Search
Search results
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Samurai Spirit in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
One of the best parts of the board gaming experience is finding a fun group of people with whom to play! Sometimes, though, coordinating a game night is easier said than done. We all must occasionally forego the group experience and face the world as the Lonely Only. But fear not! The world of solo-play is a vast and exciting realm! What follows is a chronicle of my journey into the solo-playing world – notes on gameplay, mechanics, rules, difficulty, and overall experience with solo variations of commonly multiplayer games! I hope this will provide some insight as you continue to grow your collection, or explore your already owned games!
As a Samurai, you spend your life traveling across the land to help those in need. Most recently, you and a handful of other Samurai have been contracted by a small village to defend them against a clan of invading raiders. Only by working together, and by using your extensive training, will you succeed in keeping this village safe!
Samurai Spirit is a cooperative game of press-your-luck. Players take on the role of a Samurai, each with a unique power, and take turns drawing cards and fighting off the invaders or offering support to your fellow Samurai. Invaders can have recurring negative effects, so strategize wisely on how best to combat them and see how far you can push your luck each round. If you are able to survive through 3 rounds (waves) of invaders with at least one surviving farmstead and family, the Samurai are victorious and the village is saved! If any of the Samurai are killed, or the village has been completely destroyed by invaders, then the game is lost. As a solo game, Samurai Spirit plays essentially the same as in group play, with only 2 main differences – the solo player controls 2 Samurai instead of 1, and the support tokens from the unused Samurai are each available for use once during the game.
For such a neat theme, this game falls short for me. It seems simple enough, but there are areas of ambiguity in the rules that lead to some confusion. For starters, the text size is so small that I am not able to find any information at a quick glance! The text itself is not always clear either – like when, at the end of a round, the rules say to collect all cards used this round, does that include cards that have been discarded due to Samurai abilities? How about the cards of the Intruder stack that are presumably discarded after being revealed? The rulebook offers no clarification, and I honestly still don’t know the right answer.
The order/layout of the rules feels mismatched too – relevant information is not always grouped together, and I find myself flipping between several pages at a time trying to figure out one single thing. For example, in the ‘Fight’ action description, it says that if you reach your Kiai value exactly, you can activate your Kiai ability. You have to turn the page to a different section to see exactly what activating that ability means, and then you have to flip an additional 2 more pages to see what each individual Kiai ability is! Why not just put them all in one place? It would certainly be easier to understand if all relevant information was grouped together.
The prominent mechanic of Samurai Spirit is press-your-luck, and I would definitely say that this game is very luck-based. When setting up the game, the initial deck of cards is randomly selected and that can impact whether or not you are able to complete certain requirements each round – if there aren’t enough hat/farm/doll cards for each Samurai, you are guaranteed to incur a penalty at the end of every round. Actual gameplay is very luck-based too, and for me it feels like there are no good ways to strategize – your choices are all dependent on the luck of the draw. You can push your luck to draw more cards and use special abilities, but since you are suffering from recurring penalties each turn, it feels futile to keep going at a certain point.
For me, Samurai Spirit is repetitive and kind of boring – suffer penalty, draw card, and repeat until you eventually pass or the deck runs out. It’s like a too-complicated version of blackjack in which the deck is stacked against you. It’s such a bummer because the theme and artwork are neat, and the gameplay (in theory, at least) should be effective. But the actual execution is too reliant on luck to be successful.
I do quite a bit of solo gaming, but this game is never one that I willingly decide to play. I honestly only broke it out recently as a refresher for this review. Perhaps it is better at higher player counts, but since that is not where most of my gaming occurs, Samurai Spirit is a dud for me.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/02/06/solo-chronicles-samurai-spirit/
As a Samurai, you spend your life traveling across the land to help those in need. Most recently, you and a handful of other Samurai have been contracted by a small village to defend them against a clan of invading raiders. Only by working together, and by using your extensive training, will you succeed in keeping this village safe!
Samurai Spirit is a cooperative game of press-your-luck. Players take on the role of a Samurai, each with a unique power, and take turns drawing cards and fighting off the invaders or offering support to your fellow Samurai. Invaders can have recurring negative effects, so strategize wisely on how best to combat them and see how far you can push your luck each round. If you are able to survive through 3 rounds (waves) of invaders with at least one surviving farmstead and family, the Samurai are victorious and the village is saved! If any of the Samurai are killed, or the village has been completely destroyed by invaders, then the game is lost. As a solo game, Samurai Spirit plays essentially the same as in group play, with only 2 main differences – the solo player controls 2 Samurai instead of 1, and the support tokens from the unused Samurai are each available for use once during the game.
For such a neat theme, this game falls short for me. It seems simple enough, but there are areas of ambiguity in the rules that lead to some confusion. For starters, the text size is so small that I am not able to find any information at a quick glance! The text itself is not always clear either – like when, at the end of a round, the rules say to collect all cards used this round, does that include cards that have been discarded due to Samurai abilities? How about the cards of the Intruder stack that are presumably discarded after being revealed? The rulebook offers no clarification, and I honestly still don’t know the right answer.
The order/layout of the rules feels mismatched too – relevant information is not always grouped together, and I find myself flipping between several pages at a time trying to figure out one single thing. For example, in the ‘Fight’ action description, it says that if you reach your Kiai value exactly, you can activate your Kiai ability. You have to turn the page to a different section to see exactly what activating that ability means, and then you have to flip an additional 2 more pages to see what each individual Kiai ability is! Why not just put them all in one place? It would certainly be easier to understand if all relevant information was grouped together.
The prominent mechanic of Samurai Spirit is press-your-luck, and I would definitely say that this game is very luck-based. When setting up the game, the initial deck of cards is randomly selected and that can impact whether or not you are able to complete certain requirements each round – if there aren’t enough hat/farm/doll cards for each Samurai, you are guaranteed to incur a penalty at the end of every round. Actual gameplay is very luck-based too, and for me it feels like there are no good ways to strategize – your choices are all dependent on the luck of the draw. You can push your luck to draw more cards and use special abilities, but since you are suffering from recurring penalties each turn, it feels futile to keep going at a certain point.
For me, Samurai Spirit is repetitive and kind of boring – suffer penalty, draw card, and repeat until you eventually pass or the deck runs out. It’s like a too-complicated version of blackjack in which the deck is stacked against you. It’s such a bummer because the theme and artwork are neat, and the gameplay (in theory, at least) should be effective. But the actual execution is too reliant on luck to be successful.
I do quite a bit of solo gaming, but this game is never one that I willingly decide to play. I honestly only broke it out recently as a refresher for this review. Perhaps it is better at higher player counts, but since that is not where most of my gaming occurs, Samurai Spirit is a dud for me.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/02/06/solo-chronicles-samurai-spirit/
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Unbecoming of Mara Dyer (Mara Dyer, #1) in Books
Jun 6, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
I'd been wanting to read this book for awhile. It was high up on my TBR pile. I finally couldn't wait any longer and bought it. Luckily, it was money well spent!
Mara Dyer is a 16 year old girl who survived a building collapse although her other friends didn't. She doesn't know why she was the only one to survive. She begins to hear her dead friends voices and seeing them in mirrors and in her waking life. She's convinced she had something to do with their deaths and resolves to stay away from people. However, all that changes when she meets the womanizing Noah Shaw. Will Noah and Mara be able to fall in love or will something or someone prevent that from happening?
I love the title of this book! It sounds so ominous and sad at the same time. The title definitely drew me in. It made me want to know more about this book.
I kind of like the cover, but I don't really get why these two people, who I presume are Noah and Mara, are in water. When I first saw the cover, I presumed that this was going to be one of those books that deal with underwater themes like mermaids and what not, but it's not. Then I thought that maybe it was symbolic about Mara feeling like she was drowning, and Noah is supposed to save her although it looks more like Noah is trying to drown her.
The world building felt very believable throughout most of the book. All my questions were answered in this book which I was super happy about! However, towards the end of the book, the story kind of took a left turn, and I was just like "what". I felt that it got a bit crazy here, and I really can't explain why which I know is bad since this is a review. I know this is a fiction book so of course things won't really happen that happen in books, but without some spoilers, I can't really explain why. Maybe it's just a personal thing.
I enjoyed the pacing and thought it was done quite well. I found myself wanting to know what was going to happen next. I was immersed in the writing, and I didn't want to leave Mara's world.
I loved the whole plot. Mara can make things happen just by visualizing them. (Don't worry, that wasn't a spoiler). I've always wished I could do that, so I enjoyed reading about it. Plus, there's the subplot of the romance with Noah. I'm not a big romance fan since I believe it tends to get in the way of the actual plot (unless, of course, it's a romance book), but the romance was done in an enjoyable way.
I liked Mara a lot. She felt like a real teenage girl. She's under a lot of stress, and I liked seeing how she was able to deal with it. Mara felt like a girl I could be friends with. With Noah, there were times I liked him and times where I thought he was being a bit too mean and bossy. There's a few times (and only a few) where he tells Mara what to do. He does get violent when it comes to defending Mara's honor. I also didn't like how Noah would use Daddy's money to get whatever he wanted. I know he was only doing it for Mara, but still, it rubbed me wrong. I loved the character of Jamie. I loved his wit, and I wished that there was more of him in the book.
The dialogue was well written although there were a few times where the characters would talk like they were in a Dawson's Creek episode or for those that don't get that reference, like Sheldon does in Big Bang Theory. Personally, I've never been in any situation where a whole conversation used such a rich vocabulary, especially when it involve teenagers. This could just be a me thing though. I enjoyed reading about what Mara did in certain situations. As for language, there is a lot of swearing in this book although I don't feel like it's over the top.
Overall, The Unbecoming of Mara Dyer by Michelle Hodkin is a super enjoyable read. The plot is great, the romance is enjoyable, and the characters are very down to Earth. I can't wait to read the next book in the series!
I'd recommend this book to those aged 16+ due to language used. Those who appreciate paranormal elements in their books will love this one!
I'd been wanting to read this book for awhile. It was high up on my TBR pile. I finally couldn't wait any longer and bought it. Luckily, it was money well spent!
Mara Dyer is a 16 year old girl who survived a building collapse although her other friends didn't. She doesn't know why she was the only one to survive. She begins to hear her dead friends voices and seeing them in mirrors and in her waking life. She's convinced she had something to do with their deaths and resolves to stay away from people. However, all that changes when she meets the womanizing Noah Shaw. Will Noah and Mara be able to fall in love or will something or someone prevent that from happening?
I love the title of this book! It sounds so ominous and sad at the same time. The title definitely drew me in. It made me want to know more about this book.
I kind of like the cover, but I don't really get why these two people, who I presume are Noah and Mara, are in water. When I first saw the cover, I presumed that this was going to be one of those books that deal with underwater themes like mermaids and what not, but it's not. Then I thought that maybe it was symbolic about Mara feeling like she was drowning, and Noah is supposed to save her although it looks more like Noah is trying to drown her.
The world building felt very believable throughout most of the book. All my questions were answered in this book which I was super happy about! However, towards the end of the book, the story kind of took a left turn, and I was just like "what". I felt that it got a bit crazy here, and I really can't explain why which I know is bad since this is a review. I know this is a fiction book so of course things won't really happen that happen in books, but without some spoilers, I can't really explain why. Maybe it's just a personal thing.
I enjoyed the pacing and thought it was done quite well. I found myself wanting to know what was going to happen next. I was immersed in the writing, and I didn't want to leave Mara's world.
I loved the whole plot. Mara can make things happen just by visualizing them. (Don't worry, that wasn't a spoiler). I've always wished I could do that, so I enjoyed reading about it. Plus, there's the subplot of the romance with Noah. I'm not a big romance fan since I believe it tends to get in the way of the actual plot (unless, of course, it's a romance book), but the romance was done in an enjoyable way.
I liked Mara a lot. She felt like a real teenage girl. She's under a lot of stress, and I liked seeing how she was able to deal with it. Mara felt like a girl I could be friends with. With Noah, there were times I liked him and times where I thought he was being a bit too mean and bossy. There's a few times (and only a few) where he tells Mara what to do. He does get violent when it comes to defending Mara's honor. I also didn't like how Noah would use Daddy's money to get whatever he wanted. I know he was only doing it for Mara, but still, it rubbed me wrong. I loved the character of Jamie. I loved his wit, and I wished that there was more of him in the book.
The dialogue was well written although there were a few times where the characters would talk like they were in a Dawson's Creek episode or for those that don't get that reference, like Sheldon does in Big Bang Theory. Personally, I've never been in any situation where a whole conversation used such a rich vocabulary, especially when it involve teenagers. This could just be a me thing though. I enjoyed reading about what Mara did in certain situations. As for language, there is a lot of swearing in this book although I don't feel like it's over the top.
Overall, The Unbecoming of Mara Dyer by Michelle Hodkin is a super enjoyable read. The plot is great, the romance is enjoyable, and the characters are very down to Earth. I can't wait to read the next book in the series!
I'd recommend this book to those aged 16+ due to language used. Those who appreciate paranormal elements in their books will love this one!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated I, Robot (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Tales of a dark and foreboding future where technology has run amuck have been cautioning viewers ever since Orwell made the phrase “Big Brother” a household expression. Other films such as ?”, “Westworld”, “Blade Runner” and “The Terminator” often show a dark and dangerous future where dependence upon technology created to serve mankind has lead to its eventual downfall.
In the film “I Robot” Director Alex Proyas who’s past work includes “The Crow” and “Dark City” tells the tale of a near future where robots have become commonplace and are entrusted to do all manner of tasks ranging from package delivery to waiting table and caring for households. The robots are assured to be safe as they are governed by a set of behavioral restrictors that require them to obey all human commands save for those to harm another human, as robots are not allowed to harm or by inaction allow to be harmed any human.
The film stars Will Smith as Del Spooner, a Chicago Homicide detective who does not trust robots and is highly suspicious of them. The fact that in 2035 there has yet to be one documented case worldwide of a robot ever being involved in a crime is of little concern to Del as he sees the potential for danger in technology that is so widely spread.
Del is in many ways a technophobe as aside from his modern car, he has a retro lifestyle including an old fashioned alarm clock, vintage 2004 shoes, and a fondness for music from the 1970’s. An incident in Del’s past has kept him off the force for a while and has only furthered his distaste for robotics and their growing place in society.
No sooner is Del back at work than an apparent suicide at U.S. Robotics by a friend sets the film into motion. What to all seems to be an open and shut case of suicide only causes Del to become more suspicious. Del soon discovers a new model robot locked in the office of the victim, who flees from crime scene and refuses to obey the orders to halt given to him.
The fact that the robot ignores command given by a human thus violating his central laws of programming is put off as a simple malfunction by Billionaire Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood), who does not want Del’s suspicions to disrupt his business plans on the eve of the largest rollout of new robots in history. It is explained that the new NX-5 model is about to be released to the public and soon there will be one robot for every 5 humans in the world and with so much invested in this, Robertson places a gag order on Del and the entire police force to forget about the renegade robot and not say a word to anyone.
Naturally Del does not follow this command and he suspects that there is a larger and much more serious threat posed to the public even though everyone around his says that he is paranoid and desperate to find or create any evidence to support his theory that robots are not as safe as everyone believes they are.
What follows is an action packed game of cat and mouse as Del and a U.S. Robotics scientist named Susan (Bridget Moynahan), start to uncover a deeper mystery, once in which the very world they have taken for granted is about to change.
The film is a visual marvel that shows you a fairly realistic view of the future as aside from the robots and futuristic highways, the world of 2035 does not look that much different than today.
Proyas knows that Smith is his star and he does a great job allowing him to carry the picture without allowing the visual effects to dominate the film, though they are spectacular. The futuristic highways and a great chase sequence were highlights of the film and had a surprising amount of tension and drama mixed into what was a solid action sequence.
Smith plays Spooner, as a man with demons yet never ceases to become a sensitive character despite his hard edge. He is a man that is determined to follow his instincts and do what is best for the people he is sworn to protect.
The film does only play lip service to the series of novels by Asimov, but it does tell a very good cautionary tale of human’s interaction and dependence upon technology without becoming preachy or losing site of the message that society must ensure to have a balance between humanity and technology in order to thrive.
If I had to find fault, it would be that many of the supporting roles were fairly bland, as Moynahan was not given much to do aside from play a Damsel in distress and the always solid James Cromwell and Bruce Greenwood were not used nearly enough. That being said “I Robot” delivers everything you want in a summer film and more.
In the film “I Robot” Director Alex Proyas who’s past work includes “The Crow” and “Dark City” tells the tale of a near future where robots have become commonplace and are entrusted to do all manner of tasks ranging from package delivery to waiting table and caring for households. The robots are assured to be safe as they are governed by a set of behavioral restrictors that require them to obey all human commands save for those to harm another human, as robots are not allowed to harm or by inaction allow to be harmed any human.
The film stars Will Smith as Del Spooner, a Chicago Homicide detective who does not trust robots and is highly suspicious of them. The fact that in 2035 there has yet to be one documented case worldwide of a robot ever being involved in a crime is of little concern to Del as he sees the potential for danger in technology that is so widely spread.
Del is in many ways a technophobe as aside from his modern car, he has a retro lifestyle including an old fashioned alarm clock, vintage 2004 shoes, and a fondness for music from the 1970’s. An incident in Del’s past has kept him off the force for a while and has only furthered his distaste for robotics and their growing place in society.
No sooner is Del back at work than an apparent suicide at U.S. Robotics by a friend sets the film into motion. What to all seems to be an open and shut case of suicide only causes Del to become more suspicious. Del soon discovers a new model robot locked in the office of the victim, who flees from crime scene and refuses to obey the orders to halt given to him.
The fact that the robot ignores command given by a human thus violating his central laws of programming is put off as a simple malfunction by Billionaire Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood), who does not want Del’s suspicions to disrupt his business plans on the eve of the largest rollout of new robots in history. It is explained that the new NX-5 model is about to be released to the public and soon there will be one robot for every 5 humans in the world and with so much invested in this, Robertson places a gag order on Del and the entire police force to forget about the renegade robot and not say a word to anyone.
Naturally Del does not follow this command and he suspects that there is a larger and much more serious threat posed to the public even though everyone around his says that he is paranoid and desperate to find or create any evidence to support his theory that robots are not as safe as everyone believes they are.
What follows is an action packed game of cat and mouse as Del and a U.S. Robotics scientist named Susan (Bridget Moynahan), start to uncover a deeper mystery, once in which the very world they have taken for granted is about to change.
The film is a visual marvel that shows you a fairly realistic view of the future as aside from the robots and futuristic highways, the world of 2035 does not look that much different than today.
Proyas knows that Smith is his star and he does a great job allowing him to carry the picture without allowing the visual effects to dominate the film, though they are spectacular. The futuristic highways and a great chase sequence were highlights of the film and had a surprising amount of tension and drama mixed into what was a solid action sequence.
Smith plays Spooner, as a man with demons yet never ceases to become a sensitive character despite his hard edge. He is a man that is determined to follow his instincts and do what is best for the people he is sworn to protect.
The film does only play lip service to the series of novels by Asimov, but it does tell a very good cautionary tale of human’s interaction and dependence upon technology without becoming preachy or losing site of the message that society must ensure to have a balance between humanity and technology in order to thrive.
If I had to find fault, it would be that many of the supporting roles were fairly bland, as Moynahan was not given much to do aside from play a Damsel in distress and the always solid James Cromwell and Bruce Greenwood were not used nearly enough. That being said “I Robot” delivers everything you want in a summer film and more.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Cold Pursuit (2019) in Movies
Mar 15, 2020
Comments on revenge are best kept on the screen.
I'd completely forgotten the furore about Liam Neeson's comments back last February during the press-tour preceding the film's release. In discussing the destructive feelings of revenge experienced by his character, Nels Coxman, Neeson revealed something he did 40 years ago: after the rape of a friend by "a black man", Neeson went out on the streets to find another "black man" and do them harm. (As a fellow Ballymena-born man, David Moody (from the "Mark and Dave" blog) has an interesting theory about this... that it was not a "rascist" statement in the true sense, but something else entirely. See here - ).
The comments undoubtedly impacted the movie at the box office. Which is a shame. Because in his catalogue of bonkers and violent revenge-porn flicks, this is one of Neeson's more entertaining ones.
Revenge is a dish best served cold. And where colder to serve it than in the ski-resort of Kehoe where Nels Coxman is the local snowplow operative and "man of the year" for his services to the community. But the tracks are about to fall off his orderly life. For his son Kyle (Micheál Richardson) winds up dead through a drugs overdose and his strained marriage with wife Grace (Laura Dern) disintegrates. (One of the most cutting and best-written "Bye" notes ever seen in the movies).
With revenge in mind, Coxman pursues the Denver-based drugs lord Trevor Calcote (Tom Bateman) who dished out the drugs to his son. But he inadvertently manages to stay just below the parapet as he sets in train a gang war between Calcote and a Kehoe-based native-American drugs gang led by White Bull (Tom Jackson). The snow turned progressively pinker as the body count rises.
Calcote (aka "Viking") is painted as a colourful family man, with an annoyingly bright son Ryan (Nicholas Holmes) that he controls with a rod of iron. Viking is estranged from wife Aya (Julia Jones), who seems completely unafraid of him and happily embarrasses him in front of his men. This relationship never really works. Since given all the terrible and irrational things Viking does to people, whether they obstruct him or help him in equal measure, putting a quiet bullet into Aya's head seems to be to least he could do!
Where there is fun to be had is in the "Stockholm syndrome" linkage between young Ryan and Coxman. When his father insists on controlling his diet, feeding him the same insipidly healthy meals morning, noon and night, the alternative of being kidnapped and fed burgers seems eminently more preferable!
The film is at times really difficult to follow. There are lots of inexplicable leaps of logic and really inexplicably bonkers scenes that you can only patch together later. It's as if the filmmakers randomly filmed 5 hours of footage and then tried to edit it all into a cohesive plot!
As one example of this, the relationship between Coxman and "Wingman" (William Forsythe) was poorly introduced such that I was left baffled by a later plot twist.
In another scene, Neeson smashes the head of enforcer "Santa" (Michael Adamthwaite) into his steering wheel, but in the next scene collapses with him utterly exhausted in the snow. There was clearly a significant fight here that was cut out of the finished cut. But as a result the final cut makes no sense at all!
Of course, the local law enforcement team are average at best. Average because although young and keen-as-mustard detective Kim Dash (Emmy Rossum) is hot on the trail of the truth, her partner Gip (John Doman) is f*ckin' useless... wanting to do nothing but drink coffee and eat donuts in true Simpsons style.
Normally with these sort of films, it's difficult to keep track of the body count. No such problem here. Every death is celebrated with a tombstone graphic so it's easy to keep count! Needless to say, there are a lot of tombstones registered.
Directed by Norwegian Hans Petter Moland, it's all good violent cartoonish fun, that keeps its tongue firmly in its cheek for most of the running time. The snowy setting, the partly native-American cast and the presence of Julia Jones brings to mind the truly excellent Jeremy Renner / Elizabeth Olsen movie "Wind River". But there the similarities (and quality levels) definitely stop. It's not a clever movie; it's borderline bonkers for most of its running time (never more so than with a totally bizarre "joke" final shot); but it is entertaining. As a 'park brain at door' action comedy it just about makes the grade.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/15/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-cold-pursuit-2019/. Thanks.)
The comments undoubtedly impacted the movie at the box office. Which is a shame. Because in his catalogue of bonkers and violent revenge-porn flicks, this is one of Neeson's more entertaining ones.
Revenge is a dish best served cold. And where colder to serve it than in the ski-resort of Kehoe where Nels Coxman is the local snowplow operative and "man of the year" for his services to the community. But the tracks are about to fall off his orderly life. For his son Kyle (Micheál Richardson) winds up dead through a drugs overdose and his strained marriage with wife Grace (Laura Dern) disintegrates. (One of the most cutting and best-written "Bye" notes ever seen in the movies).
With revenge in mind, Coxman pursues the Denver-based drugs lord Trevor Calcote (Tom Bateman) who dished out the drugs to his son. But he inadvertently manages to stay just below the parapet as he sets in train a gang war between Calcote and a Kehoe-based native-American drugs gang led by White Bull (Tom Jackson). The snow turned progressively pinker as the body count rises.
Calcote (aka "Viking") is painted as a colourful family man, with an annoyingly bright son Ryan (Nicholas Holmes) that he controls with a rod of iron. Viking is estranged from wife Aya (Julia Jones), who seems completely unafraid of him and happily embarrasses him in front of his men. This relationship never really works. Since given all the terrible and irrational things Viking does to people, whether they obstruct him or help him in equal measure, putting a quiet bullet into Aya's head seems to be to least he could do!
Where there is fun to be had is in the "Stockholm syndrome" linkage between young Ryan and Coxman. When his father insists on controlling his diet, feeding him the same insipidly healthy meals morning, noon and night, the alternative of being kidnapped and fed burgers seems eminently more preferable!
The film is at times really difficult to follow. There are lots of inexplicable leaps of logic and really inexplicably bonkers scenes that you can only patch together later. It's as if the filmmakers randomly filmed 5 hours of footage and then tried to edit it all into a cohesive plot!
As one example of this, the relationship between Coxman and "Wingman" (William Forsythe) was poorly introduced such that I was left baffled by a later plot twist.
In another scene, Neeson smashes the head of enforcer "Santa" (Michael Adamthwaite) into his steering wheel, but in the next scene collapses with him utterly exhausted in the snow. There was clearly a significant fight here that was cut out of the finished cut. But as a result the final cut makes no sense at all!
Of course, the local law enforcement team are average at best. Average because although young and keen-as-mustard detective Kim Dash (Emmy Rossum) is hot on the trail of the truth, her partner Gip (John Doman) is f*ckin' useless... wanting to do nothing but drink coffee and eat donuts in true Simpsons style.
Normally with these sort of films, it's difficult to keep track of the body count. No such problem here. Every death is celebrated with a tombstone graphic so it's easy to keep count! Needless to say, there are a lot of tombstones registered.
Directed by Norwegian Hans Petter Moland, it's all good violent cartoonish fun, that keeps its tongue firmly in its cheek for most of the running time. The snowy setting, the partly native-American cast and the presence of Julia Jones brings to mind the truly excellent Jeremy Renner / Elizabeth Olsen movie "Wind River". But there the similarities (and quality levels) definitely stop. It's not a clever movie; it's borderline bonkers for most of its running time (never more so than with a totally bizarre "joke" final shot); but it is entertaining. As a 'park brain at door' action comedy it just about makes the grade.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/15/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-cold-pursuit-2019/. Thanks.)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Tatorship in Tabletop Games
Feb 18, 2020
The world of politics and democracy is definitely a complicated and confusing place. Finding your way through all the jargon and political processes can be mind-boggling. Enter Tatorship – the card game specifically designed to teach you about democracy and politics as you play!
Disclaimer: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this preview. This is not the finished product, so some of the components may change in the final printing. -L
Tatorship is a card game of hand management and bidding in which players are racing to complete their secret political missions before their opponents. To set up the game, place the 6 Rights in their respective piles in ascending order. Each player randomly selects a Tator, Top Secret Mission, Bottom Secret Mission, and Executive Mission, as well as Action cards and a Bluff card. The Tator is your character, and provides a unique Executive power. The Mission cards (Top, Bottom, and Executive) each refer to specific Rights in the play area. Action cards provide resources necessary for interacting with the Rights, and for use during the Election.
On your turn, you interact with the current Rights on the table. The Rights in play act as the ‘rules’ for the current round. For example, one Right tells you how many Action cards to draw each turn, and another tells you what your hand limit is at the end of your turn. During this phase, you will also have the opportunity to ‘erode’ (remove) Rights from play. To erode a Right, you must pay the resources displayed on the Right card. Each Right has 4 cards, and the bottom-most card must be showing for that Right to be considered to be completely eroded. Your secret Missions require you to erode specific Rights in play, so you must strategize how to use your resources to best benefit your Missions. After all players have taken a turn, the game moves to the Election phase. During the Election, players are casting votes (the # of resources on the Action card is the # of votes it is worth) in an effort to elect a player to be the Executive for the next round. The Executive goes first in the next round, and gets to assign Roles to all players. In order to complete your Executive mission, you must have the Executive card at time of completion. You can vote for an opponent, as well as yourself. Cast a vote with your Bluff card, however, and your votes do not count! Trick your opponents into thinking you’ve voted for them, but reveal the Bluff and get those votes back. Didn’t win the Election? That’s ok! Take a Backstab card as a condolence. Backstab cards can be played at any time and can negatively affect your opponents, or could give you a leg up over opponents. Play continues until one player has completed all 3 of their secret Missions.
If you are confused at all by the rules/gameplay overview above, I have to admit that I am too. The rules provided with this game are extremely vague and confusing to understand. Not even a rulebook, these rules are compiled on 3 separate playing cards. The text is sparse, ambiguous, and contradictory. For example, one card says that each Right is followed once per turn per player, but in any order. But one of the Rights pertains to the Election phase, which I believe only happens once per round? Or does it happen on every single players’ turn since each Right is supposed to be followed by every player on every turn? The ambiguity of the rules bleeds over into other cards as well. Some cards say to ‘discount’ a Right, but nowhere does it say what ‘discount’ means. Do you immediately erode that Right by one? Or do you just pay one fewer resource to erode? There is no clarification anywhere, and that made this game frustrating to play.
Another qualm with this game is that it is supposed to be educational, but I do not think it achieves its goal. I do have to commend the creators for their efforts, but I think they fall flat. Every Action card has small text at the bottom that details the political concept addressed on the card. Here’s the catch – the text is educational, but it is so small that it can be easily ignored. It also has no bearing whatsoever on the gameplay, so I have to admit that I almost never read any of that extra text.
In theory, this game could be fun and educational. In actuality, though, it falls flat. The ambiguity of the rules meant that we played differently nearly every time. We tried interpreting the rules in several ways, but ultimately we just got frustrated by not knowing how everything actually works. With some serious rules work, this game has the potential to be something good. But in its current state, it feels more like a half-baked potato.
Disclaimer: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this preview. This is not the finished product, so some of the components may change in the final printing. -L
Tatorship is a card game of hand management and bidding in which players are racing to complete their secret political missions before their opponents. To set up the game, place the 6 Rights in their respective piles in ascending order. Each player randomly selects a Tator, Top Secret Mission, Bottom Secret Mission, and Executive Mission, as well as Action cards and a Bluff card. The Tator is your character, and provides a unique Executive power. The Mission cards (Top, Bottom, and Executive) each refer to specific Rights in the play area. Action cards provide resources necessary for interacting with the Rights, and for use during the Election.
On your turn, you interact with the current Rights on the table. The Rights in play act as the ‘rules’ for the current round. For example, one Right tells you how many Action cards to draw each turn, and another tells you what your hand limit is at the end of your turn. During this phase, you will also have the opportunity to ‘erode’ (remove) Rights from play. To erode a Right, you must pay the resources displayed on the Right card. Each Right has 4 cards, and the bottom-most card must be showing for that Right to be considered to be completely eroded. Your secret Missions require you to erode specific Rights in play, so you must strategize how to use your resources to best benefit your Missions. After all players have taken a turn, the game moves to the Election phase. During the Election, players are casting votes (the # of resources on the Action card is the # of votes it is worth) in an effort to elect a player to be the Executive for the next round. The Executive goes first in the next round, and gets to assign Roles to all players. In order to complete your Executive mission, you must have the Executive card at time of completion. You can vote for an opponent, as well as yourself. Cast a vote with your Bluff card, however, and your votes do not count! Trick your opponents into thinking you’ve voted for them, but reveal the Bluff and get those votes back. Didn’t win the Election? That’s ok! Take a Backstab card as a condolence. Backstab cards can be played at any time and can negatively affect your opponents, or could give you a leg up over opponents. Play continues until one player has completed all 3 of their secret Missions.
If you are confused at all by the rules/gameplay overview above, I have to admit that I am too. The rules provided with this game are extremely vague and confusing to understand. Not even a rulebook, these rules are compiled on 3 separate playing cards. The text is sparse, ambiguous, and contradictory. For example, one card says that each Right is followed once per turn per player, but in any order. But one of the Rights pertains to the Election phase, which I believe only happens once per round? Or does it happen on every single players’ turn since each Right is supposed to be followed by every player on every turn? The ambiguity of the rules bleeds over into other cards as well. Some cards say to ‘discount’ a Right, but nowhere does it say what ‘discount’ means. Do you immediately erode that Right by one? Or do you just pay one fewer resource to erode? There is no clarification anywhere, and that made this game frustrating to play.
Another qualm with this game is that it is supposed to be educational, but I do not think it achieves its goal. I do have to commend the creators for their efforts, but I think they fall flat. Every Action card has small text at the bottom that details the political concept addressed on the card. Here’s the catch – the text is educational, but it is so small that it can be easily ignored. It also has no bearing whatsoever on the gameplay, so I have to admit that I almost never read any of that extra text.
In theory, this game could be fun and educational. In actuality, though, it falls flat. The ambiguity of the rules meant that we played differently nearly every time. We tried interpreting the rules in several ways, but ultimately we just got frustrated by not knowing how everything actually works. With some serious rules work, this game has the potential to be something good. But in its current state, it feels more like a half-baked potato.
CI
CCNA ICND2 640-816 Official Cert Guide
Book
New Edition of Best Selling Official Cert Guide: Updated Content, New Exercises, and Expanded...
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated A Frozen Heart in Books
Sep 20, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
It seems like adaptations of Frozen and Frozen 2 are everywhere right now: it must be so hard for an author to come up with a story that is different enough to draw readers in but still in-keeping with the story. Luckily, Elizabeth Rudnick’s skilled writing turns the typical Frozen tale on its head: telling it solely from the perspective of Anna and Hans.
It is this, seemingly simple, difference that gives “A Frozen Heart” it’s edge. The inclusion of Hans’ viewpoint allows us to witness his upbringing as the 13th Prince of The Southern Isles: we visit looming, black, inhospitable castle with it’s stern, hard-to-please King; an absent-minded, weak but loving Queen and the youngest Prince who has been bullied for his entire life.
Rudnick’s characterisation of Hans is nothing less than pure genius. It is difficult to feel anything but pity for Hans during his childhood: he is constantly disappointing his father and being physically and emotionally bullied by his brothers. The only family member whom Hans truly seems to love is his mother but she is portrayed as somewhat absent in her mental state. (As a mother I can only assume this is from having 13 sons! I struggle with 2!)
Even when Hans “plots” his way to Arendelle, it is purely an evacuation plan. He is so desperate to leave the Southern Isles that he believes Elsa, a social enigma of a future queen, is his best chance for a new life. Then, when Hans realises Elsa is a lost cause and goes off singing and dancing into the night with Anna, at first, the reader genuinely believes his intentions are good. It even reminded me of the fan theory that Hans is the real deal until the trolls sing “get the fiancé out of the way”.
Hans is never completely trustworthy though: he is too acutely aware of how others view him and his actions, as well as the relative power those onlookers have and whether they will support him with his next, calculated move.
Hans also seems to be of the opinion that a Queen needs a King and the King will rule. Apart from being adoringly archaic(!), it is likely that this could be an effect of the relationship between his parents: the brief insight we have into the King and Queen of the Southern Isles suggest Hans has never had a strong female role model in his life. Again, Rudnick’s writing and characters implying that Hans is not 100% to blame: perhaps he is merely a product of the harsh environment he was brought up in?
Unfortunately, the deep-rooted power complex instilled from his father wins out in the end and Hans can see no alternative life but one where he is ruler. Thus, the villain in him rises; constantly calculating and predicting how his actions will be judged by others and the tale with which we are so familiar plays out.
Anna’s story runs along similar parallels to Hans, with neglect and isolation from her closest family. However, the way this pain manifests in Anna could not be further than that of the Prince of the Southern Isles.
‘A Frozen Heart’ reflects Anna’s vulnerability in every sentence. As a young girl Anna lost her freedom as well as her best friend and sister; as a teenager she loses her parents and this has formed an extremely fragile, trusting, naïve young woman. Anna has lived the definition of a sheltered childhood: is it any wonder she falls in love with the first man who pays her attention? Anna’s even confesses to herself: “That is all I ever wanted. For someone to love me”.
Despite this, Anna does not present as a weak character. Yes, she is a hopeless romantic: all the best people are in my opinion! However, she is also strong-willed and is willing to go to any lengths to bring back her sister. Rudnick’s first-person perspective only highlights this strength in Anna: she completely accepts her faults and can see the error in her actions, particularly when it comes to Hans, but she can not and will not give up.
I really enjoyed the insight into Hans and Anna’s thoughts and particularly into Hans’ background. However, once this initial thrill was over, I felt that ‘A Frozen Heart’ merely followed along with the plot of the movie and, dare I say, became a bit lazy?
Please don’t misunderstand me, I did enjoy the book and Rudnick did an amazing job bringing to life our favourite characters on the page but I just needed a little bit more: perhaps an insight into Kristoff’s backstory? How does a young boy with a reindeer find himself adopted by trolls? Is Kristoff even an orphan? What has he experienced in order to consider the trolls love doctors?
‘A Frozen Heart’: an interesting concept but maybe played it a little too safe? Please let me know your thoughts.
It is this, seemingly simple, difference that gives “A Frozen Heart” it’s edge. The inclusion of Hans’ viewpoint allows us to witness his upbringing as the 13th Prince of The Southern Isles: we visit looming, black, inhospitable castle with it’s stern, hard-to-please King; an absent-minded, weak but loving Queen and the youngest Prince who has been bullied for his entire life.
Rudnick’s characterisation of Hans is nothing less than pure genius. It is difficult to feel anything but pity for Hans during his childhood: he is constantly disappointing his father and being physically and emotionally bullied by his brothers. The only family member whom Hans truly seems to love is his mother but she is portrayed as somewhat absent in her mental state. (As a mother I can only assume this is from having 13 sons! I struggle with 2!)
Even when Hans “plots” his way to Arendelle, it is purely an evacuation plan. He is so desperate to leave the Southern Isles that he believes Elsa, a social enigma of a future queen, is his best chance for a new life. Then, when Hans realises Elsa is a lost cause and goes off singing and dancing into the night with Anna, at first, the reader genuinely believes his intentions are good. It even reminded me of the fan theory that Hans is the real deal until the trolls sing “get the fiancé out of the way”.
Hans is never completely trustworthy though: he is too acutely aware of how others view him and his actions, as well as the relative power those onlookers have and whether they will support him with his next, calculated move.
Hans also seems to be of the opinion that a Queen needs a King and the King will rule. Apart from being adoringly archaic(!), it is likely that this could be an effect of the relationship between his parents: the brief insight we have into the King and Queen of the Southern Isles suggest Hans has never had a strong female role model in his life. Again, Rudnick’s writing and characters implying that Hans is not 100% to blame: perhaps he is merely a product of the harsh environment he was brought up in?
Unfortunately, the deep-rooted power complex instilled from his father wins out in the end and Hans can see no alternative life but one where he is ruler. Thus, the villain in him rises; constantly calculating and predicting how his actions will be judged by others and the tale with which we are so familiar plays out.
Anna’s story runs along similar parallels to Hans, with neglect and isolation from her closest family. However, the way this pain manifests in Anna could not be further than that of the Prince of the Southern Isles.
‘A Frozen Heart’ reflects Anna’s vulnerability in every sentence. As a young girl Anna lost her freedom as well as her best friend and sister; as a teenager she loses her parents and this has formed an extremely fragile, trusting, naïve young woman. Anna has lived the definition of a sheltered childhood: is it any wonder she falls in love with the first man who pays her attention? Anna’s even confesses to herself: “That is all I ever wanted. For someone to love me”.
Despite this, Anna does not present as a weak character. Yes, she is a hopeless romantic: all the best people are in my opinion! However, she is also strong-willed and is willing to go to any lengths to bring back her sister. Rudnick’s first-person perspective only highlights this strength in Anna: she completely accepts her faults and can see the error in her actions, particularly when it comes to Hans, but she can not and will not give up.
I really enjoyed the insight into Hans and Anna’s thoughts and particularly into Hans’ background. However, once this initial thrill was over, I felt that ‘A Frozen Heart’ merely followed along with the plot of the movie and, dare I say, became a bit lazy?
Please don’t misunderstand me, I did enjoy the book and Rudnick did an amazing job bringing to life our favourite characters on the page but I just needed a little bit more: perhaps an insight into Kristoff’s backstory? How does a young boy with a reindeer find himself adopted by trolls? Is Kristoff even an orphan? What has he experienced in order to consider the trolls love doctors?
‘A Frozen Heart’: an interesting concept but maybe played it a little too safe? Please let me know your thoughts.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Tingler (1959) in Movies
Dec 5, 2020
Vincent Price (1 more)
William Castle
When You Scream
The Tingler- is a excellent movie and if you havent watched it than go watch it.
The plot: Dr. Warren Chapin (Vincent Price) has made a surprising discovery -- the spine-chilling sensation that people get when scared is due to a parasite that he dubs the "tingler." Chapin concludes that in extreme circumstances, prolonged fear can cause the creature to damage a person's spine and even cause death if the victim can't scream, a theory that Oliver Higgins (Philip Coolidge) uses to deadly effect on his wife (Judith Evelyn). Soon the tingler that killed the woman is on the loose.
Castle used gimmicks to sell the film. The Tingler remains most well known for a gimmick called "Percepto!", a vibrating device in some theater chairs which activated with the onscreen action.
In a similar manner as Universal's Frankenstein (1931), Castle opened the film with an on-screen warning to the audience:
"I am William Castle, the director of the motion picture you are about to see. I feel obligated to warn you that some of the sensations—some of the physical reactions which the actors on the screen will feel—will also be experienced, for the first time in motion picture history, by certain members of this audience. I say 'certain members' because some people are more sensitive to these mysterious electronic impulses than others. These unfortunate, sensitive people will at times feel a strange, tingling sensation; other people will feel it less strongly. But don't be alarmed—you can protect yourself. At any time you are conscious of a tingling sensation, you may obtain immediate relief by screaming. Don't be embarrassed about opening your mouth and letting rip with all you've got, because the person in the seat right next to you will probably be screaming too. And remember—a scream at the right time may save your life."
William Castle was famous for his movie gimmicks, and The Tingler featured one of his best: "Percepto!". Previously, he had offered a $1,000 life insurance policy against "Death by Fright" for Macabre (1958) and sent a skeleton flying above the audiences' heads in the auditorium in House on Haunted Hill (1959).
"Percepto!" was a gimmick where Castle attached electrical "buzzers" to the underside of some seats in theaters where The Tingler was screened. The buzzers were small surplus airplane wing deicing motors left from World War II. The cost of this equipment added $250,000 to the film's budget. It was used predominantly in larger theaters.
During the climax of the film, The Tingler was unleashed in the movie theater, while the audience watched Tol'able David (1921), in which a young woman escapes the unwanted advances of her boyfriend and is targeted. In the real-life theater, a woman screamed and then pretended to faint; she was then taken away in a stretcher, all part of the show arranged by Castle. From the screen, the voice of Price mentioned the fainted lady and asked the rest of the audience to remain seated. The film-within-a-film resumed and was interrupted again. The projected film appeared to break as the silhouette of the tingler moved across the projection beam. The image of the film went dark, all lights in the auditorium (except fire exit signs) went off, and Price's voice warned the audience, "Ladies and gentlemen, please do not panic. But scream! Scream for your lives! The tingler is loose in this theater!" This cued the theater projectionist to activate the Percepto! buzzers, giving some audience members an unexpected jolt, followed by a highly visible physical reaction. The voices of scared patrons were heard from the screen, replaced by the voice of Price, who explained that the tingler was paralyzed and the danger was over. At this point, the film resumed its normal format, which was used for its epilogue
An alternate warning was recorded for drive-in theaters; this warning advised the audience the tingler was loose in the drive-in. Castle's voice was substituted for Price's in this version.
Castle's autobiography, Step Right Up!: I'm Gonna Scare the Pants off America, erroneously stated that "Percepto!" delivered electric shocks to the theater seats.
To enhance the climax even more, Castle hired fake "screamers and fainters" planted in the audience There were fake nurses stationed in the foyer and an ambulance outside of the theater. The "fainters" would be carried out on a gurney and whisked away in the ambulance, to return for the next showing.
Although The Tingler was filmed in black-and-white, a short color sequence was spliced into the film. It showed a sink (in black-and-white) with bright-red "blood" flowing from the taps and a black-and-white Evelyn watching a bloody red hand rising from a bathtub, likewise filled with the bright red "blood". Castle used color film for the effect. The scene was accomplished by painting the set white, black and gray and applying gray makeup to the actress to simulate monochrome.
Excellent Film.
The plot: Dr. Warren Chapin (Vincent Price) has made a surprising discovery -- the spine-chilling sensation that people get when scared is due to a parasite that he dubs the "tingler." Chapin concludes that in extreme circumstances, prolonged fear can cause the creature to damage a person's spine and even cause death if the victim can't scream, a theory that Oliver Higgins (Philip Coolidge) uses to deadly effect on his wife (Judith Evelyn). Soon the tingler that killed the woman is on the loose.
Castle used gimmicks to sell the film. The Tingler remains most well known for a gimmick called "Percepto!", a vibrating device in some theater chairs which activated with the onscreen action.
In a similar manner as Universal's Frankenstein (1931), Castle opened the film with an on-screen warning to the audience:
"I am William Castle, the director of the motion picture you are about to see. I feel obligated to warn you that some of the sensations—some of the physical reactions which the actors on the screen will feel—will also be experienced, for the first time in motion picture history, by certain members of this audience. I say 'certain members' because some people are more sensitive to these mysterious electronic impulses than others. These unfortunate, sensitive people will at times feel a strange, tingling sensation; other people will feel it less strongly. But don't be alarmed—you can protect yourself. At any time you are conscious of a tingling sensation, you may obtain immediate relief by screaming. Don't be embarrassed about opening your mouth and letting rip with all you've got, because the person in the seat right next to you will probably be screaming too. And remember—a scream at the right time may save your life."
William Castle was famous for his movie gimmicks, and The Tingler featured one of his best: "Percepto!". Previously, he had offered a $1,000 life insurance policy against "Death by Fright" for Macabre (1958) and sent a skeleton flying above the audiences' heads in the auditorium in House on Haunted Hill (1959).
"Percepto!" was a gimmick where Castle attached electrical "buzzers" to the underside of some seats in theaters where The Tingler was screened. The buzzers were small surplus airplane wing deicing motors left from World War II. The cost of this equipment added $250,000 to the film's budget. It was used predominantly in larger theaters.
During the climax of the film, The Tingler was unleashed in the movie theater, while the audience watched Tol'able David (1921), in which a young woman escapes the unwanted advances of her boyfriend and is targeted. In the real-life theater, a woman screamed and then pretended to faint; she was then taken away in a stretcher, all part of the show arranged by Castle. From the screen, the voice of Price mentioned the fainted lady and asked the rest of the audience to remain seated. The film-within-a-film resumed and was interrupted again. The projected film appeared to break as the silhouette of the tingler moved across the projection beam. The image of the film went dark, all lights in the auditorium (except fire exit signs) went off, and Price's voice warned the audience, "Ladies and gentlemen, please do not panic. But scream! Scream for your lives! The tingler is loose in this theater!" This cued the theater projectionist to activate the Percepto! buzzers, giving some audience members an unexpected jolt, followed by a highly visible physical reaction. The voices of scared patrons were heard from the screen, replaced by the voice of Price, who explained that the tingler was paralyzed and the danger was over. At this point, the film resumed its normal format, which was used for its epilogue
An alternate warning was recorded for drive-in theaters; this warning advised the audience the tingler was loose in the drive-in. Castle's voice was substituted for Price's in this version.
Castle's autobiography, Step Right Up!: I'm Gonna Scare the Pants off America, erroneously stated that "Percepto!" delivered electric shocks to the theater seats.
To enhance the climax even more, Castle hired fake "screamers and fainters" planted in the audience There were fake nurses stationed in the foyer and an ambulance outside of the theater. The "fainters" would be carried out on a gurney and whisked away in the ambulance, to return for the next showing.
Although The Tingler was filmed in black-and-white, a short color sequence was spliced into the film. It showed a sink (in black-and-white) with bright-red "blood" flowing from the taps and a black-and-white Evelyn watching a bloody red hand rising from a bathtub, likewise filled with the bright red "blood". Castle used color film for the effect. The scene was accomplished by painting the set white, black and gray and applying gray makeup to the actress to simulate monochrome.
Excellent Film.
Lee (2222 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 6, 2019 (Updated Sep 6, 2019)
Bloated, messy at times, not quite as good as chapter 1 :(
It's fair to say that IT Chapter 2 has been one of my most anticipated movies this year. The trailer, which I've probably watched just as many times now as I watched the Endgame trailer, gives me goosebumps every time, and I couldn't wait to rejoin the losers club for another battle with Pennywise the clown. I was lucky enough to secure tickets to the immersive IT experience in London last weekend, adding further fuel to my excitement, and I decided to book the double bill showing of both chapters at the cinema in order to fully enjoy the complete story. Watching chapter 1 up on the big screen again proved to be just as enjoyable for me as the first time I saw it. Sadly though, I feel that chapter 2 didn't quite measure up to chapter 1.
It's now been 27 years since the events of chapter 1. One night, at the Derry funfair, a prolonged and brutal homophobic attack takes place, seemingly serving no other purpose than to provide us with a lengthy setup for the return of Pennywise. Yes, the clown is back and looking for revenge. It falls to Mike (Isaiah Mustafa), the only member of the losers club still living in Derry, to call on the others, to tell them they need to come home and to fulfill the oath they all pledged as children - no matter where they are, if "It" ever comes back, they'll come back to finish it. They all take the call they never thought they'd get and immediately their lives feel the impact - Bill (James McAvoy) is now a famous writer and suddenly starts to regain his stutter, Beverly (Jessica Chastain) clearly hasn't managed to escape a life of abuse, Ben (Jay Ryan) has managed to shed a lot of weight, Richie (Bill Hader) throws up before going on stage to perform stand-up, Eddie (James Ransome) simply refuses to believe what he's hearing. And Stanley (Andy Bean), well he fully appreciates the horror that lies ahead of them all.
The adult versions of the losers club are all perfectly cast, and just as entertaining in adult form as they are as children. Any reviews you read for this movie will no doubt mention Bill Hader as adult Richie, and all praise for him is well deserved. Just as Finn Wolfhard stole the show as the young, wise cracking and potty mouthed Richie in chapter 1, so does Bill Hader here. But the entire adult cast is all simply spot on.
They all meet up at a Chinese restaurant in Derry, gradually recalling forgotten events from their childhood over a meal and falling back into old friendships once again. We get multiple flashbacks of them all as teenagers, new scenes that help to flesh out the story-line, and these continue throughout the entire movie. It's a real nostalgic joy to revisit these younger versions again, and to immediately see how each flashback moment ultimately affects them as adults. The threat of Pennywise constantly lingers though, and they know they have work to do.
They go their separate ways, remaining in Derry but taking time to reacquainte themselves with the town and their own personal history there. Mike has a theory on how to defeat Pennywise once and for all, but first they must face him individually - grow stronger and more confident so that they can hopefully overcome him together as a team.
Unfortunately though, Pennywise never really feels as much of a threat as he did in the first movie. The slow brooding, creepy scares that worked so effectively then are all but lost here. There certainly are still a handful of those in chapter 2, and those do work extremely well, but they're simply outnumbered by a constant barrage of jump scares and CGI monsters. I lost count of the number of times we got a random CGI creature rapidly approaching us and the over-reliance on CGI is noticeably jarring, even more so in the final act. The use of practical, psychological scares is sorely missed and the whole thing is nowhere near as scary as chapter 1.
The run-time clocks in at 2hr 50, compared to a tighter 2hr 15 for chapter 1, and it really notices. Admittedly, the Stephen King source material is pretty hefty anyway (so I hear), but at times this just felt bloated and messy in its interpretation, too much being thrown at you and not enough of it sticking. That CG heavy finale I mentioned is also way too long, and really drags. It's a shame because I really enjoyed the introduction of the adult losers and the interweaving of their lives with the flashbacks from 27 years earlier. There's talk of an extended cut being out there and potentially being released. Personally, I would prefer a much leaner, shorter cut.
It's now been 27 years since the events of chapter 1. One night, at the Derry funfair, a prolonged and brutal homophobic attack takes place, seemingly serving no other purpose than to provide us with a lengthy setup for the return of Pennywise. Yes, the clown is back and looking for revenge. It falls to Mike (Isaiah Mustafa), the only member of the losers club still living in Derry, to call on the others, to tell them they need to come home and to fulfill the oath they all pledged as children - no matter where they are, if "It" ever comes back, they'll come back to finish it. They all take the call they never thought they'd get and immediately their lives feel the impact - Bill (James McAvoy) is now a famous writer and suddenly starts to regain his stutter, Beverly (Jessica Chastain) clearly hasn't managed to escape a life of abuse, Ben (Jay Ryan) has managed to shed a lot of weight, Richie (Bill Hader) throws up before going on stage to perform stand-up, Eddie (James Ransome) simply refuses to believe what he's hearing. And Stanley (Andy Bean), well he fully appreciates the horror that lies ahead of them all.
The adult versions of the losers club are all perfectly cast, and just as entertaining in adult form as they are as children. Any reviews you read for this movie will no doubt mention Bill Hader as adult Richie, and all praise for him is well deserved. Just as Finn Wolfhard stole the show as the young, wise cracking and potty mouthed Richie in chapter 1, so does Bill Hader here. But the entire adult cast is all simply spot on.
They all meet up at a Chinese restaurant in Derry, gradually recalling forgotten events from their childhood over a meal and falling back into old friendships once again. We get multiple flashbacks of them all as teenagers, new scenes that help to flesh out the story-line, and these continue throughout the entire movie. It's a real nostalgic joy to revisit these younger versions again, and to immediately see how each flashback moment ultimately affects them as adults. The threat of Pennywise constantly lingers though, and they know they have work to do.
They go their separate ways, remaining in Derry but taking time to reacquainte themselves with the town and their own personal history there. Mike has a theory on how to defeat Pennywise once and for all, but first they must face him individually - grow stronger and more confident so that they can hopefully overcome him together as a team.
Unfortunately though, Pennywise never really feels as much of a threat as he did in the first movie. The slow brooding, creepy scares that worked so effectively then are all but lost here. There certainly are still a handful of those in chapter 2, and those do work extremely well, but they're simply outnumbered by a constant barrage of jump scares and CGI monsters. I lost count of the number of times we got a random CGI creature rapidly approaching us and the over-reliance on CGI is noticeably jarring, even more so in the final act. The use of practical, psychological scares is sorely missed and the whole thing is nowhere near as scary as chapter 1.
The run-time clocks in at 2hr 50, compared to a tighter 2hr 15 for chapter 1, and it really notices. Admittedly, the Stephen King source material is pretty hefty anyway (so I hear), but at times this just felt bloated and messy in its interpretation, too much being thrown at you and not enough of it sticking. That CG heavy finale I mentioned is also way too long, and really drags. It's a shame because I really enjoyed the introduction of the adult losers and the interweaving of their lives with the flashbacks from 27 years earlier. There's talk of an extended cut being out there and potentially being released. Personally, I would prefer a much leaner, shorter cut.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Putting the “Wars” back into “Star Wars”.
Expectations have been sky-high for this first in the ‘add-in’ series of Star Wars films. But with director Gareth Edwards at the helm, whose past movie track-record includes just the low-budget “Monsters” and the less than memorable “Godzilla“, I was frankly concerned.
But the English guy (with the Welsh name) has seriously delivered!
“Rogue One” (I have omitted the inane and irritating suffix “: A Star Wars Story”) tells the story behind the story of the original Episode IV: “A New Hope”. Felicity Jones (“The Theory of Everything“) plays Jyn Erso, daughter to Imperial weapons expert Mads Mikkelsen (“Doctor Strange“, “Casino Royale”). An interrupted childhood leads the delinquent Jyn on a personal journey to become a leader in the fragmenting Rebel Alliance, as a small band of heroes battle to obtain the plans for the Empire’s planet-zapping Death Star. Will they succeed (this is hardly a question worth asking given the start of Episode IV!) and at what cost?
I’m throwing it out there…. this is the best Star Wars film since “The Empire Strikes Back”. The story (John Knoll and Gary Whitta) is almost Shakespearean in its scope, leading to a moving and memorable finale. As a standalone episode within the Star Wars canon – chronologically positioned as it between “Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith” and “Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope” – the film marvellously knits the two together bringing in cameos from Episode III as well as (very surprising) cameos from Episode IV, now nearly 40 years old. The screenplay (by Chris “About a Boy” Weitz and Tony Gilroy, writer of the “Bourne” films) is whip-smart with great lines.
For Star Wars fans the film is also chock full of ‘Easter Eggs’ from the original Star Wars. All of these are great fun but – frankly – some don’t make a lot of sense: for example, a chance encounter with a character in the streets of Jedha City doesn’t gel with what happens an hour or two later.
After Rey in last December’s “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” we again see another kick-ass heroine and a further cinematic nod towards girl-power in the movies. But this is a nuanced heroine with more than a hint of darkness about her. Felicity Jones plays her perfectly, reflecting her transition from teenage rebel to rebel-leading teen.
In general, the darkness continues throughout the supporting cast with some of the heroes – notably the impressive Diego Luna (“The Terminal”) as Cassian Andor – managing to do some very anti-heroic things at points in the story. The rest of the cast, and especially Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang as dynamic martial arts duo Chirrut Îmwe and Baze Malbus, generate the warm fuzzies enough for you – as the audience – to really care for what happens to them. This even extends to the lump of metal in the frame – the droid K-2SO (voiced by Alan Tudyk) – who could be the film’s Jar Jar Binks but manages instead to steal the best comic lines in the film.
Elsewhere Forest Whitaker (“Arrival“) is underused as rebel guerilla Saw Gerrera; Mads Mikkelsen adds gravitas to a key strategic role; and Ben Mendelsohn makes for a memorable Imperial villain. The only slightly irritating character in an otherwise stellar ensemble cast is pilot Rodhi Rook (played by Riz Ahmed from “Jason Bourne“): more for the rather pointless way his character is written than for the Londoner’s portrayal per se.
An equal member of the cast is the sublime music of Michael Giacchino, having the unenviable task of following John Williams into the Star Wars franchise. But he does a great job. After the shock of the non-traditional opening (and an abrupt and rather out of place Title shot) the style settles down, with some of the swelling music in the closing reel adding tremendously to the emotion of the finale.
The film is not quite perfect though. The first half of the film could have moved on a bit quicker to get to the breathtaking finale. And even though CGI has moved on significantly from the stick men and women walking around on the deck in “Titanic” in 1997, the state of the art (no spoilers, but you’ll know what I mean if you’ve seen the film) still has room for some improvement. (Perhaps the first of these scenes could have been as subliminal as the last for better effect).
An outstanding effort, and one I definitely want to watch again. The Bluray version will also be a ‘must-buy’ when it emerges, since – with 4 to 5 weeks of re-shoots done in the summer, and many scenes in the trailer not appearing in the final cut – there must be an enormous number of deleted (original?) scenes that may tell a very different story from the one we saw this week.
Disney must be so, so pleased at their very expensive investment in Star Wars, and fears that the Mouse would trash the brand seem to be – thankfully – unfounded.
But the English guy (with the Welsh name) has seriously delivered!
“Rogue One” (I have omitted the inane and irritating suffix “: A Star Wars Story”) tells the story behind the story of the original Episode IV: “A New Hope”. Felicity Jones (“The Theory of Everything“) plays Jyn Erso, daughter to Imperial weapons expert Mads Mikkelsen (“Doctor Strange“, “Casino Royale”). An interrupted childhood leads the delinquent Jyn on a personal journey to become a leader in the fragmenting Rebel Alliance, as a small band of heroes battle to obtain the plans for the Empire’s planet-zapping Death Star. Will they succeed (this is hardly a question worth asking given the start of Episode IV!) and at what cost?
I’m throwing it out there…. this is the best Star Wars film since “The Empire Strikes Back”. The story (John Knoll and Gary Whitta) is almost Shakespearean in its scope, leading to a moving and memorable finale. As a standalone episode within the Star Wars canon – chronologically positioned as it between “Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith” and “Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope” – the film marvellously knits the two together bringing in cameos from Episode III as well as (very surprising) cameos from Episode IV, now nearly 40 years old. The screenplay (by Chris “About a Boy” Weitz and Tony Gilroy, writer of the “Bourne” films) is whip-smart with great lines.
For Star Wars fans the film is also chock full of ‘Easter Eggs’ from the original Star Wars. All of these are great fun but – frankly – some don’t make a lot of sense: for example, a chance encounter with a character in the streets of Jedha City doesn’t gel with what happens an hour or two later.
After Rey in last December’s “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” we again see another kick-ass heroine and a further cinematic nod towards girl-power in the movies. But this is a nuanced heroine with more than a hint of darkness about her. Felicity Jones plays her perfectly, reflecting her transition from teenage rebel to rebel-leading teen.
In general, the darkness continues throughout the supporting cast with some of the heroes – notably the impressive Diego Luna (“The Terminal”) as Cassian Andor – managing to do some very anti-heroic things at points in the story. The rest of the cast, and especially Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang as dynamic martial arts duo Chirrut Îmwe and Baze Malbus, generate the warm fuzzies enough for you – as the audience – to really care for what happens to them. This even extends to the lump of metal in the frame – the droid K-2SO (voiced by Alan Tudyk) – who could be the film’s Jar Jar Binks but manages instead to steal the best comic lines in the film.
Elsewhere Forest Whitaker (“Arrival“) is underused as rebel guerilla Saw Gerrera; Mads Mikkelsen adds gravitas to a key strategic role; and Ben Mendelsohn makes for a memorable Imperial villain. The only slightly irritating character in an otherwise stellar ensemble cast is pilot Rodhi Rook (played by Riz Ahmed from “Jason Bourne“): more for the rather pointless way his character is written than for the Londoner’s portrayal per se.
An equal member of the cast is the sublime music of Michael Giacchino, having the unenviable task of following John Williams into the Star Wars franchise. But he does a great job. After the shock of the non-traditional opening (and an abrupt and rather out of place Title shot) the style settles down, with some of the swelling music in the closing reel adding tremendously to the emotion of the finale.
The film is not quite perfect though. The first half of the film could have moved on a bit quicker to get to the breathtaking finale. And even though CGI has moved on significantly from the stick men and women walking around on the deck in “Titanic” in 1997, the state of the art (no spoilers, but you’ll know what I mean if you’ve seen the film) still has room for some improvement. (Perhaps the first of these scenes could have been as subliminal as the last for better effect).
An outstanding effort, and one I definitely want to watch again. The Bluray version will also be a ‘must-buy’ when it emerges, since – with 4 to 5 weeks of re-shoots done in the summer, and many scenes in the trailer not appearing in the final cut – there must be an enormous number of deleted (original?) scenes that may tell a very different story from the one we saw this week.
Disney must be so, so pleased at their very expensive investment in Star Wars, and fears that the Mouse would trash the brand seem to be – thankfully – unfounded.