Search
Ama (21 KP) rated Detroit (2017) in Movies
Sep 11, 2017
Shattering
The first couple of questions when writing a review here are What's good? and What's bad?
Now, as you've seen I have given this film a full score, but I could not for the life of me put into a sentence what was good about it. It's not a nice film. Nothing about it is good. Except the way it makes you feel with it. But then even that is not a good thing. It's ugly.
I watched Detroit yesterday at the local cinema. I had seen the trailer, knew it was gonna be a tearjerker, knew I would hate the world and myself after watching it.
What I realised is that I completely underestimated the film.
About half an hour to an hour in all I wanted to do was to turn it off. I had an urge to just turn the cinema off, go home and potentially have some chocolate.
It wasn't the fact that the film was bad (I repeat, I gave it a full score), nor was it surprising narrative (again, I had seen the trailer and my tiny bit of historical knowledge filled in the gaps), but something in the way it was presented somehow evoked that feeling of wanting it to go away.
When I walked out of the cinema and forced myself to think about it, I realised a couple of things (all of which eventually made me come to the conclusion that that might have been deliberate).
First of all that film was lit like a feature film and shot like a documentary. This means that watching it, my brain was trying to fool me into thinking this was real a lot more than it usually would. It's film like a documentary, so it's a documentary so this is exactly what must have happened, right? There was a camera at the scene, right?
Well, of course there wasn't. Of course it was still a feature film and of course before the credit it was even stated that besides the testimonies of the parties involved, there was still dramatic licence taken. But that didn't change the fact that it shook me. It shook me because that little shake of the camera that was a little more intense that I was used to and that little zoom every now and then to get closer to an action as though the camera had only just noticed it all lead to that convincing idea of this being real and having happened exactly as I was seeing it.
The acting was splendid. Again, upon contemplating the film, I wondered what it was like for all of these black people (the term used deliberately) to play these roles, having grown up in that country themselves. I wondered what it was like for Will Poulter to become an asshole from the work 'Action!' and while that isn't any different than any other set, somehow, in Detroit, it seemed like so much bigger a deal. On this note, kudos to all the actors in this piece. There was none of you that felt out of place or irrelevant. Each of you portrayed a character dealing with the situation at hand differently and on a spectrum that showed how truly diverse humans are - even if united in a cause, be it on the white side or the black.
I could go on for hours (which I did, with the friend I went to see it with) about how this film made me feel and how much insecurity in the current world it made me feel, but there is no point in doing that. Feelings are best felt, rather than read so just watch it and I'm sure you'll understand.
I do want to say this though:
This film made me realise that the world we live in today is not the product from its past, but rather a work in progress towards what is to come.
I in no way mean that I did not know that previously, but there is a difference between knowing and understanding.
On this note, this film is not for the faint hearted but it is one of those important films that need to be watched at the moment.
Now, as you've seen I have given this film a full score, but I could not for the life of me put into a sentence what was good about it. It's not a nice film. Nothing about it is good. Except the way it makes you feel with it. But then even that is not a good thing. It's ugly.
I watched Detroit yesterday at the local cinema. I had seen the trailer, knew it was gonna be a tearjerker, knew I would hate the world and myself after watching it.
What I realised is that I completely underestimated the film.
About half an hour to an hour in all I wanted to do was to turn it off. I had an urge to just turn the cinema off, go home and potentially have some chocolate.
It wasn't the fact that the film was bad (I repeat, I gave it a full score), nor was it surprising narrative (again, I had seen the trailer and my tiny bit of historical knowledge filled in the gaps), but something in the way it was presented somehow evoked that feeling of wanting it to go away.
When I walked out of the cinema and forced myself to think about it, I realised a couple of things (all of which eventually made me come to the conclusion that that might have been deliberate).
First of all that film was lit like a feature film and shot like a documentary. This means that watching it, my brain was trying to fool me into thinking this was real a lot more than it usually would. It's film like a documentary, so it's a documentary so this is exactly what must have happened, right? There was a camera at the scene, right?
Well, of course there wasn't. Of course it was still a feature film and of course before the credit it was even stated that besides the testimonies of the parties involved, there was still dramatic licence taken. But that didn't change the fact that it shook me. It shook me because that little shake of the camera that was a little more intense that I was used to and that little zoom every now and then to get closer to an action as though the camera had only just noticed it all lead to that convincing idea of this being real and having happened exactly as I was seeing it.
The acting was splendid. Again, upon contemplating the film, I wondered what it was like for all of these black people (the term used deliberately) to play these roles, having grown up in that country themselves. I wondered what it was like for Will Poulter to become an asshole from the work 'Action!' and while that isn't any different than any other set, somehow, in Detroit, it seemed like so much bigger a deal. On this note, kudos to all the actors in this piece. There was none of you that felt out of place or irrelevant. Each of you portrayed a character dealing with the situation at hand differently and on a spectrum that showed how truly diverse humans are - even if united in a cause, be it on the white side or the black.
I could go on for hours (which I did, with the friend I went to see it with) about how this film made me feel and how much insecurity in the current world it made me feel, but there is no point in doing that. Feelings are best felt, rather than read so just watch it and I'm sure you'll understand.
I do want to say this though:
This film made me realise that the world we live in today is not the product from its past, but rather a work in progress towards what is to come.
I in no way mean that I did not know that previously, but there is a difference between knowing and understanding.
On this note, this film is not for the faint hearted but it is one of those important films that need to be watched at the moment.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Gem Blenders in Tabletop Games
Oct 24, 2019
Collectible Card Games (CCG) and Living Card Games (LCG) are enjoyed by the members of Purple Phoenix Games. From these genres we primarily play Lord of the Rings LCG, A Game of Thrones (2e) LCG, and DiceMasters (ok we kinda cheated here but it still applies). So we are no strangers to constructing decks or teams and going head-to-head to defeat opponents. When I heard about Gem Blenders being a CCG with an interesting theme, I knew we had to try it.
Gem Blenders is a competitive card game of upgrading (blending) heroes into stronger forces that will attack your opponent’s HP. The winner is the player who can decrease their opponent’s HP to zero first.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. As this is a preview copy of the game, I do not know if the final rules or components will be similar or different to what we were provided. Similarly, our copy came with two pre-constructed decks ready to duel. -T
To setup, players will need to construct their decks according to the construction requirements and limitations found in the rulebook. I will not be covering every rule found in the rulebook here, as the rules are very extensive. Once the four heroes per player are chosen, they must be arranged in a diamond pattern with the Left, Center, and Right heroes being on the “front line” and the Back hero being the sole back liner. Front line heroes can attack, but the hero in back cannot. Draw your opening hand of six cards and you are ready to play! Wait, you don’t like your initial draw? Ok then, shuffle back into your deck and draw a new set of six. You are ready to play!
On a turn a player will complete three phases. Firstly, draw a card. The next phase is to play cards from your hand. You are allowed to play one gem card per turn, so initially players will probably be attaching gems to heroes. Simply slide the gem card under the top of the hero card so that the colored gem graphic can be seen (see below). Other actions include attack (once per turn), blend or de-blend heroes, discard gems, activate hero effects, and play action cards.
Heroes will have effects printed on their cards with instructions on how to use them. You may use all four heroes’ effects if possible in any turn. Discarding gems is self-explanatory, and there are cards in the game that can activate or become more powerful depending on having gems in the discard pile. Action cards can help players manipulate their decks, search for specific cards, or even cancel another player’s action out of turn. They can be severely powerful, so there are strict limitations as to which Action cards and how many of them you may keep in your deck.
Blending heroes is a crux of the game and the way to make your heroes stronger in battle. By collecting the gems and attaching them to your heroes you are providing them with requirements for blending. You may only blend a hero when they have the appropriate gems attached to them according to the Blend card you wish to play. The hero then becomes the blended hero with the new effects and stronger Attack and Defense values. These are important stats for the Attack action. When a player Attacks, they choose which of their front line heroes they would like to send into battle (or all of them). The attackers may only attack the heroes directly opposite them on the table. So a Center hero may only attack the other Center hero across from them (in a 2 player game). Stats are simply compared and any attack power that remains undefended will be deducted from the defender player’s HP.
The last step of a turn is declaring your turn over. Then the next player may take their turn. Play will continue in this fashion until one player has zero HP and a winner is figured.
Components. To reiterate, we were provided a prototype copy of the game, so I will not comment on aspects that may be changed as a result of a successful Kickstarter campaign or through any stretch goals. I was given no information or scoops about what is planned, so I will merely comment on what I can here. This is a card game, and came to us in a box similar to that of the Tiny Epic series, but a bit smaller. It was enough for two constructed decks of 54 cards each and a couple reference cards. We were able to play the game right out of the box this way and that was very appreciated.
However, the card layout and art style of the game is where we have our issues. I recently turned 40 and, well, my eyesight isn’t what it used to be. When playing Gem Blenders, much of the game is about upgrading your forces and attacking your opponent(s). So when I look across the table at my opponent’s card, I want to be able to clearly see their Attack and Defense. Unfortunately, the text is so small in this version of the game that we were constantly asking each other what the A and D numbers were. Now, I mentioned earlier that we play and love DiceMasters as well, and that game also suffers from readability issues, so we can begrudgingly overlook that. I hope the finished version of the game addresses this and makes adjustments on visibility of important stats.
Also, the art style of the game just did not resonate with us at all. Again, it could be such that the art will change once the game is truly finished, but considering the cards we were provided, we were hoping for something a bit flashier or more polished. As you can see from the shots here on this review, the hero cards are all black and white, the gem cards have a colorful gem in the middle of the white background of the card with a smaller iteration of the gem in the upper portion of the card. The action cards are also the stark black and white similar to the hero cards. The blend cards feature different wallpapers with a somewhat improved illustration on the front. I found that I would rather see more of the text and battle stats than the illustrations of this game.
That all said, the game is really solid, the theme is interesting, and the game play is quite fun. If it looked better it would be a great option for a quick head-to-head CCG with an excellent and inventive theme. I do hope improvements to the game are planned, and if that’s the case then I will definitely be keeping it on my radar.
Gem Blenders is a competitive card game of upgrading (blending) heroes into stronger forces that will attack your opponent’s HP. The winner is the player who can decrease their opponent’s HP to zero first.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. As this is a preview copy of the game, I do not know if the final rules or components will be similar or different to what we were provided. Similarly, our copy came with two pre-constructed decks ready to duel. -T
To setup, players will need to construct their decks according to the construction requirements and limitations found in the rulebook. I will not be covering every rule found in the rulebook here, as the rules are very extensive. Once the four heroes per player are chosen, they must be arranged in a diamond pattern with the Left, Center, and Right heroes being on the “front line” and the Back hero being the sole back liner. Front line heroes can attack, but the hero in back cannot. Draw your opening hand of six cards and you are ready to play! Wait, you don’t like your initial draw? Ok then, shuffle back into your deck and draw a new set of six. You are ready to play!
On a turn a player will complete three phases. Firstly, draw a card. The next phase is to play cards from your hand. You are allowed to play one gem card per turn, so initially players will probably be attaching gems to heroes. Simply slide the gem card under the top of the hero card so that the colored gem graphic can be seen (see below). Other actions include attack (once per turn), blend or de-blend heroes, discard gems, activate hero effects, and play action cards.
Heroes will have effects printed on their cards with instructions on how to use them. You may use all four heroes’ effects if possible in any turn. Discarding gems is self-explanatory, and there are cards in the game that can activate or become more powerful depending on having gems in the discard pile. Action cards can help players manipulate their decks, search for specific cards, or even cancel another player’s action out of turn. They can be severely powerful, so there are strict limitations as to which Action cards and how many of them you may keep in your deck.
Blending heroes is a crux of the game and the way to make your heroes stronger in battle. By collecting the gems and attaching them to your heroes you are providing them with requirements for blending. You may only blend a hero when they have the appropriate gems attached to them according to the Blend card you wish to play. The hero then becomes the blended hero with the new effects and stronger Attack and Defense values. These are important stats for the Attack action. When a player Attacks, they choose which of their front line heroes they would like to send into battle (or all of them). The attackers may only attack the heroes directly opposite them on the table. So a Center hero may only attack the other Center hero across from them (in a 2 player game). Stats are simply compared and any attack power that remains undefended will be deducted from the defender player’s HP.
The last step of a turn is declaring your turn over. Then the next player may take their turn. Play will continue in this fashion until one player has zero HP and a winner is figured.
Components. To reiterate, we were provided a prototype copy of the game, so I will not comment on aspects that may be changed as a result of a successful Kickstarter campaign or through any stretch goals. I was given no information or scoops about what is planned, so I will merely comment on what I can here. This is a card game, and came to us in a box similar to that of the Tiny Epic series, but a bit smaller. It was enough for two constructed decks of 54 cards each and a couple reference cards. We were able to play the game right out of the box this way and that was very appreciated.
However, the card layout and art style of the game is where we have our issues. I recently turned 40 and, well, my eyesight isn’t what it used to be. When playing Gem Blenders, much of the game is about upgrading your forces and attacking your opponent(s). So when I look across the table at my opponent’s card, I want to be able to clearly see their Attack and Defense. Unfortunately, the text is so small in this version of the game that we were constantly asking each other what the A and D numbers were. Now, I mentioned earlier that we play and love DiceMasters as well, and that game also suffers from readability issues, so we can begrudgingly overlook that. I hope the finished version of the game addresses this and makes adjustments on visibility of important stats.
Also, the art style of the game just did not resonate with us at all. Again, it could be such that the art will change once the game is truly finished, but considering the cards we were provided, we were hoping for something a bit flashier or more polished. As you can see from the shots here on this review, the hero cards are all black and white, the gem cards have a colorful gem in the middle of the white background of the card with a smaller iteration of the gem in the upper portion of the card. The action cards are also the stark black and white similar to the hero cards. The blend cards feature different wallpapers with a somewhat improved illustration on the front. I found that I would rather see more of the text and battle stats than the illustrations of this game.
That all said, the game is really solid, the theme is interesting, and the game play is quite fun. If it looked better it would be a great option for a quick head-to-head CCG with an excellent and inventive theme. I do hope improvements to the game are planned, and if that’s the case then I will definitely be keeping it on my radar.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Birds of Prey (And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) (2020) in Movies
Oct 2, 2020 (Updated Oct 6, 2020)
Margot Robbie and her return to Harley Quinn (2 more)
Badass fight choreography
Some really cool action sequences
I wasn't a fan of the self narration the entire film. (2 more)
I also didn't like the Tarantino-ish way of chopping up the story and going back and forth the way they did.
I feel like every character in this movie was underutilized and could have been done better or had better character development.
Birds of a Feather Can't Stick Their Landing On This One
Contains spoilers, click to show
Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) is a 2020 action super hero film. Distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures, it is a follow-up to Suicide Squad (2016). The movie was directed by Cathy Yan and written by Christina Hodson, and it stars Margot Robbie, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Jurnee Smollett-Bell, Rosie Perez, Chris Messina and Ewan McGregor.
Four years after the defeat of the Enchantress, the Joker throws Harley Quinn out on the Gotham City streets when they break up. The already extremely volatile and unhinged, Harley (Margot Robbie) finds herself all alone with a huge target on her back. Without the Joker in the picture, the city is turned upside down as criminals that have a beef with Harley hunt her down. Gotham's most narcissistic villain, Roman Sionis (Ewan McGregor), and his right-hand man, Victor Zsasz (Chris Messina), have Harley and a precious diamond in their sights. Now Harley, Huntress (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), Black Canary (Jurnee Smollett-Bell) and Detective Renee Montoya's (Rosie Perez) paths collide, and the unlikely foursome have no choice but to team up to take Roman down.
First off let me say that I love Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn. I've always been a big Harley fan since before she was mainstream cool and a big part of that would have to be the Batman Animated Series and how it portrayed her. I liked Margot Robbie's performance in Suicide Squad and thought she did an excellent job of bringing that character to "life". I didn't have high expectations for this movie going in and sometimes that can be a good thing because it leaves you more open to the film being better than you thought it was going to be. Right away I didn't like the whole, Harley narrating the movie in the beginning and kind of throughout the movie. I don't know if they were trying to go for a "funny" Deadpool breaking the "4th" wall type thing but for me it just kind of made the movie less fun. I also have to say that I wasn't a big fan of the pacing and the whole going back and forth through time in the events of the movie. I think it might have been better on paper than how it actually came out in the movie. Kind of Tarantino-ish but just kind of overdone because of the info-dumping narration. There were some awesome fight sequences and there was plenty of over the top violence and action but a lot could have been done better. For me the plot was what felt like it made the movie feel a little lackluster. I really felt like they failed to flesh out Black Canary's character and Huntress felt extremely unpolished as well. A lot of the character's were underutilized except in gratuitous fight scenes and the audience is not shown their motivations a lot of the time but instead told them. I have to say some parts did make me laugh and the music wasn't terrible. The acting was extremely bad sometimes though. I don't know what they were going for with Huntress/Mary Elizabeth Winstead but she comes off as a badass but then really awkward or nerdy and then for a little bit she was a raging psychopath killer. I don't think they knew what direction to take the character and her performance definitely suffered. Black Canary/Jurnee Smollett-Bell was a character that was really cool but without knowing her motivations it really took alot out by never uncovering more about her character until later. A lot of things didn't make sense too. I can't believe that anyone would want to mess with Harley even if she wasn't with Joker. I however could have seen anyone and I mean anyone go after her for a big reward like they placed on the kid. Also a big reward like that on a no name kid who is just a low level pick pocket wouldn't have brought in that much results. Plus the diamond that she has is something you wouldn't want anybody else finding out about so why bring so much attention to it. Harley Quinn and all the other female actors in this movie have "plot armor" and never get hurt even when being blown up or shot at. All-in-all, it was an enjoyable movie but I wouldn't say it was anything special. This was a big-budget superhero film that comes off more run of the mill and fails to bring anything "wow" except some pretty kick ass action sequences and Margot Robbie and her return to Harley Quinn. I give it a 5/10.
Four years after the defeat of the Enchantress, the Joker throws Harley Quinn out on the Gotham City streets when they break up. The already extremely volatile and unhinged, Harley (Margot Robbie) finds herself all alone with a huge target on her back. Without the Joker in the picture, the city is turned upside down as criminals that have a beef with Harley hunt her down. Gotham's most narcissistic villain, Roman Sionis (Ewan McGregor), and his right-hand man, Victor Zsasz (Chris Messina), have Harley and a precious diamond in their sights. Now Harley, Huntress (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), Black Canary (Jurnee Smollett-Bell) and Detective Renee Montoya's (Rosie Perez) paths collide, and the unlikely foursome have no choice but to team up to take Roman down.
First off let me say that I love Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn. I've always been a big Harley fan since before she was mainstream cool and a big part of that would have to be the Batman Animated Series and how it portrayed her. I liked Margot Robbie's performance in Suicide Squad and thought she did an excellent job of bringing that character to "life". I didn't have high expectations for this movie going in and sometimes that can be a good thing because it leaves you more open to the film being better than you thought it was going to be. Right away I didn't like the whole, Harley narrating the movie in the beginning and kind of throughout the movie. I don't know if they were trying to go for a "funny" Deadpool breaking the "4th" wall type thing but for me it just kind of made the movie less fun. I also have to say that I wasn't a big fan of the pacing and the whole going back and forth through time in the events of the movie. I think it might have been better on paper than how it actually came out in the movie. Kind of Tarantino-ish but just kind of overdone because of the info-dumping narration. There were some awesome fight sequences and there was plenty of over the top violence and action but a lot could have been done better. For me the plot was what felt like it made the movie feel a little lackluster. I really felt like they failed to flesh out Black Canary's character and Huntress felt extremely unpolished as well. A lot of the character's were underutilized except in gratuitous fight scenes and the audience is not shown their motivations a lot of the time but instead told them. I have to say some parts did make me laugh and the music wasn't terrible. The acting was extremely bad sometimes though. I don't know what they were going for with Huntress/Mary Elizabeth Winstead but she comes off as a badass but then really awkward or nerdy and then for a little bit she was a raging psychopath killer. I don't think they knew what direction to take the character and her performance definitely suffered. Black Canary/Jurnee Smollett-Bell was a character that was really cool but without knowing her motivations it really took alot out by never uncovering more about her character until later. A lot of things didn't make sense too. I can't believe that anyone would want to mess with Harley even if she wasn't with Joker. I however could have seen anyone and I mean anyone go after her for a big reward like they placed on the kid. Also a big reward like that on a no name kid who is just a low level pick pocket wouldn't have brought in that much results. Plus the diamond that she has is something you wouldn't want anybody else finding out about so why bring so much attention to it. Harley Quinn and all the other female actors in this movie have "plot armor" and never get hurt even when being blown up or shot at. All-in-all, it was an enjoyable movie but I wouldn't say it was anything special. This was a big-budget superhero film that comes off more run of the mill and fails to bring anything "wow" except some pretty kick ass action sequences and Margot Robbie and her return to Harley Quinn. I give it a 5/10.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dune (2021) in Movies
Oct 28, 2021
“He’s Not The Messiah – He’s a Very Naughty Boy!”
Certain works of fiction have been labelled with the tag of “unfilmable”, and Frank Herbert’s 1965 novel “Dune” is one of those. It’s full of exposition done as internal monologues – which screams “movie voiceover”. And regular readers will know my hatred of those!
Amazingly, Denis Villeneuve manages to pull off the impossible with his version of Dune (part 1), which I saw last night as part of a Cineworld Unlimited preview event. It’s close to being a movie masterpiece.
Plot Summary:
The desert planet of Arrakis is home to the Freman tribe but is a political battleground since it is the only known source of ‘Spice’: a substance that enables interplanetary travel.
Paul (Timothée Chalamet) is the heir to the throne of the House of Atreides, headed by his father Duke Leto Atreides (Oscar Isaac). His mother (Rebecca Ferguson) is Leto’s concubine and possessed with hereditary gifts: mystical powers that make her part of a sect of galactic ‘witches’ with mystical powers. But the House of Atreides is gaining in power, and the Emperor throws a political spanner into the works by evicting the vicious House of Harkonnen from Arrakis and giving it to Atreides. This puts both Houses on the path of war.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Timothée Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Zendaya, Jason Momoa, Stellan Skarsgård, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Dave Bautista, Charlotte Rampling.
Directed by: Denis Villeneuve.
Written by: Jon Spaihts, Denis Villeneuve and Eric Roth. (Based on the novel by Frank Herbert).
“Dune” Review: Positives:
My 5*’s for this one goes for the overall vision, which is grandiose with scenes that stick in the brain. As he demonstrated in “Arrival“, Villeneuve likes to go for huge spacecraft that hang “in the sky in much the same way that bricks don’t”*. And the ships in this vision are just HUGE.
The ensemble cast does a great job, with Chalamet, Isaac and Ferguson being particularly impressive. Stellan Skarsgård (looking like he is about to tell “a very amusing story about a goat”, if you get that movie reference!) looks to have the most gruelling acting job, having to emerge from, and descend into, a bath of black goo!
Much like Villeneuve’s “Blade Runner 2049“, this movie has cinematography that is worthy of framing and sticking on your wall. (Greig Fraser is the man behind the camera here).
Hans Zimmer‘s music is phenomenal. I’m not sure it’s a good ‘sit down and listen to’ sort of soundtrack, but it fits the movie beautifully.
* I used this Douglas Adams quote for my “Arrival” review, and then Mark Kermode used the same quote: I like to think he read my review!
Negatives:
It wasn’t a problem for me, but I expect some will consider the movie to be too much mood and not enough action. I’ve seen some comment that the film was “emotionally empty”: but I really didn’t feel that, and am well-invested in the story ready for “Part 2”.
This is probably faithful to the books, but given all of the advanced spacecraft technology on show, and laser/blaster technology, it seems bonkers that when we get to hand-to-hand combat between the armies that we get into “swords and sandals” territory.
Observation:
There’s nothing new under the Tatooine suns. And so much of this film has you linking the concepts back to “Star Wars”:
“The Force” is now “The Way”
The Jedi are the ‘Ben and Jerry Set’. (Well, that’s what it sounded like to me… and I don’t even like Ice Cream!)
Both films centre on a Messiah-like “chosen one”, foretold by legend
“Spice” also features in “Star Wars” with “spice runners” (as in the Millenium Falcon doing the ‘Kessel Run’)
There’s even a ‘pit of sarlaac’ moment in “Dune”.
Of course, since Frank Herbert wrote “Dune” in 1965, there’s a significant question as to who is plagiarising who here!
Summary Thoughts on “Dune”
At 2 hours 35 minutes, it’s YET ANOTHER long movie: cementing October 2021 as the month of long movies. (I just did a quick tally, and of the six films I’ve seen this month they average 139 minutes in length: and that’s with “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” dragging the average down!)
But this is a movie that MUST be seen on the big screen. It’s a memorable movie experience and highly recommended.
I can’t wait for Villeneuve’s “Part 2”, currently in pre-production.
Amazingly, Denis Villeneuve manages to pull off the impossible with his version of Dune (part 1), which I saw last night as part of a Cineworld Unlimited preview event. It’s close to being a movie masterpiece.
Plot Summary:
The desert planet of Arrakis is home to the Freman tribe but is a political battleground since it is the only known source of ‘Spice’: a substance that enables interplanetary travel.
Paul (Timothée Chalamet) is the heir to the throne of the House of Atreides, headed by his father Duke Leto Atreides (Oscar Isaac). His mother (Rebecca Ferguson) is Leto’s concubine and possessed with hereditary gifts: mystical powers that make her part of a sect of galactic ‘witches’ with mystical powers. But the House of Atreides is gaining in power, and the Emperor throws a political spanner into the works by evicting the vicious House of Harkonnen from Arrakis and giving it to Atreides. This puts both Houses on the path of war.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Timothée Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Zendaya, Jason Momoa, Stellan Skarsgård, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Dave Bautista, Charlotte Rampling.
Directed by: Denis Villeneuve.
Written by: Jon Spaihts, Denis Villeneuve and Eric Roth. (Based on the novel by Frank Herbert).
“Dune” Review: Positives:
My 5*’s for this one goes for the overall vision, which is grandiose with scenes that stick in the brain. As he demonstrated in “Arrival“, Villeneuve likes to go for huge spacecraft that hang “in the sky in much the same way that bricks don’t”*. And the ships in this vision are just HUGE.
The ensemble cast does a great job, with Chalamet, Isaac and Ferguson being particularly impressive. Stellan Skarsgård (looking like he is about to tell “a very amusing story about a goat”, if you get that movie reference!) looks to have the most gruelling acting job, having to emerge from, and descend into, a bath of black goo!
Much like Villeneuve’s “Blade Runner 2049“, this movie has cinematography that is worthy of framing and sticking on your wall. (Greig Fraser is the man behind the camera here).
Hans Zimmer‘s music is phenomenal. I’m not sure it’s a good ‘sit down and listen to’ sort of soundtrack, but it fits the movie beautifully.
* I used this Douglas Adams quote for my “Arrival” review, and then Mark Kermode used the same quote: I like to think he read my review!
Negatives:
It wasn’t a problem for me, but I expect some will consider the movie to be too much mood and not enough action. I’ve seen some comment that the film was “emotionally empty”: but I really didn’t feel that, and am well-invested in the story ready for “Part 2”.
This is probably faithful to the books, but given all of the advanced spacecraft technology on show, and laser/blaster technology, it seems bonkers that when we get to hand-to-hand combat between the armies that we get into “swords and sandals” territory.
Observation:
There’s nothing new under the Tatooine suns. And so much of this film has you linking the concepts back to “Star Wars”:
“The Force” is now “The Way”
The Jedi are the ‘Ben and Jerry Set’. (Well, that’s what it sounded like to me… and I don’t even like Ice Cream!)
Both films centre on a Messiah-like “chosen one”, foretold by legend
“Spice” also features in “Star Wars” with “spice runners” (as in the Millenium Falcon doing the ‘Kessel Run’)
There’s even a ‘pit of sarlaac’ moment in “Dune”.
Of course, since Frank Herbert wrote “Dune” in 1965, there’s a significant question as to who is plagiarising who here!
Summary Thoughts on “Dune”
At 2 hours 35 minutes, it’s YET ANOTHER long movie: cementing October 2021 as the month of long movies. (I just did a quick tally, and of the six films I’ve seen this month they average 139 minutes in length: and that’s with “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” dragging the average down!)
But this is a movie that MUST be seen on the big screen. It’s a memorable movie experience and highly recommended.
I can’t wait for Villeneuve’s “Part 2”, currently in pre-production.
Mississippi Blood
9.1
Rate It
Book
#1 New York Times Bestselling Author The endgame is at hand for Penn Cage, his family, and the...
Weak characters (1 more)
Mediocre ending
A haunted house thriller that could've been more
At Spring House, it’s not just a lone ghost that haunts the property—something has awoken. Almost as if the house were alive. That’s the impression I got going into The Vines, and I thought it was a unique twist to the classic haunted house story.
The book has several narrators starting with Caitlin, an heiress whom everyone loves to hate and who is taken advantage of and cheated on by her husband. Second is Nova, an educated young black woman employed at Spring that has a real chip on her shoulder. Lastly there is Blake, a homosexual male nurse that suffers from depression after witnessing the death of his lover. All of these character’s stories come together to form the mystery around Spring House.
I had a hard time really deciding how I wanted to rate this book overall. At certain points it was thrilling, I wanted to know more about the mystery surrounding Spring House and the action scenes are written in wonderful detail. On the other hand I also found myself pretty disappointed with how one dimensional many of the characters were, particularly Caitlin and Nova. I just couldn’t find myself caring much about either one of them, which made it a little bit hard to remain interested in their respective roles in the plot.
With Caitlin she didn’t seem to be such a bad person, but the hatred and scorn from the people around her have reduced her to being a shadow of a person, not much ever comes from her character. The development of her character is seemingly dropped, she’s just there, all blind anger and rage and while it’s understandable, she has little impact on, well, anything. Which was unexpected considering the book’s synopsis was about her. What is worse is that Nova isn’t too far off from Caitlin. While there is a part of me that likes how strong willed Nova is, it is kind of annoying how she is just as blinded by her own rage and prejudice. Even she is barely relevant to the plot, if I’m to be perfectly frank. It becomes obvious that the real story is about Blake and how he faces up to the past that has been haunting him for years. This is well and good and I enjoyed his story, but then all of the other characters just become filler and this was kind of a downer.
The book just took way too long to get to that point. The focus keeps shifting before the story really starts to pick up speed and it feels like it drags a bit. I also found the ending to be a little bit cheesy, it just didn’t do it for me. Overall the book was decent, Rice has a gift for description and it was entertaining for a while. I just didn’t find this one to be particularly memorable.
The book has several narrators starting with Caitlin, an heiress whom everyone loves to hate and who is taken advantage of and cheated on by her husband. Second is Nova, an educated young black woman employed at Spring that has a real chip on her shoulder. Lastly there is Blake, a homosexual male nurse that suffers from depression after witnessing the death of his lover. All of these character’s stories come together to form the mystery around Spring House.
I had a hard time really deciding how I wanted to rate this book overall. At certain points it was thrilling, I wanted to know more about the mystery surrounding Spring House and the action scenes are written in wonderful detail. On the other hand I also found myself pretty disappointed with how one dimensional many of the characters were, particularly Caitlin and Nova. I just couldn’t find myself caring much about either one of them, which made it a little bit hard to remain interested in their respective roles in the plot.
With Caitlin she didn’t seem to be such a bad person, but the hatred and scorn from the people around her have reduced her to being a shadow of a person, not much ever comes from her character. The development of her character is seemingly dropped, she’s just there, all blind anger and rage and while it’s understandable, she has little impact on, well, anything. Which was unexpected considering the book’s synopsis was about her. What is worse is that Nova isn’t too far off from Caitlin. While there is a part of me that likes how strong willed Nova is, it is kind of annoying how she is just as blinded by her own rage and prejudice. Even she is barely relevant to the plot, if I’m to be perfectly frank. It becomes obvious that the real story is about Blake and how he faces up to the past that has been haunting him for years. This is well and good and I enjoyed his story, but then all of the other characters just become filler and this was kind of a downer.
The book just took way too long to get to that point. The focus keeps shifting before the story really starts to pick up speed and it feels like it drags a bit. I also found the ending to be a little bit cheesy, it just didn’t do it for me. Overall the book was decent, Rice has a gift for description and it was entertaining for a while. I just didn’t find this one to be particularly memorable.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Saving Private Ryan (1998) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019 (Updated Feb 25, 2019)
Groundbreaker mired in slop
Contains spoilers, click to show
Regarded as one of the best war films ever made, it certainly qualifies. The opening twenty minutes are still as breathtaking, shocking and disturbing realistic as they were back in 1998. It is hard to imagine that it has now been over twelve years since Saving Private Ryan broke the mold of World War II film making.
Winner of five Academy Awards, including Best Director for Spielberg, Best Cinematography, and Sound, which was astonishing, even by today's standards, it failed to win Best Picture, losing out to Shakespeare In Love. Shakespeare In Love! Don't get me wrong, it's a good film, but easily forgettable compared to Ryan, only proving yet again that if you touch upon the British monarchy you get Oscars.
The film is a fictional account of four brothers, all serving in the U.S. Army, three of which were killed in action on or around the D-Day landings. The fourth, James Ryan played by Matt Damon is somewhere in Europe, and Tom Hanks with his platoon are sent to bring him home, to spare his mother anymore heartache.
Tom Hanks, who was also snubbed at the 1998 Oscars for his perfect performance as Captain Miller, the everyman who was losing himself in the horrors of war, underplayed his role perfectly. He is believable on every level, emotionally, physically and has a sense of subtly with makes him of Hollywood's greats.
The action is visceral, gritty and horrifying. But never played for crass effect. Scenes of soldiers intestines spilling out, limbs flying a sunder and brutal killing left, right and centre are recreated for one purpose. To truly demonstrate the horrors of war, and to change our perceptions of the global conflict which had almost become a joke, a setting for gung- ho action films, where the Yanks reign supreme and single-handedly win the war.
This shows troops crying, hurting and making decisions which should not be made under any moral circumstances, but you understand why, whether you agree or not. There is no doubt that Spielberg is not innocent of making an American film, but it is about as even-handed as you might expect, with the exception of Tora! Tora! Tora! or The Longest Day.
So, the action is first-rate, graphic and perfectly toned to recreate to horror of the last century's greatest and most of destructive conflicts. But that's only half the story.
The other half is the talking, reminiscing and the almost sepia tone is more than a little cloying. The U.S. General's monologues, which seem to consist almost entirely of Lincoln quotations are overly sentimental, erring on the side of sloppy patriotism rather than Jingoism, which is hardly a bad thing but it isn't good either.
The civilian scenes, such as Mrs Ryan, washing a plate as she sees the car drive down to road to inform her of her sons deaths are so sentimental that they jar against the realism of the war scenes. It's not so much contrast as it is as extreme as black and white.
The action is obviously interspersed, as all war films are, with rest stops and moments of talking, pondering etc., but the scenes drag on too long and disrupt the tone of the film. On the other hand, the direction is brilliant when explaining the situations during and around the action, but Spielberg seemed to think that we needed these sloppy and often boring moments, such as The Church, and the outside the cafe in Ramelle, to express the emotional torment of the characters, but I think that these scenes are so boring and pointless that I' can hardly remember them, as my attention drifts off during them! But I do have an understanding of the soldiers, and this was achieved, quite adorably without these scenes.
Overall, this is a film of two halves if ever there was one. The battle scenes and the journey through war-torn France are brilliant, gritty and educational, but the scenes of American sentimentality are in danger of derailing the whole film. Many feel that is the best war film of all time. I do not agree, favouring Black Hawk Down over this, but I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that Blank Hawk Down owes a debt to Saving Private Ryan, by opening the door to the gritty war dramas of the naughties and to the style itself.
This film is on of the most important contributions to cinema ever, and has done so much to finally show to true nature of WWII and war in general. But even though I would rate this 10/10 if it was just for the war scenes, the slop just gets in the way and devalues what should have been perfection.
Winner of five Academy Awards, including Best Director for Spielberg, Best Cinematography, and Sound, which was astonishing, even by today's standards, it failed to win Best Picture, losing out to Shakespeare In Love. Shakespeare In Love! Don't get me wrong, it's a good film, but easily forgettable compared to Ryan, only proving yet again that if you touch upon the British monarchy you get Oscars.
The film is a fictional account of four brothers, all serving in the U.S. Army, three of which were killed in action on or around the D-Day landings. The fourth, James Ryan played by Matt Damon is somewhere in Europe, and Tom Hanks with his platoon are sent to bring him home, to spare his mother anymore heartache.
Tom Hanks, who was also snubbed at the 1998 Oscars for his perfect performance as Captain Miller, the everyman who was losing himself in the horrors of war, underplayed his role perfectly. He is believable on every level, emotionally, physically and has a sense of subtly with makes him of Hollywood's greats.
The action is visceral, gritty and horrifying. But never played for crass effect. Scenes of soldiers intestines spilling out, limbs flying a sunder and brutal killing left, right and centre are recreated for one purpose. To truly demonstrate the horrors of war, and to change our perceptions of the global conflict which had almost become a joke, a setting for gung- ho action films, where the Yanks reign supreme and single-handedly win the war.
This shows troops crying, hurting and making decisions which should not be made under any moral circumstances, but you understand why, whether you agree or not. There is no doubt that Spielberg is not innocent of making an American film, but it is about as even-handed as you might expect, with the exception of Tora! Tora! Tora! or The Longest Day.
So, the action is first-rate, graphic and perfectly toned to recreate to horror of the last century's greatest and most of destructive conflicts. But that's only half the story.
The other half is the talking, reminiscing and the almost sepia tone is more than a little cloying. The U.S. General's monologues, which seem to consist almost entirely of Lincoln quotations are overly sentimental, erring on the side of sloppy patriotism rather than Jingoism, which is hardly a bad thing but it isn't good either.
The civilian scenes, such as Mrs Ryan, washing a plate as she sees the car drive down to road to inform her of her sons deaths are so sentimental that they jar against the realism of the war scenes. It's not so much contrast as it is as extreme as black and white.
The action is obviously interspersed, as all war films are, with rest stops and moments of talking, pondering etc., but the scenes drag on too long and disrupt the tone of the film. On the other hand, the direction is brilliant when explaining the situations during and around the action, but Spielberg seemed to think that we needed these sloppy and often boring moments, such as The Church, and the outside the cafe in Ramelle, to express the emotional torment of the characters, but I think that these scenes are so boring and pointless that I' can hardly remember them, as my attention drifts off during them! But I do have an understanding of the soldiers, and this was achieved, quite adorably without these scenes.
Overall, this is a film of two halves if ever there was one. The battle scenes and the journey through war-torn France are brilliant, gritty and educational, but the scenes of American sentimentality are in danger of derailing the whole film. Many feel that is the best war film of all time. I do not agree, favouring Black Hawk Down over this, but I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that Blank Hawk Down owes a debt to Saving Private Ryan, by opening the door to the gritty war dramas of the naughties and to the style itself.
This film is on of the most important contributions to cinema ever, and has done so much to finally show to true nature of WWII and war in general. But even though I would rate this 10/10 if it was just for the war scenes, the slop just gets in the way and devalues what should have been perfection.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Barton Fink (1991) in Movies
Dec 14, 2019
Verdict: Coen’s at Their Best
Story: Barton Fink starts as New York playwright Barton Fink (Turturro) whose latest play has seen him get the most praise. Barton gets encouraged to head to California to write movies, which would cover him for years to come on the stages of New York. Barton put up in a small hotel, gets given his first assignment, a wrestling picture, something he knows nothing about.
Barton bonds with his insurance salesman neighbour Charlie Meadows (Goodman) who always seems to have inspiration for this story, while meeting authors he idolises, waiting for his big break in the industry, meeting different producers who shows him the hellish process Hollywood can be.
Thoughts on Barton Fink
Characters – Barton Fink is the latest praised playwright in New York, he knows he can be a success on the stage only he gets encouraged to head to the Hollywood boom to make serious money with his writing skills. Barton learns quickly that he isn’t prepared for the demands of writing script especially when he doesn’t know the material they want him to write about, he struggles to settle in the area and the cheap hotel they put him up in, he only makes one friend and sees how the people in the industry always say what you want to say. Charlie Meadows is the hotel neighbour and insurance salesman that befriends Barton, the two often spend the nights talking about life’s events, while Charlie pushes Barton to become more confident. Audrey Taylor is the wife of one of the most famous authors Barton meets, he wants to use her as his muse after seeing how badly she is abused by her partner. Jack Lipnick is the producer that hires Barton, he demands the work and unlike most writers that he hires, he keeps up on Barton’s work.
Performances – John Turturro in the leading role is excellent, we can see him unravelling at the seams as he starts to lose his mind in the writing process. John Goodman is wonderful too as the friendly neighbour with a secret behind his kind-nature. When it comes to the rest of the cast we get some wonderful performance that send us into the era perfectly.
Story – The story here sees a playwright trying his hand at writing movies in the booming industry, only to learn the level of control he really has on what he write and how much time he has to get the work done. This is a story about the movie making process, while we focus more on the writing side of the filmmaking, it is focused on how being locked away in a new city can drive somebody slightly crazy. It is the story arcs that happen around the writing which become most interesting as we see just how things are never quite as they seem, this is Coen Brothers are their best, spinning what could be a routine story that sees things turned on their head.
Comedy – The comedy is the black comedy type, where we see just how twisted the comedy ends up being, with John Goodman getting most of the laughs in the film.
Settings – The LA setting shows what it would have been like in the early stages of the Hollywood boom, the era feels nature through the film.
Scene of the Movie – Flaming hallways.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The cops are too accusation heavy.
Final Thoughts – This is a dark comedy that works very well, it hits the heights every time it needs to thanks to the leading performances from Turturro and Goodman that are outstanding through the film.
Overall: Brilliant Comedy.
Story: Barton Fink starts as New York playwright Barton Fink (Turturro) whose latest play has seen him get the most praise. Barton gets encouraged to head to California to write movies, which would cover him for years to come on the stages of New York. Barton put up in a small hotel, gets given his first assignment, a wrestling picture, something he knows nothing about.
Barton bonds with his insurance salesman neighbour Charlie Meadows (Goodman) who always seems to have inspiration for this story, while meeting authors he idolises, waiting for his big break in the industry, meeting different producers who shows him the hellish process Hollywood can be.
Thoughts on Barton Fink
Characters – Barton Fink is the latest praised playwright in New York, he knows he can be a success on the stage only he gets encouraged to head to the Hollywood boom to make serious money with his writing skills. Barton learns quickly that he isn’t prepared for the demands of writing script especially when he doesn’t know the material they want him to write about, he struggles to settle in the area and the cheap hotel they put him up in, he only makes one friend and sees how the people in the industry always say what you want to say. Charlie Meadows is the hotel neighbour and insurance salesman that befriends Barton, the two often spend the nights talking about life’s events, while Charlie pushes Barton to become more confident. Audrey Taylor is the wife of one of the most famous authors Barton meets, he wants to use her as his muse after seeing how badly she is abused by her partner. Jack Lipnick is the producer that hires Barton, he demands the work and unlike most writers that he hires, he keeps up on Barton’s work.
Performances – John Turturro in the leading role is excellent, we can see him unravelling at the seams as he starts to lose his mind in the writing process. John Goodman is wonderful too as the friendly neighbour with a secret behind his kind-nature. When it comes to the rest of the cast we get some wonderful performance that send us into the era perfectly.
Story – The story here sees a playwright trying his hand at writing movies in the booming industry, only to learn the level of control he really has on what he write and how much time he has to get the work done. This is a story about the movie making process, while we focus more on the writing side of the filmmaking, it is focused on how being locked away in a new city can drive somebody slightly crazy. It is the story arcs that happen around the writing which become most interesting as we see just how things are never quite as they seem, this is Coen Brothers are their best, spinning what could be a routine story that sees things turned on their head.
Comedy – The comedy is the black comedy type, where we see just how twisted the comedy ends up being, with John Goodman getting most of the laughs in the film.
Settings – The LA setting shows what it would have been like in the early stages of the Hollywood boom, the era feels nature through the film.
Scene of the Movie – Flaming hallways.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The cops are too accusation heavy.
Final Thoughts – This is a dark comedy that works very well, it hits the heights every time it needs to thanks to the leading performances from Turturro and Goodman that are outstanding through the film.
Overall: Brilliant Comedy.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Tiny Epic Zombies in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
Who doesn’t love a day at the mall? Hanging out with friends, hitting the food court, checking out the sales at your favorite stores, trying to survive a zombie apocalypse, the possibilities are endless! Wait, what? Zombie apocalypse? Definitely NOT what you had in mind when you planned your trip to the mall, but it looks like you’re caught in the midst! The stores are in disarray and the mall is a mass of chaos (picture Black Friday shopping), and you need to get out! You and a band of survivors must fend off a hoard of zombies while collecting supplies and completing communal objectives in order to make it out alive!
Our next Tiny Epic game review brings us to the world of Zombies! Travis and I kickstarted this game last year, and it’s been a unique addition to the Tiny Epic series. Don’t let the adorable zombies fool you – the game requires a good amount of teamwork and strategy to be successful! And it can be played either cooperatively or competitively – a choice that I have not seen executed in a game before. So read on, fellow gamers, to decide if you have what it takes to survive this zombie infestation alive!
Disclaimer: There are 5 different game modes for Tiny Epic Zombies, but we have only played the completely Cooperative Game vs. an AI Zombie player. Once we have played the other game modes, we will either amend this review or write a new one! – L
Welcome to Tiny Epic Zombies – a cooperative game in which players must successfully complete 3 objectives before they are overrun by zombies. Players take on the role of mall-goers (each with a special ability) who have thus far survived the zombie outbreak. Players will move throughout the mall, battling zombies and picking up supplies, while working towards completing communal objectives. If all 3 objectives are completed, the players win! If the Search Deck runs out, or if the zombies take control of the courtyard and its remaining survivors, the players have lost the game.
For such a ‘tiny’ game, there really is a lot going on. Each player’s turn consists of 3 moves, after each of which the player may A) kill a zombie, B) use room abilities and/or interact with tokens, and C) collect items. It is important to note, players may only perform the B and C actions if there are no zombies remaining in any room of their current store. At the end of their turn, the player will reveal their Search Card (drawn blindly), and will add zombies to the mall accordingly. After zombies are added, the player blindly draws a new Search Card, and play continues. If the Search Deck runs out at any point in the game, players get one final turn to complete their objectives, otherwise they lose!
Simple, right? Not exactly. I know for me, personally, it can be hard to keep track of my turns since each of your 3 moves could potentially allow you to perform 3 additional actions. Turns can get a little muddled with so much to do if you are not paying close attention. After a few plays, it gets easier to remember the turn order, but even then I still keep the rule book on hand to double-check all of my turns.
Ultimately, the thing that can make or break a game is what objectives the players are trying to complete. You shuffle, randomly draw 3 objectives, and go from there. Some objectives are pretty involved and require lots of action to complete, while others are pretty straight-forward and simple. If you draw 3 tough ones (like we did in our first game together), it could be very difficult to succeed. The right combination of objectives can make the game super fun, but unless you hand-pick them for a balanced game, there’s always the chance you’ll get the hardest ones at once. Regarding the objectives though, I do really like that this game can be cooperative – everyone must pitch in to help, and no single player is the ‘hero.’ You have to work closely with the other players to determine the best strategy in order to complete the objectives as quickly as possible. Some objectives can be a challenge for sure, but being able to divvy up certain responsibilities can help make the game feel more manageable.
Overall, I like this game because it’s cute (just look at those little zombies!), cooperative (yay teamwork!), and challenging. There’s kind of a learning curve for turn order, but once you get the hang of it, and collectively figure out the best strategy for objective completion, the game is pretty enjoyable! Purple Phoenix Games gives this installment a bloodied 17 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/14/tiny-epic-zombies-reviews/
Our next Tiny Epic game review brings us to the world of Zombies! Travis and I kickstarted this game last year, and it’s been a unique addition to the Tiny Epic series. Don’t let the adorable zombies fool you – the game requires a good amount of teamwork and strategy to be successful! And it can be played either cooperatively or competitively – a choice that I have not seen executed in a game before. So read on, fellow gamers, to decide if you have what it takes to survive this zombie infestation alive!
Disclaimer: There are 5 different game modes for Tiny Epic Zombies, but we have only played the completely Cooperative Game vs. an AI Zombie player. Once we have played the other game modes, we will either amend this review or write a new one! – L
Welcome to Tiny Epic Zombies – a cooperative game in which players must successfully complete 3 objectives before they are overrun by zombies. Players take on the role of mall-goers (each with a special ability) who have thus far survived the zombie outbreak. Players will move throughout the mall, battling zombies and picking up supplies, while working towards completing communal objectives. If all 3 objectives are completed, the players win! If the Search Deck runs out, or if the zombies take control of the courtyard and its remaining survivors, the players have lost the game.
For such a ‘tiny’ game, there really is a lot going on. Each player’s turn consists of 3 moves, after each of which the player may A) kill a zombie, B) use room abilities and/or interact with tokens, and C) collect items. It is important to note, players may only perform the B and C actions if there are no zombies remaining in any room of their current store. At the end of their turn, the player will reveal their Search Card (drawn blindly), and will add zombies to the mall accordingly. After zombies are added, the player blindly draws a new Search Card, and play continues. If the Search Deck runs out at any point in the game, players get one final turn to complete their objectives, otherwise they lose!
Simple, right? Not exactly. I know for me, personally, it can be hard to keep track of my turns since each of your 3 moves could potentially allow you to perform 3 additional actions. Turns can get a little muddled with so much to do if you are not paying close attention. After a few plays, it gets easier to remember the turn order, but even then I still keep the rule book on hand to double-check all of my turns.
Ultimately, the thing that can make or break a game is what objectives the players are trying to complete. You shuffle, randomly draw 3 objectives, and go from there. Some objectives are pretty involved and require lots of action to complete, while others are pretty straight-forward and simple. If you draw 3 tough ones (like we did in our first game together), it could be very difficult to succeed. The right combination of objectives can make the game super fun, but unless you hand-pick them for a balanced game, there’s always the chance you’ll get the hardest ones at once. Regarding the objectives though, I do really like that this game can be cooperative – everyone must pitch in to help, and no single player is the ‘hero.’ You have to work closely with the other players to determine the best strategy in order to complete the objectives as quickly as possible. Some objectives can be a challenge for sure, but being able to divvy up certain responsibilities can help make the game feel more manageable.
Overall, I like this game because it’s cute (just look at those little zombies!), cooperative (yay teamwork!), and challenging. There’s kind of a learning curve for turn order, but once you get the hang of it, and collectively figure out the best strategy for objective completion, the game is pretty enjoyable! Purple Phoenix Games gives this installment a bloodied 17 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/14/tiny-epic-zombies-reviews/
