Search
Search results
Neil Goddard (3 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Feb 27, 2020
No Actors Required
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have a theory about movies that are 100% CGI; when someone isn’t a great actor and they are required only to supply a voice and they still aren’t very good, it really stands out.
Now, imagine you’re watching a film. I don’t know, maybe a bit creature epic, larger than life with whole cities being destroyed. The creature’s look amazing and the carnage they are wreaking is fabulous; buildings, helicopters, cars, all flying around the screen with a swish of a mighty reptilian tale. Now imagine that the actors, real people, not CGI, are, at best, bland and in some instances just outright terrible.
Annoying isn’t it?
It would lead one to believe that the film makers didn’t really put any stock in the human interactions, rather just gave a huge wad of cash to an SFX company and said, “Fill your boots, the more the merrier, make everything f---ing enormous!”
Godzilla (2014) was the second time Hollywood has attempted to make a film featuring Japan’s kaiju supremo and it was the first successful attempt from Hollywood, given that the 1998 Roland Emmerich attempt was basically Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) but with added daddy issues (Roland Emmerich’s trademark).
Gareth Edwards 2014 first entry in the MonsterVerse was a huge success, financially and artistically. We saw a Godzilla that was of a scale we’d always wanted, towering over buildings, a reptilian God and we’re just the ants trying to not get squished.
Godzilla: King of Monsters attempts to up the ante by throwing a dozen or so monsters at the story. “Godzilla fought two MUTO’s did he, well… hold my beer!” Yeah, we’ll hold your beer while you get Millie Bobby Brown to stand there teary eyed for most of the film (a waste), Vera Farmiga to go from bereaved workaholic, to eco-terrorist to pointless self-sacrifice (unfathomable), and for Kyle Chandler to… well, Christ knows what Kyle Chandler was doing, apart from spitting terrible dialogue badly and then standing/sitting/walking looking angry but unconvincingly. Bradley Whitford provided some nice comic relief, he does droll sarcasm immensely well, Charles Dance is underused (and then forgotten about) and Zhang Ziyi tries to out-Kyle-Chandler Kyle Chandler in the bland, borderline useless stakes.
Worse than any failing on the human emotion side of the story are the huge liberties they take with global travel, like, one of side of the world to the other in a very short space of time. I mean Godzilla can do it because of some tunnels under the sea that he uses, possible the ones used in the science-denying sci-fi car crash abomination The Core (2003), but for the humans to just pop to Venezuela or the Antarctic is unforgivable.
This kind of leaps of reality always leads me to lose interest in the events in a film and start thinking around the script. In a film where everything everyone says is of dire emergency or import and then we see them in another part of the world some time later, what have they been talking about for all that time. Have they been napping? If so, it’s hasn’t eased any of the pointless angry posturing. Have they been chatting about boring everyday stuff? There is no hint of a relationship between any of these people who are spending potentially their last moments on earth together with alarming regularity. The world is possible about to get destroyed and you are in direct harm’s way! Shut up and nut up.
Now, imagine you’re watching a film. I don’t know, maybe a bit creature epic, larger than life with whole cities being destroyed. The creature’s look amazing and the carnage they are wreaking is fabulous; buildings, helicopters, cars, all flying around the screen with a swish of a mighty reptilian tale. Now imagine that the actors, real people, not CGI, are, at best, bland and in some instances just outright terrible.
Annoying isn’t it?
It would lead one to believe that the film makers didn’t really put any stock in the human interactions, rather just gave a huge wad of cash to an SFX company and said, “Fill your boots, the more the merrier, make everything f---ing enormous!”
Godzilla (2014) was the second time Hollywood has attempted to make a film featuring Japan’s kaiju supremo and it was the first successful attempt from Hollywood, given that the 1998 Roland Emmerich attempt was basically Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) but with added daddy issues (Roland Emmerich’s trademark).
Gareth Edwards 2014 first entry in the MonsterVerse was a huge success, financially and artistically. We saw a Godzilla that was of a scale we’d always wanted, towering over buildings, a reptilian God and we’re just the ants trying to not get squished.
Godzilla: King of Monsters attempts to up the ante by throwing a dozen or so monsters at the story. “Godzilla fought two MUTO’s did he, well… hold my beer!” Yeah, we’ll hold your beer while you get Millie Bobby Brown to stand there teary eyed for most of the film (a waste), Vera Farmiga to go from bereaved workaholic, to eco-terrorist to pointless self-sacrifice (unfathomable), and for Kyle Chandler to… well, Christ knows what Kyle Chandler was doing, apart from spitting terrible dialogue badly and then standing/sitting/walking looking angry but unconvincingly. Bradley Whitford provided some nice comic relief, he does droll sarcasm immensely well, Charles Dance is underused (and then forgotten about) and Zhang Ziyi tries to out-Kyle-Chandler Kyle Chandler in the bland, borderline useless stakes.
Worse than any failing on the human emotion side of the story are the huge liberties they take with global travel, like, one of side of the world to the other in a very short space of time. I mean Godzilla can do it because of some tunnels under the sea that he uses, possible the ones used in the science-denying sci-fi car crash abomination The Core (2003), but for the humans to just pop to Venezuela or the Antarctic is unforgivable.
This kind of leaps of reality always leads me to lose interest in the events in a film and start thinking around the script. In a film where everything everyone says is of dire emergency or import and then we see them in another part of the world some time later, what have they been talking about for all that time. Have they been napping? If so, it’s hasn’t eased any of the pointless angry posturing. Have they been chatting about boring everyday stuff? There is no hint of a relationship between any of these people who are spending potentially their last moments on earth together with alarming regularity. The world is possible about to get destroyed and you are in direct harm’s way! Shut up and nut up.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Burning Dead (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
So, If you’re on the east coast you’re no doubt experiencing the unusually harsh ‘arctic waves’. If you’re on the west coast you have to deal with the unseasonably warm weather.
Whether it’s trying to stay warm and keep the fires burning or finding the shade and a cool beverage, either you or someone you know is going to bring up the following idea ‘ … B-Movie Horror Marathon’.
Today we’ve got a prime candidate for just such a marathon. ‘The Burning Dead’ staring the legendary Danny Trejo! Now, When I describe a B-movie of the horror genre, I’m not talking about legendary franchises like ‘Friday The 13th’ or ‘Nightmare On Elm Street’. No no no no no. I’m talking about a movie worthy of getting critiqued by the original crew of ‘Mystery Science Theater 3000’. Something like an episode of the ‘Buffy The Vampire Slayer’ T.V. show minus the awesome cast, a smaller budget, questionable computer-generated special effects, and no Joss Whedon at the helm. This movie isn’t without merit though. I mean c’mon. It’s got Danny Trejo in it so it definitely deserves a shot right?!
‘The Burning Dead’ stars Danny Trejo, Thomas Downey, Adam Gregor, Nicole Cummins, Moniqua Plante, Julia Lehman, Robert F. Lyons, Kyle T. Heffner, Kevin Norman, and Jenny Lin.
Our story opens with the Native American warrior Night Wolf (Trejo) and several members
of his family gathered around the campfire as he begins to share the tale the infamous ‘Donner Party’ and the madness that engulfed the early settlers was caused by an evil spirit that resided in the nearby mountain after defeating a ‘good spirit’ many years early. Fast forward to present day, Sheriff Denton is supervising the evacuation of a town in the shadow of the mountain after it begins to show signs of an impending eruption. Little do he and the townspeople know that
there will not only be a volcanic eruption, but the evil spirit residing within will unleash a horde of flesh-eating zombies that spit hot lava and ravage everything in their path!
Yeah yeah. I little too dramatic I know. I gotta give it some credit though. The actors and actresses do give a great performance under the circumstances attempting to be as serious as possible and the ‘lava zombie’ effects are quite well done considering. When the zombies ‘go to work’ there’s a definite ick factor too. Certainly not ‘Walking Dead’ gross but they get the point across. The soundtrack is almost annoying though as its the same track or variations of on a loop over and over again. I think from time to time, the writers may have consulted the ‘scary movie’ handbook because at one point, they do throw in hot chic who randomly shows up at the mountain during the evacuation, sets up a camera in front of the volcano and proceeds to strip while the camera is photographing the mountain in auto. We all know what happens to the ‘hot chic’ in a scary flick that strips down to her underwear or more yes? Predictable but mildly entertaining.
Honestly, I was expecting and hoping to see Trejo show up a lot more in the movie and kick some bad guy ass or in this case, some zombie ass. I think how I described it earlier is the best way to sum it up, ‘ It’s like a really bad episode of ‘Buffy The Vampire Slayer ‘ minus the cast and character line up and no Joss Whedon at the helm. I’m giving it 2 out of 5 stars. This one just barely scrapes by. Definitely NOT one for the kids. Don’t waste your money on seeing it in theaters. Take my advice, and add it to the lineup for a B-Movie Horror marathon at home.
Sorry Danny … You just barely saved this one.
Whether it’s trying to stay warm and keep the fires burning or finding the shade and a cool beverage, either you or someone you know is going to bring up the following idea ‘ … B-Movie Horror Marathon’.
Today we’ve got a prime candidate for just such a marathon. ‘The Burning Dead’ staring the legendary Danny Trejo! Now, When I describe a B-movie of the horror genre, I’m not talking about legendary franchises like ‘Friday The 13th’ or ‘Nightmare On Elm Street’. No no no no no. I’m talking about a movie worthy of getting critiqued by the original crew of ‘Mystery Science Theater 3000’. Something like an episode of the ‘Buffy The Vampire Slayer’ T.V. show minus the awesome cast, a smaller budget, questionable computer-generated special effects, and no Joss Whedon at the helm. This movie isn’t without merit though. I mean c’mon. It’s got Danny Trejo in it so it definitely deserves a shot right?!
‘The Burning Dead’ stars Danny Trejo, Thomas Downey, Adam Gregor, Nicole Cummins, Moniqua Plante, Julia Lehman, Robert F. Lyons, Kyle T. Heffner, Kevin Norman, and Jenny Lin.
Our story opens with the Native American warrior Night Wolf (Trejo) and several members
of his family gathered around the campfire as he begins to share the tale the infamous ‘Donner Party’ and the madness that engulfed the early settlers was caused by an evil spirit that resided in the nearby mountain after defeating a ‘good spirit’ many years early. Fast forward to present day, Sheriff Denton is supervising the evacuation of a town in the shadow of the mountain after it begins to show signs of an impending eruption. Little do he and the townspeople know that
there will not only be a volcanic eruption, but the evil spirit residing within will unleash a horde of flesh-eating zombies that spit hot lava and ravage everything in their path!
Yeah yeah. I little too dramatic I know. I gotta give it some credit though. The actors and actresses do give a great performance under the circumstances attempting to be as serious as possible and the ‘lava zombie’ effects are quite well done considering. When the zombies ‘go to work’ there’s a definite ick factor too. Certainly not ‘Walking Dead’ gross but they get the point across. The soundtrack is almost annoying though as its the same track or variations of on a loop over and over again. I think from time to time, the writers may have consulted the ‘scary movie’ handbook because at one point, they do throw in hot chic who randomly shows up at the mountain during the evacuation, sets up a camera in front of the volcano and proceeds to strip while the camera is photographing the mountain in auto. We all know what happens to the ‘hot chic’ in a scary flick that strips down to her underwear or more yes? Predictable but mildly entertaining.
Honestly, I was expecting and hoping to see Trejo show up a lot more in the movie and kick some bad guy ass or in this case, some zombie ass. I think how I described it earlier is the best way to sum it up, ‘ It’s like a really bad episode of ‘Buffy The Vampire Slayer ‘ minus the cast and character line up and no Joss Whedon at the helm. I’m giving it 2 out of 5 stars. This one just barely scrapes by. Definitely NOT one for the kids. Don’t waste your money on seeing it in theaters. Take my advice, and add it to the lineup for a B-Movie Horror marathon at home.
Sorry Danny … You just barely saved this one.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The pop culture phenomenon that is Twilight is wrapping up as the film adaptation of the final book in the series, Twilight: Breaking Dawn, has arrived in theaters. With the previous three films doing brisk business at the box office, it came as no surprise when it was announced that the final book in the series was being split into two films so that the studio could maximize the box office of the series.
The film opens with awkward, melancholy teen Bella (Kristen Stewart), preparing for her wedding to Edward (Robert Pattinson), as their human and vampire friends assemble for the ceremony. Of course Edward’s rival Jacob (Tayler Lautner), is highly against the union as he still carries a flame for Bella. Nonetheless, the ceremony goes off as planned and Edward whisks Bella away to a remote Brazilian island to consummate their union, which apparently is a tricky endeavor, being that she is still a mortal and he is a century old vampire.
What at first is an ideal honeymoon is soon complicated when Bella and Edward discover an unexpected challenge that threatens Bella’s well-being and poses a threat to the pact between the vampires and werewolves. I will not spoil the film, even though fans of the series and books will not be any strangers to the drama and politics of the situation, but suffice it to say there is a lot on the line for all of the characters involved.
The film was rife with issues, the main one being the atrocious acting. One would think that after three previous films with the same cast, these actors would have developed some timing and chemistry with one another, especially Stewart and Pattinson who are a couple offscreen. Nothing could be further from the truth as they stiffly deliver their lines with pained and remote expressions. I am honestly at a loss as to why Bella is so captivating to both Edward and Jacob
as she is basically a dour girl who looks incredibly uncomfortable in her own skin, and yet the two are utterly captivated by her. I found the supporting cast far more interesting than the heroine and her besotted heroes. Another issue I had was that Pattinson, who got to show his acting ability in “Water for Elephants” is given little to do aside from staring at Bella and doing profile shots.
The first half of the film is basically an MTV-style wedding and honeymoon music video but the second half of the film did manage to grab and hold my attention with the ongoing plot points. It is obvious that the story is being stretched to cover two films as there are numerous unnecessary scenes such as people walking up stairs, throwing things in a garbage can, looking in mirrors, which serve little purpose other than increasing the run time of the film. Of course all of this matters little to fans of the series. The studio knows who the core audience is and the movie panders to them every chance they can, as proven by Lautner doffing his shirt not 60 seconds into the film to the squeals of delight from the teens, tweens and grown women in the audience.
Still, because it pits the Cullens against the werewolves who were their allies in the previous film, Breaking Dawn is better than the previous films. While it raises the angst and tension, it does not provide much growth for the actors as they dutifully go through the motions as best they can with the material. While it attempts to be a darker and more mature film, it still comes across as eye candy and fantasy for young women when the story and cast deserved so
much more. That being said, the film stays true to it’s core audience and gives them exactly what they have come to expect and does not stray from what has been a successful formula.
The film opens with awkward, melancholy teen Bella (Kristen Stewart), preparing for her wedding to Edward (Robert Pattinson), as their human and vampire friends assemble for the ceremony. Of course Edward’s rival Jacob (Tayler Lautner), is highly against the union as he still carries a flame for Bella. Nonetheless, the ceremony goes off as planned and Edward whisks Bella away to a remote Brazilian island to consummate their union, which apparently is a tricky endeavor, being that she is still a mortal and he is a century old vampire.
What at first is an ideal honeymoon is soon complicated when Bella and Edward discover an unexpected challenge that threatens Bella’s well-being and poses a threat to the pact between the vampires and werewolves. I will not spoil the film, even though fans of the series and books will not be any strangers to the drama and politics of the situation, but suffice it to say there is a lot on the line for all of the characters involved.
The film was rife with issues, the main one being the atrocious acting. One would think that after three previous films with the same cast, these actors would have developed some timing and chemistry with one another, especially Stewart and Pattinson who are a couple offscreen. Nothing could be further from the truth as they stiffly deliver their lines with pained and remote expressions. I am honestly at a loss as to why Bella is so captivating to both Edward and Jacob
as she is basically a dour girl who looks incredibly uncomfortable in her own skin, and yet the two are utterly captivated by her. I found the supporting cast far more interesting than the heroine and her besotted heroes. Another issue I had was that Pattinson, who got to show his acting ability in “Water for Elephants” is given little to do aside from staring at Bella and doing profile shots.
The first half of the film is basically an MTV-style wedding and honeymoon music video but the second half of the film did manage to grab and hold my attention with the ongoing plot points. It is obvious that the story is being stretched to cover two films as there are numerous unnecessary scenes such as people walking up stairs, throwing things in a garbage can, looking in mirrors, which serve little purpose other than increasing the run time of the film. Of course all of this matters little to fans of the series. The studio knows who the core audience is and the movie panders to them every chance they can, as proven by Lautner doffing his shirt not 60 seconds into the film to the squeals of delight from the teens, tweens and grown women in the audience.
Still, because it pits the Cullens against the werewolves who were their allies in the previous film, Breaking Dawn is better than the previous films. While it raises the angst and tension, it does not provide much growth for the actors as they dutifully go through the motions as best they can with the material. While it attempts to be a darker and more mature film, it still comes across as eye candy and fantasy for young women when the story and cast deserved so
much more. That being said, the film stays true to it’s core audience and gives them exactly what they have come to expect and does not stray from what has been a successful formula.
PCGS Photograde
Shopping and Lifestyle
App
Grade 92 popular U.S. regular issue coin series and 43 Colonial coins accurately with 2,768...
A Tragedy of Errors: The Story of Grace Murray the Woman Whom John Wesley Loved and Lost
Book
The story of John Wesley's affair with Grace Murray and how Charles Wesley prevented their marriage...
Watch the Lady
Book
The Queen's God Daughter. Her Most Trusted Maid. Adultress. Enemy Of The State. Who is The Real...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Those Who Wish Me Dead (2021) in Movies
May 19, 2021
Disappointing
And…we have the “leader in the clubhouse” for the WORST FILM OF 2021.
As faithful readers of my reviews know, I’m all for a “turn you mind off” action flick, not really caring about plot/characters, but let some competent storytelling and decent action scenes transport me away from the real world for a few hours (or in this case, for 100 minutes) and THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD started off promisingly enough and so I settled into my chair looking to be entertained.
I’m still waiting
THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD stars Angelina Jolie as a “Fire Jumper” who is suffering from a traumatic experience and is shying away from human connection and interaction, looking for cheap, death-defying thrills to feel some sort of emotion. Into her world comes a young boy who has witnessed a murder and the murderers are chasing him, so she must save him.
And…of course…there’s a fire.
I can roll with that flimsy plot (certainly other action flicks have been entertaining with much less plot) but TWWMD (as I will call this from now on) fails to capitalize at all on any of the aspects of the plot and fails to garner much in the way of interest throughout the film.
Director/Writer Taylor Sheridan (the writer on the terrific HELL OR HIGH WATER) was brought on board this film early on as a “script doctor” and then stepped into the Director’s role when the original director (smartly) dropped out and he promised the producer’s that he could get Angelina Jolie to star in it.
To be fair, Jolie brings the necessary star quality to the role of emotionally crippled “Fire Jumper” Hannah, and she looks like she was “game” for whatever Sheridan asked her to do - there just isn’t much for her to do.
And this is unfortunate, for Sheridan starts the movie with an interesting scene where our two hitmen (Aiden Gillen - “Littlefinger” from GAME OF THRONES and Nicholas Hoult - Beast in the X-MEN FIRST CLASS films) take out their first target. This is actually a pretty good scene and one that starts the film out with promise. Little did I know that it was the best scene in the film.
After that, nothing interesting really happens and the other characters (with an exception that I will speak about in a moment) are not interesting at all (I’m looking at you, Tyler Perry, who was clearly doing a favor for Sheridan). As a matter of fact, some of the other characters were just plain annyoing (I’m looking at you, “Fire Jumper” Friends of Hannah).
The exception to this is the work of Jon Bernthal (Shane in the first 2 season of THE WALKING DEAD) and Medina Senghore (an actress I had not seen before) as a local cop and his “survivalist” wife. These two bring some intensity and spark to pretty dull proceedings - I think I would have rather have seen a film that focused on these 2 characters, rather than Jolie’s.
Most of the blame for this must fall to Writer/Director Sheridan. I don’t think he ever figured out what type of film he was making. Is it an action flick? Sort of (and the action scenes are not all that good/interesting). Is it a redemption story? Sure. (But I didn’t buy how Jolie’s character needed redemption). Is it a story of survival? Kind of (but I didn’t really care for the child actor that was being saved).
There was a good idea in here, but this movie wasn’t even close to a good movie on this idea. Skip this one.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
As faithful readers of my reviews know, I’m all for a “turn you mind off” action flick, not really caring about plot/characters, but let some competent storytelling and decent action scenes transport me away from the real world for a few hours (or in this case, for 100 minutes) and THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD started off promisingly enough and so I settled into my chair looking to be entertained.
I’m still waiting
THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD stars Angelina Jolie as a “Fire Jumper” who is suffering from a traumatic experience and is shying away from human connection and interaction, looking for cheap, death-defying thrills to feel some sort of emotion. Into her world comes a young boy who has witnessed a murder and the murderers are chasing him, so she must save him.
And…of course…there’s a fire.
I can roll with that flimsy plot (certainly other action flicks have been entertaining with much less plot) but TWWMD (as I will call this from now on) fails to capitalize at all on any of the aspects of the plot and fails to garner much in the way of interest throughout the film.
Director/Writer Taylor Sheridan (the writer on the terrific HELL OR HIGH WATER) was brought on board this film early on as a “script doctor” and then stepped into the Director’s role when the original director (smartly) dropped out and he promised the producer’s that he could get Angelina Jolie to star in it.
To be fair, Jolie brings the necessary star quality to the role of emotionally crippled “Fire Jumper” Hannah, and she looks like she was “game” for whatever Sheridan asked her to do - there just isn’t much for her to do.
And this is unfortunate, for Sheridan starts the movie with an interesting scene where our two hitmen (Aiden Gillen - “Littlefinger” from GAME OF THRONES and Nicholas Hoult - Beast in the X-MEN FIRST CLASS films) take out their first target. This is actually a pretty good scene and one that starts the film out with promise. Little did I know that it was the best scene in the film.
After that, nothing interesting really happens and the other characters (with an exception that I will speak about in a moment) are not interesting at all (I’m looking at you, Tyler Perry, who was clearly doing a favor for Sheridan). As a matter of fact, some of the other characters were just plain annyoing (I’m looking at you, “Fire Jumper” Friends of Hannah).
The exception to this is the work of Jon Bernthal (Shane in the first 2 season of THE WALKING DEAD) and Medina Senghore (an actress I had not seen before) as a local cop and his “survivalist” wife. These two bring some intensity and spark to pretty dull proceedings - I think I would have rather have seen a film that focused on these 2 characters, rather than Jolie’s.
Most of the blame for this must fall to Writer/Director Sheridan. I don’t think he ever figured out what type of film he was making. Is it an action flick? Sort of (and the action scenes are not all that good/interesting). Is it a redemption story? Sure. (But I didn’t buy how Jolie’s character needed redemption). Is it a story of survival? Kind of (but I didn’t really care for the child actor that was being saved).
There was a good idea in here, but this movie wasn’t even close to a good movie on this idea. Skip this one.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Paradox of Morality in Tabletop Games
Dec 17, 2020
Paradox of Morality. That’s a super cool name for a game. What do you think of when you read it? I immediately thought of questionable choices that could mean life or death, or having to choose between two ugly outcomes, or questioning one’s own value systems. This is a great premise for a game. Does this one deliver on its namesake and give the players these excruciating choices?
Paradox of Morality is a moderated scenario game between players (or teams of players) where one player will be the judge and the others will be convincing the judge to award them points based on their responses to scenario prompts.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. You are invited to back the game through the Kickstarter campaign or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
Setup is very easy: choose a judge, split up the remaining players into teams and choose the first scenario from the stack of large cards. The game may now begin!
Playing a round is similar to playing a company-mandated icebreaker activity where each team is given the same prompt by the judge to be discussed in their groups. Once the judge has called time for the scenario each team will need one or more spokespeople to deliver their arguments for what they have discussed. The judge then listens to all teams’ spokespeople and awards points based on responses given. The first team to reach 200 points is the winner.
Components. Again, this is a prototype and I do not know if the components will be any different once the game is officially produced. That said, this game is just a large stack of large prompt cards. The rules are printed on the inside of the box cover. There is minimal art in the game and it only resides on the box and on the card backs. I can describe the art as photos of trippy scantily-clad quasi-Egyptian masquerade attendees with the females wearing what appears to be only body paint. It certainly does not connect to the gameplay in any fashion, and I question its usage. Additionally, the verbiage throughout the game (and maybe it’s just for the prototype) uses abbreviated text-speech. So a prompt could read similar to, “u c a man walking down the street n he has 2 call out 2 u 2 ask a question.” I must be getting old because that is not at all endearing to me.
Similarly, the game as a whole just does not speak to me. The prompts are strange and almost railroad players and teams down paths of just grossness or straight up ridiculousness. I will admit, there are a few good scenarios in the box, but it is really hard to get past the delivery style and presentation of the game (at least in this format). Perhaps cleaning up the verbiage would help, and paring down the number of scenarios given to truly enhance the game’s offerings would be better. I don’t know, I’m not a designer.
All in all, if you are someone who lusts for those staff meetings like this, then Paradox of Morality is for you. If you dread those activities, I would stay away this time. Perhaps the game will change by the time it reaches Kickstarter or full production, and if so I would like to take another look at it. However, as it is presented now, I would be passing on this. Perhaps it is not targeting 41-year-old married men, but for me it has missed my bullseye.
Paradox of Morality is a moderated scenario game between players (or teams of players) where one player will be the judge and the others will be convincing the judge to award them points based on their responses to scenario prompts.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. You are invited to back the game through the Kickstarter campaign or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
Setup is very easy: choose a judge, split up the remaining players into teams and choose the first scenario from the stack of large cards. The game may now begin!
Playing a round is similar to playing a company-mandated icebreaker activity where each team is given the same prompt by the judge to be discussed in their groups. Once the judge has called time for the scenario each team will need one or more spokespeople to deliver their arguments for what they have discussed. The judge then listens to all teams’ spokespeople and awards points based on responses given. The first team to reach 200 points is the winner.
Components. Again, this is a prototype and I do not know if the components will be any different once the game is officially produced. That said, this game is just a large stack of large prompt cards. The rules are printed on the inside of the box cover. There is minimal art in the game and it only resides on the box and on the card backs. I can describe the art as photos of trippy scantily-clad quasi-Egyptian masquerade attendees with the females wearing what appears to be only body paint. It certainly does not connect to the gameplay in any fashion, and I question its usage. Additionally, the verbiage throughout the game (and maybe it’s just for the prototype) uses abbreviated text-speech. So a prompt could read similar to, “u c a man walking down the street n he has 2 call out 2 u 2 ask a question.” I must be getting old because that is not at all endearing to me.
Similarly, the game as a whole just does not speak to me. The prompts are strange and almost railroad players and teams down paths of just grossness or straight up ridiculousness. I will admit, there are a few good scenarios in the box, but it is really hard to get past the delivery style and presentation of the game (at least in this format). Perhaps cleaning up the verbiage would help, and paring down the number of scenarios given to truly enhance the game’s offerings would be better. I don’t know, I’m not a designer.
All in all, if you are someone who lusts for those staff meetings like this, then Paradox of Morality is for you. If you dread those activities, I would stay away this time. Perhaps the game will change by the time it reaches Kickstarter or full production, and if so I would like to take another look at it. However, as it is presented now, I would be passing on this. Perhaps it is not targeting 41-year-old married men, but for me it has missed my bullseye.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated The Midnight Sky (2020) in Movies
Dec 27, 2020
Predictable and cliched
The Midnight Sky is a science fiction film directed by George Clooney, the latest in a long line of Netflix originals to hit our screens, based on the 2016 book ‘Good Morning, Midnight’ by Lily Brooks-Dalton. George Clooney plays Augustine, who encounters young girl Iris (the adorable Caoilinn Springall) after remaining on earth following a global apocalypse. Together they must travel across the Arctic to reach a weather station that will allow them to warn returning spaceship, the Aether, captained by Adewole (David Oyelowo) and crewed by Sully (Felicity Jones), Mitchell (Kyle Chandler), Sanchez (Demián Bichir) and Maya (Tiffany Boone).
The trailer for this had me concerned. It looked very similar to many other sci-fi/end of the world films (think Sunshine, Interstellar, even The Day After Tomorrow) and nothing about it looked particularly original. I had hoped that the trailer might be misleading, but I’m afraid to say that this is every bit as lacklustre and predictable as the trailer implied.
Visually this looks stunning, both the set design and the special effects have obviously had a decent amount of time and money invested in them. Alongside this, Alexandre Desplat’s score is beautifully ephemeral and haunting, and accompanies the story well, feeling very in keeping with both the Arctic and the space settings. And aside from a decent cast, I’m afraid these are the only good things I can say about this film. The main problem is the story itself, it’s entirely predictable and suffers from every space and sci-fi mishap you could ever think of, from unexplainable drifting off course to the destruction of important equipment (comms of course, would you expect any less?) due to an unpredicted meteor strike. And this cliched predictability just makes the story so dull and drawn out over its two hour runtime.
To be honest, the whole film itself and the actions of the characters just doesn’t make any sense. You have a pregnant astronaut, who has virtually no sexual chemistry with the man she’s having a baby with, and who’s allowed to go outside into space with little concern over her or her baby’s well-being. A scientist who falls into sub-zero Arctic water which appears to have little impact on his health. And a child walking around in a summer dress with bare legs in the Arctic climate. Admittedly this latter point is addressed towards the end of the film in a rather obvious and over used plot twist, which is still rather unsatisfying. There’s also the large number of unexplained plot points. I’m all for keeping the watcher guessing and hate films that feel the need to over explain every aspect of the plot, but The Midnight Sky takes the opposite approach and explains barely anything. If you go into this expecting to find out what caused the radiation apocalypse or what happened to the rest of earth’s population you’ll be sorely disappointed. It also makes references to a K-23 colony ship that the Aether hasn’t heard from, yet provides no explanation or background as to the outcome of said ship, and also gives us flashbacks to Augustine’s past yet with little reason other than to provide an “A-ha” moment for the aforementioned plot twist. And the decisions made by the astronauts on the Aether once they’ve found out about Earth’s fate are just laughably ridiculous especially considering the fate of the rest of the population.
Despite the promising cast and effects, The Midnight Sky is yet another disappointing Netflix original that is light years away from some of the more brilliant sci-fi stories that have come before it.
The trailer for this had me concerned. It looked very similar to many other sci-fi/end of the world films (think Sunshine, Interstellar, even The Day After Tomorrow) and nothing about it looked particularly original. I had hoped that the trailer might be misleading, but I’m afraid to say that this is every bit as lacklustre and predictable as the trailer implied.
Visually this looks stunning, both the set design and the special effects have obviously had a decent amount of time and money invested in them. Alongside this, Alexandre Desplat’s score is beautifully ephemeral and haunting, and accompanies the story well, feeling very in keeping with both the Arctic and the space settings. And aside from a decent cast, I’m afraid these are the only good things I can say about this film. The main problem is the story itself, it’s entirely predictable and suffers from every space and sci-fi mishap you could ever think of, from unexplainable drifting off course to the destruction of important equipment (comms of course, would you expect any less?) due to an unpredicted meteor strike. And this cliched predictability just makes the story so dull and drawn out over its two hour runtime.
To be honest, the whole film itself and the actions of the characters just doesn’t make any sense. You have a pregnant astronaut, who has virtually no sexual chemistry with the man she’s having a baby with, and who’s allowed to go outside into space with little concern over her or her baby’s well-being. A scientist who falls into sub-zero Arctic water which appears to have little impact on his health. And a child walking around in a summer dress with bare legs in the Arctic climate. Admittedly this latter point is addressed towards the end of the film in a rather obvious and over used plot twist, which is still rather unsatisfying. There’s also the large number of unexplained plot points. I’m all for keeping the watcher guessing and hate films that feel the need to over explain every aspect of the plot, but The Midnight Sky takes the opposite approach and explains barely anything. If you go into this expecting to find out what caused the radiation apocalypse or what happened to the rest of earth’s population you’ll be sorely disappointed. It also makes references to a K-23 colony ship that the Aether hasn’t heard from, yet provides no explanation or background as to the outcome of said ship, and also gives us flashbacks to Augustine’s past yet with little reason other than to provide an “A-ha” moment for the aforementioned plot twist. And the decisions made by the astronauts on the Aether once they’ve found out about Earth’s fate are just laughably ridiculous especially considering the fate of the rest of the population.
Despite the promising cast and effects, The Midnight Sky is yet another disappointing Netflix original that is light years away from some of the more brilliant sci-fi stories that have come before it.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man in Apps
Sep 25, 2019
The Amazing Spider-man, starring Andrew Garfield, came out 10 years after Maguire's ill-fated first attempt, on 3rd July 2012. Co-starring some greats, including Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Martin Sheen and Sally Fields. You might as well read the last summary for this one too, but add in the fact that he's out to solve his parents' mysterious death.
Peter is less nerd, more loser this time around. And generally he comes across as a bit more sad than before. But you'd expect that as we started the movie with a sad farewell. He has a bit of a "moment" with his dad's old briefcase to push that fact home a bit more.
No field trip for this Peter, instead he gatecrashes an intern enrolment to get a nosy at what might have to do with his parent's past. We learn lessons from this film too... in this one it is super easy to break into what must be highly classified labs.
Peter's transformation happens a lot quicker in this one, much to the trauma of everyone in the subway carriage with him. His little morning rampage gives me visions of Wolverine destroying the sink in X-men Origins: Wolverine... and now I come to think of it, doesn't Cyclops have a meltdown with his powers in a bathroom? What can we learn about this? Superpowers make you hate bathroom fixtures.
Did anyone else notice the guy who runs Jurassic World? Is he trying to pick up tips on how to super charge those dinosaurs? And while we're talking about mystery appearances, I'm torn about Spidey helping The Reaper rescue his son.
Honestly, my favourite line has to be... "Yeah, nobody likes your meatloaf." Sheen and Fields reacting to each other is just priceless.
Uncle Ben dying in this one is a lot more dramatic and sets Peter off on a bit of a crusade that leads to some better green screened wall walking. And some handy falling through a roof into a wrestling arena, gives him an idea for his costume, and we see a montage of him honing his skills and tech... we're a little bit past shooting some white gunk out of our wrists at this point. I like that he points out everything is spandex, yes Parker, there should be other options.
After the big costume reveal I feel like the film drags a bit. It's good, and I enjoy it, but I feel like there's a lot of film for not a lot of plot... does that make sense? Possibly not, but I know what I mean, so it's all good.
Just goes to show you how much I was paying attention in the last one. I missed Stan Lee's cameo. This one was much better, listening to music in his library while it gets destroyed in a fight behind him. Stan Lee, I love you. Genuine hearts all around.
The crane moving scene is, well, a little bit moving. One good deed deserves another, and let's fly a flag in the background for added effect.
We started sad, we end sad. I definitely prefer this film to Spider-man. It isn't without its own flaws though. While Spider-man was just over two hours, it didn't feel like that's how long you were watching for. The Amazing Spider-man felt like 2 hours 16 minutes of screen time. But the ending... she's angry at him, and then he whispers to her, and she gives that little smile, and as she dips her head he knows she's going to forgive him. And we're left with a spark of joy.
Peter is less nerd, more loser this time around. And generally he comes across as a bit more sad than before. But you'd expect that as we started the movie with a sad farewell. He has a bit of a "moment" with his dad's old briefcase to push that fact home a bit more.
No field trip for this Peter, instead he gatecrashes an intern enrolment to get a nosy at what might have to do with his parent's past. We learn lessons from this film too... in this one it is super easy to break into what must be highly classified labs.
Peter's transformation happens a lot quicker in this one, much to the trauma of everyone in the subway carriage with him. His little morning rampage gives me visions of Wolverine destroying the sink in X-men Origins: Wolverine... and now I come to think of it, doesn't Cyclops have a meltdown with his powers in a bathroom? What can we learn about this? Superpowers make you hate bathroom fixtures.
Did anyone else notice the guy who runs Jurassic World? Is he trying to pick up tips on how to super charge those dinosaurs? And while we're talking about mystery appearances, I'm torn about Spidey helping The Reaper rescue his son.
Honestly, my favourite line has to be... "Yeah, nobody likes your meatloaf." Sheen and Fields reacting to each other is just priceless.
Uncle Ben dying in this one is a lot more dramatic and sets Peter off on a bit of a crusade that leads to some better green screened wall walking. And some handy falling through a roof into a wrestling arena, gives him an idea for his costume, and we see a montage of him honing his skills and tech... we're a little bit past shooting some white gunk out of our wrists at this point. I like that he points out everything is spandex, yes Parker, there should be other options.
After the big costume reveal I feel like the film drags a bit. It's good, and I enjoy it, but I feel like there's a lot of film for not a lot of plot... does that make sense? Possibly not, but I know what I mean, so it's all good.
Just goes to show you how much I was paying attention in the last one. I missed Stan Lee's cameo. This one was much better, listening to music in his library while it gets destroyed in a fight behind him. Stan Lee, I love you. Genuine hearts all around.
The crane moving scene is, well, a little bit moving. One good deed deserves another, and let's fly a flag in the background for added effect.
We started sad, we end sad. I definitely prefer this film to Spider-man. It isn't without its own flaws though. While Spider-man was just over two hours, it didn't feel like that's how long you were watching for. The Amazing Spider-man felt like 2 hours 16 minutes of screen time. But the ending... she's angry at him, and then he whispers to her, and she gives that little smile, and as she dips her head he knows she's going to forgive him. And we're left with a spark of joy.