Search
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Into the Drowning Deep: Rolling in the Deep Book 1 in Books
Mar 29, 2018
WOW. I don't typically read horror, but this was fantasy horror, and WOW. I picked up the novella precursor to this sometime last year - I never reviewed it here, probably because it was barely over 100 pages, but it was fascinating and haunting all the same. Rolling in the Deep told the story of the Atargatis, a ship sent out to the Mariana Trench to stage a mockumentary - supposedly looking for mermaids, but equipped with actors who could swim with mermaid tails. They never planned to find anything. Except they did. And they all died. One by one at first, a few people picked off, then the entire ship swarmed and eaten. The reader sees this happen, but to anyone not on the ship, the only thing they find is some footage on an abandoned ship.
Into the Drowning Deep fast forwards a few years; the production company, Imagine Network, is not doing so well, and they want to prove that the footage wasn't a hoax. So they assemble a new mission, this one with a lot more security. (Though they still picked security with an eye for what would look good on TV, rather than what would be effective, which was a poor choice.) The reader, of course, knows that the mermaids are real, and that they are dangerous, so you spend much of the first part of the book in a state of suspense waiting for them to show up. (I actually thought it took a little too long for them to finally show up, but the time was used for character-building.)
The book is very Lovecraftian, actually - from the strong, building sense of foreboding doom to the creatures that should not exist, to the kind of gibbering insanity near the end. It's probably why I liked the book so much; Lovecraft is about the only kind of horror writing I like, and I get the same feeling from Grant's writing.
So yes, the book is about mermaids. But these aren't mermaids as you've seen them before. They're not cute, they're not seductive, they don't want to live on land, and they're definitely not friendly. These mermaids are predators. Intelligent predators, but predators. And humans, apparently, are delicious.
Most of the characters in the book are scientists trying to prove mermaids exist, so there's a lot of science happening aboard the ship, and Grant doesn't shy away from it happening on the page as well. She also includes a pair of deaf scientist twins, and their interpreter sibling, which is important because the mermaids use a form of sign language as well. Most of the main characters are women, which is also great to see in such a large concentration of fictional scientists.
If you like fantasy horror, i.e. Lovecraft, you should definitely pick this up. Rolling in the Deep is also worth reading first - I think it definitely adds another layer to the sense of foreboding doom.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Into the Drowning Deep fast forwards a few years; the production company, Imagine Network, is not doing so well, and they want to prove that the footage wasn't a hoax. So they assemble a new mission, this one with a lot more security. (Though they still picked security with an eye for what would look good on TV, rather than what would be effective, which was a poor choice.) The reader, of course, knows that the mermaids are real, and that they are dangerous, so you spend much of the first part of the book in a state of suspense waiting for them to show up. (I actually thought it took a little too long for them to finally show up, but the time was used for character-building.)
The book is very Lovecraftian, actually - from the strong, building sense of foreboding doom to the creatures that should not exist, to the kind of gibbering insanity near the end. It's probably why I liked the book so much; Lovecraft is about the only kind of horror writing I like, and I get the same feeling from Grant's writing.
So yes, the book is about mermaids. But these aren't mermaids as you've seen them before. They're not cute, they're not seductive, they don't want to live on land, and they're definitely not friendly. These mermaids are predators. Intelligent predators, but predators. And humans, apparently, are delicious.
Most of the characters in the book are scientists trying to prove mermaids exist, so there's a lot of science happening aboard the ship, and Grant doesn't shy away from it happening on the page as well. She also includes a pair of deaf scientist twins, and their interpreter sibling, which is important because the mermaids use a form of sign language as well. Most of the main characters are women, which is also great to see in such a large concentration of fictional scientists.
If you like fantasy horror, i.e. Lovecraft, you should definitely pick this up. Rolling in the Deep is also worth reading first - I think it definitely adds another layer to the sense of foreboding doom.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Lee (2222 KP) rated Blinded by the Light (2019) in Movies
Jul 10, 2019
Not the feel good hit I was expecting
Blinded by the Light is based on a memoir by Guardian journalist Sarfaz Manzoor (who is also one of the screenwriters on the movie) and is directed by Gurinder Chadha (also one of the screenwriters), who had a hit back in 2002 with Bend it like Beckham. I remember seeing the trailer for this before watching Rocketman recently and it certainly looked like a pretty enjoyable 80s based British movie, set to a soundtrack of Bruce Springsteen songs. Unfortunately though, this turned out to be just a fairly average and generic drama, enjoyable at times, but kind of just meandering along and not really working for me.
The movie takes place in Luton during 1987, focusing on Pakistani teenager Javed (Viveik Kalra) as he struggles to find balance and purpose in his life against the backdrop of a Britain that's ruled by Margaret Thatcher and dominated by unemployment, uncertainty and racial tension. His father has very old fashioned views and his expectations for Javed begin to conflict with his own. Tensions within the family increase when his father is made redundant from the Vauxhall factory he has worked at for many years and Javed's dreams of becoming a writer don't really sit well with his father in terms of being a worthwhile career route. Javed begins sixth form college where his eyes are soon opened to a much bigger world, full of potential. And full of girls!
Everything comes to a head for Javed on the night of the famous UK storm of 1987. We see the infamous Michael Fish weather forecast on TV and a frustrated Javed, having dumped all of his poems outside in the bin, returning to his room and plugging into his Walkman the Bruce Springsteen cassette borrowed from his friend Roops. The song lyrics immediately click and resonate with Javed and we see them flashing up on the screen as he listens, swirling around his head or flashing up on walls. At the same time we see him remembering earlier scenes from the movie, elements of his life with which connect him with the message within the music, in a kind of low-key 80s music video style. It gives the impression of a major turning point in the movie, and the kind of uplifting musical direction in which the movie is heading. In a way, it kind of is, particularly with regard to Javed's 'awakening'. However, in terms of the musical sequences beyond this one, they're more along the lines of random singing and dancing at school or out on the town. It's more awkward and confusing than uplifting and enjoyable.
Blinded by the Light felt like the combination of a number movies I've seen before, with nothing really elevating it beyond those in terms of originality. So many generic characters - from the father stuck in his ways, dictating how his son should live his life, to the supportive and encouraging teacher (Hayley Atwell, on fine form here). And so many clichéd moments too - the best example being when an emotional Javed is arguing with his angry father and repeatedly waving in front of him the concert tickets he just bought without his knowledge. Three guesses as to what happens next...!
Overall, I didn't completely dislike this movie. I liked the 80s school setting, as that was the period that I was in secondary school, so could relate to that. But it also feels like the kind of movie drama that they used to make in the 80s too, and I expect more from my cinema experience these days. It also seems to be getting the usual "one of the best movies this year" phrase thrown at it though, something which I think is bandied around a little too freely at the moment. I put it squarely in the same camp as another movie from this year - Wild Rose, another movie that didn't really do it for me - so if you were one of the many people who enjoyed that movie, then Blinded by the Light will be well worth your time.
The movie takes place in Luton during 1987, focusing on Pakistani teenager Javed (Viveik Kalra) as he struggles to find balance and purpose in his life against the backdrop of a Britain that's ruled by Margaret Thatcher and dominated by unemployment, uncertainty and racial tension. His father has very old fashioned views and his expectations for Javed begin to conflict with his own. Tensions within the family increase when his father is made redundant from the Vauxhall factory he has worked at for many years and Javed's dreams of becoming a writer don't really sit well with his father in terms of being a worthwhile career route. Javed begins sixth form college where his eyes are soon opened to a much bigger world, full of potential. And full of girls!
Everything comes to a head for Javed on the night of the famous UK storm of 1987. We see the infamous Michael Fish weather forecast on TV and a frustrated Javed, having dumped all of his poems outside in the bin, returning to his room and plugging into his Walkman the Bruce Springsteen cassette borrowed from his friend Roops. The song lyrics immediately click and resonate with Javed and we see them flashing up on the screen as he listens, swirling around his head or flashing up on walls. At the same time we see him remembering earlier scenes from the movie, elements of his life with which connect him with the message within the music, in a kind of low-key 80s music video style. It gives the impression of a major turning point in the movie, and the kind of uplifting musical direction in which the movie is heading. In a way, it kind of is, particularly with regard to Javed's 'awakening'. However, in terms of the musical sequences beyond this one, they're more along the lines of random singing and dancing at school or out on the town. It's more awkward and confusing than uplifting and enjoyable.
Blinded by the Light felt like the combination of a number movies I've seen before, with nothing really elevating it beyond those in terms of originality. So many generic characters - from the father stuck in his ways, dictating how his son should live his life, to the supportive and encouraging teacher (Hayley Atwell, on fine form here). And so many clichéd moments too - the best example being when an emotional Javed is arguing with his angry father and repeatedly waving in front of him the concert tickets he just bought without his knowledge. Three guesses as to what happens next...!
Overall, I didn't completely dislike this movie. I liked the 80s school setting, as that was the period that I was in secondary school, so could relate to that. But it also feels like the kind of movie drama that they used to make in the 80s too, and I expect more from my cinema experience these days. It also seems to be getting the usual "one of the best movies this year" phrase thrown at it though, something which I think is bandied around a little too freely at the moment. I put it squarely in the same camp as another movie from this year - Wild Rose, another movie that didn't really do it for me - so if you were one of the many people who enjoyed that movie, then Blinded by the Light will be well worth your time.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Miss Sloane (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“I never know where the line is”.
In a roller-coaster year for political intrigue on both sides of the Atlantic, and with all hell breaking loose again between Trump and ‘The Hill’, here comes “Miss Sloane”.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019 (Updated Jul 20, 2019)
Disney's 1994 animated version of The Lion King was a huge hit. Not only did it win Academy Awards for original score (courtesy of the amazing Hans Zimmer) but also for original song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John & Tim Rice. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy and went on to become a huge Broadway stage show in 1997, winning further awards and proving to be one of the most popular shows ever. Some movie sequels quietly came and went, along with a couple of TV series, but it's the original movie which is still loved by millions to this day. While Disney currently feels the need to rework their animated back catalogue, and with considerable advances in photorealistic computer animation technology, it was only a matter of time before The Lion King had it's turn in landing a remake.
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Castle: The Detective Card Game in Tabletop Games
Jul 17, 2021
Let’s talk about TV for a second.What would be your all-time favorite TV show? For me, that answer is Castle. I had never heard of it until college, when it was already in its 5th season, but I instantly loved it. I may or may not have gone out and bought all of the seasons to binge watch, and now own all 8 seasons of the show. If you ask me, the series ended too soon, but that’s a conversation for another forum. Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah, games. One wonderful Christmas morning, I opened up a present under the tree and found myself face to face with a Castle card game! I didn’t even know that one existed, but I was so eager to play! Does this game based around my favorite TV show actually play well, or does the attempt to turn this show into a game fall flat?
In Castle: The Detective Card Game (referred to as just Castle for the rest of this review) is a murder-mystery card game in which players assume the role of a character from the show, and work to gather evidence and conduct investigations in order to solve the murder at hand! To set up a game, give every player a Character card that represents one of the main characters from the show. Each Character card has a unique Special Ability to be used during play. Shuffle the Suspect cards, and randomly draw five to be placed face-up in the middle of the table. Select one Guilty token and four Not Guilty tokens – shuffle them together face-down and then place one token on each of the Suspect cards. Shuffle the deck of Investigation cards, deal 3 to each player, place the remaining cards into a Draw deck, and the game is ready to begin!
Moving in clockwise order, players will take turns performing one of the following actions: Draw a card, Discard one card to draw two cards, Play a Special Text card, Use your Special Ability, or Confront a Suspect. The first two actions regarding drawing cards are pretty self-explanatory. Throughout the game, you might draw into your hand an Investigation card with Special Text. You may play a Special Text card, and perform the specified action on your turn. Each Character has a Special Ability that can be used once per game, so plan wisely and use it appropriately! The last action, Confront a Suspect, is what the entire game is leading to. In order to Confront a Suspect, you must have the three Investigation cards listed on the bottom of the Suspect card in hand. When performing this action, you will reveal the three requisite Investigation cards, and then you flip the token on that Suspect card. If the token reads Guilty, then you have won the game! If the token reads Not Guilty, perform the action listed on the token, remove that Suspect and token from the game, discard your used Investigation cards, and play continue with a narrowed Suspect pool! The goal is to be the first player to find the Guilty party before the Draw deck runs out of cards.
Pretty straight-forward, right? I think so, and that’s one of the things I really like about this game. The gameplay is fast and simple, and makes for a quick little set collection game. Another neat element of this game is that although it is based around the Castle TV show, you do not need to have watched any of the show to play. Anyone can play and not feel like they are missing any vital information if they haven’t seen the show, and that makes it accessible to all players, not just fans of the show.
Even though I love the show, I have to admit that the gameplay, although fast and simple, is heavily dependent on the luck of the draw. Throughout the game, you are working to collect sets of the necessary Investigation cards for individual suspects, but the only way in which cards are distributed is through drawing them from the deck. There isn’t an offering that you ‘pay’ certain resources for coveted cards, there’s no real way to know in advance what card you are going to draw, etc. It really depends on how the deck was shuffled whether you will be successful or not. There are no real opportunities to strategize, and that keeps the overall gameplay kind of stagnant. Yes, there are Special Text cards and each Character has a unique ability, but deciding when to use them is kind of a shot in the dark due to the dependence on luck.
Let’s talk components for a minute. All of the Investigation and Character cards use photos or stills from the actual TV show. Again, you need not have watched it to play, but the use of the stills makes the game more immersive and nostalgic for those that have seen it. I love looking at the cards and trying to remember from which episode each still is, and if I remember who the killer was in that specific scenario. It’s just a fun little thing. The cards are all of good sturdy quality and will hold up decently in the long run. The Guilty/Not Guilty tokens in this game are some thick and heavy poker chips and they are AWESOME. They are so high quality, I just love to manipulate them, and they add some cool ‘bling’ to the game.
All in all, is Castle a great card game? No, not necessarily. It is a fun little murder mystery game, but not one that requires and real strategy or brain power to successfully play. Do I like it though? Absolutely, because it is based on my favorite show! If you’re looking for a nice filler game, or a game that doesn’t require too much focus, give Castle: The Detective Card Game a shot. That being said, I feel like only fans of the show will be trying this game, but I guess you can prove me wrong! Purple Phoenix Games give this a mischievous 6 / 12.
In Castle: The Detective Card Game (referred to as just Castle for the rest of this review) is a murder-mystery card game in which players assume the role of a character from the show, and work to gather evidence and conduct investigations in order to solve the murder at hand! To set up a game, give every player a Character card that represents one of the main characters from the show. Each Character card has a unique Special Ability to be used during play. Shuffle the Suspect cards, and randomly draw five to be placed face-up in the middle of the table. Select one Guilty token and four Not Guilty tokens – shuffle them together face-down and then place one token on each of the Suspect cards. Shuffle the deck of Investigation cards, deal 3 to each player, place the remaining cards into a Draw deck, and the game is ready to begin!
Moving in clockwise order, players will take turns performing one of the following actions: Draw a card, Discard one card to draw two cards, Play a Special Text card, Use your Special Ability, or Confront a Suspect. The first two actions regarding drawing cards are pretty self-explanatory. Throughout the game, you might draw into your hand an Investigation card with Special Text. You may play a Special Text card, and perform the specified action on your turn. Each Character has a Special Ability that can be used once per game, so plan wisely and use it appropriately! The last action, Confront a Suspect, is what the entire game is leading to. In order to Confront a Suspect, you must have the three Investigation cards listed on the bottom of the Suspect card in hand. When performing this action, you will reveal the three requisite Investigation cards, and then you flip the token on that Suspect card. If the token reads Guilty, then you have won the game! If the token reads Not Guilty, perform the action listed on the token, remove that Suspect and token from the game, discard your used Investigation cards, and play continue with a narrowed Suspect pool! The goal is to be the first player to find the Guilty party before the Draw deck runs out of cards.
Pretty straight-forward, right? I think so, and that’s one of the things I really like about this game. The gameplay is fast and simple, and makes for a quick little set collection game. Another neat element of this game is that although it is based around the Castle TV show, you do not need to have watched any of the show to play. Anyone can play and not feel like they are missing any vital information if they haven’t seen the show, and that makes it accessible to all players, not just fans of the show.
Even though I love the show, I have to admit that the gameplay, although fast and simple, is heavily dependent on the luck of the draw. Throughout the game, you are working to collect sets of the necessary Investigation cards for individual suspects, but the only way in which cards are distributed is through drawing them from the deck. There isn’t an offering that you ‘pay’ certain resources for coveted cards, there’s no real way to know in advance what card you are going to draw, etc. It really depends on how the deck was shuffled whether you will be successful or not. There are no real opportunities to strategize, and that keeps the overall gameplay kind of stagnant. Yes, there are Special Text cards and each Character has a unique ability, but deciding when to use them is kind of a shot in the dark due to the dependence on luck.
Let’s talk components for a minute. All of the Investigation and Character cards use photos or stills from the actual TV show. Again, you need not have watched it to play, but the use of the stills makes the game more immersive and nostalgic for those that have seen it. I love looking at the cards and trying to remember from which episode each still is, and if I remember who the killer was in that specific scenario. It’s just a fun little thing. The cards are all of good sturdy quality and will hold up decently in the long run. The Guilty/Not Guilty tokens in this game are some thick and heavy poker chips and they are AWESOME. They are so high quality, I just love to manipulate them, and they add some cool ‘bling’ to the game.
All in all, is Castle a great card game? No, not necessarily. It is a fun little murder mystery game, but not one that requires and real strategy or brain power to successfully play. Do I like it though? Absolutely, because it is based on my favorite show! If you’re looking for a nice filler game, or a game that doesn’t require too much focus, give Castle: The Detective Card Game a shot. That being said, I feel like only fans of the show will be trying this game, but I guess you can prove me wrong! Purple Phoenix Games give this a mischievous 6 / 12.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated On Chesil Beach (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Flawed but moving tale of a bygone sexual era.
As you might notice from my lack of recent posts, the day job is getting in a way a bit at the moment. But one film I wanted to catch was this adaptation of Ian McEwan’s novel. What’s both an advantage and a disadvantage of catching a film late is that you can’t help avoid absorbing some of the reviews of others: Kevin Maher of the Times gave this a rather sniffy two stars; Amy from “Oh That Film Blog” was much more measured (an excellent review: man, that girl can write!). Last night, I actually ended up enjoying the film much more than I was expecting to.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Supernatural - Season 1 in TV
Apr 20, 2017
Great Character development (2 more)
Brilliant take on the myths/legends lore
Somewhat educational
Saving People, Hunting Things, The Family Business...
Supernatural Season One first aired in 2005, and I was only 10 years old when I first watched it with my Dad. I didn't sleep for right for ages and didn't look in a mirror for a long time. However, now when I watch it, this show still has the horror factor but my brain has grown accustomed to the genre so it doesn't necessarily frighten me these days but it is very creepy.
The first thing I loved about this show was that the lore's it followed were real from the legend of Bloody Mary, to the Woman in White and even a Wendigo. I knew about these legends but this show taught me more about what people believed about them and how they came to be, so this show is somewhat educational as well as being a great action horror drama show.
SPOILERS AHEAD!
So in Season One we are introduced to a family who witness the death of their mother/wife as she bursts into a fiery explosion on the ceiling of baby Sam's nursery room. Fast forward years later and Sam's in college/university and has left his past behind him until his brother Dean shows up to tell him their Dad has gone missing after a 'Hunting' trip.
This is where we learn that Sam, Dean and their Father, were actual in the life of Hunters who hunt down demons, ghosts/spirits, and monsters.
This show takes you one a journey with Sam and Dean saving lives from all sorts of strange and horrifying evil beings, who don't always turn out to be an evil being, just tortured or maybe even a being trying to warn them of a greater evil.
The effects are on par with a lot of big budget movies, even better than some of the most recent box office hits and in 2005, that says a lot about how the show can only get better with age. And it has!
Writer Eric Kripke truly did create something spectacular and to say that it's still running to this day, with a whole 12 seasons finished and a 13th season coming soon, it's hard to believe that it can still stay fresh and entertaining with this genre, but when you watch this show I guarantee you'll be entertained as there are dozens of pop culture references in every episode from X- Files to Lord of the Rings and many more, and with soundtracks that include rock and metal bands such as AC/DC it's hard to wrap your head around just how awesome this show is.
Many episodes are either named after movies ("Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things", "The Usual Suspects", "I Know What You Did Last Summer") or classic rock songs ("In My Time of Dying", "Born Under a Bad Sign", "What is and What Should Never Be", "Sympathy For The Devil", "When The Levee Breaks"). - Copied from IMDB
The on screen chemistry between characters is brilliant and more often than not, even in serious situations, it can become hilarious with cheesy one liners or pop culture references used with perfect timing to lighten the mood of the show.
Sam and Dean (portrayed by Jared Padalecki and Jensen Ackles) have some of the best character development that I've seen in a show, and sometimes throughout the different series' the formula of arguing, falling out, and coming back to one another, can become somewhat tedious and repetitive making you scream at the TV saying "WHY!? YOU KNOW YOU'RE JUST GOING TO REALIZE YOU NEED EACH OTHER!" but if you think about it, that's how brothers would be in this situation. Having to spend every day with your brother on the road fighting the unthinkable, it would be stressful and tensions would run high, but you'd soon realize that after everything you've been through, who else could you feel comfortable around?
If you're into the paranormal or want to start learning more about different paranormal legends then this is the show for you.
TIP: For further entertainment, watch the bloopers. Some of the most hilarious clips I have ever seen from a show ;)
The first thing I loved about this show was that the lore's it followed were real from the legend of Bloody Mary, to the Woman in White and even a Wendigo. I knew about these legends but this show taught me more about what people believed about them and how they came to be, so this show is somewhat educational as well as being a great action horror drama show.
SPOILERS AHEAD!
So in Season One we are introduced to a family who witness the death of their mother/wife as she bursts into a fiery explosion on the ceiling of baby Sam's nursery room. Fast forward years later and Sam's in college/university and has left his past behind him until his brother Dean shows up to tell him their Dad has gone missing after a 'Hunting' trip.
This is where we learn that Sam, Dean and their Father, were actual in the life of Hunters who hunt down demons, ghosts/spirits, and monsters.
This show takes you one a journey with Sam and Dean saving lives from all sorts of strange and horrifying evil beings, who don't always turn out to be an evil being, just tortured or maybe even a being trying to warn them of a greater evil.
The effects are on par with a lot of big budget movies, even better than some of the most recent box office hits and in 2005, that says a lot about how the show can only get better with age. And it has!
Writer Eric Kripke truly did create something spectacular and to say that it's still running to this day, with a whole 12 seasons finished and a 13th season coming soon, it's hard to believe that it can still stay fresh and entertaining with this genre, but when you watch this show I guarantee you'll be entertained as there are dozens of pop culture references in every episode from X- Files to Lord of the Rings and many more, and with soundtracks that include rock and metal bands such as AC/DC it's hard to wrap your head around just how awesome this show is.
Many episodes are either named after movies ("Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things", "The Usual Suspects", "I Know What You Did Last Summer") or classic rock songs ("In My Time of Dying", "Born Under a Bad Sign", "What is and What Should Never Be", "Sympathy For The Devil", "When The Levee Breaks"). - Copied from IMDB
The on screen chemistry between characters is brilliant and more often than not, even in serious situations, it can become hilarious with cheesy one liners or pop culture references used with perfect timing to lighten the mood of the show.
Sam and Dean (portrayed by Jared Padalecki and Jensen Ackles) have some of the best character development that I've seen in a show, and sometimes throughout the different series' the formula of arguing, falling out, and coming back to one another, can become somewhat tedious and repetitive making you scream at the TV saying "WHY!? YOU KNOW YOU'RE JUST GOING TO REALIZE YOU NEED EACH OTHER!" but if you think about it, that's how brothers would be in this situation. Having to spend every day with your brother on the road fighting the unthinkable, it would be stressful and tensions would run high, but you'd soon realize that after everything you've been through, who else could you feel comfortable around?
If you're into the paranormal or want to start learning more about different paranormal legends then this is the show for you.
TIP: For further entertainment, watch the bloopers. Some of the most hilarious clips I have ever seen from a show ;)
Leigh J (71 KP) rated The Lost Boys (1987) in Movies
Nov 8, 2019
Best Movie Ever
Contains spoilers, click to show
Michael and Sam are Brothers who are moving, with their Mom Lucy, to Santa Carla following a Divorce. Santa Carla just happens to be the murder capital of the world. When they get to Santa Carla, they are met with an eccentric Grandpa and, shock horror!, no TV! Faced with the absolute atrocity that is no MTV, they decide to explore the nightlife of their new town and upon doing this, meet the beautiful and mysterious Star. Michael is instantly besotted and chases after her, leaving Sam at a local Comic Shop... and at the mercy of an intense duo called the Frog Brothers, who give Sam a comic called "Vampires Everywhere" and allude to the fact that he might want to read it to survive which Sam laughs off.
Upon chasing Star, Michael quickly finds out that she is part of a Gang of enigmatic young guys, their leader being the antagonistic David. Desperate to get closer to Star and gain some new friends, Michael goes along to their lair and is coaxed into drinking some "Wine" by the young men. Soon enough, Michael begins changing and finding out more about who David, Star and the gang really are... and who he really is now. Sam is also noticing changes in Michael, and suspects that Lucy's new flame, Max, is also involved with what is happening to Michael. But, after a terrifying reveal and a body count happening at a Bonfire, are Sam and Michael too late to save themselves? Does Max really have a tie to these mysterious Boys? Could they all hold the key as to why Santa Carla is the murder capital of the world?
I remember watching The Lost Boys as a kid and falling head over heels in love with everything about it; the way it looks, the music, The Lost Boys themselves (who became my style icons from then on!), the epic story... everything! It's such a great Movie, mixing Horror and Comedy perfectly and throwing in the most chaotic and horrific Vampire reveal I've ever seen (favourite scene, of course!). It's quite simply a joy to watch... I'm on my 500th watch already! LOVE it!
Upon chasing Star, Michael quickly finds out that she is part of a Gang of enigmatic young guys, their leader being the antagonistic David. Desperate to get closer to Star and gain some new friends, Michael goes along to their lair and is coaxed into drinking some "Wine" by the young men. Soon enough, Michael begins changing and finding out more about who David, Star and the gang really are... and who he really is now. Sam is also noticing changes in Michael, and suspects that Lucy's new flame, Max, is also involved with what is happening to Michael. But, after a terrifying reveal and a body count happening at a Bonfire, are Sam and Michael too late to save themselves? Does Max really have a tie to these mysterious Boys? Could they all hold the key as to why Santa Carla is the murder capital of the world?
I remember watching The Lost Boys as a kid and falling head over heels in love with everything about it; the way it looks, the music, The Lost Boys themselves (who became my style icons from then on!), the epic story... everything! It's such a great Movie, mixing Horror and Comedy perfectly and throwing in the most chaotic and horrific Vampire reveal I've ever seen (favourite scene, of course!). It's quite simply a joy to watch... I'm on my 500th watch already! LOVE it!
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Love, Death & Robots in TV
Jul 7, 2020
Unique And Visceral Experience
Love, Death, & Robots is an adult animated anthology tv series on Netflix. The series is produced by Joshua Donen, David Fincher, Jennifer Miller, and Tim Miller. Each of the 18 episodes released on the first season was animated by different crews from a range of countries. It's also a re-imagining of 1981 animated sci-fi film Heavy Metal. Starring Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Topher Grace, Gary Cole, Samira Wiley, and Stefan Kapicic.
Produced by different casts and crews, and consisting of 18 stand-alone episodes, each under 20 minutes, the title of the series refers to the recurring themes of love, death, and robots in each episode. Full of terrifying creatures, wicked surprises and dark comedy, it's a collection of animated short stories spanning several genres like horror, comedy, fantasy, and science fiction. Captivating stories come to life with world-class animation in a plethora of tales unlike anything else.
This series was wicked awesome. Reminded me of some of the other animated anthologies I've seen such as The Animatrix and Batman: Gotham Knight, except quite a bit more NSFW. This series also gave me a Twilight Zone vibe but bit darker. More blood and guts and highly sexual. Even though it's pretty graphic, I really liked a lot of the stories they told and the twists that most had in the end as well. Some are kind of hit or miss or just better than others but I think that there is definitely something for everyone despite the gore and nudity and language. I especially enjoyed the following episodes, 1. Sonnie's Edge, 8. Good Hunting, 10. Shape-Shifters, 13. Lucky 13, and 18. Secret War. The way they went about the story telling and world building in each episode was phenomenal. I really feel that some of these episodes deserve their own individual films or series to do them better justice. I mean some were just so good and less than 20 minutes felt like not enough or that they could have been even better. I give the entire series overall a 9/10.
Produced by different casts and crews, and consisting of 18 stand-alone episodes, each under 20 minutes, the title of the series refers to the recurring themes of love, death, and robots in each episode. Full of terrifying creatures, wicked surprises and dark comedy, it's a collection of animated short stories spanning several genres like horror, comedy, fantasy, and science fiction. Captivating stories come to life with world-class animation in a plethora of tales unlike anything else.
This series was wicked awesome. Reminded me of some of the other animated anthologies I've seen such as The Animatrix and Batman: Gotham Knight, except quite a bit more NSFW. This series also gave me a Twilight Zone vibe but bit darker. More blood and guts and highly sexual. Even though it's pretty graphic, I really liked a lot of the stories they told and the twists that most had in the end as well. Some are kind of hit or miss or just better than others but I think that there is definitely something for everyone despite the gore and nudity and language. I especially enjoyed the following episodes, 1. Sonnie's Edge, 8. Good Hunting, 10. Shape-Shifters, 13. Lucky 13, and 18. Secret War. The way they went about the story telling and world building in each episode was phenomenal. I really feel that some of these episodes deserve their own individual films or series to do them better justice. I mean some were just so good and less than 20 minutes felt like not enough or that they could have been even better. I give the entire series overall a 9/10.