Search
Search results
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated ICECOOL in Tabletop Games
Jun 25, 2019 (Updated Aug 13, 2020)
Moving components around the board/play area is a staple of most board games. As board games have evolved, that mechanic has maintained an integral role in many games. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, right? Well just because it’s not broken, doesn’t mean it can’t use a little innovation….and that’s where ICECOOL comes into play.
You and your Penguin buddies are so hungry that you decide to skip out on class early to go grab some snacks. But you’ve forgotten about the Hall Monitor! Their mission is to catch any unauthorized hall wanderers and send them back to class. Can you outmaneuver the Hall Monitor, or will you be caught and forced to go hungry until the end of class?
Disclaimer: I do not intend to rehash the rulebook in its entirety in this review, but rather provide a general overview of the rules and gameplay. To read the rules more in-depth, grab a copy of the game from your FLGS! -L
ICECOOL is a dexterity game in which players are trying to amass the most points over a number of rounds. Here’s how a round plays out. Select one player to be the Hall Monitor (called the Catcher) for the first round, and place their Penguin pawn in the kitchen box. All other players, aka the Runners, take their 3 colored fish tokens and attach them to the three corresponding doorways, and begin with their Penguin pawns in the classroom box. As a Runner, your goal is to collect your 3 fish tokens from their doorways. How do you do that? Flick your Penguin through a fish doorway to collect your snack. Yes, you read that right – flick. In this game, all movement is achieved by literally flicking your pieces throughout the boxes. To collect a fish, you must pass through the corresponding doorway completely in one single flick. Each time you collect a fish, draw the top card from the fish deck and keep it hidden from your opponents. Your other goal? Avoid the Catcher. If at any point, your Penguin comes into contact with the Catcher, you must forfeit your Hall Pass to the Catcher.
As the Catcher, your goal is to collect the Hall Pass of every other player. You achieve this goal by flicking your Penguin into any of the Runners. Turn order is as follows: Runners-Catcher, Runners-Catcher, etc., until the end of the round is triggered. The round is over when the Catcher has collected Hall Passes from every other player, or any Runner has collected all 3 of their fish. At the end of the round, each player collects 1 fish card per Hall Pass in their possession. So if you were caught by the Catcher, you’re outta luck! For the next round a new player is selected to be the Catcher, and play continues as above. The game ends once every player has taken a turn as the Catcher. Count up the points from your collected fish cards, and the player with the most points wins!
So a game of flicking Penguins around some boxes – sounds pretty simple, right? Yes and no. ICECOOL admittedly does not really require any serious strategy. Yes, you are trying to collect all 3 of your fish, but you’re mainly playing keep-away from the Catcher. And as the Catcher, you’re “It” in this quasi-game of Tag. So strategic, this is not. On the other hand, mastering the art of flicking your Penguin is a long and arduous process. Ok, it’s not arduous, but it is tricky to master! ICECOOL really puts your dexterity to the test to see if you have the proper form and control to move your Penguin to exactly where you want it to go. Half of the fun of this game is all the whiffed flicks and the comically accidental misdirections. The rulebook offers some flicking techniques to try out before your first game, and they are actually pretty helpful. I’ve not yet been able to achieve the jumping flick, but maybe one day I will rise to that level.
One other super neat thing about ICECOOL is the game setup. You’re playing with boxes of varying sizes. But here’s the kicker: they all nest into each other!!! So for storing, it looks like you just have one box. But in reality, there are 4 other boxes hidden inside. This concept is not one I’ve seen before in any other game, so that just makes ICECOOL a little bit more unique and interesting for me. Since I’m talking about the boxes, let me touch on components. The boxes are all of great quality, and are sturdy enough to hold up to clashing penguins. The Penguins themselves are good solid plastic, and I know they will last forever. Be careful though, flicking too hard might hurt your fingers! The deck of fish cards are a standard card quality. The artwork of the game is cute and thematic, and overall it’s a fun, immersive experience.
ICECOOL is not a game that I pull off the shelf at every game night. But it is one that is light enough, and entertaining enough, that it certainly gets a good amount of gameplay from my collection. Whether you are using it as a nice, short filler game, or you’re playing with some young’uns, it makes for a happy atmosphere full of energy and happiness. And that’s why Purple Phoenix Games gives ICECOOL a brrrrrrrrrilliant 18 / 24.
You and your Penguin buddies are so hungry that you decide to skip out on class early to go grab some snacks. But you’ve forgotten about the Hall Monitor! Their mission is to catch any unauthorized hall wanderers and send them back to class. Can you outmaneuver the Hall Monitor, or will you be caught and forced to go hungry until the end of class?
Disclaimer: I do not intend to rehash the rulebook in its entirety in this review, but rather provide a general overview of the rules and gameplay. To read the rules more in-depth, grab a copy of the game from your FLGS! -L
ICECOOL is a dexterity game in which players are trying to amass the most points over a number of rounds. Here’s how a round plays out. Select one player to be the Hall Monitor (called the Catcher) for the first round, and place their Penguin pawn in the kitchen box. All other players, aka the Runners, take their 3 colored fish tokens and attach them to the three corresponding doorways, and begin with their Penguin pawns in the classroom box. As a Runner, your goal is to collect your 3 fish tokens from their doorways. How do you do that? Flick your Penguin through a fish doorway to collect your snack. Yes, you read that right – flick. In this game, all movement is achieved by literally flicking your pieces throughout the boxes. To collect a fish, you must pass through the corresponding doorway completely in one single flick. Each time you collect a fish, draw the top card from the fish deck and keep it hidden from your opponents. Your other goal? Avoid the Catcher. If at any point, your Penguin comes into contact with the Catcher, you must forfeit your Hall Pass to the Catcher.
As the Catcher, your goal is to collect the Hall Pass of every other player. You achieve this goal by flicking your Penguin into any of the Runners. Turn order is as follows: Runners-Catcher, Runners-Catcher, etc., until the end of the round is triggered. The round is over when the Catcher has collected Hall Passes from every other player, or any Runner has collected all 3 of their fish. At the end of the round, each player collects 1 fish card per Hall Pass in their possession. So if you were caught by the Catcher, you’re outta luck! For the next round a new player is selected to be the Catcher, and play continues as above. The game ends once every player has taken a turn as the Catcher. Count up the points from your collected fish cards, and the player with the most points wins!
So a game of flicking Penguins around some boxes – sounds pretty simple, right? Yes and no. ICECOOL admittedly does not really require any serious strategy. Yes, you are trying to collect all 3 of your fish, but you’re mainly playing keep-away from the Catcher. And as the Catcher, you’re “It” in this quasi-game of Tag. So strategic, this is not. On the other hand, mastering the art of flicking your Penguin is a long and arduous process. Ok, it’s not arduous, but it is tricky to master! ICECOOL really puts your dexterity to the test to see if you have the proper form and control to move your Penguin to exactly where you want it to go. Half of the fun of this game is all the whiffed flicks and the comically accidental misdirections. The rulebook offers some flicking techniques to try out before your first game, and they are actually pretty helpful. I’ve not yet been able to achieve the jumping flick, but maybe one day I will rise to that level.
One other super neat thing about ICECOOL is the game setup. You’re playing with boxes of varying sizes. But here’s the kicker: they all nest into each other!!! So for storing, it looks like you just have one box. But in reality, there are 4 other boxes hidden inside. This concept is not one I’ve seen before in any other game, so that just makes ICECOOL a little bit more unique and interesting for me. Since I’m talking about the boxes, let me touch on components. The boxes are all of great quality, and are sturdy enough to hold up to clashing penguins. The Penguins themselves are good solid plastic, and I know they will last forever. Be careful though, flicking too hard might hurt your fingers! The deck of fish cards are a standard card quality. The artwork of the game is cute and thematic, and overall it’s a fun, immersive experience.
ICECOOL is not a game that I pull off the shelf at every game night. But it is one that is light enough, and entertaining enough, that it certainly gets a good amount of gameplay from my collection. Whether you are using it as a nice, short filler game, or you’re playing with some young’uns, it makes for a happy atmosphere full of energy and happiness. And that’s why Purple Phoenix Games gives ICECOOL a brrrrrrrrrilliant 18 / 24.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Deadly Harm in Books
Nov 25, 2019
Mackenzie is a survivor. She has survived a brutal kidnap ordeal and now runs a refuge for women who need to escape domestic violence. But when she has to turn a young woman away only for her husband to kill her, Mackenzie blames herself and resolves that she will do anything to prevent anything like that happening again. It isn't long before she must test her resolve. She has survived before. What will she do to survive now?
Once again Mullen demonstrates his credentials as one of the best crime writers out there, throwing a couple of extra murders into the mix and once again having dogged and dog-eared policeman Andrew Geddes play a large part, not only as an upholder of the law but also as Mackenzie's potential love interest. But how can a man who lives in terms of black and white cope when his girlfriend lives in the grey areas? The moral choices made by the leading characters may be questioned by the reader, but their motivations are always clear.
And what a cast of characters. The beauty of this is that everyone - Mackenzie, Geddes, the women at the refuge and killer Malkie Boyle - are all damaged from their lives and experiences. Even when Mullen's clean-cut private investigator Charlie Cameron crops up, it only serves to cast a light that reveals the shadows around the others. Everybody rings very true and the whole plot is very believable, and could be playing out at this moment.
And speaking of the plot, as usual this moves along at a breezy pace, introducing characters as it goes without slowing its momentum. This isn't a classic 'whodunnit' - it is clear exactly who did what - but isn't without twists and surprises, several plots simmering along next to each other and coming to the boil perfectly throughout the book.
Another fantastic read from simply one of the best authors there is. Very highly recommended
Once again Mullen demonstrates his credentials as one of the best crime writers out there, throwing a couple of extra murders into the mix and once again having dogged and dog-eared policeman Andrew Geddes play a large part, not only as an upholder of the law but also as Mackenzie's potential love interest. But how can a man who lives in terms of black and white cope when his girlfriend lives in the grey areas? The moral choices made by the leading characters may be questioned by the reader, but their motivations are always clear.
And what a cast of characters. The beauty of this is that everyone - Mackenzie, Geddes, the women at the refuge and killer Malkie Boyle - are all damaged from their lives and experiences. Even when Mullen's clean-cut private investigator Charlie Cameron crops up, it only serves to cast a light that reveals the shadows around the others. Everybody rings very true and the whole plot is very believable, and could be playing out at this moment.
And speaking of the plot, as usual this moves along at a breezy pace, introducing characters as it goes without slowing its momentum. This isn't a classic 'whodunnit' - it is clear exactly who did what - but isn't without twists and surprises, several plots simmering along next to each other and coming to the boil perfectly throughout the book.
Another fantastic read from simply one of the best authors there is. Very highly recommended
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Battle of the Sexes (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tennis and sex, but without the grunting.
Here’s a good test of someone’s age…. ask the question “Billie-Jean?”. Millennials will probably come back with “Huh?”; those in their 30’s or 40’s might come back with “Michael Jackson!”; those older than that will probably reply “King!”.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated After Earth (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
At its core, After Earth is a coming of age story set in a future sci-fi world. With the story by Will Smith and directed by M Knight Shyamalan, those expecting the summer blockbusters that Will Smith is known for may be disappointed. Furthermore, those expecting an epic sci-fi film will also be disappointed. In many ways After Earth is a coming of age film for Jaden Smith, who takes center stage.
Set 1000 years in the future, mankind is fighting for survival against a race of creatures known as Ursa, who hunt humans down by smelling fear. The human Special Forces are led by General Cypher Raige played by Will Smith. Smith is a legendary ranger and revered among mankind because of his ability to “Ghost” which is to suppress his fear completely so the Ursa cannot sense him. Meanwhile his son Kitai, played by Will Smith’s real life son Jaden Smith, is desperately trying to impress his father by following in his footsteps. Kitai’s real test comes when the two crash land on the abandoned Earth and Kitai must face his crippling internal fear to save himself and his father.
Will Smith plays perhaps one of his most subdued roles of his career. No wise cracks, no bravado. He is very much the stern and stoic military man. As if to showcase his ability to completely control his fear his character also shows no other emotion either. This is a risky play for an actor who is known for his charisma. And without a doubt many will be turned off by it. But it works to help elevate Jaden’s performance, especially since Will speaks most of the dialog in the film by giving stern orders not only as commanding officer but as a father to son.
Jaden Smith’s performance starts out mediocre. He is not the over confident stupid youth you would mostly expect to find in this type of role, but rather he is the unassuming, emotional and somewhat weak character. From the time the characters crash land on earth he becomes the lead. At first his character is somewhat annoying as he is crippled by fear and emotions. But at the point when he starts to conquer those fears, we too get carried by his performance. He becomes stronger and I found myself actually involved in his journey. No longer trying to figure out what new obstacle he must face next, but rather in watching him grow from boy to man.
Visually the film is beautiful and refreshing. The sci-fi aspects of the film are unassuming which helps to not take away from the story being told. It was reminiscent of some of the 80s sci-fi films that were futuristic but limited and instead focused on story. The first act of the film is slow, however once the scene shifts to earth, the pacing of this film is excellent. It is one dangerous thing to the next in a race against time.
In the end I found myself enjoying this film more than I thought I would. I was surprised by Will Smith’s limited role but I was pleasantly surprised by Jaden’s growth on screen. The film had less visual sci-fi then I was expecting however in the end I did not seem to mind as I found myself more interested in the coming of age story. It is far from perfect and does not feel right being released during the summer blockbuster season. However in the end, it is worth a trip to the theater, even if it is only a matinee.
Set 1000 years in the future, mankind is fighting for survival against a race of creatures known as Ursa, who hunt humans down by smelling fear. The human Special Forces are led by General Cypher Raige played by Will Smith. Smith is a legendary ranger and revered among mankind because of his ability to “Ghost” which is to suppress his fear completely so the Ursa cannot sense him. Meanwhile his son Kitai, played by Will Smith’s real life son Jaden Smith, is desperately trying to impress his father by following in his footsteps. Kitai’s real test comes when the two crash land on the abandoned Earth and Kitai must face his crippling internal fear to save himself and his father.
Will Smith plays perhaps one of his most subdued roles of his career. No wise cracks, no bravado. He is very much the stern and stoic military man. As if to showcase his ability to completely control his fear his character also shows no other emotion either. This is a risky play for an actor who is known for his charisma. And without a doubt many will be turned off by it. But it works to help elevate Jaden’s performance, especially since Will speaks most of the dialog in the film by giving stern orders not only as commanding officer but as a father to son.
Jaden Smith’s performance starts out mediocre. He is not the over confident stupid youth you would mostly expect to find in this type of role, but rather he is the unassuming, emotional and somewhat weak character. From the time the characters crash land on earth he becomes the lead. At first his character is somewhat annoying as he is crippled by fear and emotions. But at the point when he starts to conquer those fears, we too get carried by his performance. He becomes stronger and I found myself actually involved in his journey. No longer trying to figure out what new obstacle he must face next, but rather in watching him grow from boy to man.
Visually the film is beautiful and refreshing. The sci-fi aspects of the film are unassuming which helps to not take away from the story being told. It was reminiscent of some of the 80s sci-fi films that were futuristic but limited and instead focused on story. The first act of the film is slow, however once the scene shifts to earth, the pacing of this film is excellent. It is one dangerous thing to the next in a race against time.
In the end I found myself enjoying this film more than I thought I would. I was surprised by Will Smith’s limited role but I was pleasantly surprised by Jaden’s growth on screen. The film had less visual sci-fi then I was expecting however in the end I did not seem to mind as I found myself more interested in the coming of age story. It is far from perfect and does not feel right being released during the summer blockbuster season. However in the end, it is worth a trip to the theater, even if it is only a matinee.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Foreigner (2017) in Movies
Dec 20, 2017
Boooo
If you're expecting me to say something nice about The Foreigner, please do us both a favor and click out of this review right now. On paper, it appears to be right up Jackie Chan's alley. After his daughter is killed in a terrorist attack, Quan (Jackie) is trying to hunt down the men that did it. He is willing to stop at nothing to get his revenge.
The formulaic aspect of the film ruins the entire experience. Here's the rundown: Jackie walks into Pierce Brosnan's office demanding names (Who did this????). When Brosnan is not forthcoming with the names, Jackie storms off usually doing something crazy in his departure. Brosnan sends men to take Jackie down. Jackie beats the crap out of them. When the men return, Brosnan asks, "How the hell did you get your ass kicked by this old man?"
Rinse and repeat.
I'm serious, it's so ridiculous at times it becomes almost comical. You would think with this straight-arrow formula, the film would be easy to follow, but there are a lot of moving parts and I mean A LOT. I found myself saying, "Say what now?" too many times to count. I don't know, maybe it was more of a lack of interest than confusion on my part. Blade Runner 2049 had a number of things going on throughout and it's one of the best films I've seen all year.
The Foreigner is one of those films where you think of all the other things you could be doing instead of watching it. Folding clothes. Grocery shopping. Picking boogers. Screaming at your dog to get out of the trash. I mean, ANYTHING else. Could a few solid action sequences have saved the film? Probably. Did it?
Nope.
I honestly don't know how this passed the smell test on Rotten Tomatoes. In the words of the wonderful Jay Sherman: It stinks. I give it a 42.
The formulaic aspect of the film ruins the entire experience. Here's the rundown: Jackie walks into Pierce Brosnan's office demanding names (Who did this????). When Brosnan is not forthcoming with the names, Jackie storms off usually doing something crazy in his departure. Brosnan sends men to take Jackie down. Jackie beats the crap out of them. When the men return, Brosnan asks, "How the hell did you get your ass kicked by this old man?"
Rinse and repeat.
I'm serious, it's so ridiculous at times it becomes almost comical. You would think with this straight-arrow formula, the film would be easy to follow, but there are a lot of moving parts and I mean A LOT. I found myself saying, "Say what now?" too many times to count. I don't know, maybe it was more of a lack of interest than confusion on my part. Blade Runner 2049 had a number of things going on throughout and it's one of the best films I've seen all year.
The Foreigner is one of those films where you think of all the other things you could be doing instead of watching it. Folding clothes. Grocery shopping. Picking boogers. Screaming at your dog to get out of the trash. I mean, ANYTHING else. Could a few solid action sequences have saved the film? Probably. Did it?
Nope.
I honestly don't know how this passed the smell test on Rotten Tomatoes. In the words of the wonderful Jay Sherman: It stinks. I give it a 42.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) in Movies
Nov 25, 2020
Gloriously kitsch
Film #4 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: The Rocky Horror Picture Show
The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a bonafide cult classic and I doubt there is anyone who would disagree with this. It flopped on first release at the cinema but soon after gained a massive cult following and became a hugely interactive musical experience. For me, I became part of this cult following at university and have attended a fair few parties and shows over the years (in fancy dress of course). However it’s been quite some time since I watched this and seeing it again now makes for a rather interesting watch.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a 1975 musical directed by Jim Sharman, spanning a multitude of genres. It follows newly engaged (and rather wholesome) couple Brad (Barry Bostwick) and Janet (Susan Sarandon) as a flat tyre leaves them stranded and they’re left to seek shelter in a nearby castle owned by Dr Frank-N-Furter (Tim Curry).
This film is undoubtedly bats**t crazy. The plot is absolutely bonkers – a group of aliens from the planet Transexual led by a mad scientist in his quest to make the perfect man. It spans so many genres from comic horror to glam-rock musical and everything in between. It’s aim to spoof old school science fiction films is spot on, and there isn’t many films that can pull off cannibalism, murder and erotic sexual experimentation in the same 2 hour run time.
Admittedly there are some aspects of the plot that haven’t quite stood the test of time. 45 years ago the freedom exhibited around gender and sexuality was unlike anything anyone had ever seen and is still a rather wonderful thing to watch. However, there are other sides to this (such as lack of consent) which have become more apparent as society evolves and maybe aren’t quite acceptable now as they were back then. Fortunately this doesn’t spoil the overall feel of the film and it’s still as camp and cheesy and kitsch as it ever was.
One of the reasons for this films success is Richard O Brien’s script and music, and his performance as Riff Raff is pretty creepy and fun too. It’s clever and smart, and the music is top notch. The songs are some of the most catchy I’ve ever heard and they make you forget how crazy the plot is as soon as the music starts. From the legendary Time Warp to the wonderful Meat Loaf cameo on Hot Patootie, to the incredibly moving and inspirational Don’t Dream It, Be It, the songs are hugely memorable.
And then you have Tim Curry as Frank-N-Furter, in an absolute standout performance. He is perfect in Frank (I’ve yet to see anyone do it better) and it’s probably the best role he’s ever had. He looks like he’s having so much fun and steals every scene, you can’t take your eyes off him and that’s not just because he’s in stockings and suspenders. He makes you feel fascinated by Frank, disgusted and then ultimately sorry for him and this is no mean feat. No disrespect to the rest of the cast, but when Curry isn’t on screen the film does suffer ever so slightly.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a wacky, campy riot of a musical with a message that is heartwarming and inclusive. It may have aged a little over the years and certain topics don’t scrub up quite as well, but it’s still a hugely entertaining and unique musical experience.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a bonafide cult classic and I doubt there is anyone who would disagree with this. It flopped on first release at the cinema but soon after gained a massive cult following and became a hugely interactive musical experience. For me, I became part of this cult following at university and have attended a fair few parties and shows over the years (in fancy dress of course). However it’s been quite some time since I watched this and seeing it again now makes for a rather interesting watch.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a 1975 musical directed by Jim Sharman, spanning a multitude of genres. It follows newly engaged (and rather wholesome) couple Brad (Barry Bostwick) and Janet (Susan Sarandon) as a flat tyre leaves them stranded and they’re left to seek shelter in a nearby castle owned by Dr Frank-N-Furter (Tim Curry).
This film is undoubtedly bats**t crazy. The plot is absolutely bonkers – a group of aliens from the planet Transexual led by a mad scientist in his quest to make the perfect man. It spans so many genres from comic horror to glam-rock musical and everything in between. It’s aim to spoof old school science fiction films is spot on, and there isn’t many films that can pull off cannibalism, murder and erotic sexual experimentation in the same 2 hour run time.
Admittedly there are some aspects of the plot that haven’t quite stood the test of time. 45 years ago the freedom exhibited around gender and sexuality was unlike anything anyone had ever seen and is still a rather wonderful thing to watch. However, there are other sides to this (such as lack of consent) which have become more apparent as society evolves and maybe aren’t quite acceptable now as they were back then. Fortunately this doesn’t spoil the overall feel of the film and it’s still as camp and cheesy and kitsch as it ever was.
One of the reasons for this films success is Richard O Brien’s script and music, and his performance as Riff Raff is pretty creepy and fun too. It’s clever and smart, and the music is top notch. The songs are some of the most catchy I’ve ever heard and they make you forget how crazy the plot is as soon as the music starts. From the legendary Time Warp to the wonderful Meat Loaf cameo on Hot Patootie, to the incredibly moving and inspirational Don’t Dream It, Be It, the songs are hugely memorable.
And then you have Tim Curry as Frank-N-Furter, in an absolute standout performance. He is perfect in Frank (I’ve yet to see anyone do it better) and it’s probably the best role he’s ever had. He looks like he’s having so much fun and steals every scene, you can’t take your eyes off him and that’s not just because he’s in stockings and suspenders. He makes you feel fascinated by Frank, disgusted and then ultimately sorry for him and this is no mean feat. No disrespect to the rest of the cast, but when Curry isn’t on screen the film does suffer ever so slightly.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a wacky, campy riot of a musical with a message that is heartwarming and inclusive. It may have aged a little over the years and certain topics don’t scrub up quite as well, but it’s still a hugely entertaining and unique musical experience.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Sixteen Candles (1984) in Movies
May 3, 2018
Fun 80's Comedy
Samantha's (Molly Ringwald) family is busy, so busy in fact that they forgot her sixteenth birthday. Samantha has to cope with this while dealing with various misadventures surrounding her life. It's an innocent 80's comedy that takes you on a fun ride from beginning to end.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
There are a number of memorable shots that stick out, including the opening scene where you're first introduced to Samantha's family in her Chicago home. Everything is pure chaos causing for a hilarious beginning. A number of other scenes stick out from Samantha's grandma feeling her up to Samantha's convo with The Geek (Anthony Michael Hall) inside the hollowed-out car in the school's garage. A lot of different set pieces kept the film interesting.
Conflict: 6
One of the weaker portions of the film for me. So people forgot her birthday, boo hoo. Don't get me wrong, Samantha is a very likable character and there was a large part of me that felt sorry for her. I'm just not sure her situation warranted an entire film. Perhaps a different angle would have created more conflict for me.
Genre: 8
Very solid 80's comedy. You can't name films within the decade that stand out without mentioning this one. Coming of age films? This ranks right up there although not quite as strong as some of the ones I've seen in recent years, masterpieces like Boyhood and Lady Bird.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 7
The story itself is fine. It's believable even as comedies go. Again, the lack of conflict made things a little bland for me. I will say that the number of memorable moments helped pick up the slack from what the film lacked in conflict.
Resolution: 3
Overall: 82
Another 80's classic I can check off the list. A fun film that still stands the test of time.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
There are a number of memorable shots that stick out, including the opening scene where you're first introduced to Samantha's family in her Chicago home. Everything is pure chaos causing for a hilarious beginning. A number of other scenes stick out from Samantha's grandma feeling her up to Samantha's convo with The Geek (Anthony Michael Hall) inside the hollowed-out car in the school's garage. A lot of different set pieces kept the film interesting.
Conflict: 6
One of the weaker portions of the film for me. So people forgot her birthday, boo hoo. Don't get me wrong, Samantha is a very likable character and there was a large part of me that felt sorry for her. I'm just not sure her situation warranted an entire film. Perhaps a different angle would have created more conflict for me.
Genre: 8
Very solid 80's comedy. You can't name films within the decade that stand out without mentioning this one. Coming of age films? This ranks right up there although not quite as strong as some of the ones I've seen in recent years, masterpieces like Boyhood and Lady Bird.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 7
The story itself is fine. It's believable even as comedies go. Again, the lack of conflict made things a little bland for me. I will say that the number of memorable moments helped pick up the slack from what the film lacked in conflict.
Resolution: 3
Overall: 82
Another 80's classic I can check off the list. A fun film that still stands the test of time.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Species: The Awakening (2007) in Movies
Nov 4, 2020
I can quite comfortably say that Species: The Awakening - the fourth and thankfully last entry in the series to date - is one of the worst films I've ever put myself through.
Cheap horror films can occasionally find salvation in having a sort of charm to them, shitty yet endearing if you will, but unfortunately, there's more charm in my left testicle than in Species 4.
When I say cheap, I mean cheap as in they aren't even trying cheap. The whole film is drenched in a weird green lighting which makes it looks like a discount version of CSI. There's not even any practical gore to write home about. Not only is it seldom, but when things get violent, it looks like the blood was added using Microsoft Paint. It's dreadful.
I don't like to bash actors, they are only following directions after all, but Christ, no one on screen seems remotely invested in what they're doing. The dialogue is lazy, and half of the characters are just creeping around pulling "scary" faces whilst wearing "spooky" contact lenses. You know when a load of people on your Facebook friends-list update their profile pictures at Halloween with whatever costume they've put together, and they're pulling a cringey dead eye scary face just to add to the illusion - this film is basically that but for nearly two hours.
Talking about the runtime - fuck me it's gruelling. I'm pretty sure I drifted off at one point, but everything that's happening is so damn boring that by the time the credits roll, it becomes clear that Species: The Awakening is in fact an edurance test, designed to see how much dogshit the audience will take. At least, it feels that way.
It's abysmal, and I'm now in a bad mood, thanks a lot Species.
Cheap horror films can occasionally find salvation in having a sort of charm to them, shitty yet endearing if you will, but unfortunately, there's more charm in my left testicle than in Species 4.
When I say cheap, I mean cheap as in they aren't even trying cheap. The whole film is drenched in a weird green lighting which makes it looks like a discount version of CSI. There's not even any practical gore to write home about. Not only is it seldom, but when things get violent, it looks like the blood was added using Microsoft Paint. It's dreadful.
I don't like to bash actors, they are only following directions after all, but Christ, no one on screen seems remotely invested in what they're doing. The dialogue is lazy, and half of the characters are just creeping around pulling "scary" faces whilst wearing "spooky" contact lenses. You know when a load of people on your Facebook friends-list update their profile pictures at Halloween with whatever costume they've put together, and they're pulling a cringey dead eye scary face just to add to the illusion - this film is basically that but for nearly two hours.
Talking about the runtime - fuck me it's gruelling. I'm pretty sure I drifted off at one point, but everything that's happening is so damn boring that by the time the credits roll, it becomes clear that Species: The Awakening is in fact an edurance test, designed to see how much dogshit the audience will take. At least, it feels that way.
It's abysmal, and I'm now in a bad mood, thanks a lot Species.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Bird Box (2018) in Movies
Mar 18, 2019
Not a Huge Fan
In a post-apocalyptic world where medusa-like creatures can kill you if you look at them, a woman is trying to get her two kids to one of the only safe zones left in the world.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
A strong choice of characters creates an interesting dynamic, starting with main character Malorie (Sandra Bullock). Malorie is so beaten down by the new life she has entered that she can’t even stand to name her children. The things that she has done and seen have hardened, but underneath all that is a person lost and ready to crack. It’s not hard to empathize with her throughout the story. Outside of Malorie, it’s interesting watching the characters inside the home (where most of the story takes place) interact. Some are scared, others rational, others resigned to their fate. You put them together in different scenarios and it was interesting watching the outcomes play out.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 8
Like a lot of films with a similar gimmick, the movie succeeds by giving you a sense of terror throughout. Much like the characters themselves, you’re in a constant state of worry that something terrible is lingering around the corner. You spend pretty much the entire movie wondering just what that something is. If it’s not creatures, it’s humans on the attack. While some of it is for the sake of shock value, there are some delightfully intense moments that keep things interesting.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 1
Bird Box falls short because there is a lot of much ado about nothing. I don’t want to spoil things for those of you that still haven’t seen it, but it is absolutely missing that “punch” that makes a movie worth rewatching. I left post-credits thinking, “Why was this done this way?” In the end, there was no real message to be had or no point of excitement that makes a typical classic stand the test of time.
Pace: 7
Plot: 5
Resolution: 6
Overall: 69
Bird Box has a great concept, but it doesn’t pack the same punch like films like A Quiet Place managed to do. Because I wasn’t as emotionally connected to the characters as I wanted to be and there was a little bit too much shock value with no real value, I can’t recommend the movie. I wanted it to be better and, with a few tweaks, it definitely could’ve been. Alas.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
A strong choice of characters creates an interesting dynamic, starting with main character Malorie (Sandra Bullock). Malorie is so beaten down by the new life she has entered that she can’t even stand to name her children. The things that she has done and seen have hardened, but underneath all that is a person lost and ready to crack. It’s not hard to empathize with her throughout the story. Outside of Malorie, it’s interesting watching the characters inside the home (where most of the story takes place) interact. Some are scared, others rational, others resigned to their fate. You put them together in different scenarios and it was interesting watching the outcomes play out.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 8
Like a lot of films with a similar gimmick, the movie succeeds by giving you a sense of terror throughout. Much like the characters themselves, you’re in a constant state of worry that something terrible is lingering around the corner. You spend pretty much the entire movie wondering just what that something is. If it’s not creatures, it’s humans on the attack. While some of it is for the sake of shock value, there are some delightfully intense moments that keep things interesting.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 1
Bird Box falls short because there is a lot of much ado about nothing. I don’t want to spoil things for those of you that still haven’t seen it, but it is absolutely missing that “punch” that makes a movie worth rewatching. I left post-credits thinking, “Why was this done this way?” In the end, there was no real message to be had or no point of excitement that makes a typical classic stand the test of time.
Pace: 7
Plot: 5
Resolution: 6
Overall: 69
Bird Box has a great concept, but it doesn’t pack the same punch like films like A Quiet Place managed to do. Because I wasn’t as emotionally connected to the characters as I wanted to be and there was a little bit too much shock value with no real value, I can’t recommend the movie. I wanted it to be better and, with a few tweaks, it definitely could’ve been. Alas.
JT (287 KP) rated Escape Plan (2013) in Movies
Mar 23, 2020
Arnie and Stallone (1 more)
Entertaining
80s action icons join forces
For those of us that grew up watching action films in the 80s, one can only stand by and admire that Stallone and Schwarzenegger were still going well into their 60s at the time of shooting. Clearly, they’re having fun, which is a good thing as we’re not expecting Oscar material here and those that are may as well leave now.
Escape Plan gives the two giants top billing opposite each other for the first time the whole way through a film (not counting The Expendables), but ultimately they’re on the same side. Ray Breslin (Stallone) breaks out of prisons for a living, making sure that those who are put behind bars have no way of ever getting out.
When a job comes up to test out a top-secret facility Breslin gleefully accepts despite his partners thinking otherwise, it leads him on to a collision course with Arnie who he needs to get onside in order to get out.
Of course once inside its clear that some people have no intention of letting him see the light of day, and Breslin is trapped behind a prison that encompasses everything he wrote the book on.
He teams up with fellow inmate Rottmayer (Schwarzenegger) in an attempt to break out and bring those responsible for setting him up, to justice, and that is where the fun begins. Schwarzenegger is enjoying himself even if the dialogue is not the best as we said, we’re not expecting Oscar material. He does, however, get the good lines and pretty much acts as the diversion as Breslin scampers around looking for breaks in the system.
Jim Caviezel is Hobbs, the warden of the facility, in what is actually quite a good turn as the classic pantomime villain, a throwback to the baddies of the mid-eighties. He plays it cold and calculating, which in some parts feels like he’s going a bit OTT. Beneath him is Vinnie Jones, typecast as the bog-standard henchmen who is not particularly needed and to make matters worse probably gets one of the worst henchmen deaths. We don’t regard that as a plot spoiler as most villain sidekicks end up biting the bullet as the stopgap between the hero and the classic ending battle.
There are no illusions going into this, you know exactly what you’re going to get right down to the obvious plot twist that you can see coming a mile off. A subplot is only touched on briefly but it’s a subplot that has been a staple part of any revenge plan. The film has a strong third act once everything has been set up and it unfolds in a pulsating twenty-minute finale which includes quite possibly the best slow motion shot for some time, nodding itself to most classic action films of the Arnie era.
It’s meat and two veg action of maybe not the highest order but certainly better than some of its more recent predecessors, Stallone and Schwarzenegger bring their action A-game and don’t disappoint for a second.
Escape Plan gives the two giants top billing opposite each other for the first time the whole way through a film (not counting The Expendables), but ultimately they’re on the same side. Ray Breslin (Stallone) breaks out of prisons for a living, making sure that those who are put behind bars have no way of ever getting out.
When a job comes up to test out a top-secret facility Breslin gleefully accepts despite his partners thinking otherwise, it leads him on to a collision course with Arnie who he needs to get onside in order to get out.
Of course once inside its clear that some people have no intention of letting him see the light of day, and Breslin is trapped behind a prison that encompasses everything he wrote the book on.
He teams up with fellow inmate Rottmayer (Schwarzenegger) in an attempt to break out and bring those responsible for setting him up, to justice, and that is where the fun begins. Schwarzenegger is enjoying himself even if the dialogue is not the best as we said, we’re not expecting Oscar material. He does, however, get the good lines and pretty much acts as the diversion as Breslin scampers around looking for breaks in the system.
Jim Caviezel is Hobbs, the warden of the facility, in what is actually quite a good turn as the classic pantomime villain, a throwback to the baddies of the mid-eighties. He plays it cold and calculating, which in some parts feels like he’s going a bit OTT. Beneath him is Vinnie Jones, typecast as the bog-standard henchmen who is not particularly needed and to make matters worse probably gets one of the worst henchmen deaths. We don’t regard that as a plot spoiler as most villain sidekicks end up biting the bullet as the stopgap between the hero and the classic ending battle.
There are no illusions going into this, you know exactly what you’re going to get right down to the obvious plot twist that you can see coming a mile off. A subplot is only touched on briefly but it’s a subplot that has been a staple part of any revenge plan. The film has a strong third act once everything has been set up and it unfolds in a pulsating twenty-minute finale which includes quite possibly the best slow motion shot for some time, nodding itself to most classic action films of the Arnie era.
It’s meat and two veg action of maybe not the highest order but certainly better than some of its more recent predecessors, Stallone and Schwarzenegger bring their action A-game and don’t disappoint for a second.
