most famous scene. Just know that without that scene the movie would not have existed. When you shoot a movie, the scenes are viewed day by day by the studio decision makers. They were hating what they were seeing, everything shot before the restaurant scene was met with cruel criticism by everyone on the outside not working on the movie. All Coppola could do was show them this scene and the movie was not only saved but validated. There are moments in the movie that other scenes build to, the restaurant was one of those scenes. You know of it’s importance because of everything that preceded it. The other scene is the meeting. Don Corleone stands before the other mafia dons and surrenders to them and their wishes. He reasons with them in order to come to a peaceful solution. But there is a catch: if you mess with my other son or if ‘he’s struck by a bolt of lightning. Then I’m going to blame some of the people in this room and that I do not forgive. So with that aside let me say that I swear, on the souls of my grandchildren, that I will not be the one that breaks the peace that we’ve made here today.’ There is a time for peace and a time for reckoning. This scene is my favorite because you believe him, you go along with his plea for peace. But the other dons do not realize it is not a surrender but a tactical retreat.
So the movie went on to make a lot of money, win a bunch of awards, and won it’s way on a bunch of lists that say it’s great. I was lucky enough to not know that when I first saw the movie. I saw it for what it was: a father and three sons. One son was intense and savage, another was sweet and innocent, another was conviving and calculating, the father was all those combined. But the father was the steadying force in all their lives. That is why when they all find out he was shot they react in ways we all would react. When you see the father lying in the street his second son is there to help but can’t, all he can do is cry and yell ‘papa.’ The first son nearly strong arms one of his father’s closest associates because he wants someone to beat up. The third son panics and tries to do whatever he can to help. That is for the audience, and that that’s how everyone relates. Finally, I’ll quote Martin Sheen: ‘The Godfather is the best filmmaking ever in the history of American cinema. There is nothing that speaks more to who we are, where we came from, what we stand for, and where we’re gonna go. That’s the work of a true genius.’ I agree. It is my favorite, of what I’ve seen of course.
".... Don Corleone."
What is it about someone you care about that sets them apart? Are they family, a friend, or someone you feel just needs help? What causes you to go the extra mile to put someone else ahead of yourself? You may find the answers in your religion, your upbringing, or in movies. For example, say your daughter goes out on a date with a guy and she is violently beaten by him and one of his friends. You go see her in the hospital and she cannot even weep because of the pain. So trying to keep your cool you press charges and try by the legal means to bring the young men to justice. It doesn't happen, their sentences are suspended. That may make you lose faith in the system that is supposed to protect you. So now you go to someone else who could help. This person is a bigshot, a pezzonovante in his own way but outside the system. You explain what happened and what you did, and all he says is 'why didn't you come to me first?' How many times in your life have some of us gone to others that don't care and asked for help instead of going to the ones that actually care. And the problem is solved. Imagine for another example that your father is in the hospital and men are coming to kill him. And you are the only one there that can help him. Imagine that you had your own dreams and your own goals that were different to what your father wanted. But in this moment you put all that aside to help your father survive. You assure him that everything will be ok and you are with him now. You bluff out the men trying to kill him and your father is saved. Most of us may never have to defend our dads from someone trying to kill him. But seeing someone laying helpless in a hospital bed in need of help we can all relate to. Every son, every daughter, every parent, every sibling, every friend. You see everybody wants to talk about the gangster mafia element of The Godfather, and say that is what it is all about. But family plays an even bigger role in the story by being the driving force behind the main characters. Family, love, loyalty, sacrifice all these elements are used in the movie to bring a standard boring mafia shootout movie to the level of greatest movie of all time. Francis Ford Coppola used as much he could to bring this point home. The wedding scene was not made up by any means but instead taken from other weddings witnessed by every Italian who has ever been to a wedding. Bringing envelopes filled with money to the bride, nieces dancing on the feet of uncle's, people waiting in line to see the father of the bride, sandwiches in white paper being tossed around. 'two gabagool, one proshootoh!' Then go to the kitchen to make spaghetti. Need a recipe? Try 'a little of oil then fry some garlic, throw in some tomatoes and tomato paste, fry it, make sure it does not stick, get it to boil, put in all your sausage and meatballs, add some wine and a little bit of sugar and that's the trick.' That recipe has been in Italian kitchens long before the cameras rolled. Need an idea for some quality time with the kids, well go to work do what you have to do and pick up some cannolis before you get home. Just remember to leave the gun and take the cannolis. Coppola always said he had to be good or no cannolis when his dad got home to share with the family. Coppola also put in his own family to work, his dad scored the movie, his sister Talia was Connie, and his daughter played the baby in the baptism scene. The family was on both sides of the family. But for me the movie revolves around Don Vito Corleone and Marlon Brando. Mario Puzo based the character of Don Corleone on his mother, everytime the Don opened his mouth all that came out was the passion of his mother, her wisdom, her ruthlessness, and her unconquerable love for her family and for life itself. Therefore only the greatest actor of the day will do to play the part. Coppola agreed and suggested either Brando or Laurence Olivier. Olivier was considered and it would have been interesting but he eventually passed on the role. Only two men wanted Brando, Coppola and Puzo. Brando had a history of being difficult and the studio executives nearly vetoed his casting. Coppola was able to make a deal with in order to cast Brando. Brando had to agree to do the movie for nothing, he had to put up a bond in order to cover cost overruns, and he had to do a screen test. They only got to the screen test because Brando transformed himself from a forty year old man into a sixty year old mafia don before their eyes in a matter of minutes. When the executives saw the footage they said ‘no no no, WOW THAT'S INCREDIBLE!’ Brando would be The Godfather. But Brando still needed a little extra help. If you watch the movie, everytime Don Corleone is speaking and stops and looks off in the distance he is reading from a card with his lines on it. He still won an oscar though. Two scenes are my favorite in the movie. One is the scene in the restaurant, I feel like I don’t need to explain it, because it is the most famous scene. Just know that without that scene the movie would not have existed. When you shoot a movie, the scenes are viewed day by day by the studio decision makers. They were hating what they were seeing, everything shot before the restaurant scene was met with cruel criticism by everyone on the outside not working on the movie. All Coppola could do was show them this scene and the movie was not only saved but validated. There are moments in the movie that other scenes build to, the restaurant was one of those scenes. You know of it’s importance because of everything that preceded it. The other scene is the meeting. Don Corleone stands before the other mafia dons and surrenders to them and their wishes. He reasons with them in order to come to a peaceful solution. But there is a catch: if you mess with my other son or if ‘he’s struck by a bolt of lightning. Then I’m going to blame some of the people in this room and that I do not forgive. So with that aside let me say that I swear, on the souls of my grandchildren, that I will not be the one that breaks the peace that we’ve made here today.’ There is a time for peace and a time for reckoning. This scene is my favorite because you believe him, you go along with his plea for peace. But the other dons do not realize it is not a surrender but a tactical retreat.
So the movie went on to make a lot of money, win a bunch of awards, and won it’s way on a bunch of lists that say it’s great. I was lucky enough to not know that when I first saw the movie. I saw it for what it was: a father and three sons. One son was intense and savage, another was sweet and innocent, another was conviving and calculating, the father was all those combined. But the father was the steadying force in all their lives. That is why when they all find out he was shot they react in ways we all would react. When you see the father lying in the street his second son is there to help but can’t, all he can do is cry and yell ‘papa.’ The first son nearly strong arms one of his father’s closest associates because he wants someone to beat up. The third son panics and tries to do whatever he can to help. That is for the audience, and that that’s how everyone relates. Finally, I’ll quote Martin Sheen: ‘The Godfather is the best filmmaking ever in the history of American cinema. There is nothing that speaks more to who we are, where we came from, what we stand for, and where we’re gonna go. That’s the work of a true genius.’ I agree. It is my favorite, of what I’ve seen of course.
".... Don Corleone."
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Whistle In The Dark in Books
Mar 10, 2019
Jen Maddox is on holiday with her fifteen-year-old daughter, Lana, when Lana disappears. But, somehow, Lana is found four days later: confused and bloody, but in one piece. Jen and her husband, Hugh, are beyond relieved, but Jen cannot shake the fear plaguing her. Lana has struggled with depression these past few years. What happened over those four days? Why can't her daughter remember anything? Jen knows she should welcome Lana back with welcome arms, but she cannot rest until she knows what happened to her daughter.
This was a complicated read, which made me feel and think all sorts of feelings. I have to definitely point out that there are triggers for self-harm and suicide in this one. The book hit home for me, as I lost a dear cousin-who was more like a sister to me-to suicide. She was a little older than Lana when she died, but I saw a lot of similarity between the two, and I could understand some of Jen's frustration and sadness with her daughter because of it. Because, honestly, a lot of this book is just sad and depressing.
It's written in short snippets, not long chapters, each with a title, and they are all told from Jen's perspective. I would have liked to have heard from Lana sometimes. Because this is Emma Healey, many of these little pieces and insights are brilliant, truly. But, also, I won't lie, some of this book is a slog. It mirrors living with someone with depression--it's slow, painful, and tough. I wouldn't call this a fun read, even though I could definitely enjoy some of the breakthroughs and beautiful moments Lana and Jen did share.
While the premise of this book is finding out what happened to Lana, much of it is just Jen and Lana's daily life--trying to find themselves after Lana's disappearance. You see the guilt Jen feels about her daughter's mental illness and the complications of motherhood--how hard it can be. Jen's older daughter Meg and her husband, Hugh, are more supporting characters to the Jen and Lana show. There definitely are some humorous pieces among the sad parts--Jen and her husband struggling to raise a teen, Jen's interactions with her mom stand out. And Lana, as she comes across through her mom's eyes, is an interesting and dynamic character. Her grim sense of humor is enjoyable, too.
I found this novel to be very driven by emotions and to be a deep look at a family who is torn apart not only by Lana's disappearance, but by mental illness. I think, too, overall it does a very good job portraying what mental illness can do to a family. Even Lana's descriptions of what her depression feels like are quite well-done. So much of the book actually made me feel tense on Jen's behalf, and you just can't help but feel so sad and scared for both Jen and Lana. The little snippets of the book really do a good job of capturing moments--that is life, after all. A series of moments that add up.
I wish that Jen had been less obsessed with figuring out what had happened to Lana, but I think I can understand where it came from (her fear). For a little bit, I wasn't sure I could push through the book, but I was also motivated to figure out where Lana had been for those four days, and I was attached to Lana (and even Jen), I won't lie. The end of the book also redeemed it for me. There was something about it that made it all work.
This book isn't for everyone, and in some ways, I even have trouble recommending it for those who have struggled with mental illness, because it can be really triggering. Still, I think the author treated the topic very respectfully. I couldn't help but feel for Jen and I really found myself wanting to help Lana, to reach out to her. Healey really does know how to create nuanced characters. Still, if this is your first time reading her, I can't help but recommend the amazing Elizabeth Is Missing, which I just adore. Still, it has its lovely moments and is certainly well-written, if not a slow read.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
This was a complicated read, which made me feel and think all sorts of feelings. I have to definitely point out that there are triggers for self-harm and suicide in this one. The book hit home for me, as I lost a dear cousin-who was more like a sister to me-to suicide. She was a little older than Lana when she died, but I saw a lot of similarity between the two, and I could understand some of Jen's frustration and sadness with her daughter because of it. Because, honestly, a lot of this book is just sad and depressing.
It's written in short snippets, not long chapters, each with a title, and they are all told from Jen's perspective. I would have liked to have heard from Lana sometimes. Because this is Emma Healey, many of these little pieces and insights are brilliant, truly. But, also, I won't lie, some of this book is a slog. It mirrors living with someone with depression--it's slow, painful, and tough. I wouldn't call this a fun read, even though I could definitely enjoy some of the breakthroughs and beautiful moments Lana and Jen did share.
While the premise of this book is finding out what happened to Lana, much of it is just Jen and Lana's daily life--trying to find themselves after Lana's disappearance. You see the guilt Jen feels about her daughter's mental illness and the complications of motherhood--how hard it can be. Jen's older daughter Meg and her husband, Hugh, are more supporting characters to the Jen and Lana show. There definitely are some humorous pieces among the sad parts--Jen and her husband struggling to raise a teen, Jen's interactions with her mom stand out. And Lana, as she comes across through her mom's eyes, is an interesting and dynamic character. Her grim sense of humor is enjoyable, too.
I found this novel to be very driven by emotions and to be a deep look at a family who is torn apart not only by Lana's disappearance, but by mental illness. I think, too, overall it does a very good job portraying what mental illness can do to a family. Even Lana's descriptions of what her depression feels like are quite well-done. So much of the book actually made me feel tense on Jen's behalf, and you just can't help but feel so sad and scared for both Jen and Lana. The little snippets of the book really do a good job of capturing moments--that is life, after all. A series of moments that add up.
I wish that Jen had been less obsessed with figuring out what had happened to Lana, but I think I can understand where it came from (her fear). For a little bit, I wasn't sure I could push through the book, but I was also motivated to figure out where Lana had been for those four days, and I was attached to Lana (and even Jen), I won't lie. The end of the book also redeemed it for me. There was something about it that made it all work.
This book isn't for everyone, and in some ways, I even have trouble recommending it for those who have struggled with mental illness, because it can be really triggering. Still, I think the author treated the topic very respectfully. I couldn't help but feel for Jen and I really found myself wanting to help Lana, to reach out to her. Healey really does know how to create nuanced characters. Still, if this is your first time reading her, I can't help but recommend the amazing Elizabeth Is Missing, which I just adore. Still, it has its lovely moments and is certainly well-written, if not a slow read.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Do you like time travel
“It feels like a movie born from a different era.” That is the thought that immediately flooded my brain upon leaving the cinema after watching Venom. Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing of course. Hundreds of amazing films have been born well before superhero films became the successful genre they are today.
Nevertheless, in Venom’s case, what we have is a film that struggles to create a consistent tone throughout its rather succinct running time. But is the film still a success for Sony?
Journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is trying to take down Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed), the notorious and brilliant founder of the Life Foundation. While investigating one of Drake’s experiments, Eddie’s body merges with the alien Venom – leaving him with superhuman strength and power. Twisted, dark and fuelled by rage, Venom tries to control the new and dangerous abilities that Eddie finds so intoxicating.
Director of the absolutely brilliant, Zombieland and its upcoming sequel, Ruben Fleischer seems like the perfect choice to helm a solo movie for Peter Parker’s arch nemesis, but the result is muddled – speckled with excellent moments that are lowered by frequently jarring editing techniques and a brawl for identity. Whether that’s down to studio interference or just a misunderstanding of the source material is up for debate.
Let’s start with the best bit: the cast. Venom’s cast is of such a high quality, it really needs reeling off to be believed. We’ve got Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams and Riz Ahmed all in lead parts. Hardy is his ever-charming self in a role that is vastly different from his portrayal of Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. His ‘bromance’ with Venom is by far the standout of the entire film with witty dialogue and amusing physical comedy. In particular, one scene set in an lobster restaurant had the audience in stitches.
Unfortunately, Michelle Williams, one of our most talented actresses is wasted in a thankless role as Brock’s girlfriend, Annie. She’s supposed to be a lawyer, but apart from a few lines of dialogue explaining that fact, she’s completely by-the-numbers WAG. Riz Ahmed suffers a similar fate. His Carlton Drake is so pantomime villain-esque, you half expect him to start twirling a moustache.
Then there’s the film itself. The special effects rarely rise above adequate and the cartoonish CGI used to create Venom himself is frankly, quite poor. You’re never under the illusion that the symbiote could be real, it just looks far too machine generated. With a budget of $100million, this is wholly unacceptable. It’s also noisy and pretty ugly to look at, constantly murky with a muddy colour palate that tries desperately to be edgy and cool – it fails.
Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age
The plot is typical origins story which is to be expected, but there’s very little to thrill or surprise and the first hour is poorly paced. It’s not until we see Venom in his full form that things get out of the gate and Venom finds its footing.
Part buddy-comedy, part superhero flick and part body horror, Venom struggles to maintain a consistent identity. Much like the titular antihero, the film feels like a parasite, latching onto different genres until it finally finds one that fits its needs.
This is a real shame as there are moments of brilliance here. The dialogue between Venom and Brock is great and while the story isn’t anything out of the ordinary, an origins plot for an antihero rather than a traditional superhero is an inspired choice. The lack of Tom Holland’s Peter Parker really doesn’t matter too much, though I can’t help but be disappointed that these two may never meet on film.
Finally, the bizarre decision to aim for a PG-13 rating in the US has inexplicably landed it with a 15 certification here in the UK. 15 rating superhero films include Deadpool and its sequel, Logan and Watchmen. If you’re hoping for gore to the standard of those, you’ll be very dissatisfied. Despite all his head-chomping glory, Venom doesn’t even have a hint of the red stuff.
In the end, despite its best efforts, Venom just comes out very ‘meh’. In a world populated by standout superhero movies like Captain America: Civil War, Spider-Man: Homecoming and Thor: Ragnarok, Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age. Thankfully, it’s not Catwoman levels of bad, maybe X-Men: The Last Stand levels of average.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/04/venom-review-do-you-like-time-travel/
Nevertheless, in Venom’s case, what we have is a film that struggles to create a consistent tone throughout its rather succinct running time. But is the film still a success for Sony?
Journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is trying to take down Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed), the notorious and brilliant founder of the Life Foundation. While investigating one of Drake’s experiments, Eddie’s body merges with the alien Venom – leaving him with superhuman strength and power. Twisted, dark and fuelled by rage, Venom tries to control the new and dangerous abilities that Eddie finds so intoxicating.
Director of the absolutely brilliant, Zombieland and its upcoming sequel, Ruben Fleischer seems like the perfect choice to helm a solo movie for Peter Parker’s arch nemesis, but the result is muddled – speckled with excellent moments that are lowered by frequently jarring editing techniques and a brawl for identity. Whether that’s down to studio interference or just a misunderstanding of the source material is up for debate.
Let’s start with the best bit: the cast. Venom’s cast is of such a high quality, it really needs reeling off to be believed. We’ve got Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams and Riz Ahmed all in lead parts. Hardy is his ever-charming self in a role that is vastly different from his portrayal of Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. His ‘bromance’ with Venom is by far the standout of the entire film with witty dialogue and amusing physical comedy. In particular, one scene set in an lobster restaurant had the audience in stitches.
Unfortunately, Michelle Williams, one of our most talented actresses is wasted in a thankless role as Brock’s girlfriend, Annie. She’s supposed to be a lawyer, but apart from a few lines of dialogue explaining that fact, she’s completely by-the-numbers WAG. Riz Ahmed suffers a similar fate. His Carlton Drake is so pantomime villain-esque, you half expect him to start twirling a moustache.
Then there’s the film itself. The special effects rarely rise above adequate and the cartoonish CGI used to create Venom himself is frankly, quite poor. You’re never under the illusion that the symbiote could be real, it just looks far too machine generated. With a budget of $100million, this is wholly unacceptable. It’s also noisy and pretty ugly to look at, constantly murky with a muddy colour palate that tries desperately to be edgy and cool – it fails.
Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age
The plot is typical origins story which is to be expected, but there’s very little to thrill or surprise and the first hour is poorly paced. It’s not until we see Venom in his full form that things get out of the gate and Venom finds its footing.
Part buddy-comedy, part superhero flick and part body horror, Venom struggles to maintain a consistent identity. Much like the titular antihero, the film feels like a parasite, latching onto different genres until it finally finds one that fits its needs.
This is a real shame as there are moments of brilliance here. The dialogue between Venom and Brock is great and while the story isn’t anything out of the ordinary, an origins plot for an antihero rather than a traditional superhero is an inspired choice. The lack of Tom Holland’s Peter Parker really doesn’t matter too much, though I can’t help but be disappointed that these two may never meet on film.
Finally, the bizarre decision to aim for a PG-13 rating in the US has inexplicably landed it with a 15 certification here in the UK. 15 rating superhero films include Deadpool and its sequel, Logan and Watchmen. If you’re hoping for gore to the standard of those, you’ll be very dissatisfied. Despite all his head-chomping glory, Venom doesn’t even have a hint of the red stuff.
In the end, despite its best efforts, Venom just comes out very ‘meh’. In a world populated by standout superhero movies like Captain America: Civil War, Spider-Man: Homecoming and Thor: Ragnarok, Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age. Thankfully, it’s not Catwoman levels of bad, maybe X-Men: The Last Stand levels of average.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/04/venom-review-do-you-like-time-travel/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Hunger Games franchise has come at a time that is almost certain to gather box-office success. After Harry Potter finished two years ago and The Twilight Saga bowed out just 12 months ago, teenagers and young adults have been craving for a new series of blockbusters to ‘sink their teeth into’.
The first film of this new dawn, based on Suzanne Collins’ successful book, was released in March last year and greeted with warm reviews and a staggering box-office performance, a gross just shy of $700m to be a little more precise.
However, rumoured tensions between director Gary Ross and studio Color Force meant that despite its impressive takings, he was not to helm its sequel, Catching Fire. Taking over from him is Francis Lawrence, director of I am Legend, Constantine and Water for Elephants, but can he better what preceded him?
The series centres around an annual ‘games’, in which people aged between 12 and 18 must fight to the death in a custom made arena, leaving only one victor, who is showered with riches for the rest of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence, returning to the series after her first Oscar win this year, plays Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young teen who fresh from winning the previous Hunger Games tournament alongside her beau Peeta Mellark, played by Josh Hutcherson, travel through the land of Panem (a post-apocalyptic America) to spread their story and persuade others to take part in the vicious tournament.
However, after angering the Capitol, run by cold-hearted President Snow (Donald Sutherland) who becomes increasingly concerned that an up-rising is brewing, it is decided that previous victors must once again take part, to show that even they are not above the law.
For those fresh to the series, I warn you not to watch this film without seeing the first, as much of the plot will be near incomprehensible and your enjoyment will suffer as a result.
The film starts slowly, giving enough backstory before the inevitable return to the arena. Thankfully despite its large running time of 146 minutes, it never falters and after allowing the audience to see how the world has changed, it is back into the new and improved arena for the 75th Hunger Games.
Gone is the shaky handy-cam of director Gary Ross, and in its place we are treated to sweeping shots of numerous landscapes; from the coal-mining community of District 12, to the bright lights of the Capitol and even the large arena which has been given a radical overhaul to make it even more challenging than ever.
The acting is simply sublime by all accounts. Jennifer Lawrence, fresh from the honour of an Oscar plays Katniss with such a subtle grace that she is mesmerising to watch, a real treat for fans of J-Law and of course Suzanne Collins’ character. Liam Hemsworth returns to the series as Katniss’ secret love interest Gale, but he is sorely underused. Josh Hutcherson’s Peeta Mellark is as irritating as ever and lacks a backbone, but this is more to do with the script than Hutcherson’s abilities as an actor.
Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci also return, with the latter being a real stand-out in a film which is filled with quirky and unusual characters.
Those of you who have read my review of the previous film will know that I wasn’t a fan of its lacklustre special effects. Thankfully my prayers were answered and due to a budget that has almost doubled, the effects are glorious. The Capitol is perhaps the best use of the CGI, where the first film looked like a Star Wars: Episode I rip-off, here we really feel like the city is living and breathing for the very first time.
Unfortunately, it seems like the special effects team are still struggling with CGI fire as the computer generated flames are still laughable in their realism.
At 146 minutes, Catching Fire was always going to numb your backside, but you don’t care, the film is an absolute treat to watch. Director Francis Lawrence has retained the violent nature of the series despite its ridiculous 12A certification and manages to get around those limitations with style and flair.
Yes, if I was pushed I’d say it was a little over-long, the CGI flames still look ridiculous and the ending is far too abrupt, but if those are the only faults I can find in a film, then clearly it is more than worth the increasingly expensive price of a cinema admission ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/11/23/hunger-games-catching-fire-review/
The first film of this new dawn, based on Suzanne Collins’ successful book, was released in March last year and greeted with warm reviews and a staggering box-office performance, a gross just shy of $700m to be a little more precise.
However, rumoured tensions between director Gary Ross and studio Color Force meant that despite its impressive takings, he was not to helm its sequel, Catching Fire. Taking over from him is Francis Lawrence, director of I am Legend, Constantine and Water for Elephants, but can he better what preceded him?
The series centres around an annual ‘games’, in which people aged between 12 and 18 must fight to the death in a custom made arena, leaving only one victor, who is showered with riches for the rest of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence, returning to the series after her first Oscar win this year, plays Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young teen who fresh from winning the previous Hunger Games tournament alongside her beau Peeta Mellark, played by Josh Hutcherson, travel through the land of Panem (a post-apocalyptic America) to spread their story and persuade others to take part in the vicious tournament.
However, after angering the Capitol, run by cold-hearted President Snow (Donald Sutherland) who becomes increasingly concerned that an up-rising is brewing, it is decided that previous victors must once again take part, to show that even they are not above the law.
For those fresh to the series, I warn you not to watch this film without seeing the first, as much of the plot will be near incomprehensible and your enjoyment will suffer as a result.
The film starts slowly, giving enough backstory before the inevitable return to the arena. Thankfully despite its large running time of 146 minutes, it never falters and after allowing the audience to see how the world has changed, it is back into the new and improved arena for the 75th Hunger Games.
Gone is the shaky handy-cam of director Gary Ross, and in its place we are treated to sweeping shots of numerous landscapes; from the coal-mining community of District 12, to the bright lights of the Capitol and even the large arena which has been given a radical overhaul to make it even more challenging than ever.
The acting is simply sublime by all accounts. Jennifer Lawrence, fresh from the honour of an Oscar plays Katniss with such a subtle grace that she is mesmerising to watch, a real treat for fans of J-Law and of course Suzanne Collins’ character. Liam Hemsworth returns to the series as Katniss’ secret love interest Gale, but he is sorely underused. Josh Hutcherson’s Peeta Mellark is as irritating as ever and lacks a backbone, but this is more to do with the script than Hutcherson’s abilities as an actor.
Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci also return, with the latter being a real stand-out in a film which is filled with quirky and unusual characters.
Those of you who have read my review of the previous film will know that I wasn’t a fan of its lacklustre special effects. Thankfully my prayers were answered and due to a budget that has almost doubled, the effects are glorious. The Capitol is perhaps the best use of the CGI, where the first film looked like a Star Wars: Episode I rip-off, here we really feel like the city is living and breathing for the very first time.
Unfortunately, it seems like the special effects team are still struggling with CGI fire as the computer generated flames are still laughable in their realism.
At 146 minutes, Catching Fire was always going to numb your backside, but you don’t care, the film is an absolute treat to watch. Director Francis Lawrence has retained the violent nature of the series despite its ridiculous 12A certification and manages to get around those limitations with style and flair.
Yes, if I was pushed I’d say it was a little over-long, the CGI flames still look ridiculous and the ending is far too abrupt, but if those are the only faults I can find in a film, then clearly it is more than worth the increasingly expensive price of a cinema admission ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/11/23/hunger-games-catching-fire-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Hoorah, it's not a total dud
The entire production of Justice League has been enveloped in the tragedy surrounding director Zack Snyder’s sudden departure from the project in March this year.
After losing his daughter, Autumn, to suicide, the DC regular decided to hand over the reins of his passion project to Avengers director Joss Whedon so that he could spend time with his family. Whedon came on board and decided to undertake costly reshoots in order to get the film finished on time.
In that respect, it’s a miracle we’ve even got a Justice League movie in the first place. What’s even more of a miracle is that it turns out to be not rubbish – unfortunately that’s probably the biggest compliment I can give this frequently entertaining but messy outing for our favourite selection of DC Comic superheroes.
Fuelled by his restored faith in humanity and inspired by Superman’s (Henry Cavill) act of selflessness, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) enlists newfound ally Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) to face an even greater threat. Together, Batman and Wonder Woman work quickly to recruit a team to stand against their newly awakened enemy, Steppenwolf. Despite the formation of an unprecedented league of heroes — Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and the Flash (Ezra Miller) – it may be too late to save the planet from an assault of catastrophic proportions.
This year’s Wonder Woman proved that the DC Universe can be at least a passable alternative to the might of Marvel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was an entertaining, if entirely forgettable mash up of the two titular heroes. Justice League sits somewhere in between – it’s not as much of an ordeal as BvS, but it’s also not as interesting as Wonder Woman. The less said about Suicide Squad, the better.
Acting wise, it’s a good start for the League. Ben Affleck is a cracking Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is lacking the gritty humanity of Christian Bale’s turn as the caped crusader. Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa and Ray Fisher all perform well with the former in particular being a highlight, but their rushed introductions do them no favours. However, the standout once again is the wonderful Gal Gadot. Her selfless Diana Prince really is magnificent and her increased screen-time in Justice League when compared to Batman v Superman is more than welcome.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film.
The main villain, Steppenwolf, voiced well by Ciarán Hinds is less successful. Masked behind walls of at-times poor CGI, his threat never feels truly realised and poor Hinds is wasted in a role reminiscent of the dreadful work 20th Century Fox did on Oscar Issac in X-Men: Apocalypse. He gets some good lines however, and makes for a decent, if unremarkable antagonist.
Amy Adams and Diane Lane are once again side-lined in their roles as Lois Lane and Martha Kent respectively. These incredible actresses really are wasted in roles that have little-to-no outcome to the plot. And this is a problem that has blighted the DCEU from the get-go. The calibre of actors used in these films is frankly, astounding and each one of them deserves better than the overly expositional and cringe worthy dialogue they continue to be lumped with.
The final act, like so many films before it, is a mess of ugly CGI that spoils a very decent middle section that has some truly poignant moments. The return of Superman (that isn’t a spoiler if you’ve been following the marketing for Justice League) is handled well and the moment he is reunited with his mother is touching and well-acted.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film. It’s also painfully obvious where Snyder’s very ‘operatic’ filming style is replaced with Joss Whedon’s trademark wit and this doesn’t sit well all of the time. It’s clear that a turbulent production has created a film that’s biggest merit is that it even managed to exist in the first place, and that’s a real shame. Entertaining? Yes. But entertainment can’t mask a film that reeks of mediocrity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/19/justice-league-review/
After losing his daughter, Autumn, to suicide, the DC regular decided to hand over the reins of his passion project to Avengers director Joss Whedon so that he could spend time with his family. Whedon came on board and decided to undertake costly reshoots in order to get the film finished on time.
In that respect, it’s a miracle we’ve even got a Justice League movie in the first place. What’s even more of a miracle is that it turns out to be not rubbish – unfortunately that’s probably the biggest compliment I can give this frequently entertaining but messy outing for our favourite selection of DC Comic superheroes.
Fuelled by his restored faith in humanity and inspired by Superman’s (Henry Cavill) act of selflessness, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) enlists newfound ally Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) to face an even greater threat. Together, Batman and Wonder Woman work quickly to recruit a team to stand against their newly awakened enemy, Steppenwolf. Despite the formation of an unprecedented league of heroes — Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and the Flash (Ezra Miller) – it may be too late to save the planet from an assault of catastrophic proportions.
This year’s Wonder Woman proved that the DC Universe can be at least a passable alternative to the might of Marvel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was an entertaining, if entirely forgettable mash up of the two titular heroes. Justice League sits somewhere in between – it’s not as much of an ordeal as BvS, but it’s also not as interesting as Wonder Woman. The less said about Suicide Squad, the better.
Acting wise, it’s a good start for the League. Ben Affleck is a cracking Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is lacking the gritty humanity of Christian Bale’s turn as the caped crusader. Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa and Ray Fisher all perform well with the former in particular being a highlight, but their rushed introductions do them no favours. However, the standout once again is the wonderful Gal Gadot. Her selfless Diana Prince really is magnificent and her increased screen-time in Justice League when compared to Batman v Superman is more than welcome.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film.
The main villain, Steppenwolf, voiced well by Ciarán Hinds is less successful. Masked behind walls of at-times poor CGI, his threat never feels truly realised and poor Hinds is wasted in a role reminiscent of the dreadful work 20th Century Fox did on Oscar Issac in X-Men: Apocalypse. He gets some good lines however, and makes for a decent, if unremarkable antagonist.
Amy Adams and Diane Lane are once again side-lined in their roles as Lois Lane and Martha Kent respectively. These incredible actresses really are wasted in roles that have little-to-no outcome to the plot. And this is a problem that has blighted the DCEU from the get-go. The calibre of actors used in these films is frankly, astounding and each one of them deserves better than the overly expositional and cringe worthy dialogue they continue to be lumped with.
The final act, like so many films before it, is a mess of ugly CGI that spoils a very decent middle section that has some truly poignant moments. The return of Superman (that isn’t a spoiler if you’ve been following the marketing for Justice League) is handled well and the moment he is reunited with his mother is touching and well-acted.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film. It’s also painfully obvious where Snyder’s very ‘operatic’ filming style is replaced with Joss Whedon’s trademark wit and this doesn’t sit well all of the time. It’s clear that a turbulent production has created a film that’s biggest merit is that it even managed to exist in the first place, and that’s a real shame. Entertaining? Yes. But entertainment can’t mask a film that reeks of mediocrity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/19/justice-league-review/
Beckie Shelton (40 KP) rated Dubious (The Loan Shark Duet, #1) in Books
Feb 8, 2018
<a href="http://s1376.photobucket.com/user/rosella1974/media/download_zpsalznydhx.jpg.html"; target="_blank"><img src="http://i1376.photobucket.com/albums/ah5/rosella1974/download_zpsalznydhx.jpg~original"; border="0" alt=" photo download_zpsalznydhx.jpg"/></a>
🌟🌟🌟🌟STARS.
Dubious (The Loan Shark Duet, #1) was a delight to read and once I started there was no stopping me, I was on a mission to finish this.
So the low-down on Dubious was that Valentina Haynes a young veterinary student manages to get on the wrong side of the Louw family courtesy of her car thief neighbour, who while watching her disabled brother Charlie lets him run up gambling debt's at a local club.
Sent in on a kill order Gabriel Louw wanting Valentina for himself offers her an out, come work for him for nine years to pay off her brother's debt and he will let her brother go.
Now this book was fantastic and was such an easy read.
Despite the subject matter involved here, this was not in any way for me dark.
Gabriel rather than force Valentina (who is now working as a maid in his home).
Gradually seduces her senses with his brand of charisma and skills.
Alongside Gabriel, Valentina has to endure his mother Magda. who from day one is unhappy with her son's decision to allow the Hayne's to continue to exist and is just looking for an excuse to end Valentina.
I also loved the fact that Gabriel wasn't your typical looker and was covered in scars, this to me was an actual plus rather than a minus because I do adore me a less than perfect anti-hero.
Gabriel also came packed with a spoilt teenage daughter and I get the impression from her behaviour that she was less than aware of her father's profession.
I also thought it was a stroke of genies to set this in South Africa, Johannesburg to be precise.
This made it stand out for me from the norm, I can honestly say I don't think I've read this genre of story set in this background before.
This made this really original.
The tale told here was not very angsty but that didn't matter.
As this story progressed, two things became very clear to me, Gabriel's self-confidence in his own appeal was low, more than likely due to his scarring.
He felt that his money and power was all he had to offer besides the obvious things as well of course.
The second being Valentina has vastly underestimated how much Gabriel wants to protect and keep her, the former going to such extremes that it was bound to come crashing down around his ears just through miscommunication.
There were some very interesting side characters here Quinn and Rhett, Gabriel's bodyguards being two that grew on me and I believe they both generally liked Valentina.
Also, her friend Kris was a diamond watching her brother Charlie, maybe for the next nine years, this was definitely above and beyond.
Bet we would all love a friend like that.
So the only reason I pulled this down a star was that I feel that Gabriel himself would with this sort of reputation and power be less than inclined to allow his mother to pull his strings.
Yes, I know in the beginning she was described as having all the power.
I just fail to see, how with Gabriel's sort of nature he has allowed this status quo to go unchallenged all these years, I just can't see it.
After all, he is the muscle and scary face of the Louw's family loan shark franchise.
I actually just really wanted him to tell his mother to go screw herself.
So Would I recommend this? Hell yeah!!!
Dubious was well written with great developed characters and an interesting storyline.
It also really helped that the hero and heroine were both extremely likeable people.
Even considering the hero's occupation.
And the way this was left. well just Phew, so need that next instalment.
Dubious ended on such a fantastic cliffhanger.
I would like to say thank you to NetGalley, the publisher and the author for providing me with a free ARC.
This is my own free and honest opinion of Dubious.
<a href="http://s1376.photobucket.com/user/rosella1974/media/images_zpshdbbnmle.jpg.html"; target="_blank"><img src="http://i1376.photobucket.com/albums/ah5/rosella1974/images_zpshdbbnmle.jpg~original"; border="0" alt=" photo images_zpshdbbnmle.jpg"/></a>
Reviewed By Bookworm
www.beckiebookworm.com
🌟🌟🌟🌟STARS.
Dubious (The Loan Shark Duet, #1) was a delight to read and once I started there was no stopping me, I was on a mission to finish this.
So the low-down on Dubious was that Valentina Haynes a young veterinary student manages to get on the wrong side of the Louw family courtesy of her car thief neighbour, who while watching her disabled brother Charlie lets him run up gambling debt's at a local club.
Sent in on a kill order Gabriel Louw wanting Valentina for himself offers her an out, come work for him for nine years to pay off her brother's debt and he will let her brother go.
Now this book was fantastic and was such an easy read.
Despite the subject matter involved here, this was not in any way for me dark.
Gabriel rather than force Valentina (who is now working as a maid in his home).
Gradually seduces her senses with his brand of charisma and skills.
Alongside Gabriel, Valentina has to endure his mother Magda. who from day one is unhappy with her son's decision to allow the Hayne's to continue to exist and is just looking for an excuse to end Valentina.
I also loved the fact that Gabriel wasn't your typical looker and was covered in scars, this to me was an actual plus rather than a minus because I do adore me a less than perfect anti-hero.
Gabriel also came packed with a spoilt teenage daughter and I get the impression from her behaviour that she was less than aware of her father's profession.
I also thought it was a stroke of genies to set this in South Africa, Johannesburg to be precise.
This made it stand out for me from the norm, I can honestly say I don't think I've read this genre of story set in this background before.
This made this really original.
The tale told here was not very angsty but that didn't matter.
As this story progressed, two things became very clear to me, Gabriel's self-confidence in his own appeal was low, more than likely due to his scarring.
He felt that his money and power was all he had to offer besides the obvious things as well of course.
The second being Valentina has vastly underestimated how much Gabriel wants to protect and keep her, the former going to such extremes that it was bound to come crashing down around his ears just through miscommunication.
There were some very interesting side characters here Quinn and Rhett, Gabriel's bodyguards being two that grew on me and I believe they both generally liked Valentina.
Also, her friend Kris was a diamond watching her brother Charlie, maybe for the next nine years, this was definitely above and beyond.
Bet we would all love a friend like that.
So the only reason I pulled this down a star was that I feel that Gabriel himself would with this sort of reputation and power be less than inclined to allow his mother to pull his strings.
Yes, I know in the beginning she was described as having all the power.
I just fail to see, how with Gabriel's sort of nature he has allowed this status quo to go unchallenged all these years, I just can't see it.
After all, he is the muscle and scary face of the Louw's family loan shark franchise.
I actually just really wanted him to tell his mother to go screw herself.
So Would I recommend this? Hell yeah!!!
Dubious was well written with great developed characters and an interesting storyline.
It also really helped that the hero and heroine were both extremely likeable people.
Even considering the hero's occupation.
And the way this was left. well just Phew, so need that next instalment.
Dubious ended on such a fantastic cliffhanger.
I would like to say thank you to NetGalley, the publisher and the author for providing me with a free ARC.
This is my own free and honest opinion of Dubious.
<a href="http://s1376.photobucket.com/user/rosella1974/media/images_zpshdbbnmle.jpg.html"; target="_blank"><img src="http://i1376.photobucket.com/albums/ah5/rosella1974/images_zpshdbbnmle.jpg~original"; border="0" alt=" photo images_zpshdbbnmle.jpg"/></a>
Reviewed By Bookworm
www.beckiebookworm.com