Search
Search results
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Munchkin in Tabletop Games
Jan 6, 2020
A “Munchkin,” in gamer terms, is someone who is only out to better themselves with treasure and power at the expense of everyone else in their adventuring party. That rings so very true in the Munchkin line of games, as you are trying to be the first to gain 10th Level in a VERY loosely-based RPG setting. OG vanilla Munchkin (pictured above) was my first entry into hobby board gaming. Many many games later I ask myself: How has this system of games aged for me as my gaming tastes have changed? Let’s see.
In Munchkin games, you are trying to become the first player to reach 10th Level. That’s the goal. You take on the persona of a 1st Level basic human (no Starbucks jokes please) who will be adventuring with a party of your opponents through a dungeon. You will be kicking down doors, fighting monsters, placing curses on your fellow party members, and buffing yourself with cards featuring funny art and punny references. Your party mates are also trying to achieve 10th Level and will do everything they can to block your progress, so be prepared!
DISCLAIMER: This review is not for a specific game within the Munchkin universe, but for the system as a whole. All Munchkin games will pretty much use similar, if not exactly the same, rules to play the game with minor variations and different theming. I will be using The Good, The Bad, and The Munchkin for my review as it is one of the two versions I still own of the franchise. Also, I will not be detailing every rule in the book(s), but giving a brief overview of how the game plays. -T
Setup is easy: shuffle the deck of Door cards and the deck of Treasure cards. Deal cards to the players for their opening hands and keep the included die handy.
Your turn consists of just a few phases: Open a Door, Look for Trouble, Loot the Room, and Charity. To Open a Door, flip over the top card of the Door deck. If it is a monster you must fight it or run. If not a monster, you can move on to the next phase. If it IS a monster, prepare for combat. Combat is simple in that you add up all your bonuses from your gear cards you have attached to your character and try to beat the strength of the monster. Your party mates can screw with you during combat by adding strength to the monster or adding monsters to the fight to make it a more difficult encounter. If you win, you gain a Level on the spot. Some monsters are worth even more than one Level. If you did not encounter a monster, you will add the non-monster card you drew to your hand and you may Look for Trouble by playing a monster card from your hand to initiate a combat. This fight will work the same way and you will be susceptible to pile-ons as before. You may Loot the Room if you defeated a monster on your turn by drawing Treasure cards equal to the printed reward on the bottom of the monster card you defeated. If you defeated the monster yourself, unaided, these are drawn in secret. If you were given help by your mates then you may have to split up the loot per any agreements made. These cards are usually very advantageous to you so they are usually very valuable to others as they attempt to steal away your goods. If you did not fight a monster yet this turn, you may draw another secret card from the Door deck to add to your hand. Should your hand size climb above your limit (dictated by your Race card, if any) you will slide into the Charity phase to relieve your hand of extra cards. Give all excess cards to the player of lowest Level, or split them among those that share the lowest Level. It is now the next player’s turn and you continue play until someone reaches 10th Level.
Components. It’s a bunch of cards and one die. The cards are of okay quality. Nothing to write home about. The die is nice with one of the faces having the Munchkin logo head imprinted on it. It will also have a color scheme that matches the version of Munchkin you are playing, so it’s easy to match them back up if they become integrated with each other. Overall, the components are fine, but not wonderful. That’s probably why these are pretty inexpensive to purchase.
Okay, so like I said earlier the original vanilla Munchkin was the first hobby board game I ever purchased. My friends and family had no idea hobby games existed, so there was actually a pretty steep learning curve for us. Once we figured it out, however, we began to play it a ton and really love it! The cards are cute, the game play is pretty easy if you have played hobby games before, and the puns kept us rolling for a good while. There was a time when I owned every version of Munchkin in circulation and we never even played half of them. Seeing this I got rid of them through BGG Auctions. I have The Good, The Bad, and The Munchkin and Munchkin Zombies right now and I feel that will be plenty for me from here on out – unless they make a Doctor Who or Firefly set or something /*checks warehouse23 to find out if these are available/.
Do I still love Munchkin? No, not really. I LIKE it, but I don’t really want to play it all the time any more. Why? Well, as my gamer experience increases and I level up, my game tastes also level up. I see why people enjoy and even love this game system. I myself loved it for a time. But there are better games out there that accomplish the same feelings without being as sophomoric and have better choices to be made. Will I still play these games? Heck yeah! If someone asks to play a Munchkin game I am all in. I have different tastes and preferences now, but I’m no snob. Just come prepared, because I won’t go easy on you.
We at Purple Phoenix Games give this family of titles a backstabby 16 / 24.
In Munchkin games, you are trying to become the first player to reach 10th Level. That’s the goal. You take on the persona of a 1st Level basic human (no Starbucks jokes please) who will be adventuring with a party of your opponents through a dungeon. You will be kicking down doors, fighting monsters, placing curses on your fellow party members, and buffing yourself with cards featuring funny art and punny references. Your party mates are also trying to achieve 10th Level and will do everything they can to block your progress, so be prepared!
DISCLAIMER: This review is not for a specific game within the Munchkin universe, but for the system as a whole. All Munchkin games will pretty much use similar, if not exactly the same, rules to play the game with minor variations and different theming. I will be using The Good, The Bad, and The Munchkin for my review as it is one of the two versions I still own of the franchise. Also, I will not be detailing every rule in the book(s), but giving a brief overview of how the game plays. -T
Setup is easy: shuffle the deck of Door cards and the deck of Treasure cards. Deal cards to the players for their opening hands and keep the included die handy.
Your turn consists of just a few phases: Open a Door, Look for Trouble, Loot the Room, and Charity. To Open a Door, flip over the top card of the Door deck. If it is a monster you must fight it or run. If not a monster, you can move on to the next phase. If it IS a monster, prepare for combat. Combat is simple in that you add up all your bonuses from your gear cards you have attached to your character and try to beat the strength of the monster. Your party mates can screw with you during combat by adding strength to the monster or adding monsters to the fight to make it a more difficult encounter. If you win, you gain a Level on the spot. Some monsters are worth even more than one Level. If you did not encounter a monster, you will add the non-monster card you drew to your hand and you may Look for Trouble by playing a monster card from your hand to initiate a combat. This fight will work the same way and you will be susceptible to pile-ons as before. You may Loot the Room if you defeated a monster on your turn by drawing Treasure cards equal to the printed reward on the bottom of the monster card you defeated. If you defeated the monster yourself, unaided, these are drawn in secret. If you were given help by your mates then you may have to split up the loot per any agreements made. These cards are usually very advantageous to you so they are usually very valuable to others as they attempt to steal away your goods. If you did not fight a monster yet this turn, you may draw another secret card from the Door deck to add to your hand. Should your hand size climb above your limit (dictated by your Race card, if any) you will slide into the Charity phase to relieve your hand of extra cards. Give all excess cards to the player of lowest Level, or split them among those that share the lowest Level. It is now the next player’s turn and you continue play until someone reaches 10th Level.
Components. It’s a bunch of cards and one die. The cards are of okay quality. Nothing to write home about. The die is nice with one of the faces having the Munchkin logo head imprinted on it. It will also have a color scheme that matches the version of Munchkin you are playing, so it’s easy to match them back up if they become integrated with each other. Overall, the components are fine, but not wonderful. That’s probably why these are pretty inexpensive to purchase.
Okay, so like I said earlier the original vanilla Munchkin was the first hobby board game I ever purchased. My friends and family had no idea hobby games existed, so there was actually a pretty steep learning curve for us. Once we figured it out, however, we began to play it a ton and really love it! The cards are cute, the game play is pretty easy if you have played hobby games before, and the puns kept us rolling for a good while. There was a time when I owned every version of Munchkin in circulation and we never even played half of them. Seeing this I got rid of them through BGG Auctions. I have The Good, The Bad, and The Munchkin and Munchkin Zombies right now and I feel that will be plenty for me from here on out – unless they make a Doctor Who or Firefly set or something /*checks warehouse23 to find out if these are available/.
Do I still love Munchkin? No, not really. I LIKE it, but I don’t really want to play it all the time any more. Why? Well, as my gamer experience increases and I level up, my game tastes also level up. I see why people enjoy and even love this game system. I myself loved it for a time. But there are better games out there that accomplish the same feelings without being as sophomoric and have better choices to be made. Will I still play these games? Heck yeah! If someone asks to play a Munchkin game I am all in. I have different tastes and preferences now, but I’m no snob. Just come prepared, because I won’t go easy on you.
We at Purple Phoenix Games give this family of titles a backstabby 16 / 24.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Ghost of Villa Winter in Books
Mar 12, 2021
A cult (1 more)
Description of environment
All of the characters (1 more)
Amateur writing mistakes
Little does the reader know when they pick up a copy of The Ghost of Villa Winter by Isobel Blackthorn that a cult is lurking about inside the pages.
We begin our journey with Clarissa ,our main character, boarding a tour bus where she lets her personality shine through, which turns out to be extremely judgmental of anyone who isn't like her, or doesn't fit into the categories she places them in. For example, the driver of the tour bus is automatically labeled by Clarissa as a bad man because he has an uneven face and a French accent, and much of the same is said about the other seven passengers, as well. When she finally manages to stop judging the passengers, readers find out that Clarissa is somewhat of a psychic: "Ghosts spoke a language of their own and if a member of the spirit world inhabited the abandoned abode, she was sure to pick up on it. She was never wrong in these matters. Only three of the thirty or more premises she'd investigated on so-called ghost tours had contained a legitimate ghost. She prided herself on her mediumistic prowess. She was apt to pick up on preternatural inhabitants of places said not to be haunted. Sometimes she thought she could singlehandedly re-write history based on information she had gleaned, but that was being arrogant. She followed her dreams and her visions and her intuition, that was all. A natural psychic and a cynic to boot. "
It turns out that Clarissa is on the tour to see if she can encounter any spirits that may be at the infamous Villa Winter; a place that is believed to have been a secret Nazi base, as well as a place for human experiments - - - the tower was also believed to have been used as a lighthouse for German U-boats - - - which, in reality, Villa Winter is an actual place that exists on the Canary Islands in Spain.
The Ghost of Villa Winter is the fourth book in Blackthorn's Canary Islands Mysteries series, but it can be easily read as an introduction to it because you don't need any background information to understand what is going on. The novel takes on the usual tropes of a murder-mystery plot (a body is found, people are stranded and trying to figure out who among them is the murderer). Agatha Christie is one of the best authors of the murder-mystery genre who loved using her knowledge of poisons in her stories - - - Blackthorn treats the tropes with the right amount of respect which makes The Ghost of Villa Winter a pretty good story.
My major complaint for the Ghost of Villa Winter are the characters, which I found every single one quite unlikable, and even by the end, I couldn't bring myself to care at all for Clarissa. The way that she judged everyone so harshly, and her viewpoint that if no one acted the way she wanted them to, she would believe something was wrong with them that needed to be addressed in a rude manner: "He was the most anxious man she had come across in a long time. Anxious, unsure of himself and preoccupied. Far too self-conscious. The way he'd aligned his plate at lunch. That was obsessive-compulsive. And he certainly couldn't handle Fred Spice. She was sure he could be charming with pretty young ladies, patronizing even, but around her he was awkward. It was clear, too, that he was broken. It wouldn't be easy being an author knowing as you aged that all of your success was behind you and your future held nothing but diminishment. Writing was one of those activities you could pursue until you dropped and many successful authors did just that. As irritating as he could be, she felt sorry for him. "
The other characters are all seen from Clarissa's viewpoint, so they come off quite annoying, but at one point it seemed like Blackthorn was trying to redeem Clarissa's negative qualities by making her an advocate for a possibly wrongly convicted man. This story line didn't come off as redemption for me, but rather to fuel Clarissa's need to be important and in the right. Blackthorn failed to make any of the characters grow above pettiness. If a reader doesn't have a character to root for, the story becomes unenjoyable - - - which is the main reason I gave the book such a low rating; the murder-mystery was interesting, but the characters were not.
The murder, a woman who may have been part of a cult, is found inside a nailed-up crate with a tattoo of a number on her body being one of the only clues that puts Clarissa into sleuth-mode. After believing that one of the tourists is the killer, she decides to keep the discovery of the murder between her and Richard - - - a crime author who came to Villa Winter in hopes of a book inspiration. The two slowly begin to investigate their fellow tourists to figure out who had the mind and motive to kill the young woman, but this doesn't seem to be as easy as it is in Richard's books. I did have a problem though with the ending which ends up being very reminiscent of a majority of short stories: the ending came abruptly and the pieces fell into a place that was unbelievable.
I had never read any of Blackthorn's books before, so I didn't have much of an expectation reading the Ghost of Villa Winter. Unfortunately, I came away from this one pretty dissatisfied because all of the interesting points in the story (such as the cult) are rarely shown/explored further. Also, the fact that 'ghost' is in the title, I was pretty let down with only a couple of scenes where a ghost actually shows up, one such short-lived scene: "She [Clarissa] was about to carry on when a figure appeared in one of the uppermost tower windows. Appeared, and then was gone. At least, what she thought to be a figure. Could have been a ghost. " The scenes are so short that I believe 'ghost' shouldn't be in the title because it's misleading.
With quite a few amateur writing mistakes, and unlikable characters, I don't think I will read anymore of the books in this series. I loved the idea of a cult murder and a haunting in a possible Nazi base, but too much of the focus in the story was on Clarissa's judgmental outlook on everything that it ended up not being the story it could have been. I can only recommend this book to people who want a quick murder-mystery (what most call the genre 'cozy mystery'), but for paranormal lovers, the ghosts practically disappeared within a few pages.
We begin our journey with Clarissa ,our main character, boarding a tour bus where she lets her personality shine through, which turns out to be extremely judgmental of anyone who isn't like her, or doesn't fit into the categories she places them in. For example, the driver of the tour bus is automatically labeled by Clarissa as a bad man because he has an uneven face and a French accent, and much of the same is said about the other seven passengers, as well. When she finally manages to stop judging the passengers, readers find out that Clarissa is somewhat of a psychic: "Ghosts spoke a language of their own and if a member of the spirit world inhabited the abandoned abode, she was sure to pick up on it. She was never wrong in these matters. Only three of the thirty or more premises she'd investigated on so-called ghost tours had contained a legitimate ghost. She prided herself on her mediumistic prowess. She was apt to pick up on preternatural inhabitants of places said not to be haunted. Sometimes she thought she could singlehandedly re-write history based on information she had gleaned, but that was being arrogant. She followed her dreams and her visions and her intuition, that was all. A natural psychic and a cynic to boot. "
It turns out that Clarissa is on the tour to see if she can encounter any spirits that may be at the infamous Villa Winter; a place that is believed to have been a secret Nazi base, as well as a place for human experiments - - - the tower was also believed to have been used as a lighthouse for German U-boats - - - which, in reality, Villa Winter is an actual place that exists on the Canary Islands in Spain.
The Ghost of Villa Winter is the fourth book in Blackthorn's Canary Islands Mysteries series, but it can be easily read as an introduction to it because you don't need any background information to understand what is going on. The novel takes on the usual tropes of a murder-mystery plot (a body is found, people are stranded and trying to figure out who among them is the murderer). Agatha Christie is one of the best authors of the murder-mystery genre who loved using her knowledge of poisons in her stories - - - Blackthorn treats the tropes with the right amount of respect which makes The Ghost of Villa Winter a pretty good story.
My major complaint for the Ghost of Villa Winter are the characters, which I found every single one quite unlikable, and even by the end, I couldn't bring myself to care at all for Clarissa. The way that she judged everyone so harshly, and her viewpoint that if no one acted the way she wanted them to, she would believe something was wrong with them that needed to be addressed in a rude manner: "He was the most anxious man she had come across in a long time. Anxious, unsure of himself and preoccupied. Far too self-conscious. The way he'd aligned his plate at lunch. That was obsessive-compulsive. And he certainly couldn't handle Fred Spice. She was sure he could be charming with pretty young ladies, patronizing even, but around her he was awkward. It was clear, too, that he was broken. It wouldn't be easy being an author knowing as you aged that all of your success was behind you and your future held nothing but diminishment. Writing was one of those activities you could pursue until you dropped and many successful authors did just that. As irritating as he could be, she felt sorry for him. "
The other characters are all seen from Clarissa's viewpoint, so they come off quite annoying, but at one point it seemed like Blackthorn was trying to redeem Clarissa's negative qualities by making her an advocate for a possibly wrongly convicted man. This story line didn't come off as redemption for me, but rather to fuel Clarissa's need to be important and in the right. Blackthorn failed to make any of the characters grow above pettiness. If a reader doesn't have a character to root for, the story becomes unenjoyable - - - which is the main reason I gave the book such a low rating; the murder-mystery was interesting, but the characters were not.
The murder, a woman who may have been part of a cult, is found inside a nailed-up crate with a tattoo of a number on her body being one of the only clues that puts Clarissa into sleuth-mode. After believing that one of the tourists is the killer, she decides to keep the discovery of the murder between her and Richard - - - a crime author who came to Villa Winter in hopes of a book inspiration. The two slowly begin to investigate their fellow tourists to figure out who had the mind and motive to kill the young woman, but this doesn't seem to be as easy as it is in Richard's books. I did have a problem though with the ending which ends up being very reminiscent of a majority of short stories: the ending came abruptly and the pieces fell into a place that was unbelievable.
I had never read any of Blackthorn's books before, so I didn't have much of an expectation reading the Ghost of Villa Winter. Unfortunately, I came away from this one pretty dissatisfied because all of the interesting points in the story (such as the cult) are rarely shown/explored further. Also, the fact that 'ghost' is in the title, I was pretty let down with only a couple of scenes where a ghost actually shows up, one such short-lived scene: "She [Clarissa] was about to carry on when a figure appeared in one of the uppermost tower windows. Appeared, and then was gone. At least, what she thought to be a figure. Could have been a ghost. " The scenes are so short that I believe 'ghost' shouldn't be in the title because it's misleading.
With quite a few amateur writing mistakes, and unlikable characters, I don't think I will read anymore of the books in this series. I loved the idea of a cult murder and a haunting in a possible Nazi base, but too much of the focus in the story was on Clarissa's judgmental outlook on everything that it ended up not being the story it could have been. I can only recommend this book to people who want a quick murder-mystery (what most call the genre 'cozy mystery'), but for paranormal lovers, the ghosts practically disappeared within a few pages.
MaryAnn (14 KP) rated A Very Austen Valentine in Books
Nov 4, 2019
ix beloved authors deliver romantic Valentine novellas set in Jane Austens Regency world. Robin Helm, Laura Hile, Wendi Sotis, and Barbara Cornthwaite, together with Susan Kaye and Mandy Cook, share variations of Pride and Prejudice, Persuasion, and Sense and Sensibility, featuring your favorite characters in sequels, adaptations, and spinoffs of Austens adored novels. Experience uplifting romance, laugh-out-loud humor, and poignant regret as these authors deftly tug on your heartstrings this Valentines Day.
I Dream of You by Robin Helm
Newly-married Elizabeth Darcy has a plan: to charm her too-busy husband into desiring her company as much as he did when he was courting her. A series of romantic dreams gives her just the push she needs to put that plan into action.
Sir Walter Takes a Wife by Laura Hile
Faced with a lonely future and finding himself strapped for cash, Persuasions Sir Walter Elliot manfully decides to marry again. But his careful plans go sadly awry! A lighthearted Valentine mash-up featuring two of Jane Austens worst snobs.
My Forever Valentine by Wendi Sotis
Jane and Charles Bingley have married, even though Miss Elizabeth Bennet remains certain Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy gave his best effort to keep them apart. After Mr. Darcy refused to stand up with Bingley and did not attend the wedding, she despises the gentleman more than ever and finds his company intolerable. How will she endure her visit to Kent if Mr. Darcy turns up everywhere she goes?
Pretence and Prejudice by Barbara Cornthwaite
A chance encounter with a handsome stranger forces Elizabeth to resort to subterfuge in order to discover his true intentions.
My Valentine by Mandy H. Cook Mandy H. Cook
Little Charlotte was always determined and independent, traits which served her well as she battled a serious childhood illness and later as she took on Polite Society. Will those traits now deprive her of true love? Or would her lifelong Valentine win her heart?
The Lovers Ruse by Susan Kaye
In this Persuasion alteration, Anne is so altered by Wentworths love in the summer of 1806, she refuses to give him up when both her godmother and father try to persuade her. The Lovers Rusefollows Frederick and Anne through their whirlwind courtship and their secret engagement. When Wentworth returns for his Annie girl, the cat comes out of the bag.
My Thoughts: These six charming novellas centered around Valentines will entice all those who adore Jane Austen's writings. Based on characters from Jane Austen's novels; I enjoyed reading into the lives of the Darcy's; I was impressed that the writers Robin Helm, Wendi Sotis and Mandy H. Cook are all centered their novellas around the same family. Each storytelling its own unique view of their lives.
Each story is fun to read, and takes the reader back to a simpler time, of love, romance, and proper etiquette. Each story has it's own charm and brings the reader closer to the characters.
My favorites have to be the novellas containing the characters Elizabeth and Fitzwilliam Darcy, my absolute favorite being "I Dream of You". In this novella we learn how to give rather than to receive and the joys we can draw from each act of kindness.
If you love historical fiction, and Jane Austen novels, then this is certainly a book for you.
I Dream of You by Robin Helm
Newly-married Elizabeth Darcy has a plan: to charm her too-busy husband into desiring her company as much as he did when he was courting her. A series of romantic dreams gives her just the push she needs to put that plan into action.
Sir Walter Takes a Wife by Laura Hile
Faced with a lonely future and finding himself strapped for cash, Persuasions Sir Walter Elliot manfully decides to marry again. But his careful plans go sadly awry! A lighthearted Valentine mash-up featuring two of Jane Austens worst snobs.
My Forever Valentine by Wendi Sotis
Jane and Charles Bingley have married, even though Miss Elizabeth Bennet remains certain Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy gave his best effort to keep them apart. After Mr. Darcy refused to stand up with Bingley and did not attend the wedding, she despises the gentleman more than ever and finds his company intolerable. How will she endure her visit to Kent if Mr. Darcy turns up everywhere she goes?
Pretence and Prejudice by Barbara Cornthwaite
A chance encounter with a handsome stranger forces Elizabeth to resort to subterfuge in order to discover his true intentions.
My Valentine by Mandy H. Cook Mandy H. Cook
Little Charlotte was always determined and independent, traits which served her well as she battled a serious childhood illness and later as she took on Polite Society. Will those traits now deprive her of true love? Or would her lifelong Valentine win her heart?
The Lovers Ruse by Susan Kaye
In this Persuasion alteration, Anne is so altered by Wentworths love in the summer of 1806, she refuses to give him up when both her godmother and father try to persuade her. The Lovers Rusefollows Frederick and Anne through their whirlwind courtship and their secret engagement. When Wentworth returns for his Annie girl, the cat comes out of the bag.
My Thoughts: These six charming novellas centered around Valentines will entice all those who adore Jane Austen's writings. Based on characters from Jane Austen's novels; I enjoyed reading into the lives of the Darcy's; I was impressed that the writers Robin Helm, Wendi Sotis and Mandy H. Cook are all centered their novellas around the same family. Each storytelling its own unique view of their lives.
Each story is fun to read, and takes the reader back to a simpler time, of love, romance, and proper etiquette. Each story has it's own charm and brings the reader closer to the characters.
My favorites have to be the novellas containing the characters Elizabeth and Fitzwilliam Darcy, my absolute favorite being "I Dream of You". In this novella we learn how to give rather than to receive and the joys we can draw from each act of kindness.
If you love historical fiction, and Jane Austen novels, then this is certainly a book for you.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Riding a wave a fan expectations and anticipation as well as surrounding by the tragic death of Heath Ledger, the latest installment in Writer/Director Christopher Nolan’s Batman Series, “The Dark Knight”, has arrived. Christian Bale once again stars in the dual role of troubled billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne and the masked avenger Batman, as he attempts to bring order to Gotham City.
The film picks up shortly after the events of “Batman Begins” and finds Bruce and his trusty sidekick Alfred (Michael Caine), splitting their time between a lofty penthouse and a secret lair while Wayne Manor is being rebuilt. The streets of Gotham have become safer as thanks to Batman many of the bad elements of the city have either been arrested or driven off.
Batman has a new ally in his fight, as new District Attorney Harvey Dent, (Aaron Eckhart), is waging a personal war on crime, and has vowed to stop at nothing to bring the remaining crime bosses and their associates to justice. Bruce is unsure what to make of Dent, and is further troubled by the growing relationship between Dent and his longtime flame Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal).
Unknown to Batman and Dent, the biggest threat ever to face Gotham City is about to move into the limelight, as a mysterious figure known as The Joker (Heath Ledger), has risen from the ranks of violent bank robber to psychopathic mastermind, attempting to get the remaining crime lords to join him in an scheme to kill Batman and prominent heads of the city to bring utter chaos.
As the Joker’s wave of violence, death, and destruction unfolds, Batman is drawn deeper into turmoil, as he is conflicted by his desire to abandon his Batman alter-ego and leave cleaning up the city to Dent and his trusted ally James Gordon (Gary Oldman). Bruce knows that he cannot be with Rachel as long as Batman is a part of his life, and he wishes he can abandon the fight to live a more normal existence.
As the crime wave escalates and the body count starts to mount, Bruce is driven to the edge as he matches wits with his toughest foe yet, a man who seems capable of matching his every move, and seems to be always one step ahead.
What follows is a truly gripping and enjoyably dark tale of murder, deception, action, and intrigue in what is not only the best Batman film ever but simply the best superhero film ever. This is strong praise considering the solid screen versions of “Spider-Man”, “Iron-Man” and the previous “Batman Beyond”, but Nolan has crafted a true cinematic masterpiece.
The key to the film is not only the solid cast but a serious and intelligent script that allows the actors to truly shine. This is not a thinly veiled comic story where plot and character are secondary to visuals and actions; instead it is a brilliant physiological study of madness, human nature, unchecked ambition, and morality, wrapped in a truly epic story.
Nolan deftly juggles the characters and action and never allows one to overshadow the other. He does not lose sight of the fact that despite the amazing and intense actions and visuals, this is a character driven story.
Many times during the press showing of the film I marveled at the high quality of the story and solid acting in the film. The impressive cast is anchored by a truly incredible performance by Ledger as he portrays the Joker as a deeply disturbed individual who mixes genius with absolute ruthless cunning. The mannerisms of the character are such that Ledger simply becomes the demented killer and at no time appears to be an actor portraying a character, but rather the personification of the character brought to reality.
His scenes with Bale are truly memorable and underscore the vast history between the two characters that has been established over the decades, and emphasizes the fact that, in some ways, Batman and the Joker are similar beings, both troubled souls who deal with their pain in different ways.
Bale is very good at portraying the torment his character lives with day in and day out, as well as the dark and seething rage that threatens to overtake him and his constant struggle to keep it under the control. Lesser actors would be lost against the amazing performance of Ledger, but Bale more than holds his own, and provides gripping cinema at its best during his scenes with Ledger and the talented cast.
Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine bring solid support to the film as their characters provide wisdom, morality, and direction for characters that walk the thin line between good and evil. The only real disappointment in the film for me was that Maggie Gyllenhaal is not given enough to do. She ably takes over the role originated by Katie Holmes, but she is not given any chance to stand out and her moments with Bale do not allow her to further her relationship with Bruce Wayne.
Eckhart gives a solid performance as Harvey Dent and his alter ego Two Face, taking great advantage of the time he was allowed to develop Dent. My only wish would have been for Two Face to have more time to develop as his arrival seems more of an add-on than a point of plot emphasis.
That being said, the film is a true masterpiece that proves you do not have to sacrifice character development and story to deliver a solid action film. The story sets up very well for future installments and I am sure I am not alone in wanting another outing for Nolan and Bale.
The film picks up shortly after the events of “Batman Begins” and finds Bruce and his trusty sidekick Alfred (Michael Caine), splitting their time between a lofty penthouse and a secret lair while Wayne Manor is being rebuilt. The streets of Gotham have become safer as thanks to Batman many of the bad elements of the city have either been arrested or driven off.
Batman has a new ally in his fight, as new District Attorney Harvey Dent, (Aaron Eckhart), is waging a personal war on crime, and has vowed to stop at nothing to bring the remaining crime bosses and their associates to justice. Bruce is unsure what to make of Dent, and is further troubled by the growing relationship between Dent and his longtime flame Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal).
Unknown to Batman and Dent, the biggest threat ever to face Gotham City is about to move into the limelight, as a mysterious figure known as The Joker (Heath Ledger), has risen from the ranks of violent bank robber to psychopathic mastermind, attempting to get the remaining crime lords to join him in an scheme to kill Batman and prominent heads of the city to bring utter chaos.
As the Joker’s wave of violence, death, and destruction unfolds, Batman is drawn deeper into turmoil, as he is conflicted by his desire to abandon his Batman alter-ego and leave cleaning up the city to Dent and his trusted ally James Gordon (Gary Oldman). Bruce knows that he cannot be with Rachel as long as Batman is a part of his life, and he wishes he can abandon the fight to live a more normal existence.
As the crime wave escalates and the body count starts to mount, Bruce is driven to the edge as he matches wits with his toughest foe yet, a man who seems capable of matching his every move, and seems to be always one step ahead.
What follows is a truly gripping and enjoyably dark tale of murder, deception, action, and intrigue in what is not only the best Batman film ever but simply the best superhero film ever. This is strong praise considering the solid screen versions of “Spider-Man”, “Iron-Man” and the previous “Batman Beyond”, but Nolan has crafted a true cinematic masterpiece.
The key to the film is not only the solid cast but a serious and intelligent script that allows the actors to truly shine. This is not a thinly veiled comic story where plot and character are secondary to visuals and actions; instead it is a brilliant physiological study of madness, human nature, unchecked ambition, and morality, wrapped in a truly epic story.
Nolan deftly juggles the characters and action and never allows one to overshadow the other. He does not lose sight of the fact that despite the amazing and intense actions and visuals, this is a character driven story.
Many times during the press showing of the film I marveled at the high quality of the story and solid acting in the film. The impressive cast is anchored by a truly incredible performance by Ledger as he portrays the Joker as a deeply disturbed individual who mixes genius with absolute ruthless cunning. The mannerisms of the character are such that Ledger simply becomes the demented killer and at no time appears to be an actor portraying a character, but rather the personification of the character brought to reality.
His scenes with Bale are truly memorable and underscore the vast history between the two characters that has been established over the decades, and emphasizes the fact that, in some ways, Batman and the Joker are similar beings, both troubled souls who deal with their pain in different ways.
Bale is very good at portraying the torment his character lives with day in and day out, as well as the dark and seething rage that threatens to overtake him and his constant struggle to keep it under the control. Lesser actors would be lost against the amazing performance of Ledger, but Bale more than holds his own, and provides gripping cinema at its best during his scenes with Ledger and the talented cast.
Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine bring solid support to the film as their characters provide wisdom, morality, and direction for characters that walk the thin line between good and evil. The only real disappointment in the film for me was that Maggie Gyllenhaal is not given enough to do. She ably takes over the role originated by Katie Holmes, but she is not given any chance to stand out and her moments with Bale do not allow her to further her relationship with Bruce Wayne.
Eckhart gives a solid performance as Harvey Dent and his alter ego Two Face, taking great advantage of the time he was allowed to develop Dent. My only wish would have been for Two Face to have more time to develop as his arrival seems more of an add-on than a point of plot emphasis.
That being said, the film is a true masterpiece that proves you do not have to sacrifice character development and story to deliver a solid action film. The story sets up very well for future installments and I am sure I am not alone in wanting another outing for Nolan and Bale.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Tenet (2020) in Movies
Aug 30, 2020
This is the first big new release in a long time I've gone into basically blind. I hadn't seen a trailer, read a synopsis, and I only picked up a few things off Twitter because people seem to forget how to use hashtags.
A CIA operative is brought into the fold of a secret operation to prevent a Russian arms dealer starting World War 3 with the most extraordinary ordinary weapons anyone has ever seen.
My initial reaction on Tenet as I walked out of the cinema was that I'd just watched the most predictable and confusing films I've ever seen... I really don't know how it manages to be both.
There are lots of faces in Tenet you'll recognise and all of them do a wonderful job of delivering their parts. I was particularly impressed with Kenneth Branagh and John David Washington, though the latter felt rather understated for an operative at that sort of level... but then that's probably just my opinion on something I only know about from action films. RPatz felt wrong, his delivery was good but my personal preference about his acting technique came out in full force.
When you have a lot of characters it can be difficult to follow everything but surprisingly that was the easiest thing to keep track of. I'm not sure if I was surprised about the way they were handled though. We delve heavily into Andrei and Kat with background and their life, and yes they're main characters but apart from them we don't seem to learn a great deal about anyone else. Is it because of the secretive nature of their situation? Perhaps, but it felt very off balance.
I want to talk about the predictability very briefly because it crosses over into my next point as well. Once you discover the reality behind everything it actually becomes very easy to spot things that are going to lead to something, and that partly because bit stick out like sore thumbs. A few pieces did elude me, but I'm putting that mainly down to the other distractions getting in the way.
So, those distractions came in two forms for me. Firstly, the sound. The music was good and the sound effects there helped with tension and atmosphere... but the volume... there's intense and then there's feeling your ribs rattle in your chest. I wondered if it was the screen's audio initially but there are so many other people saying it that it's definitely designed that way. At its most intense I found it difficult to follow anything, some times we got speech that was hidden by the sound intentionally but at least once the sound overtook some lines with no real purpose. Secondly, the action sequences. They are impressive, you can't deny that, but I found the necessary "transitions" distracting from the scenes which was a major drawback. Any momentum and excitement of the action was knocked straight out of me when I'd noticed that odd movement, it was rather deflating.
There are several good things about Tenet but I think I'd want to watch it twice more. I like going back to watch films to catch the little things I missed, but a second rewatch would almost be a first watch. I'm sure this won't go down well but perhaps it thinks it's rather clever when in fact it's just slightly too complicated to be enjoyable... there are several pieces that feel like they're from other things and in the end I don't think that enough comes together to be good enough to deal with the sound issues.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/tenet-movie-review.html
A CIA operative is brought into the fold of a secret operation to prevent a Russian arms dealer starting World War 3 with the most extraordinary ordinary weapons anyone has ever seen.
My initial reaction on Tenet as I walked out of the cinema was that I'd just watched the most predictable and confusing films I've ever seen... I really don't know how it manages to be both.
There are lots of faces in Tenet you'll recognise and all of them do a wonderful job of delivering their parts. I was particularly impressed with Kenneth Branagh and John David Washington, though the latter felt rather understated for an operative at that sort of level... but then that's probably just my opinion on something I only know about from action films. RPatz felt wrong, his delivery was good but my personal preference about his acting technique came out in full force.
When you have a lot of characters it can be difficult to follow everything but surprisingly that was the easiest thing to keep track of. I'm not sure if I was surprised about the way they were handled though. We delve heavily into Andrei and Kat with background and their life, and yes they're main characters but apart from them we don't seem to learn a great deal about anyone else. Is it because of the secretive nature of their situation? Perhaps, but it felt very off balance.
I want to talk about the predictability very briefly because it crosses over into my next point as well. Once you discover the reality behind everything it actually becomes very easy to spot things that are going to lead to something, and that partly because bit stick out like sore thumbs. A few pieces did elude me, but I'm putting that mainly down to the other distractions getting in the way.
So, those distractions came in two forms for me. Firstly, the sound. The music was good and the sound effects there helped with tension and atmosphere... but the volume... there's intense and then there's feeling your ribs rattle in your chest. I wondered if it was the screen's audio initially but there are so many other people saying it that it's definitely designed that way. At its most intense I found it difficult to follow anything, some times we got speech that was hidden by the sound intentionally but at least once the sound overtook some lines with no real purpose. Secondly, the action sequences. They are impressive, you can't deny that, but I found the necessary "transitions" distracting from the scenes which was a major drawback. Any momentum and excitement of the action was knocked straight out of me when I'd noticed that odd movement, it was rather deflating.
There are several good things about Tenet but I think I'd want to watch it twice more. I like going back to watch films to catch the little things I missed, but a second rewatch would almost be a first watch. I'm sure this won't go down well but perhaps it thinks it's rather clever when in fact it's just slightly too complicated to be enjoyable... there are several pieces that feel like they're from other things and in the end I don't think that enough comes together to be good enough to deal with the sound issues.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/tenet-movie-review.html
Darren (1599 KP) rated Aftershock (2013) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Aftershock starts as Gringo (Roth), Ariel (Levy) and Pollo (Martinez) travelling around Chile, they party over all night where they meet three girls Monica (Osvart), Irina (Yarovenko) and Kylie (Izzo). Going for one last party the six new friends find themselves in the middle of an earthquake, one seriously injured and an impending tsunami heading towards them.
The friends must race against time in a country none of them call home to make it out alive but the natural disaster isn’t the only threat when the prison is damaged leading to the prisoners being released upon the streets.
Aftershock gives us something very different because we get a disaster movie which comes off realistic and sudden which is a big plus but it doesn’t stop there by giving us a survival horror when the group have to survive from prisoners. It would be fair to say there is a negative with the building up to the disaster but this does help give us small character development. When we deal with the aftershock of the earthquake we have to deal with non-stop action throughout. This was a real surprise because I thought there would have been more hype about the film.
Actor Review
Eli Roth: Gringo is the single father on the trip, he is friends with Ariel which shows that he isn’t the closet with Pollo. He is using this holiday as a chance to get over the recently divorce but when the quake hits he finds himself having to pull Pollo out of his daze. Eli does well but it becomes clear he really should be behind the camera.
Andrea Osvart: Monica is the stricter older sister to Kylie who tries her best to keep her sister safe on their adventure but she has a secret from the rest which is very important for the aftershock side of the story. Andrea is good in this leading role being the sensible one during the situation.monica
Nicolas Martinez: Pollo is the Spanish talking member of the group, he has gotten by because the money his family has. He finds himself having to step up after the quake to do the things normal men wouldn’t. his final moments are slightly stupid but otherwise a good character. Nicolas is good in this role as the man who needs to step up.
Natasha Yarovenko: Irina is one of the girls who is very similar to Gringo being a single parent and also a success. She starts off thinking she is more but soon becomes the strongest one during the situation. Natasha is good in this role and the sympathy between her and Gringo’s character comes through strong.
Lorenza Izzo: Kylie is the younger party animal of the two sisters, she just wants to have fun on her trip but with her old sister trying to protect her she finds herself being held back until the quake hits and she wants her sister to help her. Lorenza is good in this bratty like character which put her on the map for a future horror scream queen.
Support Cast: Aftershock has the basic supporting cast that all help with the survival side of the story.
Director Review: Nicolas Lopez – Nicolas gives us a film that keeps pulling us in once the earthquake hits.
Action: Aftershock use the action for the destruction side of the story which helps us with mother nature side of the story.
Horror: Aftershock comes from the human side of the story as we see just how twisted they can become in a situation our characters find themselves in.
Thriller: Aftershock keeps us on edge from start to finish.
Settings: Aftershock uses Chile for the settings which works for a different location and shows our characters lost during a disaster.
Special Effects: Aftershock has good effects to create what happens to the characters in the disaster.
Suggestion: Aftershock is one to watch especially is you like disaster movies. (Watch)
Best Part: Earthquake.
Worst Part: Slightly too much before the quake.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $2 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 29 Minutes
Tagline: The only thing more terrifying than Mother Nature is human nature.
Overall: Surprisingly intense film that blends two great genres.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/08/19/movie-reviews-101-midnight-horror-aftershock-2012/
The friends must race against time in a country none of them call home to make it out alive but the natural disaster isn’t the only threat when the prison is damaged leading to the prisoners being released upon the streets.
Aftershock gives us something very different because we get a disaster movie which comes off realistic and sudden which is a big plus but it doesn’t stop there by giving us a survival horror when the group have to survive from prisoners. It would be fair to say there is a negative with the building up to the disaster but this does help give us small character development. When we deal with the aftershock of the earthquake we have to deal with non-stop action throughout. This was a real surprise because I thought there would have been more hype about the film.
Actor Review
Eli Roth: Gringo is the single father on the trip, he is friends with Ariel which shows that he isn’t the closet with Pollo. He is using this holiday as a chance to get over the recently divorce but when the quake hits he finds himself having to pull Pollo out of his daze. Eli does well but it becomes clear he really should be behind the camera.
Andrea Osvart: Monica is the stricter older sister to Kylie who tries her best to keep her sister safe on their adventure but she has a secret from the rest which is very important for the aftershock side of the story. Andrea is good in this leading role being the sensible one during the situation.monica
Nicolas Martinez: Pollo is the Spanish talking member of the group, he has gotten by because the money his family has. He finds himself having to step up after the quake to do the things normal men wouldn’t. his final moments are slightly stupid but otherwise a good character. Nicolas is good in this role as the man who needs to step up.
Natasha Yarovenko: Irina is one of the girls who is very similar to Gringo being a single parent and also a success. She starts off thinking she is more but soon becomes the strongest one during the situation. Natasha is good in this role and the sympathy between her and Gringo’s character comes through strong.
Lorenza Izzo: Kylie is the younger party animal of the two sisters, she just wants to have fun on her trip but with her old sister trying to protect her she finds herself being held back until the quake hits and she wants her sister to help her. Lorenza is good in this bratty like character which put her on the map for a future horror scream queen.
Support Cast: Aftershock has the basic supporting cast that all help with the survival side of the story.
Director Review: Nicolas Lopez – Nicolas gives us a film that keeps pulling us in once the earthquake hits.
Action: Aftershock use the action for the destruction side of the story which helps us with mother nature side of the story.
Horror: Aftershock comes from the human side of the story as we see just how twisted they can become in a situation our characters find themselves in.
Thriller: Aftershock keeps us on edge from start to finish.
Settings: Aftershock uses Chile for the settings which works for a different location and shows our characters lost during a disaster.
Special Effects: Aftershock has good effects to create what happens to the characters in the disaster.
Suggestion: Aftershock is one to watch especially is you like disaster movies. (Watch)
Best Part: Earthquake.
Worst Part: Slightly too much before the quake.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $2 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 29 Minutes
Tagline: The only thing more terrifying than Mother Nature is human nature.
Overall: Surprisingly intense film that blends two great genres.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/08/19/movie-reviews-101-midnight-horror-aftershock-2012/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Seinfeld - Season 1 in TV
Jan 22, 2021
I always assumed I wouldn’t like Seinfeld in the 90s. In fact I was opposed to the very idea of it on principle. And that principle was: I’ve never heard of this guy as a comedian, and American stand-up usually isn’t funny. I never saw a single episode until six months ago – in my head it was some dumb, canned laughter show with very forced scripts and little charm. I just didn’t get why it was always quoted amongst the best sitcoms of all time, and I wasn’t willing to find out. This is called “being ignorant”. Guilty.
One random day with nothing else inspiring me I finally took the plunge and put an episode on. Guess what happened? I laughed, I found it completely charming and witty and easy to watch, with some great lines and likeable characters. 3 hours later I had done 6 episodes and was as hooked as anyone can be with anything. It was just so nostalgically and completely 90s! And I loved that!
A show doesn’t run for 9 years and over 170 episodes without being some kind of special, especially taking into account the depreciation due to being dated, as all sitcoms eventually are, and it really is quite remarkable – deserving of a place in the conversation of the greatest ever American half hour shows. Sure, there is an element early on in the preoccupation with everyone’s sex life and dating habits that is a little creepy in 2020, but I am totally willing to forgive it.
Shows that are hyper aware of themselves and the audience are odd creatures the minute they take themselves too seriously, and Seinfeld never does that. It knows it is trivial, essentially about nothing and going nowhere, and style-wise it is always winking at us for being in on the joke and a part of it, even to the point of applauding new characters on their entrance, which is a uniquely American thing to do.
The secret of the show is undoubtedly the chemistry of the four leads, so mismatched that it someone works a spell and creates magic, much in the same way Friends managed to do, times six. Jerry Seinfeld himself is a very likeable everyman, and the schtick of each show beginning and ending with 30 seconds of stand up is a gimmick that grows on you, as does everything about it: the more you watch, the more you love it for what it is.
Jason Alexander as the balding, quirky, self-conscious, opinionated best friend is perhaps my least favourite of the regular quartet, but he has some amazing moments over the course of things, and plays great dead-pan. But the other two are on a plane of equal genius. The verbal timing of the super cute, super smart Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Elaine (who I have fallen in love with a little bit in 1993) and the physical slapstick timing of Michael Richards as Cosmo Kramer (surely one of the most memorable characters in sitcom history) have both left me aching with laughter time after time after time. Just a glance or an expression is often enough.
And the great thing is, it never seems to get old. They are always finding new ways and new situations that keep it fresh. Some trick! Even in the final season of the 9, when there is a small melancholia creeping in because they all know it is coming to an end, it still manages to create moments that aren’t just repeats of previous gags. Which means, as future background watching it is 100% perfect. Leave it on whilst doing something else, look up once in a while, and like the best of all long running US comedy shows each episode is indistinguishable from any other in the best way – it is like having a friend in the room.
I can’t imagine ever saying it is amongst my very favourites, maybe because I missed out on it first time around – which I put down to an inherent middle aged appeal, rather than a youth appeal – but I wouldn’t also ever argue with anyone that did say that it was one of their favourites. Because I get it now. And I’m so glad I got to do it, no matter how late to the party!
One random day with nothing else inspiring me I finally took the plunge and put an episode on. Guess what happened? I laughed, I found it completely charming and witty and easy to watch, with some great lines and likeable characters. 3 hours later I had done 6 episodes and was as hooked as anyone can be with anything. It was just so nostalgically and completely 90s! And I loved that!
A show doesn’t run for 9 years and over 170 episodes without being some kind of special, especially taking into account the depreciation due to being dated, as all sitcoms eventually are, and it really is quite remarkable – deserving of a place in the conversation of the greatest ever American half hour shows. Sure, there is an element early on in the preoccupation with everyone’s sex life and dating habits that is a little creepy in 2020, but I am totally willing to forgive it.
Shows that are hyper aware of themselves and the audience are odd creatures the minute they take themselves too seriously, and Seinfeld never does that. It knows it is trivial, essentially about nothing and going nowhere, and style-wise it is always winking at us for being in on the joke and a part of it, even to the point of applauding new characters on their entrance, which is a uniquely American thing to do.
The secret of the show is undoubtedly the chemistry of the four leads, so mismatched that it someone works a spell and creates magic, much in the same way Friends managed to do, times six. Jerry Seinfeld himself is a very likeable everyman, and the schtick of each show beginning and ending with 30 seconds of stand up is a gimmick that grows on you, as does everything about it: the more you watch, the more you love it for what it is.
Jason Alexander as the balding, quirky, self-conscious, opinionated best friend is perhaps my least favourite of the regular quartet, but he has some amazing moments over the course of things, and plays great dead-pan. But the other two are on a plane of equal genius. The verbal timing of the super cute, super smart Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Elaine (who I have fallen in love with a little bit in 1993) and the physical slapstick timing of Michael Richards as Cosmo Kramer (surely one of the most memorable characters in sitcom history) have both left me aching with laughter time after time after time. Just a glance or an expression is often enough.
And the great thing is, it never seems to get old. They are always finding new ways and new situations that keep it fresh. Some trick! Even in the final season of the 9, when there is a small melancholia creeping in because they all know it is coming to an end, it still manages to create moments that aren’t just repeats of previous gags. Which means, as future background watching it is 100% perfect. Leave it on whilst doing something else, look up once in a while, and like the best of all long running US comedy shows each episode is indistinguishable from any other in the best way – it is like having a friend in the room.
I can’t imagine ever saying it is amongst my very favourites, maybe because I missed out on it first time around – which I put down to an inherent middle aged appeal, rather than a youth appeal – but I wouldn’t also ever argue with anyone that did say that it was one of their favourites. Because I get it now. And I’m so glad I got to do it, no matter how late to the party!
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
The Star Wars Story that nobody asked for, but was is a story worth telling?
In short, NO.
Where to start? Indeed, where to start with a background prequel focusing on one of the most iconic Star Wars characters ever, taking the ageing Harrison Ford’s characters to, well not so far beyond the age that we first met him back in 1977.
Recast with actor who brings very little Ford with him, apart from a few well practice smiles and other expressions here and there, this is a reinterpretation of the character, in this case as a naive and wimpy version, maybe even soft, is not the part for Alden Ehrenreich.
The Character arch of Han Solo in the original trilogy was his redemption from a selfish, self-assured space pirate to a man who could recognise and fight for a cause bigger than himself. But according this haphazard prequel, he was already a big softy before her learns the harsh realities of life, only he doesn’t, not really.
He just learns to be a little more cynical and to smirk his way through every situation with his lucky die and everything turns out okay for him. Ehrenrieich done not bring an ounce of the gravitas or charisma of Harrison Ford, as this film, which had to be almost entirely re-shot with Ron Howard taking the helm after The Lego Movie directing due Chris Miller and Phil Lord where unceremoniously fired after “not getting it”, apparently, shoe horns as much of the token events of Solo’s pre-rebellion life into its two and bit hour run time.
Ron Howard; A few hits and plenty of misses. Willow (1988) springs to mind. Not only was Willow Lucas’ attempt to begin and new fantasy trilogy after the Star Wars Saga was completed, it was micro directed by George Lucas as Ron Howard took the credit. And this has a lot of the hallmarks of Willow.
In short; A poor mans Star Wars. Hammy scripting and at times acting, the story is all over the place, with shallow characterisations, poor exposition, haphazard pacing and the action is actually quite hard to follow. Just please, give us ONE decent shot of the Millennium Falcon that we can keep up with and actually see, especially as it has been altered so much from the icon version that we all love. Maybe we’re getting bored of the same ship after 40 years? Maybe we all need to go out and by a new version?
Toyetic… anyone?
Instead everything of interest is speeding across the screen and the boring stuff is left to linger. And there was a level of boredom here. Incredibly predictable plotting, simply going through the motions of a no stakes story. But it does feel as if they shoehorned a larger narrative in there, with introduction in the final act of the rebellion and an old villain returns with a new legs, but by the time what should have been an earth shattering twist appeared, it wasn’t really interested, especially if you know the The Clone Wars or Rebels.
One major plus note though, Donald Glover aced Lando Calrissian, to such an extant that I wish this movie was actually called Lando: A Star War Story rather than Solo, because there’s no doubt that Glover brought so much more Billy Dee Williams and built on it, than Ehrenreich did for Ford’s.
As well as the subtle and well conceived plotting around Lando’s female droid, L3-37 (Phoebe Waller-Bridge) who may well be the ‘Old girl’ referred to by both Han and Lando during in the original trilogy when they speak to the Falcon, whilst shining a light on the deliberately ambiguous nature of droids in the Star Wars universe. In short; are they sentient or not? But this is not Star Trek so we do not really need an answer to that… do we?
Overall, I want to say that this was missed opportunity but in truth, it was not. It was waste of time. A story that did not need to be told with script that did not know what say. Clearly, they were aiming for a Guardians Of The Galaxy (2015), unaware that the secret of that surprise success was that it tapped in to the retro Star Wars vibe by NOT being Star Wars. And with little expectations.
Here they were playing with one of the biggest guns in modern film history and in my opinion, it blew up in there faces.
Where to start? Indeed, where to start with a background prequel focusing on one of the most iconic Star Wars characters ever, taking the ageing Harrison Ford’s characters to, well not so far beyond the age that we first met him back in 1977.
Recast with actor who brings very little Ford with him, apart from a few well practice smiles and other expressions here and there, this is a reinterpretation of the character, in this case as a naive and wimpy version, maybe even soft, is not the part for Alden Ehrenreich.
The Character arch of Han Solo in the original trilogy was his redemption from a selfish, self-assured space pirate to a man who could recognise and fight for a cause bigger than himself. But according this haphazard prequel, he was already a big softy before her learns the harsh realities of life, only he doesn’t, not really.
He just learns to be a little more cynical and to smirk his way through every situation with his lucky die and everything turns out okay for him. Ehrenrieich done not bring an ounce of the gravitas or charisma of Harrison Ford, as this film, which had to be almost entirely re-shot with Ron Howard taking the helm after The Lego Movie directing due Chris Miller and Phil Lord where unceremoniously fired after “not getting it”, apparently, shoe horns as much of the token events of Solo’s pre-rebellion life into its two and bit hour run time.
Ron Howard; A few hits and plenty of misses. Willow (1988) springs to mind. Not only was Willow Lucas’ attempt to begin and new fantasy trilogy after the Star Wars Saga was completed, it was micro directed by George Lucas as Ron Howard took the credit. And this has a lot of the hallmarks of Willow.
In short; A poor mans Star Wars. Hammy scripting and at times acting, the story is all over the place, with shallow characterisations, poor exposition, haphazard pacing and the action is actually quite hard to follow. Just please, give us ONE decent shot of the Millennium Falcon that we can keep up with and actually see, especially as it has been altered so much from the icon version that we all love. Maybe we’re getting bored of the same ship after 40 years? Maybe we all need to go out and by a new version?
Toyetic… anyone?
Instead everything of interest is speeding across the screen and the boring stuff is left to linger. And there was a level of boredom here. Incredibly predictable plotting, simply going through the motions of a no stakes story. But it does feel as if they shoehorned a larger narrative in there, with introduction in the final act of the rebellion and an old villain returns with a new legs, but by the time what should have been an earth shattering twist appeared, it wasn’t really interested, especially if you know the The Clone Wars or Rebels.
One major plus note though, Donald Glover aced Lando Calrissian, to such an extant that I wish this movie was actually called Lando: A Star War Story rather than Solo, because there’s no doubt that Glover brought so much more Billy Dee Williams and built on it, than Ehrenreich did for Ford’s.
As well as the subtle and well conceived plotting around Lando’s female droid, L3-37 (Phoebe Waller-Bridge) who may well be the ‘Old girl’ referred to by both Han and Lando during in the original trilogy when they speak to the Falcon, whilst shining a light on the deliberately ambiguous nature of droids in the Star Wars universe. In short; are they sentient or not? But this is not Star Trek so we do not really need an answer to that… do we?
Overall, I want to say that this was missed opportunity but in truth, it was not. It was waste of time. A story that did not need to be told with script that did not know what say. Clearly, they were aiming for a Guardians Of The Galaxy (2015), unaware that the secret of that surprise success was that it tapped in to the retro Star Wars vibe by NOT being Star Wars. And with little expectations.
Here they were playing with one of the biggest guns in modern film history and in my opinion, it blew up in there faces.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
Why is this even prefaced everywhere with Fast & Furious? Apart from a couple of characters and the fact there are cars with a crapload of action they aren't really the same thing.
Hattie Shaw and her MI6 team have secured a virus that could threaten everyone if it gets into the wrong hands. In a surprise attacked by Brixton, an enhanced "bad guy", her entire team is killed and she has to make a quick decision.
As the story of the missing vial gets out handlers call in their top assets to retrieve it. The trouble is that they hate each other and working together isn't something that's going to work. Hobbs goes looking for Hattie on the streets and Shaw heads to her flat, both set some action they weren't expecting to, highlighting just what they're up against.
As an offshoot from the Fast & Furious franchise you expect the action, but Hobbs & Shaw takes a much bigger step towards comedy, which thankfully both Johnson and Statham are good at. Individually they'll get me to see a film, I might wish I hadn't when I come out of it, but you can pretty much guarantee that they'll give you a consistent result when it comes to the acting.
The two of them together are fun and they bounce off each other with impeccable timing, but there might be just a little bit too much insulting back and forth thrown into this one. It's not that it's bad, it's just that when it happens it can occasionally feel too long. It's almost as if they told them to improvise and they'd cut out a whole load of it and then never did. [One of my favourite bits of them together in the film is at the beginning of the trailer above.]
Vanessa Kirby as Shaw's sister Hattie is a bit more sensible than the leading men, that doesn't mean she's any less engaged in the action though. Right from the off they're showing her as tough and no-nonsense which fits in with the family characteristics. You get some great glimpses of the Shaw kids showing shared traits and it's really nice to see that link on the screen. Outside of the action and the family moments she sadly doesn't feel like a very well-formed character, there are several inconsistencies in her that I found to be confusing. You'd think one of those would be the age gap between her and Deckard, but honestly, until I saw some people mention it online I hadn't noticed it... it's a summer blockbuster... who's watching for those sorts of technicalities?!
Our bad guy Brixton, portrayed by Idris Elba is... yummy. I don't feel like there's much to say about Brixton, he kicks ass, he's got great tech and there's a good history with Shaw... but... he didn't really feel like a bad guy. Eteon certainly felt like an evil empire, but Brixton is just a minion in the grand scheme of things. I have my theories about Eteon, but that would mean major spoilers I'm afraid. I imagine we'll see more of them in the next one.
We get another wonderful pop up from Helen Mirren. Yeeeeeess, Queen! She's brilliant as always. There are a few cameos, and I'm impressed they managed to keep them secret. It was a fun discovery and definitely added to the humour of the whole thing, had you taken them out of the mix then you would have been left a much more "sensible" action film, but they went with it and it was certainly entertaining.
Obviously there's a lot of action, in a lot of different scenes. As ridiculous as it is, I did like the London chase that happens shortly after the jog down the building that you see in the trailer. It includes some good jaw-dropping moments and ends with a particularly satisfying moment. As fun as this sequence was, it does include the most dubious bit of CGI in the whole film... watch for that bike.
My other favourite scene is the finale, the whole thing is kind of long but specifically I'm thinking about Hobbs, Shaw and Brixton facing off. Even before going into the film you know exactly what needs to happen to get to the resolution, so when they get to that point you're sat going "about time!" As the storm sets in we get an amazing sequence with slow-mo of the three of them fighting in the rain. It was immense... some may say daft, but that's totally why I turned up for it. There's also some great glitching of Brixton's tech that I thought worked really well with everything. My only issue is that there's one moment where Jason Statham appears to genuinely smile and it feels completely out of character.
There are some things I want to mention before I finish.
- There feels like a lot of product placement happening throughout, including for things that aren't even real products.
- You do not... I repeat... DO NOT drive by a Greggs without stopping for a chicken bake.
Let's face it, if you even remotely enjoy action and comedy together then you're going to be enjoying this movie. You don't need to switch your brain on to watch this, it's just pure entertainment.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/hobbs-shaw-movie-review.html
Hattie Shaw and her MI6 team have secured a virus that could threaten everyone if it gets into the wrong hands. In a surprise attacked by Brixton, an enhanced "bad guy", her entire team is killed and she has to make a quick decision.
As the story of the missing vial gets out handlers call in their top assets to retrieve it. The trouble is that they hate each other and working together isn't something that's going to work. Hobbs goes looking for Hattie on the streets and Shaw heads to her flat, both set some action they weren't expecting to, highlighting just what they're up against.
As an offshoot from the Fast & Furious franchise you expect the action, but Hobbs & Shaw takes a much bigger step towards comedy, which thankfully both Johnson and Statham are good at. Individually they'll get me to see a film, I might wish I hadn't when I come out of it, but you can pretty much guarantee that they'll give you a consistent result when it comes to the acting.
The two of them together are fun and they bounce off each other with impeccable timing, but there might be just a little bit too much insulting back and forth thrown into this one. It's not that it's bad, it's just that when it happens it can occasionally feel too long. It's almost as if they told them to improvise and they'd cut out a whole load of it and then never did. [One of my favourite bits of them together in the film is at the beginning of the trailer above.]
Vanessa Kirby as Shaw's sister Hattie is a bit more sensible than the leading men, that doesn't mean she's any less engaged in the action though. Right from the off they're showing her as tough and no-nonsense which fits in with the family characteristics. You get some great glimpses of the Shaw kids showing shared traits and it's really nice to see that link on the screen. Outside of the action and the family moments she sadly doesn't feel like a very well-formed character, there are several inconsistencies in her that I found to be confusing. You'd think one of those would be the age gap between her and Deckard, but honestly, until I saw some people mention it online I hadn't noticed it... it's a summer blockbuster... who's watching for those sorts of technicalities?!
Our bad guy Brixton, portrayed by Idris Elba is... yummy. I don't feel like there's much to say about Brixton, he kicks ass, he's got great tech and there's a good history with Shaw... but... he didn't really feel like a bad guy. Eteon certainly felt like an evil empire, but Brixton is just a minion in the grand scheme of things. I have my theories about Eteon, but that would mean major spoilers I'm afraid. I imagine we'll see more of them in the next one.
We get another wonderful pop up from Helen Mirren. Yeeeeeess, Queen! She's brilliant as always. There are a few cameos, and I'm impressed they managed to keep them secret. It was a fun discovery and definitely added to the humour of the whole thing, had you taken them out of the mix then you would have been left a much more "sensible" action film, but they went with it and it was certainly entertaining.
Obviously there's a lot of action, in a lot of different scenes. As ridiculous as it is, I did like the London chase that happens shortly after the jog down the building that you see in the trailer. It includes some good jaw-dropping moments and ends with a particularly satisfying moment. As fun as this sequence was, it does include the most dubious bit of CGI in the whole film... watch for that bike.
My other favourite scene is the finale, the whole thing is kind of long but specifically I'm thinking about Hobbs, Shaw and Brixton facing off. Even before going into the film you know exactly what needs to happen to get to the resolution, so when they get to that point you're sat going "about time!" As the storm sets in we get an amazing sequence with slow-mo of the three of them fighting in the rain. It was immense... some may say daft, but that's totally why I turned up for it. There's also some great glitching of Brixton's tech that I thought worked really well with everything. My only issue is that there's one moment where Jason Statham appears to genuinely smile and it feels completely out of character.
There are some things I want to mention before I finish.
- There feels like a lot of product placement happening throughout, including for things that aren't even real products.
- You do not... I repeat... DO NOT drive by a Greggs without stopping for a chicken bake.
Let's face it, if you even remotely enjoy action and comedy together then you're going to be enjoying this movie. You don't need to switch your brain on to watch this, it's just pure entertainment.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/hobbs-shaw-movie-review.html
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Survive: Escape from Atlantis! in Tabletop Games
Sep 4, 2019 (Updated Jul 2, 2020)
I have never been on a sinking anything. Sure, I have flipped over kayaks, and paddle-boards, and anything else that requires me to balance on top of water. But I cannot imagine the terror of being on an island that just… sinks into the deep. Oh also running out of room and having to swim to safe land. Oh also while sharks, whales, and sea monsters are chasing me. You know what? Maybe I’m cool with being located in the Midwest. I’ll just play this game and live vicariously through the esceeples (escaping meeples? I need a handbook for these -eeple terms).
Survive: Escape from Atlantis! (which I now will call Survive) is an competitive adventure game featuring action points, grid movement, secret unit deployment, dice rolls, and lots of take-that. And little boats. It also can destroy friendships and ruin evenings. Play at your own risk.
DISCLAIMER: There are several expansions to this game, but we are not reviewing them at this time. We ARE including the 5-6 player mini expansion, however. Should we review the others in the future we will either update this review or post a link to the new material here. Also, I do not intend to detail every rule in the book, but give our readers an idea of how the game plays and our thoughts on it. -T
To setup a game of Survive, each player will choose a color and take into their supply all the meeples of that color and two boats. Place all the terrain tiles randomly (and face down) within the bolded line on the board to create the central island. Place out the sea serpents on the sea serpent spots as menacingly as possible. Players then take turns placing their numbered meeples on terrain tiles until all meeples have been placed, and their boateeples on any water space near the island they wish. Keep aside the shark, whale, and dolphin meeples for later. Give the die to the first player and you are ready to play.
On a player’s turn they will 1. Play any tiles from their hand, 2. Move meeples, 3. Remove terrain a tile, 4. Roll the die and move creatures. At the beginning of the game nobody will have any tiles in hand to play, so skip this step if there are no tiles in hand. On subsequent turns players may have collected tiles as a result of the #3 action, and now is the time to play those. Typically they are beneficial for the active player or detrimental to the opponents. Next, the active player will move their meeples in any combination three total board hexes. This can be done with one or more meeples on land or in the water. There are movement restrictions that I will not cover here. After movement, the active player will remove one of the terrain tiles with the lowest elevation (sand, forest, then mountain tiles). The player flips over the tile and will play it immediately if it shows an arrow, or keeps it in hand if it shows a hand icon. Finally, the active player will roll the red die and move creatures per the movement table printed on the board.
Creature movement creates the tension in the game (as if fighting over the boats wasn’t enough). You see, when sharks enter the board and are moved, they are hungry for swimmer meeples (obv). Whales are hungry(?) for boats and will destroy them but fling the meeples aboard into the water to become swimmers. Sea serpents don’t care. They will eat swimmers and manned boats… but they’re the slowest movers. So consider that.
Play continues in this fashion until the either all meeples have been removed from the play grid, or a player flips over the volcano mountain tile and ends the game. Any meeples who have made it to the safety of the outer islands are worth the VP printed on their bottoms. Wait, not the butts. The bottom of the meeples. Which I guess are the feet.
Components. To reiterate, in case it was missed, we are reviewing the 2010 Stronghold edition. There is a newer version, and it seems to look a little better but plays the same. However, I love the components of this version too. The meeples are fine, the creatures are cool, the varying thicknesses of the terrain tiles makes for an interesting mini-3D look, and the board is great without being too busy and distracting. I have absolutely no issues with these components and think they are super.
Now, you may have read in my intro that this game may ruin friendships and the evening, and I really am not joking about this. I have played this so many times where at least one person becomes completely angered by the chomping of the shark or the horrible movement of the sea serpent adjacent to their boat. It’s just a game, and it’s inevitable in this one – your meeples will get eaten. It’s gonna happen! When I teach this now I try to make that apparent right away because it is then not viewed as absolutely treachery when it happens to newer players. Should you be playing with sensitive gamers, please instruct them early that it WILL happen or you’re gonna have a bad time.
However, this game is great! I love it now as much as I ever have. It’s an older horse for me, but one of which I will never tire. I can and love to play it with new gamers, especially the ones that are hoping to join the inner circle. If you can hang through a game of Survive without being angered and taking it all in stride, you are welcome at my table ANY time. That said, as you can see by our ratings, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a mighty and well-deserved 21 / 24. If you enjoy games that upset your players and want a cool theme on it, check out Survive: Escape from Atlantis!
Survive: Escape from Atlantis! (which I now will call Survive) is an competitive adventure game featuring action points, grid movement, secret unit deployment, dice rolls, and lots of take-that. And little boats. It also can destroy friendships and ruin evenings. Play at your own risk.
DISCLAIMER: There are several expansions to this game, but we are not reviewing them at this time. We ARE including the 5-6 player mini expansion, however. Should we review the others in the future we will either update this review or post a link to the new material here. Also, I do not intend to detail every rule in the book, but give our readers an idea of how the game plays and our thoughts on it. -T
To setup a game of Survive, each player will choose a color and take into their supply all the meeples of that color and two boats. Place all the terrain tiles randomly (and face down) within the bolded line on the board to create the central island. Place out the sea serpents on the sea serpent spots as menacingly as possible. Players then take turns placing their numbered meeples on terrain tiles until all meeples have been placed, and their boateeples on any water space near the island they wish. Keep aside the shark, whale, and dolphin meeples for later. Give the die to the first player and you are ready to play.
On a player’s turn they will 1. Play any tiles from their hand, 2. Move meeples, 3. Remove terrain a tile, 4. Roll the die and move creatures. At the beginning of the game nobody will have any tiles in hand to play, so skip this step if there are no tiles in hand. On subsequent turns players may have collected tiles as a result of the #3 action, and now is the time to play those. Typically they are beneficial for the active player or detrimental to the opponents. Next, the active player will move their meeples in any combination three total board hexes. This can be done with one or more meeples on land or in the water. There are movement restrictions that I will not cover here. After movement, the active player will remove one of the terrain tiles with the lowest elevation (sand, forest, then mountain tiles). The player flips over the tile and will play it immediately if it shows an arrow, or keeps it in hand if it shows a hand icon. Finally, the active player will roll the red die and move creatures per the movement table printed on the board.
Creature movement creates the tension in the game (as if fighting over the boats wasn’t enough). You see, when sharks enter the board and are moved, they are hungry for swimmer meeples (obv). Whales are hungry(?) for boats and will destroy them but fling the meeples aboard into the water to become swimmers. Sea serpents don’t care. They will eat swimmers and manned boats… but they’re the slowest movers. So consider that.
Play continues in this fashion until the either all meeples have been removed from the play grid, or a player flips over the volcano mountain tile and ends the game. Any meeples who have made it to the safety of the outer islands are worth the VP printed on their bottoms. Wait, not the butts. The bottom of the meeples. Which I guess are the feet.
Components. To reiterate, in case it was missed, we are reviewing the 2010 Stronghold edition. There is a newer version, and it seems to look a little better but plays the same. However, I love the components of this version too. The meeples are fine, the creatures are cool, the varying thicknesses of the terrain tiles makes for an interesting mini-3D look, and the board is great without being too busy and distracting. I have absolutely no issues with these components and think they are super.
Now, you may have read in my intro that this game may ruin friendships and the evening, and I really am not joking about this. I have played this so many times where at least one person becomes completely angered by the chomping of the shark or the horrible movement of the sea serpent adjacent to their boat. It’s just a game, and it’s inevitable in this one – your meeples will get eaten. It’s gonna happen! When I teach this now I try to make that apparent right away because it is then not viewed as absolutely treachery when it happens to newer players. Should you be playing with sensitive gamers, please instruct them early that it WILL happen or you’re gonna have a bad time.
However, this game is great! I love it now as much as I ever have. It’s an older horse for me, but one of which I will never tire. I can and love to play it with new gamers, especially the ones that are hoping to join the inner circle. If you can hang through a game of Survive without being angered and taking it all in stride, you are welcome at my table ANY time. That said, as you can see by our ratings, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a mighty and well-deserved 21 / 24. If you enjoy games that upset your players and want a cool theme on it, check out Survive: Escape from Atlantis!
