Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Good Will Hunting (1997) in Movies
Jul 9, 2021
Well Deserved Oscars for Williams, Damon and Affleck
One of the benefits of “Secret Movie Night” is that it forces me to watch (or rewatch) a film that I would not seek out on my own. Such is the case with this month’s selection - GOOD WILL HUNTING - the film that made Matt Damon and Ben Affleck stars and earned the late, great Robin Williams his only Academy Award.
Leaning hard on the mantra “write what you know”, GOOD WILL HUNTING tells the tale of a generationally talented math prodigy, who grew up in South Boston and fights his demons to find his place in this world.
Famously, the screenplay of this film earned Damon and Affleck Oscars for Best Original Screenplay and it is well deserved. They paint a picture of life of these “Southies” that appears to me real and genuine. The “family” feel of the friendship of the main characters rings true and Damon and Affleck have real chemistry with each other - like old friends playing off each other.
However, the relationship between Affleck and Damon’s character in this film is only the 3rd best relationship in this film. The best, of course, is the relationship between Will Hunting (Damon) and the shrink that is assigned to him, played by Robin Williams. It is a haunting, raw, emotional and REAL performance by Williams - one very deserving of the Oscar - and I was more than a little sad to watch this performance knowing that this uniquely talented performer is no longer with us.
The surprise to me in this rewatch of the film is the performance of Minnie Driver as a young lady that becomes emotionally attached to Will. Driver’s performance as Harvard student Skylar is also real and the struggles of her character to get a connection with Will was heartbreaking to watch.
Good Will Hunting also features strong supporting work by Stellan Skarsgard as the MIT Math Professor who discovers - and then becomes jealous of - Will’s talents and Ben Affleck’s younger brother, a then unknown Casey Affleck, who steals almost every scene he is in.
All of this would not have worked without the magnificent, Oscar nominated, Direction of Gus Van Sant (DRUGSTORE COWBOY). He was the perfect choice to direct this intimate, personal drama and he has a way of drawing out the emotions and rawness of the characters on the screen without being cloying or overdramatic. He was a strong contender for Best Director that year (as was Good Will Hunting for Best Picture) but it ran into a roadblock that was James Cameron and TITANIC.
If you have never seen this film - or if you haven’t seen this in quite some time - check out GOOD WILL HUNTING, it is well worth your time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Leaning hard on the mantra “write what you know”, GOOD WILL HUNTING tells the tale of a generationally talented math prodigy, who grew up in South Boston and fights his demons to find his place in this world.
Famously, the screenplay of this film earned Damon and Affleck Oscars for Best Original Screenplay and it is well deserved. They paint a picture of life of these “Southies” that appears to me real and genuine. The “family” feel of the friendship of the main characters rings true and Damon and Affleck have real chemistry with each other - like old friends playing off each other.
However, the relationship between Affleck and Damon’s character in this film is only the 3rd best relationship in this film. The best, of course, is the relationship between Will Hunting (Damon) and the shrink that is assigned to him, played by Robin Williams. It is a haunting, raw, emotional and REAL performance by Williams - one very deserving of the Oscar - and I was more than a little sad to watch this performance knowing that this uniquely talented performer is no longer with us.
The surprise to me in this rewatch of the film is the performance of Minnie Driver as a young lady that becomes emotionally attached to Will. Driver’s performance as Harvard student Skylar is also real and the struggles of her character to get a connection with Will was heartbreaking to watch.
Good Will Hunting also features strong supporting work by Stellan Skarsgard as the MIT Math Professor who discovers - and then becomes jealous of - Will’s talents and Ben Affleck’s younger brother, a then unknown Casey Affleck, who steals almost every scene he is in.
All of this would not have worked without the magnificent, Oscar nominated, Direction of Gus Van Sant (DRUGSTORE COWBOY). He was the perfect choice to direct this intimate, personal drama and he has a way of drawing out the emotions and rawness of the characters on the screen without being cloying or overdramatic. He was a strong contender for Best Director that year (as was Good Will Hunting for Best Picture) but it ran into a roadblock that was James Cameron and TITANIC.
If you have never seen this film - or if you haven’t seen this in quite some time - check out GOOD WILL HUNTING, it is well worth your time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Jan 25, 2021
Weird - and I couldn't look away
I have viewed some really strange films in my day. When asked, I often mention MIRRORMASK (based on a Neil Gaiman story) and mother! (the Darren Aronofsky oddity) as the strangest films I have ever seen.
Add Robert Eggers’ THE LIGHTHOUSE to this list.
Based on a real life tragedy from 1801, THE LIGHTHOUSE follows 2 isolated Lighthouse keepers as they interact with each other, slowly going mad in the process…or did they? Is one of them mad and the other sane? Are they both mad? Or…is it the viewer who is going mad? Eggers let’s you, the viewer, decide.
And…good for him. I have now encountered 2 films directed by former Production Designer Eggers - THE WITCH and now this film. In both cases, the movies are interestingly shot and intriguing to view but almost incomprehensible. The more so with THE LIGHTHOUSE, it is almost as if Eggers heard the criticism of THE WITCH of being incomprehensible and said “hold my beer”.
Besides the production values - which really are quite good (especially Eggers use of Black and White) - what holds this movie in high regards is the acting of the 2 people in film. These 2 characters are the only speaking parts in this movie.
Willem Dafoe portrays the older, veteran Lighthouseman who tells the tales of Mermaids and Curses and has a generally air of foreboding from the start. It is a masterwork by Dafoe - his best work of his career (and that’s saying something). He is unnerving to view from the start. The only thing the viewer needs to figure out is whether he is insane or very, very, very sane.
The surprise for me in this movie is the work of Robert Pattinson, the younger Lighthouseman who is in his first assignment. He is the audience’s eyes into this weird world and he is very much sane at the beginning. At the end…well…you decide. He was able to go toe-to-toe with DaFoe and held his own very well. This young actor has made a conscious choice following the Twilight films and with this movie and with Christopher Nolan's TENANT he is establishing himself as a darn good performer.
As for the film itself, my one recommendation for you is to not be too concerned of making sense of what is going on in the scene you are watching…you’ll drive yourself mad doing this (at least it was driving me mad). After awhile I just sat back and drank in the weirdness - and the quality acting and production values - that was enfolding in front of me and the ending was satisfying (enough).
All in all one of the stranger times I’ve had at the movies.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Add Robert Eggers’ THE LIGHTHOUSE to this list.
Based on a real life tragedy from 1801, THE LIGHTHOUSE follows 2 isolated Lighthouse keepers as they interact with each other, slowly going mad in the process…or did they? Is one of them mad and the other sane? Are they both mad? Or…is it the viewer who is going mad? Eggers let’s you, the viewer, decide.
And…good for him. I have now encountered 2 films directed by former Production Designer Eggers - THE WITCH and now this film. In both cases, the movies are interestingly shot and intriguing to view but almost incomprehensible. The more so with THE LIGHTHOUSE, it is almost as if Eggers heard the criticism of THE WITCH of being incomprehensible and said “hold my beer”.
Besides the production values - which really are quite good (especially Eggers use of Black and White) - what holds this movie in high regards is the acting of the 2 people in film. These 2 characters are the only speaking parts in this movie.
Willem Dafoe portrays the older, veteran Lighthouseman who tells the tales of Mermaids and Curses and has a generally air of foreboding from the start. It is a masterwork by Dafoe - his best work of his career (and that’s saying something). He is unnerving to view from the start. The only thing the viewer needs to figure out is whether he is insane or very, very, very sane.
The surprise for me in this movie is the work of Robert Pattinson, the younger Lighthouseman who is in his first assignment. He is the audience’s eyes into this weird world and he is very much sane at the beginning. At the end…well…you decide. He was able to go toe-to-toe with DaFoe and held his own very well. This young actor has made a conscious choice following the Twilight films and with this movie and with Christopher Nolan's TENANT he is establishing himself as a darn good performer.
As for the film itself, my one recommendation for you is to not be too concerned of making sense of what is going on in the scene you are watching…you’ll drive yourself mad doing this (at least it was driving me mad). After awhile I just sat back and drank in the weirdness - and the quality acting and production values - that was enfolding in front of me and the ending was satisfying (enough).
All in all one of the stranger times I’ve had at the movies.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Bad Times at the El Royale (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
What can I say about this one? I left the cinema pondering. I'm still pondering this morning trying to work out what to score it. I wasn't bored, yet I wasn't enthralled. It felt long, but not too long. I could follow the story lines, but some of them didn't quite make sense... It's definitely a contender for Goldilocks of the Year.
I was keen on watching this after seeing the trailer. A star studded cast and an intriguing idea really is all you need to hook people in. I can't decide (I know, it's happening a lot this review) if the trailer gave too much away. Could they have kept more elements back as a surprise? Possibly that wouldn't have left such a sense of anticipation about the film.
Being set in 1969 we're obviously given a lot of classic tunes through the jukebox and singing of Darlene Sweet. The latter is goosebump inducing at times and magical to listen to.
The way this movie is told is very reminiscent of a lot of things to me. I was getting flashes of Kill Bill and Lost, and as Drew Goddard was involved with Lost that's probably not a coincidence. The scenario also made me think of the 2003 film Identity and an episode of Criminal Minds called Paradise.
I enjoyed seeing each person's journey that led them up to the El Royale. You feel much more involved in the story because you switch allegiances between the characters every time you see a new perspective. It also gives you just enough of teaser to something that's going to happen to draw you further in.
The use of intertitle cards felt a little out of place, it's not really a sixties thing and the style of them didn't seem to fit with the film itself. They do their job which is to say "now for a bit of back story on this person" but looking a little less silent movie and a little more El Royale wouldn't have gone amiss.
A whole section of story line seemed to have no conclusion, for reasons that will be partly obvious to you when you see the film. What I can't work out is if I missed something about it that would have left me less confused. This movie could definitely do with a second watch.
What you should do
I'd probably recommend watching this one at home on DVD or streaming with a bunch of movie friends. It feels like it needs discussing more than watching.
You should also probably watch this gif a lot. I'm only sorry that I can't find a longer version without other distractions in it... like the rest of the film.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd quite like the El Royale to live in. Although I think I'd convert the spying corridor into a regular corridor and make the whole place a home rather than a playground for snooping and murder.
I was keen on watching this after seeing the trailer. A star studded cast and an intriguing idea really is all you need to hook people in. I can't decide (I know, it's happening a lot this review) if the trailer gave too much away. Could they have kept more elements back as a surprise? Possibly that wouldn't have left such a sense of anticipation about the film.
Being set in 1969 we're obviously given a lot of classic tunes through the jukebox and singing of Darlene Sweet. The latter is goosebump inducing at times and magical to listen to.
The way this movie is told is very reminiscent of a lot of things to me. I was getting flashes of Kill Bill and Lost, and as Drew Goddard was involved with Lost that's probably not a coincidence. The scenario also made me think of the 2003 film Identity and an episode of Criminal Minds called Paradise.
I enjoyed seeing each person's journey that led them up to the El Royale. You feel much more involved in the story because you switch allegiances between the characters every time you see a new perspective. It also gives you just enough of teaser to something that's going to happen to draw you further in.
The use of intertitle cards felt a little out of place, it's not really a sixties thing and the style of them didn't seem to fit with the film itself. They do their job which is to say "now for a bit of back story on this person" but looking a little less silent movie and a little more El Royale wouldn't have gone amiss.
A whole section of story line seemed to have no conclusion, for reasons that will be partly obvious to you when you see the film. What I can't work out is if I missed something about it that would have left me less confused. This movie could definitely do with a second watch.
What you should do
I'd probably recommend watching this one at home on DVD or streaming with a bunch of movie friends. It feels like it needs discussing more than watching.
You should also probably watch this gif a lot. I'm only sorry that I can't find a longer version without other distractions in it... like the rest of the film.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd quite like the El Royale to live in. Although I think I'd convert the spying corridor into a regular corridor and make the whole place a home rather than a playground for snooping and murder.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Black Ops.
There was a joke on the internet the other day that made me laugh and laugh. Virtually the only white people in “Black Panther” are the Hobbit/LOTR stars Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis…. they are the Tolkein white guys! It’s actually getting to feel quite isolating as an ‘average white guy’ at the movies! After a plethora of #SheDo films about empowered women, now comes the first black-centred Marvel film… stuffed full of powerful women too!
The setting is the hidden African kingdom of Wakanda, where due to an abundance of a an all-powerful mineral called McGuffinite… so, sorry, Vibranium… the leaders have made their city a technological marvel and developed all sorts of ad tech to help the people keep their goats well and weave their baskets better (there are a few odd scenes in this film!). T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) succeeds his father T’Chaka (John Kani) to become the king and adopt the role of The Black Panther, being bestowed superhero powers by drinking a glass of Ribena.
But it emerges that T’Chaka has a dark secret in the form of Eric Killmonger (Michael B Jordan, “Creed“) who is determined to muscle in on the king-stuff. ‘It never rains but it pours’, and the whole of Wakanda’s secrets are in danger of being exposed by the antics of the vicious South African mercenary Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis, “War For The Planet Of The Apes“), trying to get his hands on vibranium to sell on to CIA operative Everett Ross (Martin Freeman, “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies“, “The World’s End“).
After “Thor: Ragnarok“, this is back to the more seriously-played end of the superhero spectrum: there are a few jokes but it’s not overtly played for comedy. Holding the film together are some sterling performances from the ensemble cast with Michael B Jordan very good as the villain of the piece. Adding to the significant black girl power in the film are Angela Bassett (“London Has Fallen“) as the queen mother; Danai Gurira (“Wonder Woman“) as the leader of the Dora Milaje: the all-female king’s guard; and Lupita Nyong’o (“12 Years a Slave“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the spy and love interest Nakia. But the star performance for me, and one I found absolutely spot-on as a role model for young people, was Letitia Wright (“The Commuter“) as Shuri, the king’s chief scientist. She is absolutely radiant, adding beauty, rude gestures and energy to every scene she is in.
Man of the moment Daniel Kaluuya (“Get Out“) also adds to his movie-cred as a conflicted courtier.
On the white side of the shop Andy Serkis has enormous fun as Klaue and I really wanted to see more of his character than I did. Martin Freeman feels rather lightweight and under-used, and I couldn’t quite get past his dodgy American accent.
In terms of storyline, the film is a hotch-potch of plots from multiple other films, with “The Lion King” featuring strongly (but almost in reverse!). But that’s no crime, when the Shakespearean-style narrative is good, and interpolating the strongly emotional story into the Marvel universe works well.
Where I felt a little uncomfortable is the element of racism – that is, racism *against* white people – reflected in the story. If there was a movie plot centred (basically) on the topic of whites killing blacks and taking control of every black-controlled country in the world (yes, I know, I’m British and we have historically been there!) then there would be justified uproar, and the film would be shunned.
In the technical department, I had real problems with some of the effects employed. Starting with a dodgy ‘aircraft’ shadow, things nose-dive with an astonishingly poor waterfall scene with Forest Whitaker (“Rogue One“, “Arrival“) as Zuri, green-screened against some Disneyworld cascades and hundreds of cut and pasted tribesmen randomly inserted onto the cliffs. Almost matching that is a studio-set scene in a jungle clearing, where if feels they could hardly have bothered to take the plants out of their pots. Think “Daktari” quality (kids, ask your parents/grandparents).
But overall, the film, directed by Ryan Coogler (“Creed“), is a high-energy and uniquely different take on Marvel that absolutely pays off. And it is without doubt an important movie in moving the black agenda forward into properly mainstream cinema.
The setting is the hidden African kingdom of Wakanda, where due to an abundance of a an all-powerful mineral called McGuffinite… so, sorry, Vibranium… the leaders have made their city a technological marvel and developed all sorts of ad tech to help the people keep their goats well and weave their baskets better (there are a few odd scenes in this film!). T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) succeeds his father T’Chaka (John Kani) to become the king and adopt the role of The Black Panther, being bestowed superhero powers by drinking a glass of Ribena.
But it emerges that T’Chaka has a dark secret in the form of Eric Killmonger (Michael B Jordan, “Creed“) who is determined to muscle in on the king-stuff. ‘It never rains but it pours’, and the whole of Wakanda’s secrets are in danger of being exposed by the antics of the vicious South African mercenary Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis, “War For The Planet Of The Apes“), trying to get his hands on vibranium to sell on to CIA operative Everett Ross (Martin Freeman, “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies“, “The World’s End“).
After “Thor: Ragnarok“, this is back to the more seriously-played end of the superhero spectrum: there are a few jokes but it’s not overtly played for comedy. Holding the film together are some sterling performances from the ensemble cast with Michael B Jordan very good as the villain of the piece. Adding to the significant black girl power in the film are Angela Bassett (“London Has Fallen“) as the queen mother; Danai Gurira (“Wonder Woman“) as the leader of the Dora Milaje: the all-female king’s guard; and Lupita Nyong’o (“12 Years a Slave“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the spy and love interest Nakia. But the star performance for me, and one I found absolutely spot-on as a role model for young people, was Letitia Wright (“The Commuter“) as Shuri, the king’s chief scientist. She is absolutely radiant, adding beauty, rude gestures and energy to every scene she is in.
Man of the moment Daniel Kaluuya (“Get Out“) also adds to his movie-cred as a conflicted courtier.
On the white side of the shop Andy Serkis has enormous fun as Klaue and I really wanted to see more of his character than I did. Martin Freeman feels rather lightweight and under-used, and I couldn’t quite get past his dodgy American accent.
In terms of storyline, the film is a hotch-potch of plots from multiple other films, with “The Lion King” featuring strongly (but almost in reverse!). But that’s no crime, when the Shakespearean-style narrative is good, and interpolating the strongly emotional story into the Marvel universe works well.
Where I felt a little uncomfortable is the element of racism – that is, racism *against* white people – reflected in the story. If there was a movie plot centred (basically) on the topic of whites killing blacks and taking control of every black-controlled country in the world (yes, I know, I’m British and we have historically been there!) then there would be justified uproar, and the film would be shunned.
In the technical department, I had real problems with some of the effects employed. Starting with a dodgy ‘aircraft’ shadow, things nose-dive with an astonishingly poor waterfall scene with Forest Whitaker (“Rogue One“, “Arrival“) as Zuri, green-screened against some Disneyworld cascades and hundreds of cut and pasted tribesmen randomly inserted onto the cliffs. Almost matching that is a studio-set scene in a jungle clearing, where if feels they could hardly have bothered to take the plants out of their pots. Think “Daktari” quality (kids, ask your parents/grandparents).
But overall, the film, directed by Ryan Coogler (“Creed“), is a high-energy and uniquely different take on Marvel that absolutely pays off. And it is without doubt an important movie in moving the black agenda forward into properly mainstream cinema.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated If You Find Me in Books
Jun 6, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
I read about this book from a blog, and I was intrigued. I knew this was one book I had to read. When I found out I had won a copy through a blog competition, I was thrilled! Luckily, I wasn't disappointed with If You Find Me by Emily Murdoch. I absolutely loved the plot twists!!
Carey is a fifteen year old girl who lives in the middle of the woods. Her mother is a meth addict, so she's left Carey alone to fend for herself and to take care of her 6 year old sister Janessa. When Carey and her sister are taken from all they've ever known and thrust into "normal" life, Carey doesn't know if she'll be able to cope. However, the "normal" world will make her question everything she's ever known especially when it comes to her mother.
I just want to say that the title of this book is actually mentioned in the book! Aside from that, the title does suit the book very well. Carey seems lost all throughout the book so the title fits with the theme.
I like the cover for the most part although I would've preferred to see maybe a dirty Carey instead of a normal looking teenage girl. I do enjoy the woods in the background especially since that's where Carey was raised.
As for the world building, I think it was good, but it could've been more believable. The way Carey spoke was a little too polished for what I would imagine a girl who grew up away from civilization to speak. I know that it mentions how Carey taught her and her sister to read and such from books her mother brought home, but still. I also thought Carey started speaking "normally" all too soon. Perhaps that's just me since I've never grown up away from civilization.
The pacing was great in If You find Me. It did start off a bit slow, and I was wondering if I was just in for one big disappointment. I was lucky because the pacing picked up within the next couple of chapters, and I was in for one smooth ride. I couldn't put the book down after that.
The characters were very well developed, and I found myself relating to all of them as best as my experience would let me. I loved Carey and how strong she was after how much she had endured. I thought Janessa was just the sweetest little girl. I could feel how much she loved Carey and how much Carey loved her. Delaney was written as a great mean girl. I found myself wanting to slap her so many times throughout the book!! Ryan was adorable, and I loved how he treated Carey. My favorite character though was Pixie. She was the best friend I wished I had. I absolutely loved her dress sense as well!
As for the dialogue, I loved Carey's internal monologue the most. I loved reading about what she thought and felt about everything. The way the characters interacted with each other was never awkward at all. The whole dialogue ran smoothly. I don't really remember any swearing in this book either.
The only disappointing thing I found was the ending. It left me wanting to know what ever became of Carey after the big reveal. I don't want to go into details due to spoilers, but if you read it, you'll know what I mean.
If You Find Me by Emily Murdoch is an easy and enjoyable read that will leave readers thinking about it long after they've finished reading it. It is a very thought provoking piece of literature.
I'd recommend this book to everyone aged 13+ who wants to read something stimulating!
If You Find Me by Emily Murdoch gets a 4.5 out of 5.
I read about this book from a blog, and I was intrigued. I knew this was one book I had to read. When I found out I had won a copy through a blog competition, I was thrilled! Luckily, I wasn't disappointed with If You Find Me by Emily Murdoch. I absolutely loved the plot twists!!
Carey is a fifteen year old girl who lives in the middle of the woods. Her mother is a meth addict, so she's left Carey alone to fend for herself and to take care of her 6 year old sister Janessa. When Carey and her sister are taken from all they've ever known and thrust into "normal" life, Carey doesn't know if she'll be able to cope. However, the "normal" world will make her question everything she's ever known especially when it comes to her mother.
I just want to say that the title of this book is actually mentioned in the book! Aside from that, the title does suit the book very well. Carey seems lost all throughout the book so the title fits with the theme.
I like the cover for the most part although I would've preferred to see maybe a dirty Carey instead of a normal looking teenage girl. I do enjoy the woods in the background especially since that's where Carey was raised.
As for the world building, I think it was good, but it could've been more believable. The way Carey spoke was a little too polished for what I would imagine a girl who grew up away from civilization to speak. I know that it mentions how Carey taught her and her sister to read and such from books her mother brought home, but still. I also thought Carey started speaking "normally" all too soon. Perhaps that's just me since I've never grown up away from civilization.
The pacing was great in If You find Me. It did start off a bit slow, and I was wondering if I was just in for one big disappointment. I was lucky because the pacing picked up within the next couple of chapters, and I was in for one smooth ride. I couldn't put the book down after that.
The characters were very well developed, and I found myself relating to all of them as best as my experience would let me. I loved Carey and how strong she was after how much she had endured. I thought Janessa was just the sweetest little girl. I could feel how much she loved Carey and how much Carey loved her. Delaney was written as a great mean girl. I found myself wanting to slap her so many times throughout the book!! Ryan was adorable, and I loved how he treated Carey. My favorite character though was Pixie. She was the best friend I wished I had. I absolutely loved her dress sense as well!
As for the dialogue, I loved Carey's internal monologue the most. I loved reading about what she thought and felt about everything. The way the characters interacted with each other was never awkward at all. The whole dialogue ran smoothly. I don't really remember any swearing in this book either.
The only disappointing thing I found was the ending. It left me wanting to know what ever became of Carey after the big reveal. I don't want to go into details due to spoilers, but if you read it, you'll know what I mean.
If You Find Me by Emily Murdoch is an easy and enjoyable read that will leave readers thinking about it long after they've finished reading it. It is a very thought provoking piece of literature.
I'd recommend this book to everyone aged 13+ who wants to read something stimulating!
If You Find Me by Emily Murdoch gets a 4.5 out of 5.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Velvet Buzzsaw (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Ever since Netflix have proven themselves as a fantastic streaming platform, everyone gets hyped about their ‘Originals’. Velvet Buzzsaw was no exception, and when the first trailer dropped I was so excited to watch it. Everything about it seemed great; it was written and directed by Dan Gilroy (the guy who gave us the fantastic Nightcrawler), and the cast was incredible. Who could say no to Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo AND Toni Collette? Not me. Unfortunately, this wonderful mix didn’t live up to my expectations at all and left me feeling very disappointed.
The main issue I had with Velvet Buzzsaw is that the pacing is horrendously slow. The first 45 minutes felt like nothing but exposition, when it was a relatively simple concept for the audience to grasp. The film follows a bunch of art critics, artists and patrons of the arts as they uncover a series of paintings from an unknown artist. However, they’re not your normal paintings because a supernatural force lurks within them waiting to enact revenge. That’s it, that’s the synopsis. So why waste so much screen time dragging things out? The trailer made this look like a fast paced, intense thriller, but the reality is nothing like that.
It’s a shame the pacing and screenplay is so weak, because Velvet Buzzsaw does have a few redeeming features. The quality of acting is very good, and visually it’s beautiful to look at, particularly the locations and the paintings that appear throughout. I especially enjoyed the characters Rhodora Haze (Rene Russo) and Gretchen (Toni Collette), as they embody the typically powerful, ruthless and bitchy personas one would expect from this industry. They satirise art lovers perfectly, which is partially why I haven’t rated this film lower. In all honesty, these actors deserved better than the script they were dealt, and it’s a shame such talent was wasted here. I’m having trouble understanding how you can take such an interesting concept and brilliant actors, and make it so boring.
Even the inevitable death scenes are pretty dull, and play like a straight to TV horror film that doesn’t quite hit the mark. Velvet Buzzsaw fails to execute any sort of suspense, or even terror, so when people eventually die you’re just sat there like “Huh, is that it?”. After such a slow first act, you expect some kind of payoff, but it never arrives. Again, the trailer had some pretty scary moments that made me expect a few jump scares or intense moments. I’m confused about why this was even marketed as a horror-thriller, when it lacks so many of the aspects that make both those genres great. I didn’t feel scared at all, and even when the characters we were supposed to hate met their demise, there was no morbid satisfaction in it. To be completely honest, I was apathetic towards the whole thing. I just wanted it to end.
If you are a fan of slow-burning films that take a while to get going, then you might enjoy Velvet Buzzsaw more than I did. I don’t necessarily have a problem with these types of films, but you still need to keep the audience gripped somehow. You need to give people a reason to keep watching.
Gilroy’s attempt to show the horrors of the art world falls flat, and certainly doesn’t live up to the expectations based on the success of Nightcrawler. Part of me even wondered how this was the same man, it felt so vastly different to his other work. Netflix Originals rarely let me down, but this time, they really did.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-velvet-buzzsaw-2019/
The main issue I had with Velvet Buzzsaw is that the pacing is horrendously slow. The first 45 minutes felt like nothing but exposition, when it was a relatively simple concept for the audience to grasp. The film follows a bunch of art critics, artists and patrons of the arts as they uncover a series of paintings from an unknown artist. However, they’re not your normal paintings because a supernatural force lurks within them waiting to enact revenge. That’s it, that’s the synopsis. So why waste so much screen time dragging things out? The trailer made this look like a fast paced, intense thriller, but the reality is nothing like that.
It’s a shame the pacing and screenplay is so weak, because Velvet Buzzsaw does have a few redeeming features. The quality of acting is very good, and visually it’s beautiful to look at, particularly the locations and the paintings that appear throughout. I especially enjoyed the characters Rhodora Haze (Rene Russo) and Gretchen (Toni Collette), as they embody the typically powerful, ruthless and bitchy personas one would expect from this industry. They satirise art lovers perfectly, which is partially why I haven’t rated this film lower. In all honesty, these actors deserved better than the script they were dealt, and it’s a shame such talent was wasted here. I’m having trouble understanding how you can take such an interesting concept and brilliant actors, and make it so boring.
Even the inevitable death scenes are pretty dull, and play like a straight to TV horror film that doesn’t quite hit the mark. Velvet Buzzsaw fails to execute any sort of suspense, or even terror, so when people eventually die you’re just sat there like “Huh, is that it?”. After such a slow first act, you expect some kind of payoff, but it never arrives. Again, the trailer had some pretty scary moments that made me expect a few jump scares or intense moments. I’m confused about why this was even marketed as a horror-thriller, when it lacks so many of the aspects that make both those genres great. I didn’t feel scared at all, and even when the characters we were supposed to hate met their demise, there was no morbid satisfaction in it. To be completely honest, I was apathetic towards the whole thing. I just wanted it to end.
If you are a fan of slow-burning films that take a while to get going, then you might enjoy Velvet Buzzsaw more than I did. I don’t necessarily have a problem with these types of films, but you still need to keep the audience gripped somehow. You need to give people a reason to keep watching.
Gilroy’s attempt to show the horrors of the art world falls flat, and certainly doesn’t live up to the expectations based on the success of Nightcrawler. Part of me even wondered how this was the same man, it felt so vastly different to his other work. Netflix Originals rarely let me down, but this time, they really did.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-velvet-buzzsaw-2019/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated I'll Be Your Blue Sky in Books
Feb 26, 2018
Revisits former characters (3 more)
Features unexpected twists and turns
Beautiful characters that fit together well
Funny and touching
Lovely look at some favorite characters
The weekend of her wedding, Clare Hobbes meets an elderly woman, Edith Herron, at the venue. While they only have a few brief conversations, they provide Clare with the insight and courage she so badly needs. So much that she finds the strength to call off her wedding and return home alone. A few weeks later, Clare receives some sad and surprising news: Edith has passed away and left Clare a seaside home in Delaware. Desperately seeking a place to reevaluate her life, Clare decamps to the "Blue Sky House" and there begins to learn more about Edith and the remarkable life she led. This includes the discovery of two ledgers--one depicting a list of the guests who stayed at Edith's home when it was a beach guesthouse and another, "shadow" ledger, with mysterious notations. With the help of her former boyfriend, now best friend Dev Tremain, Clare starts to unravel Edith's brave and fascinating past. Along the way, she starts to get closer to working out more about herself as well.
I absolutely adore Marisa de los Santos and was really excited to see she had written another book picking up on the characters first introduced in Love Walked In: A Novel and Belong to Me. Both still hold a place of honor on the bookshelves of my home. Still, Goodreads told me it was nearly ten years since I'd read those gems. Considering I can forget a lot of what I've read a few months ago, it took a little remembering and time to get back into the characters. There's a lot to keep track of in the beginning. Still, once I got into the groove, it was like being back with old friends.
Getting to know more about Clare--all grown up now--is lovely. You find yourself drawn to her immediately. Her finance, Zach, made me nervous from the start, and in many ways, the novel can be a little stressful, between Clare navigating Zach, learning about what Edith was up to, and just some of the general topics of the novel. I always know a book is well-written when I find myself getting nervous on the characters' behalf.
The book generally alternates chapters between Clare and the story of Edith, the woman she meets at her wedding venue. Edith's story mainly takes place in the 1940s and 1950s, and I found myself always wishing for more and more of her tale, as she's a fascinating character in her own right. As Clare moves into Edith's old home and starts to investigate the woman's past, we learn a little more about her through Clare and Dev's sleuthing. It's a very effective format, and I found the book surprisingly suspenseful, with several unexpected twists and turns thrown in along the way.
Indeed, I was never really sure where this one was going. It meanders a bit and kept surprising me as it did. There are points where the sadness can be really hard and heartbreaking (in a wow, this novel is incredibly well-written and I feel as if these characters are real way). All the characters fit together so well and come to life before you--no surprise to anyone who has read a Marisa de los Santos novel before. It's so easy to get lost in the world she creates for us. At other times, I just found myself laughing, as Clare and Dev, for instance, could just be so funny and real.
In the end, I just wound up really loving this one. I was along for the ride wherever Clare and her gang were going to take me. I loved her, I loved Edith, and now I'd wait ten years for another book without any issue whatsoever. It's a lovely book about connections and about the family we have and the family we make. It's about love (very appropriate that I finished it on Valentine's Day). Thanks for revisiting these characters, Ms. de los Santos. I didn't know I needed them again, but I'm glad you did. 4+ stars.
I I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for a honest review. More at http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/
I absolutely adore Marisa de los Santos and was really excited to see she had written another book picking up on the characters first introduced in Love Walked In: A Novel and Belong to Me. Both still hold a place of honor on the bookshelves of my home. Still, Goodreads told me it was nearly ten years since I'd read those gems. Considering I can forget a lot of what I've read a few months ago, it took a little remembering and time to get back into the characters. There's a lot to keep track of in the beginning. Still, once I got into the groove, it was like being back with old friends.
Getting to know more about Clare--all grown up now--is lovely. You find yourself drawn to her immediately. Her finance, Zach, made me nervous from the start, and in many ways, the novel can be a little stressful, between Clare navigating Zach, learning about what Edith was up to, and just some of the general topics of the novel. I always know a book is well-written when I find myself getting nervous on the characters' behalf.
The book generally alternates chapters between Clare and the story of Edith, the woman she meets at her wedding venue. Edith's story mainly takes place in the 1940s and 1950s, and I found myself always wishing for more and more of her tale, as she's a fascinating character in her own right. As Clare moves into Edith's old home and starts to investigate the woman's past, we learn a little more about her through Clare and Dev's sleuthing. It's a very effective format, and I found the book surprisingly suspenseful, with several unexpected twists and turns thrown in along the way.
Indeed, I was never really sure where this one was going. It meanders a bit and kept surprising me as it did. There are points where the sadness can be really hard and heartbreaking (in a wow, this novel is incredibly well-written and I feel as if these characters are real way). All the characters fit together so well and come to life before you--no surprise to anyone who has read a Marisa de los Santos novel before. It's so easy to get lost in the world she creates for us. At other times, I just found myself laughing, as Clare and Dev, for instance, could just be so funny and real.
In the end, I just wound up really loving this one. I was along for the ride wherever Clare and her gang were going to take me. I loved her, I loved Edith, and now I'd wait ten years for another book without any issue whatsoever. It's a lovely book about connections and about the family we have and the family we make. It's about love (very appropriate that I finished it on Valentine's Day). Thanks for revisiting these characters, Ms. de los Santos. I didn't know I needed them again, but I'm glad you did. 4+ stars.
I I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for a honest review. More at http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated BlacKkKlansman (2018) in Movies
Oct 1, 2018 (Updated Oct 2, 2018)
Brilliant performances by the entire cast (1 more)
Funny, while still being relevant and sending a serious message
Spike Lee's Best In Years
BlackkKlansman released while I was on holiday, so after playing a bit of catchup at my local cinema, I eventually got around to seeing this film that I was looking forward to ever since seeing the first trailer for it. It lived up to my expectations and I really enjoyed it. Also, just a heads up; I usually don't like to get political in movie reviews, but I feel that with a film as politically charged as this one, it makes it inevitable to get around, so there may be some stuff in here that you disagree with.
The movie worked in several different ways, it definitely worked as a comedy and had me laughing raucously at certain points and then it would drop an important and relevant point on you and suddenly things wouldn't seem so funny any more. All of a sudden, these laughably ignorant racists suddenly became a very real threat, which I don't think was an accident in paralleling how Lee feels about a good amount of modern day Americans like Donald Trump. Remember when he first announced that he was running for office and everybody, (including the current president at that time,) laughed at him? Now he is the most powerful man in the world and poses a very real threat to minorities in the US. I thought that this was a very clever, subtle way to take a shot without being too blatant.
Then there was a slightly more obvious shot at him when characters are discussing a man filled with hate potentially working his way into power and getting the majority of the American public on his side and how awful that would be. Although this particular dig is way more obvious, it still didn't bother me too much and I accepted it as a filmmaker using his platform to send a message to someone that he morally disagrees with.
The final dig was a step too far for me. During a phone conversation between David Duke and Ron Stallworth, Duke says something about getting rid of non-whites to "make America great again." It was so heavy handed that the characters onscreen might as well have turned around and winked at the camera. Please don't get me wrong, I think that Donald Trump is a scumbag and am totally fine with Lee taking a couple of shots at him, but I much preferred the more subtle undertones that he sent his way earlier in the film to this blatantly obvious, slightly cringey callout.
I did enjoy Lee's references to Blaxploitation films of the 70's and I liked the whole aesthetic that this movie had. The score was brilliant and the cast did a great job, the performance that stayed with me the most after the film, was Corey Hawkins monologue as Kwame Ture. He only appears in one scene in the film, but his speech, (in which I felt he strongly channelled Denzel,) was mesmerising and electrifying to watch.
The way that Spike Lee chose to end this movie has stirred some controversy, but I found it to be incredibly powerful and moving. It really sent home the message that this kind of intense, despicable hatred isn't just something that was around in the 70's and 80's, it is something that is still sadly prevalent and happening in today's society and we have people in power, like Trump, who is willing to defend and stand by these people and their violent, hateful behaviour. It was also a fitting tribute to Heather Heyer who was killed when a car crashed into a crowd of people who had been peacefully protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia one-year prior to this film's release.
Overall, this is a funny, entertaining, uncomfortable and anger-inducing film and all of these emotion are equally relevant. I also feel that this movie does exactly what it intends to on a moral level, whether you agree with the ideals portrayed or not, Lee does a terrific job in turning a period piece movie into a painfully relevant message for modern audiences.
The movie worked in several different ways, it definitely worked as a comedy and had me laughing raucously at certain points and then it would drop an important and relevant point on you and suddenly things wouldn't seem so funny any more. All of a sudden, these laughably ignorant racists suddenly became a very real threat, which I don't think was an accident in paralleling how Lee feels about a good amount of modern day Americans like Donald Trump. Remember when he first announced that he was running for office and everybody, (including the current president at that time,) laughed at him? Now he is the most powerful man in the world and poses a very real threat to minorities in the US. I thought that this was a very clever, subtle way to take a shot without being too blatant.
Then there was a slightly more obvious shot at him when characters are discussing a man filled with hate potentially working his way into power and getting the majority of the American public on his side and how awful that would be. Although this particular dig is way more obvious, it still didn't bother me too much and I accepted it as a filmmaker using his platform to send a message to someone that he morally disagrees with.
The final dig was a step too far for me. During a phone conversation between David Duke and Ron Stallworth, Duke says something about getting rid of non-whites to "make America great again." It was so heavy handed that the characters onscreen might as well have turned around and winked at the camera. Please don't get me wrong, I think that Donald Trump is a scumbag and am totally fine with Lee taking a couple of shots at him, but I much preferred the more subtle undertones that he sent his way earlier in the film to this blatantly obvious, slightly cringey callout.
I did enjoy Lee's references to Blaxploitation films of the 70's and I liked the whole aesthetic that this movie had. The score was brilliant and the cast did a great job, the performance that stayed with me the most after the film, was Corey Hawkins monologue as Kwame Ture. He only appears in one scene in the film, but his speech, (in which I felt he strongly channelled Denzel,) was mesmerising and electrifying to watch.
The way that Spike Lee chose to end this movie has stirred some controversy, but I found it to be incredibly powerful and moving. It really sent home the message that this kind of intense, despicable hatred isn't just something that was around in the 70's and 80's, it is something that is still sadly prevalent and happening in today's society and we have people in power, like Trump, who is willing to defend and stand by these people and their violent, hateful behaviour. It was also a fitting tribute to Heather Heyer who was killed when a car crashed into a crowd of people who had been peacefully protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia one-year prior to this film's release.
Overall, this is a funny, entertaining, uncomfortable and anger-inducing film and all of these emotion are equally relevant. I also feel that this movie does exactly what it intends to on a moral level, whether you agree with the ideals portrayed or not, Lee does a terrific job in turning a period piece movie into a painfully relevant message for modern audiences.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Bakjwi (Thirst) (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Unique take on vampires. (1 more)
Beautiful cinematography.
Father Sang-hyeon is a priest with a bleeding heart. He cares for his patients and does what's in his power to do whatever they ask. EV, the Emmanuel Virus, covers its victims from the waist up with blisters, causes ulcers and hemorrhages in muscle tissue, and even causes victims to vomit blood and die from excessive bleeding if the virus spreads to the internal organs. Sang-hyeon volunteers at the Emmanuel Lab in hopes of finding a treatment for the disease, but winds up contracting the disease himself and dying in the process. The blood he receives during the transfusion, however, miraculously brings him back from the edge of death. While being the lone survivor of the ordeal, the story detailing Sang-hyeon's journey gets more and more spectacular. He comes to the realization that drinking blood makes the blisters that cover his body disappear and that he has superhuman abilities. The transfusion has made Sang-hyeon a vampire. He stays with a childhood friend while struggling with finding ways to quench his hunger for blood in addition to falling in love with Tae-Joo, his best friend's wife.
If anyone sits down with me and has a conversation with me about movies, it's only a matter of time before I reveal that Oldboy is quite possibly my favorite film of all time. So it should be no surprise that I'm willing to see anything the director, Chan-wook Park, or lead actors, Choi Min-sik and Ji-Tae Yu, are involved with. Mainly because of my love for Oldboy, but also because I'm rarely disappointed with anything they are a part of. So when I heard Chan-wook Park was tackling a vampire film, I was thrilled and even more thrilled that he managed to deliver another solid film to his already impressive filmography.
The cinematography is the film's shining feature. Park really knows his stuff when it comes to shooting memorable scenes from behind a camera. Every shot is filled with vibrant colors that leap off of the screen. Every frame of the film seems to tell a story all on its own. I hope there's a Blu-ray release of this film because it will look fantastic. It's rather intriguing to see which elements of the vampire mythology Park used for his vision. Sang-hyeon has to drink blood to survive and to stay looking flawless, has incredible strength, and is vulnerable to sunlight. He doesn't, however, have fangs and also has a reflection in the mirror.
Although I've never seen the film, I couldn't help but feel like this was Chan-wook Park's version of Twilight. The entire middle portion of the film is devoted to Sang-hyeon's and Tae-Joo's love for one another. It felt like the adult version of Twilight, really. There's a lot of blood, nudity, sex, and even a few obscenities thrown in for good measure. Maybe it's the Chan-Wook Park fanboy in me, but I honestly feel like I can guarantee that this is the better film of the two. The psychological aspect that I love about Park's previous films is in Thirst, as well. That's a major factor for me as any film that causes me to think or is unusual in any way winds up becoming a fan favorite. The soundtracks to Park's films always seem to fit its respective film like a glove. Thirst is no exception. While the soundtrack is a bit more subtle this time around, it fit the overall atmosphere of the film rather effortlessly.
The middle portion of the film did seem to drag on longer than everything else in the film. It's weird though as the scenes during that time are crucial to the storyline of the film and it's hard to imagine Thirst being the same film if any of those scenes were cut. Nevertheless, it is my one nitpick of the film.
Chan-wook Park bites into the vampire mythology with Thirst and puts his own dark, psychological twist on it. Park's films always seem to have a specific formula or include most of the following: great writing, beautiful cinematography, a solid cast, some sort of psychological twist that'll mess with your head, and a memorable ending.
If anyone sits down with me and has a conversation with me about movies, it's only a matter of time before I reveal that Oldboy is quite possibly my favorite film of all time. So it should be no surprise that I'm willing to see anything the director, Chan-wook Park, or lead actors, Choi Min-sik and Ji-Tae Yu, are involved with. Mainly because of my love for Oldboy, but also because I'm rarely disappointed with anything they are a part of. So when I heard Chan-wook Park was tackling a vampire film, I was thrilled and even more thrilled that he managed to deliver another solid film to his already impressive filmography.
The cinematography is the film's shining feature. Park really knows his stuff when it comes to shooting memorable scenes from behind a camera. Every shot is filled with vibrant colors that leap off of the screen. Every frame of the film seems to tell a story all on its own. I hope there's a Blu-ray release of this film because it will look fantastic. It's rather intriguing to see which elements of the vampire mythology Park used for his vision. Sang-hyeon has to drink blood to survive and to stay looking flawless, has incredible strength, and is vulnerable to sunlight. He doesn't, however, have fangs and also has a reflection in the mirror.
Although I've never seen the film, I couldn't help but feel like this was Chan-wook Park's version of Twilight. The entire middle portion of the film is devoted to Sang-hyeon's and Tae-Joo's love for one another. It felt like the adult version of Twilight, really. There's a lot of blood, nudity, sex, and even a few obscenities thrown in for good measure. Maybe it's the Chan-Wook Park fanboy in me, but I honestly feel like I can guarantee that this is the better film of the two. The psychological aspect that I love about Park's previous films is in Thirst, as well. That's a major factor for me as any film that causes me to think or is unusual in any way winds up becoming a fan favorite. The soundtracks to Park's films always seem to fit its respective film like a glove. Thirst is no exception. While the soundtrack is a bit more subtle this time around, it fit the overall atmosphere of the film rather effortlessly.
The middle portion of the film did seem to drag on longer than everything else in the film. It's weird though as the scenes during that time are crucial to the storyline of the film and it's hard to imagine Thirst being the same film if any of those scenes were cut. Nevertheless, it is my one nitpick of the film.
Chan-wook Park bites into the vampire mythology with Thirst and puts his own dark, psychological twist on it. Park's films always seem to have a specific formula or include most of the following: great writing, beautiful cinematography, a solid cast, some sort of psychological twist that'll mess with your head, and a memorable ending.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Deckscape: Crew vs Crew - The Pirate's Island in Tabletop Games
May 20, 2021
Who out there has ever gone to an escape room and not enjoyed themselves? I know nobody (though if that’s you, it’s okay). I have only been to one in my life (eek!) and I absolutely loved it! I have watched videos of celebrities tackling escape rooms and have been riveted. I like the shows you can now find streaming of similar type activities and am always glued to the screen. Heck, I have played the EXIT and Unlock systems of board games and enjoyed them as well. So having the experience I have and having played two other Deckscape games, how did this one fare for me? Much better. Read on.
These one-shot escape room style games are difficult to explain without major spoilers, so I will try to explain what I can as best I can. Please don’t flame me for being vague. I am protecting you.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I 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 info, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, open the box and take out the cards. Done. Read Card 1.
This one is quite a bit different from previous Deckscape games I have played in several ways. First, this is a head-to-head game where two players (or teams of players) will be taking sides of two pirate captains and attempting to figure out the answers to puzzles offered on cards in the game. Each side will have equal time and opportunity to solve the puzzles, but the first side to claim that they have solved it will be able to flip over the puzzle card to check for accurate answers. If they have succeeded, they earn the booty. If they fail, the other team has a chance to complete the puzzle successfully.
Play continues through the deck of cards with each side engaging in battles of wits until the end of the game draws near. The side with the most booty earned will be the winner and the game can then be passed along to another group of players to enjoy.
Components. This is a box of cards. The cards are all bigger than normal playing cards and feature pretty great art and vivid colors. I totally dig the pirate theme, so I was already destined to enjoy to aesthetic, but I do believe this is the better-looking game of the ones I have tried in its family.
Gameplay is also so different from the other two games in the Deckscape system and that’s a great thing. Having this head-to-head style really suited my situation when I played it: my 10-year-old niece was bored while her twin brother was at baseball practice, so I invited her to play this with me. Long story short, she ended up beating me by one point in the end, so that made her incredibly happy. I also highly enjoyed my playthrough of it, even in defeat.
I wish I could speak more on the specifics why I liked this, but again, as River Song would say, “Spoilers.” Do know that of the three Deckscape games I have played, I believe this is the best of the group. The puzzles are all fantastic, and I feel like I had a good handle on the solutions, but my niece obviously beat me to them more often than I would have liked to have admitted. That said, I can recommend this one to anyone interested in the Deckscape system with one caveat: this is head-to-head instead of the typical cooperative experience in the series. So you have been warned. It’s very good, though, so do check it out. Purple Phoenix Games (with guest score from my niece Keira) gives this one a puzzly 10 / 12, If you are wanting a little different flavor in your bottle of rum, grab a copy of this and enjoy. Just play it with someone your own age, or prepare to BE owned.
These one-shot escape room style games are difficult to explain without major spoilers, so I will try to explain what I can as best I can. Please don’t flame me for being vague. I am protecting you.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I 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 info, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, open the box and take out the cards. Done. Read Card 1.
This one is quite a bit different from previous Deckscape games I have played in several ways. First, this is a head-to-head game where two players (or teams of players) will be taking sides of two pirate captains and attempting to figure out the answers to puzzles offered on cards in the game. Each side will have equal time and opportunity to solve the puzzles, but the first side to claim that they have solved it will be able to flip over the puzzle card to check for accurate answers. If they have succeeded, they earn the booty. If they fail, the other team has a chance to complete the puzzle successfully.
Play continues through the deck of cards with each side engaging in battles of wits until the end of the game draws near. The side with the most booty earned will be the winner and the game can then be passed along to another group of players to enjoy.
Components. This is a box of cards. The cards are all bigger than normal playing cards and feature pretty great art and vivid colors. I totally dig the pirate theme, so I was already destined to enjoy to aesthetic, but I do believe this is the better-looking game of the ones I have tried in its family.
Gameplay is also so different from the other two games in the Deckscape system and that’s a great thing. Having this head-to-head style really suited my situation when I played it: my 10-year-old niece was bored while her twin brother was at baseball practice, so I invited her to play this with me. Long story short, she ended up beating me by one point in the end, so that made her incredibly happy. I also highly enjoyed my playthrough of it, even in defeat.
I wish I could speak more on the specifics why I liked this, but again, as River Song would say, “Spoilers.” Do know that of the three Deckscape games I have played, I believe this is the best of the group. The puzzles are all fantastic, and I feel like I had a good handle on the solutions, but my niece obviously beat me to them more often than I would have liked to have admitted. That said, I can recommend this one to anyone interested in the Deckscape system with one caveat: this is head-to-head instead of the typical cooperative experience in the series. So you have been warned. It’s very good, though, so do check it out. Purple Phoenix Games (with guest score from my niece Keira) gives this one a puzzly 10 / 12, If you are wanting a little different flavor in your bottle of rum, grab a copy of this and enjoy. Just play it with someone your own age, or prepare to BE owned.
