Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Okja (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
Okja (pronounced ok-cha, as far as I can discern from hearing it said) was a film I had on my radar from its release, but it took the impetus of Parasite and director Bong Joon Ho winning the Oscar to kick me into settling down to watch it. It is the kind of film I would have seen as a matter of course when I worked at the beloved Cameo Cinema, Edinburgh, back in the day… but the kind of film it takes me a while to get around to these days.
What I had heard was that it was quirky, had a very black humour and involved a giant pig. Other than that I was going in blind. Which is always preferable, with almost any film! Hype and too much information can ruin your experience of a thing, simply by putting preconceptions and ideas in your head that may influence your thinking and true reaction to something. I was very grateful then to avoid too much information regarding this unique movie.
The cast is full of people I like, outside of the Korean cast that were strangers to me, in all honesty. Jake Gyllenhaal and Paul Dano, especially, are two actors that have been high on my list of consistent performers you can trust for some years; both making interesting and compelling career choices in terms of subject matter and working with strong directors. Tilda Swinton too is usually good value for a promising watch, almost guaranteeing something slightly leftfield and worth thinking about.
Dano gets away with being the one likeable, if morally ambiguous, character out of the three; with Swinton and Gyllenhaal giving bizarre, heightened comic performances that it is hard to reference to anything else! As the main story of eco-consciousness and a girl’s love for her giant pig progresses in charming fashion, it is these starkly bonkers performances that stick out like very sore thumbs – sometimes raising awkward chuckles, but mostly making you go “what the hell is going on!?”
Well, what is going on is an exploration of corporate evil, the lies, deviousness and manipulation used to make a profit that ignores life and nature as anything worth preserving, or even loving. It wants us to look at meat eating for what it is, and imagines how we might think more about it as a species if we truly accept that animals have rights, personalities, even souls. Of course many people watching wouldn’t need to be converted to this way of thinking at all, so I am very curious (as a non vegetarian / vegan) what reaction a person whose consciousness of these things has been awake for years might have…?
It is possible to watch this without involving yourself too much in that whole debate, however. At its heart, it is a film about innocent love, and a rescue movie that sets unlikely heroes against a gargantuan nemesis against all odds. Naturally, it is a very smart script, that doesn’t ignore the notion of making fun of itself and keeping it mostly fun. In many ways, it seems like a family friendly film, apart from the underlying seriousness of the subject of cruelty, torture and, essentially, murder for the private gain of unscrupulous suits who would watch the world burn in the name of profit.
At the time of watching it, I caught myself in the right mood and really enjoyed it for what it was. Seo-Hyun Ahn as Mija is utterly lovely, and you do find yourself falling for Okja (rendered with marvelous CGI work) and sympathising with the warmth of their relationship as friends. The moments of the film that show nature and the calm of a non-modern world are the most compelling. The parts of the film with cities and noise and guns are more jarring – which, perhaps, is the point and fully intentional. Clearly, this is a director with serious vision and talent that was almost, if not quite, getting it right. As we now know, with Parasite he nailed it…
This is a film I’d be a little cautious of recommending to some people. It is just too odd in parts. It is a good film, not a great one. And perhaps more likely to impress in the hands of viewers that are already converted to the cause and way of thinking it champions.
What I had heard was that it was quirky, had a very black humour and involved a giant pig. Other than that I was going in blind. Which is always preferable, with almost any film! Hype and too much information can ruin your experience of a thing, simply by putting preconceptions and ideas in your head that may influence your thinking and true reaction to something. I was very grateful then to avoid too much information regarding this unique movie.
The cast is full of people I like, outside of the Korean cast that were strangers to me, in all honesty. Jake Gyllenhaal and Paul Dano, especially, are two actors that have been high on my list of consistent performers you can trust for some years; both making interesting and compelling career choices in terms of subject matter and working with strong directors. Tilda Swinton too is usually good value for a promising watch, almost guaranteeing something slightly leftfield and worth thinking about.
Dano gets away with being the one likeable, if morally ambiguous, character out of the three; with Swinton and Gyllenhaal giving bizarre, heightened comic performances that it is hard to reference to anything else! As the main story of eco-consciousness and a girl’s love for her giant pig progresses in charming fashion, it is these starkly bonkers performances that stick out like very sore thumbs – sometimes raising awkward chuckles, but mostly making you go “what the hell is going on!?”
Well, what is going on is an exploration of corporate evil, the lies, deviousness and manipulation used to make a profit that ignores life and nature as anything worth preserving, or even loving. It wants us to look at meat eating for what it is, and imagines how we might think more about it as a species if we truly accept that animals have rights, personalities, even souls. Of course many people watching wouldn’t need to be converted to this way of thinking at all, so I am very curious (as a non vegetarian / vegan) what reaction a person whose consciousness of these things has been awake for years might have…?
It is possible to watch this without involving yourself too much in that whole debate, however. At its heart, it is a film about innocent love, and a rescue movie that sets unlikely heroes against a gargantuan nemesis against all odds. Naturally, it is a very smart script, that doesn’t ignore the notion of making fun of itself and keeping it mostly fun. In many ways, it seems like a family friendly film, apart from the underlying seriousness of the subject of cruelty, torture and, essentially, murder for the private gain of unscrupulous suits who would watch the world burn in the name of profit.
At the time of watching it, I caught myself in the right mood and really enjoyed it for what it was. Seo-Hyun Ahn as Mija is utterly lovely, and you do find yourself falling for Okja (rendered with marvelous CGI work) and sympathising with the warmth of their relationship as friends. The moments of the film that show nature and the calm of a non-modern world are the most compelling. The parts of the film with cities and noise and guns are more jarring – which, perhaps, is the point and fully intentional. Clearly, this is a director with serious vision and talent that was almost, if not quite, getting it right. As we now know, with Parasite he nailed it…
This is a film I’d be a little cautious of recommending to some people. It is just too odd in parts. It is a good film, not a great one. And perhaps more likely to impress in the hands of viewers that are already converted to the cause and way of thinking it champions.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Lost At Christmas (2020) in Movies
Nov 23, 2020
'Tis the season for Christmas cliche and Lost At Christmas certainly fits the bill... but stay tuned for a "pleasant" surprise?
When life changes very suddenly for two strangers they need to make their way back to their normal lives, but it's Christmas, and the simple journey home becomes something of an epic adventure across the Scottish Highlands.
I have realised that many years ago I found myself in a very similar situation to the one in this film, though thankfully I wasn't the one travelling anywhere. I have never really considered how difficult it might be to do this sort of journey... I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't do what this duo do... but you never know! So quite how believable this scenario is I can't say, but it does allow for the expected drama.
There's a great Doctor Who contingent in the cast and I loved Sylvester McCoy and Frazer Hines as Ernie and Frank. They're a fantastic little double act and McCoy definitely helped areas of the film that struggled. Jen, played by Natalie Clark, was quite a likeable character and I enjoyed the performance, but it was difficult to get anything more out of it once she was paired with our leading man. Rob, played by Kenny Boyle, was the chalk to Jen's cheese, he's gruff and mean but doesn't really have the redeemable qualities these characters have in reserve that make you root for them at the end of the film, coupled with the bland performance I found myself hoping that another stray singleton was going to appear and sweep Jen off her feet.
In my notes I tried to do some maths... maths in a film review?! I know! It baffled me too. There felt like discrepancies in Rob's timeline with his girlfriend when you compare their initial interaction and his reveal to Jen later on. It may just be me overthinking it, but when it came up my reaction was confusion, these things are easily foiled by vagueness but... *shrug*.
There's some beautiful scenery involved throughout the film but when you mix it with the obligatory Christmas film shenanigans you're not getting to enjoy a lot of it. Even its use in the opening titles wasn't great. The main backdrop of the pub is fun, though there are some issues with the use of space. Some shots make it seem expansive and some claustrophobic, and there's one shot in particular that made me audibly groan. Nearly everyone is in it, adults talking, teens (about four foot away from the rest of the cast) kissing... no... no kissing teens are putting themselves in that position, especially not these two. There would have been plenty of opportunity to have them in the back of this shot had the camera had a different angle.
The thing I think we should acknowledge about this film though is that it has some balls. Whenever I discuss romcoms and Christmas movies there are always a handful of scenarios that make me say "wouldn't it be great if these films did [insert realistic scenario here]?" Lost At Christmas went for it! Yeah... so it turns out... I want the cliche! Real-life sucks and actually, I'd rather bitch about things being unrealistic than see something that is much more likely to happen. Well done for doing it, but to quote my notes... "F*** THIS FILM!"
Lost At Christmas has so much potential in it. Let's take a look at my scale... You have bad Christmas films, very few fall into this category because they usually drop down so far that they get pushed back up the scale to "so bad they're good". Right next to "so bad they're good" is a general level for Hallmark-esque schmaltz (NOTE: this isn't to say that Hallmark movies won't break out into other areas, this is just a general descriptor for films that are pretty consistent in their watchability and themes... AKA: quality Sunday holiday fodder.) Then of course we have the Christmas classic level, that holds things like Home Alone, Klaus, Love Actually and Die Hard. Lost At Christmas is somewhere in the snowdrift between bad and schmaltz. With a bit more glitz and a few changes I could easily see this film being a hop, skip and a jump over the other side of Hallmark schmaltz as something you don't just watch because it started on the TV and you can't change the channel because you're holding down wrapping paper with one hand and have a spiral of sellotape in the other.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/lost-at-christmas-movie-review.html
When life changes very suddenly for two strangers they need to make their way back to their normal lives, but it's Christmas, and the simple journey home becomes something of an epic adventure across the Scottish Highlands.
I have realised that many years ago I found myself in a very similar situation to the one in this film, though thankfully I wasn't the one travelling anywhere. I have never really considered how difficult it might be to do this sort of journey... I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't do what this duo do... but you never know! So quite how believable this scenario is I can't say, but it does allow for the expected drama.
There's a great Doctor Who contingent in the cast and I loved Sylvester McCoy and Frazer Hines as Ernie and Frank. They're a fantastic little double act and McCoy definitely helped areas of the film that struggled. Jen, played by Natalie Clark, was quite a likeable character and I enjoyed the performance, but it was difficult to get anything more out of it once she was paired with our leading man. Rob, played by Kenny Boyle, was the chalk to Jen's cheese, he's gruff and mean but doesn't really have the redeemable qualities these characters have in reserve that make you root for them at the end of the film, coupled with the bland performance I found myself hoping that another stray singleton was going to appear and sweep Jen off her feet.
In my notes I tried to do some maths... maths in a film review?! I know! It baffled me too. There felt like discrepancies in Rob's timeline with his girlfriend when you compare their initial interaction and his reveal to Jen later on. It may just be me overthinking it, but when it came up my reaction was confusion, these things are easily foiled by vagueness but... *shrug*.
There's some beautiful scenery involved throughout the film but when you mix it with the obligatory Christmas film shenanigans you're not getting to enjoy a lot of it. Even its use in the opening titles wasn't great. The main backdrop of the pub is fun, though there are some issues with the use of space. Some shots make it seem expansive and some claustrophobic, and there's one shot in particular that made me audibly groan. Nearly everyone is in it, adults talking, teens (about four foot away from the rest of the cast) kissing... no... no kissing teens are putting themselves in that position, especially not these two. There would have been plenty of opportunity to have them in the back of this shot had the camera had a different angle.
The thing I think we should acknowledge about this film though is that it has some balls. Whenever I discuss romcoms and Christmas movies there are always a handful of scenarios that make me say "wouldn't it be great if these films did [insert realistic scenario here]?" Lost At Christmas went for it! Yeah... so it turns out... I want the cliche! Real-life sucks and actually, I'd rather bitch about things being unrealistic than see something that is much more likely to happen. Well done for doing it, but to quote my notes... "F*** THIS FILM!"
Lost At Christmas has so much potential in it. Let's take a look at my scale... You have bad Christmas films, very few fall into this category because they usually drop down so far that they get pushed back up the scale to "so bad they're good". Right next to "so bad they're good" is a general level for Hallmark-esque schmaltz (NOTE: this isn't to say that Hallmark movies won't break out into other areas, this is just a general descriptor for films that are pretty consistent in their watchability and themes... AKA: quality Sunday holiday fodder.) Then of course we have the Christmas classic level, that holds things like Home Alone, Klaus, Love Actually and Die Hard. Lost At Christmas is somewhere in the snowdrift between bad and schmaltz. With a bit more glitz and a few changes I could easily see this film being a hop, skip and a jump over the other side of Hallmark schmaltz as something you don't just watch because it started on the TV and you can't change the channel because you're holding down wrapping paper with one hand and have a spiral of sellotape in the other.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/lost-at-christmas-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Death Race (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In 1975, legendary B-movie producer Roger Corman showed audiences a look at the near future with a biting film that deftly blended action and political commentary and satire. The film was “Death Race 2000” and starred David Carradine and featured a pre-“Rocky” Sylvester Stallone as bitter rivals in a brutal cross country race where finishing first was second only to the amount of death and carnage a driver left in their wake.
The film became a cult hit, and paved the way for films such as “Rollerball”, “Arena”, and countless other films that featured bloodlust sporting events for the masses a la Rome in the age of gladiators at the coliseum. Thirty-three years later, audiences are given the new and upgraded “Death Race” which benefits from a bigger budget with more carnage than the original film that inspired it ever dreamed of.
The film opens with an eerie warning of today’s troubled economic times, stating that the U.S.
economy collapses in 2012 and record unemployment and crime sweep the nation. With prisons overcrowded, corporations run correctional facilities for a profit and soon offer caged matches between inmates for the viewing pleasure of the nation. At first the matches are a huge success but soon lose their appeal to an audience that is eager for even bloodier sport.
In an effort to keep the cash flowing, the Death Race is created which pits convicts against one another in a brutal mix of speed, firepower, and death which in a few years surpasses even the Super Bowl as the most watched sporting event in the world.
Jason Statham stars as Jensen Ames, a former race driver who is framed for the murder of his wife and faces the prospect of life in prison while his daughter is raised by strangers. With the Death Race losing some if its audience, its creator, and warden of the prison, Hennessey (Joan Allen), offers Jensen a solution to both of their problems. If Jensen will pose as the masked Frankenstein for the race and win, he will be granted his freedom. It is learned that the real Frankenstein has finally succumbed to the numerous injuries he has incurred racing, and rather than risk losing his vast legions of fans who drive the ratings, it is easier to replace him than lose him, especially since recent races without Frankenstein had not garnered the same ratings as his past races.
It is explained that should a driver win five death races, they will be set free. Since Frankenstein has won four races, all Jensen has to do is win the race and stay alive to earn his freedom. Jensen is faced with an menacing list of adversaries including the deadly Machine Gun Joe (Tyrese Gibson), who is the biggest threat to Jensen with an absolute hatred for Frankenstein. Gun Joe is a cold-blooded killer who wants nothing more than two more race wins to earn his freedom and will stop at nothing to get it.
Jensen is assisted by the talented Coach (Ian McShane), who dispenses wisdom while overseeing the crew that outfits Jensen’s suped up, armor-plated, and very heavily armed racer. Assigned to ride with Jensen as his Navigator is Case (Natalie Martinez), a female prisoner who, like many of her fellow navigators, sees the race as a chance to earn their freedom and other special perks which makes risking their lives a worthwhile endeavor.
As the race unfolds in three stages, Jensen is tasked with not only surviving the threats Machine Gun Joe and the other racers aim his way, but surviving the twisted scheme that has him in its grasp.
The action of the film is fast, brutal, and unforgiving and is easily the highlight of the film. Sadly there are plenty of scenes with stiff and uninspired characters, numerous plot holes and leaps of logic, and clichés that bog the film down.
Statham is his usual soft talking hard man, a character he has made a career out of playing in such films as the “Crank” and the “Transporter” series. But unlike those films, he is not given much material to work with here. Statham has done solid work in the past but Jensen is a paper thin character who never fully given a chance to develop nor be embraced by the audience.
The same is true for the rest of the cast, a talented ensemble left to languish in want of better material. The film is directed by Paul W.S. Anderson of the “Resident Evil” series who once again shows that he has an eye for action, but still has issues with pacing and unsympathetic characters. This is a shame as the premise of the film is solid, but unlike the original, lacks the social and political commentary needed to balance the carnage and mayhem.
With a little more time in shop and tinkering, this could have been a solid action film, instead it stalls at the starting line badly in need of a tune up.
The film became a cult hit, and paved the way for films such as “Rollerball”, “Arena”, and countless other films that featured bloodlust sporting events for the masses a la Rome in the age of gladiators at the coliseum. Thirty-three years later, audiences are given the new and upgraded “Death Race” which benefits from a bigger budget with more carnage than the original film that inspired it ever dreamed of.
The film opens with an eerie warning of today’s troubled economic times, stating that the U.S.
economy collapses in 2012 and record unemployment and crime sweep the nation. With prisons overcrowded, corporations run correctional facilities for a profit and soon offer caged matches between inmates for the viewing pleasure of the nation. At first the matches are a huge success but soon lose their appeal to an audience that is eager for even bloodier sport.
In an effort to keep the cash flowing, the Death Race is created which pits convicts against one another in a brutal mix of speed, firepower, and death which in a few years surpasses even the Super Bowl as the most watched sporting event in the world.
Jason Statham stars as Jensen Ames, a former race driver who is framed for the murder of his wife and faces the prospect of life in prison while his daughter is raised by strangers. With the Death Race losing some if its audience, its creator, and warden of the prison, Hennessey (Joan Allen), offers Jensen a solution to both of their problems. If Jensen will pose as the masked Frankenstein for the race and win, he will be granted his freedom. It is learned that the real Frankenstein has finally succumbed to the numerous injuries he has incurred racing, and rather than risk losing his vast legions of fans who drive the ratings, it is easier to replace him than lose him, especially since recent races without Frankenstein had not garnered the same ratings as his past races.
It is explained that should a driver win five death races, they will be set free. Since Frankenstein has won four races, all Jensen has to do is win the race and stay alive to earn his freedom. Jensen is faced with an menacing list of adversaries including the deadly Machine Gun Joe (Tyrese Gibson), who is the biggest threat to Jensen with an absolute hatred for Frankenstein. Gun Joe is a cold-blooded killer who wants nothing more than two more race wins to earn his freedom and will stop at nothing to get it.
Jensen is assisted by the talented Coach (Ian McShane), who dispenses wisdom while overseeing the crew that outfits Jensen’s suped up, armor-plated, and very heavily armed racer. Assigned to ride with Jensen as his Navigator is Case (Natalie Martinez), a female prisoner who, like many of her fellow navigators, sees the race as a chance to earn their freedom and other special perks which makes risking their lives a worthwhile endeavor.
As the race unfolds in three stages, Jensen is tasked with not only surviving the threats Machine Gun Joe and the other racers aim his way, but surviving the twisted scheme that has him in its grasp.
The action of the film is fast, brutal, and unforgiving and is easily the highlight of the film. Sadly there are plenty of scenes with stiff and uninspired characters, numerous plot holes and leaps of logic, and clichés that bog the film down.
Statham is his usual soft talking hard man, a character he has made a career out of playing in such films as the “Crank” and the “Transporter” series. But unlike those films, he is not given much material to work with here. Statham has done solid work in the past but Jensen is a paper thin character who never fully given a chance to develop nor be embraced by the audience.
The same is true for the rest of the cast, a talented ensemble left to languish in want of better material. The film is directed by Paul W.S. Anderson of the “Resident Evil” series who once again shows that he has an eye for action, but still has issues with pacing and unsympathetic characters. This is a shame as the premise of the film is solid, but unlike the original, lacks the social and political commentary needed to balance the carnage and mayhem.
With a little more time in shop and tinkering, this could have been a solid action film, instead it stalls at the starting line badly in need of a tune up.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Caretakers in Books
Apr 6, 2020
As soon as I read the synopsis for The Caretakers by Eliza Maxwell, I was instantly hooked. I knew it was a book that I had to read. It's like it was calling out to me saying "read me...read me." What a wild ride The Caretakers had in store for me!
Tessa Shepard made a documentary that helped free a man that she thought was framed for murder. However, when it seems he's killed the police chief's daughter, Tessa's life becomes upended. Around the same time, Tessa and her twin sister inherit a large estate named Fallbrook. There she meets two old ladies who are the caretakers of Fallbrook that have their own crazy story about the past when it comes to Fallbrooks history. With danger lurking around every corner, Tessa must try to survive and figure out the two old ladies' story.
I could not fault the plot of The Caretakers at all. It was absolutely solid from beginning to end. With The Caretakers, I felt like I was sort of getting two stories in one which was great! The first story is Tessa's. The narrative follows Tessa as she deals with her conscience about freeing a man from prison who may have actually been guilty. She's also dealing with the fallout between her and her twin sister Margot. With Tessa's reputation in tatters, Tessa tries to stay out of the spotlight and deal with what's going on in her personal life, but it doesn't turn out to be that easy. The second narrative belongs to the two old ladies and caretakers of Fallbrook, Kitty and Deidre. Their story was the most interesting to read about. Kitty and Deidre remember two different accounts of what actually befell Fallbrook when they were children. It was traumatizing for both of them, and at least one of the sisters has blocked out the actual memories of the horrible event that happened there. I found myself trying to guess which events were the true ones. Kudos to Eliza Maxwell for adding so many plot twists to The Caretakers that I never saw coming! I absolutely was thrilled that there were so many plot twists. Just when I thought I had the story figured out, a curve ball was thrown at me making me have to start my guess work all over again. However, all cliff hangers and questions are answered by the end of the book.
The characters in The Caretakers were all written fantastically! All were fleshed out appropriately even the minor characters. It was easy to empathize with everything Tessa was going through. She had so much bad stuff going on at one time. Learning her back story, it was easy to see why she thought the way she did. I liked Margot as well. While she's not a main character, she does play a fairly important role in Tessa's life. Sometimes I felt like Margot was a little too closed off when it came to Tessa and her husband, Ben. This wasn't due to bad writing, but quite the opposite. I felt like this was a character flaw that even real life people struggle with. I enjoyed Oliver's character. He made for a fantastic antagonist. Oliver was the one who Tessa freed from prison due to her documentary. Through fantastic storytelling, it was easy to see why Oliver went off the deep end after he was released. I felt bad for him actually. Deidre was an interesting character, and I came to understand why she was wary of strangers meddling in hers and Kitty's business. Kitty was my all time favorite character in The Caretakers though. I was sucked up in her childlike way of acting. She seemed to trust everyone and came across as such a sweet person. It seemed like she was too nice to be unkind towards anyone. I felt like Kitty had the most interesting backstory out of all the characters. The Cooke family, who had previously lived in Fallbrook before it became derelict, had the most intriguing story out of everyone. I really enjoyed reading about them.
Trigger warnings for The Caretakers include profanity, murder, violence, drinking, and police corruption.
To say I was blown away by The Caretakers is an understatement. Seriously, this book gave me goosebumps and a severe book hangover. That's how great it was! With intriguing plot lines and fantastic characters, it was such a fantastic read. I would most definitely recommend The Caretakers by Eliza Maxwell to those aged 17+. I really believe readers of all genres will really enjoy this book!
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life and Eliza Maxwell for sending me a paperback and Netgalley for an eBook of The Caretakers in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Tessa Shepard made a documentary that helped free a man that she thought was framed for murder. However, when it seems he's killed the police chief's daughter, Tessa's life becomes upended. Around the same time, Tessa and her twin sister inherit a large estate named Fallbrook. There she meets two old ladies who are the caretakers of Fallbrook that have their own crazy story about the past when it comes to Fallbrooks history. With danger lurking around every corner, Tessa must try to survive and figure out the two old ladies' story.
I could not fault the plot of The Caretakers at all. It was absolutely solid from beginning to end. With The Caretakers, I felt like I was sort of getting two stories in one which was great! The first story is Tessa's. The narrative follows Tessa as she deals with her conscience about freeing a man from prison who may have actually been guilty. She's also dealing with the fallout between her and her twin sister Margot. With Tessa's reputation in tatters, Tessa tries to stay out of the spotlight and deal with what's going on in her personal life, but it doesn't turn out to be that easy. The second narrative belongs to the two old ladies and caretakers of Fallbrook, Kitty and Deidre. Their story was the most interesting to read about. Kitty and Deidre remember two different accounts of what actually befell Fallbrook when they were children. It was traumatizing for both of them, and at least one of the sisters has blocked out the actual memories of the horrible event that happened there. I found myself trying to guess which events were the true ones. Kudos to Eliza Maxwell for adding so many plot twists to The Caretakers that I never saw coming! I absolutely was thrilled that there were so many plot twists. Just when I thought I had the story figured out, a curve ball was thrown at me making me have to start my guess work all over again. However, all cliff hangers and questions are answered by the end of the book.
The characters in The Caretakers were all written fantastically! All were fleshed out appropriately even the minor characters. It was easy to empathize with everything Tessa was going through. She had so much bad stuff going on at one time. Learning her back story, it was easy to see why she thought the way she did. I liked Margot as well. While she's not a main character, she does play a fairly important role in Tessa's life. Sometimes I felt like Margot was a little too closed off when it came to Tessa and her husband, Ben. This wasn't due to bad writing, but quite the opposite. I felt like this was a character flaw that even real life people struggle with. I enjoyed Oliver's character. He made for a fantastic antagonist. Oliver was the one who Tessa freed from prison due to her documentary. Through fantastic storytelling, it was easy to see why Oliver went off the deep end after he was released. I felt bad for him actually. Deidre was an interesting character, and I came to understand why she was wary of strangers meddling in hers and Kitty's business. Kitty was my all time favorite character in The Caretakers though. I was sucked up in her childlike way of acting. She seemed to trust everyone and came across as such a sweet person. It seemed like she was too nice to be unkind towards anyone. I felt like Kitty had the most interesting backstory out of all the characters. The Cooke family, who had previously lived in Fallbrook before it became derelict, had the most intriguing story out of everyone. I really enjoyed reading about them.
Trigger warnings for The Caretakers include profanity, murder, violence, drinking, and police corruption.
To say I was blown away by The Caretakers is an understatement. Seriously, this book gave me goosebumps and a severe book hangover. That's how great it was! With intriguing plot lines and fantastic characters, it was such a fantastic read. I would most definitely recommend The Caretakers by Eliza Maxwell to those aged 17+. I really believe readers of all genres will really enjoy this book!
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life and Eliza Maxwell for sending me a paperback and Netgalley for an eBook of The Caretakers in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Django Unchained (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Writer-director Quentin Tarantino has returned in a big way with “Django Unchained” his homage to spaghetti Westerns. The film stars Jamie Foxx as a slave named Django who is part of a convoy of slaves being transported through Texas two years before the start of the Civil War. Django is unaware that his life is about to take a monumental turn when his caravan encounters Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) one dark evening. Schultz wishes to purchase Django, and when his current owners make the mistake of threatening the good doctor, he quickly turns the table on them and sets Django and his fellow slaves free. Schultz reveals to Django that he is in fact a bounty hunter and needs him to help identify three potential targets. Since Django last lived at the plantation where the three targets worked as overseers, he is essential to Schultz’s hunt. Schultz offers to free Django and pay him $75.00 for his assistance and the duo set off on their mission.
Some truly action-packed and hysterical scenes later, Schultz realizes that Django is an absolute natural for the business and decides to take him on for the winter as an assistant, even going so far as to offer to share one third of his bounties with them. In return, Schultz also offers to help Django reclaim his wife who was sold to a plantation somewhere in Tennessee. Schultz rationalizes that to show up now would be extremely dangerous, therefore the duo must wait out the winter earning money before embarking on their rescue mission.
The hard work of the team pays off and they learn that Django’s wife has been sold to one of the largest plantations under the ownership of Calvin Candie (Leonardo di Caprio), a despotic plantation owner who is as greedy as he is cruel. Despite having more money than he could ever use, Calvin likes to force certain members of his slaves to fight to the death. Schultz and Django decide to use this angle as their chance to get close to Calvin so they can verify that Django’s wife is indeed at the plantation and determine what it will take to buy or obtain her freedom. This proves to be no easy task as not only is Calvin surrounded by an army hired guns, but he also has a very surly and suspicious head of a household named Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), eyeing every move that the strangers make and questioning their actions.
What follows is a hyperkinetic storm of violence, fury, music, and color in the true Tarantino style. The director is never one to shy away from blood and violence and there are tons of it in the film. The amazing thing about it is despite being graphic and, in some cases, borderline gratuitous, it does not distract from the enjoyment of the film and its characters. The performances were absolutely amazing, especially the work of Waltz, Foxx, and diCaprio. Jackson also does very solid supporting work as does Don Johnson in his appearance as an uber-racist plantation owner. Waltz worked previously with Tarantino on “Inglorious Bastards”, and this is where the Austrian actor really gained notice by Hollywood. This time out he gives a captivating performance as the complex killer with a heart of gold.
While I understand Tarantino’s style is not for everybody, it’s hard not to be impressed with the way he is able to paint a picture, fill it with interesting and quirky characters, and quickly tear it all apart as things descend into utter chaos and destruction. You alternate between laughing, cheering, and being shocked all the way through the film’s nearly three-hour runtime. Yet rarely did the film ever seem to drag on unnecessarily. There was some loss of pacing as the characters converged on Calvin’s plantation, and some may question some of the character changes or gaps in logic in the film’s finale.
I believe this film is one of the best films of the year. It captured so much of what an action film and drama should have: interesting, complex and well-acted characters, a good story, and plenty of action. Those who are easily offended will want to take note that the language in the film is extremely rough and there is frequent uses of racials lurs, as well is derogatory comments made about the black characters in the film. While this is intended to show the mindset and lifestyle of the 1860s in which the film is set, some may find it unsettling if they go in unprepared.
That being said I can honestly say that this was the most enjoyable Tarantino film I have ever seen and could be his best work to date.
Some truly action-packed and hysterical scenes later, Schultz realizes that Django is an absolute natural for the business and decides to take him on for the winter as an assistant, even going so far as to offer to share one third of his bounties with them. In return, Schultz also offers to help Django reclaim his wife who was sold to a plantation somewhere in Tennessee. Schultz rationalizes that to show up now would be extremely dangerous, therefore the duo must wait out the winter earning money before embarking on their rescue mission.
The hard work of the team pays off and they learn that Django’s wife has been sold to one of the largest plantations under the ownership of Calvin Candie (Leonardo di Caprio), a despotic plantation owner who is as greedy as he is cruel. Despite having more money than he could ever use, Calvin likes to force certain members of his slaves to fight to the death. Schultz and Django decide to use this angle as their chance to get close to Calvin so they can verify that Django’s wife is indeed at the plantation and determine what it will take to buy or obtain her freedom. This proves to be no easy task as not only is Calvin surrounded by an army hired guns, but he also has a very surly and suspicious head of a household named Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), eyeing every move that the strangers make and questioning their actions.
What follows is a hyperkinetic storm of violence, fury, music, and color in the true Tarantino style. The director is never one to shy away from blood and violence and there are tons of it in the film. The amazing thing about it is despite being graphic and, in some cases, borderline gratuitous, it does not distract from the enjoyment of the film and its characters. The performances were absolutely amazing, especially the work of Waltz, Foxx, and diCaprio. Jackson also does very solid supporting work as does Don Johnson in his appearance as an uber-racist plantation owner. Waltz worked previously with Tarantino on “Inglorious Bastards”, and this is where the Austrian actor really gained notice by Hollywood. This time out he gives a captivating performance as the complex killer with a heart of gold.
While I understand Tarantino’s style is not for everybody, it’s hard not to be impressed with the way he is able to paint a picture, fill it with interesting and quirky characters, and quickly tear it all apart as things descend into utter chaos and destruction. You alternate between laughing, cheering, and being shocked all the way through the film’s nearly three-hour runtime. Yet rarely did the film ever seem to drag on unnecessarily. There was some loss of pacing as the characters converged on Calvin’s plantation, and some may question some of the character changes or gaps in logic in the film’s finale.
I believe this film is one of the best films of the year. It captured so much of what an action film and drama should have: interesting, complex and well-acted characters, a good story, and plenty of action. Those who are easily offended will want to take note that the language in the film is extremely rough and there is frequent uses of racials lurs, as well is derogatory comments made about the black characters in the film. While this is intended to show the mindset and lifestyle of the 1860s in which the film is set, some may find it unsettling if they go in unprepared.
That being said I can honestly say that this was the most enjoyable Tarantino film I have ever seen and could be his best work to date.
Piper (13 KP) rated Strangers: Prey at Night (2018) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Real-feeling Characters (2 more)
Escalating Tension
Some Excellent Scenes
Some Naff Shots (1 more)
Hammy Acting
Contains spoilers, click to show
I’ve heard a lot of trash about this movie, and only some of it is right. Don’t get me wrong - it has its downfalls. We’ll get to those. But it’s a genuinely fun horror movie and, considering the predictability of the slasher genre, it’s fairly terrifying: the suspense doesn’t let up from damn near the beginning. For full disclosure, I haven’t seen the original Strangers movie, and I’ve heard it’s a whole lot better than this 2018 sequel. But the fact that Prey at Night stands successfully alone as a movie means it doesn’t matter which order you watch them in - all I’d say is that it’s probably best not to pay much attention to the reviews on this one (as sefl-destructive as a comment like that might be). It’s impressive in its own right, and if this apparently-subpar sequel is anything to go by, the original must be worthwhile. I’ll let you know once I’ve actually seen it.
Now, onto the juicy stuff. There really isn’t a whole lot of bad to this movie, and what there is is fairly standard for modern horror movies. The plot is fairly predictable: people with knives hunt down people without (the good guys do have a single gun between them, and in a display that makes you genuinely shout at your television it never gets used); a dysfunctional American family gets torn completely apart; every single time you think the evil nasty villain man is dead, he stands up, just a little out of our good guy’s eyeline. It’s fairly repetitive - how much story can you get out of some knives and masks and a little bit of running? - and while it nicely strays from the standard twisty ending, there’s a hint of danger at the end that a) doesn’t make sense, b) doesn’t mean anything, and c) isn’t explored or explained so falls very short of what it’s trying to do. And that’s nearly all the bad out of the way, but I’d like to give an honourable mention to some very corny Raimi-esque camera zooms that, momentarily, take the viewer completely out of the film and just look terrible.
Having said that, most of the camerawork is good - shaky where it needs to be, dead straight when it works. There are some claustrophobic close-ups that leave you wondering just what the director’s hiding out of frame. And while watching a creepily-masked figure loom silently into frame can get a little less scary every time, it’s certainly well-shot. Despite the pitfalls, most of which are just so easy to slip into, the good parts to this movie mostly fall into the categories of character work and nice, understated gore. The bloody parts are suitably bloody, but they don’t become unrealistic. In fact, there are gory moments that seem meticulously well-crafted and you can almost feel the pain. The characters are annoying at times, they all have their own quirks and tightly-wound baggage, and there are places where their obviously set-up arcs just don’t get the resolution they need - hang on, why do I think this is a good film?
Here’s why. Because it’s real. People don’t always get resolution (okay, it isn’t always because one of the conflicting characters dies about five minutes into the experience, but we don’t always get closure, we don’t always get to fix relationships before it’s too late). The characters in this film are, despite everything, quite likeable once you get to know them, and there’s a truly heartbreaking moment fairly early on that can’t be shunned. The injuries these characters sustain throughout don’t just go away - they stick around, for the most part, slow them down, make them vulnerable. The setting is unassuming until you realise this family are literally the only characters in the film that aren’t dead (and quite beautifully mutilated) or wielding a knife/axe/pickup truck - and if you dare make the connection between a spooky trailer park and a certain Camp Crystal Lake, it makes sense. The slashers themselves are fairly unoriginal (I’m really trying not to stray into the negatives again) but they’re human. They can die. Their motives are revealed in a simple, nicely-put “Why not?” and it’s clear they don’t need a reason, this is just fun for them. The masks, obviously, add a little layer of creep, and there’s a swimming pool scene that really is quite beautifully done. Watching people get murdered to a corny, cheerful eighties soundtrack might get irritating, if it wasn’t established that that’s just a chilling preference of the primary slasher character. The popping-up-out-of-nowhere gimmick might get a little annoying if it wasn’t established that really, this is just that kind of movie. The fact that we never find out what Kenzie did to get her shipped off to boarding school, or who Tamara was (should I have seen the first movie? I’ll have to watch it soon or I just might be lambasted for my ignorance) didn't put us too out-of-place, because there are enough wonderful gore and inventive set-piece-driven slasher moments to remind you that, hang on, you don't really need to know. The tension builds, and it builds, and oh it keeps on building right until the end, and it’s the one thing about this film that's masterfully done.
At the end of the day, this isn’t a great movie. It’s certainly not perfect. But it’s good. It feels real, and it feels, in places, genuinely terrifying. It’s a fun watch and it hasn’t been ridiculously drawn-out like some recent films (I’m looking at you, Chapter Two) so it’s quick, it’s choppy, and there’s a half-decent scare every now and then. Will it scar you for life? Depends how you feel about Kim Wilde.
Now, onto the juicy stuff. There really isn’t a whole lot of bad to this movie, and what there is is fairly standard for modern horror movies. The plot is fairly predictable: people with knives hunt down people without (the good guys do have a single gun between them, and in a display that makes you genuinely shout at your television it never gets used); a dysfunctional American family gets torn completely apart; every single time you think the evil nasty villain man is dead, he stands up, just a little out of our good guy’s eyeline. It’s fairly repetitive - how much story can you get out of some knives and masks and a little bit of running? - and while it nicely strays from the standard twisty ending, there’s a hint of danger at the end that a) doesn’t make sense, b) doesn’t mean anything, and c) isn’t explored or explained so falls very short of what it’s trying to do. And that’s nearly all the bad out of the way, but I’d like to give an honourable mention to some very corny Raimi-esque camera zooms that, momentarily, take the viewer completely out of the film and just look terrible.
Having said that, most of the camerawork is good - shaky where it needs to be, dead straight when it works. There are some claustrophobic close-ups that leave you wondering just what the director’s hiding out of frame. And while watching a creepily-masked figure loom silently into frame can get a little less scary every time, it’s certainly well-shot. Despite the pitfalls, most of which are just so easy to slip into, the good parts to this movie mostly fall into the categories of character work and nice, understated gore. The bloody parts are suitably bloody, but they don’t become unrealistic. In fact, there are gory moments that seem meticulously well-crafted and you can almost feel the pain. The characters are annoying at times, they all have their own quirks and tightly-wound baggage, and there are places where their obviously set-up arcs just don’t get the resolution they need - hang on, why do I think this is a good film?
Here’s why. Because it’s real. People don’t always get resolution (okay, it isn’t always because one of the conflicting characters dies about five minutes into the experience, but we don’t always get closure, we don’t always get to fix relationships before it’s too late). The characters in this film are, despite everything, quite likeable once you get to know them, and there’s a truly heartbreaking moment fairly early on that can’t be shunned. The injuries these characters sustain throughout don’t just go away - they stick around, for the most part, slow them down, make them vulnerable. The setting is unassuming until you realise this family are literally the only characters in the film that aren’t dead (and quite beautifully mutilated) or wielding a knife/axe/pickup truck - and if you dare make the connection between a spooky trailer park and a certain Camp Crystal Lake, it makes sense. The slashers themselves are fairly unoriginal (I’m really trying not to stray into the negatives again) but they’re human. They can die. Their motives are revealed in a simple, nicely-put “Why not?” and it’s clear they don’t need a reason, this is just fun for them. The masks, obviously, add a little layer of creep, and there’s a swimming pool scene that really is quite beautifully done. Watching people get murdered to a corny, cheerful eighties soundtrack might get irritating, if it wasn’t established that that’s just a chilling preference of the primary slasher character. The popping-up-out-of-nowhere gimmick might get a little annoying if it wasn’t established that really, this is just that kind of movie. The fact that we never find out what Kenzie did to get her shipped off to boarding school, or who Tamara was (should I have seen the first movie? I’ll have to watch it soon or I just might be lambasted for my ignorance) didn't put us too out-of-place, because there are enough wonderful gore and inventive set-piece-driven slasher moments to remind you that, hang on, you don't really need to know. The tension builds, and it builds, and oh it keeps on building right until the end, and it’s the one thing about this film that's masterfully done.
At the end of the day, this isn’t a great movie. It’s certainly not perfect. But it’s good. It feels real, and it feels, in places, genuinely terrifying. It’s a fun watch and it hasn’t been ridiculously drawn-out like some recent films (I’m looking at you, Chapter Two) so it’s quick, it’s choppy, and there’s a half-decent scare every now and then. Will it scar you for life? Depends how you feel about Kim Wilde.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Romanov in Books
Oct 5, 2020
From the author of Fawkes comes a magical take on the story of Anastasia Romanov.
The history books say I died.
They don’t know the half of it.
Ever since I read Fawkes, I knew I loved Nadine’s writing, and when Romanov was announced, I couldn’t be happier. As I have spend my childhood and young adult life in the Balkans, whilst travelling across Europe, I have always admired Russia, and always enjoyed reading all the theories about the Romanov family.
As a child I would be told stories and fairy tales, I would watch the Disney adaptation of Anastasia, and as I was growing up, I would read history books and fiction on this very subject. When I got my hands on ‘’Romanov’’, I knew I would be up for an adventure, with lots of expectations, but what I never knew was that I would be blown away of how beautiful this book is!
This book is split into two main parts, before and after the Romanov’s execution, but it is also split into the first being the historical part, and the second being the fictional part. Both parts of the book are quite intense, and very different emotions come up to surface, but they are both very powerful throughout, and fitted together quite well.
In the first part, we are introduced to the Romanov family, and how they are kept as hostages by the Bolsheviks. It would’ve been much better if we had more details on the pre-hostage period, why the revolution began, why the king abducted the throne, who are the Bolsheviks and what they believed in. The book starts in the middle of this whole situation, and whilst I knew the beginning before, I am certain a lot of people wouldn’t have.
The history, as much accurate as it was, also had a personalized feeling that the author wanted to give. I have to admit, a lot of the details, especially around the family were quite accurate. The family did stick together and loved each other, they did have secrets and they did make friends with their captors. Anastasia’s brother did indeed had hemophilia and Rasputin was allegedly helping him. However, the author decided to put her personal feelings into the history as well. The king is presented as a wonderful leader that cares about the people. I understand that we see this story from Anastasia’s point of view, and as his daughter, she is supposed to see her father as the best figure in the world. But I still believe this part should be more objective, if not from Anastasia’s point of view, then at least by the king’s actions and dialogues. The other big element that bothered me was the portrayal of Rasputin. He is shown in this book as a family helper and a kind man, when in fact, he was far from that. In the history books, he is described as a madman, a creepy person, and the king was not happy of him coming in the house. The family’s secrecy and the queen’s silent domination over the king, together with Rasputin’s doings were the start of the revolution, and I believe that it one of the required truths that this books should have included, but didn’t. And that troubled me.
On top of this, is the Russian language used throughout this book. There were a lot of spelling errors, and misinterpretations. And whilst I can understand these words, many people can’t, and translation wasn’t provided in the book. Also, I really found this quote interesting, talking about the Russian culture, and how they don’t show emotions. Just a note – this is most of the time true, people won’t be nice to strangers, but actually, Russian people are quite friendly and emotional as well.
‘’We Russians weren’t required to share any amount of emotion we didn’t want to.’’
Apart from these few things that slightly bothered me, I really enjoyed this book. Anastasia is an amazing character, and through her we can see her love towards her family, her country, and even towards the people that wish her harm. We get to see her love, cry, be hurt, be afraid, forgive, and grow throughout the book, and her journey was magical.
‘’As I lay in the grass next to the spell that could rid me of heart pain, I realized that a part of forgiveness was accepting the things someone had done – and the pain that came with that – and moving on with love. Forgiveness was a personal battle that must always be fought in my heart.’’
I loved the beginning of the book the most. The setting was well-written, and I got the feel the same way as the Romanov family did. They tried to act as if everything was normal, when in fact, they were held captive, and moved out of their home. They weren’t allowed to go out in the garden often, and when they did have this opportunity, they enjoyed every single second of it. And they all had hope every single day. They kept smiling and stayed together.
There are number of scenes that will always stay close to my heart – the relationship between Zash and Anastasia (as unrealistic as it might be), always kept me on my toes, his desperation, and his guilt, and her ability to forgive and love regardless.
The brother’s illness, and his persistence through it. His motivation and his will to never give up. The love he holds for his family, and especially his sister Anastasia, and the toughness and not letting go. A few scenes were unrealistic with him, as I hardly believe anyone suffering from hemophilia can survive all those injuries mentioned in the book and the pools of blood, but above all – this character did achieve what he was meant to do – show hope where there is none.
A wonderful and magical tale, with a history behind it of a mysterious family, especially their end – this book brought tears on my eyes and made me think about the power of forgiveness and love. A true masterpiece.
Thank you to Nadine Brandes, for letting me be a part of her Ninja Team.
The history books say I died.
They don’t know the half of it.
Ever since I read Fawkes, I knew I loved Nadine’s writing, and when Romanov was announced, I couldn’t be happier. As I have spend my childhood and young adult life in the Balkans, whilst travelling across Europe, I have always admired Russia, and always enjoyed reading all the theories about the Romanov family.
As a child I would be told stories and fairy tales, I would watch the Disney adaptation of Anastasia, and as I was growing up, I would read history books and fiction on this very subject. When I got my hands on ‘’Romanov’’, I knew I would be up for an adventure, with lots of expectations, but what I never knew was that I would be blown away of how beautiful this book is!
This book is split into two main parts, before and after the Romanov’s execution, but it is also split into the first being the historical part, and the second being the fictional part. Both parts of the book are quite intense, and very different emotions come up to surface, but they are both very powerful throughout, and fitted together quite well.
In the first part, we are introduced to the Romanov family, and how they are kept as hostages by the Bolsheviks. It would’ve been much better if we had more details on the pre-hostage period, why the revolution began, why the king abducted the throne, who are the Bolsheviks and what they believed in. The book starts in the middle of this whole situation, and whilst I knew the beginning before, I am certain a lot of people wouldn’t have.
The history, as much accurate as it was, also had a personalized feeling that the author wanted to give. I have to admit, a lot of the details, especially around the family were quite accurate. The family did stick together and loved each other, they did have secrets and they did make friends with their captors. Anastasia’s brother did indeed had hemophilia and Rasputin was allegedly helping him. However, the author decided to put her personal feelings into the history as well. The king is presented as a wonderful leader that cares about the people. I understand that we see this story from Anastasia’s point of view, and as his daughter, she is supposed to see her father as the best figure in the world. But I still believe this part should be more objective, if not from Anastasia’s point of view, then at least by the king’s actions and dialogues. The other big element that bothered me was the portrayal of Rasputin. He is shown in this book as a family helper and a kind man, when in fact, he was far from that. In the history books, he is described as a madman, a creepy person, and the king was not happy of him coming in the house. The family’s secrecy and the queen’s silent domination over the king, together with Rasputin’s doings were the start of the revolution, and I believe that it one of the required truths that this books should have included, but didn’t. And that troubled me.
On top of this, is the Russian language used throughout this book. There were a lot of spelling errors, and misinterpretations. And whilst I can understand these words, many people can’t, and translation wasn’t provided in the book. Also, I really found this quote interesting, talking about the Russian culture, and how they don’t show emotions. Just a note – this is most of the time true, people won’t be nice to strangers, but actually, Russian people are quite friendly and emotional as well.
‘’We Russians weren’t required to share any amount of emotion we didn’t want to.’’
Apart from these few things that slightly bothered me, I really enjoyed this book. Anastasia is an amazing character, and through her we can see her love towards her family, her country, and even towards the people that wish her harm. We get to see her love, cry, be hurt, be afraid, forgive, and grow throughout the book, and her journey was magical.
‘’As I lay in the grass next to the spell that could rid me of heart pain, I realized that a part of forgiveness was accepting the things someone had done – and the pain that came with that – and moving on with love. Forgiveness was a personal battle that must always be fought in my heart.’’
I loved the beginning of the book the most. The setting was well-written, and I got the feel the same way as the Romanov family did. They tried to act as if everything was normal, when in fact, they were held captive, and moved out of their home. They weren’t allowed to go out in the garden often, and when they did have this opportunity, they enjoyed every single second of it. And they all had hope every single day. They kept smiling and stayed together.
There are number of scenes that will always stay close to my heart – the relationship between Zash and Anastasia (as unrealistic as it might be), always kept me on my toes, his desperation, and his guilt, and her ability to forgive and love regardless.
The brother’s illness, and his persistence through it. His motivation and his will to never give up. The love he holds for his family, and especially his sister Anastasia, and the toughness and not letting go. A few scenes were unrealistic with him, as I hardly believe anyone suffering from hemophilia can survive all those injuries mentioned in the book and the pools of blood, but above all – this character did achieve what he was meant to do – show hope where there is none.
A wonderful and magical tale, with a history behind it of a mysterious family, especially their end – this book brought tears on my eyes and made me think about the power of forgiveness and love. A true masterpiece.
Thank you to Nadine Brandes, for letting me be a part of her Ninja Team.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Gem Blenders in Tabletop Games
Oct 24, 2019
Collectible Card Games (CCG) and Living Card Games (LCG) are enjoyed by the members of Purple Phoenix Games. From these genres we primarily play Lord of the Rings LCG, A Game of Thrones (2e) LCG, and DiceMasters (ok we kinda cheated here but it still applies). So we are no strangers to constructing decks or teams and going head-to-head to defeat opponents. When I heard about Gem Blenders being a CCG with an interesting theme, I knew we had to try it.
Gem Blenders is a competitive card game of upgrading (blending) heroes into stronger forces that will attack your opponent’s HP. The winner is the player who can decrease their opponent’s HP to zero first.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. As this is a preview copy of the game, I do not know if the final rules or components will be similar or different to what we were provided. Similarly, our copy came with two pre-constructed decks ready to duel. -T
To setup, players will need to construct their decks according to the construction requirements and limitations found in the rulebook. I will not be covering every rule found in the rulebook here, as the rules are very extensive. Once the four heroes per player are chosen, they must be arranged in a diamond pattern with the Left, Center, and Right heroes being on the “front line” and the Back hero being the sole back liner. Front line heroes can attack, but the hero in back cannot. Draw your opening hand of six cards and you are ready to play! Wait, you don’t like your initial draw? Ok then, shuffle back into your deck and draw a new set of six. You are ready to play!
On a turn a player will complete three phases. Firstly, draw a card. The next phase is to play cards from your hand. You are allowed to play one gem card per turn, so initially players will probably be attaching gems to heroes. Simply slide the gem card under the top of the hero card so that the colored gem graphic can be seen (see below). Other actions include attack (once per turn), blend or de-blend heroes, discard gems, activate hero effects, and play action cards.
Heroes will have effects printed on their cards with instructions on how to use them. You may use all four heroes’ effects if possible in any turn. Discarding gems is self-explanatory, and there are cards in the game that can activate or become more powerful depending on having gems in the discard pile. Action cards can help players manipulate their decks, search for specific cards, or even cancel another player’s action out of turn. They can be severely powerful, so there are strict limitations as to which Action cards and how many of them you may keep in your deck.
Blending heroes is a crux of the game and the way to make your heroes stronger in battle. By collecting the gems and attaching them to your heroes you are providing them with requirements for blending. You may only blend a hero when they have the appropriate gems attached to them according to the Blend card you wish to play. The hero then becomes the blended hero with the new effects and stronger Attack and Defense values. These are important stats for the Attack action. When a player Attacks, they choose which of their front line heroes they would like to send into battle (or all of them). The attackers may only attack the heroes directly opposite them on the table. So a Center hero may only attack the other Center hero across from them (in a 2 player game). Stats are simply compared and any attack power that remains undefended will be deducted from the defender player’s HP.
The last step of a turn is declaring your turn over. Then the next player may take their turn. Play will continue in this fashion until one player has zero HP and a winner is figured.
Components. To reiterate, we were provided a prototype copy of the game, so I will not comment on aspects that may be changed as a result of a successful Kickstarter campaign or through any stretch goals. I was given no information or scoops about what is planned, so I will merely comment on what I can here. This is a card game, and came to us in a box similar to that of the Tiny Epic series, but a bit smaller. It was enough for two constructed decks of 54 cards each and a couple reference cards. We were able to play the game right out of the box this way and that was very appreciated.
However, the card layout and art style of the game is where we have our issues. I recently turned 40 and, well, my eyesight isn’t what it used to be. When playing Gem Blenders, much of the game is about upgrading your forces and attacking your opponent(s). So when I look across the table at my opponent’s card, I want to be able to clearly see their Attack and Defense. Unfortunately, the text is so small in this version of the game that we were constantly asking each other what the A and D numbers were. Now, I mentioned earlier that we play and love DiceMasters as well, and that game also suffers from readability issues, so we can begrudgingly overlook that. I hope the finished version of the game addresses this and makes adjustments on visibility of important stats.
Also, the art style of the game just did not resonate with us at all. Again, it could be such that the art will change once the game is truly finished, but considering the cards we were provided, we were hoping for something a bit flashier or more polished. As you can see from the shots here on this review, the hero cards are all black and white, the gem cards have a colorful gem in the middle of the white background of the card with a smaller iteration of the gem in the upper portion of the card. The action cards are also the stark black and white similar to the hero cards. The blend cards feature different wallpapers with a somewhat improved illustration on the front. I found that I would rather see more of the text and battle stats than the illustrations of this game.
That all said, the game is really solid, the theme is interesting, and the game play is quite fun. If it looked better it would be a great option for a quick head-to-head CCG with an excellent and inventive theme. I do hope improvements to the game are planned, and if that’s the case then I will definitely be keeping it on my radar.
Gem Blenders is a competitive card game of upgrading (blending) heroes into stronger forces that will attack your opponent’s HP. The winner is the player who can decrease their opponent’s HP to zero first.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. As this is a preview copy of the game, I do not know if the final rules or components will be similar or different to what we were provided. Similarly, our copy came with two pre-constructed decks ready to duel. -T
To setup, players will need to construct their decks according to the construction requirements and limitations found in the rulebook. I will not be covering every rule found in the rulebook here, as the rules are very extensive. Once the four heroes per player are chosen, they must be arranged in a diamond pattern with the Left, Center, and Right heroes being on the “front line” and the Back hero being the sole back liner. Front line heroes can attack, but the hero in back cannot. Draw your opening hand of six cards and you are ready to play! Wait, you don’t like your initial draw? Ok then, shuffle back into your deck and draw a new set of six. You are ready to play!
On a turn a player will complete three phases. Firstly, draw a card. The next phase is to play cards from your hand. You are allowed to play one gem card per turn, so initially players will probably be attaching gems to heroes. Simply slide the gem card under the top of the hero card so that the colored gem graphic can be seen (see below). Other actions include attack (once per turn), blend or de-blend heroes, discard gems, activate hero effects, and play action cards.
Heroes will have effects printed on their cards with instructions on how to use them. You may use all four heroes’ effects if possible in any turn. Discarding gems is self-explanatory, and there are cards in the game that can activate or become more powerful depending on having gems in the discard pile. Action cards can help players manipulate their decks, search for specific cards, or even cancel another player’s action out of turn. They can be severely powerful, so there are strict limitations as to which Action cards and how many of them you may keep in your deck.
Blending heroes is a crux of the game and the way to make your heroes stronger in battle. By collecting the gems and attaching them to your heroes you are providing them with requirements for blending. You may only blend a hero when they have the appropriate gems attached to them according to the Blend card you wish to play. The hero then becomes the blended hero with the new effects and stronger Attack and Defense values. These are important stats for the Attack action. When a player Attacks, they choose which of their front line heroes they would like to send into battle (or all of them). The attackers may only attack the heroes directly opposite them on the table. So a Center hero may only attack the other Center hero across from them (in a 2 player game). Stats are simply compared and any attack power that remains undefended will be deducted from the defender player’s HP.
The last step of a turn is declaring your turn over. Then the next player may take their turn. Play will continue in this fashion until one player has zero HP and a winner is figured.
Components. To reiterate, we were provided a prototype copy of the game, so I will not comment on aspects that may be changed as a result of a successful Kickstarter campaign or through any stretch goals. I was given no information or scoops about what is planned, so I will merely comment on what I can here. This is a card game, and came to us in a box similar to that of the Tiny Epic series, but a bit smaller. It was enough for two constructed decks of 54 cards each and a couple reference cards. We were able to play the game right out of the box this way and that was very appreciated.
However, the card layout and art style of the game is where we have our issues. I recently turned 40 and, well, my eyesight isn’t what it used to be. When playing Gem Blenders, much of the game is about upgrading your forces and attacking your opponent(s). So when I look across the table at my opponent’s card, I want to be able to clearly see their Attack and Defense. Unfortunately, the text is so small in this version of the game that we were constantly asking each other what the A and D numbers were. Now, I mentioned earlier that we play and love DiceMasters as well, and that game also suffers from readability issues, so we can begrudgingly overlook that. I hope the finished version of the game addresses this and makes adjustments on visibility of important stats.
Also, the art style of the game just did not resonate with us at all. Again, it could be such that the art will change once the game is truly finished, but considering the cards we were provided, we were hoping for something a bit flashier or more polished. As you can see from the shots here on this review, the hero cards are all black and white, the gem cards have a colorful gem in the middle of the white background of the card with a smaller iteration of the gem in the upper portion of the card. The action cards are also the stark black and white similar to the hero cards. The blend cards feature different wallpapers with a somewhat improved illustration on the front. I found that I would rather see more of the text and battle stats than the illustrations of this game.
That all said, the game is really solid, the theme is interesting, and the game play is quite fun. If it looked better it would be a great option for a quick head-to-head CCG with an excellent and inventive theme. I do hope improvements to the game are planned, and if that’s the case then I will definitely be keeping it on my radar.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Focus (2015) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
The problem with Focus is that it treats its audience like we're all as dumb as nails. While the film itself is entertaining, its cons are unconvincing, and it's not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
After watching Focus, I thought back to a great line from Will Smith’s con artist character Nicky Spurgeon, in which he proclaims, “There’s two kinds of people in this world. There’s hammers and nails. You decide which one you want to be.” It’s a powerful and chilling line of dialogue that emphasizes Nicky’s need to exert power and control over others in order to be successful in his indecent business. The problem with the film, however, is that it treats its audience like we’re all as dumb as nails.
Unfortunately, therein lies the film’s biggest problem. While I do think there is some merit in its depiction of the con game, Focus for the most part is unconvincing. Not only did I feel like I was being conned by the characters, but I felt like I was being conned by the legitimacy of the cons themselves. Most of them are quite a stretch, to say the least, but more troublesome is that their successful outcomes don’t ever feel truly earned. Everything just cleans up too neatly, due to some inane level of planning that relies on far too many improbable factors and additionally treats every mistake as if it was part of the plan all along. Therefore, trying to take Focus seriously is something of a brain-numbing exercise. While the film itself is fairly entertaining, it’s not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
As a viewer, it feels like there’s not much of a pay-off in watching them pull off their successful schemes, and that’s largely because we’re left out of the loop. We the audience are being played the whole time. We’re not given any room for our own participation and guesswork because the movie gives us no clues to help us solve the puzzle. Yet it’s inviting us to look for answers by emphasizing the importance of being focused and aware, while withholding any and all necessary clues to help us make sense of what is happening along the way.
In Focus, Will Smith plays con-man Nicky, who meets a beautiful woman named Jess (Margot Robbie) while dining alone one night. After inviting Nicky to her hotel room, Jess attempts to con him with the help of a friend, but ultimately fails. After all, you can’t hustle a hustler. Being eager to learn more, Jess wants Nicky to take her under his wing and teach her the art of his craft. What ensues is a steamy relationship and a partnership in deception.
Jess proves to be a natural in the con game, quickly earning the respect and admiration of Nicky, who allows her to join his thirty-strong crew. This team of crooks racks up millions through swindling, hustling, and pickpocketing. It’s fun to watch the action unfold, but a little disconcerting that it glorifies these criminals while they’re plainly stealing from innocent strangers. Make no mistake about it, Focus portrays them as the good guys, and offers little to no consequence for their devious actions. Still, it’s hard to root against this cast of con-artists, and you’ll want to see how they manage to get away with it all.
Instead, Focus tries to make you believe there isn’t any con in play at all, only to later pull out the rug to reveal a highly ludicrous scenario. It feels dishonest and cheap, like it’s essentially cheating its way to the desired outcome without doing the work to get there. It’s selling its own capers short and taking the fun out of them. Thus even the climax of the film feels disjointed because we can’t believe what we’re seeing and just have to watch incredulously as we wait for the inevitable far-fetched explanation.
Despite the shortcomings of the cons, I would like to express that the film still does plenty of things right. First and foremost, Will Smith shines in his performance, adding enough perplexity to his character to keep you on your toes. He makes it hard to tell whether or not his character Nicky is bluffing, which helps add to the tension of scenes. Even when Nicky appears to break character and let his guard down, I still found myself guessing about his true intentions. While the movie is overall somewhat of a letdown, I can safely say that Will Smith absolutely nails it.
The only issue I had with Will Smith is his character’s obsession with Margot Robbie’s Jess. I’m sure many guys could attest to a Margot Robbie obsession, but I’m not one of those guys. While the chemistry between Smith and Robbie was fairly good, it did seem more than a tad blown out of proportion. The romance between them felt rushed and more lustful than loving. Still, Robbie gives a respectable performance of deception and allure.
I would like to particularly applaud the work of B.D. Wong, who plays a high-stakes roller that gambles with Nicky during the Super Bowl, in what is my personal favorite scene of the movie. The tension between Wong and Smith is absolutely electrifying, and they play off of each other extraordinarily well. I was on the edge of my seat throughout their whole encounter, only to have the moment spoiled by an absurd and unlikely final outcome.
The other performances are all adequate, though most of the characters are given little screen time, aside from Nicky’s perverted, overweight associate Farhad (Adrian Martinez) who musters up a few laughs. The dialogue can be pretty hit-or-miss, and the plot is rather thin, but the production values are outstanding. This is a film that is unmistakably beautiful to look at, with gorgeous sets and superb camera work. One particularly admirable scene has the camera placed in the passenger seat focused on a man who is gearing himself up before he deliberately crashes his car head-on into another. It’s a moment that feels like a strange detour, and yet it’s so bizarre and memorable that it just works.
Focus has the makings of an excellent film, but it regrettably drops the ball by fumbling the con game. If only the cons themselves weren’t so far-fetched and sloppy, the whole movie would have been a whole lot more effective. Despite the film’s insistence that you look closely, its most pivotal moments don’t hold up to any sort of analysis or scrutiny. In other words, this is a film that would be best enjoyed out of focus.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 1.31.16.)
Unfortunately, therein lies the film’s biggest problem. While I do think there is some merit in its depiction of the con game, Focus for the most part is unconvincing. Not only did I feel like I was being conned by the characters, but I felt like I was being conned by the legitimacy of the cons themselves. Most of them are quite a stretch, to say the least, but more troublesome is that their successful outcomes don’t ever feel truly earned. Everything just cleans up too neatly, due to some inane level of planning that relies on far too many improbable factors and additionally treats every mistake as if it was part of the plan all along. Therefore, trying to take Focus seriously is something of a brain-numbing exercise. While the film itself is fairly entertaining, it’s not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
As a viewer, it feels like there’s not much of a pay-off in watching them pull off their successful schemes, and that’s largely because we’re left out of the loop. We the audience are being played the whole time. We’re not given any room for our own participation and guesswork because the movie gives us no clues to help us solve the puzzle. Yet it’s inviting us to look for answers by emphasizing the importance of being focused and aware, while withholding any and all necessary clues to help us make sense of what is happening along the way.
In Focus, Will Smith plays con-man Nicky, who meets a beautiful woman named Jess (Margot Robbie) while dining alone one night. After inviting Nicky to her hotel room, Jess attempts to con him with the help of a friend, but ultimately fails. After all, you can’t hustle a hustler. Being eager to learn more, Jess wants Nicky to take her under his wing and teach her the art of his craft. What ensues is a steamy relationship and a partnership in deception.
Jess proves to be a natural in the con game, quickly earning the respect and admiration of Nicky, who allows her to join his thirty-strong crew. This team of crooks racks up millions through swindling, hustling, and pickpocketing. It’s fun to watch the action unfold, but a little disconcerting that it glorifies these criminals while they’re plainly stealing from innocent strangers. Make no mistake about it, Focus portrays them as the good guys, and offers little to no consequence for their devious actions. Still, it’s hard to root against this cast of con-artists, and you’ll want to see how they manage to get away with it all.
Instead, Focus tries to make you believe there isn’t any con in play at all, only to later pull out the rug to reveal a highly ludicrous scenario. It feels dishonest and cheap, like it’s essentially cheating its way to the desired outcome without doing the work to get there. It’s selling its own capers short and taking the fun out of them. Thus even the climax of the film feels disjointed because we can’t believe what we’re seeing and just have to watch incredulously as we wait for the inevitable far-fetched explanation.
Despite the shortcomings of the cons, I would like to express that the film still does plenty of things right. First and foremost, Will Smith shines in his performance, adding enough perplexity to his character to keep you on your toes. He makes it hard to tell whether or not his character Nicky is bluffing, which helps add to the tension of scenes. Even when Nicky appears to break character and let his guard down, I still found myself guessing about his true intentions. While the movie is overall somewhat of a letdown, I can safely say that Will Smith absolutely nails it.
The only issue I had with Will Smith is his character’s obsession with Margot Robbie’s Jess. I’m sure many guys could attest to a Margot Robbie obsession, but I’m not one of those guys. While the chemistry between Smith and Robbie was fairly good, it did seem more than a tad blown out of proportion. The romance between them felt rushed and more lustful than loving. Still, Robbie gives a respectable performance of deception and allure.
I would like to particularly applaud the work of B.D. Wong, who plays a high-stakes roller that gambles with Nicky during the Super Bowl, in what is my personal favorite scene of the movie. The tension between Wong and Smith is absolutely electrifying, and they play off of each other extraordinarily well. I was on the edge of my seat throughout their whole encounter, only to have the moment spoiled by an absurd and unlikely final outcome.
The other performances are all adequate, though most of the characters are given little screen time, aside from Nicky’s perverted, overweight associate Farhad (Adrian Martinez) who musters up a few laughs. The dialogue can be pretty hit-or-miss, and the plot is rather thin, but the production values are outstanding. This is a film that is unmistakably beautiful to look at, with gorgeous sets and superb camera work. One particularly admirable scene has the camera placed in the passenger seat focused on a man who is gearing himself up before he deliberately crashes his car head-on into another. It’s a moment that feels like a strange detour, and yet it’s so bizarre and memorable that it just works.
Focus has the makings of an excellent film, but it regrettably drops the ball by fumbling the con game. If only the cons themselves weren’t so far-fetched and sloppy, the whole movie would have been a whole lot more effective. Despite the film’s insistence that you look closely, its most pivotal moments don’t hold up to any sort of analysis or scrutiny. In other words, this is a film that would be best enjoyed out of focus.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 1.31.16.)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Ghoulash in Tabletop Games
Sep 3, 2019
Beef, elbow macaroni, tomato sauce, onions, garlic, many other spices. Combine. This is goulash.
Wait, this is Ghoulash? Ok so ditch the food and add Ghoul meat, dashes of Ghoo, some falling debris, and holes. Also add an opponent to play against and you have a recipe for a really great game. Intrigued by my recipe? Read on. This is Ghoulash.
When you name a game (and game company) using a pun for a delicious meal you just KNOW everyone is going to be making these jokes. I am not below this. However, Ghoulash pits two players against each other in a race to defeat eight Ghouls first – or die trying. This is a pencil and paper game contained on one double-sided sheet of paper (with the rules printed on the other side). With such little in components, this game CAN’T be very good, right?
DISCLAIMER: We were provided with a link to print off the game, so technically it’s a PNP for us. We printed off several copies to play our review games. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. -T
To setup a game of Ghoulash: The Game of Pen and Paper Peril (which I will be calling simply Ghoulash for the remainder of this review) grab two copies of the game sheet and two writing utensils. Though the game’s title suggests using a pen, I recommend a pencil. From here, you will need to decide which map grid you want to use for your play map and which will be your DM map. For those who have not played table top RPG’s before, a DM is a Dungeon Master – the person who ultimately runs the game and is typically in charge of placing and playing the monsters, traps, and NPCs of a game. In this case, each player will be each other’s DM. You will see the number of items that must be placed on the map on the main page. You must place (anywhere you want on the map) eight Ghouls, five Holes, five Debris, and three First-Aid Kits. Seriously. Anywhere you want. These are the items and encounters your opponent will be interacting with as you play. You are now ready to begin!
On your turn you will be moving through the map attempting to encounter and kill Ghouls – blobby monsters that want to eat you. You do this by moving onto a square that your opponent has placed a Ghoul and fighting it. Fighting Ghouls is easy: your DM opponent will circle any number on the Ghoul you are fighting. You need to guess this number in order to exploit its weak spot and vanquish it. For every incorrect guess YOU will take a wound from it bashing you. Mark your wounds on the Wound Meters area below the Ghouls. If you happen to take 12 wounds before finding a First-Aid Kit, then you die and you lose the game. Finding a First-Aid Kit, however, will relieve you of all your wounds you have suffered. In this scenario, you will begin tracking your wounds anew on the next Wound Meter on the tracker.
Like I mentioned earlier, other traps will be awaiting you in your personal hell dungeon. When you fall into a Hole you will forfeit the rest of your turn and you will skip your next turn entirely. Should you move onto a square containing Debris, you will be hit for one wound from falling bits of the rickety dungeon. Or perhaps it’s guano. You never know.
The player to defeat all eight ghouls or remain living the longest will be the winner (unless you play hardcore rules and have to defeat all Ghouls to win)!
Usually at this point in my reviews I evaluate the game components. In this case I am going to evaluate how the game art and graphic design work with and for the game. As the entire game is played on one side of one sheet of paper and everything you really need is located on that page, this is really genius to me. Everything is right there, and it’s very clear what to place on the map, how many of each thing to place, and where you can track the Ghouls, wounds, and your Ghoul trophies. It’s really great! The only negative here is we wished the letters and numbers on the x and y axes were darker. It was a little difficult for some people to read the coordinates. This would be an easy fix for me, but it may not be within the designer’s vision for the layout. Many times we were describing our movement with Battleship coordinates: I am moving south to B-1 then east to P-1 then north to P-2, etc. I didn’t have much difficulty with this, but I did hear that others did.
I believe that the intent of the future of Ghoulash is to offer pre-printed charts for sale and possibly have different themed charts to play. The eagle-eyed among you may have noticed that we were playing The City map. I have not seen any other maps, so I cannot comment on them, but even if I only had The City to play forever, I think that I would be happy enough.
That said, I believe this is a really really great game. I enjoyed being able to place out my encounter elements, and being able to freely roam around the map until I ran into something – even if it was a hole in the middle of an intersection that I had to fall through several times (sneaky, sneaky, my brilliant little brother!). The guessing game of fighting Ghouls can be quick and fun, or it can give you five wounds in one encounter. Overall, I think that anyone can enjoy it, but I will give a caveat. Both players MUST be able to read the map and coordinates to follow along with where each player is moving or else you may have some bickering. Oh, just my family? Maybe.
Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a sticky-yet-pleasing 10 / 12. You really should give it a shot. It could work with couples, friends, co-workers, strangers, pets, anyone!
Wait, this is Ghoulash? Ok so ditch the food and add Ghoul meat, dashes of Ghoo, some falling debris, and holes. Also add an opponent to play against and you have a recipe for a really great game. Intrigued by my recipe? Read on. This is Ghoulash.
When you name a game (and game company) using a pun for a delicious meal you just KNOW everyone is going to be making these jokes. I am not below this. However, Ghoulash pits two players against each other in a race to defeat eight Ghouls first – or die trying. This is a pencil and paper game contained on one double-sided sheet of paper (with the rules printed on the other side). With such little in components, this game CAN’T be very good, right?
DISCLAIMER: We were provided with a link to print off the game, so technically it’s a PNP for us. We printed off several copies to play our review games. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. -T
To setup a game of Ghoulash: The Game of Pen and Paper Peril (which I will be calling simply Ghoulash for the remainder of this review) grab two copies of the game sheet and two writing utensils. Though the game’s title suggests using a pen, I recommend a pencil. From here, you will need to decide which map grid you want to use for your play map and which will be your DM map. For those who have not played table top RPG’s before, a DM is a Dungeon Master – the person who ultimately runs the game and is typically in charge of placing and playing the monsters, traps, and NPCs of a game. In this case, each player will be each other’s DM. You will see the number of items that must be placed on the map on the main page. You must place (anywhere you want on the map) eight Ghouls, five Holes, five Debris, and three First-Aid Kits. Seriously. Anywhere you want. These are the items and encounters your opponent will be interacting with as you play. You are now ready to begin!
On your turn you will be moving through the map attempting to encounter and kill Ghouls – blobby monsters that want to eat you. You do this by moving onto a square that your opponent has placed a Ghoul and fighting it. Fighting Ghouls is easy: your DM opponent will circle any number on the Ghoul you are fighting. You need to guess this number in order to exploit its weak spot and vanquish it. For every incorrect guess YOU will take a wound from it bashing you. Mark your wounds on the Wound Meters area below the Ghouls. If you happen to take 12 wounds before finding a First-Aid Kit, then you die and you lose the game. Finding a First-Aid Kit, however, will relieve you of all your wounds you have suffered. In this scenario, you will begin tracking your wounds anew on the next Wound Meter on the tracker.
Like I mentioned earlier, other traps will be awaiting you in your personal hell dungeon. When you fall into a Hole you will forfeit the rest of your turn and you will skip your next turn entirely. Should you move onto a square containing Debris, you will be hit for one wound from falling bits of the rickety dungeon. Or perhaps it’s guano. You never know.
The player to defeat all eight ghouls or remain living the longest will be the winner (unless you play hardcore rules and have to defeat all Ghouls to win)!
Usually at this point in my reviews I evaluate the game components. In this case I am going to evaluate how the game art and graphic design work with and for the game. As the entire game is played on one side of one sheet of paper and everything you really need is located on that page, this is really genius to me. Everything is right there, and it’s very clear what to place on the map, how many of each thing to place, and where you can track the Ghouls, wounds, and your Ghoul trophies. It’s really great! The only negative here is we wished the letters and numbers on the x and y axes were darker. It was a little difficult for some people to read the coordinates. This would be an easy fix for me, but it may not be within the designer’s vision for the layout. Many times we were describing our movement with Battleship coordinates: I am moving south to B-1 then east to P-1 then north to P-2, etc. I didn’t have much difficulty with this, but I did hear that others did.
I believe that the intent of the future of Ghoulash is to offer pre-printed charts for sale and possibly have different themed charts to play. The eagle-eyed among you may have noticed that we were playing The City map. I have not seen any other maps, so I cannot comment on them, but even if I only had The City to play forever, I think that I would be happy enough.
That said, I believe this is a really really great game. I enjoyed being able to place out my encounter elements, and being able to freely roam around the map until I ran into something – even if it was a hole in the middle of an intersection that I had to fall through several times (sneaky, sneaky, my brilliant little brother!). The guessing game of fighting Ghouls can be quick and fun, or it can give you five wounds in one encounter. Overall, I think that anyone can enjoy it, but I will give a caveat. Both players MUST be able to read the map and coordinates to follow along with where each player is moving or else you may have some bickering. Oh, just my family? Maybe.
Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a sticky-yet-pleasing 10 / 12. You really should give it a shot. It could work with couples, friends, co-workers, strangers, pets, anyone!