Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
I'd managed to see the Terminator and T2 in a double bill at the cinema and was shocked to discover I hadn't seen the first one... I really thought I had! Retro films on the big screen are amazing and I need to find the person I need to bribe to get some of my favourites shown.
Dani is working hard to help support her family, she's happy and carefree living with her father, brother and dog, Taco. But today is going to change her life forever.
Grace drops into the world violently, her mission is to protect Dani from a machine sent back to kill her. It's a familiar story, but the Rev-9's aren't like the Terminators, they're relentless and nearly indestructible. Grace and Dani find some unexpected back-up when Sarah Connor joins the hunt, aiding their escape and leading them to another ally for their mission.
Straight off the bat I want to say I loved this film, I'm going to compare it to 2018's Halloween. Neither franchise is something I'm an expert in but these new incarnations to me feel quite respectful to the originals and manage to give us a successful modern take. They both create a homage of things that came before them, and I like that.
The film opens in a great way with the interview tape of Sarah Connor and I thought it was really clever to mix it with consistent effects onto the studio logos/trailers. I was also impressed with the flashback scene of Sarah and John... I genuinely thought I'd missed something from the previous films because I hadn't seen this footage. It was in fact done with a body double and some CGI from what I've read. The quality of the effects in this bit were amazing and I couldn't tell that it wasn't actual footage, it really threw me for a loop.
Our original characters have both developed since their outing in T2. Sarah is much more purposeful but I have to wonder what she was doing between the times she recounts during the film. The Terminator has managed to adapt to his own sort of "human" life, which again, looks like it's got a few holes in it, but neither case really had me pondering until after the film. Linda Hamilton gives a relaxed kick-ass action performance, Sarah has clearly honed her skills and has little emotion apart from hatred coursing through her veins when she's on a mission, it gave a satisfying little lift to things for me. I couldn't help but believe her attitude to everything, still a little bit of the crazy about her but her determination to keep the machines from rising gives her laser focus.
The Terminator, now going by the name Carl is left to do his own thing after completing his mission. I don't know how I feel about this, would there not have been programming beyond his original mission? Anyway, I can't go down that rabbit hole. I thought Arnie's performance was really good, he's still got that "unintentionally" funny thing down well and the chemistry between him and Hamilton really shone through. He's also done well to get Carl to be quite natural while still being a giant robot, had he played it human I don't think I'd have been so onboard... though I don't know how I felt about his new career.
Having the enhanced human character of Grace stopped the sequences from being too flat. With the emotionless side of things previously it was difficult to engage with all the scenes. Mackenzie Davis gets to do the Terminator acting while still being human, you get the human panic and the machine reacting and the blend works well. Her relationship with Dani is a nice one to follow and getting to see her backstory in flashbacks... wait, flashforwards... really added to it all.
Sadly I was disappointed with Dani in general, she's just kind of dragged along with everything and even though she was essentially our Sarah Connor of this film there's very little happening with her. Her character doesn't have enough substance, she doesn't have enough in her to play with the big boys around her. Dani is also confusing in the future story for several reasons, including issues with time travel which I'm not even going to get into.
Overall the effects were very good. The way the Rev-9 movies is unnatural and enthralling to watch and Gabriel Luna's performance was impressive when you think about how he'd have to act and react to some of the more sci-fi moments. The effects weren't great throughout though and in the underwater scene with Arnie and the Rev-9 I was frowning slightly at the screen. The whole thing had a rather misty feel to it and was much more distracting than you'd think.
The other thing I feel is worth mentioning is that there are some odd choices with slow-motion shots. I couldn't see any correlation between the shots and why they'd been chosen for this effect, some happened close together and others happened out on their own and hardly any fit naturally into the scenes. The only one that felt right was Grace sizing up her shot early on, it showed us one of her abilities and that worked well, but after that they felt more like they were trying to show off more than actually picking spots that would have any impact.
Dark Fate has a lot of nice little nods back to the originals and that made for a satisfying watch. There's subtle humour and surprisingly some emotional scenes too, I came out of this and felt really content having seen it. Despite my quibbles, or which I now realise there were many, I really enjoyed this film.
What you should do
It's definitely worth a watch, it's some good mindless action and I think it's a good follow on to the original two films.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some super robot enhancements wouldn't go amiss.
Dani is working hard to help support her family, she's happy and carefree living with her father, brother and dog, Taco. But today is going to change her life forever.
Grace drops into the world violently, her mission is to protect Dani from a machine sent back to kill her. It's a familiar story, but the Rev-9's aren't like the Terminators, they're relentless and nearly indestructible. Grace and Dani find some unexpected back-up when Sarah Connor joins the hunt, aiding their escape and leading them to another ally for their mission.
Straight off the bat I want to say I loved this film, I'm going to compare it to 2018's Halloween. Neither franchise is something I'm an expert in but these new incarnations to me feel quite respectful to the originals and manage to give us a successful modern take. They both create a homage of things that came before them, and I like that.
The film opens in a great way with the interview tape of Sarah Connor and I thought it was really clever to mix it with consistent effects onto the studio logos/trailers. I was also impressed with the flashback scene of Sarah and John... I genuinely thought I'd missed something from the previous films because I hadn't seen this footage. It was in fact done with a body double and some CGI from what I've read. The quality of the effects in this bit were amazing and I couldn't tell that it wasn't actual footage, it really threw me for a loop.
Our original characters have both developed since their outing in T2. Sarah is much more purposeful but I have to wonder what she was doing between the times she recounts during the film. The Terminator has managed to adapt to his own sort of "human" life, which again, looks like it's got a few holes in it, but neither case really had me pondering until after the film. Linda Hamilton gives a relaxed kick-ass action performance, Sarah has clearly honed her skills and has little emotion apart from hatred coursing through her veins when she's on a mission, it gave a satisfying little lift to things for me. I couldn't help but believe her attitude to everything, still a little bit of the crazy about her but her determination to keep the machines from rising gives her laser focus.
The Terminator, now going by the name Carl is left to do his own thing after completing his mission. I don't know how I feel about this, would there not have been programming beyond his original mission? Anyway, I can't go down that rabbit hole. I thought Arnie's performance was really good, he's still got that "unintentionally" funny thing down well and the chemistry between him and Hamilton really shone through. He's also done well to get Carl to be quite natural while still being a giant robot, had he played it human I don't think I'd have been so onboard... though I don't know how I felt about his new career.
Having the enhanced human character of Grace stopped the sequences from being too flat. With the emotionless side of things previously it was difficult to engage with all the scenes. Mackenzie Davis gets to do the Terminator acting while still being human, you get the human panic and the machine reacting and the blend works well. Her relationship with Dani is a nice one to follow and getting to see her backstory in flashbacks... wait, flashforwards... really added to it all.
Sadly I was disappointed with Dani in general, she's just kind of dragged along with everything and even though she was essentially our Sarah Connor of this film there's very little happening with her. Her character doesn't have enough substance, she doesn't have enough in her to play with the big boys around her. Dani is also confusing in the future story for several reasons, including issues with time travel which I'm not even going to get into.
Overall the effects were very good. The way the Rev-9 movies is unnatural and enthralling to watch and Gabriel Luna's performance was impressive when you think about how he'd have to act and react to some of the more sci-fi moments. The effects weren't great throughout though and in the underwater scene with Arnie and the Rev-9 I was frowning slightly at the screen. The whole thing had a rather misty feel to it and was much more distracting than you'd think.
The other thing I feel is worth mentioning is that there are some odd choices with slow-motion shots. I couldn't see any correlation between the shots and why they'd been chosen for this effect, some happened close together and others happened out on their own and hardly any fit naturally into the scenes. The only one that felt right was Grace sizing up her shot early on, it showed us one of her abilities and that worked well, but after that they felt more like they were trying to show off more than actually picking spots that would have any impact.
Dark Fate has a lot of nice little nods back to the originals and that made for a satisfying watch. There's subtle humour and surprisingly some emotional scenes too, I came out of this and felt really content having seen it. Despite my quibbles, or which I now realise there were many, I really enjoyed this film.
What you should do
It's definitely worth a watch, it's some good mindless action and I think it's a good follow on to the original two films.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some super robot enhancements wouldn't go amiss.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Elle (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
The end of 2016 is just a few short weeks away. That being said, studios and filmmakers across the world are rolling out the few remaining big budget blockbusters and potential breakout independent masterpieces before year’s end. Among them is today’s film for your consideration. A film that has already received international acclaim when it premiered in competition for the Palme d’Or at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival as well as several awards including the Gotham Independent Film Award For Best Actress, the Los Angeles Film Critics Association Award for Best Actress, a New York Film Critics Association Award for Best Actress, and a Golden Globe Award Nomination for Best Actress for the film’s star, celebrated French film and stage actress Isabelle Huppert. The film would later go on to be selected as the French entry for Best Foreign Language Film at the 89th Academy Awards.
‘Elle’ ( meaning ‘her’ or ‘she’ in French) is an internationally co-produced psychological thriller directed by Paul Verhoeven. Yes, THAT Paul Verhoeven of ‘RoboCop’ , ‘Basic Instinct’, ‘Starship Troopers’, ‘Showgirls’, and ‘Total Recall’ fame. Hold on a second. Before you take his track record of recent works into account just hear me out. The film is based on the 2012 novel “Oh …. ” by French/Armenian author Philippe Djian which won the prix Interallie literary award for a novel written by journalist. ‘Elle’ is Verhoeven’s first French language film and his first film since 2006’s ‘Black Book’.
The film stars Isabelle Huppert as business woman Michele Leblanc. Mother, divorce, and head of a video game company who is viciously attacked and raped in her home late one night by an unknown assailant wearing a ski mask. Rather than report this to the police, she quickly ‘cleans up the mess’ and carries on with life as usual. The film also features several subplots that intricately weave into the film’s main storyline. Michele has a son Vincent (Jonas Bloquet) who is engaged to his unfaithful and domineering girlfriend Josie (Alice Isaac). Their relationship is strained due to Vincent’s lack of direction and his refusal to break off the relationship with Josie who is pregnant by the man she cheated on Vincent with. Michele’s relationship with her mother is also strained due to her mother’s narcissism and preference for younger men. A point of increasing animosity between Michelle and her mother is the fact that Michelle refuses her mother’s request to visit Michelle’s father, a convicted cereal killer, in prison. Meanwhile, Michele is carrying on an affair with Robert (Christian Berkele). The husband of her business partner and best friend Anna (Anne Consigny) while at the same time developing a fixation with Patrick (Laurent Lafitte). A banker and husband of Michele’s religiously devout neighbor Rebecca (Virginie Efira). All this, combined with the turmoil going on within Michele’s company make her reluctant to involve the police in anyway.
Soon Michele grows suspicious of all the men in her life and begins to ‘stalk in reverse’ those in particular might have the strongest motivation to do her harm. At first she suspects Kurt (Lucas Prisor). A particularly resentful employee of her company and even her ex-husband Richard (Charles Berling) who Michele inadvertently pepper-sprays while he was hiding outside her home checking on her safety. Despite pleas from Richard, her friends, and fearing another media frenzy similar to the one that occurred during her childhood when her father was arrested Michele continues with life as usual on the surface. In secret though, Michele is arming herself and using her company’s resources in an attempt to find her attacker and exact her own vision of retribution in this twisted cat and mouse game.
This film is by far one of the best thrillers I’ve seen in the last few years. In my opinion, we here in America don’t partake in enough of the films our neighbors in other countries have to offer. This film doesn’t ‘play it safe’. The story plays out in a realistic and believable manner. This is another one of those rare stories where there are really no ‘happy endings’ in the situation such as depicted in the film. It’s harsh, it’s in your face, it’s plausible, the innocent unfortunately suffer along with the guilty. Punishing the guilty is never enough and sometimes harms the victim(s) even more over the course of time. The film is rated R for depictions of physical and sexual violence and clocks in just past 2 hours. If you’re searching for a well written, well directed, and even better acted film. This psychological thriller is definitely for you. I expect this film will continue to garner more acclaim and even more awards. I’m giving this one 4 out of 5 stars.
‘Elle’ ( meaning ‘her’ or ‘she’ in French) is an internationally co-produced psychological thriller directed by Paul Verhoeven. Yes, THAT Paul Verhoeven of ‘RoboCop’ , ‘Basic Instinct’, ‘Starship Troopers’, ‘Showgirls’, and ‘Total Recall’ fame. Hold on a second. Before you take his track record of recent works into account just hear me out. The film is based on the 2012 novel “Oh …. ” by French/Armenian author Philippe Djian which won the prix Interallie literary award for a novel written by journalist. ‘Elle’ is Verhoeven’s first French language film and his first film since 2006’s ‘Black Book’.
The film stars Isabelle Huppert as business woman Michele Leblanc. Mother, divorce, and head of a video game company who is viciously attacked and raped in her home late one night by an unknown assailant wearing a ski mask. Rather than report this to the police, she quickly ‘cleans up the mess’ and carries on with life as usual. The film also features several subplots that intricately weave into the film’s main storyline. Michele has a son Vincent (Jonas Bloquet) who is engaged to his unfaithful and domineering girlfriend Josie (Alice Isaac). Their relationship is strained due to Vincent’s lack of direction and his refusal to break off the relationship with Josie who is pregnant by the man she cheated on Vincent with. Michele’s relationship with her mother is also strained due to her mother’s narcissism and preference for younger men. A point of increasing animosity between Michelle and her mother is the fact that Michelle refuses her mother’s request to visit Michelle’s father, a convicted cereal killer, in prison. Meanwhile, Michele is carrying on an affair with Robert (Christian Berkele). The husband of her business partner and best friend Anna (Anne Consigny) while at the same time developing a fixation with Patrick (Laurent Lafitte). A banker and husband of Michele’s religiously devout neighbor Rebecca (Virginie Efira). All this, combined with the turmoil going on within Michele’s company make her reluctant to involve the police in anyway.
Soon Michele grows suspicious of all the men in her life and begins to ‘stalk in reverse’ those in particular might have the strongest motivation to do her harm. At first she suspects Kurt (Lucas Prisor). A particularly resentful employee of her company and even her ex-husband Richard (Charles Berling) who Michele inadvertently pepper-sprays while he was hiding outside her home checking on her safety. Despite pleas from Richard, her friends, and fearing another media frenzy similar to the one that occurred during her childhood when her father was arrested Michele continues with life as usual on the surface. In secret though, Michele is arming herself and using her company’s resources in an attempt to find her attacker and exact her own vision of retribution in this twisted cat and mouse game.
This film is by far one of the best thrillers I’ve seen in the last few years. In my opinion, we here in America don’t partake in enough of the films our neighbors in other countries have to offer. This film doesn’t ‘play it safe’. The story plays out in a realistic and believable manner. This is another one of those rare stories where there are really no ‘happy endings’ in the situation such as depicted in the film. It’s harsh, it’s in your face, it’s plausible, the innocent unfortunately suffer along with the guilty. Punishing the guilty is never enough and sometimes harms the victim(s) even more over the course of time. The film is rated R for depictions of physical and sexual violence and clocks in just past 2 hours. If you’re searching for a well written, well directed, and even better acted film. This psychological thriller is definitely for you. I expect this film will continue to garner more acclaim and even more awards. I’m giving this one 4 out of 5 stars.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated The Uncoupling in Books
Feb 11, 2019
The story is told in a third-person narrative and divided into three parts. The first part focuses on the events leading up to the introduction of the play Lysistrata by the school's new drama teacher. The second part goes into detail about all of the different couples affected by the spell that the play casts over the town. The third part tells what happens in the night of the actual high-school production of the play and afterwards.
The spell of Lysistrata resembled a cold wind and only affected "women who were in some way connected sexually to men." No woman in the book was strong enough to resist the power of this mysterious wind, not even the ones newly in love and lust. Every woman affected imagined her own reasons for abstaining, and though all of the different reasons had a logical ring to them, only other women could relate. The men were simply left in the dark to react however he felt could change his twist in circumstances.
Early on, I felt that this book was a bit like a study of sex and the affects of sex -- or lack thereof -- on individuals and relationships. Even though the play Lysistrata was meant to be a catalyst for all of these private events, the high-school reenactment seemed to take a minor background role. The spell seemed to empower the women, though they did not act any happier with their new freedom and individuality. Many were just as baffled or depressed with the chastity as the men, but no couple was able to converse with each other about it, which I found strange and attributed to the effects of the spell. Ironically, because the issues of sex are such a private matter, very few couples shared their problems with anyone else in town, and so no one truly recognized the correlation between the abstinence of the females in town and the play Lysistrata. This irritated me to no end throughout the book.
On the night of the play, the spell is magically lifted by, quite appropriately, a warm wind when the men in the audience begin to protest the essence of the play itself and use that to try and win their women back. Throughout the whole book, the reader is lead to believe that this spell has no designer, that it has simply attached itself to the performance of the play from Lysistrata's origins in 411 B.C. Though I at first was suspicious of a certain person as casting the spell, I was also lulled into changing my mind about this. Without giving away the ending, I was quite surprised at the truth behind the spell's beginnings. There is much I could say about the thoughts that raced through my head while reading the last few pages and the conclusions that I drew from the revelation, but I will resist. I will say that the book is worth every page for its startling culmination.
The spell of Lysistrata resembled a cold wind and only affected "women who were in some way connected sexually to men." No woman in the book was strong enough to resist the power of this mysterious wind, not even the ones newly in love and lust. Every woman affected imagined her own reasons for abstaining, and though all of the different reasons had a logical ring to them, only other women could relate. The men were simply left in the dark to react however he felt could change his twist in circumstances.
Early on, I felt that this book was a bit like a study of sex and the affects of sex -- or lack thereof -- on individuals and relationships. Even though the play Lysistrata was meant to be a catalyst for all of these private events, the high-school reenactment seemed to take a minor background role. The spell seemed to empower the women, though they did not act any happier with their new freedom and individuality. Many were just as baffled or depressed with the chastity as the men, but no couple was able to converse with each other about it, which I found strange and attributed to the effects of the spell. Ironically, because the issues of sex are such a private matter, very few couples shared their problems with anyone else in town, and so no one truly recognized the correlation between the abstinence of the females in town and the play Lysistrata. This irritated me to no end throughout the book.
On the night of the play, the spell is magically lifted by, quite appropriately, a warm wind when the men in the audience begin to protest the essence of the play itself and use that to try and win their women back. Throughout the whole book, the reader is lead to believe that this spell has no designer, that it has simply attached itself to the performance of the play from Lysistrata's origins in 411 B.C. Though I at first was suspicious of a certain person as casting the spell, I was also lulled into changing my mind about this. Without giving away the ending, I was quite surprised at the truth behind the spell's beginnings. There is much I could say about the thoughts that raced through my head while reading the last few pages and the conclusions that I drew from the revelation, but I will resist. I will say that the book is worth every page for its startling culmination.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated BlacKkKlansman (2018) in Movies
Aug 20, 2018
The first real Oscar contender of 2018
The first shot of the 2018 Oscar race has been fired and it is Spike Lee's BLACKkKLANSMAN. If you are an "Oscar completest" I highly recommend you check this film out as you will be hearing it's name called (probably many times) when the Oscar nominations are revealed.
But...is it a good film?
For the most part, yes.
Based on the incredible true story of Colorado Springs undercover office, Ron Stallworth, an African-American, who was able to infiltrate the KKK via the phone. He then needs a surrogate to keep the subterfuge up in face to face meetings.
In playing Stallworth, relative newcomer John David Washington (son of Denzel) shows that he has inherited at least some of his famous father's acting chops. His portrayal of Washington shows a conflicted man, determined to do his job while juggling his feelings and responsibilities of being a black man in early 1970's America.
Laura Harrier (Liz in SPIDERMAN: HOMECOMING) matches Washington beat for beat as Black activist - and potential love interest - Patrice Dumas who has razor-sharp focus on changing the plight of African Americans and drives Stallworth to thinking about more than just his job.
Other strong performances comes from Topher Grace (as KKK Head David Duke), Robert John Burke as Chief Bridges and Corey Hawkins in an extended cameo as Kwame Ture (aka 1960's Black Activist Stokely Carmichael). I really liked the passion and furvor Hawkins brought to this part.
But...the standout performance in this film comes from Adam Driver as the "white face" of Ron Stallworth to the KKK. He portrays Flip Zimmerman who has been constantly denying his Jewish heritage to pass as a WASP in this world and when he comes face to face with race hatred, he must confront his own inner feelings towards his own past. This is another strong performance by Driver (who is much, much more than just Kylo Ren) and I expect to hear his name called when Oscar nominations are announced.
But...good acting aside...this is a Spike Lee "joint" in all the ways (good and bad) that Spike Lee directs his films. There is a cleanliness in the way he drives the narrative never losing focus on what the main theme of the proceedings needs to be. He paints interesting pictures on the screen and crafts a strong, message picture that should be seen by all.
But...he does have a tendency to overplay his hand, hitting the audience over the head over and over again with his themes to the point of me wanting to say to the screen "all right already, I get it!". This knocks the film down just a hair.
But...that is the price of admission for a very good Spike Lee film, one that I highly recommend you see.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
But...is it a good film?
For the most part, yes.
Based on the incredible true story of Colorado Springs undercover office, Ron Stallworth, an African-American, who was able to infiltrate the KKK via the phone. He then needs a surrogate to keep the subterfuge up in face to face meetings.
In playing Stallworth, relative newcomer John David Washington (son of Denzel) shows that he has inherited at least some of his famous father's acting chops. His portrayal of Washington shows a conflicted man, determined to do his job while juggling his feelings and responsibilities of being a black man in early 1970's America.
Laura Harrier (Liz in SPIDERMAN: HOMECOMING) matches Washington beat for beat as Black activist - and potential love interest - Patrice Dumas who has razor-sharp focus on changing the plight of African Americans and drives Stallworth to thinking about more than just his job.
Other strong performances comes from Topher Grace (as KKK Head David Duke), Robert John Burke as Chief Bridges and Corey Hawkins in an extended cameo as Kwame Ture (aka 1960's Black Activist Stokely Carmichael). I really liked the passion and furvor Hawkins brought to this part.
But...the standout performance in this film comes from Adam Driver as the "white face" of Ron Stallworth to the KKK. He portrays Flip Zimmerman who has been constantly denying his Jewish heritage to pass as a WASP in this world and when he comes face to face with race hatred, he must confront his own inner feelings towards his own past. This is another strong performance by Driver (who is much, much more than just Kylo Ren) and I expect to hear his name called when Oscar nominations are announced.
But...good acting aside...this is a Spike Lee "joint" in all the ways (good and bad) that Spike Lee directs his films. There is a cleanliness in the way he drives the narrative never losing focus on what the main theme of the proceedings needs to be. He paints interesting pictures on the screen and crafts a strong, message picture that should be seen by all.
But...he does have a tendency to overplay his hand, hitting the audience over the head over and over again with his themes to the point of me wanting to say to the screen "all right already, I get it!". This knocks the film down just a hair.
But...that is the price of admission for a very good Spike Lee film, one that I highly recommend you see.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Deborah (162 KP) rated Bosworth Field and the Wars of the Roses in Books
Dec 21, 2018
For starters, the book is entitled Bosworth Field & the Wars of the Roses. Discussion of Bosworth is pretty much restricted to one short chapter and about the first third of the book is taken up with an over-detailed account of the events leading up to the Wars of the Roses; if Rowse is concerned about 'Wars of the Roses' being a misnomer, perhaps he should look to his own title! Yes, the events from the disposition of Richard II in 1399 and the usurpation of his throne by Bolingbroke do have an impact on later events, but a third of the book? Do we really need to know the ins and outs of Sir John Oldcastle's Lollard leanings - I fail to see how this is relevant.
Rowse's chapter on Shakespeare must be at least as long, if not longer, than his chapter on Bosworth. The fact that he obviously sincerely believes that one can gain a credible understanding of history from Shakespeare cycle of plays was almost enough to make me drop the book in astonishment! How can one take him seriously?!
He is also ready to give every credit to the supposed work of More. Even here he falls down by claiming that the bodies of the 'princes in the tower' were discovered in the exact place More said! If you read this work you'll find that the opposite is true - they are in the exact place More said they were NOT! The fact that there isn't a shred of evidence that anyone killed the two princes is evidently a small matter to Rowse. He mentions the great turncoat, Sir William Stanley (at this point step-uncle to Henry Tudor) being executed s a result of the Perkin Warbeck debacle, but fails to mention that Sir William is imputed to have said that if Warbeck really was Richard of York, he would not fight against him. Of course he doesn't mention this - he has to keep reminding us that EVERYONE believed Richard III guilty! Really, a credible historian should not pick and choose their facts - something Alison Weir is also very fond of doing.
Another point is that he is quite happy to accept that Katherine of Valois really did marry Owen Tudor, but cannot countenance the much more credible suggestion that Edward IV was married to Eleanor Butler (nee Talbot), who is not even mentioned. He harps on about the morality and piety of the Lancastrians (despite the Beauforts being conceived in double adultery - further hypocrisy) but when Richard III founds a chantry or offers some concession to a religious house that Rowse concludes it much be down to his uneasy concience.
So, overall, not a book I can recommend in the least. He may try to convince us that his unbending traditionalist view is 'sensible' and 'common sense' but anyone with a little knowledge of the subject will see it as laughably absurd and highly prejudiced.
Rowse's chapter on Shakespeare must be at least as long, if not longer, than his chapter on Bosworth. The fact that he obviously sincerely believes that one can gain a credible understanding of history from Shakespeare cycle of plays was almost enough to make me drop the book in astonishment! How can one take him seriously?!
He is also ready to give every credit to the supposed work of More. Even here he falls down by claiming that the bodies of the 'princes in the tower' were discovered in the exact place More said! If you read this work you'll find that the opposite is true - they are in the exact place More said they were NOT! The fact that there isn't a shred of evidence that anyone killed the two princes is evidently a small matter to Rowse. He mentions the great turncoat, Sir William Stanley (at this point step-uncle to Henry Tudor) being executed s a result of the Perkin Warbeck debacle, but fails to mention that Sir William is imputed to have said that if Warbeck really was Richard of York, he would not fight against him. Of course he doesn't mention this - he has to keep reminding us that EVERYONE believed Richard III guilty! Really, a credible historian should not pick and choose their facts - something Alison Weir is also very fond of doing.
Another point is that he is quite happy to accept that Katherine of Valois really did marry Owen Tudor, but cannot countenance the much more credible suggestion that Edward IV was married to Eleanor Butler (nee Talbot), who is not even mentioned. He harps on about the morality and piety of the Lancastrians (despite the Beauforts being conceived in double adultery - further hypocrisy) but when Richard III founds a chantry or offers some concession to a religious house that Rowse concludes it much be down to his uneasy concience.
So, overall, not a book I can recommend in the least. He may try to convince us that his unbending traditionalist view is 'sensible' and 'common sense' but anyone with a little knowledge of the subject will see it as laughably absurd and highly prejudiced.
Russell Evans (179 KP) rated Tyrants of the Underdark in Tabletop Games
Feb 24, 2020 (Updated Feb 24, 2020)
Interesting deck building mechanics (3 more)
Several different viable strategic options
Quick paced, easy to learn to play
Great artwork on cards
A quick paced game of fantasy deck building strategy, skilfully mixed with area control
This game mixes up a couple of game genres, but it balances them really well. I brought this game as my teenage son is a D&D fan and we have played it many times now. We’ve enjoyed it, so we also brought the expansion decks – which, for me, is always the sign of a good game. The game is pretty easy to learn, and once you have the grasp of the game mechanics, the turns flow smoothly and quickly. A 3 player game takes us just over an hour to play.
A brief overview of the Game
Each player controls a Drow house in the Underdark, competing to take control by getting the most Victory Points at the end of the game. Victory points are gained from various sources, for example, controlling locations on the board, assassinating your rivals troops, card abilities, cards owned in your deck or promoted.
Each turn the player draws cards from their own deck that determine what they can do in their turn. There are several different strategies you can pursue to try and win – subterfuge, violence, using spies, gathering a powerful deck etc. You can use influence that you gain in the game to buy new cards from the communal market to expand your deck and buy new minions with a range of different abilities. Random card drawers in the market can be frustrating when your opponents get the card you want straight after your turn, but that’s the nature of the game. Some of the cards can seem super–powered but there are several of these, so we find it balances out overall.
The promotion mechanic is rather interesting - it gives you the dilemma of promoting a card to gain increased victory points but means that the card (and its abilities) aren’t available for you to use for rest of the game. Do you hang on to it a bit longer to use that awesome ability and risk the game ending before you can promote that card for loads more victory points?
There are 4 decks included in the base game; Drow, Dragons, Elementals and Demons and they all play very differently. You use a mix of 2 decks each game, so that adds a bit of variety and re-playability. (Add in the 2 from the expansion for a bit more – Aberrations and Undead.)
Also worth mentioning; the artwork on the cards is nice and the board is good too.
I think Tyrants of the Underdark is a very enjoyable game and it gets a solid 9/10. I just wish there were some more expansions for it.
A brief overview of the Game
Each player controls a Drow house in the Underdark, competing to take control by getting the most Victory Points at the end of the game. Victory points are gained from various sources, for example, controlling locations on the board, assassinating your rivals troops, card abilities, cards owned in your deck or promoted.
Each turn the player draws cards from their own deck that determine what they can do in their turn. There are several different strategies you can pursue to try and win – subterfuge, violence, using spies, gathering a powerful deck etc. You can use influence that you gain in the game to buy new cards from the communal market to expand your deck and buy new minions with a range of different abilities. Random card drawers in the market can be frustrating when your opponents get the card you want straight after your turn, but that’s the nature of the game. Some of the cards can seem super–powered but there are several of these, so we find it balances out overall.
The promotion mechanic is rather interesting - it gives you the dilemma of promoting a card to gain increased victory points but means that the card (and its abilities) aren’t available for you to use for rest of the game. Do you hang on to it a bit longer to use that awesome ability and risk the game ending before you can promote that card for loads more victory points?
There are 4 decks included in the base game; Drow, Dragons, Elementals and Demons and they all play very differently. You use a mix of 2 decks each game, so that adds a bit of variety and re-playability. (Add in the 2 from the expansion for a bit more – Aberrations and Undead.)
Also worth mentioning; the artwork on the cards is nice and the board is good too.
I think Tyrants of the Underdark is a very enjoyable game and it gets a solid 9/10. I just wish there were some more expansions for it.
Weesurf - The HD surf forecast
Weather and Sports
App
*** THE FIRST HD FORECAST MODEL FOR FREE IN THE WORLD *** The only app that provides 1km resolution...
Bladelords - fighting revolution
Games and Entertainment
App
Reveal your inner fighter in this 3D fighting game! Play up to 16 fighters and upgrade their...
Kodak Moments
Photo & Video and Productivity
App
Premium photo printing just got a lot smarter—the latest version of the KODAK MOMENTS App with...
Sarah (7800 KP) Nov 7, 2019
Lee (2222 KP) Nov 7, 2019