Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Clash of the Titans (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Clash of the Titans tells the story of men turning their backs on the gods. The gods grow weaker as men refuse to pay worship to them and neither side will budge. That's where Perseus (Sam Worthington) comes in. Perseus is a demigod, half man and half god. Zeus (Liam Neeson) is his father, but Perseus was raised as a fisherman. As the gods grow desperate, they turn to Zeus' brother who was banished to the underworld, Hades (Ralph Fiennes) to hopefully scare them into realizing "the order of things." When Hades onslaught kills Perseus' family, Perseus vows revenge against him and will do everything within his power to destroy the god of the underworld. Perseus' journey will not be easy as several ungodly beasts stand in the way of him reaching his goal as he struggles with accepting sanctuary as a god or continuing on this journey as a man.
Clash of the Titans was highly anticipated on my end for quite some time. The trailers were pretty fantastic and everything seemed to point to the film being epic. Directed by Louis Leterrier (Unleashed, The Incredible Hulk) and starring Sam Worthington (Avatar, Terminator: Salvation), Liam Neeson (Taken, Batman Begins), and Ralph Fiennes (In Bruges, The Hurt Locker), this film had a solid cast and a director with some pretty great films under his belt. It had all the elements to make a fantastic film and yet it somehow managed to fail.
The film felt like a watered down version of what a film based on the God of War video game could potentially be. All the same gods are there, the Medusa character is in there, there's a character battling against the gods, the similarities are pretty obvious. The only thing that is different is that the main character is named Perseus instead of Kratos. On one hand, it may not be a bad thing comparing the film to God of War. If they do decide to make a God of War film down the road though, it seems like it'll be way too similar to this film unless they go full-blown, balls out rated R with it. That's the route they should go anyway, but Clash of the Titans basically feels like a censored version of God of War.
Certain other things about the film really bugged me. The main one being that the two main female characters Io (Gemma Arterton) and Andromeda (Alexa Davalos) cried at EVERYTHING. Every time they spoke it was like they started getting teary eyed. "Oh Perseus, I can't follow you into Medusa's lair since I'm not a big strong man like you are. *sob*" Just made me want to slap them and go, "GET A GRIP, LADY! SHEESH!" The biggest pet peeve of mine lies in the finale of the film. Everything regarding Hades and the kraken are dealt with so quickly. The film makes a huge deal about both of them only to have everything wrapped up in less than five minutes when the time finally comes. It just wound up feeling very rushed and anticlimactic. Also, what was the deal with the prophecy the witches gave Perseus? Was the explanation of getting around that because Perseus was half god? That's pretty weak. Instead, we're going to go with this ending that's completely open-ended and leaves massive room for a potential sequel. Lame.
Despite all of the things I found wrong with the film, there were some high points. The CG seemed very all or nothing to me. At times, the effects were fantastic. The giant scorpions scene and the kraken being the best examples. Pegasus is also a great example. The winged horses looked fairly genuine, but they looked kind of odd when they flew. Other times though, it seemed way too obvious that the characters were standing in front of a green screen and fighting with creatures that weren't actually there. There's a scene near the beginning where we first see Perseus as an adult where his father is talking to him and a thunderstorm is beginning to brew. The sky was obviously CG. There were just several moments like that that brought me out of the film.
Ralph Fiennes as Hades was easily the high point for me as far as acting goes. Fiennes was most impressive in David Cronenberg's Spider and has been on my radar for actors to keep an eye on ever since. He doesn't disappoint here. His smarminess as Hades spoke volumes. The ferry scene is also pretty amazing, at least until Perseus and Io begin their Medusa training. Ugh.
A few humorous points, the South Park fan in me chimed in when Io told Perseus "You're more than half man half god." I thought she was going to follow up with, "You're actually half man, half bear, half pig. Or maybe you're actually half bear half man-pig." Still laughing about that one. The scene where Perseus emerges from Medusa's lair and Io is waiting for him, she's wearing this really weird outfit. I heard the guy next to me say, "What the...is she wearing a mop?!" and it made me laugh out loud. Best part of the whole film though, at the end, when everything had been resolved somebody yelled at the top of their lungs, "I AM A GOD!!!!!!" After a brief silence, everyone in the theater started laughing. Kinda sad that the most entertaining part of the film wasn't actually a part of the film itself.
Clash of the Titans was one of the most anticipated blockbusters of the year, but fell short and wound up being one of the most disappointing. With mediocre special effects, a sloppy finale, and female characters that will get on your last nerve, the action film fails to live up to expectations. At the end of the day, Clash of the Titans is basically just a glorified Xena: Warrior Princess.
Clash of the Titans was highly anticipated on my end for quite some time. The trailers were pretty fantastic and everything seemed to point to the film being epic. Directed by Louis Leterrier (Unleashed, The Incredible Hulk) and starring Sam Worthington (Avatar, Terminator: Salvation), Liam Neeson (Taken, Batman Begins), and Ralph Fiennes (In Bruges, The Hurt Locker), this film had a solid cast and a director with some pretty great films under his belt. It had all the elements to make a fantastic film and yet it somehow managed to fail.
The film felt like a watered down version of what a film based on the God of War video game could potentially be. All the same gods are there, the Medusa character is in there, there's a character battling against the gods, the similarities are pretty obvious. The only thing that is different is that the main character is named Perseus instead of Kratos. On one hand, it may not be a bad thing comparing the film to God of War. If they do decide to make a God of War film down the road though, it seems like it'll be way too similar to this film unless they go full-blown, balls out rated R with it. That's the route they should go anyway, but Clash of the Titans basically feels like a censored version of God of War.
Certain other things about the film really bugged me. The main one being that the two main female characters Io (Gemma Arterton) and Andromeda (Alexa Davalos) cried at EVERYTHING. Every time they spoke it was like they started getting teary eyed. "Oh Perseus, I can't follow you into Medusa's lair since I'm not a big strong man like you are. *sob*" Just made me want to slap them and go, "GET A GRIP, LADY! SHEESH!" The biggest pet peeve of mine lies in the finale of the film. Everything regarding Hades and the kraken are dealt with so quickly. The film makes a huge deal about both of them only to have everything wrapped up in less than five minutes when the time finally comes. It just wound up feeling very rushed and anticlimactic. Also, what was the deal with the prophecy the witches gave Perseus? Was the explanation of getting around that because Perseus was half god? That's pretty weak. Instead, we're going to go with this ending that's completely open-ended and leaves massive room for a potential sequel. Lame.
Despite all of the things I found wrong with the film, there were some high points. The CG seemed very all or nothing to me. At times, the effects were fantastic. The giant scorpions scene and the kraken being the best examples. Pegasus is also a great example. The winged horses looked fairly genuine, but they looked kind of odd when they flew. Other times though, it seemed way too obvious that the characters were standing in front of a green screen and fighting with creatures that weren't actually there. There's a scene near the beginning where we first see Perseus as an adult where his father is talking to him and a thunderstorm is beginning to brew. The sky was obviously CG. There were just several moments like that that brought me out of the film.
Ralph Fiennes as Hades was easily the high point for me as far as acting goes. Fiennes was most impressive in David Cronenberg's Spider and has been on my radar for actors to keep an eye on ever since. He doesn't disappoint here. His smarminess as Hades spoke volumes. The ferry scene is also pretty amazing, at least until Perseus and Io begin their Medusa training. Ugh.
A few humorous points, the South Park fan in me chimed in when Io told Perseus "You're more than half man half god." I thought she was going to follow up with, "You're actually half man, half bear, half pig. Or maybe you're actually half bear half man-pig." Still laughing about that one. The scene where Perseus emerges from Medusa's lair and Io is waiting for him, she's wearing this really weird outfit. I heard the guy next to me say, "What the...is she wearing a mop?!" and it made me laugh out loud. Best part of the whole film though, at the end, when everything had been resolved somebody yelled at the top of their lungs, "I AM A GOD!!!!!!" After a brief silence, everyone in the theater started laughing. Kinda sad that the most entertaining part of the film wasn't actually a part of the film itself.
Clash of the Titans was one of the most anticipated blockbusters of the year, but fell short and wound up being one of the most disappointing. With mediocre special effects, a sloppy finale, and female characters that will get on your last nerve, the action film fails to live up to expectations. At the end of the day, Clash of the Titans is basically just a glorified Xena: Warrior Princess.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Vamp on the Batwalk in Tabletop Games
Feb 12, 2021
I think I could be a vampire. Not that I THINK I’m a vampire, but I think I could live(?) with being a vamp. Not the sparkly kind. Just the normal kind. Or maybe the “What We Do in the Shadows” kind. Yeah. At least initially I don’t think I would care much about being the most fashionable vampire in the group, but I could see why some of the elder vampires would need SOMETHING over which to compete and obsess. Maybe I could be one of the judges.
Vamp on the Batwalk has players take on the personalities of one of these fashionable elder vampires competing in the latest fashion show. The only problem is that vampires are unable to see themselves in mirrors, so they cannot really assure themselves that they look marvelous; the other vampires will have that privilege. Which vampire can win the most fashion shows this year with limited knowledge of how they look? Who would… stake… their reputation on mere fashion shows anyway?
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup invert the bottom of the box and insert it into the back of the box top lid to create a runway. A “batwalk,” if you will. Each player will choose a vampire and place their standee on the batwalk Start space. They will also take the matching Reference Card. All Vamp Cards matching the vamps in play are collected, shuffled together, and five are dealt to each player. Whichever player is most fashionable goes first and the game may begin!
Vamp on the Batwalk is a trick-taking game where players know not which cards they hold. Instead, their hands are facing all other players in order to suss out which cards they may be holding. The first player will open the game by playing any card from their hand. The next player also will play any card they wish, and so on until all players have played a card.
Once each card is played the “lead” card may be switched depending on the rules of the game. Should all cards played be of the same suit the highest card played is the lead card and wins the trick. Similarly, if the first card played remains the highest card in that suit and no other cards played earn the lead card status, that highest card wins the trick.
However, when a card is played that is the same value (a three played on a three of a different suit) the newest card with the matching value “Steals the Show” and becomes the new lead card. Some cards feature a star for the value. These star cards will always take the lead unless a garlic card has been played to trump the star. Garlic cards typically are the lowest-ranking suit, but when played in the same hand as a star become the trump suit.
Luckily, the reference cards have handy reminders for these special rules. After all cards from the hand have been played, players check who is winning the fashion show based on points earned during the round. If this is the end of the third round the vamp with the most points wins! If not, the player to the left of the most recent first player then becomes the first player for the next round.
Components. This game features an ingenious scoreboard that is just so fun to use. Having the box double as the scoreboard runway was such a great decision and it works flawlessly. The cards are all large tarot-sized (I think, I’m no tarot-master) and feature some really great art. The player standees are fine, but only four or so can actually fit on a space on the runway without creating a mess. All in all I adore the components and art style here.
Now, several games also employ this mechanic of holding your hand of cards outward for opponents to see, but here the players never really are told which cards they hold. In Vamp on the Batwalk the card play is silly and mostly a guessing game, at least in my head. One can never truly know all the cards they hold because each round not all cards are used. This adds another layer of difficulty in trying to guess what you are holding. This may turn off certain gamers, but it’s a silly way to play the game and I love it.
At the end of the day, this is a game about vampires putting on a fashion show. I feel like once I decided not to take it so seriously I began enjoying it so much more. Sometimes it’s a surprise to win a trick with a 2 of garlic. A throwaway card usually can win if a star is played. Or thinking you have THE card to win the trick only to have someone else Steal the Show and beat you out. It’s just chaotic silliness and I’m smitten.
If you are at all anything like me and can put aside the need to win at all times and at all costs, you will enjoy this one. It is wacky, has an amazing theme and excellent components, and is just a fun game to relax with or to help recharge after a brain burning sesh. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a blood-slurping 8 / 12. Even though I think the blue vamp is eerily similar to Travis McElroy, the almost-coolest-Travis, this one is a hit for me. Go grab it if you like fun games that don’t tax the brain a whole lot.
Vamp on the Batwalk has players take on the personalities of one of these fashionable elder vampires competing in the latest fashion show. The only problem is that vampires are unable to see themselves in mirrors, so they cannot really assure themselves that they look marvelous; the other vampires will have that privilege. Which vampire can win the most fashion shows this year with limited knowledge of how they look? Who would… stake… their reputation on mere fashion shows anyway?
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup invert the bottom of the box and insert it into the back of the box top lid to create a runway. A “batwalk,” if you will. Each player will choose a vampire and place their standee on the batwalk Start space. They will also take the matching Reference Card. All Vamp Cards matching the vamps in play are collected, shuffled together, and five are dealt to each player. Whichever player is most fashionable goes first and the game may begin!
Vamp on the Batwalk is a trick-taking game where players know not which cards they hold. Instead, their hands are facing all other players in order to suss out which cards they may be holding. The first player will open the game by playing any card from their hand. The next player also will play any card they wish, and so on until all players have played a card.
Once each card is played the “lead” card may be switched depending on the rules of the game. Should all cards played be of the same suit the highest card played is the lead card and wins the trick. Similarly, if the first card played remains the highest card in that suit and no other cards played earn the lead card status, that highest card wins the trick.
However, when a card is played that is the same value (a three played on a three of a different suit) the newest card with the matching value “Steals the Show” and becomes the new lead card. Some cards feature a star for the value. These star cards will always take the lead unless a garlic card has been played to trump the star. Garlic cards typically are the lowest-ranking suit, but when played in the same hand as a star become the trump suit.
Luckily, the reference cards have handy reminders for these special rules. After all cards from the hand have been played, players check who is winning the fashion show based on points earned during the round. If this is the end of the third round the vamp with the most points wins! If not, the player to the left of the most recent first player then becomes the first player for the next round.
Components. This game features an ingenious scoreboard that is just so fun to use. Having the box double as the scoreboard runway was such a great decision and it works flawlessly. The cards are all large tarot-sized (I think, I’m no tarot-master) and feature some really great art. The player standees are fine, but only four or so can actually fit on a space on the runway without creating a mess. All in all I adore the components and art style here.
Now, several games also employ this mechanic of holding your hand of cards outward for opponents to see, but here the players never really are told which cards they hold. In Vamp on the Batwalk the card play is silly and mostly a guessing game, at least in my head. One can never truly know all the cards they hold because each round not all cards are used. This adds another layer of difficulty in trying to guess what you are holding. This may turn off certain gamers, but it’s a silly way to play the game and I love it.
At the end of the day, this is a game about vampires putting on a fashion show. I feel like once I decided not to take it so seriously I began enjoying it so much more. Sometimes it’s a surprise to win a trick with a 2 of garlic. A throwaway card usually can win if a star is played. Or thinking you have THE card to win the trick only to have someone else Steal the Show and beat you out. It’s just chaotic silliness and I’m smitten.
If you are at all anything like me and can put aside the need to win at all times and at all costs, you will enjoy this one. It is wacky, has an amazing theme and excellent components, and is just a fun game to relax with or to help recharge after a brain burning sesh. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a blood-slurping 8 / 12. Even though I think the blue vamp is eerily similar to Travis McElroy, the almost-coolest-Travis, this one is a hit for me. Go grab it if you like fun games that don’t tax the brain a whole lot.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Would the last straight woman in Stockholm turn off the lights?
You’ve gotta love a Scandi-thriller. Well, that was until last year’s hopeless Michael Fassbender vehicle “The Snowman” which devalued the currency better than Brexit has done to the pound! The mother of them all though was the original “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy (in Swedish) in 2009. Although subject to a wholly unnecessary English remake two year’s later by David Fincher (with Mara Rooney and Daniel Craig) it was Noomi Rapace who struck the perfect note as the original anarchic and damaged Lisbeth Salander: a punk wielding a baseball bat like an alien-thing possessed (pun well and truly intended!).
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild in Video Games
Jul 25, 2017
Bonus Points - An Example Of The Favoritism Towards Certain Developers In The Gaming Industry, Even When They Don’t Deliver
Zelda: Breath Of The Wild came out last month and it has taken the gaming world by storm. As a non Zelda fan, I am left wondering why this is the case. Why is this Zelda game so revolutionary? I don’t own the game, but I have played the first few hours of it and I have read a good number of reviews on the game. There are a few critics claiming that this game, ‘writes a new chapter in the videogames industry,’ and that it is an, ‘evolution of everything that has come before.’
While I appreciate that this is a well made game and it is doing new things within the Zelda franchise, these statements stick in my throat a little. This isn’t because I don’t agree that this is an impressive game, because it is. Other than the odd frame rate drop, there aren’t many flaws with this game and I did enjoy the few hours that I spent with it, (I had a lend of a friends Switch for the night so I could try the game for myself.)
My problem comes from the fact that this is a well made game that isn’t doing anything that hasn’t been done before a million times and frankly been done better. Full disclosure, I have never been a Zelda fan, but I wanted this game to convert me and I’m sorry to say that it didn’t. The purpose of this piece isn’t to attack the Zelda franchise, so you fanboys can put your pitchforks down. What I want to discuss is how when Nintendo do anything that is slightly better than a disaster, it is heralded as the brave new step in video games by a large number of the video game press.
I get it, nostalgia is a powerful lens and most writers in their 30’s grew up playing on Nintendo systems and franchises like Mario and Zelda, but as someone who is around ten years younger and grew up with Playstation, I don’t feel that Nintendo has advanced a great deal since the turn of the millennium and frankly, I don’t see Nintendo as having broken any new ground in the last twenty years.
If games like Breath of the Wild came out on another console, they wouldn’t be lauded as the best thing since sliced bread. In fact they have, it’s called Horizon: Zero Dawn! When Horizon came out it received a positive critical reception and high sales, but no one was writing articles claiming it was the next step in the evolution of video games. Splatoon has been put on a pedestal and has been described as ‘fresh,’ and, ‘unique,’ even though it is nothing more than a dumbed down version of Team Fortress 2 for a younger audience. Super Mario Maker was released in 2015 and it was essentially a $60 level editor. Level editors have been included in other games since forever and no fuss has been made, but when Nintendo sell an entire game based on the concept, it’s hailed as another, ‘triumph by Nintendo.’
When you compare Breath of The Wild to other recent open world games like The Witcher or Skyrim, there is nothing that makes it unique from a design and functionality standpoint. If Breath of The Wild came out in 2008, then sure you could get away with labeling it revolutionary, but in this day and age it isn’t any more special than Horizon or Skyrim.
Let’s look at some of the features that have been called unique in the game. The tower climbing to uncover zones of the map mechanic has been done in the Assassin’s Creed and Far Cry series’. Using plants for crafting and cooking has been done in Far Cry and Skyrim. Far Cry 2 and Dead Island had degradable weapons. The inventory system is very reminiscent of multiple Ubisoft titles; essentially Breath of The Wild has taken some elements from other games and made something from that within the Zelda universe.
This may sound patronizing, but it honestly isn’t intended that way. I get it, Nintendo fans have had it hard over these last five years, they have had nothing to be proud of since the launch of the Wii and they have had to stand by their console of choice and defend themselves with very little ammo to defend themselves with, but as a result nowadays when anything better than a car crash is released by them it is inflated by a large number of critics in the industry and so Nintendo fans are given a justification for putting their mediocre games on a pedestal. This is why to the rest of the industry it appears that Nintendo fans can’t accept things for the way that they really are and everything is blown so far out of proportion.
Some examples of Nintendo games being blown out of proportion and reviewers being clouded by nostalgia are available to go and check out right now on Metacritic. Zelda: Skyward Sword is currently sitting at a 93, Zelda: Twilight Princess is sitting at a 95 and Metroid: Other M has a 79. All three of these games are recognized as subpar and once the novelty wore off, even the most hardcore of Nintendo fans would agree that these are forgettable, black marks on the respective franchises track records. Not that BOTW isn’t a game for Zelda fans to be proud of, because it is. I can see why this would be people’s game of the year so far and I can see why it could be considered as the best Zelda game, but to someone that isn’t a Zelda fan that praise is meaningless.
In summary, the inflation of mediocrity in the industry has to stop, if we want gaming to improve. If we want to break new ground across the gaming media, these sycophants and apologists living in a false perception of reality have to go. These novelty games that are applauded for simply carrying the title of a beloved franchise, have to stop being praised so highly and given a free pass of any sort of criticism just because of a nostalgic lens.
While I appreciate that this is a well made game and it is doing new things within the Zelda franchise, these statements stick in my throat a little. This isn’t because I don’t agree that this is an impressive game, because it is. Other than the odd frame rate drop, there aren’t many flaws with this game and I did enjoy the few hours that I spent with it, (I had a lend of a friends Switch for the night so I could try the game for myself.)
My problem comes from the fact that this is a well made game that isn’t doing anything that hasn’t been done before a million times and frankly been done better. Full disclosure, I have never been a Zelda fan, but I wanted this game to convert me and I’m sorry to say that it didn’t. The purpose of this piece isn’t to attack the Zelda franchise, so you fanboys can put your pitchforks down. What I want to discuss is how when Nintendo do anything that is slightly better than a disaster, it is heralded as the brave new step in video games by a large number of the video game press.
I get it, nostalgia is a powerful lens and most writers in their 30’s grew up playing on Nintendo systems and franchises like Mario and Zelda, but as someone who is around ten years younger and grew up with Playstation, I don’t feel that Nintendo has advanced a great deal since the turn of the millennium and frankly, I don’t see Nintendo as having broken any new ground in the last twenty years.
If games like Breath of the Wild came out on another console, they wouldn’t be lauded as the best thing since sliced bread. In fact they have, it’s called Horizon: Zero Dawn! When Horizon came out it received a positive critical reception and high sales, but no one was writing articles claiming it was the next step in the evolution of video games. Splatoon has been put on a pedestal and has been described as ‘fresh,’ and, ‘unique,’ even though it is nothing more than a dumbed down version of Team Fortress 2 for a younger audience. Super Mario Maker was released in 2015 and it was essentially a $60 level editor. Level editors have been included in other games since forever and no fuss has been made, but when Nintendo sell an entire game based on the concept, it’s hailed as another, ‘triumph by Nintendo.’
When you compare Breath of The Wild to other recent open world games like The Witcher or Skyrim, there is nothing that makes it unique from a design and functionality standpoint. If Breath of The Wild came out in 2008, then sure you could get away with labeling it revolutionary, but in this day and age it isn’t any more special than Horizon or Skyrim.
Let’s look at some of the features that have been called unique in the game. The tower climbing to uncover zones of the map mechanic has been done in the Assassin’s Creed and Far Cry series’. Using plants for crafting and cooking has been done in Far Cry and Skyrim. Far Cry 2 and Dead Island had degradable weapons. The inventory system is very reminiscent of multiple Ubisoft titles; essentially Breath of The Wild has taken some elements from other games and made something from that within the Zelda universe.
This may sound patronizing, but it honestly isn’t intended that way. I get it, Nintendo fans have had it hard over these last five years, they have had nothing to be proud of since the launch of the Wii and they have had to stand by their console of choice and defend themselves with very little ammo to defend themselves with, but as a result nowadays when anything better than a car crash is released by them it is inflated by a large number of critics in the industry and so Nintendo fans are given a justification for putting their mediocre games on a pedestal. This is why to the rest of the industry it appears that Nintendo fans can’t accept things for the way that they really are and everything is blown so far out of proportion.
Some examples of Nintendo games being blown out of proportion and reviewers being clouded by nostalgia are available to go and check out right now on Metacritic. Zelda: Skyward Sword is currently sitting at a 93, Zelda: Twilight Princess is sitting at a 95 and Metroid: Other M has a 79. All three of these games are recognized as subpar and once the novelty wore off, even the most hardcore of Nintendo fans would agree that these are forgettable, black marks on the respective franchises track records. Not that BOTW isn’t a game for Zelda fans to be proud of, because it is. I can see why this would be people’s game of the year so far and I can see why it could be considered as the best Zelda game, but to someone that isn’t a Zelda fan that praise is meaningless.
In summary, the inflation of mediocrity in the industry has to stop, if we want gaming to improve. If we want to break new ground across the gaming media, these sycophants and apologists living in a false perception of reality have to go. These novelty games that are applauded for simply carrying the title of a beloved franchise, have to stop being praised so highly and given a free pass of any sort of criticism just because of a nostalgic lens.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Stepsister in Books
Aug 16, 2019
Review by Disney Bookworm
I took a break from the Disney Twisted Tales collection to check out a new novel by the New York Times best-selling author Jennifer Donnelly and wow am I glad I did!
Judging purely by the title of the book: the cynical side of me expected this to be a retelling of the traditional fairy tale from the viewpoint of the “ugly stepsisters”. Perhaps with a remorseful twist and a concluding reconciliation. I could not have been more wrong.
This is possibly the first time I should have judged a book by its cover: the iconic glass slipper casting fragmented shards across the jacket should have certainly forewarned me that this will not be just another Cinderella story.
Unlike the twisted tales and the villain series, Step Sister is, as far as I know, not connected to the Disney enterprise at all. This makes it an edgier read by far but also allows the novel to lean as far away from the traditional fairy tale as it dares: smashing just a couple of stereotypes along the way.
Oh, and just a quick point: the novel opens on Isabelle and Octavia disfiguring their own feet, at the command of their mother, with the aim to fit into the glass slipper and marry the Prince. See what I mean- edgy right?
Stepsister is told from the viewpoint of Isabelle: a headstrong girl with an ambitious mother, an intelligent sister Octavia and a kind, sweet sister, Ella. Isabelle is a disappointment to her mother: a plain girl who prefers riding and fencing to corsets and suitors. A number of flashbacks to the girls’ childhood also suggests that Isabelle, Octavia and Ella were once very close, leading the reader to wonder how the relationship became the poisonous one we are so familiar with.
Unsurprisingly, their Maman’s plan to mutilate her way to the palace does not succeed and Ella takes her rightful place by the Prince’s side, claiming her ‘happily ever after’. But what is to become of the family she leaves behind? Maimed and outcast, Isabelle and Octavia struggle to carry on once their actions are brought to light and they are promptly labelled the “ugly stepsisters” by all around them.
Desolate and lost, Isabelle mistakenly believes that her life would improve if she were more attractive and makes a wish to the fairy queen Tanaquill, who promises to grant her desire when Isabelle finds the three missing parts of her heart.
Thus, begins Isabelle’s mission to reclaim her heart and turn her life around. The stepsister’s road of discovery is a bumpy one however, and is not made any easier by an old crone named Fate and a young man named Chance, both of whom seem to have an unhealthy obsession with her progress and a strange, almost friendly rivalry over the possession of Isabelle’s life map.
Jennifer Donnelly introduces us to a number of characters throughout Isabelle’s journey, all of whom are exquisite: Chance is an eccentric debonair with an entourage that may have just stepped out of The Greatest Showman; Octavia is every nerdy, sarcastic girl’s dream and even Fate is strangely likeable. It is truly impressive how Donnelly can make us feel like we know these people within the space of 470 pages.
I was also impressed with how different Jennifer Donnelly’s characters are from everything I have read before. Even Tanaquill is not the fairy godmother we all know and love. She isn’t even the slightly bonkers Helena Bonham-Carter version! There isn’t a bibbidi bobbidi boo in sight for this talon-fingered shapeshifter and she certainly does not grant wishes easily.
As a result, the reader does not quite trust the fairy queen: there is always an aspect of her that seems evil. Alas, this is another stroke of genius by Donnelly: the fairy queen doesn’t look like Tinkerbell or the Blue Fairy and so we don’t trust her- even when she is helping Isabelle and why is that? Because of her appearance? Well that makes us just as bad as those who persecute Isabelle!
Ella features very little in the novel. This is not wholly unexpected: it is not her story after all. She is frequently referred to and heavily present in Isabelle’s evolution but, out of all the characters, we know Ella the least. This is not to say that Donnelly presents Ella as a 2D character in order to prevent us from preferring her to our feistier protagonist: in fact, Ella slowly reveals a darker side to her own tale. Simply put, she does not have the depth and human rawness that Isabelle has. Isabelle appeals to the insecure teenager in us all: never believing that she is good enough, focusing on her flaws and judging herself based on the opinions of others.
When Isabelle finally finds the pieces of her heart and has to literally fight to achieve her happy ending, she automatically looks to one of the male characters to lead. After all, it has always been instilled into her that she is “just a girl”. However, Chance and his entourage have educated Isabelle as to the potential of her sex and it is through this inspiration that Isabelle and the reader realise that the answer has been there all along: the answer is Isabelle. All the childhood flashbacks of riding and fighting have been breadcrumbs for the reader: Isabelle is a warrior- her life is not mapped out by Fate or Chance anymore; she can decide her own path.
Step Sister holds up a gigantic mirror to the way we judge beauty and shows us what it really means to be a girl. Jennifer Donnelly proves that being strong, brave and, most importantly, true to yourself is what makes you beautiful. In fact, it is not until Isabelle accepts herself that she is described as beautiful and, by standing up for what she believes in, everyone achieves their own happy endings. As a mum of two young boys I really appreciated how Octavia’s love of science and math and Felix’s creativity and love of art directly contrasted with Maman’s old-fashioned desire to “marry off” her daughters. This story is no fairy tale: it is real, it is edgy and it is telling all generations that life is what you make it.
Judging purely by the title of the book: the cynical side of me expected this to be a retelling of the traditional fairy tale from the viewpoint of the “ugly stepsisters”. Perhaps with a remorseful twist and a concluding reconciliation. I could not have been more wrong.
This is possibly the first time I should have judged a book by its cover: the iconic glass slipper casting fragmented shards across the jacket should have certainly forewarned me that this will not be just another Cinderella story.
Unlike the twisted tales and the villain series, Step Sister is, as far as I know, not connected to the Disney enterprise at all. This makes it an edgier read by far but also allows the novel to lean as far away from the traditional fairy tale as it dares: smashing just a couple of stereotypes along the way.
Oh, and just a quick point: the novel opens on Isabelle and Octavia disfiguring their own feet, at the command of their mother, with the aim to fit into the glass slipper and marry the Prince. See what I mean- edgy right?
Stepsister is told from the viewpoint of Isabelle: a headstrong girl with an ambitious mother, an intelligent sister Octavia and a kind, sweet sister, Ella. Isabelle is a disappointment to her mother: a plain girl who prefers riding and fencing to corsets and suitors. A number of flashbacks to the girls’ childhood also suggests that Isabelle, Octavia and Ella were once very close, leading the reader to wonder how the relationship became the poisonous one we are so familiar with.
Unsurprisingly, their Maman’s plan to mutilate her way to the palace does not succeed and Ella takes her rightful place by the Prince’s side, claiming her ‘happily ever after’. But what is to become of the family she leaves behind? Maimed and outcast, Isabelle and Octavia struggle to carry on once their actions are brought to light and they are promptly labelled the “ugly stepsisters” by all around them.
Desolate and lost, Isabelle mistakenly believes that her life would improve if she were more attractive and makes a wish to the fairy queen Tanaquill, who promises to grant her desire when Isabelle finds the three missing parts of her heart.
Thus, begins Isabelle’s mission to reclaim her heart and turn her life around. The stepsister’s road of discovery is a bumpy one however, and is not made any easier by an old crone named Fate and a young man named Chance, both of whom seem to have an unhealthy obsession with her progress and a strange, almost friendly rivalry over the possession of Isabelle’s life map.
Jennifer Donnelly introduces us to a number of characters throughout Isabelle’s journey, all of whom are exquisite: Chance is an eccentric debonair with an entourage that may have just stepped out of The Greatest Showman; Octavia is every nerdy, sarcastic girl’s dream and even Fate is strangely likeable. It is truly impressive how Donnelly can make us feel like we know these people within the space of 470 pages.
I was also impressed with how different Jennifer Donnelly’s characters are from everything I have read before. Even Tanaquill is not the fairy godmother we all know and love. She isn’t even the slightly bonkers Helena Bonham-Carter version! There isn’t a bibbidi bobbidi boo in sight for this talon-fingered shapeshifter and she certainly does not grant wishes easily.
As a result, the reader does not quite trust the fairy queen: there is always an aspect of her that seems evil. Alas, this is another stroke of genius by Donnelly: the fairy queen doesn’t look like Tinkerbell or the Blue Fairy and so we don’t trust her- even when she is helping Isabelle and why is that? Because of her appearance? Well that makes us just as bad as those who persecute Isabelle!
Ella features very little in the novel. This is not wholly unexpected: it is not her story after all. She is frequently referred to and heavily present in Isabelle’s evolution but, out of all the characters, we know Ella the least. This is not to say that Donnelly presents Ella as a 2D character in order to prevent us from preferring her to our feistier protagonist: in fact, Ella slowly reveals a darker side to her own tale. Simply put, she does not have the depth and human rawness that Isabelle has. Isabelle appeals to the insecure teenager in us all: never believing that she is good enough, focusing on her flaws and judging herself based on the opinions of others.
When Isabelle finally finds the pieces of her heart and has to literally fight to achieve her happy ending, she automatically looks to one of the male characters to lead. After all, it has always been instilled into her that she is “just a girl”. However, Chance and his entourage have educated Isabelle as to the potential of her sex and it is through this inspiration that Isabelle and the reader realise that the answer has been there all along: the answer is Isabelle. All the childhood flashbacks of riding and fighting have been breadcrumbs for the reader: Isabelle is a warrior- her life is not mapped out by Fate or Chance anymore; she can decide her own path.
Step Sister holds up a gigantic mirror to the way we judge beauty and shows us what it really means to be a girl. Jennifer Donnelly proves that being strong, brave and, most importantly, true to yourself is what makes you beautiful. In fact, it is not until Isabelle accepts herself that she is described as beautiful and, by standing up for what she believes in, everyone achieves their own happy endings. As a mum of two young boys I really appreciated how Octavia’s love of science and math and Felix’s creativity and love of art directly contrasted with Maman’s old-fashioned desire to “marry off” her daughters. This story is no fairy tale: it is real, it is edgy and it is telling all generations that life is what you make it.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Game of HAM: Adult Set in Tabletop Games
Jul 1, 2020
We recently invested in a really great pork loin and were able to get like three excellent meals out of it (if you want recipes, that’s a different blog). I know pork loin and ham aren’t the same, but I do enjoy them immensely. That’s why when I heard about a Game of HAM I was all set and ready to begin! But what I played wasn’t a game about ham at all, but rather a game of “Hating All Mankind.” What???
Game of HAM is a card and board game similar to Apples to Apples and the dreaded Cards Against Humanity. However, HAM differs from these with the addition of the board and actual game play. Yes, each round still needs a judge player and the others to play cards based on a prompt, but after that the game becomes, well, a game. In fact, this game has a board with spaces to travel and a goal space to race to in order to determine the winner.
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 will probably 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, lay out the modular board pieces in any fashion you would like. We played on a boring 1×4 orientation because we lack imagination. At least at first. Next choose a color token to represent your progress along the board. Separate the colored cards into stacks and place under the corresponding giant ham tokens. Each player will be dealt 10 pink response cards and whomever is chosen to be the first judge player will draw a gray card to begin.
Game of HAM comes shipped with about a million cards and an equal number of ways to play. For this preview we played typical core games without any special rules (and we even left a “mandatory rule” out – the rulebook said we could). Seriously, the first half of the rulebook is explaining the game, and the second half is allllllllll optional gameplay styles, optional rules, variants, and so forth.
So on a turn, the judge draws a gray (grey?) card, reads it, places it on the table, and the other players will play pink (penk?) cards as responses for the judge to choose a winner. The winning player will then reference the numbers on the bottom of the gray card to determine how many spaces on the board they will travel. As the aim of the game is to get to the goal space, typically the larger number will be chosen. However, in order to win the game a player must land on the goal space exactly, so this is a reason a player may choose the lesser number.
At times players will land on colored spaces on the board. This signifies that they will draw a card of corresponding color to be used on future turns. These cards can be very powerful and affect other players as well. It is these cards along with the actual game board that separates Game of HAM from others in this vein: there is actual game play and decisions to be made aside from choosing cards that create the most lewd scenarios.
Don’t get me wrong – there ARE lots and lots of opportunities to create these scenarios and pick gross things (especially in this Adult Set), but this is not the only goal of the game. In any case, play continues in this fashion – for the vanilla game mode – until a player has reached the goal space on the board exactly. At this point, the group decides which game mode or optional rules they would like to play with next, because this game can be somewhat addicting.
Components. This is a ham-themed game and the components reflect that wonderfully. Like I mentioned earlier, there are at least a zillion cards that come in this box, and they are all great quality. I have only opened one of the several packs of pink cards that come with the game, and I am not at all joking about that. The giant colored ham tokens are awesome, the boards are acceptable, and the rulebook is wonderful. I was also not joking when I said half the rulebook is explaining the game and the other half is describing different modes of play, variants, and optional rules (there are even sections of rules for drinkers and 420-friendly players). All said, the components are great!
Now, I have said this multiple times in my reviews: I HATE Cards Against Humanity. That “game” exists for one purpose: to gross out everyone playing and as an acceptable outlet for people to be as offensive as possible. While Game of HAM is similar in some aspects, I can actually play this game and not want to quit two cards into it. I LIKE that the designers have come up with half a rulebook worth of alternate play modes and optional rules, even some that outright tell you that you can use or not use ANY rule in the book! It’s not the classiest game, of course, but you don’t purchase and play a game called “Game of HAM” for its reflection of your sophistication. You purchase and play this game because you want to have a good time with your friends and family without the need to piss everyone at the table off. I can get behind this.
If you are in the market for a CAH or Apples to Apples replacement, but still want to feel like you can be a social monster for a while, pick up Game of HAM (Adult Set). I don’t know this for fact, but I assume that since this is the “Adult Set” that there will soon also be a “Family Set” or something similar. So Game of HAM may be for you, as long as you are aware of the content within. I recommend Game of HAM for those gamers who know and are comfortable with the content as a great modular card game. I won’t be playing it with my in-laws, but I can certainly play this with my siblings!
Game of HAM is a card and board game similar to Apples to Apples and the dreaded Cards Against Humanity. However, HAM differs from these with the addition of the board and actual game play. Yes, each round still needs a judge player and the others to play cards based on a prompt, but after that the game becomes, well, a game. In fact, this game has a board with spaces to travel and a goal space to race to in order to determine the winner.
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 will probably 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, lay out the modular board pieces in any fashion you would like. We played on a boring 1×4 orientation because we lack imagination. At least at first. Next choose a color token to represent your progress along the board. Separate the colored cards into stacks and place under the corresponding giant ham tokens. Each player will be dealt 10 pink response cards and whomever is chosen to be the first judge player will draw a gray card to begin.
Game of HAM comes shipped with about a million cards and an equal number of ways to play. For this preview we played typical core games without any special rules (and we even left a “mandatory rule” out – the rulebook said we could). Seriously, the first half of the rulebook is explaining the game, and the second half is allllllllll optional gameplay styles, optional rules, variants, and so forth.
So on a turn, the judge draws a gray (grey?) card, reads it, places it on the table, and the other players will play pink (penk?) cards as responses for the judge to choose a winner. The winning player will then reference the numbers on the bottom of the gray card to determine how many spaces on the board they will travel. As the aim of the game is to get to the goal space, typically the larger number will be chosen. However, in order to win the game a player must land on the goal space exactly, so this is a reason a player may choose the lesser number.
At times players will land on colored spaces on the board. This signifies that they will draw a card of corresponding color to be used on future turns. These cards can be very powerful and affect other players as well. It is these cards along with the actual game board that separates Game of HAM from others in this vein: there is actual game play and decisions to be made aside from choosing cards that create the most lewd scenarios.
Don’t get me wrong – there ARE lots and lots of opportunities to create these scenarios and pick gross things (especially in this Adult Set), but this is not the only goal of the game. In any case, play continues in this fashion – for the vanilla game mode – until a player has reached the goal space on the board exactly. At this point, the group decides which game mode or optional rules they would like to play with next, because this game can be somewhat addicting.
Components. This is a ham-themed game and the components reflect that wonderfully. Like I mentioned earlier, there are at least a zillion cards that come in this box, and they are all great quality. I have only opened one of the several packs of pink cards that come with the game, and I am not at all joking about that. The giant colored ham tokens are awesome, the boards are acceptable, and the rulebook is wonderful. I was also not joking when I said half the rulebook is explaining the game and the other half is describing different modes of play, variants, and optional rules (there are even sections of rules for drinkers and 420-friendly players). All said, the components are great!
Now, I have said this multiple times in my reviews: I HATE Cards Against Humanity. That “game” exists for one purpose: to gross out everyone playing and as an acceptable outlet for people to be as offensive as possible. While Game of HAM is similar in some aspects, I can actually play this game and not want to quit two cards into it. I LIKE that the designers have come up with half a rulebook worth of alternate play modes and optional rules, even some that outright tell you that you can use or not use ANY rule in the book! It’s not the classiest game, of course, but you don’t purchase and play a game called “Game of HAM” for its reflection of your sophistication. You purchase and play this game because you want to have a good time with your friends and family without the need to piss everyone at the table off. I can get behind this.
If you are in the market for a CAH or Apples to Apples replacement, but still want to feel like you can be a social monster for a while, pick up Game of HAM (Adult Set). I don’t know this for fact, but I assume that since this is the “Adult Set” that there will soon also be a “Family Set” or something similar. So Game of HAM may be for you, as long as you are aware of the content within. I recommend Game of HAM for those gamers who know and are comfortable with the content as a great modular card game. I won’t be playing it with my in-laws, but I can certainly play this with my siblings!
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated A Battle of Onin in Tabletop Games
Feb 9, 2021
I am a big fan of Asian culture and board game theming. Now, I am not at all versed in Anime, nor am I an aficionado. I just enjoy Asian people, history, cultures, food, and board game themes. That said, when I learned of A Battle for Onin I knew I wanted to take a look at it, being as it was touted as familiar mechanics with an Asian theme. So how does it play?
A Battle for Onin is a trick-taking card game where players will be using Shoguns, Ninjas, Samurai, and Monks as suits and each suit will have differing levels of hierarchy. The first player to earn 35 total influence (VP) will claim victory.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any 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 download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup shuffle the deck of cards and deal each player 13 cards. The dealer then flips the top card of the deck and becomes the Ruling Class (trump) for the hand. The game is now setup and ready to begin!\
After the Ruling Class has been revealed, the player left of the dealer will make a bid for how many Conscriptions (tricks) they believe they will take in the round, with a minimum bid of 3 tricks for all players. Each other player will do the same until the leading player’s turn comes back around. That player then proceeds to play cards from hand in attempt to win tricks. Like in most trick-taking games player will need to follow the suit that was led (or flipped at the beginning of the round). A twist here is that trump may not be led until it has been used to win a trick previously within the round.
As mentioned earlier, each suit has a hierarchy of power, where Bronze is the lowest in power increasing to Silver, then to Gold, and finally to Jade. Within these divisions are yet three more classifications of power: one sphere (lowest) to three spheres (most powerful). In addition still is one card from each suit whose background is orange in color and features one large sphere. These are the Legendary cards, and the most powerful of each suit. Legendary cards may be used as the highest-ranking card in their suit, or as a Ruling Class card. When played as Ruling Class (trump) the hierarchy of Legendary cards are as follows: Monk (lowest), Samurai, Ninja, Shogun (most powerful).
Play continues with players using their cards to win Conscriptions (tricks) and meet their bid. Should a player meet their bid exactly then they score Influence (VP) for their tricks won. Should a player win more tricks than bid earlier, they still score Influence for the tricks won, but those tricks in excess of the bid amount are scored also as Corruption. When a player meets seven Corruption they immediately lose 10 Influence and the Corruption counter resets for that player. If, by chance, a player does not meet the mandatory bid of three tricks, their Influence is lowered by one point. However, should a player bid higher than the minimum of three but not meet that bid their score will be reduced by the amount of the bid for the round (example: a player bids seven tricks but earns only five. They reduce their Influence by seven points – ouch).
Once scores are tallied at the end of each round, a winner may be announced if they score at least 35 points. If no winner is crowned this round, a new dealer is assumed and another round setup as at the start of the game.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game and this copy is actually hand-made by the good people at Guise Gaming. Each card in this copy is laminated and the game box is HAND PAINTED. I have never received a hand painted box before, and it is certainly appreciated. So aside from the non-manufactured components, the art is quite good on the cards. I know some players will have issues with the backgrounds seeming plain, but I quite appreciate it so that I can concentrate on the game and not be overly distracted by what may be happening in the backgrounds.
Gameplay is good, if not a bit confusing at first. With four different suits containing essentially the standard 13 cards per suit it should be an easy no-brainer to keep things squared away. However, I found that having the rule booklet open to the page detailing the hierarchy of sphere color/material was very handy for other players. The Legendary cards are easy to distinguish because they look cool and different from all the other cards. I really know nothing about any Asian language, so the characters (or letters/words) depicted on the cards are of no help to me trying to distinguish power levels.
That said, when contacted by the publisher about A Battle of Onin, they mentioned that other people were calling it a theming of Spades. While I can understand this simplification, what I have yet to mention is that the game also comes with a bevvy of optional scoring rules and a welcoming message to include any sort of house rules deemed enjoyable. Spades does not do that, to my knowledge. While the vanilla gameplay is very similar to Spades, A Battle of Onin using any of these optional scoring modes certainly adds layers of complexity that may be daunting to use at first, but may attract more hardcore gamers.
All in all I am so glad I was able to try A Battle of Onin. Once the suits and power levels are learned, the game is quite snappy and enjoyable. The art is beautiful, and I applaud the use of orange background for the Legendary cards. If you are looking for a different spin on Spades I urge you to take a look at A Battle of Onin. It might surprise you with the varying levels of difficulty found within the optional scoring rules, and a bit more intrigue than the classic game upon which it is based. Personally, my D&D Monk might argue that he is far superior to any Shogun, but also he just kicked in a door that contained a room full of vampires. So there’s that.
A Battle for Onin is a trick-taking card game where players will be using Shoguns, Ninjas, Samurai, and Monks as suits and each suit will have differing levels of hierarchy. The first player to earn 35 total influence (VP) will claim victory.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any 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 download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup shuffle the deck of cards and deal each player 13 cards. The dealer then flips the top card of the deck and becomes the Ruling Class (trump) for the hand. The game is now setup and ready to begin!\
After the Ruling Class has been revealed, the player left of the dealer will make a bid for how many Conscriptions (tricks) they believe they will take in the round, with a minimum bid of 3 tricks for all players. Each other player will do the same until the leading player’s turn comes back around. That player then proceeds to play cards from hand in attempt to win tricks. Like in most trick-taking games player will need to follow the suit that was led (or flipped at the beginning of the round). A twist here is that trump may not be led until it has been used to win a trick previously within the round.
As mentioned earlier, each suit has a hierarchy of power, where Bronze is the lowest in power increasing to Silver, then to Gold, and finally to Jade. Within these divisions are yet three more classifications of power: one sphere (lowest) to three spheres (most powerful). In addition still is one card from each suit whose background is orange in color and features one large sphere. These are the Legendary cards, and the most powerful of each suit. Legendary cards may be used as the highest-ranking card in their suit, or as a Ruling Class card. When played as Ruling Class (trump) the hierarchy of Legendary cards are as follows: Monk (lowest), Samurai, Ninja, Shogun (most powerful).
Play continues with players using their cards to win Conscriptions (tricks) and meet their bid. Should a player meet their bid exactly then they score Influence (VP) for their tricks won. Should a player win more tricks than bid earlier, they still score Influence for the tricks won, but those tricks in excess of the bid amount are scored also as Corruption. When a player meets seven Corruption they immediately lose 10 Influence and the Corruption counter resets for that player. If, by chance, a player does not meet the mandatory bid of three tricks, their Influence is lowered by one point. However, should a player bid higher than the minimum of three but not meet that bid their score will be reduced by the amount of the bid for the round (example: a player bids seven tricks but earns only five. They reduce their Influence by seven points – ouch).
Once scores are tallied at the end of each round, a winner may be announced if they score at least 35 points. If no winner is crowned this round, a new dealer is assumed and another round setup as at the start of the game.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game and this copy is actually hand-made by the good people at Guise Gaming. Each card in this copy is laminated and the game box is HAND PAINTED. I have never received a hand painted box before, and it is certainly appreciated. So aside from the non-manufactured components, the art is quite good on the cards. I know some players will have issues with the backgrounds seeming plain, but I quite appreciate it so that I can concentrate on the game and not be overly distracted by what may be happening in the backgrounds.
Gameplay is good, if not a bit confusing at first. With four different suits containing essentially the standard 13 cards per suit it should be an easy no-brainer to keep things squared away. However, I found that having the rule booklet open to the page detailing the hierarchy of sphere color/material was very handy for other players. The Legendary cards are easy to distinguish because they look cool and different from all the other cards. I really know nothing about any Asian language, so the characters (or letters/words) depicted on the cards are of no help to me trying to distinguish power levels.
That said, when contacted by the publisher about A Battle of Onin, they mentioned that other people were calling it a theming of Spades. While I can understand this simplification, what I have yet to mention is that the game also comes with a bevvy of optional scoring rules and a welcoming message to include any sort of house rules deemed enjoyable. Spades does not do that, to my knowledge. While the vanilla gameplay is very similar to Spades, A Battle of Onin using any of these optional scoring modes certainly adds layers of complexity that may be daunting to use at first, but may attract more hardcore gamers.
All in all I am so glad I was able to try A Battle of Onin. Once the suits and power levels are learned, the game is quite snappy and enjoyable. The art is beautiful, and I applaud the use of orange background for the Legendary cards. If you are looking for a different spin on Spades I urge you to take a look at A Battle of Onin. It might surprise you with the varying levels of difficulty found within the optional scoring rules, and a bit more intrigue than the classic game upon which it is based. Personally, my D&D Monk might argue that he is far superior to any Shogun, but also he just kicked in a door that contained a room full of vampires. So there’s that.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Matt Damon asked Christian Bale how he had managed to lose almost 70lbs for his role as Ken Miles, following his chubbing up to play Dick Cheney in Vice the previous year. Bale just smiled, shrugged and said, “I didn’t eat”. Such is his reputation for playing real people with 100% commitment, apocryphal or not, I totally believe that is true.
Sports films, and especially racing films, hang on three things: the quality and believability of the sports/racing scenes, the dynamic tension between the lead characters, and the degree we are hooked by the underdog makes a comeback element. Le Mans ’66, also known as Ford V Ferrari for American audiences, who obviously can’t make sense of French or numbers, has all three of those boxes ticked, and several others besides.
It will make it easier for me to explain why I liked this film so much if I confess up front to how much I liked it, so without hesitation I confidently state… more than Rush (2013) and Grand Prix (1966), making it probably the best racing film ever, but less than Warrior (2011) or Rocky (1976), making it a contender for top 5 but not the best sports movie ever. So, that is pretty high praise from the flag-fall.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements in order. Firstly, the racing scenes: This film is based on real people in real races driving real cars, with very little altered or tweaked for dramatic purposes (save one key detail of the final race). It didn’t need anything adding, because the real story is incredible enough. Part of that is the very real rivalry that existed between the undisputed champions of the world’s most beautiful cars, Ferrari, representing everything essentially European, and the empire of mass production efficiency that was the Ford dynasty, representing everything American.
The reproductions of the cars themselves and the personalities behind them is vivid and believable from minute one, so when the cars hit the track you can almost smell the fuel and feel the heat and grime, not to mention the speed. Every shot on every straight and turn feels like it should, and would, if you yourself were driving: intense, terrifying, exhilarating and addictive!
At no point did I see anything unrealistic, or a piece of footage copied and pasted. No trick angles or overuse of time stretching techniques, what you see is mostly what you get, and if you understand car racing in even the most amateur way then that is impressive. Add to that a complete understanding of tension building during a race from a direction and acting point of view and you just have to tip your helmet visor to James Mangold and Christian Bale, who seem in complete synthesis about what is required from a racing scene.
Next, look at the chemistry between Damon’s laconic yet stubborn pragmatist, Carroll Shelby, and Bale’s idiosyncratic, twitchy adrenaline junky, Ken Miles. They couldn’t be more different, personality wise, or actually performance wise. Bale chews up the screen with another in a long line now of big bold characterisations that you can’t take your eyes off, and Damon gives off solid, dependable, trust-worthy movie-star vibes in return. Their scenes together are spiky, fun, compelling and feel authetic, in a Hollywood movie way that we recognise and love. It feels almost like Paul Newman and Jack Lemon – the handsome straight guy and the quirky foil.
I love both these actors when they bring their A game. And they do here. It is consummate film acting, completely in control of what kind of film they are making. Not a naturalistic drama hoping to sweep the Oscars and hit hard in the emotional solar plexus, but a fun sports film driven by the conventions and tropes of the genre. Both manage to keep it just the right side of fun and exciting, whilst holding the reigns on believability also. Mangold, who knows how both action (Logan) and Bio-pics (Walk the Line) work to a very high level, brings experience of both genres to the fore here, and the blend is sublime.
Finally, there is the underdog element. Both of these guys were unconventional mavericks, and well known as being so. Both respected, but never treated as champions as they deserved in their lifetime, perhaps because they were not yes men or company men, who toed the line and played by the rules of the big bosses of the sport. Both of them absolutely driven by compulsion and passion to win, yet both flawed on the ways they could achieve that.
Then there is the consideration how much the car is a character, or at least Ford as a concept. What makes this story so great is the David and Goliath element, that makes you sure there is no possible way this could be true. As with all great sports films, even if you know the history and result of a real event, the little guy sticking it to the invincible and arrogant behemoth, win, lose or draw, is what makes us invest and then cheer, or cry, when all the effort is finally spent.
Effort, sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, facing defeat, bouncing back from setbacks, gaining respect of friends and rivals alike – all these elements make a sports film great. Le Mans ’66 has it all, with the added bonus of enough budget to make it fly, which isn’t usually the case in this genre. It looks spectacular, feels exciting and is ultimately completely satisfying, as both a character study of real men, and a document of a game changing moment in sporting history.
It also doesn’t entirely ignore the female influence on such a masculine world; the little known Irish actress Catriona Balfe as Mollie Miles really caught my eye in some really tender scenes. This film won’t be passing the Bechdal test any time soon, however, as she is pretty much the only female member of the cast with an actual name! But it isn’t something to get too hung up about, in my opinion.
I’d be bold enough to recommend this to anyone. No need to love cars, or racing or even sport at all. If you love good movies that keep you hooked till the checkered flag of the credits, then look no further. High art? No. A proper movie with huge mass appeal? 100%
Sports films, and especially racing films, hang on three things: the quality and believability of the sports/racing scenes, the dynamic tension between the lead characters, and the degree we are hooked by the underdog makes a comeback element. Le Mans ’66, also known as Ford V Ferrari for American audiences, who obviously can’t make sense of French or numbers, has all three of those boxes ticked, and several others besides.
It will make it easier for me to explain why I liked this film so much if I confess up front to how much I liked it, so without hesitation I confidently state… more than Rush (2013) and Grand Prix (1966), making it probably the best racing film ever, but less than Warrior (2011) or Rocky (1976), making it a contender for top 5 but not the best sports movie ever. So, that is pretty high praise from the flag-fall.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements in order. Firstly, the racing scenes: This film is based on real people in real races driving real cars, with very little altered or tweaked for dramatic purposes (save one key detail of the final race). It didn’t need anything adding, because the real story is incredible enough. Part of that is the very real rivalry that existed between the undisputed champions of the world’s most beautiful cars, Ferrari, representing everything essentially European, and the empire of mass production efficiency that was the Ford dynasty, representing everything American.
The reproductions of the cars themselves and the personalities behind them is vivid and believable from minute one, so when the cars hit the track you can almost smell the fuel and feel the heat and grime, not to mention the speed. Every shot on every straight and turn feels like it should, and would, if you yourself were driving: intense, terrifying, exhilarating and addictive!
At no point did I see anything unrealistic, or a piece of footage copied and pasted. No trick angles or overuse of time stretching techniques, what you see is mostly what you get, and if you understand car racing in even the most amateur way then that is impressive. Add to that a complete understanding of tension building during a race from a direction and acting point of view and you just have to tip your helmet visor to James Mangold and Christian Bale, who seem in complete synthesis about what is required from a racing scene.
Next, look at the chemistry between Damon’s laconic yet stubborn pragmatist, Carroll Shelby, and Bale’s idiosyncratic, twitchy adrenaline junky, Ken Miles. They couldn’t be more different, personality wise, or actually performance wise. Bale chews up the screen with another in a long line now of big bold characterisations that you can’t take your eyes off, and Damon gives off solid, dependable, trust-worthy movie-star vibes in return. Their scenes together are spiky, fun, compelling and feel authetic, in a Hollywood movie way that we recognise and love. It feels almost like Paul Newman and Jack Lemon – the handsome straight guy and the quirky foil.
I love both these actors when they bring their A game. And they do here. It is consummate film acting, completely in control of what kind of film they are making. Not a naturalistic drama hoping to sweep the Oscars and hit hard in the emotional solar plexus, but a fun sports film driven by the conventions and tropes of the genre. Both manage to keep it just the right side of fun and exciting, whilst holding the reigns on believability also. Mangold, who knows how both action (Logan) and Bio-pics (Walk the Line) work to a very high level, brings experience of both genres to the fore here, and the blend is sublime.
Finally, there is the underdog element. Both of these guys were unconventional mavericks, and well known as being so. Both respected, but never treated as champions as they deserved in their lifetime, perhaps because they were not yes men or company men, who toed the line and played by the rules of the big bosses of the sport. Both of them absolutely driven by compulsion and passion to win, yet both flawed on the ways they could achieve that.
Then there is the consideration how much the car is a character, or at least Ford as a concept. What makes this story so great is the David and Goliath element, that makes you sure there is no possible way this could be true. As with all great sports films, even if you know the history and result of a real event, the little guy sticking it to the invincible and arrogant behemoth, win, lose or draw, is what makes us invest and then cheer, or cry, when all the effort is finally spent.
Effort, sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, facing defeat, bouncing back from setbacks, gaining respect of friends and rivals alike – all these elements make a sports film great. Le Mans ’66 has it all, with the added bonus of enough budget to make it fly, which isn’t usually the case in this genre. It looks spectacular, feels exciting and is ultimately completely satisfying, as both a character study of real men, and a document of a game changing moment in sporting history.
It also doesn’t entirely ignore the female influence on such a masculine world; the little known Irish actress Catriona Balfe as Mollie Miles really caught my eye in some really tender scenes. This film won’t be passing the Bechdal test any time soon, however, as she is pretty much the only female member of the cast with an actual name! But it isn’t something to get too hung up about, in my opinion.
I’d be bold enough to recommend this to anyone. No need to love cars, or racing or even sport at all. If you love good movies that keep you hooked till the checkered flag of the credits, then look no further. High art? No. A proper movie with huge mass appeal? 100%
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated The Fault In Our Stars (2014) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019 (Updated Jun 26, 2019)
Undoubtedly one of the great love stories of our time. (3 more)
Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort are a perfect match.
John Green's novel is brilliantly adapted to the silver screen.
This is a movie that will stay with you long after it's over.
On the surface, it's easy to dismiss The Fault in Our Stars as being a sappy teenage love affair, but I can fortunately say that this is one of the great love stories of our time.
Based on John Green’s popular young adult novel, The Fault in Our Stars is a film that is profoundly beautiful, eloquent and heartfelt. It tells of an extraordinary love between two unforgettable characters who are brought together by similarly ill-fated circumstances. Hazel Grace Lancaster and Augustus Waters are both victims of cancer. Although they do their best to hide it, these two young adults are each afraid of their ominous and unstable futures. They’re just trying to live purposeful lives and experience life like normal teenagers, but the looming threat of an untimely death impedes that desire. However, for a film filled with so much uncertainty, I can fortunately say that there is little doubt that The Fault in Our Stars is one of the great love stories of our time.
On the surface, it’s easy to dismiss The Fault in Our Stars as being a sappy teenage love affair. I’ll confess that I went into the theater expecting to be fully surrounded by crying teenage girls, while I would be quietly laughing to myself at their heartache. What I surely didn’t anticipate, however, was to be so deeply drawn into the film. Even more surprising is the fact that The Fault in Our Stars has actually turned out to be my favorite movie of the year so far. This is a film that is sincerely heartfelt and unflinchingly genuine. It brings truth to the romantic fantasies we have, and teaches us that we can’t let the fear of possible heartache hold us back from the endless potential of love.
Make no mistake about it, The Fault in Our Stars is a tear-jerker. It’s difficult to watch these lovable characters endure such unjustifiable hardship. Hazel and Augustus are each forced to face a formidable fate that they shouldn’t have to. I really felt a strong attachment to both of them, and found them to be remarkably identifiable. This connection makes it all the more unsettling when their situations turn dire. The reason that The Fault in Our Stars manages to be so effective is because of its authenticity and accessibility. The characters are not only admirable, but relatable. They’re not simply reduced to being unfortunate young cancer patients that we’re meant to feel sorry for. While of course we can sympathize with their condition, it is their compassion and the content of their characters that make them so compelling.
While the film features its fair share of tragedy, I should make it clear that it’s not heart-wrenchingly malicious in the way it deals with its ensuing sadness. This is not a film that is deliberately trying to make anyone feel bad. It is merely being honest in its depiction of the unfairness that often exists in life. While you very well might cry when watching the film, it’s not entirely depressing and hopeless. In fact, I would argue that The Fault in Our Stars is more pleasant than painful. The sadness it makes you feel ends up all being worthwhile because of the joyous, unforgettable memories the movie creates along the way. This is a film that will stay with you long after seeing it. To answer the question you’re all wondering: no, the movie didn’t make me cry. Though my lack of tears is not a particularly good indicator of the emotional quality of the film. I don’t really allow myself to cry during movies, but I certainly came close, and it undeniably left me deeply touched and forever grateful that I watched it.
Being that this is a romance, I must warn you that this isn’t a movie for everyone. Truth be told, I’m a sucker for a good romance, but I’m aware not everyone has the patience for these kind of movies. The Fault in Our Stars is a slow-burning journey that takes its time to relish in the moments. It does this skillfully, maintaining a steady, balanced pace while building up to a powerful climax. Some may find the film to be a little too cutesy, but I think anyone who approaches it with an open-mind will find that it’s legitimately a really great film. My only real criticism of the movie involves the awkward return of a particular character towards the end of the movie. It makes for a rather unwelcome and perplexing intrusion, although it does at least help to set up the film’s wonderful ending.
John Green’s story is refreshing, witty, and modern. It is not only insightful in its depiction of love and life, but also offers an amazing attention to detail. It nails the feelings of love, and perfectly captures the life of being a teenager. The characters created by Green truly come to life in this film. Divergent star Shailene Woodley shines as Hazel, a young woman suffering from terminal thyroid cancer. Additionally, Ansel Elgort is incredibly charming as Augustus, a high school basketball star whose career ended short when cancer turned him into an amputee. The two of them are a perfect complementary match. Laura Dern also puts in a commendable performance as Hazel’s mom, a selfless, loving parent and companion. The film’s soundtrack is sensational. It’s appropriately fitting and delightful, featuring great work by artists such as Ed Sheeran, Birdy, and Ray LaMontagne. Every aspect of the movie comes together to produce a thoroughly poignant and relevant package.
The Fault in Our Stars is a film that speaks to our generation. It stares boldly into our fears of the eminent death that haunts us all, and makes no attempt to glamorize it. Even though it’s about a pair of teenagers, it’s not afraid to deal with mature content. It’s actually all the more engrossing and troubling because these two characters are young. They’re already facing a pivotal time in their lives and are learning to experience the world on their own accord, and yet their journeys are plagued by the callous complications of cancer. Their age gives the film a stronger emotional impact, emphasizing the preciousness of life and the importance of living it to the fullest. The Fault in Our Stars is a smart and stimulating movie, and just like its star characters, it is wholly worthy of remembrance.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 7.12.14.)
On the surface, it’s easy to dismiss The Fault in Our Stars as being a sappy teenage love affair. I’ll confess that I went into the theater expecting to be fully surrounded by crying teenage girls, while I would be quietly laughing to myself at their heartache. What I surely didn’t anticipate, however, was to be so deeply drawn into the film. Even more surprising is the fact that The Fault in Our Stars has actually turned out to be my favorite movie of the year so far. This is a film that is sincerely heartfelt and unflinchingly genuine. It brings truth to the romantic fantasies we have, and teaches us that we can’t let the fear of possible heartache hold us back from the endless potential of love.
Make no mistake about it, The Fault in Our Stars is a tear-jerker. It’s difficult to watch these lovable characters endure such unjustifiable hardship. Hazel and Augustus are each forced to face a formidable fate that they shouldn’t have to. I really felt a strong attachment to both of them, and found them to be remarkably identifiable. This connection makes it all the more unsettling when their situations turn dire. The reason that The Fault in Our Stars manages to be so effective is because of its authenticity and accessibility. The characters are not only admirable, but relatable. They’re not simply reduced to being unfortunate young cancer patients that we’re meant to feel sorry for. While of course we can sympathize with their condition, it is their compassion and the content of their characters that make them so compelling.
While the film features its fair share of tragedy, I should make it clear that it’s not heart-wrenchingly malicious in the way it deals with its ensuing sadness. This is not a film that is deliberately trying to make anyone feel bad. It is merely being honest in its depiction of the unfairness that often exists in life. While you very well might cry when watching the film, it’s not entirely depressing and hopeless. In fact, I would argue that The Fault in Our Stars is more pleasant than painful. The sadness it makes you feel ends up all being worthwhile because of the joyous, unforgettable memories the movie creates along the way. This is a film that will stay with you long after seeing it. To answer the question you’re all wondering: no, the movie didn’t make me cry. Though my lack of tears is not a particularly good indicator of the emotional quality of the film. I don’t really allow myself to cry during movies, but I certainly came close, and it undeniably left me deeply touched and forever grateful that I watched it.
Being that this is a romance, I must warn you that this isn’t a movie for everyone. Truth be told, I’m a sucker for a good romance, but I’m aware not everyone has the patience for these kind of movies. The Fault in Our Stars is a slow-burning journey that takes its time to relish in the moments. It does this skillfully, maintaining a steady, balanced pace while building up to a powerful climax. Some may find the film to be a little too cutesy, but I think anyone who approaches it with an open-mind will find that it’s legitimately a really great film. My only real criticism of the movie involves the awkward return of a particular character towards the end of the movie. It makes for a rather unwelcome and perplexing intrusion, although it does at least help to set up the film’s wonderful ending.
John Green’s story is refreshing, witty, and modern. It is not only insightful in its depiction of love and life, but also offers an amazing attention to detail. It nails the feelings of love, and perfectly captures the life of being a teenager. The characters created by Green truly come to life in this film. Divergent star Shailene Woodley shines as Hazel, a young woman suffering from terminal thyroid cancer. Additionally, Ansel Elgort is incredibly charming as Augustus, a high school basketball star whose career ended short when cancer turned him into an amputee. The two of them are a perfect complementary match. Laura Dern also puts in a commendable performance as Hazel’s mom, a selfless, loving parent and companion. The film’s soundtrack is sensational. It’s appropriately fitting and delightful, featuring great work by artists such as Ed Sheeran, Birdy, and Ray LaMontagne. Every aspect of the movie comes together to produce a thoroughly poignant and relevant package.
The Fault in Our Stars is a film that speaks to our generation. It stares boldly into our fears of the eminent death that haunts us all, and makes no attempt to glamorize it. Even though it’s about a pair of teenagers, it’s not afraid to deal with mature content. It’s actually all the more engrossing and troubling because these two characters are young. They’re already facing a pivotal time in their lives and are learning to experience the world on their own accord, and yet their journeys are plagued by the callous complications of cancer. Their age gives the film a stronger emotional impact, emphasizing the preciousness of life and the importance of living it to the fullest. The Fault in Our Stars is a smart and stimulating movie, and just like its star characters, it is wholly worthy of remembrance.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 7.12.14.)
Mandy and G.D. Burkhead (26 KP) rated Sir Apropos of Nothing in Books
May 20, 2018
Shelf Life – Sir Apropos of Nothing Skewers the Hero’s Journey
Contains spoilers, click to show
Fantasy and satire are two of my favorite genres in any medium, but especially so in books. Satirical fantasy, then, holds a special place on my shelves. I grew up on Sir Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series, and desire to imitate him and his style is what led me in middle school to begin writing in earnest, for fun, and for myself rather than just for my teachers and their assignments.
So when I picked up Sir Apropos of Nothing, I did so based on the title pun and the back-of-the-book synopsis that promised “a berserk phoenix, murderous unicorns, mutated harpies, homicidal warrior kings, and – most problematic of all – a princess who may or may not be a psychotic arsonist.” I expected another lighthearted riff on the familiar archetypes. Murderous unicorns? Unicorns are not typically described as such! Oh teehee, how unexpectedly humorous!
Sir Apropos of Nothing is a satirical fantasy, just like it promised, though at times it’s hard to tell how much of the story is played for laughs and how much is played straight. See, the thing about satire that’s easy to forget at times is that it’s not synonymous with buffoonery. Make no mistake – Apropos is a funny book, full of witty dialogue and groan-inducing puns. It’s a book that takes great delight in lampshading traditional fantasy tropes and archetypes, as well as the entirety of Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Journey idea. But it is not always a silly lampshade; sometimes a cliche or trope is pointed out to have its inherit ridiculousness laughed at, and sometimes it is pointed out because it is causing real and lasting pain or damage, either to the society in which it is set or, more often, to the titular Apropos himself and his ever-degrading esteem of both the people around him and himself.
The tone, at first, is hard to pin down. The story starts in media res with the main character being caught by a knight while in mid-coitus with that knight’s wife and escalates from there. The second chapter opens with a fourth wall-breaking narrative admission by Apropos himself that this was done with the express purpose of catching your attention, and now we’re going back to cover Apropos’s childhood, which ends up being equal parts dark, tragic, punny, and conveniently trope-filled – all of which Apropos, as narrator, approaches with the same resigned, blasé outlook.
If this sounds a bit jarring, well, it kind of is. Early on, I wasn’t sure what to think of where the story was trying to go or what I was expected to feel about it. After the first turn from cliché to dark and visceral to light and punny, all within a few pages, I caught myself thinking, “Crap, is this book gonna try and mix goofy jokes with serious drama and thoughtful moral quandary?”
The answer is yes. And it pulls it off fantastically.
This is due in large part to the interesting depths of the antihero, Apropos, who seems to be so named purely for the joke in the title. In Apropos we see a deep sense of justice and rightness that is entirely eclipsed by an even deeper cynicism and an unshakeable instinct for self-preservation. His life is objectively terrible, but rather than brood and lament, he adjusts. He keeps his head down when he can, weathers abuse when he can’t, and learns to deal with the constant shit storm, all the while bottling his growing anger and resentment at a world that would allow such amounts of suffering and hypocrisy to go unchecked. The fact that he himself becomes a selfish, hypocritical, and generally awful person is not lost on him, and the result is a flawed, unheroic, pathetic coward of a protagonist, a magnificently multifaceted bastard who doesn’t spare even himself from his vast and withering contempt.
And it’s a blast. It really is. Apropos is refreshingly pragmatic and unabashedly pessimistic, a welcome change from the typical righteous-yet-humble heroes of traditional fantasy, or even the loveable and untalented everyman in over his head of traditional fantasy spoofs. Despite a portentous birthmark (on his ass, no less) and beginnings that are not “humble” so much as “poverty of the dirtiest kind,” Apropos is everything a hero should not be short of outright evil.
And this, as it turns out, is entirely the point. This is where the satire, funny or otherwise, really shines through. This is the crux that elevates Sir Apropos of Nothing from a generically self-aware fantasy story to an original and memorable subversion of storytelling as a whole.
Without giving too much away, there comes a point in the plot where Apropos realizes that the events surrounding his miserable life are part of a heroic tale that has been preordained by Fate and is now being epically written out by Destiny. And despite his birthmark, his tragic past, and his mother’s constant reassurances that he has some sort of great destiny hovering over him, he is not the hero. He is only a minor character. A walk-on role on the hero’s stage. A brief pit-stop along the hero’s journey. An NPC whose dreams, desires, and continued existence are so far below importance to the story as to be utterly negligible.
And once this finally clicks with him, he violently, brazenly rebels against it. He gives an emphatic middle finger to Fate’s ideas and sets about making Destiny sit up and take notice of him again. He momentarily and violently overcomes his own abject cowardice just long enough to find a way to completely wreck the traditional heroic ballad in which he lives, all on the basis that, dammit, the world owes him more than this, and nobody should be so miserably cursed as to live their entire life as a foil character.
At this point in my own reading, I didn’t know whether to cheer him on or worry about the repercussions of his actions, because he doesn’t suddenly become heroic when this happens. He’s exactly as much of a selfish, lying bastard as before, and however bad you feel for him, you can completely understand why he was never cast for this role in the first place. Add to this the complete disregard of the author for following what seems to be the obvious progression of events in favor of twists that take you completely by surprise, but still make complete sense and arise organically from the story itself, and you eventually give up thinking that you have any sense of where the story’s going or how any event is going to play out. From beginning to end, it feeds you familiar ideas and then completely subverts them, introduces clichés and then proceeds to tear them apart, and you laugh and pity and feel something the entire way through.
In short, Sir Apropos of Nothing is a book that will keep you turning page after page – not necessarily because of the gripping drama (although it has that) or because of any breezy humor (although it has that too), or because the narration itself oozes suspense (although it often does), but because, with the rapid infusion of new and creative ideas and the hidden depths of character constantly bubbling to the surface in everyone involved, you honestly never know what’s going to happen next. If you like fantasy and can stand to have your expectations messed with, Apropos is certainly apropos.
So when I picked up Sir Apropos of Nothing, I did so based on the title pun and the back-of-the-book synopsis that promised “a berserk phoenix, murderous unicorns, mutated harpies, homicidal warrior kings, and – most problematic of all – a princess who may or may not be a psychotic arsonist.” I expected another lighthearted riff on the familiar archetypes. Murderous unicorns? Unicorns are not typically described as such! Oh teehee, how unexpectedly humorous!
Sir Apropos of Nothing is a satirical fantasy, just like it promised, though at times it’s hard to tell how much of the story is played for laughs and how much is played straight. See, the thing about satire that’s easy to forget at times is that it’s not synonymous with buffoonery. Make no mistake – Apropos is a funny book, full of witty dialogue and groan-inducing puns. It’s a book that takes great delight in lampshading traditional fantasy tropes and archetypes, as well as the entirety of Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Journey idea. But it is not always a silly lampshade; sometimes a cliche or trope is pointed out to have its inherit ridiculousness laughed at, and sometimes it is pointed out because it is causing real and lasting pain or damage, either to the society in which it is set or, more often, to the titular Apropos himself and his ever-degrading esteem of both the people around him and himself.
The tone, at first, is hard to pin down. The story starts in media res with the main character being caught by a knight while in mid-coitus with that knight’s wife and escalates from there. The second chapter opens with a fourth wall-breaking narrative admission by Apropos himself that this was done with the express purpose of catching your attention, and now we’re going back to cover Apropos’s childhood, which ends up being equal parts dark, tragic, punny, and conveniently trope-filled – all of which Apropos, as narrator, approaches with the same resigned, blasé outlook.
If this sounds a bit jarring, well, it kind of is. Early on, I wasn’t sure what to think of where the story was trying to go or what I was expected to feel about it. After the first turn from cliché to dark and visceral to light and punny, all within a few pages, I caught myself thinking, “Crap, is this book gonna try and mix goofy jokes with serious drama and thoughtful moral quandary?”
The answer is yes. And it pulls it off fantastically.
This is due in large part to the interesting depths of the antihero, Apropos, who seems to be so named purely for the joke in the title. In Apropos we see a deep sense of justice and rightness that is entirely eclipsed by an even deeper cynicism and an unshakeable instinct for self-preservation. His life is objectively terrible, but rather than brood and lament, he adjusts. He keeps his head down when he can, weathers abuse when he can’t, and learns to deal with the constant shit storm, all the while bottling his growing anger and resentment at a world that would allow such amounts of suffering and hypocrisy to go unchecked. The fact that he himself becomes a selfish, hypocritical, and generally awful person is not lost on him, and the result is a flawed, unheroic, pathetic coward of a protagonist, a magnificently multifaceted bastard who doesn’t spare even himself from his vast and withering contempt.
And it’s a blast. It really is. Apropos is refreshingly pragmatic and unabashedly pessimistic, a welcome change from the typical righteous-yet-humble heroes of traditional fantasy, or even the loveable and untalented everyman in over his head of traditional fantasy spoofs. Despite a portentous birthmark (on his ass, no less) and beginnings that are not “humble” so much as “poverty of the dirtiest kind,” Apropos is everything a hero should not be short of outright evil.
And this, as it turns out, is entirely the point. This is where the satire, funny or otherwise, really shines through. This is the crux that elevates Sir Apropos of Nothing from a generically self-aware fantasy story to an original and memorable subversion of storytelling as a whole.
Without giving too much away, there comes a point in the plot where Apropos realizes that the events surrounding his miserable life are part of a heroic tale that has been preordained by Fate and is now being epically written out by Destiny. And despite his birthmark, his tragic past, and his mother’s constant reassurances that he has some sort of great destiny hovering over him, he is not the hero. He is only a minor character. A walk-on role on the hero’s stage. A brief pit-stop along the hero’s journey. An NPC whose dreams, desires, and continued existence are so far below importance to the story as to be utterly negligible.
And once this finally clicks with him, he violently, brazenly rebels against it. He gives an emphatic middle finger to Fate’s ideas and sets about making Destiny sit up and take notice of him again. He momentarily and violently overcomes his own abject cowardice just long enough to find a way to completely wreck the traditional heroic ballad in which he lives, all on the basis that, dammit, the world owes him more than this, and nobody should be so miserably cursed as to live their entire life as a foil character.
At this point in my own reading, I didn’t know whether to cheer him on or worry about the repercussions of his actions, because he doesn’t suddenly become heroic when this happens. He’s exactly as much of a selfish, lying bastard as before, and however bad you feel for him, you can completely understand why he was never cast for this role in the first place. Add to this the complete disregard of the author for following what seems to be the obvious progression of events in favor of twists that take you completely by surprise, but still make complete sense and arise organically from the story itself, and you eventually give up thinking that you have any sense of where the story’s going or how any event is going to play out. From beginning to end, it feeds you familiar ideas and then completely subverts them, introduces clichés and then proceeds to tear them apart, and you laugh and pity and feel something the entire way through.
In short, Sir Apropos of Nothing is a book that will keep you turning page after page – not necessarily because of the gripping drama (although it has that) or because of any breezy humor (although it has that too), or because the narration itself oozes suspense (although it often does), but because, with the rapid infusion of new and creative ideas and the hidden depths of character constantly bubbling to the surface in everyone involved, you honestly never know what’s going to happen next. If you like fantasy and can stand to have your expectations messed with, Apropos is certainly apropos.