Search
Search results
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Holi: Festival of Colors in Tabletop Games
Apr 16, 2022
I absolutely love a beautiful game. Being a gamer, I have seen and played many gorgeous games. However, the first time I set up Holi: Festival of Colors (just Holi from here), both my 5 year old son and my slightly older mother-in-law both commented on how awesome it looked setup on the table. It has been a while since I last was so impressed by the sheer glamour of a game – and I only have the base retail version! I HAVE to get my hands on an upgrade pack or something… Just checked. I’ll have to buy the Deluxe version. Okay, placing order.
Holi is an abstract, area control, card-driven action selection (akin to Onitama) game for two to four players. In it, players are attendees at the Holi Festival and the goal is spread their favorite color onto the plaza and other players in order to increase their joy (earn VP). The winner is the player who is best able to throw their color and score joy, all while enjoying the festival!
To setup, the game owner will assemble the three-tiered board and place the appropriate sweets tokens on their spaces. The score track and Rivalry cards are set nearby so all can see. Each player receives their color’s player markers (in four delightful animal shapes), color tokens, color cards, and a helper card. The first player receives the cool lotus flower (I think) marker and the game may begin!
Holi is played over a series of turns, and continues until every player has either run out of color tokens or color cards to play. Each turn, players will take one to three actions in any order, with only one action being absolutely mandatory. This is the Throw Color action. In order to Throw Color, the active player will choose a color card from their hand of three cards to play. On these cards are indications of where a player’s marker/piece/animeeple must be located and the spaces near it to throw color tokens on the board. These color cards are reminiscent of those found in Onitama, where players may only move to specific spaces based on card grid iconography. Players will be littering the squares of the play area with their color tokens as well as attempting to hit other players’ animeeples with their color.
Players may also optionally Move at any point during the turn. This is an easy one: players may Move to any space on the current level of the board they are on, except any space inhabited by an opponent’s animeeple. These spaces could already contain sweets tokens, which can be collected by the player, or even color tokens. When a player lands in a space with their own color token, they take it back to their supply to be used again. However, landing on an opponent’s color token causes the active player to also take it into their supply, thus scoring the opponent points at the end of the game.
Finally, a player, if in a space surrounded on four edges by color tokens, may Climb Up to the next higher level. Players on the middle level will score 2 joy (VP) at the end of the game for each color token placed, while tokens on the top level will score 3 joy. Care should be taken when throwing color on the upper levels, because should an empty space reside on the level below where the token has been placed, the token will fall through to the lower level! Therefore, only color tokens will only remain placed on higher levels when another token is blocking its fall below it.
Once all players have played their cards and thrown their color tokens, the game is over and the score is tallied. 1 point is earned for each color token on the bottom level, 2 points for the middle level, and 3 points for tokens on the upper level. Players score 2 more points for each of their color tokens that found their way into opponents’ supplies. Remember those sweets tokens that players were collecting? Players will score 5 points for every player that has less sweets tokens at the end of the game. If playing with the Rivalry cards, points are also scored for any of their special circumstances (ie color tokens scoring 4 instead of 3 on the top level, or hitting opponents with colors score 2 points immediately instead of the normal 1 point, or even 10 bonus points to the player with the most color tokens on the bottom level). The player with the most points at the end of this scoring phase wins the game!
Components. I kind of already made my point about this game being a flat out stunner on the table. I will sing its praises from here to India and then back again. I normally acknowledge the artist(s) on a game once I open it for the first time, but seeing that this is a total Vincent Dutrait masterpiece, I just had to see which other games of his I own. I have made my claims in the past for my favorite board game artists and I had not included Dutrait. No more. This is brilliant and just a wonderful experience throughout. The components are all great, and that multi-layered board? I mean, come on! The intricacies found throughout and within this box are immeasurable, and I will surely be adding the Deluxe version to my collection.
Holi is a game I can pull out with almost any person or group of people and feel confident that it will give an extremely satisfying experience. The rules are relatively simple, and games are very quick. This is not a filler, but runs so smoothly and briskly that one may miscategorize it as such. The options of movement are so unrestricted, and having the ability to craft spatial situations with the cards in your hand to allow only your animeeple to climb up to the next level is just delicious. Speaking of, the sweets tokens, and really ALL of the components, are just so cute and well-illustrated. I really am finding it difficult to point out any flaws in this game. Every time I have played it I have simply had the best time with my opponents. Yeah, there’s some minor take that, but it’s all in good fun, and if you know anything about the actual celebration of Holi, participants relish coming home just covered head to toe in paint, colored water, and other colorful materials. It’s a great theme that shines through, and I look forward to each of my coming plays.
Currently, eight games we have published reviews for have earned the Golden Feather Award. At the time of this writing, I know one other will be joining that list soon, and now Holi will as well. So that is 10 total games over the 495 we have published and are sitting in queue to be published. That said, it is no surprise, I’m sure, that Holi has earned its spot among the best we have played, and I am incredibly relieved that I was able to grab a copy when I did. This will remain a favorite of mine for many years, I know it. If you are like me and appreciate an amazing production value with a comparably wonderful game underneath, then you owe it to yourself to pick up a copy of Holi as soon as you can. Or come play my copy with me. I will always be up for a play.
Holi is an abstract, area control, card-driven action selection (akin to Onitama) game for two to four players. In it, players are attendees at the Holi Festival and the goal is spread their favorite color onto the plaza and other players in order to increase their joy (earn VP). The winner is the player who is best able to throw their color and score joy, all while enjoying the festival!
To setup, the game owner will assemble the three-tiered board and place the appropriate sweets tokens on their spaces. The score track and Rivalry cards are set nearby so all can see. Each player receives their color’s player markers (in four delightful animal shapes), color tokens, color cards, and a helper card. The first player receives the cool lotus flower (I think) marker and the game may begin!
Holi is played over a series of turns, and continues until every player has either run out of color tokens or color cards to play. Each turn, players will take one to three actions in any order, with only one action being absolutely mandatory. This is the Throw Color action. In order to Throw Color, the active player will choose a color card from their hand of three cards to play. On these cards are indications of where a player’s marker/piece/animeeple must be located and the spaces near it to throw color tokens on the board. These color cards are reminiscent of those found in Onitama, where players may only move to specific spaces based on card grid iconography. Players will be littering the squares of the play area with their color tokens as well as attempting to hit other players’ animeeples with their color.
Players may also optionally Move at any point during the turn. This is an easy one: players may Move to any space on the current level of the board they are on, except any space inhabited by an opponent’s animeeple. These spaces could already contain sweets tokens, which can be collected by the player, or even color tokens. When a player lands in a space with their own color token, they take it back to their supply to be used again. However, landing on an opponent’s color token causes the active player to also take it into their supply, thus scoring the opponent points at the end of the game.
Finally, a player, if in a space surrounded on four edges by color tokens, may Climb Up to the next higher level. Players on the middle level will score 2 joy (VP) at the end of the game for each color token placed, while tokens on the top level will score 3 joy. Care should be taken when throwing color on the upper levels, because should an empty space reside on the level below where the token has been placed, the token will fall through to the lower level! Therefore, only color tokens will only remain placed on higher levels when another token is blocking its fall below it.
Once all players have played their cards and thrown their color tokens, the game is over and the score is tallied. 1 point is earned for each color token on the bottom level, 2 points for the middle level, and 3 points for tokens on the upper level. Players score 2 more points for each of their color tokens that found their way into opponents’ supplies. Remember those sweets tokens that players were collecting? Players will score 5 points for every player that has less sweets tokens at the end of the game. If playing with the Rivalry cards, points are also scored for any of their special circumstances (ie color tokens scoring 4 instead of 3 on the top level, or hitting opponents with colors score 2 points immediately instead of the normal 1 point, or even 10 bonus points to the player with the most color tokens on the bottom level). The player with the most points at the end of this scoring phase wins the game!
Components. I kind of already made my point about this game being a flat out stunner on the table. I will sing its praises from here to India and then back again. I normally acknowledge the artist(s) on a game once I open it for the first time, but seeing that this is a total Vincent Dutrait masterpiece, I just had to see which other games of his I own. I have made my claims in the past for my favorite board game artists and I had not included Dutrait. No more. This is brilliant and just a wonderful experience throughout. The components are all great, and that multi-layered board? I mean, come on! The intricacies found throughout and within this box are immeasurable, and I will surely be adding the Deluxe version to my collection.
Holi is a game I can pull out with almost any person or group of people and feel confident that it will give an extremely satisfying experience. The rules are relatively simple, and games are very quick. This is not a filler, but runs so smoothly and briskly that one may miscategorize it as such. The options of movement are so unrestricted, and having the ability to craft spatial situations with the cards in your hand to allow only your animeeple to climb up to the next level is just delicious. Speaking of, the sweets tokens, and really ALL of the components, are just so cute and well-illustrated. I really am finding it difficult to point out any flaws in this game. Every time I have played it I have simply had the best time with my opponents. Yeah, there’s some minor take that, but it’s all in good fun, and if you know anything about the actual celebration of Holi, participants relish coming home just covered head to toe in paint, colored water, and other colorful materials. It’s a great theme that shines through, and I look forward to each of my coming plays.
Currently, eight games we have published reviews for have earned the Golden Feather Award. At the time of this writing, I know one other will be joining that list soon, and now Holi will as well. So that is 10 total games over the 495 we have published and are sitting in queue to be published. That said, it is no surprise, I’m sure, that Holi has earned its spot among the best we have played, and I am incredibly relieved that I was able to grab a copy when I did. This will remain a favorite of mine for many years, I know it. If you are like me and appreciate an amazing production value with a comparably wonderful game underneath, then you owe it to yourself to pick up a copy of Holi as soon as you can. Or come play my copy with me. I will always be up for a play.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Unmatched: Cobble & Fog in Tabletop Games
Mar 19, 2021
You know when you read a rulebook and you just know you are going to love the game? This was me whilst reading the rulebook for Unmatched: Cobble & Fog. I will go into more detail why I enjoy the game near the end of my review, but just know, I loved it from the start.
In Unmatched: Cobble & Fog (which I will be calling Unmatched from here) players will be taking on the roles of either Dracula and his Sisters, Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, Invisible Man, or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in a battle to the death to claim victory in this, “Who would win in a fight”-style skirmish fighting game. The last hero standing wins, so as one of my favorite characters in literary history says, “The game is afoot.”
DISCLAIMER: Even though this review is for the Cobble & Fog version of Unmatched, the rules are the same throughout the entire Unmatched family of games. I have the original Unmatched: Battle of Legends, Vol. 1 and it plays exactly the same. I prefer the characters in this version, so that’s why I am reviewing it specifically. -T
To setup, the players will choose which side of the board they wish to play and set it on the table. Next, players will choose their hero and gather all accoutrements associated with their choice. All heroes come with a deck of 30 action cards, a mini of their figure, a character card, at least one health dial (more if their sidekicks have more than one health point), and some characters will have sidekicks that have tokens, or tokens for other reasons. The youngest player places their mini on the space with the number 1 on the board, and then the rest of the players place theirs on subsequently-numbered spaces. Players shuffle their decks of action cards and draw five cards for their first hand.
On a turn a player may take two actions from the choice of: Maneuver, Scheme, Attack. When a player chooses to Maneuver they will draw a card into their hand, then move the amount of spaces noted on their character card (typically two spaces). These movement values may be boosted by also discarding additional cards for their boost value and adding it to the number of spaces moved.
All action cards will specify which character may use it for attack, defense, or Scheme action. These Scheme cards have a lightning bolt icon on them to indicate that they are played face-up to the table, resolved, and then discarded.
Finally, if a melee-based character is positioned adjacent to an opponent, or if a ranged character is in the same zone as an opponent, they may Attack said opponent. To Attack, the active player declares which opponent will be attacked, and each player involved will choose cards from their hands to use in the battle. The attacking player will need to use attack or versatile (either used for attack or defense) cards to try to inflict damage, while the defending player will need to play defense or versatile cards in defense. The difference of the values printed on the cards will determine which character wins the battle and if health points are to be deducted from the health dial.
Many cards will have action instructions that trigger either immediately during battle or even after the battle concludes. Resolve these actions when appropriate and try to stay on your feet.
Play continues in this fashion of moving around the board to gain cards or using the cards to scheme or attack/defend. The winning player is they who survives at the end and vanquishes all foes on the board.
Components. I love everything about the components in this game. The box is great. The insert is really incredible and well thought out. The cards are great quality and the game features spectacular art all around. The minis are cool and luckily are fitted inside colored bases to remind players which mini is theirs. The sidekick tokens are excellent thick plastic and color-matched to the bases of their hero counterparts. The board is nice and double-sided, and all the rest of the cardboard components are excellent.
It’s no secret here – I absolutely love this game. I have always been a big fan of Sherlock Holmes, and this set also includes other interesting characters to play. Each one is highly unique in style and that’s one of the reasons I am so intrigued by this system. I say system because this is not the only game in the Unmatched family. As of today the Unmatched system boasts all of these as playable characters from different sets: King Arthur, Alice, Medusa, and Sinbad from the “Battle of Legends, Vol 1” set; Robert Muldoon and raptors from the “Jurassic Park, InGen vs Raptors” set; the “Robin Hood vs Bigfoot” set; Bruce Lee; and Buffy, Spike, Willow, and Angel from the “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” set in addition to these here. I know more Jurassic Park sets are on the horizon, and I just cannot wait to see what other sets will be released in time.
Why do I love this game so much when I am not really a fan of moving and dueling games (I’m looking at you Mage Wars)? In these style of games I feel the movement is unnecessary as I just stand and fight. In this system, the only way to draw more cards from your deck is to enact the Maneuver action. There have been several times where I didn’t necessarily want to initiate a battle, but I saw opponents sitting with no cards in their hand. That means no defense cards can be played. Easy chunks of health taken by picking off the stationary few. Unmatched forces players to move around and I love that. Yes, there are opportunities to unleash giant blows or have double-digit health drops in battle, and that’s just delicious. Also there are times during play where mathing out exactly where to place your mini or sidekick is paramount to lay plans of ambush.
I mentioned earlier that I knew right away I would love this one. Opening the cover of the rulebook sold me immediately. As this set utilizes literary characters found in old timey Europe the game utilizes a period art style as well and I’m still fawning over it. Everything clicks for me and I can now understand why so many people were dying (not literally) to get copies of the game Unmatched is based on, Star Wars: Epic Duels. It is extremely fun and each character is interesting and unique. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a well-earned GOLDEN FEATHER AWARD! If you need a skirmish style game with excellent theme and art, you must grab this post haste. If you and I fall on the same side of the coin with our gaming preferences you NEED to have this in your collection.
I don’t know how many other sets I will be looking to add to my collection at this point, but I cannot tell you how excited I would be to pit Bigfoot against Bruce Lee. Or King Arthur against Dracula. It just feels epic and wonderful. Great job to the team at Restoration Games. This is a huge win for my collection.
In Unmatched: Cobble & Fog (which I will be calling Unmatched from here) players will be taking on the roles of either Dracula and his Sisters, Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, Invisible Man, or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in a battle to the death to claim victory in this, “Who would win in a fight”-style skirmish fighting game. The last hero standing wins, so as one of my favorite characters in literary history says, “The game is afoot.”
DISCLAIMER: Even though this review is for the Cobble & Fog version of Unmatched, the rules are the same throughout the entire Unmatched family of games. I have the original Unmatched: Battle of Legends, Vol. 1 and it plays exactly the same. I prefer the characters in this version, so that’s why I am reviewing it specifically. -T
To setup, the players will choose which side of the board they wish to play and set it on the table. Next, players will choose their hero and gather all accoutrements associated with their choice. All heroes come with a deck of 30 action cards, a mini of their figure, a character card, at least one health dial (more if their sidekicks have more than one health point), and some characters will have sidekicks that have tokens, or tokens for other reasons. The youngest player places their mini on the space with the number 1 on the board, and then the rest of the players place theirs on subsequently-numbered spaces. Players shuffle their decks of action cards and draw five cards for their first hand.
On a turn a player may take two actions from the choice of: Maneuver, Scheme, Attack. When a player chooses to Maneuver they will draw a card into their hand, then move the amount of spaces noted on their character card (typically two spaces). These movement values may be boosted by also discarding additional cards for their boost value and adding it to the number of spaces moved.
All action cards will specify which character may use it for attack, defense, or Scheme action. These Scheme cards have a lightning bolt icon on them to indicate that they are played face-up to the table, resolved, and then discarded.
Finally, if a melee-based character is positioned adjacent to an opponent, or if a ranged character is in the same zone as an opponent, they may Attack said opponent. To Attack, the active player declares which opponent will be attacked, and each player involved will choose cards from their hands to use in the battle. The attacking player will need to use attack or versatile (either used for attack or defense) cards to try to inflict damage, while the defending player will need to play defense or versatile cards in defense. The difference of the values printed on the cards will determine which character wins the battle and if health points are to be deducted from the health dial.
Many cards will have action instructions that trigger either immediately during battle or even after the battle concludes. Resolve these actions when appropriate and try to stay on your feet.
Play continues in this fashion of moving around the board to gain cards or using the cards to scheme or attack/defend. The winning player is they who survives at the end and vanquishes all foes on the board.
Components. I love everything about the components in this game. The box is great. The insert is really incredible and well thought out. The cards are great quality and the game features spectacular art all around. The minis are cool and luckily are fitted inside colored bases to remind players which mini is theirs. The sidekick tokens are excellent thick plastic and color-matched to the bases of their hero counterparts. The board is nice and double-sided, and all the rest of the cardboard components are excellent.
It’s no secret here – I absolutely love this game. I have always been a big fan of Sherlock Holmes, and this set also includes other interesting characters to play. Each one is highly unique in style and that’s one of the reasons I am so intrigued by this system. I say system because this is not the only game in the Unmatched family. As of today the Unmatched system boasts all of these as playable characters from different sets: King Arthur, Alice, Medusa, and Sinbad from the “Battle of Legends, Vol 1” set; Robert Muldoon and raptors from the “Jurassic Park, InGen vs Raptors” set; the “Robin Hood vs Bigfoot” set; Bruce Lee; and Buffy, Spike, Willow, and Angel from the “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” set in addition to these here. I know more Jurassic Park sets are on the horizon, and I just cannot wait to see what other sets will be released in time.
Why do I love this game so much when I am not really a fan of moving and dueling games (I’m looking at you Mage Wars)? In these style of games I feel the movement is unnecessary as I just stand and fight. In this system, the only way to draw more cards from your deck is to enact the Maneuver action. There have been several times where I didn’t necessarily want to initiate a battle, but I saw opponents sitting with no cards in their hand. That means no defense cards can be played. Easy chunks of health taken by picking off the stationary few. Unmatched forces players to move around and I love that. Yes, there are opportunities to unleash giant blows or have double-digit health drops in battle, and that’s just delicious. Also there are times during play where mathing out exactly where to place your mini or sidekick is paramount to lay plans of ambush.
I mentioned earlier that I knew right away I would love this one. Opening the cover of the rulebook sold me immediately. As this set utilizes literary characters found in old timey Europe the game utilizes a period art style as well and I’m still fawning over it. Everything clicks for me and I can now understand why so many people were dying (not literally) to get copies of the game Unmatched is based on, Star Wars: Epic Duels. It is extremely fun and each character is interesting and unique. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a well-earned GOLDEN FEATHER AWARD! If you need a skirmish style game with excellent theme and art, you must grab this post haste. If you and I fall on the same side of the coin with our gaming preferences you NEED to have this in your collection.
I don’t know how many other sets I will be looking to add to my collection at this point, but I cannot tell you how excited I would be to pit Bigfoot against Bruce Lee. Or King Arthur against Dracula. It just feels epic and wonderful. Great job to the team at Restoration Games. This is a huge win for my collection.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Evolution in Tabletop Games
Sep 12, 2019
I very much have a science-based mind. I like facts, figures, data, charts, timelines, etc. Yes, I can be a dreamer, too, but at the end of the day, I need verification to really believe in something. That’s why I’ve always been on Team Evolution vs. Team Creationism. It fascinates me how these huge beings like dinosaurs (oh yeah, I love dinosaurs a lot, too) could be preserved in time well past their deaths. But it leads to questions like, “What happened to them? Why couldn’t they make it in the end?” And the game Evolution by North Star Games attempts to answer those.
Disclaimer: There are several expansions to this game, but we are not reviewing them at this time. Should we review them in the future we will either update this review or post a link to the new material here. Furthermore, I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, 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 from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. – B
You start the game in control of one species of animal. One non-descript, traitless species that you will slowly (or maybe quickly) build up to be something bigger and better. You evolve it. (Huh.) You’ll start each round by contributing plant food to the watering hole. Each card in your hand is worth a certain amount of plant food. Once that food is in the watering hole, it’s fair game for anyone to eat. Depending on your strategy, you may want a lot of food in that watering hole, or you may want to starve your opponents out (some cards are even worth negative food!). Once all the food is in the watering hole, it’s time to evolve your critters. The cards in your hand have unique traits on them. To imbue your species with that trait, simply place the card next to your species’ gameboard and voila! You now have horns, or intelligence, or the ability to forage, or many other possibilities. You may also take this opportunity to evolve your creature into a carnivore (more on that later). At this point in the game, you may also discard cards in order to increase the population of your species, or to increase the body size of your cute little guys. This will be important later. You can also discard a card to create a whole new species. There’s no limit to how many species you can have, but there is a limit to the available food, so be wise with the number of species you create.
After everyone has evolved, it’s time to feed! You’ll take turns taking plant food from the watering hole. Yummy! You want to eat enough food to sustain your whole population size (1 piece of food per population). If not, your population size will decrease, meaning your species is dying. If you are unable to sustain the last remaining member of your species, that species will become extinct for eternity. Sad face. But don’t worry. You’ll get a new species for free at the beginning of your next turn. Once everyone is fed and happy, the round is over and you start a new round. The winner of the game goes to whoever has eaten the most food because, just like in real life, the success of your population is based on its ability to sustain itself, which, in this case, means eating the proper amount of food.
It SOUNDS simple, but I haven’t told you about all the curveballs yet. As stated before, you may choose to make your species a carnivore, which means that you will no longer take plant food from the watering hole. In order to eat, you have to attack another species! You can only attack other species who have smaller body sizes than you (I told you body size would be important. It’s your first means of defense against predators!). But some of those smaller species might have evolved some defensive traits, like a hard shell or the ability to burrow underground or to climb trees and taunt their predators from on high. This is the beauty of the game. How well can you evolve your herbivore creature in order to keep it well-fed and also free from predators? If you’re a carnivore, how well can you adapt to your surroundings and your ever-evolving prey before you can no longer feed on them? (I should also mention that you may find yourself in the truly depressing situation where all of your opponents have out-evolved your carnivores and the only other option left to feed them is to attack one of YOUR other species. The rules clearly state that every species MUST feed if able to, so you may have to sacrifice your other friends. VERY sad face.)
Components: Evolution comes in a standard cardboard box containing lots of high-quality trait cards, plant and meat food tokens and a large watering hole token (on which you put the plant food tokens). It also comes with cardboard food screens so you can conceal how much food your little (or maybe not so little) critters have eaten. You’ll get a stack of thick, double-sided species boards for you to keep track of your body size and population. I love that they’re double-sided because it gives you the flexibility to change their orientation (portrait or landscape) to save on table space. Body size and population are tracked using little brown and green cubes, which fit nicely in little holes on your species board. And to top it all off, the first player token is a a very large dinosaur-shaped meeple. Adorbs. The cards do tell you how to use them, but the rulebook has extra clarification for each card in case you need it. The cards are even color-coded so you’ll know if the trait is used for defense or eating, or maybe only usable by carnivores. Everything is very top-notch quality and the artwork is quite beautiful, creating new creatures and using bright, vivid colors. The artwork alone drew me to the box in the first place.
I really love this game. The theme is very on-brand for me, but I also really like that it’ll take a bit of luck (by hopefully drawing usable cards) and a ton of strategy to try to outwit your opponents. It’ll never be played the same way twice. Evolution is so spot-on, in fact, that it’s actually been used in the evolutionary biology department of the University of Oxford, so come on. It’s fun AND educational. I’ve also downloaded and quickly become obsessed with the mobile version, which is available on Google Play, in the App Store and on Steam. As of this writing, there are two expansions available: Flight and Climate, but there’s also a Climate stand-alone game, and an Evolution: The Beginning game, which is suitable for our younger friends. I own the Flight expansion but have yet to play it and I can’t wait to change that! Give this game a go. You’ll be happy you did. In the words of esteemed Dr. Ian Malcolm, “Life, uh, finds a way.” Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a (r)evolutionary 13 / 18.
Disclaimer: There are several expansions to this game, but we are not reviewing them at this time. Should we review them in the future we will either update this review or post a link to the new material here. Furthermore, I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, 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 from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. – B
You start the game in control of one species of animal. One non-descript, traitless species that you will slowly (or maybe quickly) build up to be something bigger and better. You evolve it. (Huh.) You’ll start each round by contributing plant food to the watering hole. Each card in your hand is worth a certain amount of plant food. Once that food is in the watering hole, it’s fair game for anyone to eat. Depending on your strategy, you may want a lot of food in that watering hole, or you may want to starve your opponents out (some cards are even worth negative food!). Once all the food is in the watering hole, it’s time to evolve your critters. The cards in your hand have unique traits on them. To imbue your species with that trait, simply place the card next to your species’ gameboard and voila! You now have horns, or intelligence, or the ability to forage, or many other possibilities. You may also take this opportunity to evolve your creature into a carnivore (more on that later). At this point in the game, you may also discard cards in order to increase the population of your species, or to increase the body size of your cute little guys. This will be important later. You can also discard a card to create a whole new species. There’s no limit to how many species you can have, but there is a limit to the available food, so be wise with the number of species you create.
After everyone has evolved, it’s time to feed! You’ll take turns taking plant food from the watering hole. Yummy! You want to eat enough food to sustain your whole population size (1 piece of food per population). If not, your population size will decrease, meaning your species is dying. If you are unable to sustain the last remaining member of your species, that species will become extinct for eternity. Sad face. But don’t worry. You’ll get a new species for free at the beginning of your next turn. Once everyone is fed and happy, the round is over and you start a new round. The winner of the game goes to whoever has eaten the most food because, just like in real life, the success of your population is based on its ability to sustain itself, which, in this case, means eating the proper amount of food.
It SOUNDS simple, but I haven’t told you about all the curveballs yet. As stated before, you may choose to make your species a carnivore, which means that you will no longer take plant food from the watering hole. In order to eat, you have to attack another species! You can only attack other species who have smaller body sizes than you (I told you body size would be important. It’s your first means of defense against predators!). But some of those smaller species might have evolved some defensive traits, like a hard shell or the ability to burrow underground or to climb trees and taunt their predators from on high. This is the beauty of the game. How well can you evolve your herbivore creature in order to keep it well-fed and also free from predators? If you’re a carnivore, how well can you adapt to your surroundings and your ever-evolving prey before you can no longer feed on them? (I should also mention that you may find yourself in the truly depressing situation where all of your opponents have out-evolved your carnivores and the only other option left to feed them is to attack one of YOUR other species. The rules clearly state that every species MUST feed if able to, so you may have to sacrifice your other friends. VERY sad face.)
Components: Evolution comes in a standard cardboard box containing lots of high-quality trait cards, plant and meat food tokens and a large watering hole token (on which you put the plant food tokens). It also comes with cardboard food screens so you can conceal how much food your little (or maybe not so little) critters have eaten. You’ll get a stack of thick, double-sided species boards for you to keep track of your body size and population. I love that they’re double-sided because it gives you the flexibility to change their orientation (portrait or landscape) to save on table space. Body size and population are tracked using little brown and green cubes, which fit nicely in little holes on your species board. And to top it all off, the first player token is a a very large dinosaur-shaped meeple. Adorbs. The cards do tell you how to use them, but the rulebook has extra clarification for each card in case you need it. The cards are even color-coded so you’ll know if the trait is used for defense or eating, or maybe only usable by carnivores. Everything is very top-notch quality and the artwork is quite beautiful, creating new creatures and using bright, vivid colors. The artwork alone drew me to the box in the first place.
I really love this game. The theme is very on-brand for me, but I also really like that it’ll take a bit of luck (by hopefully drawing usable cards) and a ton of strategy to try to outwit your opponents. It’ll never be played the same way twice. Evolution is so spot-on, in fact, that it’s actually been used in the evolutionary biology department of the University of Oxford, so come on. It’s fun AND educational. I’ve also downloaded and quickly become obsessed with the mobile version, which is available on Google Play, in the App Store and on Steam. As of this writing, there are two expansions available: Flight and Climate, but there’s also a Climate stand-alone game, and an Evolution: The Beginning game, which is suitable for our younger friends. I own the Flight expansion but have yet to play it and I can’t wait to change that! Give this game a go. You’ll be happy you did. In the words of esteemed Dr. Ian Malcolm, “Life, uh, finds a way.” Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a (r)evolutionary 13 / 18.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Kingdom (2019) in Movies
Aug 12, 2019
Action sequences. (2 more)
The Mountain Tribe.
Zuo Ci.
134-minute duration feels like a marathon. (1 more)
Drags a lot in its first half.
I haven’t read any of the 55 volumes (and counting) of Yasuhisa Hara’s Kingdom manga or watched any of the 77 episodes of the anime adapted by animation studio Pierrot (Bleach, Yu Yu Hakusho, and Tokyo Ghoul among many others). To make matters worse, I haven’t seen any of the films by director and co-screenwriter Shinsuke Sato (the two live-action Gantz films, Death Note: Light Up the New World, the live-action Bleach film for Netflix). I’m going into Kingdom completely blind and I have no idea if that makes the viewing experience any better or worse.
In 255 B.C., Kingdom revolves around the quick-tempered and charge-headfirst-into-battle-without-thinking Xin (Kento Yamazaki) that dreams of being the greatest general of the Qin Kingdom. There’s other stuff going on; a bloody 500 year war between the seven states of China, Xin’s best friend Piao (Ryô Yoshizawa) being enlisted by the King only to turn around and be killed, and King Yin Zheng being a splitting image of Piao, but nothing is emphasized or screamed louder than Xin’s desire to become the greatest general China has ever known.
Kingdom feels like it’s about 45 minutes too long for its own good. The first hour seems to drag as blood spraying into the air every now and then isn’t enough to keep you fully intrigued. The manga is an exaggerated recounting of Zheng actually becoming king in 221 B.C. during the Warring States period and eventually unifying China while the characters are loosely based on actual historical figures. The action adventure film attempts to portray Xin and Piao as worthy and capable swordsman because they clunked stick swords together 10,000 times in an empty field throughout their childhood and teenage years.
The film tries to compensate for its slow first hour with a more eventful second half, but it doesn’t totally succeed. Yang Duan He (Masami Nagasawa) and her mountain tribe are pretty awesome. Their masks remind you of something straight out of Princess Mononoke and you’ll be trying your hardest not to compare Yang Duan He to Xena: Warrior Princess. There’s this competition for the throne that gets a little complicated. Zheng’s brother Cheng Jiao (Kanata Hongo) is nasty and heartless and basically a human version of Salacious Crumb sitting on an even more elaborate version of Jabba the Hutt’s dais. Zheng and Jiao have the same father, but different mothers; Jiao’s is of royal blood and Zheng’s is a dancer or, in other words, a commoner. Jiao viewed peasantry as being bone deep; it isn’t something that can ever go away.
The main theme of Kingdom sounds like a direct ripoff of the main Guardians of the Galaxy theme, which is kind of brain-numbing. The prosthetics in the film are questionable with Li Dian, the original slave owner of Xin and Piao, having this awkwardly orange colored face, inhumanly puffy cheeks, stringy facial hair, and the ugliest facial expressions imaginable. After Xin joins up with Zheng, a girl in a bushy owl costume named He Liao Diao (Kanna Hasimoto) is mostly only around to take everyone to the mountains later. The chemistry Xin, Zheng, and Diao have is reminiscent of what Mugen, Jin, and Foo have in Samurai Champloo. Another observation is that Xin is basically Goku with Vegeta’s short-fuse temper; he lives to fight and eat, he’s dumber than a bag of rocks, and he can’t identify a woman when she’s standing directly in front of him.
Cheng Jiao’s go-to henchman, former general and current hitman for hire Zuo Ci (Tak Sakaguchi) may be the film’s coolest character. He doesn’t care about anybody, tells Xin that all dreams are BS, and is a part of what is arguably the best action sequence in the film. Meanwhile, General Wang Yi (Takao Ohsawa), the most renowned general in all of China and the guy with the status Xin plans on taking in the future, is a bit overrated. He mostly just parades his weird and pointy facial hair around and swings his giant sword as if it won’t remind us of Guts from Berserk.
All in all, Kingdom is a decent action adventure that just takes a while to really get going. The performances aren’t totally satisfying with Kento Yamazaki hamming it up on more than occasion and taking the brainless dolt with a huge mouth thing to uncomfortable levels. The story isn’t exactly hard to follow, but it does feel like it’s trying to be more convoluted than it needs to be. You don’t feel any sort of attachment to any of the characters and any sort of twist can be seen long before the reveal. Kingdom is just an okay way to spend two hours that is probably a justifiable rental on a day when you have nothing better to do, but is not worth paying full price to own.
In 255 B.C., Kingdom revolves around the quick-tempered and charge-headfirst-into-battle-without-thinking Xin (Kento Yamazaki) that dreams of being the greatest general of the Qin Kingdom. There’s other stuff going on; a bloody 500 year war between the seven states of China, Xin’s best friend Piao (Ryô Yoshizawa) being enlisted by the King only to turn around and be killed, and King Yin Zheng being a splitting image of Piao, but nothing is emphasized or screamed louder than Xin’s desire to become the greatest general China has ever known.
Kingdom feels like it’s about 45 minutes too long for its own good. The first hour seems to drag as blood spraying into the air every now and then isn’t enough to keep you fully intrigued. The manga is an exaggerated recounting of Zheng actually becoming king in 221 B.C. during the Warring States period and eventually unifying China while the characters are loosely based on actual historical figures. The action adventure film attempts to portray Xin and Piao as worthy and capable swordsman because they clunked stick swords together 10,000 times in an empty field throughout their childhood and teenage years.
The film tries to compensate for its slow first hour with a more eventful second half, but it doesn’t totally succeed. Yang Duan He (Masami Nagasawa) and her mountain tribe are pretty awesome. Their masks remind you of something straight out of Princess Mononoke and you’ll be trying your hardest not to compare Yang Duan He to Xena: Warrior Princess. There’s this competition for the throne that gets a little complicated. Zheng’s brother Cheng Jiao (Kanata Hongo) is nasty and heartless and basically a human version of Salacious Crumb sitting on an even more elaborate version of Jabba the Hutt’s dais. Zheng and Jiao have the same father, but different mothers; Jiao’s is of royal blood and Zheng’s is a dancer or, in other words, a commoner. Jiao viewed peasantry as being bone deep; it isn’t something that can ever go away.
The main theme of Kingdom sounds like a direct ripoff of the main Guardians of the Galaxy theme, which is kind of brain-numbing. The prosthetics in the film are questionable with Li Dian, the original slave owner of Xin and Piao, having this awkwardly orange colored face, inhumanly puffy cheeks, stringy facial hair, and the ugliest facial expressions imaginable. After Xin joins up with Zheng, a girl in a bushy owl costume named He Liao Diao (Kanna Hasimoto) is mostly only around to take everyone to the mountains later. The chemistry Xin, Zheng, and Diao have is reminiscent of what Mugen, Jin, and Foo have in Samurai Champloo. Another observation is that Xin is basically Goku with Vegeta’s short-fuse temper; he lives to fight and eat, he’s dumber than a bag of rocks, and he can’t identify a woman when she’s standing directly in front of him.
Cheng Jiao’s go-to henchman, former general and current hitman for hire Zuo Ci (Tak Sakaguchi) may be the film’s coolest character. He doesn’t care about anybody, tells Xin that all dreams are BS, and is a part of what is arguably the best action sequence in the film. Meanwhile, General Wang Yi (Takao Ohsawa), the most renowned general in all of China and the guy with the status Xin plans on taking in the future, is a bit overrated. He mostly just parades his weird and pointy facial hair around and swings his giant sword as if it won’t remind us of Guts from Berserk.
All in all, Kingdom is a decent action adventure that just takes a while to really get going. The performances aren’t totally satisfying with Kento Yamazaki hamming it up on more than occasion and taking the brainless dolt with a huge mouth thing to uncomfortable levels. The story isn’t exactly hard to follow, but it does feel like it’s trying to be more convoluted than it needs to be. You don’t feel any sort of attachment to any of the characters and any sort of twist can be seen long before the reveal. Kingdom is just an okay way to spend two hours that is probably a justifiable rental on a day when you have nothing better to do, but is not worth paying full price to own.
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated A Little Princess in Books
Nov 7, 2019
A little Princess was published in full by Charles Scribner's sons in September of 1905 after being a serialisation in St. Nicholas Magazine in 1887 and being a novella in 1888. The book was named one of the Teachers top books for children in 2007 and in 2012 was ranked 56th in the School Library Journal survey. The story follows Sara Crewe a wealthy heiress being sent off to boarding school in England. Despite being wealthy Sara isn't snobbish and rude but polite, clever and generous befriending several other students and the scullery maid Becky. Sara goes from privilege to a pauper after her fathers scheme with is friend over a diamond mine supposedly fails. After spending a few years working hard at the school she once attended Sara is found by her fathers friend and returned to privilege after finding out the diamond mines actually worked.
There are six film adaptions having been released in 1917, 1939, two in 1995 (One version being Filipino) with the most recent being a Russian film released in 1997. the most well known being the 1995 version being directed by Alfonso Cuaron. There have been seven TV shows based on A Little Princess with the 1973 and 1986 (Maureen Lipton was Miss Minchin) versions being particularly faithful to the books, the 1985, 2006 and 2009 versions were various Japanese anime and another Filipino remake happened in 2007. an episode of Veggietales in 2012 was another version of A little Princess. From 2002 to 2014 there have been several musical adaptions of a little princess as well.
Francis Eliza Hodgson Burnett was born in England on the 24th November 1849 in Cheetham, Manchester, England. When her father died in 1852 her family fell on hard times and Francis was looked after by her grandmother who fuelled her love of reading whilst her mother dealt with the family finances. The family eventually emigrated to the states in 1865 but remained somewhat poor thanks to the end of the American Civil war. Francis started writing in fever trying to help her family get out of the financial hole they were in and did so with her first story being published in the Godey's Lady's book in 1868 eventually being published regularly in its pages alongside Scribner's Monthly, Peterson's Magazine and Harper's Bazaar.
In 1872 Francis agreed to and married family friend Swan Burnett. She continued to write which supported them as they moved to Paris to allow Swan to train as an eye and ear doctor. Francis economised by making clothes for both their sons and for herself. The family returned to the US a few years later where swan managed to set up a doctoring business despite being in debt. For several years afterwards Francis wrote several short stories which were continuously published, Francis eventually turned to children's novels after a meeting with Mary Mapes Dodge the editor of children's magazine St Nicholas. In 1884 Francis set to work on Little Lord Fauntleroy which was serialised in 1885 and published in book form in 1886.
In 1887 Francis returned to England for Queen Victoria's golden jubilee which triggered yearly transatlantic trips between the US and England with her sons. She had fallen ill during this time and had spent time confined to bed, she did however managed to write both The Fortunes of Phillipa Fairfax (only published in the UK) and Sara Crewe or what happened at Miss Minchin's which was rewritten as A Little Princess. In December 1890 Francis and Swans eldest son Lionel died of consumption which spurred his mother into a depression and turn away form the Protestant faith and embrace spiritualism.
In 1898 After their youngest son Vivian finished school, Francis and Swan had divorced (though they had begun to drift apart and were living separate lives several years earlier) and two years later Francis had moved back to England and lived at Great Maytham Hall and married Stephan Townsend, which proved to be a terrible marriage and it ended in 1902. In 1907 Francis returned to the states and spent the next seventeen years in Plandome manor writing several more stories and editing for the Children's Magazine upon the insistence of her Son Vivian. Francis died on October 29th 1924 at the age of 72, she's buried in Roslyn Cemetery and her son Vivian is burred nearby having died in 1937.
I knew of the book as a child but didn't read it until I was a teenager, by then I did know of and had seen the 1995 movie directed by Alfonso Cuaron. The books theme of rising above and succeeding in the face of terrible times is a good thing to reed about. I definitely recommend the book to children and teenagers alike and I give it 9/10.
There are six film adaptions having been released in 1917, 1939, two in 1995 (One version being Filipino) with the most recent being a Russian film released in 1997. the most well known being the 1995 version being directed by Alfonso Cuaron. There have been seven TV shows based on A Little Princess with the 1973 and 1986 (Maureen Lipton was Miss Minchin) versions being particularly faithful to the books, the 1985, 2006 and 2009 versions were various Japanese anime and another Filipino remake happened in 2007. an episode of Veggietales in 2012 was another version of A little Princess. From 2002 to 2014 there have been several musical adaptions of a little princess as well.
Francis Eliza Hodgson Burnett was born in England on the 24th November 1849 in Cheetham, Manchester, England. When her father died in 1852 her family fell on hard times and Francis was looked after by her grandmother who fuelled her love of reading whilst her mother dealt with the family finances. The family eventually emigrated to the states in 1865 but remained somewhat poor thanks to the end of the American Civil war. Francis started writing in fever trying to help her family get out of the financial hole they were in and did so with her first story being published in the Godey's Lady's book in 1868 eventually being published regularly in its pages alongside Scribner's Monthly, Peterson's Magazine and Harper's Bazaar.
In 1872 Francis agreed to and married family friend Swan Burnett. She continued to write which supported them as they moved to Paris to allow Swan to train as an eye and ear doctor. Francis economised by making clothes for both their sons and for herself. The family returned to the US a few years later where swan managed to set up a doctoring business despite being in debt. For several years afterwards Francis wrote several short stories which were continuously published, Francis eventually turned to children's novels after a meeting with Mary Mapes Dodge the editor of children's magazine St Nicholas. In 1884 Francis set to work on Little Lord Fauntleroy which was serialised in 1885 and published in book form in 1886.
In 1887 Francis returned to England for Queen Victoria's golden jubilee which triggered yearly transatlantic trips between the US and England with her sons. She had fallen ill during this time and had spent time confined to bed, she did however managed to write both The Fortunes of Phillipa Fairfax (only published in the UK) and Sara Crewe or what happened at Miss Minchin's which was rewritten as A Little Princess. In December 1890 Francis and Swans eldest son Lionel died of consumption which spurred his mother into a depression and turn away form the Protestant faith and embrace spiritualism.
In 1898 After their youngest son Vivian finished school, Francis and Swan had divorced (though they had begun to drift apart and were living separate lives several years earlier) and two years later Francis had moved back to England and lived at Great Maytham Hall and married Stephan Townsend, which proved to be a terrible marriage and it ended in 1902. In 1907 Francis returned to the states and spent the next seventeen years in Plandome manor writing several more stories and editing for the Children's Magazine upon the insistence of her Son Vivian. Francis died on October 29th 1924 at the age of 72, she's buried in Roslyn Cemetery and her son Vivian is burred nearby having died in 1937.
I knew of the book as a child but didn't read it until I was a teenager, by then I did know of and had seen the 1995 movie directed by Alfonso Cuaron. The books theme of rising above and succeeding in the face of terrible times is a good thing to reed about. I definitely recommend the book to children and teenagers alike and I give it 9/10.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated The Kitchen (2019) in Movies
Aug 24, 2019
Married into a life with the mob, three women living in Hell’s Kitchen, New York City in the late ‘70s find themselves trapped in their husband’s shadows in Andrea Berloff’s debut film, The Kitchen. Based on a 2014 DC Comics graphic novel by the same name, the film focuses on these three female friends facing the aftermath of their husband’s botched crime and subsequent imprisonment. Their Italian crime family promised to take care of them while their spouses are locked away, but their measly support simply isn’t enough when they’ve got mouths to feed and bills to pay. Tired of being weak and dependent, the ladies band together to take control of their situation by trying to take over the mob.
The Kitchen stars actresses Melissa McCarthy, Tiffany Haddish, and Elisabeth Moss as the female trio who work to rise to the top of their crime family by carrying the dead weight of the lazy men who lead it. McCarthy plays Kathy Brennan, a housewife and mother of two, whose seemingly good-natured husband is clearly involved in the wrong crowd. In spite of that, she appears to have a pleasant life at home, but her heavy reliance on her husband puts her in peril once he’s locked away. On the other hand, Haddish and Moss play Ruby and Claire, who are both victimized and disrespected by their husbands, with Claire even being regularly abused. These characteristics help to define the women and their actions as they attempt to upend the male-dominated establishment.
However, despite The Kitchen’s strong set-up, the characters themselves don’t show much depth beyond this, and the film’s performances leave a lot to be desired. McCarthy felt like she was acting in an entirely different movie. I’ve never seen a more passive and unconvincing crime boss. She’s struggling with a balancing act that sees her going between being tough, funny, ruthless, submissive, and sweet. By comparison to the rest of the movie, her whole character feels off-key. Then there’s Haddish who gives the worst acting performance I’ve seen in quite some time. I’m not really a fan of her brand of humor, but I didn’t like her dramatic turn here either. She just delivers snarky lines with attitude and death glares before walking off-camera in practically every shot she’s in. It’s almost funny how cheesy and over-the-top it is. You can’t just go mean-mugging your way through a whole major motion picture and expect to be taken seriously.
On a more positive note, Moss was much more impressive as Claire, who is fed up with being beaten down and bullied, and is determined to learn how to defend herself. She partners up with Domhnall Gleeson’s hitman character Gabriel who teaches her how to kill. Their relationship ends up being perhaps the most interesting aspect of the whole movie, and it has something of a Bonnie and Clyde quality to it. I only wish we could have seen it fleshed out a bit more.
For all of its potential, especially in terms of portraying female empowerment, The Kitchen regrettably winds up being a generic, inconsistent, and lethargic affair. I personally love the premise of the film. It’s a bad ass statement to any man who has ever said that a woman’s place is in the kitchen. It sticks up a middle finger to sexism by taking the action to the criminal streets of Hell’s Kitchen where the women rise to power. Unfortunately, despite the kick-ass feminist concept, I found that the film’s attempt at empowerment never really manifests into anything meaningful.
Instead, The Kitchen feels messy and uninspired. There isn’t a single scene in the entire film that I would consider to be good. The story is thin, the suspense is absent, the setting is bland, the tone is confusing, and the characters are mostly uninspired. I hate to even say it, but while watching it, I couldn’t help but be reminded of last year’s train-wreck of a film, Gotti, starring John Travolta. I think both of these films had a lot of promise, but seriously failed to deliver. As someone who loves a good gangster movie, I feel really disappointed.
There’s ultimately very little I liked about The Kitchen. The movie lacks a pulse, and the stakes never feel significant, not even as the body count piles up. The set design shows no strong sense of place or time period. Most of the settings outside seemed to be looking at nondescript sidewalks that could have been filmed anywhere. With the setting of Hell’s Kitchen, I can’t help but immediately think of The Godfather. Similarly, the use of The Rolling Stones in the trailer evokes thoughts of Scorsese and Goodfellas. Unfortunately, this movie clearly doesn’t even come close to comparing to either of those classics. This movie’s plot is weak, the betrayals are obvious, and the ending is uncomfortably idiotic. Despite it all, however, I find myself still interested in The Kitchen’s graphic novel at least, because I can’t imagine it being this bad.
The Kitchen stars actresses Melissa McCarthy, Tiffany Haddish, and Elisabeth Moss as the female trio who work to rise to the top of their crime family by carrying the dead weight of the lazy men who lead it. McCarthy plays Kathy Brennan, a housewife and mother of two, whose seemingly good-natured husband is clearly involved in the wrong crowd. In spite of that, she appears to have a pleasant life at home, but her heavy reliance on her husband puts her in peril once he’s locked away. On the other hand, Haddish and Moss play Ruby and Claire, who are both victimized and disrespected by their husbands, with Claire even being regularly abused. These characteristics help to define the women and their actions as they attempt to upend the male-dominated establishment.
However, despite The Kitchen’s strong set-up, the characters themselves don’t show much depth beyond this, and the film’s performances leave a lot to be desired. McCarthy felt like she was acting in an entirely different movie. I’ve never seen a more passive and unconvincing crime boss. She’s struggling with a balancing act that sees her going between being tough, funny, ruthless, submissive, and sweet. By comparison to the rest of the movie, her whole character feels off-key. Then there’s Haddish who gives the worst acting performance I’ve seen in quite some time. I’m not really a fan of her brand of humor, but I didn’t like her dramatic turn here either. She just delivers snarky lines with attitude and death glares before walking off-camera in practically every shot she’s in. It’s almost funny how cheesy and over-the-top it is. You can’t just go mean-mugging your way through a whole major motion picture and expect to be taken seriously.
On a more positive note, Moss was much more impressive as Claire, who is fed up with being beaten down and bullied, and is determined to learn how to defend herself. She partners up with Domhnall Gleeson’s hitman character Gabriel who teaches her how to kill. Their relationship ends up being perhaps the most interesting aspect of the whole movie, and it has something of a Bonnie and Clyde quality to it. I only wish we could have seen it fleshed out a bit more.
For all of its potential, especially in terms of portraying female empowerment, The Kitchen regrettably winds up being a generic, inconsistent, and lethargic affair. I personally love the premise of the film. It’s a bad ass statement to any man who has ever said that a woman’s place is in the kitchen. It sticks up a middle finger to sexism by taking the action to the criminal streets of Hell’s Kitchen where the women rise to power. Unfortunately, despite the kick-ass feminist concept, I found that the film’s attempt at empowerment never really manifests into anything meaningful.
Instead, The Kitchen feels messy and uninspired. There isn’t a single scene in the entire film that I would consider to be good. The story is thin, the suspense is absent, the setting is bland, the tone is confusing, and the characters are mostly uninspired. I hate to even say it, but while watching it, I couldn’t help but be reminded of last year’s train-wreck of a film, Gotti, starring John Travolta. I think both of these films had a lot of promise, but seriously failed to deliver. As someone who loves a good gangster movie, I feel really disappointed.
There’s ultimately very little I liked about The Kitchen. The movie lacks a pulse, and the stakes never feel significant, not even as the body count piles up. The set design shows no strong sense of place or time period. Most of the settings outside seemed to be looking at nondescript sidewalks that could have been filmed anywhere. With the setting of Hell’s Kitchen, I can’t help but immediately think of The Godfather. Similarly, the use of The Rolling Stones in the trailer evokes thoughts of Scorsese and Goodfellas. Unfortunately, this movie clearly doesn’t even come close to comparing to either of those classics. This movie’s plot is weak, the betrayals are obvious, and the ending is uncomfortably idiotic. Despite it all, however, I find myself still interested in The Kitchen’s graphic novel at least, because I can’t imagine it being this bad.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Good popcorn nonsense.
“Remember who we are. The Shaw family. We never, never, never give up.”
(That title is especially for my friends the Shaw family!).
Well, the patchy British summer’s just about up, and autumn’s chilly fingers are touching up the UK. And yet I still hadn’t seen the summer hit “Hobbs and Shaw”! Until last night.
It’s utter nonsense of course, like most of the “Fast and Furious” films, but I have to admit it’s done with some tongue in cheek style.
The plot
A vicious cyber-soldier, Brixton (Idris Elba) tries to steal a deadly virus but is thwarted by brave MI6 agent Hattie (Vanessa Kirby). To help recover the virus, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is recruited in London by CIA agent Loeb (Rob Delaney, the “non-super” hero Peter in “Deadpool 2“). In an interesting piece of related casting, the Eteon Director (Champ Nightengale – LoL, a cameo for someone far more famous) recruits Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) in LA as a part of the team.
Both agents know they are heading for trouble… but do they really appreciate how much the pair hate each other’s guts?
The trail leads from London to the Ukraine to (a very picturesque) Samoa in a race against time to both defeat the undefeatable Brixton and save Hattie: now a ticking time bomb of global destruction. And Hattie has relations!
Absurd stunts.
As a “Fast and Furious” film there are of course some truly absurd car stunts involved and – unlike the Mission Impossible films – you are never quite sure what is “real” and what is CGI generated. Which is a shame.
For me, the gold standard for chases remains Tom Cruise‘s chase through Paris in “Mission Impossible: Fallout“. Here, the car chase through London – whilst impressive – never quite reaches the seat clenching tension of MI6.
And a final stunt with a helicopter is – I’m sorry – just plain ridiculous. If a chopper can partially lift 5 x load then why can’t it completely lift 1 x load. Give me a break!
To round things off, there is one of the most unbelievable “100% survival of a car crashing off a cliff” scenes in movie history!
Acting
The acting is largely from the Arnie Swartzenegger school, with Johnson and Statham giving it the old shtick. Dwayne Johnson may be one of Hollywood’s most bankable stars (the boy has done REAL good for himself), but he can’t do serious acting. His “pathos” scenes with his daughter (a vibrant Eliana Sua) are excruciating.
Dropping in as class acts are Helen Mirren as the elder Shaw and the excellent Vanessa Kirby as Hattie. Kirby gets a lot more to get her teeth into than in the last Mission Impossible movie, and is really very good. Mirren is rather too posh to be the incarcerated East End con, but is a fun turn nevertheless.
Also excellent, as always, is Eddie Marsan as the key scientist. Marsan really turns in a splendid performance in every film he’s in. He’s top of “Division 2” in my books. Never the star, but always starring.
Mexican actress Eiza González (from “Baby Driver“) also crops up as an unfeasibly good-looking Russian femme fatale.
“I hate you”. “No, I hate you”. Blah, blah, blah.
Writers Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce do a good job at keeping the script light and fluffy. The animosity between Hobbs and Shaw is played to 110%, and for me the interplay frankly became a bit tiresome. But it’s a fun-enough film to entertain, although it’s bladder-testing running time of 2 hours 17 minutes is at least 30 minutes too long. There is a natural Ukraine-based finale, but it’s not taken, and the film goes on… and on… and on…. and on. Enough already.
I’ve said many times before that comedies shouldn’t last more than 90 minutes, and although an “action film” this is fundamentally a comedy and the rule should apply. It would have been a much better film if it was compacted.
Sexism diverted.
I did criticize “Fast and Furious 8” for scenes that brazenly objectified women. And there was a moment – just one, fortunately – with a gyrating bikini-clad beauty – where I thought “uh, oh” – this franchise has not moved with the times.
But actually, this was the only scene where I thought that. Cinema has moved along massively in the last two years, driven by the “Times Up” movement. Here the women are all given pretty leading “kick-ass” roles, and they generally show the muscle-bound morons up, often saving their arses.
Final Thoughts.
It’s summer popcorn nonsense, but its well done popcorn nonsense. Probably not a film high on my list of films I want to see again, but as an entertainment vehicle it was not too shabby.
(That title is especially for my friends the Shaw family!).
Well, the patchy British summer’s just about up, and autumn’s chilly fingers are touching up the UK. And yet I still hadn’t seen the summer hit “Hobbs and Shaw”! Until last night.
It’s utter nonsense of course, like most of the “Fast and Furious” films, but I have to admit it’s done with some tongue in cheek style.
The plot
A vicious cyber-soldier, Brixton (Idris Elba) tries to steal a deadly virus but is thwarted by brave MI6 agent Hattie (Vanessa Kirby). To help recover the virus, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is recruited in London by CIA agent Loeb (Rob Delaney, the “non-super” hero Peter in “Deadpool 2“). In an interesting piece of related casting, the Eteon Director (Champ Nightengale – LoL, a cameo for someone far more famous) recruits Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) in LA as a part of the team.
Both agents know they are heading for trouble… but do they really appreciate how much the pair hate each other’s guts?
The trail leads from London to the Ukraine to (a very picturesque) Samoa in a race against time to both defeat the undefeatable Brixton and save Hattie: now a ticking time bomb of global destruction. And Hattie has relations!
Absurd stunts.
As a “Fast and Furious” film there are of course some truly absurd car stunts involved and – unlike the Mission Impossible films – you are never quite sure what is “real” and what is CGI generated. Which is a shame.
For me, the gold standard for chases remains Tom Cruise‘s chase through Paris in “Mission Impossible: Fallout“. Here, the car chase through London – whilst impressive – never quite reaches the seat clenching tension of MI6.
And a final stunt with a helicopter is – I’m sorry – just plain ridiculous. If a chopper can partially lift 5 x load then why can’t it completely lift 1 x load. Give me a break!
To round things off, there is one of the most unbelievable “100% survival of a car crashing off a cliff” scenes in movie history!
Acting
The acting is largely from the Arnie Swartzenegger school, with Johnson and Statham giving it the old shtick. Dwayne Johnson may be one of Hollywood’s most bankable stars (the boy has done REAL good for himself), but he can’t do serious acting. His “pathos” scenes with his daughter (a vibrant Eliana Sua) are excruciating.
Dropping in as class acts are Helen Mirren as the elder Shaw and the excellent Vanessa Kirby as Hattie. Kirby gets a lot more to get her teeth into than in the last Mission Impossible movie, and is really very good. Mirren is rather too posh to be the incarcerated East End con, but is a fun turn nevertheless.
Also excellent, as always, is Eddie Marsan as the key scientist. Marsan really turns in a splendid performance in every film he’s in. He’s top of “Division 2” in my books. Never the star, but always starring.
Mexican actress Eiza González (from “Baby Driver“) also crops up as an unfeasibly good-looking Russian femme fatale.
“I hate you”. “No, I hate you”. Blah, blah, blah.
Writers Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce do a good job at keeping the script light and fluffy. The animosity between Hobbs and Shaw is played to 110%, and for me the interplay frankly became a bit tiresome. But it’s a fun-enough film to entertain, although it’s bladder-testing running time of 2 hours 17 minutes is at least 30 minutes too long. There is a natural Ukraine-based finale, but it’s not taken, and the film goes on… and on… and on…. and on. Enough already.
I’ve said many times before that comedies shouldn’t last more than 90 minutes, and although an “action film” this is fundamentally a comedy and the rule should apply. It would have been a much better film if it was compacted.
Sexism diverted.
I did criticize “Fast and Furious 8” for scenes that brazenly objectified women. And there was a moment – just one, fortunately – with a gyrating bikini-clad beauty – where I thought “uh, oh” – this franchise has not moved with the times.
But actually, this was the only scene where I thought that. Cinema has moved along massively in the last two years, driven by the “Times Up” movement. Here the women are all given pretty leading “kick-ass” roles, and they generally show the muscle-bound morons up, often saving their arses.
Final Thoughts.
It’s summer popcorn nonsense, but its well done popcorn nonsense. Probably not a film high on my list of films I want to see again, but as an entertainment vehicle it was not too shabby.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Fawkes in Books
Jul 9, 2018
When history meets magic...
Fawkes by Nadine Brandes is one of those books that draws you into a world, enlightens you with its magic, and then sends you back to reality, so you can enlighten others while you glow!
Nadine used the history of Guy Fawkes and the failed attempt to blow the parliament as a base to her story, that follows Guy Fawkes’s son, Thomas, into an incredible magical journey.
‘’A foundation of truth represents what life was intended to be.’’
Thomas is about to get his mask, that is supposed to make him control one colour. He also happens to be affected with the plague, that turns his face into stone. His family are all Keepers, and he, by default is a keeper too. But things are never that simple. What will happen when he might not get his mask, and the plague is about to kill him?
We follow the journey of Thomas through a first - person perspective. He feels incomplete when he has the plague, and all his life he is waiting to get his mask, and to be able to control a colour. Any colour, even though he prefers Grey.
Only with my mask could I bond with a color.
But on the day when he is about to receive his mask from his dad, he learns that his father is in London, and is not willing to come.
Scared for his life, and angry at his father, he goes into an adventure to find him. His father is Guy Fawkes, a Keeper that is involved in a Gunpowder plot, which will kill the whole parliament, and most importantly, the king of England, who is the cause of the plague!
Thomas joins the plot, knowing that this is the last chance for him to survive the plague! If the king is dead, the plague would be gone. But will it?
I never imagined a single moment of acceptance could reverse a year of bitterness and prejudice.
Through Thomas’s eyes, we see a war between the Keepers and the Igniters. It might be a metaphor for the Catholics and Protestants, but I won’t go into this now. The Keepers were loyal to one color only, and Igniters wanted to control all colors. Igniters used the White Colour as a source to control all power. But White Color doesn’t obey like other colours do - the White Color makes people go crazy for power and glory. Something similar to the ring in Lord of The Rings.
‘’Igniters believe that for each Keeper that dies, one person is cured of the plague’’.
We see Thomas caught between two sides - the keepers want to be free of oppression, and the Igniters want to be free to use color speech as they wanted. On such a crossroad, Thomas wants to find the truth for himself. But there is no time, and not many people that he can trust.
‘’You’ve given me your truth. I have to find it for myself for it to become mine. And curiosity is the first step’’.
On his journey, his relationship with Emma becomes stronger. She is an Igniter, and they share different beliefs, and she also knows he has the plague. But she is still around, and she accepts his as he is. And Thomas, taught to always hide his face, because otherwise he would be killed by the Igniters, is able to relax around Emma. This will teach him to accept Emma as she is, once she tells him her secret.
I loved the character of Emma. She is a strong person, but unable to show her true self due to the fact that she is not like the others, that she is not the same. In this book it is also shown quite well how women were underestimated in the 17th century. How they were thought to be unworthy. The only bit I didn’t like about Emma is that, even though such strong character, she would have never fought for herself if Thomas wasn’t there to ‘’save’’ her.
This book is a lovely story about Thomas, and how he finds his true self, how he is not afraid to stand up for the things he believes in, how he learns that he shouldn't be hiding his true self anymore and embrace his fears, as they might turn out to be the best things that ever happened in his life.
‘’Take a breath, Thomas. There has always been fear. There will always be fear. It’s up to us to stand tall, even when the fear demands we bow to it.’’
So yes, my lovely readers, I loved this book so much! I loved the magical moments, I loved how it turned out to be an amazing plot, based on real history events. I loved Thomas’s character, and I loved Emma. I loved Guy Fawkes as well, especially in the end of the book.
If you happen to love these types of books, please get your copy as soon as you can. You won’t regret it at all!
I have received a complimentary copy of this book from Thomas Nelson through NetGalley. Opinions expressed in this review are completely my own.
Nadine used the history of Guy Fawkes and the failed attempt to blow the parliament as a base to her story, that follows Guy Fawkes’s son, Thomas, into an incredible magical journey.
‘’A foundation of truth represents what life was intended to be.’’
Thomas is about to get his mask, that is supposed to make him control one colour. He also happens to be affected with the plague, that turns his face into stone. His family are all Keepers, and he, by default is a keeper too. But things are never that simple. What will happen when he might not get his mask, and the plague is about to kill him?
We follow the journey of Thomas through a first - person perspective. He feels incomplete when he has the plague, and all his life he is waiting to get his mask, and to be able to control a colour. Any colour, even though he prefers Grey.
Only with my mask could I bond with a color.
But on the day when he is about to receive his mask from his dad, he learns that his father is in London, and is not willing to come.
Scared for his life, and angry at his father, he goes into an adventure to find him. His father is Guy Fawkes, a Keeper that is involved in a Gunpowder plot, which will kill the whole parliament, and most importantly, the king of England, who is the cause of the plague!
Thomas joins the plot, knowing that this is the last chance for him to survive the plague! If the king is dead, the plague would be gone. But will it?
I never imagined a single moment of acceptance could reverse a year of bitterness and prejudice.
Through Thomas’s eyes, we see a war between the Keepers and the Igniters. It might be a metaphor for the Catholics and Protestants, but I won’t go into this now. The Keepers were loyal to one color only, and Igniters wanted to control all colors. Igniters used the White Colour as a source to control all power. But White Color doesn’t obey like other colours do - the White Color makes people go crazy for power and glory. Something similar to the ring in Lord of The Rings.
‘’Igniters believe that for each Keeper that dies, one person is cured of the plague’’.
We see Thomas caught between two sides - the keepers want to be free of oppression, and the Igniters want to be free to use color speech as they wanted. On such a crossroad, Thomas wants to find the truth for himself. But there is no time, and not many people that he can trust.
‘’You’ve given me your truth. I have to find it for myself for it to become mine. And curiosity is the first step’’.
On his journey, his relationship with Emma becomes stronger. She is an Igniter, and they share different beliefs, and she also knows he has the plague. But she is still around, and she accepts his as he is. And Thomas, taught to always hide his face, because otherwise he would be killed by the Igniters, is able to relax around Emma. This will teach him to accept Emma as she is, once she tells him her secret.
I loved the character of Emma. She is a strong person, but unable to show her true self due to the fact that she is not like the others, that she is not the same. In this book it is also shown quite well how women were underestimated in the 17th century. How they were thought to be unworthy. The only bit I didn’t like about Emma is that, even though such strong character, she would have never fought for herself if Thomas wasn’t there to ‘’save’’ her.
This book is a lovely story about Thomas, and how he finds his true self, how he is not afraid to stand up for the things he believes in, how he learns that he shouldn't be hiding his true self anymore and embrace his fears, as they might turn out to be the best things that ever happened in his life.
‘’Take a breath, Thomas. There has always been fear. There will always be fear. It’s up to us to stand tall, even when the fear demands we bow to it.’’
So yes, my lovely readers, I loved this book so much! I loved the magical moments, I loved how it turned out to be an amazing plot, based on real history events. I loved Thomas’s character, and I loved Emma. I loved Guy Fawkes as well, especially in the end of the book.
If you happen to love these types of books, please get your copy as soon as you can. You won’t regret it at all!
I have received a complimentary copy of this book from Thomas Nelson through NetGalley. Opinions expressed in this review are completely my own.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Back in 1977 I remember going into the original Cine Capri to see “Star Wars” with some friends. I was very young but little did I know that movie would change my life and put me on the path that I am now. Over the decades that have followed I have read the books and comics, played with the toys, played the video games, and eagerly watched any new film or television show related to the franchise.
The fact that Disney has put out a new film every years since “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” is great for fans like me as those three year waits; to say nothing of the 17+ years between the Original and Prequel Trilogies were tough.
Through it all my favorite character has always been Han Solo. I do not know what it is but the brash, cocky, money loving; scoundrel who gets in and out of trouble yet does the right thing in the end has always connected with me.
So when news came that there would be a new movie based on the early years of the title characters I was excited but concerned as Harrison Ford is so iconic in that role I could not see how anyone could measure up.
Combine that with original Directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller being removed from the film after shooting a significant number of weeks, there was ample concern to go around.
Fortunately for fans, Director Ron Howard has crafted a very enjoyable film as “Han Solo: A Star Wars Story” deftly combines the action, visuals, and humor that made the films cinematic legends and in doing so introduces new characters and expands the lore of the Star Wars Universe.
The film follows a young Han (Alden Ehrenreich), who hustles to survive and get off the world of Corrilia.
Han like many kids on the street pull all sorts of scams under the control of various criminals and he plots to escape with his friend Qi’ra (Emilia Clarke).
When an opportunity arises, Han takes it, but finds himself in the Imperial Navy which does not bode well for a person with strong opinions and a mind of his own.
Fate steps in once again and introduces Han to Chewbacca (Joonas Suotamo), and a mentor figure in the form of a man named Beckett (Woody Harrelson). Han attempts to prove himself to his new crew as he sees this as his way out to a better life. However with things take a turn for the worse, he must work with his new associates to clear the slate with a deadly crime boss named Dry’den Vos (Paul Bettany).
As anyone who follows the series knows Han has a way of escalating a situation and this leads the crew to recruiting Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover), into the crew as they set off to pull off a risky and dangerous mission to get the much needed resources to save their lives.
What follows is a very enjoyable film that has an appropriate amount of humor and character building as well as plenty of good action and effects which should keep fans of the series happy. The new characters were very enjoyable and added a new depth to Han as well as the Star Wars mythos but what really impressed me was that at no time did I find myself comparing Ehrenreich to Harrison Ford. He was charismatic and enjoyable in the role and I easily believed that this was Han before life, the universe, and circumstances turned him into the man we would know years later.
Glover is uncanny with his version of Lando and he at times almost sounded like Billy Dee Williams and had many of the mannerisms of the character down His back and forth with Han was great to see and we got a much deeper understand of both the characters and their complicated history with one another.
Clark and Harrelson round things out well as they provide a great balance to Han. One is a mentor and one is the link to the life he had and the dreams he wants to achieve. Ron Howard moves things along well without rushing things as while it does take a bit of time getting up to speed, it happens at a natural pace without seeming rushed. Howard also does not rely on an abundance of effects to carry the film. There are plenty of practical FX and makeup creations to make you well aware that this is a vast and diverse galaxy but he uses them and the CGI to enhance the story rather than carry it.
There are numerous nods throughout to past films as well both visual and verbal and a few great surprises along the way. It is believed that more adventures of the younger Han will be coming in the future and I cannot wait for them to arrive as this was a very fun film. Now the only hard part will be the 19 month wait for Episode IX as the five month wait from the last film already seems like ages ago and I cannot wait for more.
http://sknr.net/2018/05/15/solo-a-star-wars-story/
The fact that Disney has put out a new film every years since “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” is great for fans like me as those three year waits; to say nothing of the 17+ years between the Original and Prequel Trilogies were tough.
Through it all my favorite character has always been Han Solo. I do not know what it is but the brash, cocky, money loving; scoundrel who gets in and out of trouble yet does the right thing in the end has always connected with me.
So when news came that there would be a new movie based on the early years of the title characters I was excited but concerned as Harrison Ford is so iconic in that role I could not see how anyone could measure up.
Combine that with original Directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller being removed from the film after shooting a significant number of weeks, there was ample concern to go around.
Fortunately for fans, Director Ron Howard has crafted a very enjoyable film as “Han Solo: A Star Wars Story” deftly combines the action, visuals, and humor that made the films cinematic legends and in doing so introduces new characters and expands the lore of the Star Wars Universe.
The film follows a young Han (Alden Ehrenreich), who hustles to survive and get off the world of Corrilia.
Han like many kids on the street pull all sorts of scams under the control of various criminals and he plots to escape with his friend Qi’ra (Emilia Clarke).
When an opportunity arises, Han takes it, but finds himself in the Imperial Navy which does not bode well for a person with strong opinions and a mind of his own.
Fate steps in once again and introduces Han to Chewbacca (Joonas Suotamo), and a mentor figure in the form of a man named Beckett (Woody Harrelson). Han attempts to prove himself to his new crew as he sees this as his way out to a better life. However with things take a turn for the worse, he must work with his new associates to clear the slate with a deadly crime boss named Dry’den Vos (Paul Bettany).
As anyone who follows the series knows Han has a way of escalating a situation and this leads the crew to recruiting Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover), into the crew as they set off to pull off a risky and dangerous mission to get the much needed resources to save their lives.
What follows is a very enjoyable film that has an appropriate amount of humor and character building as well as plenty of good action and effects which should keep fans of the series happy. The new characters were very enjoyable and added a new depth to Han as well as the Star Wars mythos but what really impressed me was that at no time did I find myself comparing Ehrenreich to Harrison Ford. He was charismatic and enjoyable in the role and I easily believed that this was Han before life, the universe, and circumstances turned him into the man we would know years later.
Glover is uncanny with his version of Lando and he at times almost sounded like Billy Dee Williams and had many of the mannerisms of the character down His back and forth with Han was great to see and we got a much deeper understand of both the characters and their complicated history with one another.
Clark and Harrelson round things out well as they provide a great balance to Han. One is a mentor and one is the link to the life he had and the dreams he wants to achieve. Ron Howard moves things along well without rushing things as while it does take a bit of time getting up to speed, it happens at a natural pace without seeming rushed. Howard also does not rely on an abundance of effects to carry the film. There are plenty of practical FX and makeup creations to make you well aware that this is a vast and diverse galaxy but he uses them and the CGI to enhance the story rather than carry it.
There are numerous nods throughout to past films as well both visual and verbal and a few great surprises along the way. It is believed that more adventures of the younger Han will be coming in the future and I cannot wait for them to arrive as this was a very fun film. Now the only hard part will be the 19 month wait for Episode IX as the five month wait from the last film already seems like ages ago and I cannot wait for more.
http://sknr.net/2018/05/15/solo-a-star-wars-story/