Search
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Broom Service in Tabletop Games
Jun 24, 2021
A show of hands for all of us who have dressed for Halloween as a witch, wizard, druid, fairy, or the like. My hand is raised. How awesome would it be to actually have power to fly – even by broomstick? Or to make some excellent magic potions? Well daydream no more. Broom Service puts you into the world of flying witches and gathering druids and even Weather Fairies all to help your business deliver potions to towers and other buildings with magical tenants.
At its heart Broom Service is a trick-taking card game with pick-up-and-deliver mechanics flowing to the board. Each player will be attempting to supply the board’s towers and castles with magic potions, but they will need to craft them first. AND one does not simply HAVE potion ingredients handy – they need to gather the correct supplies. The winner of Broom Service is the player who best can supply areas of the board by claiming tricks to increase production of said potions.
To setup place the board in the middle of the table (I am waiting for a game to come along that asks you to place the board in the Northwest quadrant of the table or something similar). Populate the board with the proper Heavy Cloud tokens to be whisked away by players for points and access to additional board areas. Place player score tokens on 10 VP along the VP track. Shuffle the Event deck and randomly place seven cards in a draw pile, revealing one into the discard. Each player will receive their two witch hat pawns to be placed on the main castles, a deck of 10 role cards from which they will choose four each round, a set of one each of the three colors of potions, and magic wands per the rules. The game can now begin!
On a player’s turn they will choose one of their four role cards and place it face down in front of themselves. Once all have done this, the starting player will announce their chosen role and declare that they wish to be Cowardly or Brave. For instance, a player may say, “I am a Cowardly Fruit Gatherer” whilst revealing their role card. By declaring Cowardly, the player immediately performs the action on the bottom of the card for Cowardly Fruit Gatherers: produce one purple potion. In order to perform the actions on top of the card the player would need to declare that they are Brave. The player will not perform the action quite yet as now play continues to the next player in line who, if they also chose to play the Fruit Gatherer card, will declare if they will also be Brave. If so, the newest player to claim Brave will be essentially winning the Brave Fruit Gatherer trick. This continues around the table until the very last Brave Fruit Gatherer has declared and won the trick. The winning player then performs the action while all other previous Brave Fruit Gatherers receive NOTHING. Brutal.
The game continues in this fashion of players bidding on Brave roles for better results (as in the example, a Brave Fruit Gatherer is able to make two purple potions AND another potion of their choice) until players have played seven rounds. They then add up their points per the rule book and the winner is determined!
Now, this is a brief explanation of the trick-taking aspect of the game, but other roles actually allow players to deliver the potions made, and still others allow players to use their magic wands to whisk away Heavy Clouds for VPs and remove their board space blocking qualities. Each time a potion is delivered, the player will earn VPs. The trick-taking aspect is simply the gist and also crux of the game.
Components. I love the components in Broom Service. The board is nice and super colorful, with all areas easy to read and understand (though some players have issues with where the towers actually lie on the board, but you must look at which area the BASES of the towers touch to determine this). The cards have wistful artwork on them and the art throughout is stellar. The wooden witch hats and potions are all great, and I love the colors used on these – I mean, orange and purple go super well together. And then there’s green. All in all the components in Broom Service are just great.
That said, I give Broom Service excellent marks because it truly is a better implementation of its predecessor, Witch’s Brew, in almost every aspect (even though my wife disagrees). The art is better, the components are better, the addition of the board and its mechanics add so much to the game. I love being able to travel to different areas of the board to deliver items, and I really don’t have too many pick-up-and-deliver style games, so this really fills a niche in my collection. Also, on another personal note, Halloween happens to be my favorite holiday and Broom Service is certainly a game for that season. I am definitely not alone in my assessment of this one, as Purple Phoenix Games gives Broom Service a whooshy 14 / 18. Come at me on this one because I am defo a Brave Mountain Witch… or just a normal reviewer who likes this game a whole lot.
At its heart Broom Service is a trick-taking card game with pick-up-and-deliver mechanics flowing to the board. Each player will be attempting to supply the board’s towers and castles with magic potions, but they will need to craft them first. AND one does not simply HAVE potion ingredients handy – they need to gather the correct supplies. The winner of Broom Service is the player who best can supply areas of the board by claiming tricks to increase production of said potions.
To setup place the board in the middle of the table (I am waiting for a game to come along that asks you to place the board in the Northwest quadrant of the table or something similar). Populate the board with the proper Heavy Cloud tokens to be whisked away by players for points and access to additional board areas. Place player score tokens on 10 VP along the VP track. Shuffle the Event deck and randomly place seven cards in a draw pile, revealing one into the discard. Each player will receive their two witch hat pawns to be placed on the main castles, a deck of 10 role cards from which they will choose four each round, a set of one each of the three colors of potions, and magic wands per the rules. The game can now begin!
On a player’s turn they will choose one of their four role cards and place it face down in front of themselves. Once all have done this, the starting player will announce their chosen role and declare that they wish to be Cowardly or Brave. For instance, a player may say, “I am a Cowardly Fruit Gatherer” whilst revealing their role card. By declaring Cowardly, the player immediately performs the action on the bottom of the card for Cowardly Fruit Gatherers: produce one purple potion. In order to perform the actions on top of the card the player would need to declare that they are Brave. The player will not perform the action quite yet as now play continues to the next player in line who, if they also chose to play the Fruit Gatherer card, will declare if they will also be Brave. If so, the newest player to claim Brave will be essentially winning the Brave Fruit Gatherer trick. This continues around the table until the very last Brave Fruit Gatherer has declared and won the trick. The winning player then performs the action while all other previous Brave Fruit Gatherers receive NOTHING. Brutal.
The game continues in this fashion of players bidding on Brave roles for better results (as in the example, a Brave Fruit Gatherer is able to make two purple potions AND another potion of their choice) until players have played seven rounds. They then add up their points per the rule book and the winner is determined!
Now, this is a brief explanation of the trick-taking aspect of the game, but other roles actually allow players to deliver the potions made, and still others allow players to use their magic wands to whisk away Heavy Clouds for VPs and remove their board space blocking qualities. Each time a potion is delivered, the player will earn VPs. The trick-taking aspect is simply the gist and also crux of the game.
Components. I love the components in Broom Service. The board is nice and super colorful, with all areas easy to read and understand (though some players have issues with where the towers actually lie on the board, but you must look at which area the BASES of the towers touch to determine this). The cards have wistful artwork on them and the art throughout is stellar. The wooden witch hats and potions are all great, and I love the colors used on these – I mean, orange and purple go super well together. And then there’s green. All in all the components in Broom Service are just great.
That said, I give Broom Service excellent marks because it truly is a better implementation of its predecessor, Witch’s Brew, in almost every aspect (even though my wife disagrees). The art is better, the components are better, the addition of the board and its mechanics add so much to the game. I love being able to travel to different areas of the board to deliver items, and I really don’t have too many pick-up-and-deliver style games, so this really fills a niche in my collection. Also, on another personal note, Halloween happens to be my favorite holiday and Broom Service is certainly a game for that season. I am definitely not alone in my assessment of this one, as Purple Phoenix Games gives Broom Service a whooshy 14 / 18. Come at me on this one because I am defo a Brave Mountain Witch… or just a normal reviewer who likes this game a whole lot.
Gotham is the kind of show where I wonder whether they tried to save money by just having the interns write the script. It's got that stilted, on-the-nose kind of dialogue that makes me just feel bad for the actors. For a while I thought the quality of the writing varied from scene to scene, but it was really just that a certain few actors (those that play Fish Mooney, Ed Nygma, and Harvey Bullock spring to mind) that were able to transcend the material they were working with, while others struggled and some just seemed to give up.
Season one starts off promisingly enough for a superhero themed crime show. The premise is solid - we get to watch how these superheroes and supervillians come to be. And that is really the draw that keeps me watching - the character driven moments where we see Nygma descend into madness, the Penguin rise through the ranks of the underworld, Mooney wrestle to keep control of her little patch of Gotham. The conflict James Gordon faces in the first season - a Lawful Good character up against rampant, insidious, and impossible to root up corruption throughout every level of Gotham's government is genuinely interesting and feels like a relevant emotional thread that keeps you going through all of the schlocky and improbable events. All three seasons seem to have a firm grasp of their season plot arc and tentpole moments, setting up the next season nicely for whatever main villain and evil will be explored, but I feel like the tone of the show has shifted wildly. The show can't decide if it's gritty or campy, whether it's a comic book or a crime procedural. It handwaves technology and superpowers in a way that fails to establish in-world rules or limitations. So every super power is all-powerful until plot convenient. I also just personally hate the third season "blood virus" arc and the non-canonical Mad Hatter who speaks in rhyming couplets.
Speaking of which, I'd love to tell the writers that a mass of contradictory, plot-convenient impulses does not a strong female character make. Barbara Kean's story arc makes absolutely no sense. Lee Thompkins seems only to exist to push Gordon to do things he wouldn't otherwise, and Selina Kyle is easily swapped out with every spunky street urchin ever.
I almost want to be offended that every single queer character is, or ends up being, a baddie, but honestly I think that's probably just because the antagonists are more interesting and fleshed out characters to begin with. Still, there's some serious issues with representation (shocker). The third season introduces a really icky variant of the Born Sexy Yesterday trope (watch the video by the Pop Culture Detective, it's worth it.)
Still, I think the casting is pretty great, acting ability aside. The costuming is good, although everything is hampered by the show's refusal to nail down any sort of time period. The dream sequences in the first two seasons are beautiful. I love Oswald Cobblepot and Ed Nygma, and I'd love to see the actor who plays Bruce Wayne master more than just his admittedly very good "holding back tears" expression.
If you're looking for something campy, if you like your villians and your superheroes, and if you need something to watch while you fold laundry or go to sleep, I would recommend this show. It's a show that thrives on tired old tropes, but it lifts those tropes from its source material, so fans of comics might enjoy it, or might be aggrieved at the retconning of beloved old character's backstories.
Whatever you do, don't call Nymga insane. He's better now. He has a certificate.
Season one starts off promisingly enough for a superhero themed crime show. The premise is solid - we get to watch how these superheroes and supervillians come to be. And that is really the draw that keeps me watching - the character driven moments where we see Nygma descend into madness, the Penguin rise through the ranks of the underworld, Mooney wrestle to keep control of her little patch of Gotham. The conflict James Gordon faces in the first season - a Lawful Good character up against rampant, insidious, and impossible to root up corruption throughout every level of Gotham's government is genuinely interesting and feels like a relevant emotional thread that keeps you going through all of the schlocky and improbable events. All three seasons seem to have a firm grasp of their season plot arc and tentpole moments, setting up the next season nicely for whatever main villain and evil will be explored, but I feel like the tone of the show has shifted wildly. The show can't decide if it's gritty or campy, whether it's a comic book or a crime procedural. It handwaves technology and superpowers in a way that fails to establish in-world rules or limitations. So every super power is all-powerful until plot convenient. I also just personally hate the third season "blood virus" arc and the non-canonical Mad Hatter who speaks in rhyming couplets.
Speaking of which, I'd love to tell the writers that a mass of contradictory, plot-convenient impulses does not a strong female character make. Barbara Kean's story arc makes absolutely no sense. Lee Thompkins seems only to exist to push Gordon to do things he wouldn't otherwise, and Selina Kyle is easily swapped out with every spunky street urchin ever.
I almost want to be offended that every single queer character is, or ends up being, a baddie, but honestly I think that's probably just because the antagonists are more interesting and fleshed out characters to begin with. Still, there's some serious issues with representation (shocker). The third season introduces a really icky variant of the Born Sexy Yesterday trope (watch the video by the Pop Culture Detective, it's worth it.)
Still, I think the casting is pretty great, acting ability aside. The costuming is good, although everything is hampered by the show's refusal to nail down any sort of time period. The dream sequences in the first two seasons are beautiful. I love Oswald Cobblepot and Ed Nygma, and I'd love to see the actor who plays Bruce Wayne master more than just his admittedly very good "holding back tears" expression.
If you're looking for something campy, if you like your villians and your superheroes, and if you need something to watch while you fold laundry or go to sleep, I would recommend this show. It's a show that thrives on tired old tropes, but it lifts those tropes from its source material, so fans of comics might enjoy it, or might be aggrieved at the retconning of beloved old character's backstories.
Whatever you do, don't call Nymga insane. He's better now. He has a certificate.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Jan 8, 2019 (Updated Jan 8, 2019)
Wishy Washy
I was excited to see this movie after hearing the glowing reviews and praise it was getting. I am also a fan of Jason Momoa and James Wan, so I was really hoping for this to be at least as good as Wonder Woman. Also, being a long time fan of DC Comics, I really want to see them find their footing cinematically and I thought that this could finally be the start of that. Unfortunately I left the cinema feeling pretty underwhelmed.
The movie opens by telling the story of how Aquaman's parents came to meet and fall in love, even though they are from vastly different worlds. This whole sequence is brilliant and I was totally on-board for what was to come afterwards. Sadly, this opening sequence is by far the best part of the entire movie. From this point on it descends into a mediocre action adventure flick with story elements very reminiscent of Thor and Black Panther, (two movies that are vastly superior to this one.)
From a direction standpoint, it is clear that James Wan knows how to visually capture a scene in the most beautiful and intriguing way possible, which is especially evident during the trench sequence. His direction during all of the action sequences is great, with Nicole Kidman's trident work in the opening scene and the rooftop sequence with Black Manta, Mera and Aquaman being the highlights. I don't think that my issue with this movie is due to the direction lacking in any aspect. The only questionable choice in my opinion, was the choice to shoot the big Black Manta scene in broad daylight. It just looked slightly naff and would have came across much better if shot in darker conditions at night.
Nor do I think that it is the fault of any of the cast members. I think that Momoa does a great job in the title role and he looks incredible in the full on Aquaman suit, (which I don't think many other actors could legitimately pull off.) I think that Patrick Wilson did a decent job as the evil slightly cheesy power hungry half brother of Aquaman. I also enjoyed Willem Dafoe, Dolph Lundgren and Nicole Kidman in each of their scenes.
I think that the major culprit in this movie feeling a bit forced at times, is the lazy script that the actors had to work with. Almost every scene plays out in the exact same way; with the characters that we are following turning up to a new location, meeting up with a character, (usually Willem Dafoe,) listening to them spout a bunch of expositional dialogue and then mid sentence bad guys will attack and an explosion will go off cutting the conversation short. Then we will get a well shot action sequence with super dynamic cinematography, then the characters will figure out where they need to go next, they will go to the next location and the process will be rinsed and repeated for the duration of the movie.
Overall, Aquaman is not a bad superhero movie, there is a lot of fun to be had here with the badass action sequences. Unfortunately the lazy script holds the movie back from being as good as the glowing reviews told me it would be and out of the DC solo movies, - this, Man of Steel and Wonder Woman, - this is probably the worst of the three.
PS. Although I don't think that the movie in general was up to the highest level of quality, the CGI is objectively breath-taking in every scene and I totally agree with James Wan that it is nothing short of an atrocity that the SFX team on this movie have been snubbed for this year's Oscars ceremony.
The movie opens by telling the story of how Aquaman's parents came to meet and fall in love, even though they are from vastly different worlds. This whole sequence is brilliant and I was totally on-board for what was to come afterwards. Sadly, this opening sequence is by far the best part of the entire movie. From this point on it descends into a mediocre action adventure flick with story elements very reminiscent of Thor and Black Panther, (two movies that are vastly superior to this one.)
From a direction standpoint, it is clear that James Wan knows how to visually capture a scene in the most beautiful and intriguing way possible, which is especially evident during the trench sequence. His direction during all of the action sequences is great, with Nicole Kidman's trident work in the opening scene and the rooftop sequence with Black Manta, Mera and Aquaman being the highlights. I don't think that my issue with this movie is due to the direction lacking in any aspect. The only questionable choice in my opinion, was the choice to shoot the big Black Manta scene in broad daylight. It just looked slightly naff and would have came across much better if shot in darker conditions at night.
Nor do I think that it is the fault of any of the cast members. I think that Momoa does a great job in the title role and he looks incredible in the full on Aquaman suit, (which I don't think many other actors could legitimately pull off.) I think that Patrick Wilson did a decent job as the evil slightly cheesy power hungry half brother of Aquaman. I also enjoyed Willem Dafoe, Dolph Lundgren and Nicole Kidman in each of their scenes.
I think that the major culprit in this movie feeling a bit forced at times, is the lazy script that the actors had to work with. Almost every scene plays out in the exact same way; with the characters that we are following turning up to a new location, meeting up with a character, (usually Willem Dafoe,) listening to them spout a bunch of expositional dialogue and then mid sentence bad guys will attack and an explosion will go off cutting the conversation short. Then we will get a well shot action sequence with super dynamic cinematography, then the characters will figure out where they need to go next, they will go to the next location and the process will be rinsed and repeated for the duration of the movie.
Overall, Aquaman is not a bad superhero movie, there is a lot of fun to be had here with the badass action sequences. Unfortunately the lazy script holds the movie back from being as good as the glowing reviews told me it would be and out of the DC solo movies, - this, Man of Steel and Wonder Woman, - this is probably the worst of the three.
PS. Although I don't think that the movie in general was up to the highest level of quality, the CGI is objectively breath-taking in every scene and I totally agree with James Wan that it is nothing short of an atrocity that the SFX team on this movie have been snubbed for this year's Oscars ceremony.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Inferno (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
Inferno is the latest thriller based on the novels of Dan Brown that follow the fictional character of Robert Langdon who is a world renowned symbologist (study of symbols). Like The DaVinci Code and Angels & Demons before them, Inferno follows mostly the same story arch and structure.
Tom Hanks has reprised his role as Robert Langdon (this time with an appropriate haircut) and once again he travels around to beautiful locations of European art and architecture with a young woman by his side, trying to solve a series of clues in order to stop a billionaire madman who believes humanity is a parasite and his plague inferno is the cure. If this sounds like a film you have seen before, it is because you have. In the other two movies that have come before it
Once again, audiences will enjoy being whisked around to see beautiful cities, art, and architecture to solve historical literary clues as the film plays out like a late middle ages travel lesson. These are all good things.
The bad is that during the first half of the film, Robert Langdon has amnesia due to a blow to the head. He cannot remember much which of what he was doing, which makes him a less compelling character. Throughout the series of films, Langdon has used his “dizzying intellect” to solve clues the brightest minds could not solve. In Inferno, that “super power” is taken away and we are left with an average, middle aged man, who is somehow able to solve impossible puzzles and clues while being chased by seedy underground characters and the world health organization. Who for the purposes of this film, seem to have become the FBI/CIA in one. This setup does not work and makes for a boring first half of the film Eventually Langdon regains his memory and the film picks up a bit from there, but for some it might be too late.
As far as the performances go, Tom Hanks delivers a watchable, likable performance, much to his credit considering that the character of Robert Langdon is a relatively boring protagonist. Meanwhile Ben Foster plays the somewhat forgettable billionaire madman (Bertrand Zobrist) in a somewhat forgettable way. It is a shame because perhaps if we had a chance to understand the nuance of his character, like I assume can be done in the books, he would have felt like a more compelling character and caused us to think if he was to be on the right side of history. Unfortunately, any nuance from the book does not translate well to the film adaptation. But not all is lost. For me, the bright spot of the film was Felicity Jones who plays the gifted doctor Sienna Brooks. Brooks, who in helping Langdon with his injury, gets swept up into game for the fate of the world. In her performance, Felicity Jones shows a transition of her emotional resonance throughout the film as her character develops and we get to understand her more, for better or worse. I am excited to see Jones continue to grow in her career and look forward to seeing her this holiday’s Star Wars Story: Rouge One. She has the ability to carry a film, let’s hope she is given the opportunity to do so.
In the end, Inferno is not a terrible film, but it is not very memorable either. Unlike the two films before it, Robert Langdon is handcuffed by an injury that doesn’t allow him to use his intellect that made him compelling before Couple that with what seems like an inspector gadget plot, where the bad guy leave a series of clues to foil his own master plan, and you end up with a “Meh” film.
Tom Hanks has reprised his role as Robert Langdon (this time with an appropriate haircut) and once again he travels around to beautiful locations of European art and architecture with a young woman by his side, trying to solve a series of clues in order to stop a billionaire madman who believes humanity is a parasite and his plague inferno is the cure. If this sounds like a film you have seen before, it is because you have. In the other two movies that have come before it
Once again, audiences will enjoy being whisked around to see beautiful cities, art, and architecture to solve historical literary clues as the film plays out like a late middle ages travel lesson. These are all good things.
The bad is that during the first half of the film, Robert Langdon has amnesia due to a blow to the head. He cannot remember much which of what he was doing, which makes him a less compelling character. Throughout the series of films, Langdon has used his “dizzying intellect” to solve clues the brightest minds could not solve. In Inferno, that “super power” is taken away and we are left with an average, middle aged man, who is somehow able to solve impossible puzzles and clues while being chased by seedy underground characters and the world health organization. Who for the purposes of this film, seem to have become the FBI/CIA in one. This setup does not work and makes for a boring first half of the film Eventually Langdon regains his memory and the film picks up a bit from there, but for some it might be too late.
As far as the performances go, Tom Hanks delivers a watchable, likable performance, much to his credit considering that the character of Robert Langdon is a relatively boring protagonist. Meanwhile Ben Foster plays the somewhat forgettable billionaire madman (Bertrand Zobrist) in a somewhat forgettable way. It is a shame because perhaps if we had a chance to understand the nuance of his character, like I assume can be done in the books, he would have felt like a more compelling character and caused us to think if he was to be on the right side of history. Unfortunately, any nuance from the book does not translate well to the film adaptation. But not all is lost. For me, the bright spot of the film was Felicity Jones who plays the gifted doctor Sienna Brooks. Brooks, who in helping Langdon with his injury, gets swept up into game for the fate of the world. In her performance, Felicity Jones shows a transition of her emotional resonance throughout the film as her character develops and we get to understand her more, for better or worse. I am excited to see Jones continue to grow in her career and look forward to seeing her this holiday’s Star Wars Story: Rouge One. She has the ability to carry a film, let’s hope she is given the opportunity to do so.
In the end, Inferno is not a terrible film, but it is not very memorable either. Unlike the two films before it, Robert Langdon is handcuffed by an injury that doesn’t allow him to use his intellect that made him compelling before Couple that with what seems like an inspector gadget plot, where the bad guy leave a series of clues to foil his own master plan, and you end up with a “Meh” film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Rock of Ages (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Rock of Ages is a film adaptation of the 2006 Chris D’Arienzo comedy rock/jukebox Broadway musical.
It is lightly satirical, a parody at times, that seems to mock our beloved 80’s rock era, while honoring its eccentricities, its tight leopard print pants, big hair, shoulder pads and over the top MTV music videos.
I like to judge a movie not only by how it makes me feel but also by how the audience reacts. This wasn’t an in-your-face-slapstick comedy, yet the whole theater roared with laughter throughout the film. To sum up the experience of Rock of Ages, it’s like watching a string of 80’s music videos mashed into a weak plot, with well-timed laughing points. Some of us laughed because we remember being the ones with those crazy hair-dos and out-of-control fashion sense and some were just laughing because this movie was so well done. It walked the fine line between super over-the-top corny and truly honoring our rock heritage. This movie does play to a specific demographic of ages 30 to 50, those who, with great nostalgia, remember how the 80’s rock and fashion revolution shaped their lives.
As the song goes, just a small town girl, Sherrie Christian played by Julianne Hough, travels to the big city in search of her dreams of becoming a singer, where she meets her city boy, Drew Boley played by Diego Boneta. Together they embark on a musical romance while working at a rock club named The Bourbon Room. Alec Baldwin plays an old rocker named Dennis Dupree struggling to keep his legend of a night club/concert hall open. Russell Brand, as always, steps in as the comic relief while playing the club owner;s assistant named Lonny. Together they work to keep The Bourbon Room afloat while dealing with a vengeful Patricia Whitmore, played by Catherine Zeta-Jones, who wishes nothing more then to see The Bourbon Room burned to the ground.
There are points in this movie when the acting, the singing and yes, even the plot, grabs you and holds your attention, much like watching the train wreck we call 80’s fashion. Its painful but you can’t look away! There were other times in this movie when the singing felt like it would go on forever. I noticed that the low points would be immediately succeeded by a very entertaining turn of events, so my attention was not lost for long. There came a point, at about the third Glee style 80’s rock mash-up, where I felt like slapping the director, Adam Shankman. Even too much of a good thing can get boring and I felt Shankman reached that point several times in the film. Luckily, he redeemed himself by bringing in Tom Cruise to play the Satan worshiping, alcoholic, megalomaniacal rock god Stacee Jaxx who went above and beyond in perfecting his role.
This movie’s soundtrack features songs and power ballads from Guns N’ Roses, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, Journey, Twisted Sister, Pat Benetar, Scorpions, Whitesnake, Poison, REO Speedwagon, Foreigner among other epic bands giving Rock of Ages it’s 80’s jukebox musical foundation.
Mary J. Blige, Cruise, Ale Baldwin, Boneta, Hough and the whole cast of mega stars went above and beyond in selling their characters and performing stunning and accurate vocals that really pulled this movie together. The corny 80’s fashion and authentic dance numbers were the real icing on the cake. If you can sit through two hours of 80’s rock and pop nostalgia and know you will enjoy it, then definitely check this movie out.
It is lightly satirical, a parody at times, that seems to mock our beloved 80’s rock era, while honoring its eccentricities, its tight leopard print pants, big hair, shoulder pads and over the top MTV music videos.
I like to judge a movie not only by how it makes me feel but also by how the audience reacts. This wasn’t an in-your-face-slapstick comedy, yet the whole theater roared with laughter throughout the film. To sum up the experience of Rock of Ages, it’s like watching a string of 80’s music videos mashed into a weak plot, with well-timed laughing points. Some of us laughed because we remember being the ones with those crazy hair-dos and out-of-control fashion sense and some were just laughing because this movie was so well done. It walked the fine line between super over-the-top corny and truly honoring our rock heritage. This movie does play to a specific demographic of ages 30 to 50, those who, with great nostalgia, remember how the 80’s rock and fashion revolution shaped their lives.
As the song goes, just a small town girl, Sherrie Christian played by Julianne Hough, travels to the big city in search of her dreams of becoming a singer, where she meets her city boy, Drew Boley played by Diego Boneta. Together they embark on a musical romance while working at a rock club named The Bourbon Room. Alec Baldwin plays an old rocker named Dennis Dupree struggling to keep his legend of a night club/concert hall open. Russell Brand, as always, steps in as the comic relief while playing the club owner;s assistant named Lonny. Together they work to keep The Bourbon Room afloat while dealing with a vengeful Patricia Whitmore, played by Catherine Zeta-Jones, who wishes nothing more then to see The Bourbon Room burned to the ground.
There are points in this movie when the acting, the singing and yes, even the plot, grabs you and holds your attention, much like watching the train wreck we call 80’s fashion. Its painful but you can’t look away! There were other times in this movie when the singing felt like it would go on forever. I noticed that the low points would be immediately succeeded by a very entertaining turn of events, so my attention was not lost for long. There came a point, at about the third Glee style 80’s rock mash-up, where I felt like slapping the director, Adam Shankman. Even too much of a good thing can get boring and I felt Shankman reached that point several times in the film. Luckily, he redeemed himself by bringing in Tom Cruise to play the Satan worshiping, alcoholic, megalomaniacal rock god Stacee Jaxx who went above and beyond in perfecting his role.
This movie’s soundtrack features songs and power ballads from Guns N’ Roses, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, Journey, Twisted Sister, Pat Benetar, Scorpions, Whitesnake, Poison, REO Speedwagon, Foreigner among other epic bands giving Rock of Ages it’s 80’s jukebox musical foundation.
Mary J. Blige, Cruise, Ale Baldwin, Boneta, Hough and the whole cast of mega stars went above and beyond in selling their characters and performing stunning and accurate vocals that really pulled this movie together. The corny 80’s fashion and authentic dance numbers were the real icing on the cake. If you can sit through two hours of 80’s rock and pop nostalgia and know you will enjoy it, then definitely check this movie out.
Shimmer and Shine: Enchanted Carpet Ride Game HD
Education and Games
App
Preschoolers learn basic math concepts on an enchanted carpet ride with Nick Jr.’s mega-popular...
Shimmer and Shine: Enchanted Carpet Ride Game
Education and Games
App
Preschoolers learn basic math concepts on an enchanted carpet ride with Nick Jr.’s mega-popular...
Sarah (7798 KP) rated David Attenborough: A Life on Our Planet (2020) in Movies
Oct 14, 2020
Bleak and interesting
David Attenborough is possibly the most recognised face (and voice) when it comes to nature and our planet, and it’d be safe to say he’s also one of the most respected advisors on the environment. Now 94 years old, A Life on Our Planet is his “witness statement” for the environment and details his 60+ year career and how steeply the planet has declined during this time.
In the opening scene of this documentary Attenborough is in Chernobyl, the site of one of the worst man-made disasters in history. His comparison of the impact of the Chernobyl disaster to the impact humanity is having gradually on the environment is not one that many would have even considered, but it’s provides a stark warning. And it continues in this same vein throughout.
Whilst this still features beautifully captured videos of nature and historical footage of Attenborough throughout his career, this documentary has very dark and bleak overtones. Even the statistics on world population, carbon content and decrease in wilderness provided for certain years in Attenborough’s career prove to be crystal clear and unmistakably illustrating just how badly we’ve treated our planet in the space of a mere 90 years. For reference, wilderness in the 1930s was at 66% - in 2020 it has nearly halved to 35%. When you see it there in black and white, it’s terrifying.
Even more terrifying is Attenborough’s glimpse into the future. Showing what will happen to us and our planet in the 2030s to 2100s and beyond, it’s scarier than any horror film you will ever see. And what’s worrying is that the chances of this happening is a lot more likely than anything you see in a scary movie.
Fortunately this does move away from the rather effective warnings and dark tones and goes on to discuss how we can change to prevent this bleak future from coming true. These resolutions – stopping deforestation and overfishing, stabilising the population, more plant based diets – are nothing that we haven’t heard of before. However Attenborough does at least go on to suggest how we as a planet can move towards achieving the above and promote some rather positive success stories where this has already been achieved in a number of places across the globe.
My problem with this documentary is two fold. For one, Attenborough steers clear of the politics and blame game and doesn’t point the finger at any areas of society that may be more at fault than others (i.e. the super wealthy and their excesses). He just seems like he’s being too nice when really he needs to call out the people and areas that hold more responsibility.
My other issue is that he doesn’t relate the solutions to how we can help as individuals. Other than moving to a more plant based diet, the solutions proposed are not things that Joe public can help with and for me personally I found this very frustrating. I want to know what I personally can do to help and sadly I have no control over poaching, deforestation or over-fishing. I barely have any input into my local council’s initiative to build thousands of houses on the greenbelt behind my house, so the issues and solutions discussed here seem rather overwhelming and feel almost impossible to achieve.
However despite this, Attenborough has created a rather bleak and stark documentary that proves to be both depressing and incredibly moving and informative to watch. It will undoubtedly spur many into action and prove to be the warning we as a people need, especially with the final scenes showing how the wilderness has returned to Chernobyl and Attenborough’s reminder that we’re not saving the planet, we’re saving ourselves. I just hope those higher up that have the true power to put the solutions in place have watched this and taken note.
In the opening scene of this documentary Attenborough is in Chernobyl, the site of one of the worst man-made disasters in history. His comparison of the impact of the Chernobyl disaster to the impact humanity is having gradually on the environment is not one that many would have even considered, but it’s provides a stark warning. And it continues in this same vein throughout.
Whilst this still features beautifully captured videos of nature and historical footage of Attenborough throughout his career, this documentary has very dark and bleak overtones. Even the statistics on world population, carbon content and decrease in wilderness provided for certain years in Attenborough’s career prove to be crystal clear and unmistakably illustrating just how badly we’ve treated our planet in the space of a mere 90 years. For reference, wilderness in the 1930s was at 66% - in 2020 it has nearly halved to 35%. When you see it there in black and white, it’s terrifying.
Even more terrifying is Attenborough’s glimpse into the future. Showing what will happen to us and our planet in the 2030s to 2100s and beyond, it’s scarier than any horror film you will ever see. And what’s worrying is that the chances of this happening is a lot more likely than anything you see in a scary movie.
Fortunately this does move away from the rather effective warnings and dark tones and goes on to discuss how we can change to prevent this bleak future from coming true. These resolutions – stopping deforestation and overfishing, stabilising the population, more plant based diets – are nothing that we haven’t heard of before. However Attenborough does at least go on to suggest how we as a planet can move towards achieving the above and promote some rather positive success stories where this has already been achieved in a number of places across the globe.
My problem with this documentary is two fold. For one, Attenborough steers clear of the politics and blame game and doesn’t point the finger at any areas of society that may be more at fault than others (i.e. the super wealthy and their excesses). He just seems like he’s being too nice when really he needs to call out the people and areas that hold more responsibility.
My other issue is that he doesn’t relate the solutions to how we can help as individuals. Other than moving to a more plant based diet, the solutions proposed are not things that Joe public can help with and for me personally I found this very frustrating. I want to know what I personally can do to help and sadly I have no control over poaching, deforestation or over-fishing. I barely have any input into my local council’s initiative to build thousands of houses on the greenbelt behind my house, so the issues and solutions discussed here seem rather overwhelming and feel almost impossible to achieve.
However despite this, Attenborough has created a rather bleak and stark documentary that proves to be both depressing and incredibly moving and informative to watch. It will undoubtedly spur many into action and prove to be the warning we as a people need, especially with the final scenes showing how the wilderness has returned to Chernobyl and Attenborough’s reminder that we’re not saving the planet, we’re saving ourselves. I just hope those higher up that have the true power to put the solutions in place have watched this and taken note.
