Search
Search results
Joe Julians (221 KP) rated Artemis in Books
Feb 17, 2018
The setting (2 more)
World building
Jazz (sometimes)
The plot (2 more)
Dialogue
Jazz (sometimes)
Following on from the excellent The Martian, Andy Weir delivers another space bound science fiction story, but this one sadly comes up short.
Artemis isn't a bad book and there's plenty of things to enjoy here. The moon based setting complete with it's changes in gravity and Kenyan set up make for an interesting read. There's a ton I want to know about Artemis and Weir does a great job in bringing this place to life. But it feels like there could have been more explored here and it's like the surface is only just being scratched.
With his central character, Jazz, we basically have another version of the lead from The Martian. The same wise cracks are there, but whereas with Mark Watney the wise cracking feels natural- here it feels forced. It doesn't help that Weir decided to write this from the perspective of Jazz, a Muslim woman. Some of the worst aspects of the book are based on that decision. Some of the dialogue here is appalling- embarrassing even. There were many moments I just groaned at how childish some of the things he makes Jazz say are. This doesn't feel like a woman talking. Instead it feels like what it is- a man trying to write as a woman but failing. Which is a shame as Jazz is an interesting character and one I could at times enjoy spending time with- other times though I couldn't stand her. Characters are a problem across the whole story really. Side characters feel under developed and there wasn't really anyone that I could single out as a highlight- none of them felt natural.
There's issues with the story itself too. This is essentially a heist story, but the heist is actually the least interesting part of Artemis. Rarely did I find myself invested in what was going on and this actually got worse as things went on. The first half of Artemis did a good job at setting things up, it's just a shame that as the story started building towards a climax- it lost momentum at the exact moment it should be gaining it.
Also, the science talk. Weir loves science, that's obvious. But here it at times feels like he is showing off to prove how much he knows. I don't actually think he was, but I quickly started to faze out when he went into details about how something works as it came so hot on the heels of a previous explanation of something else. I'm also so bored of welding now that I don't want to ever hear the word again.
I feel like I'm being a tad harsh here by focusing on the negatives. I do want to stress this book isn't bad. I may have got bored and frustrated on occasion I did however for the most part enjoy it. As I said Artemis is a great place and the city is one that I would love to have him explore in future installments. And while Jazz and a lot of the things she said did irritate me, there were flashes of brilliance with the character. I think personally I would like a second book to focus on someone new, but if Weir could sort the dialogue and some of her more annoying traits out- I'd happily spend more time with her.
Artemis isn't a bad book and there's plenty of things to enjoy here. The moon based setting complete with it's changes in gravity and Kenyan set up make for an interesting read. There's a ton I want to know about Artemis and Weir does a great job in bringing this place to life. But it feels like there could have been more explored here and it's like the surface is only just being scratched.
With his central character, Jazz, we basically have another version of the lead from The Martian. The same wise cracks are there, but whereas with Mark Watney the wise cracking feels natural- here it feels forced. It doesn't help that Weir decided to write this from the perspective of Jazz, a Muslim woman. Some of the worst aspects of the book are based on that decision. Some of the dialogue here is appalling- embarrassing even. There were many moments I just groaned at how childish some of the things he makes Jazz say are. This doesn't feel like a woman talking. Instead it feels like what it is- a man trying to write as a woman but failing. Which is a shame as Jazz is an interesting character and one I could at times enjoy spending time with- other times though I couldn't stand her. Characters are a problem across the whole story really. Side characters feel under developed and there wasn't really anyone that I could single out as a highlight- none of them felt natural.
There's issues with the story itself too. This is essentially a heist story, but the heist is actually the least interesting part of Artemis. Rarely did I find myself invested in what was going on and this actually got worse as things went on. The first half of Artemis did a good job at setting things up, it's just a shame that as the story started building towards a climax- it lost momentum at the exact moment it should be gaining it.
Also, the science talk. Weir loves science, that's obvious. But here it at times feels like he is showing off to prove how much he knows. I don't actually think he was, but I quickly started to faze out when he went into details about how something works as it came so hot on the heels of a previous explanation of something else. I'm also so bored of welding now that I don't want to ever hear the word again.
I feel like I'm being a tad harsh here by focusing on the negatives. I do want to stress this book isn't bad. I may have got bored and frustrated on occasion I did however for the most part enjoy it. As I said Artemis is a great place and the city is one that I would love to have him explore in future installments. And while Jazz and a lot of the things she said did irritate me, there were flashes of brilliance with the character. I think personally I would like a second book to focus on someone new, but if Weir could sort the dialogue and some of her more annoying traits out- I'd happily spend more time with her.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
To say I found this hard to watch could not be more understated. Any adult that has risked their whole life on a true love that runs its course and then fails must surely feel the same. It happens to most of us once or twice in a lifetime, and resonates forever. Such is the level of truth and sadness on display in Noah Baumbach’s beautifully written and directed tale of two people in turmoil, whose biggest obstacle is not one another, but the dispassion and ineffectiveness of legality, and even friends and family, to resolve big issues of a personal nature.
As with the obvious reference point of the seminal take on divorce, Robert Benton’s 1979 Oscar winner Kramer Vs. Kramer, the point is not at all about taking sides and choosing a winner… because everyone loses in a break-up. The only thing you can hope is that it doesn’t tear the child / children apart, and that at least some memory of the love that once was isn’t entirely forgotten. You also hope that you will survive, once you realise you are not part of a whole any more, and you must now figure out who you are and where to go. Even the grief of death is sometimes not as devastating. And this beyond mature film acknowledges that.
Not that it is all doom and gloom. There is some real humour and joy wrapped up inside the detail of Marriage Story’s script. As you would expect from the guy who gave us the massively under-rated The Squid and the Whale, from 2005. It assumes an emotional intelligence similar to the best films of Woody Allen, with which he clearly shares some sense of creative style and sensibility. But let’s not open that can of worms at this juncture.
The idea that Scarlett Johansson can even be thought of as a double Oscar nominee this year may be galling to some naysayers, but it comes as no surprise to me at all. Despite a career touching on the lighter side of cinema, there are some bold artistic choices in there too, and personally I have always seen that potential. As Nicole, she not only creates a fully rounded character different from anything I have ever seen her do; believable and interesting in every way, but also holds her own against one of the major talents working in film today – Mr Adam Driver. And that is no mean feat! Another balance comparison that can be made to the epic battle of Streep Vs Hoffman, decades before. And as with Streep before her, there are moments where we entirely see her side of things and stop questioning male vs female politics and just see the person battling underneath it all.
However, and not remotely because I am likely to relate to the male point of view, the work Adam Driver is doing here is close to transcendent! I have made no secret of wanting Joaquin Phoenix to win every accolade going for his turn in Joker. And what a shame the two have to be compared, because Driver’s work here is second to none! I find it so completely exciting for the future of cinema that he is out there doing his thing – evidently, it is about as breath-taking as screen acting has ever been!
It is not only his ability to convey vulnerability and humanity in every role he takes on; it his control that really impresses. To such an extent that I begin to wonder if there is anything he could not do better than 99% of anyone working today, if well cast. Make no mistake, at any level, this is one of hell of a talent, making the right choices in the roles he does at almost every crossroads. Consider the latest Star Wars trilogy without him, and ponder what weak popcorn fare it might have been without him?
Marriage Story as a complete piece is worthy of dissection and multiple re-watches. I am happy to say that, only hours after seeing it myself. There simply isn’t a doubt. As a serious commentary on break-ups then it may be, at the moment, tertiary in my mind to both the aforementioned Kramer Vs Kramer and the sickeningly sad Blue Valentine. But, it is perhaps more real than either of those, and will certainly build in my psyche as time passes.
In conclusion: Yes! I have no inclination to fault it. And may have more to say at a different point…
As with the obvious reference point of the seminal take on divorce, Robert Benton’s 1979 Oscar winner Kramer Vs. Kramer, the point is not at all about taking sides and choosing a winner… because everyone loses in a break-up. The only thing you can hope is that it doesn’t tear the child / children apart, and that at least some memory of the love that once was isn’t entirely forgotten. You also hope that you will survive, once you realise you are not part of a whole any more, and you must now figure out who you are and where to go. Even the grief of death is sometimes not as devastating. And this beyond mature film acknowledges that.
Not that it is all doom and gloom. There is some real humour and joy wrapped up inside the detail of Marriage Story’s script. As you would expect from the guy who gave us the massively under-rated The Squid and the Whale, from 2005. It assumes an emotional intelligence similar to the best films of Woody Allen, with which he clearly shares some sense of creative style and sensibility. But let’s not open that can of worms at this juncture.
The idea that Scarlett Johansson can even be thought of as a double Oscar nominee this year may be galling to some naysayers, but it comes as no surprise to me at all. Despite a career touching on the lighter side of cinema, there are some bold artistic choices in there too, and personally I have always seen that potential. As Nicole, she not only creates a fully rounded character different from anything I have ever seen her do; believable and interesting in every way, but also holds her own against one of the major talents working in film today – Mr Adam Driver. And that is no mean feat! Another balance comparison that can be made to the epic battle of Streep Vs Hoffman, decades before. And as with Streep before her, there are moments where we entirely see her side of things and stop questioning male vs female politics and just see the person battling underneath it all.
However, and not remotely because I am likely to relate to the male point of view, the work Adam Driver is doing here is close to transcendent! I have made no secret of wanting Joaquin Phoenix to win every accolade going for his turn in Joker. And what a shame the two have to be compared, because Driver’s work here is second to none! I find it so completely exciting for the future of cinema that he is out there doing his thing – evidently, it is about as breath-taking as screen acting has ever been!
It is not only his ability to convey vulnerability and humanity in every role he takes on; it his control that really impresses. To such an extent that I begin to wonder if there is anything he could not do better than 99% of anyone working today, if well cast. Make no mistake, at any level, this is one of hell of a talent, making the right choices in the roles he does at almost every crossroads. Consider the latest Star Wars trilogy without him, and ponder what weak popcorn fare it might have been without him?
Marriage Story as a complete piece is worthy of dissection and multiple re-watches. I am happy to say that, only hours after seeing it myself. There simply isn’t a doubt. As a serious commentary on break-ups then it may be, at the moment, tertiary in my mind to both the aforementioned Kramer Vs Kramer and the sickeningly sad Blue Valentine. But, it is perhaps more real than either of those, and will certainly build in my psyche as time passes.
In conclusion: Yes! I have no inclination to fault it. And may have more to say at a different point…
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
One of the biggest challenges with an ongoing series is crafting a story that is on par or better than the prior offering and that the characters continue to grow so audiences do not get a rehash of what they have seen before.
With “Thor Ragnarok” Chris Hemsworth has returned for his third solo outing, and fifth outing overall as the heroic Asgardian warrior Thor.
This time out Thor is on his quest to track down the Infinity Stones and finds himself plagued by visions of Ragnarok: a legend detailing the fiery destruction of his home of Asgard.
With an action laden opening, Thor believes he has ended the threat and returns home to find his father Odin (Sir Anthony Hopkins), has been sent to Earth and his evil brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) assuming his place.
Thor ventures to Earth with his brother which sets a series of events into motion, the result of which unleashes the long imprisoned Hela (Cate Blanchett), who plans the subjugation of Thor and Asgard. Naturally Thor is not going to put up with this, but finds himself mid battle knocked out of his transit home and on a remote world called Sakaar.
As if being stranded far from home is not enough of a challenge, Thor is forced to become a gladiator for the erratic Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum), whom Loki has managed to charm and become a part of his inner circle.
As fate has it, Thor becomes matched with The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), and must find a way to survive and make his way home before Hella can destroy all that he holds precious.
The film is the best of the Thor films and it is engaging from start to finish. There is a significant amount of humor in the film but it does not feel forced and is very appropriate to many of the scenes. The film also has plenty of action and the blend between comedy and action is deftly handed by Director TaiKa Waititi who never lets the film become a parody of itself nor take itself too seriously at times. He knows when there is a time to laugh and when there is a time to be deathly serious.
This allows for a deeper and more enjoyable and engaging Thor than has been previously seen. He is not as one-dimensional as he has been in the past as the strong, quick to anger muscle that I would love to see explored in further outings.
I had worried from the trailers that the movie might be more of a video game as it seemed heavily dependent on retro style CGI and camp humor which made it seem like something out of the 80s. While there are elements of that, the film mixes the old and new to create one of the most authentic and enjoyable comic adaptations seen to date. It continues the winning formula of Marvel Studios and of course, sets up the next outing for Thor in “Avengers: Infinity War” as well as the larger Marvel Universe as we a whole. The film also has some great cameos and I am curious to see how the addition of the newly introduced characters will be explored down the road. The return of Hiddleston was also a real treat as he is so good as the mercurial but always sly and dangerous Loki that he commands your complete attention every time he appears on screen.
Marvel has once again set very high standards for comic based movies and has again delivered another winner that you will not want to miss.
http://sknr.net/2017/11/01/thor-ragnarok-2/
With “Thor Ragnarok” Chris Hemsworth has returned for his third solo outing, and fifth outing overall as the heroic Asgardian warrior Thor.
This time out Thor is on his quest to track down the Infinity Stones and finds himself plagued by visions of Ragnarok: a legend detailing the fiery destruction of his home of Asgard.
With an action laden opening, Thor believes he has ended the threat and returns home to find his father Odin (Sir Anthony Hopkins), has been sent to Earth and his evil brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) assuming his place.
Thor ventures to Earth with his brother which sets a series of events into motion, the result of which unleashes the long imprisoned Hela (Cate Blanchett), who plans the subjugation of Thor and Asgard. Naturally Thor is not going to put up with this, but finds himself mid battle knocked out of his transit home and on a remote world called Sakaar.
As if being stranded far from home is not enough of a challenge, Thor is forced to become a gladiator for the erratic Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum), whom Loki has managed to charm and become a part of his inner circle.
As fate has it, Thor becomes matched with The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), and must find a way to survive and make his way home before Hella can destroy all that he holds precious.
The film is the best of the Thor films and it is engaging from start to finish. There is a significant amount of humor in the film but it does not feel forced and is very appropriate to many of the scenes. The film also has plenty of action and the blend between comedy and action is deftly handed by Director TaiKa Waititi who never lets the film become a parody of itself nor take itself too seriously at times. He knows when there is a time to laugh and when there is a time to be deathly serious.
This allows for a deeper and more enjoyable and engaging Thor than has been previously seen. He is not as one-dimensional as he has been in the past as the strong, quick to anger muscle that I would love to see explored in further outings.
I had worried from the trailers that the movie might be more of a video game as it seemed heavily dependent on retro style CGI and camp humor which made it seem like something out of the 80s. While there are elements of that, the film mixes the old and new to create one of the most authentic and enjoyable comic adaptations seen to date. It continues the winning formula of Marvel Studios and of course, sets up the next outing for Thor in “Avengers: Infinity War” as well as the larger Marvel Universe as we a whole. The film also has some great cameos and I am curious to see how the addition of the newly introduced characters will be explored down the road. The return of Hiddleston was also a real treat as he is so good as the mercurial but always sly and dangerous Loki that he commands your complete attention every time he appears on screen.
Marvel has once again set very high standards for comic based movies and has again delivered another winner that you will not want to miss.
http://sknr.net/2017/11/01/thor-ragnarok-2/
Camera+ for iPad
Photo & Video and Social Networking
App
“The Clarity filter is iPhone photography’s secret sauce—it adds pro-camera crispness to...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“Fame and fortune and everything that goes with it”.
Sometimes a trailer generates a bit of a buzz of excitement with a cinema audience and the first showings of the trailer for “Bohemian Rhapsody” was a case in point. But would the film live up to the potential?
The Plot
Farrokh Bulsara (Rami Malek), born in Zanzibar to Indian parents, is a shy boy with a dramatic singing voice. At a concert he meets Mary (Lucy Boynton) who becomes the “love of his life”. When a space for a lead singer becomes available in a college band, Farrokh leaps at the chance and onstage becomes an exuberant extrovert. The band, of course, changes its name to Queen and with Farrokh assuming the name of Freddie Mercury they are set for global success. But Freddie is a complex character, and the demands and temptations of global super-stardom take a terrible toll.
The Review
Wow! What a great film on so many different levels. As a biopic of Mercury and a history of one of the greatest ever rock bands, the film is highly entertaining. But I wasn’t prepared for how emotional I would find it. Mercury’s life is befitting of a Shakespearian tragedy: an estrangement from his ‘conservative’ father (Ace Bhatti); a public extravert, but privately an insecure and needy bi-sexual, constantly searching for his perch in life; a meteoric rise and an equally spectacular and historic fall.
Do you remember where you were (if anywhere!) during the historic Live Aid concert at Wembley in July 1985? My eagle-minded wife had to remind me that we were travelling to Hampshire to house hunt because of my graduate job offer from IBM Hursley Park. My 3 month old daughter was rolling around, unstrapped, in a carry cot on the back seat: different times; different rules! Why this is relevant is that the film culminates in a recreation of the band’s spectacular 20 minute set for 1985’s Live Aid concert at Wembley. It’s a spectacular piece of cinema and one that – for me – puts the much hyped concert scenes from “A Star is Born” back in its box. Aside from a few niggles (the sound engineers in the booth were, if I’m not mistaken, all the size of Hagrid!) it’s a spectacular piece of CGI work.
It’s also worth remembering that whilst today’s massive stadium concerts from the likes of Adele and Coldplay are commonplace, back in the UK of 1985 most of the bands played in more traditional theatre venues: this really was an historic event on so many levels.
If I’m being critical, there are a few bits of the movie that are a tad tacky and twee. A whizz around the world of tour locations is composed of some pretty ropy animations that didn’t work for me. And a few of the ‘creations’ of classic songs – particularly “Another One Bites the Dust” – are a bit forced. Countering that though, the “Bohemian Rhapsody” is mesmerising.
The Turns
I’ll just put it right out there, Rami Malek is just sensational as Mercury! I first called out Malek as someone to watch in “Need For Speed“, but since then he’s gone on to major fame in the TV series “Mr Robot”. Here he is a force of nature on the screen and you literally can’t take your eyes off him. Every nuance of Mercury’s tortured soul is up there. I would love to see the performance recognized in the Awards season, with the showreel clip being a brilliant standoff in the rain with Paul Prenter (“Downton’s” Allen Leech).
The rest of the band – Ben Hardy as drummer Roger Taylor; Gwilym Lee as lead guitar Brian May; and Joseph Mazzello (yes, young Tim from “Jurassic Park”!) as bass guitarist John Deacon – all work well together, with Lee looking more like Brian May than Brian May!
Lucy Boynton, so great in “Sing Street“, gets a meaty dramatic role to sink her teeth into, and the ever-reliable Tom Hollander is great as the band’s legal rep/manager Jim “Miami” Beech: his ‘knowing looks’ near the end of the film are brilliantly done.
The surprise piece of casting though was the very welcome return of Mike Myers as the exec Ray Foster: only seen spasmodically on screen since 2009’s “Inglorious Basterds”. It’s a role that reminded me of Tom Cruise‘s turn in “Tropic Thunder”! But it’s well done. After making “Bohemian Rhapsody” famous again in “Wayne’s World”, how could he have refused? I say “Welcome back Mr Myers”: you’ve been missed.
And a final shout out to Paul Jones, my son-in-law’s brother, who gets a full screen appearance in the crowd, arms outstretched, during the “Fat Bottomed Girls” set! (I must admit, I missed it, so will have to go and see it again!)
Final Thoughts
This is a film that grabs you and propels you through the story at a fast lick. It’s a surprisingly moving story, with a well-known and tragic finale. It’s not a perfect film, but it is up there wih the year’s best as a high-energy cinema experience.
The Plot
Farrokh Bulsara (Rami Malek), born in Zanzibar to Indian parents, is a shy boy with a dramatic singing voice. At a concert he meets Mary (Lucy Boynton) who becomes the “love of his life”. When a space for a lead singer becomes available in a college band, Farrokh leaps at the chance and onstage becomes an exuberant extrovert. The band, of course, changes its name to Queen and with Farrokh assuming the name of Freddie Mercury they are set for global success. But Freddie is a complex character, and the demands and temptations of global super-stardom take a terrible toll.
The Review
Wow! What a great film on so many different levels. As a biopic of Mercury and a history of one of the greatest ever rock bands, the film is highly entertaining. But I wasn’t prepared for how emotional I would find it. Mercury’s life is befitting of a Shakespearian tragedy: an estrangement from his ‘conservative’ father (Ace Bhatti); a public extravert, but privately an insecure and needy bi-sexual, constantly searching for his perch in life; a meteoric rise and an equally spectacular and historic fall.
Do you remember where you were (if anywhere!) during the historic Live Aid concert at Wembley in July 1985? My eagle-minded wife had to remind me that we were travelling to Hampshire to house hunt because of my graduate job offer from IBM Hursley Park. My 3 month old daughter was rolling around, unstrapped, in a carry cot on the back seat: different times; different rules! Why this is relevant is that the film culminates in a recreation of the band’s spectacular 20 minute set for 1985’s Live Aid concert at Wembley. It’s a spectacular piece of cinema and one that – for me – puts the much hyped concert scenes from “A Star is Born” back in its box. Aside from a few niggles (the sound engineers in the booth were, if I’m not mistaken, all the size of Hagrid!) it’s a spectacular piece of CGI work.
It’s also worth remembering that whilst today’s massive stadium concerts from the likes of Adele and Coldplay are commonplace, back in the UK of 1985 most of the bands played in more traditional theatre venues: this really was an historic event on so many levels.
If I’m being critical, there are a few bits of the movie that are a tad tacky and twee. A whizz around the world of tour locations is composed of some pretty ropy animations that didn’t work for me. And a few of the ‘creations’ of classic songs – particularly “Another One Bites the Dust” – are a bit forced. Countering that though, the “Bohemian Rhapsody” is mesmerising.
The Turns
I’ll just put it right out there, Rami Malek is just sensational as Mercury! I first called out Malek as someone to watch in “Need For Speed“, but since then he’s gone on to major fame in the TV series “Mr Robot”. Here he is a force of nature on the screen and you literally can’t take your eyes off him. Every nuance of Mercury’s tortured soul is up there. I would love to see the performance recognized in the Awards season, with the showreel clip being a brilliant standoff in the rain with Paul Prenter (“Downton’s” Allen Leech).
The rest of the band – Ben Hardy as drummer Roger Taylor; Gwilym Lee as lead guitar Brian May; and Joseph Mazzello (yes, young Tim from “Jurassic Park”!) as bass guitarist John Deacon – all work well together, with Lee looking more like Brian May than Brian May!
Lucy Boynton, so great in “Sing Street“, gets a meaty dramatic role to sink her teeth into, and the ever-reliable Tom Hollander is great as the band’s legal rep/manager Jim “Miami” Beech: his ‘knowing looks’ near the end of the film are brilliantly done.
The surprise piece of casting though was the very welcome return of Mike Myers as the exec Ray Foster: only seen spasmodically on screen since 2009’s “Inglorious Basterds”. It’s a role that reminded me of Tom Cruise‘s turn in “Tropic Thunder”! But it’s well done. After making “Bohemian Rhapsody” famous again in “Wayne’s World”, how could he have refused? I say “Welcome back Mr Myers”: you’ve been missed.
And a final shout out to Paul Jones, my son-in-law’s brother, who gets a full screen appearance in the crowd, arms outstretched, during the “Fat Bottomed Girls” set! (I must admit, I missed it, so will have to go and see it again!)
Final Thoughts
This is a film that grabs you and propels you through the story at a fast lick. It’s a surprisingly moving story, with a well-known and tragic finale. It’s not a perfect film, but it is up there wih the year’s best as a high-energy cinema experience.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Would the last straight woman in Stockholm turn off the lights?
You’ve gotta love a Scandi-thriller. Well, that was until last year’s hopeless Michael Fassbender vehicle “The Snowman” which devalued the currency better than Brexit has done to the pound! The mother of them all though was the original “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy (in Swedish) in 2009. Although subject to a wholly unnecessary English remake two year’s later by David Fincher (with Mara Rooney and Daniel Craig) it was Noomi Rapace who struck the perfect note as the original anarchic and damaged Lisbeth Salander: a punk wielding a baseball bat like an alien-thing possessed (pun well and truly intended!).
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Dumplin' (2018) in Movies
Jan 16, 2019
Good On So Many Levels
High school student Willowdean (Danielle MacDonald) decides to enter a beauty pageant to spite her mom Rosie (Jennifer Aniston), a former pageant queen.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
The characters in this story are not just unique and enjoyable. They also represent the melting pot of what this world should be. Willowdean feels out of place because she is heavyset so she tries to attack herself before others do. Her Aunt Lucy (Hilliary Begley) tried to teach her to do the opposite before she passed away, but Willowdean didn’t grasp her aunt’s confidence unfortunately. Through her journey of pageant life, she makes two good friends: Hannah (Bex Taylor-Klaus) who is anti-establishment (or anti-everything, rather) and Millie (Maddie Baillio) a ball of happiness with an overprotective mom. They are at the core of a slew of good characters that brighten the story. And did I mention the drag queens? Phe-no-men-al.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
The conflict here is less about outward confrontation and more about inner discovery. Willowdean’s greatest enemy is herself, something most of us can probably relate to. It is refreshing to watching her battle old demons while coming to terms with who she is and who she can be. Destroying yourself is toxic and Dumplin’ shows how a negative view of one’s self can damage and destroy the relationships around us.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 8
The story as a whole has a magical feeling to it that’s centered in realism, almost like a trailer park Cinderella. I thought of all the 201 movies I watched in 2018. Few touched me quite like this one. A really memorable movie can make you laugh, maybe cry a little, and reflect. Dumplin’ gets the job done. It teaches you never to underestimate yourself and to go all out even when you don’t think you have a shot.
Pace: 10
I love when storytelling is consistent and blends seamlessly from one scene to the next. You get that here. There’s not a whole lot of pointless dialogue that takes you nowhere or random scenes that forces relationship-building. It moves consistently like a batch of waves. Before you know it, it’s over and you’ve had a great ride.
Plot: 10
The story isn’t just original but heartfelt. Something we can all get behind. I can honestly say that I’ve never seen anything like it. You can see the ending coming a mile away, but you’re having so much of a good time you don’t care!
Resolution: 10
Just as with the plot, you definitely see the ending coming a mile away. Doesn’t make it any less awesome or touching. Mum’s the word, but it ties on a nice little bow on the movie as a whole.
Overall: 98
I’m always wary of Netflix originals. Not because they can’t be good, I’ve seen plenty of amazing things on Netflix. Rather I understand that there’s a pressure for them to keep putting out original content at a fast pace because the market is catching up. This could mean more swings-and-misses. Dumplin’ is not a casualty of that in the least. Quality movie.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
The characters in this story are not just unique and enjoyable. They also represent the melting pot of what this world should be. Willowdean feels out of place because she is heavyset so she tries to attack herself before others do. Her Aunt Lucy (Hilliary Begley) tried to teach her to do the opposite before she passed away, but Willowdean didn’t grasp her aunt’s confidence unfortunately. Through her journey of pageant life, she makes two good friends: Hannah (Bex Taylor-Klaus) who is anti-establishment (or anti-everything, rather) and Millie (Maddie Baillio) a ball of happiness with an overprotective mom. They are at the core of a slew of good characters that brighten the story. And did I mention the drag queens? Phe-no-men-al.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
The conflict here is less about outward confrontation and more about inner discovery. Willowdean’s greatest enemy is herself, something most of us can probably relate to. It is refreshing to watching her battle old demons while coming to terms with who she is and who she can be. Destroying yourself is toxic and Dumplin’ shows how a negative view of one’s self can damage and destroy the relationships around us.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 8
The story as a whole has a magical feeling to it that’s centered in realism, almost like a trailer park Cinderella. I thought of all the 201 movies I watched in 2018. Few touched me quite like this one. A really memorable movie can make you laugh, maybe cry a little, and reflect. Dumplin’ gets the job done. It teaches you never to underestimate yourself and to go all out even when you don’t think you have a shot.
Pace: 10
I love when storytelling is consistent and blends seamlessly from one scene to the next. You get that here. There’s not a whole lot of pointless dialogue that takes you nowhere or random scenes that forces relationship-building. It moves consistently like a batch of waves. Before you know it, it’s over and you’ve had a great ride.
Plot: 10
The story isn’t just original but heartfelt. Something we can all get behind. I can honestly say that I’ve never seen anything like it. You can see the ending coming a mile away, but you’re having so much of a good time you don’t care!
Resolution: 10
Just as with the plot, you definitely see the ending coming a mile away. Doesn’t make it any less awesome or touching. Mum’s the word, but it ties on a nice little bow on the movie as a whole.
Overall: 98
I’m always wary of Netflix originals. Not because they can’t be good, I’ve seen plenty of amazing things on Netflix. Rather I understand that there’s a pressure for them to keep putting out original content at a fast pace because the market is catching up. This could mean more swings-and-misses. Dumplin’ is not a casualty of that in the least. Quality movie.
Andy Meakin (5 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017) in Movies
Jan 8, 2018
Great visuals let down by meandering story
For those who are unaware, The Jast Jedi is the latest instalment in the core Star Wars series, and picks up from where Force Awakens left off. Rey (played by the decidedly average Daisy Ridley) is on an island with Mark Hamill (playing himself it seems as the mannerisms of the character bore no similarity to the one we saw in Episodes 4, 5 and 6). Chewbacca is also there, but you wouldn’t really tell aside from a few “comedy” moments with the creatures of the island shoehorned in to seemingly ignore the trauma of losing his blood-oath life companion in the last film (Han Solo….keep up people) and instead have him there to just growl at “The Most Annoying and Unnecessary Additions To Film Since Jar Jar”™ from time to time. Whilst there she seeks to recruit Mark to aid Carrie Fisher’s rebellion (again…something not quite right about the character, and another who seems to have gotten over a traumatic murder of a loved one….by a loved one…quite rapidly) and also train her up in the way of the Super-Jedi (seriously, the powers are far beyond anything we have come to know from Jedi before).
Meanwhile Finn wakes up so he can perform comedy pratfalls a lot, Poe has become a one-man-army who could possibly defeat the whole Empire if Carrie would just stop demoting him, and BB8 seems to have more internal mechanical abilities than Cyborg in the DC comics. Remember how much the paring of Rey and Finn worked in the previous film? Yeah, that’s not here. How about Poe and Finn…that bromance? Nope. Okay…what about….ah forget it.
So, on the flip-side Kylo Ren (Adam Driver who I genuinely don’t get the obsession some folk have with) is acting all emo at how Supreme Leader Snoke is seemingly in love with General Hux (Domhall Gleeson, who acts like he’s in a Carry On film). Snoke is no longer a huge hologram, but is now a physical entity in the film, played (rather excellently I must add) by CGI mo-cap legend Andy Serkis. Strange that a CGI character feels more real than any of the rest of the cast, but hey-ho. With his mighty fleet, Snoke leads the battle to wipe the last remnants of the Rebellion….
The film opens with a spectacular space battle, and certainly doesn’t skimp on set-pieces throughout, with land and space being covered in glory. But story wise there isn’t much going on, even though Rian Johnson clearly thinks there is. Not really a spoiler, but when the Rebel fleet are on the run, trying to stay out of reach of the First Order craft, you do wonder why a few of the first order fleet didn’t just jump to a short hyperdrive to pen the Rebels in, rather than just following behind like sheep. That minor niggle is the smallest of the film’s story problems.
The issue seems to be that many moments have been engineered purely to pull the rug out from under the fan-theorists, rather than being included to actually serve the story on offer. None of the reveals are particularly clever, and one moment in particular resonated in the same manner the “Martha!” moment did in Batman v Superman, so poorly presented that it was almost hilarious in the reveal. Shoehorn in a few cameos, and contrived scene set ups and the whole thing feels like it is trying to pack two films into one, and in order to do so decided to cut out all the bits that make sense to make room for ‘action…fights….explosions…and…..’
…PORGS! Damn those things to Hades! Absolutely unnecessary, irritating, and jarring enough when on screen to make you stop actually caring about the action going on. They are used at the most inopportune moments in a poor attempt to generate laughs! I’ve seen people argue that, “Star Wars is for kids, so of course some things would be childish!” A poor excuse, and it’s the same one George Lucas used for Jar Jar Binks. Still feel it’s a good excuse? They are a marketing ploy to sell cuddly merchandise, and they are awful!
It’s not entirely bad, though. As mentioned the action and effects work is stunning, and there are some marvellous visual feasts on offer. The score is, as expected from music maestro John Williams, enchanting, thrilling, and with plenty of echoes of previous themes morphed into the mix. It’s just that, overall, this feels less like part of the Star Wars series, and more like a fan-fiction. It’s a shame as Rian Johnson has a strong pedigree with Brick and Looper, and hearing he has been granted a new trilogy of films of his own design was exciting news. After this, however, all I can say is that I’m glad JJ Abrams is coming back for the final part – maybe the magic will return with him.
Better than the prequels, including Rogue One, but the weaker of the rest, The Last Jedi is overlong for no real reason, and not as sharp as it wants to be. All gloss and style, but with very little substance.
Meanwhile Finn wakes up so he can perform comedy pratfalls a lot, Poe has become a one-man-army who could possibly defeat the whole Empire if Carrie would just stop demoting him, and BB8 seems to have more internal mechanical abilities than Cyborg in the DC comics. Remember how much the paring of Rey and Finn worked in the previous film? Yeah, that’s not here. How about Poe and Finn…that bromance? Nope. Okay…what about….ah forget it.
So, on the flip-side Kylo Ren (Adam Driver who I genuinely don’t get the obsession some folk have with) is acting all emo at how Supreme Leader Snoke is seemingly in love with General Hux (Domhall Gleeson, who acts like he’s in a Carry On film). Snoke is no longer a huge hologram, but is now a physical entity in the film, played (rather excellently I must add) by CGI mo-cap legend Andy Serkis. Strange that a CGI character feels more real than any of the rest of the cast, but hey-ho. With his mighty fleet, Snoke leads the battle to wipe the last remnants of the Rebellion….
The film opens with a spectacular space battle, and certainly doesn’t skimp on set-pieces throughout, with land and space being covered in glory. But story wise there isn’t much going on, even though Rian Johnson clearly thinks there is. Not really a spoiler, but when the Rebel fleet are on the run, trying to stay out of reach of the First Order craft, you do wonder why a few of the first order fleet didn’t just jump to a short hyperdrive to pen the Rebels in, rather than just following behind like sheep. That minor niggle is the smallest of the film’s story problems.
The issue seems to be that many moments have been engineered purely to pull the rug out from under the fan-theorists, rather than being included to actually serve the story on offer. None of the reveals are particularly clever, and one moment in particular resonated in the same manner the “Martha!” moment did in Batman v Superman, so poorly presented that it was almost hilarious in the reveal. Shoehorn in a few cameos, and contrived scene set ups and the whole thing feels like it is trying to pack two films into one, and in order to do so decided to cut out all the bits that make sense to make room for ‘action…fights….explosions…and…..’
…PORGS! Damn those things to Hades! Absolutely unnecessary, irritating, and jarring enough when on screen to make you stop actually caring about the action going on. They are used at the most inopportune moments in a poor attempt to generate laughs! I’ve seen people argue that, “Star Wars is for kids, so of course some things would be childish!” A poor excuse, and it’s the same one George Lucas used for Jar Jar Binks. Still feel it’s a good excuse? They are a marketing ploy to sell cuddly merchandise, and they are awful!
It’s not entirely bad, though. As mentioned the action and effects work is stunning, and there are some marvellous visual feasts on offer. The score is, as expected from music maestro John Williams, enchanting, thrilling, and with plenty of echoes of previous themes morphed into the mix. It’s just that, overall, this feels less like part of the Star Wars series, and more like a fan-fiction. It’s a shame as Rian Johnson has a strong pedigree with Brick and Looper, and hearing he has been granted a new trilogy of films of his own design was exciting news. After this, however, all I can say is that I’m glad JJ Abrams is coming back for the final part – maybe the magic will return with him.
Better than the prequels, including Rogue One, but the weaker of the rest, The Last Jedi is overlong for no real reason, and not as sharp as it wants to be. All gloss and style, but with very little substance.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Custom Heroes in Tabletop Games
Feb 7, 2022
You know that feeling when you play a game that FEELS familiar, but has really improved on certain aspects? Take, for example, the famed “Yahtzee mechanic” that has been extended and improved upon by so many games. Or the “I Cut, You Choose mechanic” that has shown up in several titles with slight variations to improve it? Well such was my feeling when cracking open Custom Heroes. I thought to myself, “Man, this feels natural in my hands, but it’s better.” I know I left myself open for tons of jokes here, but this is a PG(ish) forum, so keep it classy, everyone.
Custom Heroes is a fantasy/sci-fi-themed, customization, ladder-climbing, trick-taking card game for two to six players. In it players are using their hand of cards to win tricks (a la Tichu). The twist is that each card is able to be upgraded by using various Advancements that are added directly into the same sleeve as the base card. The winner of the game is they who amass 10 or more points and win a subsequent hand.
Before the first game after unboxing, all Character Cards will need to be sleeved. These Character Cards are numbered from 1-10 and come in six sets (one set of 10 cards for each player, at max player count). To setup the game, each player chooses a Player Screen to hide their resources and provide the scoring table. Shuffle the Character cards and deal each player a hand of 10 cards. For this review, I will be using the two-player rules. Players also begin with 1VP Token and 2 Power Tokens, along with an Ascended Form Advancement Card and Kodora Advancement Card. In a two-player game, players begin with three total Advancement Cards, as shown in the photo below. The rest of the VP Tokens and Power Tokens are placed (or thrown, in my case) on the table, and the remainder of the Advancement Cards are shuffled and placed in the bag to be drawn randomly throughout the game. The battle for tricks may now begin!
As with all (most?) trick-taking games, Custom Heroes is played over a series of rounds. However, Custom Heroes is played across three phases: Upkeep, Main, Scoring. During the Upkeep phase, the deck of Character Cards is shuffled and 10 cards are dealt to each player. On each player’s turn during the Main phase, they will decide if they would like to upgrade any card by sleeving Advancement Cards along with the Character Cards. These Advancement Cards are clear plastic and will alter the value of the card, provide special abilities, or provide modifiers to the card’s value. Sleeving new Advancements may be done at any time during the turn, before playing it, but the caveat is that ALL cards are shuffled and dealt to players after every round, so the chances of receiving that same card in future hands diminishes with each additional player at the table!
Once Advancements have been applied, or whilst applying, the players will determine the lead play. A lead could be a single card or several matching cards in a set. The following player will need to play a card, or cards, of the same number, but of higher value. For example, if a single 7 was led, only a single 8, 9, or 10 will beat it. However, if a pair of 5s was led, a pair of 6-10 will beat that lead. Players may pass if they cannot, or choose not to, beat the current trick, and can engage in play on a future trick. Once a player has run out of cards for the hand, or all players have passed. The first player to run out of cards, or the last player to play a card, wins the hand and receives the benefits listed on the scoring table shown below. Again, when a player earns 10 VP and wins a hand, they win!
A few notes about Advancement Cards. The Ascended Form card given to all players at setup will allow the player to win the trick for that round once played. It is essentially a wild insta-win card. That is, unless another player plays an Ascended Form on top of it and wins with the most recent Ascended Form. The Kodora card, however, can be played to the player’s tableau instead of as a card in a trick. When played this way, the player “bets” two VP Tokens that they will win the hand. If they do, they gain an additional two VP Tokens, but lose their bet if they do not finish in 1st Place. All other Advancement Cards may be added to the Character Card sleeve as long as the associated gem icon at the bottom is not already present in the sleeve. As there are four gem slots on Character Cards, each Character may be upgraded four total times.
Components. This one comes with a number of components of different types. The tokens are all small, but not too small, the bag is cool, but obviously the main attractions are the clear plastic cards and sleeves common to the Card Crafting System that AEG produced. I think I first saw this idea of layering plastic cards on top of one another in the Gloom series, though it may have existed even before that. I adore this idea and really fell in love with it when I was big into Mystic Vale, also from John D. Clair and AEG. So components for me get a big ol’ seal of approval. I love ’em.
Similarly, I think the gameplay gets a big seal of approval from me. Like I said, I was big into Mystic Vale for a while, but I think that Cusom Heroes, to me, trumps it in many ways. Though both boxes mention games approximately taking around 45 minutes, I found Mystic Vale to be much longer, mostly due to having to explain and re-explain rules and oddities to players at the table. It feels like Custom Heroes has cut down the complexity of gameplay, especially for newer gamers. I can bring out Custom Heroes and have it taught and played in under an hour – a feat I still haven’t mastered with Mystic Vale.
I think that I also prefer the trick-taking style of Custom Heroes a bit more. My family really enjoys playing Euchre at family reunions and other events, and while Custom Heroes isn’t a Euchre clone at all, the feel is very similar. There is still a led card, and cards that are more valuable to be played atop them in order to win tricks. While there isn’t necessarily any suits in Custom Heroes, the ability to trump an entire hand with an Ascended Form Advancement or other Advancements adds a layer (see what I did there) of strategy and tactics that is just so satisfying. I am a big fan of games that allow players to upgrade their starting resources, or level up their characters, and this one fits right inside a little 60 minute pocket and is relatively easy to teach and play.
All in all, I am so glad I found this one at my FLGS (well, not super local), and there was a big sale going on. I picked it up solely for the Card Crafting System logo and it was a big hit for me. This will completely replace Mystic Vale for me in my collection, and I couldn’t be happier with that. If you are looking for something quick, easy, but full of choices and modifications, this is certainly the game for you. It’s the game for me, and that’s why Purple Phoenix Games gives Custom Heroes a mostly-upgraded 5 / 6. Could this reach into my Top 10 someday, or earn a Golden Feather Award? It is entirely possible. We shall see with more and more plays. I am excited to give it many more plays and find out! Are you in?
Custom Heroes is a fantasy/sci-fi-themed, customization, ladder-climbing, trick-taking card game for two to six players. In it players are using their hand of cards to win tricks (a la Tichu). The twist is that each card is able to be upgraded by using various Advancements that are added directly into the same sleeve as the base card. The winner of the game is they who amass 10 or more points and win a subsequent hand.
Before the first game after unboxing, all Character Cards will need to be sleeved. These Character Cards are numbered from 1-10 and come in six sets (one set of 10 cards for each player, at max player count). To setup the game, each player chooses a Player Screen to hide their resources and provide the scoring table. Shuffle the Character cards and deal each player a hand of 10 cards. For this review, I will be using the two-player rules. Players also begin with 1VP Token and 2 Power Tokens, along with an Ascended Form Advancement Card and Kodora Advancement Card. In a two-player game, players begin with three total Advancement Cards, as shown in the photo below. The rest of the VP Tokens and Power Tokens are placed (or thrown, in my case) on the table, and the remainder of the Advancement Cards are shuffled and placed in the bag to be drawn randomly throughout the game. The battle for tricks may now begin!
As with all (most?) trick-taking games, Custom Heroes is played over a series of rounds. However, Custom Heroes is played across three phases: Upkeep, Main, Scoring. During the Upkeep phase, the deck of Character Cards is shuffled and 10 cards are dealt to each player. On each player’s turn during the Main phase, they will decide if they would like to upgrade any card by sleeving Advancement Cards along with the Character Cards. These Advancement Cards are clear plastic and will alter the value of the card, provide special abilities, or provide modifiers to the card’s value. Sleeving new Advancements may be done at any time during the turn, before playing it, but the caveat is that ALL cards are shuffled and dealt to players after every round, so the chances of receiving that same card in future hands diminishes with each additional player at the table!
Once Advancements have been applied, or whilst applying, the players will determine the lead play. A lead could be a single card or several matching cards in a set. The following player will need to play a card, or cards, of the same number, but of higher value. For example, if a single 7 was led, only a single 8, 9, or 10 will beat it. However, if a pair of 5s was led, a pair of 6-10 will beat that lead. Players may pass if they cannot, or choose not to, beat the current trick, and can engage in play on a future trick. Once a player has run out of cards for the hand, or all players have passed. The first player to run out of cards, or the last player to play a card, wins the hand and receives the benefits listed on the scoring table shown below. Again, when a player earns 10 VP and wins a hand, they win!
A few notes about Advancement Cards. The Ascended Form card given to all players at setup will allow the player to win the trick for that round once played. It is essentially a wild insta-win card. That is, unless another player plays an Ascended Form on top of it and wins with the most recent Ascended Form. The Kodora card, however, can be played to the player’s tableau instead of as a card in a trick. When played this way, the player “bets” two VP Tokens that they will win the hand. If they do, they gain an additional two VP Tokens, but lose their bet if they do not finish in 1st Place. All other Advancement Cards may be added to the Character Card sleeve as long as the associated gem icon at the bottom is not already present in the sleeve. As there are four gem slots on Character Cards, each Character may be upgraded four total times.
Components. This one comes with a number of components of different types. The tokens are all small, but not too small, the bag is cool, but obviously the main attractions are the clear plastic cards and sleeves common to the Card Crafting System that AEG produced. I think I first saw this idea of layering plastic cards on top of one another in the Gloom series, though it may have existed even before that. I adore this idea and really fell in love with it when I was big into Mystic Vale, also from John D. Clair and AEG. So components for me get a big ol’ seal of approval. I love ’em.
Similarly, I think the gameplay gets a big seal of approval from me. Like I said, I was big into Mystic Vale for a while, but I think that Cusom Heroes, to me, trumps it in many ways. Though both boxes mention games approximately taking around 45 minutes, I found Mystic Vale to be much longer, mostly due to having to explain and re-explain rules and oddities to players at the table. It feels like Custom Heroes has cut down the complexity of gameplay, especially for newer gamers. I can bring out Custom Heroes and have it taught and played in under an hour – a feat I still haven’t mastered with Mystic Vale.
I think that I also prefer the trick-taking style of Custom Heroes a bit more. My family really enjoys playing Euchre at family reunions and other events, and while Custom Heroes isn’t a Euchre clone at all, the feel is very similar. There is still a led card, and cards that are more valuable to be played atop them in order to win tricks. While there isn’t necessarily any suits in Custom Heroes, the ability to trump an entire hand with an Ascended Form Advancement or other Advancements adds a layer (see what I did there) of strategy and tactics that is just so satisfying. I am a big fan of games that allow players to upgrade their starting resources, or level up their characters, and this one fits right inside a little 60 minute pocket and is relatively easy to teach and play.
All in all, I am so glad I found this one at my FLGS (well, not super local), and there was a big sale going on. I picked it up solely for the Card Crafting System logo and it was a big hit for me. This will completely replace Mystic Vale for me in my collection, and I couldn’t be happier with that. If you are looking for something quick, easy, but full of choices and modifications, this is certainly the game for you. It’s the game for me, and that’s why Purple Phoenix Games gives Custom Heroes a mostly-upgraded 5 / 6. Could this reach into my Top 10 someday, or earn a Golden Feather Award? It is entirely possible. We shall see with more and more plays. I am excited to give it many more plays and find out! Are you in?
Cyn Armistead (14 KP) rated American Gods in Books
Mar 1, 2018
I'm trying to remember whether or not I've read any of Gaiman's other novels before, and I'm fairly certain that I haven't. I read [b:Good Omens|12067|Good Omens|Terry Pratchett|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1266659394s/12067.jpg|4110990], but that was co-written with [a:Terry Pratchett|1654|Terry Pratchett|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1235562205p2/1654.jpg], and the collaboration was genius. I know that the entire world seems to love Sandman, of course, but I'm just not a fan of graphic novels. In fact, it took me a while to realize that the Good Omens co-author and the Sandman author were one and the same.
I've certainly read some short stories, too. The most memorable, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow,_Glass,_Apples">"Snow, Glass, Apples"</a> was reprinted in an anthology I read recently. I find it disturbing, so I won't re-read it. Well-written, of course—it wouldn't be so very memorably distressing if it weren't so masterfully done! (I found the <a href="http://www.holycow.com/dreaming/stories/snow-glass-apples">text online</a> if you care to read it, but please understand that the story deals with pedophilia, necrophilia, and incest here. It is the polar opposite of all things Disney.) Snow White was never one of of my favorite fairy tales, and Gaiman definitely pushed it much farther down the list.
In any case, I don't know what I was expecting from Gaiman, but <i>American Gods</i> wasn't it. I like stories with happy endings, and within the first few chapters I was fairly sure that there wouldn't be one. Is Gaiman fundamentally opposed to joy, or is it just happiness that he doesn't allow?
The novel is epic. It is masterful. All that stuff from the big critics is dead on. The book could be used as the backbone of a mythological scavenger hunt if a teacher were willing to run a very unstructured but engaging course that way. I certainly enjoyed that aspect of it, and it made me glad that I was reading it on my iTouch so that I could look up anything I liked online at any time, no matter where I happened to be (which was almost always at home or somewhere else that had wifi access, happily).
I seldom want to see illustrations in any book, but yes, I think I would like to see good pictures of some of the characters Gaiman described in this one. On the other hand, without artwork I spent time imagining what the characters looked like based on the descriptions. I don't normally stop to do that, as such matters as seldom relevant to a plot, but these beings caught my fancy. Not enough that I would sit through an entire graphic novel, I'm afraid, but if I saw one now I might flip through it to see how the artist's renderings compare with my versions.
I'm seldom able to identify an overall Theme to the books I read. Most of them, honestly, are fluff. I'm fine with that. I read them because they entertain me. <i>American Gods</i> is different. It is entertaining, but it isn't light or fluffy in the least. It definitely has an easily identifiably Theme and Tropes and all those elements that I recall from long-ago classes, the sorts of things that put me off from my original English major because I hated tearing other author's works apart instead of writing anything original. (Now, I begin to understand that we were being taught to recognize what makes for good writing so we might have some hope of possibly creating some of it one day.)
I somewhat timidly conclude that <i>American Gods</i> is the first piece of Literature I've read in a very long time, and well worth the time spent reading it. (I find it rather amusing that it would be British Literature, despite its title, due to the author's nationality.) I'm not going to state the theme, because that would be a spoiler, and I hate putting those in reviews—but it's something that I see as a Truth, and one that needs to be stated far more often, especiallly today. It's even more interesting that it took a Brit to say it.
The book is dark, although it does have some very bright spots in it. I will acknowledge that I was going through a particularly bad time with regards to my health when I was reading it, but I still think it might be best for some people to read this one when in a fairly positive state of mind.
I've certainly read some short stories, too. The most memorable, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow,_Glass,_Apples">"Snow, Glass, Apples"</a> was reprinted in an anthology I read recently. I find it disturbing, so I won't re-read it. Well-written, of course—it wouldn't be so very memorably distressing if it weren't so masterfully done! (I found the <a href="http://www.holycow.com/dreaming/stories/snow-glass-apples">text online</a> if you care to read it, but please understand that the story deals with pedophilia, necrophilia, and incest here. It is the polar opposite of all things Disney.) Snow White was never one of of my favorite fairy tales, and Gaiman definitely pushed it much farther down the list.
In any case, I don't know what I was expecting from Gaiman, but <i>American Gods</i> wasn't it. I like stories with happy endings, and within the first few chapters I was fairly sure that there wouldn't be one. Is Gaiman fundamentally opposed to joy, or is it just happiness that he doesn't allow?
The novel is epic. It is masterful. All that stuff from the big critics is dead on. The book could be used as the backbone of a mythological scavenger hunt if a teacher were willing to run a very unstructured but engaging course that way. I certainly enjoyed that aspect of it, and it made me glad that I was reading it on my iTouch so that I could look up anything I liked online at any time, no matter where I happened to be (which was almost always at home or somewhere else that had wifi access, happily).
I seldom want to see illustrations in any book, but yes, I think I would like to see good pictures of some of the characters Gaiman described in this one. On the other hand, without artwork I spent time imagining what the characters looked like based on the descriptions. I don't normally stop to do that, as such matters as seldom relevant to a plot, but these beings caught my fancy. Not enough that I would sit through an entire graphic novel, I'm afraid, but if I saw one now I might flip through it to see how the artist's renderings compare with my versions.
I'm seldom able to identify an overall Theme to the books I read. Most of them, honestly, are fluff. I'm fine with that. I read them because they entertain me. <i>American Gods</i> is different. It is entertaining, but it isn't light or fluffy in the least. It definitely has an easily identifiably Theme and Tropes and all those elements that I recall from long-ago classes, the sorts of things that put me off from my original English major because I hated tearing other author's works apart instead of writing anything original. (Now, I begin to understand that we were being taught to recognize what makes for good writing so we might have some hope of possibly creating some of it one day.)
I somewhat timidly conclude that <i>American Gods</i> is the first piece of Literature I've read in a very long time, and well worth the time spent reading it. (I find it rather amusing that it would be British Literature, despite its title, due to the author's nationality.) I'm not going to state the theme, because that would be a spoiler, and I hate putting those in reviews—but it's something that I see as a Truth, and one that needs to be stated far more often, especiallly today. It's even more interesting that it took a Brit to say it.
The book is dark, although it does have some very bright spots in it. I will acknowledge that I was going through a particularly bad time with regards to my health when I was reading it, but I still think it might be best for some people to read this one when in a fairly positive state of mind.