Search
Search results
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) created a post
Dec 19, 2018 (Updated Dec 19, 2018)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Rucksack in Tabletop Games
Jul 20, 2020 (Updated Jul 20, 2020)
Why does this always happen to you? Here you are, minding your own business when you are thrown into some strange scenario and are caught with only five ridiculous items on you. You have to survive… but how?
Rucksack is a card drafting storytelling and voting game for 4-8 players. Each player will be drafting a hand of five item cards in order to create the greatest survival story satisfying the active scenario.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and the final components may be different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to back the game through the upcoming Kickstarter campaign, order from your FLGS, or purchase through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, give each player a voting sheet and pencil. Shuffle the scenario cards into a draw deck. Shuffle the item cards into a draw deck. Flip over the top scenario card and the game is ready to be played.
The game is played over three rounds and each round is played in two halves. During the first half of the game players will be drawing one card from the item deck and deciding whether to keep or discard it. If kept, the next player will do the same. If discarded, the player will add the card to the face-up discard pile and MUST keep the next card drawn. The next player may then choose the topmost card of the discard pile or draw from the item card draw stack. This continues until all players have five cards in hand and the game then transitions into the second phase – storytelling.
Using the drafted five cards each player will explain how they would survive the active scenario, and this is the crux of the game. How would someone use tweezers, a towel, a stun grenade, binoculars, and a wine glass to last 40 days on an island full of hostile inhabitants? Well this may be exactly what you are presented with while playing Rucksack. Each player will give their ideas and pitch them to the group. Once all players have made their cases, each player will mark on their voting sheet who created the best plan to combat the scenario. After three rounds the votes are tallied and the winner is crowned! Well, not with a real crown. Unless you want. But those are sold separately.
Components. Again, we were provided a prototype copy of this game, so all comments on components should be taken with that in mind. In fact, some cards came without art or flavor text on them. This in no way detracted from our plays. The components here are a bunch of cards, a pack of golf pencils, and a pad of voting sheets. The pencils and voting sheets are fine. The cards, though not final quality and missing many art pieces, are also fine. The art style on this game is interesting and I like it. Rucksack could be played with no art and I would feel the same way about it. So in summation, the components here are good.
This is another game that I thought would be a dud upon reading the rules and knowing the people I am able to play games with currently. However, once we started playing a whole new side of these people came forth to weave these intricate stories of how someone would use marbles to help them be rescued from an uninhabited island. I found myself also prodding the creative part of my brain (that I don’t use much anymore). It has been a surprise for me that I like this one so well. I’m not usually into storytelling games, but using these item cards to help guide the final answers prove to add such a unique facet to what could have been such a disaster for our group. I am proud to have this game in my collection to scratch a very different itch that I never thought I had.
Should you be in the market for a good and light storytelling game to get the creative juices flowing and the hilarity of others’ answers out, then do consider backing or purchasing Rucksack. You will enjoy it immensely and think about it even after you’ve played. That is the sign of a great game to me.
Rucksack is a card drafting storytelling and voting game for 4-8 players. Each player will be drafting a hand of five item cards in order to create the greatest survival story satisfying the active scenario.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and the final components may be different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to back the game through the upcoming Kickstarter campaign, order from your FLGS, or purchase through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, give each player a voting sheet and pencil. Shuffle the scenario cards into a draw deck. Shuffle the item cards into a draw deck. Flip over the top scenario card and the game is ready to be played.
The game is played over three rounds and each round is played in two halves. During the first half of the game players will be drawing one card from the item deck and deciding whether to keep or discard it. If kept, the next player will do the same. If discarded, the player will add the card to the face-up discard pile and MUST keep the next card drawn. The next player may then choose the topmost card of the discard pile or draw from the item card draw stack. This continues until all players have five cards in hand and the game then transitions into the second phase – storytelling.
Using the drafted five cards each player will explain how they would survive the active scenario, and this is the crux of the game. How would someone use tweezers, a towel, a stun grenade, binoculars, and a wine glass to last 40 days on an island full of hostile inhabitants? Well this may be exactly what you are presented with while playing Rucksack. Each player will give their ideas and pitch them to the group. Once all players have made their cases, each player will mark on their voting sheet who created the best plan to combat the scenario. After three rounds the votes are tallied and the winner is crowned! Well, not with a real crown. Unless you want. But those are sold separately.
Components. Again, we were provided a prototype copy of this game, so all comments on components should be taken with that in mind. In fact, some cards came without art or flavor text on them. This in no way detracted from our plays. The components here are a bunch of cards, a pack of golf pencils, and a pad of voting sheets. The pencils and voting sheets are fine. The cards, though not final quality and missing many art pieces, are also fine. The art style on this game is interesting and I like it. Rucksack could be played with no art and I would feel the same way about it. So in summation, the components here are good.
This is another game that I thought would be a dud upon reading the rules and knowing the people I am able to play games with currently. However, once we started playing a whole new side of these people came forth to weave these intricate stories of how someone would use marbles to help them be rescued from an uninhabited island. I found myself also prodding the creative part of my brain (that I don’t use much anymore). It has been a surprise for me that I like this one so well. I’m not usually into storytelling games, but using these item cards to help guide the final answers prove to add such a unique facet to what could have been such a disaster for our group. I am proud to have this game in my collection to scratch a very different itch that I never thought I had.
Should you be in the market for a good and light storytelling game to get the creative juices flowing and the hilarity of others’ answers out, then do consider backing or purchasing Rucksack. You will enjoy it immensely and think about it even after you’ve played. That is the sign of a great game to me.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Widows (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Before I'd even seen anything beyond the plot and a poster I was confused. It really just felt like the poster was designed to catch people. "Look, we've got these big names! Come and watch it!" I know that's what posters are meant to do, but considering the movie is about these women taking up the reins of their dearly departed I'd have had more respect for a poster that focused on them.
Widows has every chance to be great. Based on Lynda La Plante's Widows, with the screenplay written by Gillian Flynn and Steve McQueen, as well as being directed by the latter. Those three names should guarantee a success, and while it seems to be very popular among viewers it has left me some what cold.
The idea is a solid one that you would expect from La Plante's repertoire, and it's worked before. Unfortunately that could not bring it back from the brink for me.
I can't think of another film that has given me such an instant feeling of dislike. The opening scene made me cringe, and having it quickly change pace into a violently loud action scene and back again was jarring to watch.
The first inkling that something is awry comes fairly early on and even without much more you can see where the plot is going. I'm impressed that the trailers managed to stay away from anything obvious.
We have an interesting assortment of baddies and there are two perfectly contrasting ones in Jamal (Brian Tyree Henry) and Jatemme (Daniel Kaluuya) Manning. The former is charismatic and subtly scary, whereas the latter has no likable qualities (apart from a clear love of reading) and is extremely vicious. The other difference is that Jamal in enjoyable to watch and Jatemme isn't. Usually even the most loathed of villains is good to watch on screen, not in this case. Jamal comes out on top in the villain stakes even with the dog incident.
Normally I wouldn't think much beyond what you're presented with in each scene of the movie, but I quickly found myself wondering about a lot of things. Linda's interaction with Delia's husband was strange and one of many things that felt unnecessary. And while I'll happily believe that women could successfully execute a heist, I'm not really sure I can believe that THESE women could do it, I don't care how well documented his notebook was.
Something that seems to a popular device in this is "the flashback". At the beginning it lays up the backstory of the two crews quickly and gives you a good sense of the people, even though I feel the way it was executed on screen wasn't so hot. When the film starts to round up and these scenes give you the missing story at just the right point. The one's I didn't like were between Veronica and Harry. Not all of them were flashbacks, some were Veronica dealing with Harry's death. They seemed more on the dramatic side and didn't feel in-keeping with the rest of the film. (I will say that this film is listed on IMDb as "crime, drama, romance"... Romance seems like a bit of a stretch, and crime and drama as two separate things are very different to a "crime drama". I'll admit that it's a very slight difference, but I think it's still there.)
I'm not sure how the characters worked in the book, but I would assume that some liberties had to be taken to change the setting, and obviously when you're turning a book into a film then you're going to have to tie up some loopholes with jiggery-pokery. What was left were some characters with potential that never seemed to be filled and others that were so throwaway I had already forgotten about them when I read through the cast list after I'd seen it.
What you should do
I'd wait until this one is streaming. It doesn't require a big screen and I always think films like this are better if you can talk to the screen while you're watching them. "Why are you doing that?!" "Yeah, let's see how far that gets you!" and the like. It's got enough reasonable moments to watch it at least once.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Obviously the giant piles of money are always appealing, but I'm very tempted to go for Linda's store. I'd love to work all day in a shop selling fantastical dresses and tiaras watching people's faces light up when they found the right one. It's like the Disney Princess dream come to life!
Widows has every chance to be great. Based on Lynda La Plante's Widows, with the screenplay written by Gillian Flynn and Steve McQueen, as well as being directed by the latter. Those three names should guarantee a success, and while it seems to be very popular among viewers it has left me some what cold.
The idea is a solid one that you would expect from La Plante's repertoire, and it's worked before. Unfortunately that could not bring it back from the brink for me.
I can't think of another film that has given me such an instant feeling of dislike. The opening scene made me cringe, and having it quickly change pace into a violently loud action scene and back again was jarring to watch.
The first inkling that something is awry comes fairly early on and even without much more you can see where the plot is going. I'm impressed that the trailers managed to stay away from anything obvious.
We have an interesting assortment of baddies and there are two perfectly contrasting ones in Jamal (Brian Tyree Henry) and Jatemme (Daniel Kaluuya) Manning. The former is charismatic and subtly scary, whereas the latter has no likable qualities (apart from a clear love of reading) and is extremely vicious. The other difference is that Jamal in enjoyable to watch and Jatemme isn't. Usually even the most loathed of villains is good to watch on screen, not in this case. Jamal comes out on top in the villain stakes even with the dog incident.
Normally I wouldn't think much beyond what you're presented with in each scene of the movie, but I quickly found myself wondering about a lot of things. Linda's interaction with Delia's husband was strange and one of many things that felt unnecessary. And while I'll happily believe that women could successfully execute a heist, I'm not really sure I can believe that THESE women could do it, I don't care how well documented his notebook was.
Something that seems to a popular device in this is "the flashback". At the beginning it lays up the backstory of the two crews quickly and gives you a good sense of the people, even though I feel the way it was executed on screen wasn't so hot. When the film starts to round up and these scenes give you the missing story at just the right point. The one's I didn't like were between Veronica and Harry. Not all of them were flashbacks, some were Veronica dealing with Harry's death. They seemed more on the dramatic side and didn't feel in-keeping with the rest of the film. (I will say that this film is listed on IMDb as "crime, drama, romance"... Romance seems like a bit of a stretch, and crime and drama as two separate things are very different to a "crime drama". I'll admit that it's a very slight difference, but I think it's still there.)
I'm not sure how the characters worked in the book, but I would assume that some liberties had to be taken to change the setting, and obviously when you're turning a book into a film then you're going to have to tie up some loopholes with jiggery-pokery. What was left were some characters with potential that never seemed to be filled and others that were so throwaway I had already forgotten about them when I read through the cast list after I'd seen it.
What you should do
I'd wait until this one is streaming. It doesn't require a big screen and I always think films like this are better if you can talk to the screen while you're watching them. "Why are you doing that?!" "Yeah, let's see how far that gets you!" and the like. It's got enough reasonable moments to watch it at least once.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Obviously the giant piles of money are always appealing, but I'm very tempted to go for Linda's store. I'd love to work all day in a shop selling fantastical dresses and tiaras watching people's faces light up when they found the right one. It's like the Disney Princess dream come to life!
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated The Addams Family (2019) in Movies
Oct 13, 2019
“They’re creepy and they’re kooky, Mysterious and spooky, They’re all together ooky, The Addams family…” a theme song that everyone aged five to ninety-five seem to know the words to. It’s amazing to think that a show that first aired in 1964 and only ran for two seasons could continue to have the impact that it does fifty-five years later. Let that sink in for just a couple of minutes, for reference the Apollo 11 moon landing occurred in 1969 almost three years after the show’s end date. To simply say that the Addams Family has made a cultural impact on our society is a bit of an understatement, so how would the first animated full-length movie treat these cultural icons?
The Addams Family is an origin story of sorts for everyone’s favorite kooky family. Gomez Addams (Oscar Isaac) and Morticia (Charlize Theron) are rudely interrupted during their wedding ceremony by a bunch of angry villagers carrying pitchforks. While this is a little cliché’ it sets the tone for the interaction between the Addams family and how they are perceived by “normal” folks. Morticia longs for a place where they can live in peace away from those who wish to disturb their lives. On a long and windy road in New Jersey, fate appears in the form of Lurch (Conrad Vernon) as he bounces off the hood of their car. In the distance, as lightning strikes, they peer up a mountain side to see an abandoned, haunted insane asylum. The perfect place to raise a family away from the peering eyes of the rest of the world.
For thirteen years the Addams Family lives in relative seclusion with their two young children, Wednesday (Chloë Grace Moretz) and Pugsley (Finn Wolfhard). Neither of the children are allowed to leave the Asylum grounds and know of nothing outside the cold iron gates. One day, the swamp is drained, the clouds part and the Addams Family life of seclusion comes to an abrupt end. Down in the valley the town of Assimilation, a town that as its name suggests was built by famous HAG TV designer Margaux Needler (Allison Janney). The asylum (and its inhabitants) do not “fit-in” with the designer’s vision and kookiness ensues as she attempts to make-over (and take-over) the family’s home.
Visually The Addams Family reminds me of several Tim Burton classics albeit with a more colorful palette. Each member of the family is a caricature of their infamous selves and stylistically imbues the spooky, ooky, kookiest versions we would expect. Backed by an incredible amount of supporting voice talent such as Bette Midler, Martin Short, and Snoop-Dog as everyone’s favorite fuzzy cousin…It, it’s a star-studded event that even the most die-hard Addams Family purist will enjoy.
The story goes through typical tropes that we’ve seen played out a thousand times already. A misunderstood family is misjudged by their neighbors, only to come together in the end. It’s a story about celebrating our differences and learning to appreciate what makes each of us unique. In a world of social media, cell phones and television shows that try to make us all conform, it teaches us that while people may look and act different than us, they all bring something special to the table. It’s this light-heartedness and sweet story telling which while not unique is something that I feel we need more of in the world today.
The Addams Family is a film for the entire family, there is light-hearted violence, but all done in jest with no one ever getting hurt. While it doesn’t bring anything unexpected to the table, its still enjoyable and a film that doesn’t ever attempt to take itself seriously. It won’t win any best picture awards, and likely will become another 30 days of Halloween past-time when it makes its way to television, it is still one that will leave you with a smile on your face long after it is over. The experience you get from it, will likely be based on the audience reaction to the film. In the theater I was in, there was lots of laughter, snapping and even a sing-along at the end. It’s a movie to see with other people, and even if you aren’t a fan of the TV series, it will still offer you something. Sometimes a simple movie, with a simple message, is exactly the escape we need from everything in the world today. The Addams Family makes a perfect escape for the entire family this Halloween Season.
3.5 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/10/10/the-addams-family/
The Addams Family is an origin story of sorts for everyone’s favorite kooky family. Gomez Addams (Oscar Isaac) and Morticia (Charlize Theron) are rudely interrupted during their wedding ceremony by a bunch of angry villagers carrying pitchforks. While this is a little cliché’ it sets the tone for the interaction between the Addams family and how they are perceived by “normal” folks. Morticia longs for a place where they can live in peace away from those who wish to disturb their lives. On a long and windy road in New Jersey, fate appears in the form of Lurch (Conrad Vernon) as he bounces off the hood of their car. In the distance, as lightning strikes, they peer up a mountain side to see an abandoned, haunted insane asylum. The perfect place to raise a family away from the peering eyes of the rest of the world.
For thirteen years the Addams Family lives in relative seclusion with their two young children, Wednesday (Chloë Grace Moretz) and Pugsley (Finn Wolfhard). Neither of the children are allowed to leave the Asylum grounds and know of nothing outside the cold iron gates. One day, the swamp is drained, the clouds part and the Addams Family life of seclusion comes to an abrupt end. Down in the valley the town of Assimilation, a town that as its name suggests was built by famous HAG TV designer Margaux Needler (Allison Janney). The asylum (and its inhabitants) do not “fit-in” with the designer’s vision and kookiness ensues as she attempts to make-over (and take-over) the family’s home.
Visually The Addams Family reminds me of several Tim Burton classics albeit with a more colorful palette. Each member of the family is a caricature of their infamous selves and stylistically imbues the spooky, ooky, kookiest versions we would expect. Backed by an incredible amount of supporting voice talent such as Bette Midler, Martin Short, and Snoop-Dog as everyone’s favorite fuzzy cousin…It, it’s a star-studded event that even the most die-hard Addams Family purist will enjoy.
The story goes through typical tropes that we’ve seen played out a thousand times already. A misunderstood family is misjudged by their neighbors, only to come together in the end. It’s a story about celebrating our differences and learning to appreciate what makes each of us unique. In a world of social media, cell phones and television shows that try to make us all conform, it teaches us that while people may look and act different than us, they all bring something special to the table. It’s this light-heartedness and sweet story telling which while not unique is something that I feel we need more of in the world today.
The Addams Family is a film for the entire family, there is light-hearted violence, but all done in jest with no one ever getting hurt. While it doesn’t bring anything unexpected to the table, its still enjoyable and a film that doesn’t ever attempt to take itself seriously. It won’t win any best picture awards, and likely will become another 30 days of Halloween past-time when it makes its way to television, it is still one that will leave you with a smile on your face long after it is over. The experience you get from it, will likely be based on the audience reaction to the film. In the theater I was in, there was lots of laughter, snapping and even a sing-along at the end. It’s a movie to see with other people, and even if you aren’t a fan of the TV series, it will still offer you something. Sometimes a simple movie, with a simple message, is exactly the escape we need from everything in the world today. The Addams Family makes a perfect escape for the entire family this Halloween Season.
3.5 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/10/10/the-addams-family/
Why Me? Why Not. by Liam Gallagher
7.5
Rate It
Album Watch
Good things come to those who wait: and so, this summer, Liam Gallagher returns with a new single, a...
Lee (2222 KP) rated Blair Witch (2016) in Movies
Aug 14, 2017
Yeah, I preferred this to the original...
The original Blair Witch movie came out in 1999 (wow, where has the time gone?!) in the good old days when you could get hold of a US DVD import in the UK before a movie was even released on UK cinema screens. I remember The Blair Witch Project being released in the UK on Halloween, the same day that the US DVD was delivered to my house! I excitedly sat down to watch it that evening with my family while everyone else had to go out in the cold rainy weather to watch it at the cinema, and I remember at the end of the movie we all kind of looked at each other as if to say “is that it…?!” All the hype, all the usual crap about it being absolutely terrifying and the scariest movie ever made and it was just a bunch of people getting spooked in the woods! To be fair, it wasn’t that bad, but it just wasn’t as scary or as fantastic as we’d been led to believe. The movie spawned a forgettable sequel and since then, despite being done to death, far superior found footage movies have come along and done it all a hell of a lot better. Then, out of the blue in July last year, a movie which had been previously marketed as ‘The Woods’ was revealed to actually be ‘Blair Witch’. The trailer looked OK, not great but interesting enough. But, once again we’re being subjected to all the usual marketing crap about it being terrifying and the scariest thing you’ve ever seen… blah, blah, blah…
James Donahue is the brother of Heather, who was one of the central characters in the first film. We join him 22 years after the original, as he prepares to lead a new bunch of characters into the Burkittsville woods. They meet up with a couple of young locals, who offer to be their guide, and off they head, into the woods where their video footage will later be discovered. This time round, the array of cameras capturing the footage has vastly improved. As well as the standard handhelds, we’ve got ear piece cams, drone cams, night cams. All offering new and interesting ways to capture the action.
Things mostly follow a similar path to the original – strange noises, weird stuff happening with time, thinking you’re heading in one direction when you’re going around in circles, juddery camera movements where it’s difficult to tell what the hell is going on. But… you do actually see things this time, the noises that you hear are terrifying, the characters are far more interesting and believable than those in the original. And the final act when we find ourselves back in the house from the first movie is seriously the stuff of nightmares.
Director Adam Wingard and writer Simon Barrett, both have an excellent recent track record (see You’re Next and The Guest) and their influence on this movie has taken this story to another level. This is a far superior movie to the original and yes, it is truly terrifying.
James Donahue is the brother of Heather, who was one of the central characters in the first film. We join him 22 years after the original, as he prepares to lead a new bunch of characters into the Burkittsville woods. They meet up with a couple of young locals, who offer to be their guide, and off they head, into the woods where their video footage will later be discovered. This time round, the array of cameras capturing the footage has vastly improved. As well as the standard handhelds, we’ve got ear piece cams, drone cams, night cams. All offering new and interesting ways to capture the action.
Things mostly follow a similar path to the original – strange noises, weird stuff happening with time, thinking you’re heading in one direction when you’re going around in circles, juddery camera movements where it’s difficult to tell what the hell is going on. But… you do actually see things this time, the noises that you hear are terrifying, the characters are far more interesting and believable than those in the original. And the final act when we find ourselves back in the house from the first movie is seriously the stuff of nightmares.
Director Adam Wingard and writer Simon Barrett, both have an excellent recent track record (see You’re Next and The Guest) and their influence on this movie has taken this story to another level. This is a far superior movie to the original and yes, it is truly terrifying.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Bird Box in Books
May 16, 2018
If you're looking for something that is fast-paced and just might give you an anxiety attack, Josh Malerman's debut novel Bird Box may be exactly what you need. Set in the very near future, Bird Box is a book that simultaneously takes place during and after the apocalypse. Human beings find their minds under assault by an unseen force, one that drives them toward homicidal and suicidal tendencies. The only way to remain safe is to never, ever open your eyes.
Imagine with me what living in a world, robbed suddenly of sight, might be like. We rely heavily on our senses and, as an avid reader, I highly value my ability to be able to see the written word. I can't even begin to fathom what it would be like to find myself forced into an eternally dark void, and never have I thought of a scenario in which I would choose to be blind.
In Bird Box, Malorie and her children aren't given that option. Stranded in a home that is not her own, and faced with dwindling supplies and a lack of social interaction with anyone but her two children, Malorie must embark on a dangerous mission to find a new, safer haven for her small family: only their destination isn't very close to them, and they are not alone. There's a fourth party traveling with them and they are helpless to identify the newcomer.
The entire story does not follow that journey alone, though. In fact, it simultaneously takes place prior to Malorie's endeavor, introducing us to an entire cast of characters ranging from lovable to untrustworthy; from the purely innocent to those whose madness goes beyond all help. Though I'm not a huge fan of the constant back and forth chronology (in fact, I find it to be extremely distracting), the manner in which Malerman reveals bits and pieces of his story is crucial to progression: it gives readers the opportunity to develop their own feelings for Malorie and how she handles her problems. I also found that the odd way in which he split the story kept me reading, if only because more often that not, I found myself wondering how or why something was the way it was presently if, at the beginning of the end, everything seemed to be headed in a totally different direction.
Like most stories that take place after the world as we know it has met its doom, whether by nuclear fallout, bio-warfare, or the collapse of government, Bird Box brings out the best, and more readily, the worst in people. They become desperate or panicked, sometimes to the point that their actions defy all logic: such as the voluntary or involuntary blinding of oneself to avoid madness. Perhaps I so easily love post-apocalyptic books for that reason alone. They have a habit of reminding us exactly how pathetic and disgusting our own race can be; how often we are willing to put ourselves first, despite the suffering of others, should the situation call for it.
Imagine with me what living in a world, robbed suddenly of sight, might be like. We rely heavily on our senses and, as an avid reader, I highly value my ability to be able to see the written word. I can't even begin to fathom what it would be like to find myself forced into an eternally dark void, and never have I thought of a scenario in which I would choose to be blind.
In Bird Box, Malorie and her children aren't given that option. Stranded in a home that is not her own, and faced with dwindling supplies and a lack of social interaction with anyone but her two children, Malorie must embark on a dangerous mission to find a new, safer haven for her small family: only their destination isn't very close to them, and they are not alone. There's a fourth party traveling with them and they are helpless to identify the newcomer.
The entire story does not follow that journey alone, though. In fact, it simultaneously takes place prior to Malorie's endeavor, introducing us to an entire cast of characters ranging from lovable to untrustworthy; from the purely innocent to those whose madness goes beyond all help. Though I'm not a huge fan of the constant back and forth chronology (in fact, I find it to be extremely distracting), the manner in which Malerman reveals bits and pieces of his story is crucial to progression: it gives readers the opportunity to develop their own feelings for Malorie and how she handles her problems. I also found that the odd way in which he split the story kept me reading, if only because more often that not, I found myself wondering how or why something was the way it was presently if, at the beginning of the end, everything seemed to be headed in a totally different direction.
Like most stories that take place after the world as we know it has met its doom, whether by nuclear fallout, bio-warfare, or the collapse of government, Bird Box brings out the best, and more readily, the worst in people. They become desperate or panicked, sometimes to the point that their actions defy all logic: such as the voluntary or involuntary blinding of oneself to avoid madness. Perhaps I so easily love post-apocalyptic books for that reason alone. They have a habit of reminding us exactly how pathetic and disgusting our own race can be; how often we are willing to put ourselves first, despite the suffering of others, should the situation call for it.
I came away from Us with a number of very different feelings. It kept me seriously on edge for the majority of it, making me feel uncomfortable, and at times confused. It's taken me a while to try and digest it all though and to decide whether or not I actually enjoyed it. It managed to get under my skin and the tension it evoked, the nightmare scenario that plays on your mind afterwards, well I just love all of that! So, did I enjoy it and would I watch it again? Absolutely!
It's difficult to discuss the plot of Us very much without heading into spoiler territory, so I'll briefly recap what you'll already have seen in the trailer, along with a few details which hopefully don't give too much away. We kick things off in Santa Cruz, 1986. A young girl, Adelaide, is at the fair with her parents one evening when she meanders off on her own, heading down the boardwalk and onto the beach. She experiences a terrifying and life changing experience which clearly has had a lasting impact on her when we rejoin her as an adult in present day (now played by Lupita Nyong'O). She has a family of own - husband Gabe (Winston Duke) and two children Zora and Jason. The movie spends a lot of time introducing us to the family and their dynamic as they head out on a family vacation in Santa Cruz, a place which obviously stirs up some strong feelings within Adelaide.
One evening, as the family are preparing to go to bed, they spot four silhouettes out on the driveway. And when those silhouettes force their way into their home, the family realise that the four red-dungaree wearing, scissor-wielding people are actually their doppelgängers - "Us". At this point, the movie seriously switches up a gear, turns into a home invasion horror movie, with each family member trying to deal with their alternate self. And as if things weren't weird enough already, they soon get a hell of a lot weirder! It's a long time before we get any kind of explanation as to what's going on, which only adds to the tension/confusion in the meantime.
The cast are all fantastic, and if you've seen any other reviews of 'Us', you'll probably have seen them focusing their praise on Lupita Nyong'O. I wholeheartedly agree with that - the other version of her, Red, is seriously creepy. Zombie-like and with a chillingly hoarse, rasping voice. Add to that a great musical score, and a last minute twist that I really enjoyed, and overall I'd say I really liked this movie. There are clearly many themes open to interpretation - lots of layers and metaphors that I may pick up on with repeat viewings, or that may continue to go straight over my head! It's a bold film though, although not quite as enjoyable for me as Get Out, the first movie from writer/director/producer Jordan Peele (and also my favourite movie of 2017). The feelings and the way that it lingered in my head made it a very impressive movie and an interesting experience all the same.
It's difficult to discuss the plot of Us very much without heading into spoiler territory, so I'll briefly recap what you'll already have seen in the trailer, along with a few details which hopefully don't give too much away. We kick things off in Santa Cruz, 1986. A young girl, Adelaide, is at the fair with her parents one evening when she meanders off on her own, heading down the boardwalk and onto the beach. She experiences a terrifying and life changing experience which clearly has had a lasting impact on her when we rejoin her as an adult in present day (now played by Lupita Nyong'O). She has a family of own - husband Gabe (Winston Duke) and two children Zora and Jason. The movie spends a lot of time introducing us to the family and their dynamic as they head out on a family vacation in Santa Cruz, a place which obviously stirs up some strong feelings within Adelaide.
One evening, as the family are preparing to go to bed, they spot four silhouettes out on the driveway. And when those silhouettes force their way into their home, the family realise that the four red-dungaree wearing, scissor-wielding people are actually their doppelgängers - "Us". At this point, the movie seriously switches up a gear, turns into a home invasion horror movie, with each family member trying to deal with their alternate self. And as if things weren't weird enough already, they soon get a hell of a lot weirder! It's a long time before we get any kind of explanation as to what's going on, which only adds to the tension/confusion in the meantime.
The cast are all fantastic, and if you've seen any other reviews of 'Us', you'll probably have seen them focusing their praise on Lupita Nyong'O. I wholeheartedly agree with that - the other version of her, Red, is seriously creepy. Zombie-like and with a chillingly hoarse, rasping voice. Add to that a great musical score, and a last minute twist that I really enjoyed, and overall I'd say I really liked this movie. There are clearly many themes open to interpretation - lots of layers and metaphors that I may pick up on with repeat viewings, or that may continue to go straight over my head! It's a bold film though, although not quite as enjoyable for me as Get Out, the first movie from writer/director/producer Jordan Peele (and also my favourite movie of 2017). The feelings and the way that it lingered in my head made it a very impressive movie and an interesting experience all the same.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Mar 31, 2019
It's set to be a busy year for live action Disney remakes, with Aladdin and The Lion King already lined up for release this year. Kicking things off though, is this reimagining of the 1941 classic Dumbo, with Tim Burton directing.
It's 1919 and Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) has returned from World War I, arriving by train to join the Medici Brothers Circus, where he worked before the war as a performer. But Holt has a number of issues to contend with on his return, the least of which being the loss one of his arms while in service. He's greeted at the station by his two young children, Milly and Joe, who lost their mother, Holt's wife, to influenza while he was away. On top of that, he learns that while he was away, the cash strapped circus owner, Max Medici (Danny DeVito) decided to sell the horses that were part of Holt's star act. Holt is put in charge of pregnant elephant Jumbo, with Max hoping that the arrival of a cute baby elephant will bring in the much needed crowds. It's a lot for Holt to come to terms with and adjust to.
Soon after, the baby elephant is born. But with clumsy, oversized ears, he's not quite the cute crowd pleaser they had all hoped for. Attempts to hide his ears only end in disaster, and ridicule from the circus crowds. Milly and Joe fall in love with the new arrival, and when they discover that he has the ability to use those big ears for flying, interest in him is quickly renewed.
The flying elephant not only draws in the crowds, but also the attentions of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), who offers Max a deal for him and his circus troupe to join his huge fancy theme park. It's at this point that the movie should really begin to soar, having introduced the circus family and their new arrival. Unfortunately, the arrival of Vandevere signals a sharp downward spiral in terms of story telling. The circus cast are all but forgotten, with the story focusing instead on the tired, familiar tale of sleazy, greedy businessman who is only interested in money and success, at the expense of the poor, trusting people who believed him.
The computerised Dumbo is simply oozing cuteness and technical wizardry. The eyes and the facial expressions are wonderful and he manages to steal every scene he is in. Every time he takes flight, it is a joy to watch. Unfortunately though, this version of Dumbo is trying to add a lot more to the original story and ends up becoming bit of a drag at times. The human characters are poorly written and mostly forgettable, and the movie really only soars when Dumbo himself does. While trying to steer clear of being a straight up remake, opting instead for the addition of plot and characters, it ultimately loses a lot of the charm. As with the recent remake of Beauty and the Beast, it's another case of style over substance.
It's 1919 and Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) has returned from World War I, arriving by train to join the Medici Brothers Circus, where he worked before the war as a performer. But Holt has a number of issues to contend with on his return, the least of which being the loss one of his arms while in service. He's greeted at the station by his two young children, Milly and Joe, who lost their mother, Holt's wife, to influenza while he was away. On top of that, he learns that while he was away, the cash strapped circus owner, Max Medici (Danny DeVito) decided to sell the horses that were part of Holt's star act. Holt is put in charge of pregnant elephant Jumbo, with Max hoping that the arrival of a cute baby elephant will bring in the much needed crowds. It's a lot for Holt to come to terms with and adjust to.
Soon after, the baby elephant is born. But with clumsy, oversized ears, he's not quite the cute crowd pleaser they had all hoped for. Attempts to hide his ears only end in disaster, and ridicule from the circus crowds. Milly and Joe fall in love with the new arrival, and when they discover that he has the ability to use those big ears for flying, interest in him is quickly renewed.
The flying elephant not only draws in the crowds, but also the attentions of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), who offers Max a deal for him and his circus troupe to join his huge fancy theme park. It's at this point that the movie should really begin to soar, having introduced the circus family and their new arrival. Unfortunately, the arrival of Vandevere signals a sharp downward spiral in terms of story telling. The circus cast are all but forgotten, with the story focusing instead on the tired, familiar tale of sleazy, greedy businessman who is only interested in money and success, at the expense of the poor, trusting people who believed him.
The computerised Dumbo is simply oozing cuteness and technical wizardry. The eyes and the facial expressions are wonderful and he manages to steal every scene he is in. Every time he takes flight, it is a joy to watch. Unfortunately though, this version of Dumbo is trying to add a lot more to the original story and ends up becoming bit of a drag at times. The human characters are poorly written and mostly forgettable, and the movie really only soars when Dumbo himself does. While trying to steer clear of being a straight up remake, opting instead for the addition of plot and characters, it ultimately loses a lot of the charm. As with the recent remake of Beauty and the Beast, it's another case of style over substance.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Roland Emmerich does big budget disaster flicks as well as Dairylea does cheese. However, some of his most recent attempts to dominate the box office have been panned by viewers and critics alike, who say that he has become too reliant on special effects.
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play president’s daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesn’t have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesn’t need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, it’s all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play president’s daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesn’t have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesn’t need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, it’s all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/