Search
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Disney Villainous in Tabletop Games
Jan 6, 2020
I am a sucker for a great theme. Or themes that turn the game around. Such is the case with Disney Villainous. Not often does a game allow you to play AS the bad guys against the good guys. That premise is interesting to me, and as I saw this release last year, I just knew I had to have it. Now that I have played it several times, with and without the first expansion, what do I have to say about it? Read on.
Disney Villainous (“Villainous” from here on) is a card game that pits players against each other in a race to complete individualized objectives to win the game. Players are in direct competition with each other and have devices to employ to spoil the plans of their competitors. Can Maleficent place out curses on all the lands in her realm before Hades can have three Titans storm on Mount Olympus? Can Prince John attain 20 power before either of them win the game? Such is Villainous.
DISCLAIMER: This game has a few standalone expansions now, with more on the way I’m sure. We are using components from the base game as well as the first expansion, “Wicked to the Core,” for this review. Should we decide to review the expansions as standalone games, we will link to the new material here. Furthermore, I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, each player will choose a big bad to play. Each character comes equipped with a colored pawn, a realm board with four locations, a deck of cards with matching pawn colored backs, a Fate deck with white back, and a playbook with tips on how to play that character. Also give every player a reference card that details the actions available. Shuffle each deck separately, give the starting player zero power from the cauldron, the second player one power, the third player two power, etc. Each player draws a hand of four colored back cards. Begin the game with the pawns on the leftmost location on the realm board and you are now ready to play.
Play works thusly: move your pawn to any unlocked location, complete any or all actions available at the location, draw your hand back up to four, next player. You MUST move on your turn, unless a card allows you to stay at your current location on your next turn. Once moved, the location will either show two or four options for actions. These could include play a card, activate a card, discard a card, gain power tokens, move an item or ally, move a Hero card, vanquish a Hero, or play cards from an opponent’s Fate deck. Some actions are self-explanatory (gain power tokens, et al), but some require further explanation.
Some cards will have an activation symbol displayed on them. This means that a pawn has to have been moved to a location with an activate card symbol, and the player must pay to activate the card for its special abilities. Easy. Moving an item, ally, or Hero typically means physically moving the cards from one location to another adjacent location. This is important for some villains’ objectives: cards need to enter play in one location but travel to another as part of the win condition. When a villain moves to a location with the Fate symbol, they will choose an opponent, look at the top two cards of their Fate deck, and choose one card to play and one card to discard. These are especially devious and can greatly hinder the player’s progress. In addition, when a Fate card resides on a realm board it covers the top symbols of a location, thus nullifying the player’s ability to use these symbols on future turns. Using the vanquish symbol requires a Hero to have been played on your board, and having enough strength in allies and items to meet or overcome the Hero’s strength. Heroes and any allies/items used in the fight are then all discarded to the appropriate discard piles.
Play continues in this manner until one player has achieved their victory condition.
Components. I have good and bad news. Good news first. The components are absolutely fabulous! Those pawns. SOOOO good. Each is a somewhat abstracted figure of the villain, but with some concrete callbacks and recognizable features. They are just so dang fun to handle and play with. I think the cards are good quality, but I forgot what they feel like outside of the sleeves I put mine in. The board components are great, the cauldron is flimsy, unnecessary, and unwieldy when putting back in the box, especially if you have one or more expansions. I have not found a decent way to put everything back in one box, so I am resigned to having both boxes with me every time I want to play. That’s the bad. I also have put all my sleeved cards into plastic deck boxes in the main game box along with the cauldron. Everything else gets put in the expansion box. I hope a better storage solution is on the horizon along with future expansions…
So as you can see from our rating graphic on top that we are spread out on this one. I love it, but I don’t see it ever breaching my Top 10 list. It does have a tendency to overstay its welcome with all the Fate cards making it more and more difficult to win the game. Once a player seems to be near winning every other player gangs up, or seems to when I have played. I get that it may come off as a negative, and the play length as well, but it’s all part of villains out-villaining each other. While Josh rated it as a three and may not ever willingly ask to play it, I have it at a five because I think it’s a great game with a wonderful theme, amazing components, and tons of expandability. With that, we at Purple Phoenix Games give Disney Villainous a boding 16 / 24. If you are a big Disney fan, can live with the Take That, and want something that looks incredible on the table, pick it up.
Disney Villainous (“Villainous” from here on) is a card game that pits players against each other in a race to complete individualized objectives to win the game. Players are in direct competition with each other and have devices to employ to spoil the plans of their competitors. Can Maleficent place out curses on all the lands in her realm before Hades can have three Titans storm on Mount Olympus? Can Prince John attain 20 power before either of them win the game? Such is Villainous.
DISCLAIMER: This game has a few standalone expansions now, with more on the way I’m sure. We are using components from the base game as well as the first expansion, “Wicked to the Core,” for this review. Should we decide to review the expansions as standalone games, we will link to the new material here. Furthermore, I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, each player will choose a big bad to play. Each character comes equipped with a colored pawn, a realm board with four locations, a deck of cards with matching pawn colored backs, a Fate deck with white back, and a playbook with tips on how to play that character. Also give every player a reference card that details the actions available. Shuffle each deck separately, give the starting player zero power from the cauldron, the second player one power, the third player two power, etc. Each player draws a hand of four colored back cards. Begin the game with the pawns on the leftmost location on the realm board and you are now ready to play.
Play works thusly: move your pawn to any unlocked location, complete any or all actions available at the location, draw your hand back up to four, next player. You MUST move on your turn, unless a card allows you to stay at your current location on your next turn. Once moved, the location will either show two or four options for actions. These could include play a card, activate a card, discard a card, gain power tokens, move an item or ally, move a Hero card, vanquish a Hero, or play cards from an opponent’s Fate deck. Some actions are self-explanatory (gain power tokens, et al), but some require further explanation.
Some cards will have an activation symbol displayed on them. This means that a pawn has to have been moved to a location with an activate card symbol, and the player must pay to activate the card for its special abilities. Easy. Moving an item, ally, or Hero typically means physically moving the cards from one location to another adjacent location. This is important for some villains’ objectives: cards need to enter play in one location but travel to another as part of the win condition. When a villain moves to a location with the Fate symbol, they will choose an opponent, look at the top two cards of their Fate deck, and choose one card to play and one card to discard. These are especially devious and can greatly hinder the player’s progress. In addition, when a Fate card resides on a realm board it covers the top symbols of a location, thus nullifying the player’s ability to use these symbols on future turns. Using the vanquish symbol requires a Hero to have been played on your board, and having enough strength in allies and items to meet or overcome the Hero’s strength. Heroes and any allies/items used in the fight are then all discarded to the appropriate discard piles.
Play continues in this manner until one player has achieved their victory condition.
Components. I have good and bad news. Good news first. The components are absolutely fabulous! Those pawns. SOOOO good. Each is a somewhat abstracted figure of the villain, but with some concrete callbacks and recognizable features. They are just so dang fun to handle and play with. I think the cards are good quality, but I forgot what they feel like outside of the sleeves I put mine in. The board components are great, the cauldron is flimsy, unnecessary, and unwieldy when putting back in the box, especially if you have one or more expansions. I have not found a decent way to put everything back in one box, so I am resigned to having both boxes with me every time I want to play. That’s the bad. I also have put all my sleeved cards into plastic deck boxes in the main game box along with the cauldron. Everything else gets put in the expansion box. I hope a better storage solution is on the horizon along with future expansions…
So as you can see from our rating graphic on top that we are spread out on this one. I love it, but I don’t see it ever breaching my Top 10 list. It does have a tendency to overstay its welcome with all the Fate cards making it more and more difficult to win the game. Once a player seems to be near winning every other player gangs up, or seems to when I have played. I get that it may come off as a negative, and the play length as well, but it’s all part of villains out-villaining each other. While Josh rated it as a three and may not ever willingly ask to play it, I have it at a five because I think it’s a great game with a wonderful theme, amazing components, and tons of expandability. With that, we at Purple Phoenix Games give Disney Villainous a boding 16 / 24. If you are a big Disney fan, can live with the Take That, and want something that looks incredible on the table, pick it up.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising (2016) in Movies
Jul 19, 2017
An Unnecessarily Good Time
When the trailers for the first Bad Neighbours movie were released, I really wanted to see it as I’m a big fan of Seth Rogen comedies, but when it was released I was really underwhelmed. Then I heard they were making a sequel and while I’m sure that the first movie made money I just thought that a sequel to Neighbours was totally unneeded. I love it when I’m wrong. Bad Neighbours 2 is a million times better than the first movie and it is also a lot better than the trailers show it to be. The trailers make it out to be a silly slapstick dick joke movie, but some of the comedy is actually really original and more subtly hidden in the dialogue in the script. The slapstick humour is kept to a minimum and the comedic timing from the whole cast is spot on. To be honest going in, I thought that the sorority would annoy me and detract from the comedy in the film, but they were probably the best element in the movie. There was a heavier girl in the movie playing one of the sorority members and I initially thought she would be no more than the Melissa McCarthy or Rebel Wilson character in the movie, where she would just say I’m fat and fall over and say a dirty word and call it comedy but she actually pleasantly surprised me and she was possibly the funniest character in the movie. This film was a breath of fresh air and it totally trumped it’s predecessor. Comedy directors should take note this is how you make a good sequel to a comedy flick.
Don’t get me wrong, its not a perfect comedy by any means and some of the laughs do fall flat, but the vast majority of them do land and there were a few times where I belly laughed really loudly in the picture hall and that is something that has not happened in a while, probably not since Deadpool back in January. If you are looking to switch your brain off and enjoy a good juvenile summer comedy then I would definitely recommend this to you. Zac Effron is kind of doing a Channing Tatum impression these days in a lot of ways, but he, (like Tatum,) is so likable and charming that he pulls it off. His character, as well as Dave Franco’s character and the other guys from the first movie’s fraternity that are also in the sequel are much better written and portrayed across the board in this movie. This film is just superior in every way and it marks a rare occasion when a comedy sequel actually outshines the previous film. Don’t get me wrong though this isn’t the wittiest dialogue ever put to film either, there are plenty of dick jokes and some lazy slapstick, but for the most part the laughs are a bit deeper than what you would expect going in.
Overall I really enjoyed this movie for what it was and it really pleasantly surprised me in a big way. I’d also see it again as I’m sure there are a few jokes I missed the first time around.
Don’t get me wrong, its not a perfect comedy by any means and some of the laughs do fall flat, but the vast majority of them do land and there were a few times where I belly laughed really loudly in the picture hall and that is something that has not happened in a while, probably not since Deadpool back in January. If you are looking to switch your brain off and enjoy a good juvenile summer comedy then I would definitely recommend this to you. Zac Effron is kind of doing a Channing Tatum impression these days in a lot of ways, but he, (like Tatum,) is so likable and charming that he pulls it off. His character, as well as Dave Franco’s character and the other guys from the first movie’s fraternity that are also in the sequel are much better written and portrayed across the board in this movie. This film is just superior in every way and it marks a rare occasion when a comedy sequel actually outshines the previous film. Don’t get me wrong though this isn’t the wittiest dialogue ever put to film either, there are plenty of dick jokes and some lazy slapstick, but for the most part the laughs are a bit deeper than what you would expect going in.
Overall I really enjoyed this movie for what it was and it really pleasantly surprised me in a big way. I’d also see it again as I’m sure there are a few jokes I missed the first time around.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Run All Night (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Neeson at his gritty best
It’s fair to say Liam Neeson has picked some decidedly dodgy acting jobs since his rise to become an A-list Hollywood action hero. From a disappointing turn in the most recent A Team movie to the laughably bad Taken 3, he seems to have been turned from fan favourite to the butt of so many jokes.
After January’s poorly received Taken 3, Neeson returns to give the genre another go in Run All Night, but does Jaume Collet-Serra’s intriguing direction return him to the top of the food chain?
Run All Night follows the story of Neeson’s Jimmy Conlon as he does his best to keep his son Michael, played by Joel Kinnaman, away from the deadly clutches of Sean Maguire, a brutal underworld gangster portrayed by Ed Harris, after the murder of Sean’s son Danny over the course of 16 hours.
What ensues is a formulaic action thriller featuring by-the-numbers set pieces that are interspersed with some inspiring cinematography and all the actors at the top of their game.
Neeson’s Jimmy is an alcoholic former hit man, previously employed by Maguire, who has decided to move away from his shady past and become a more rounded individual. His interactions with Ed Harris’ brilliant Sean are excellent and the pair have genuine chemistry – it’s just a shame that their backstory isn’t built on a little more.
As the audience follows Jimmy and Michael evading the police, mobsters and professional hired killers, the film traces their backstory, almost using the action-packed set pieces as checkpoints for a bit more history and from a genre that rarely utilises character development, this is a welcome addition.
The cinematography is truly stunning. The sweeping shots of New York City are inspired and the use of tracking and aerial panning instead of simply fading between scenes stylises the film like no other action movie from the last few years.
There is an air of The Taking of Pelham 123 in Serra’s direction, and of course the similarities to Neeson’s Taken and Serra’s very own Non-Stop that also starred the Irish actor are obvious.
Unfortunately, all these comparisons mean that Run All Night isn’t particularly original in premise despite its unique direction. We’ve seen it all before, we saw Neeson running about and shooting bad guys in Taken, Taken 2 and Taken 3. We saw him try to get the bottom of a serious problem in Non-Stop and we saw him take on the role of a troubled alcoholic in The Grey.
Yes, after Taken 3, Run All Night showcases Neeson at his gritty best, but it’s in Ed Harris that we find the most intriguing
character and he puts everything into Sean Maguire – despite his more than familiar name.
Thankfully, Serra and the production crew steered away from creating a film that would please the masses and opted for an often brutal, yet strangely warming action thriller – along the way avoiding the pitfalls of some of Neeson’s previous efforts.
Overall, Run All Night isn’t the disaster it could have been and shows what everyone’s favourite Irish actor is capable of when given the right material to work with. Ed Harris is also on point and Jaume Collet-Serra’s direction goes above and beyond what the genre asks for.
Only an underwhelming final act and a highly unoriginal story stop it from becoming the film it so deeply wanted to be.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/15/neeson-at-his-gritty-best-run-all-night-review/
After January’s poorly received Taken 3, Neeson returns to give the genre another go in Run All Night, but does Jaume Collet-Serra’s intriguing direction return him to the top of the food chain?
Run All Night follows the story of Neeson’s Jimmy Conlon as he does his best to keep his son Michael, played by Joel Kinnaman, away from the deadly clutches of Sean Maguire, a brutal underworld gangster portrayed by Ed Harris, after the murder of Sean’s son Danny over the course of 16 hours.
What ensues is a formulaic action thriller featuring by-the-numbers set pieces that are interspersed with some inspiring cinematography and all the actors at the top of their game.
Neeson’s Jimmy is an alcoholic former hit man, previously employed by Maguire, who has decided to move away from his shady past and become a more rounded individual. His interactions with Ed Harris’ brilliant Sean are excellent and the pair have genuine chemistry – it’s just a shame that their backstory isn’t built on a little more.
As the audience follows Jimmy and Michael evading the police, mobsters and professional hired killers, the film traces their backstory, almost using the action-packed set pieces as checkpoints for a bit more history and from a genre that rarely utilises character development, this is a welcome addition.
The cinematography is truly stunning. The sweeping shots of New York City are inspired and the use of tracking and aerial panning instead of simply fading between scenes stylises the film like no other action movie from the last few years.
There is an air of The Taking of Pelham 123 in Serra’s direction, and of course the similarities to Neeson’s Taken and Serra’s very own Non-Stop that also starred the Irish actor are obvious.
Unfortunately, all these comparisons mean that Run All Night isn’t particularly original in premise despite its unique direction. We’ve seen it all before, we saw Neeson running about and shooting bad guys in Taken, Taken 2 and Taken 3. We saw him try to get the bottom of a serious problem in Non-Stop and we saw him take on the role of a troubled alcoholic in The Grey.
Yes, after Taken 3, Run All Night showcases Neeson at his gritty best, but it’s in Ed Harris that we find the most intriguing
character and he puts everything into Sean Maguire – despite his more than familiar name.
Thankfully, Serra and the production crew steered away from creating a film that would please the masses and opted for an often brutal, yet strangely warming action thriller – along the way avoiding the pitfalls of some of Neeson’s previous efforts.
Overall, Run All Night isn’t the disaster it could have been and shows what everyone’s favourite Irish actor is capable of when given the right material to work with. Ed Harris is also on point and Jaume Collet-Serra’s direction goes above and beyond what the genre asks for.
Only an underwhelming final act and a highly unoriginal story stop it from becoming the film it so deeply wanted to be.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/15/neeson-at-his-gritty-best-run-all-night-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018) in Movies
Aug 1, 2018
Quite possibly, the best action film ever made
MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT just might be the best action movie I have ever seen.
Yes...it is that good.
The 6th entry in the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE franchise, this film stars, as usual, Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt, part of the IMF, a secret government entity that takes on the impossible missions that the CIA (and other agencies) won't touch. He is joined, yet again, in this installment of the franchise by his "usual" team, Simon Pegg (Benji), Ving Rhames (Luther), Rebecca Ferguson (Ilse) and Alec Baldwin (IMF Director Hunley). It was fun to have "the band" back together again. They looked like they had a good time filming this and I had a good time watching it.
Jumping right in on the fun is Angela Bassett (BLACK PANTHER) as the head of the CIA, but doing more than just being a thorn in the side of Alec Baldwin. As well as Vanessa Kirby (THE CROWN) as the mysterious "White Widow" and, especially, Henry Cavill, who shows that he can do more than be DC's Superman.
And, finally, the franchise wisely brings back Sean Harris as "big bad" Solomon Lane (think Bond's arch-nemesis Blofeld). He proves to be, yet again, an able adversary for the IMF team.
The plot, of course, is somewhat convoluted, with twists, turns and double-crosses (by both the good and bad guys) throughout this film. If I have a quibble for this film, it is that they got a little "cute" with the plot twists - there was (perhaps) one or two too many "gotchas" - but that is just a quibble, for the plot gets us from point "A" to point "B" nicely.
And when I say "Point A" and "Point B", I mean action set piece "A" to action set piece "B" (and "C" and "D" and "E" and "F"...) - and boy are these action set pieces EXTRAORDINARY!
Director Christopher McQuarrie (he also Directed the previous film in this franchise, ROUGE NATION) is the first person to helm two of these films - and I think it is a smart choice for he established in Rogue Nation an ability to create smart, tense action, chase and fight sequences that are easy to follow and fun to watch.
Credit for most of this fun has to go to 55 year old (at the time of filming) Tom Cruise - looking every bit as fit and capable as a 35 year old Tom Cruise. He dives into the action sequences (literally) with gusto and proves more than capable of delivering the goods. Once again, he does a death-defying stunt that left me amazed.
But, what I really left the theater with was an appreciation for McQuarrie, Cruise and company for delivering an end sequence that earned the build up it was given. EVERY member of the company had something to do and the action in this endpiece was a step up of anything that had come before it - either in the Mission Impossible series, or in any other action flick.
If you are a fan of good, solid action films, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT is one to not miss.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Yes...it is that good.
The 6th entry in the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE franchise, this film stars, as usual, Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt, part of the IMF, a secret government entity that takes on the impossible missions that the CIA (and other agencies) won't touch. He is joined, yet again, in this installment of the franchise by his "usual" team, Simon Pegg (Benji), Ving Rhames (Luther), Rebecca Ferguson (Ilse) and Alec Baldwin (IMF Director Hunley). It was fun to have "the band" back together again. They looked like they had a good time filming this and I had a good time watching it.
Jumping right in on the fun is Angela Bassett (BLACK PANTHER) as the head of the CIA, but doing more than just being a thorn in the side of Alec Baldwin. As well as Vanessa Kirby (THE CROWN) as the mysterious "White Widow" and, especially, Henry Cavill, who shows that he can do more than be DC's Superman.
And, finally, the franchise wisely brings back Sean Harris as "big bad" Solomon Lane (think Bond's arch-nemesis Blofeld). He proves to be, yet again, an able adversary for the IMF team.
The plot, of course, is somewhat convoluted, with twists, turns and double-crosses (by both the good and bad guys) throughout this film. If I have a quibble for this film, it is that they got a little "cute" with the plot twists - there was (perhaps) one or two too many "gotchas" - but that is just a quibble, for the plot gets us from point "A" to point "B" nicely.
And when I say "Point A" and "Point B", I mean action set piece "A" to action set piece "B" (and "C" and "D" and "E" and "F"...) - and boy are these action set pieces EXTRAORDINARY!
Director Christopher McQuarrie (he also Directed the previous film in this franchise, ROUGE NATION) is the first person to helm two of these films - and I think it is a smart choice for he established in Rogue Nation an ability to create smart, tense action, chase and fight sequences that are easy to follow and fun to watch.
Credit for most of this fun has to go to 55 year old (at the time of filming) Tom Cruise - looking every bit as fit and capable as a 35 year old Tom Cruise. He dives into the action sequences (literally) with gusto and proves more than capable of delivering the goods. Once again, he does a death-defying stunt that left me amazed.
But, what I really left the theater with was an appreciation for McQuarrie, Cruise and company for delivering an end sequence that earned the build up it was given. EVERY member of the company had something to do and the action in this endpiece was a step up of anything that had come before it - either in the Mission Impossible series, or in any other action flick.
If you are a fan of good, solid action films, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT is one to not miss.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The Toy Thief in Books
Jan 31, 2019
There are few bonds closer than brother and sister, and we learn that first hand in D. W. Gillespie’s The Toy Thief. Best described by author Michael Patrick Hicks as a “coming-of-age story,” The Toy Thief encompasses the childhood of strong-headed, tomboyish Jack and her brother Andy. Together, the two must thwart a darkness that threatens their livelihood and that of other children around them.
In this creative piece, Gillespie takes a different approach to the ‘why’ behind things that go missing from our homes. We’ve all lost socks, batteries, Tupperware, toys, etc., only to have these items turn up later somewhere else or, in some cases, never to be seen again. But what if all those things were actually going somewhere, rather than simply being lost as a byproduct of human irresponsibility? In The Toy Thief, a dark entity swipes toys from children in order to feed off the happiness and positive energy that thrives within those items. Using these items as a way to sustain its own life force, the Toy Thief soon finds itself running out of options for staying alive, and that’s where things truly take a dark turn in this story.
I found the characters in The Toy Thief to be lacking, honestly. Though I am a fan of the non-traditional use of the name Jack for a female character, the characters in this story are a bit too flat for my taste–and this is perhaps where I made the decision to give this book three stars, rather than four. Jack, for all her tomboyish quirks and fiery attitude (at least in her older years), shows little of that in her child years. Andy, on the other hand, seems to lack personality altogether. The father, despite being the only parent in their lives, plays less of a role in the book than the cat, Memphis. Actually, Memphis seems to be the most fleshed out of all the characters, with what felt like the most genuine reactions to many of the ongoing events in the story.
On the other hand, Gillespie’s ability to generate sympathy for a villain–in this case, the Toy Thief itself–is phenomenal. I would be a liar if I said I didn’t feel so badly for the Toy Thief that I nearly cried on several occasions and, if you’re a sucker for bad guys like I am, that alone is a good reason to delve into this book. The emotional connection that Gillespie creates between the reader and the Toy Thief is heartrending and brilliant.
Gillespie’s novel does a wonderful job when it comes to the creep factor. There are times I felt my skin crawl while reading this book, if only because his ability to write of dread is on point. However, when it comes to descriptions of the Toy Thief, I felt like his arsenal ran a little dry. More often than not, the creature was described the same way, using the same words and to me, this was a bit of a put-off.
Overall, The Toy Thief is not a bad book. It’s not the best that I’ve read, but it was enjoyable and I was able to suck it down fairly quickly. I didn’t feel like I was force-feeding it to myself, either and for those that know me, that’s a good thing. I definitely look forward to more of Gillespie’s work in the future.
I received this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review.
In this creative piece, Gillespie takes a different approach to the ‘why’ behind things that go missing from our homes. We’ve all lost socks, batteries, Tupperware, toys, etc., only to have these items turn up later somewhere else or, in some cases, never to be seen again. But what if all those things were actually going somewhere, rather than simply being lost as a byproduct of human irresponsibility? In The Toy Thief, a dark entity swipes toys from children in order to feed off the happiness and positive energy that thrives within those items. Using these items as a way to sustain its own life force, the Toy Thief soon finds itself running out of options for staying alive, and that’s where things truly take a dark turn in this story.
I found the characters in The Toy Thief to be lacking, honestly. Though I am a fan of the non-traditional use of the name Jack for a female character, the characters in this story are a bit too flat for my taste–and this is perhaps where I made the decision to give this book three stars, rather than four. Jack, for all her tomboyish quirks and fiery attitude (at least in her older years), shows little of that in her child years. Andy, on the other hand, seems to lack personality altogether. The father, despite being the only parent in their lives, plays less of a role in the book than the cat, Memphis. Actually, Memphis seems to be the most fleshed out of all the characters, with what felt like the most genuine reactions to many of the ongoing events in the story.
On the other hand, Gillespie’s ability to generate sympathy for a villain–in this case, the Toy Thief itself–is phenomenal. I would be a liar if I said I didn’t feel so badly for the Toy Thief that I nearly cried on several occasions and, if you’re a sucker for bad guys like I am, that alone is a good reason to delve into this book. The emotional connection that Gillespie creates between the reader and the Toy Thief is heartrending and brilliant.
Gillespie’s novel does a wonderful job when it comes to the creep factor. There are times I felt my skin crawl while reading this book, if only because his ability to write of dread is on point. However, when it comes to descriptions of the Toy Thief, I felt like his arsenal ran a little dry. More often than not, the creature was described the same way, using the same words and to me, this was a bit of a put-off.
Overall, The Toy Thief is not a bad book. It’s not the best that I’ve read, but it was enjoyable and I was able to suck it down fairly quickly. I didn’t feel like I was force-feeding it to myself, either and for those that know me, that’s a good thing. I definitely look forward to more of Gillespie’s work in the future.
I received this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I saw Alita twice in two days, once in 3D and once in 2D. As far as I'm concerned it's another Valerian... where there's a lot of detail on the screen the 3D makes it unwatchable. There are also several artsy shots that have characters in the foreground and scenery to look at in the background but finding something to easily rest your eye on is challenging, your focus is drawn backwards and forwards and it became a little frustrating.
There was one major problem for me, it's quite a big problem... Alita. Firstly I really don't like the animation of her, I was hoping it was just the trailer but there wasn't really any change between that and the final version. They've tried to keep the manga characteristics, specifically her large eyes that are popular for the style, but what works for illustration and regular animation doesn't have the same effect in this "realistic" animation.
Secondly, I find her character to be chaotic? I think that's the word I'm looking for. Despite her body knowing she's a warrior it somehow doesn't remember that she's not a petulant teenager? She has also lost any common sense when it comes to boundaries and verges on being a stalker in her relationship with Hugo. He's definitely got an overly attached girlfriend problem.
I was particularly impressed with Mahershala Ali who was clearly channelling some vintage Wesley Snipes from Blade. He plays the bad guy, technically two bad guys, and his last scene of the film was quite an amusing affair... maybe that's just me thinking that though.
The action side of the film is exciting to watch, if it hadn't been then there would have been something seriously wrong. Fight scenes are occasionally interrupted by flashes of Alita's previous life, and yet that doesn't phase her at all. Maybe I'm just assuming that's the way it should be having seen it so often in other films.
Motorball is great fun to watch (although I keep wanting to call it murderball) and I'm glad that they mixed up some of the Alita manga to get this in here. It's lined up to be quite an important plot point so I'm a little nervous about how they might go forward with this if they make a second film.
Those last words are what give me reservations though, "if they make a second film". It leaves a very obvious opportunity at the end for the next instalment and they've spoken about wanting more films to happen. In my opinion it's not a film that can stand on its own, we're either going to be disappointed by no second film or have to wait years for the next one. Had it been condensed down into one film we'd have been presented with a much more satisfying production.
What you should do
It's a good bit of sci-fi action and worth seeing in 2D. I'm not sure how I feel about the 12A rating though, that's potentially something to think about if you're taking your kids to see it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'm totally here for some cybernetic enhancements, I can't quite decide which ones but I don't think I need to go full motorball.
There was one major problem for me, it's quite a big problem... Alita. Firstly I really don't like the animation of her, I was hoping it was just the trailer but there wasn't really any change between that and the final version. They've tried to keep the manga characteristics, specifically her large eyes that are popular for the style, but what works for illustration and regular animation doesn't have the same effect in this "realistic" animation.
Secondly, I find her character to be chaotic? I think that's the word I'm looking for. Despite her body knowing she's a warrior it somehow doesn't remember that she's not a petulant teenager? She has also lost any common sense when it comes to boundaries and verges on being a stalker in her relationship with Hugo. He's definitely got an overly attached girlfriend problem.
I was particularly impressed with Mahershala Ali who was clearly channelling some vintage Wesley Snipes from Blade. He plays the bad guy, technically two bad guys, and his last scene of the film was quite an amusing affair... maybe that's just me thinking that though.
The action side of the film is exciting to watch, if it hadn't been then there would have been something seriously wrong. Fight scenes are occasionally interrupted by flashes of Alita's previous life, and yet that doesn't phase her at all. Maybe I'm just assuming that's the way it should be having seen it so often in other films.
Motorball is great fun to watch (although I keep wanting to call it murderball) and I'm glad that they mixed up some of the Alita manga to get this in here. It's lined up to be quite an important plot point so I'm a little nervous about how they might go forward with this if they make a second film.
Those last words are what give me reservations though, "if they make a second film". It leaves a very obvious opportunity at the end for the next instalment and they've spoken about wanting more films to happen. In my opinion it's not a film that can stand on its own, we're either going to be disappointed by no second film or have to wait years for the next one. Had it been condensed down into one film we'd have been presented with a much more satisfying production.
What you should do
It's a good bit of sci-fi action and worth seeing in 2D. I'm not sure how I feel about the 12A rating though, that's potentially something to think about if you're taking your kids to see it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'm totally here for some cybernetic enhancements, I can't quite decide which ones but I don't think I need to go full motorball.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Sting (1973) in Movies
Mar 29, 2020
On my list of All Time Favorite Films
I'll come right out and say it - the 1973 Academy Award winning film for Best Picture, THE STING, is one of the greatest films of all time. It's well written, well acted, well directed with a memorable musical score and characters, situations, costumes and set design that become richer over time and through repeated viewings.
Set in Chicago in the gangster-ridden, depression era mid-1930's, THE STING tells the tale of two con man who join forces for the ultimate con of a vile N.Y. Gangster who is responsible for killing a friend of theirs.
From everything I have read about it, the script by David S. Ward (who won an Oscar for his work) arrived pretty much finished. He shaped the story of the con men - and the myriad pieces of misdirection - fully before shopping it around to the studios. Universal jumped all over it and tabbed veteran Director George Roy Hill (BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID) to helm the picture. Hill - being no dummy - saw this as a vehicle to re-team Newman and Redford (stars of Butch Cassidy) and the rest...as they say...is history.
Newman and Redford are perfectly cast as veteran grifter Henry Gondorff (Newman) and up and coming grifter Johnny Hooker (Redford). They have an ease of playing off of each other - each one complimenting the other one - both giving in their scenes with the other one which makes the scenes more rich and alive. They are joined by a veritable "who's who" of late '60's/early '70's character actors - Harold Gould, Eileen Brennan, Charles Durning, Ray Walston and Dana Elcar - all of them bring their "A" game and they are fun to watch. Special notice should be made to Robert Earl Jones (father of James Earl Jones) as Luther, the character who's fate propels the plot forward.
But...none of this would work if you didn't have a "bad guy" that was interesting to watch - and to root against - and bad guys don't get much better...and badder...than Robert Shaw's Doyle Lonnegan. Shaw plays Lonnegan as a physically tough boss who doesn't suffer failure, but is smart enough to avoid obvious traps. He is a worthy adversary of Gondorff and Hooker's and it is fun to watch Newman, Redford and Shaw play off each other. One other note - it was with this performance that Universal recommended Shaw to young Director Stephen Spielberg for his "shark flick" JAWS.
Edith Head won her 8th (and last) Oscar for the magnificent period costumes in this film and Marvin Hamlisch won for the Music - a surprising hit on the pop charts of re-channeled Scott Joplin tunes. The set design won an Oscar - as did the Director, George Roy Hill. All in all, the film won 7 out of the 11 Oscars it was nominated for (Redford was nominated for Best Actor, but did not win).
THE STING is a well crafted film. One that tells a timeless story and that stands the test of time as a testament of how great of an achievement in film this is. It is one of my All Time favorites.
Letter Grade: the rare A+
5 stars (out of 5) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Set in Chicago in the gangster-ridden, depression era mid-1930's, THE STING tells the tale of two con man who join forces for the ultimate con of a vile N.Y. Gangster who is responsible for killing a friend of theirs.
From everything I have read about it, the script by David S. Ward (who won an Oscar for his work) arrived pretty much finished. He shaped the story of the con men - and the myriad pieces of misdirection - fully before shopping it around to the studios. Universal jumped all over it and tabbed veteran Director George Roy Hill (BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID) to helm the picture. Hill - being no dummy - saw this as a vehicle to re-team Newman and Redford (stars of Butch Cassidy) and the rest...as they say...is history.
Newman and Redford are perfectly cast as veteran grifter Henry Gondorff (Newman) and up and coming grifter Johnny Hooker (Redford). They have an ease of playing off of each other - each one complimenting the other one - both giving in their scenes with the other one which makes the scenes more rich and alive. They are joined by a veritable "who's who" of late '60's/early '70's character actors - Harold Gould, Eileen Brennan, Charles Durning, Ray Walston and Dana Elcar - all of them bring their "A" game and they are fun to watch. Special notice should be made to Robert Earl Jones (father of James Earl Jones) as Luther, the character who's fate propels the plot forward.
But...none of this would work if you didn't have a "bad guy" that was interesting to watch - and to root against - and bad guys don't get much better...and badder...than Robert Shaw's Doyle Lonnegan. Shaw plays Lonnegan as a physically tough boss who doesn't suffer failure, but is smart enough to avoid obvious traps. He is a worthy adversary of Gondorff and Hooker's and it is fun to watch Newman, Redford and Shaw play off each other. One other note - it was with this performance that Universal recommended Shaw to young Director Stephen Spielberg for his "shark flick" JAWS.
Edith Head won her 8th (and last) Oscar for the magnificent period costumes in this film and Marvin Hamlisch won for the Music - a surprising hit on the pop charts of re-channeled Scott Joplin tunes. The set design won an Oscar - as did the Director, George Roy Hill. All in all, the film won 7 out of the 11 Oscars it was nominated for (Redford was nominated for Best Actor, but did not win).
THE STING is a well crafted film. One that tells a timeless story and that stands the test of time as a testament of how great of an achievement in film this is. It is one of my All Time favorites.
Letter Grade: the rare A+
5 stars (out of 5) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Debbiereadsbook (1202 KP) rated Soul of Discretion in Books
May 1, 2018
great collaboration!
I was gifted my copy of this book, direct from the author, that I write a review was not required.
You know how you love a particular author, all their books are mostly 5 stars reviews, and then one comes along that throws you for a loop, and you did not love it, but you cannot figure out why?? This one, right here.
Simon is in Canada to see just what has happened to his money, and more importantly, his friend. His hook-up provides him with some much needed relief. When said hook-up turns out to be the police officer dealing with his friend, both Simon and Nick realise they have to stay apart. But neither man can do that, because each man feels more for the other than just a hook-up. But how can things work, with them living on opposite sides of the world??
I LIKED this, I really did, I just didn't love, and it pains me deeply to say that, and I really don't know why!
I loved Simon, being an Earl, but he doesn't lord it over others. He works hard, makes his millions by working hard and pushing others to work hard for him. Loved Nick, who is, up to now, quite happy in his job as a Mountie. Loved the supporting cast of characters that take part in this story. Loved how they came together, and that they both thought, quite quickly, that there could be more between them.
I just didn't love the story! I did love how Jack, Simon's friend, redeemed himself, and the bad guys got their comeuppence, though.
This is a collaboration between Susan Mac Nicol, and M.Tasia. I LOVE Ms Mac Nicol, but have only read one short by Ms Tasia. I tried really hard to pick out where each author had their say, as it were, but I couldn't find any seams. The changes between each author are smooth and painless and unless you KNOW where they are, you might never be able to pick those seams apart. So, very well done for that!
So, as much as I enjoyed the story, I just didn't love it and for that I'm deeply sorry!
4 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
You know how you love a particular author, all their books are mostly 5 stars reviews, and then one comes along that throws you for a loop, and you did not love it, but you cannot figure out why?? This one, right here.
Simon is in Canada to see just what has happened to his money, and more importantly, his friend. His hook-up provides him with some much needed relief. When said hook-up turns out to be the police officer dealing with his friend, both Simon and Nick realise they have to stay apart. But neither man can do that, because each man feels more for the other than just a hook-up. But how can things work, with them living on opposite sides of the world??
I LIKED this, I really did, I just didn't love, and it pains me deeply to say that, and I really don't know why!
I loved Simon, being an Earl, but he doesn't lord it over others. He works hard, makes his millions by working hard and pushing others to work hard for him. Loved Nick, who is, up to now, quite happy in his job as a Mountie. Loved the supporting cast of characters that take part in this story. Loved how they came together, and that they both thought, quite quickly, that there could be more between them.
I just didn't love the story! I did love how Jack, Simon's friend, redeemed himself, and the bad guys got their comeuppence, though.
This is a collaboration between Susan Mac Nicol, and M.Tasia. I LOVE Ms Mac Nicol, but have only read one short by Ms Tasia. I tried really hard to pick out where each author had their say, as it were, but I couldn't find any seams. The changes between each author are smooth and painless and unless you KNOW where they are, you might never be able to pick those seams apart. So, very well done for that!
So, as much as I enjoyed the story, I just didn't love it and for that I'm deeply sorry!
4 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated BANG! in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
“I’m gonna bang you.” Taken out of context, one might be slapped for saying such things. While playing a rousing game of BANG! The Dice Game, it’s only too common. To “bang” someone (in this game) is to shoot them. With a gun. While Purple Phoenix Games does not condone violence or murder, you gotta admit that banging your friends with no risk of bodily harm is definitely exciting!
Okay, so at its Wild West heart, BANG! The Dice Game is just that: a dice game. Have you played Yahtzee! before? Or anything with the Yahtzee! mechanic? You know, you throw some dice, save one or more for scoring, and can re-roll up to twice more to try to get the desired result? Well now you know how to play BANG! The Dice Game – mostly.
What makes this different and more exciting than Yahtzee! is that everyone will have a special identity which affords them a special player power. It could be re-rolling a specific die face again, or minimizing damage from an attack. Add to that the fact that everyone is also dealt a role card to determine their team affiliation – Sheriff and Deputy, Outlaws, or the Renegade. The Sheriff wins if the bad guys are eliminated, the Deputy wins if the Sheriff survives, the Outlaws win if the Sheriff is eliminated, and the Renegade wins if they are the last one standing.
Now, I didn’t mention that there are “Indians” who could possibly shoot arrows at the players because it’s not politically correct, but this is set in the Old West, and that’s unfortunately what they called Native Americans, and that’s the terminology that is used in the game.
This game boasts a play experience that is fast, engaging on every turn (even the other players’), easy to learn, and just plain hilarious fun. Yes, you could be eliminated in a game, but games typically last like 15-20 minutes, so you don’t have to wait long to get back in the fight.
With easy, fast, and fun gameplay, an interesting theme to role play, and great components, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a rootin’ tootin’ 13 / 18 (Josh hasn’t played it yet).
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/02/bang-the-dice-game-review/
Okay, so at its Wild West heart, BANG! The Dice Game is just that: a dice game. Have you played Yahtzee! before? Or anything with the Yahtzee! mechanic? You know, you throw some dice, save one or more for scoring, and can re-roll up to twice more to try to get the desired result? Well now you know how to play BANG! The Dice Game – mostly.
What makes this different and more exciting than Yahtzee! is that everyone will have a special identity which affords them a special player power. It could be re-rolling a specific die face again, or minimizing damage from an attack. Add to that the fact that everyone is also dealt a role card to determine their team affiliation – Sheriff and Deputy, Outlaws, or the Renegade. The Sheriff wins if the bad guys are eliminated, the Deputy wins if the Sheriff survives, the Outlaws win if the Sheriff is eliminated, and the Renegade wins if they are the last one standing.
Now, I didn’t mention that there are “Indians” who could possibly shoot arrows at the players because it’s not politically correct, but this is set in the Old West, and that’s unfortunately what they called Native Americans, and that’s the terminology that is used in the game.
This game boasts a play experience that is fast, engaging on every turn (even the other players’), easy to learn, and just plain hilarious fun. Yes, you could be eliminated in a game, but games typically last like 15-20 minutes, so you don’t have to wait long to get back in the fight.
With easy, fast, and fun gameplay, an interesting theme to role play, and great components, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a rootin’ tootin’ 13 / 18 (Josh hasn’t played it yet).
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/02/bang-the-dice-game-review/
Nicole Hadley (380 KP) rated My Heart Belongs in the Superstition Mountains: Carmela’s Quandary in Books
Jun 16, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
My Heart Belongs in the Superstition Mountains: Carmela’s Quandry by Susan Page Davis is the second book in the My Heart Belongs series. Carmela's Quandry is a Christian Western with a touch of romance. It is set in 1866 in the Arizona Territory. The story has lots of detail which allows for the reader to feel that they are there in the middle of the story. A wonderful story that allows the reader to see the inner beauty in people.
Carmela lost her parents on the trail to California at a young age and since that point her uncle has been exploiting her for years. At first Carmela was cared for by friends until her uncle could arrive. Her parents owed money that Carmela's uncle was now responsible for paying. Since the uncle didn't have the money he guilted and punished Carmela by forcing her to tell a fake story that the uncle invented. The story is that she has been a victim of an Indian attack, later the uncle forces her to tour the country telling the story he invented. He even drew tattoos on her face because that mimicked what tribes often did to captives. Carmela is now twenty and is almost of age to be able to break away from her Uncle and stop speaking to crowds of people and telling them something that are lies.
Freeman McKay is a lawman who is transporting a dangerous prisoner by stage. He is riding along with a prisoner he is transporting when the stagecoach they are on is robbed. The bad guys leave Carmela and Freeland handcuffed together in the desert and ride off with their loot. Freeman is unconscious from the attack. Several hours go by and Carmela is brought water by a mysterious Indian warrior. That water saved their lives. Freeman and Carmela have to make their way to Prescott so that she can settle and be safe. Carmela and Freeman develop a relationship of trust. Carmela tells Freeman of the secret that she has been forced by her uncle to lie to crowds of people for money.
I liked that Carmela was able to find true happiness. The story is captivating. It's a story of faith and the healing virtue of friendship and love.
Carmela lost her parents on the trail to California at a young age and since that point her uncle has been exploiting her for years. At first Carmela was cared for by friends until her uncle could arrive. Her parents owed money that Carmela's uncle was now responsible for paying. Since the uncle didn't have the money he guilted and punished Carmela by forcing her to tell a fake story that the uncle invented. The story is that she has been a victim of an Indian attack, later the uncle forces her to tour the country telling the story he invented. He even drew tattoos on her face because that mimicked what tribes often did to captives. Carmela is now twenty and is almost of age to be able to break away from her Uncle and stop speaking to crowds of people and telling them something that are lies.
Freeman McKay is a lawman who is transporting a dangerous prisoner by stage. He is riding along with a prisoner he is transporting when the stagecoach they are on is robbed. The bad guys leave Carmela and Freeland handcuffed together in the desert and ride off with their loot. Freeman is unconscious from the attack. Several hours go by and Carmela is brought water by a mysterious Indian warrior. That water saved their lives. Freeman and Carmela have to make their way to Prescott so that she can settle and be safe. Carmela and Freeman develop a relationship of trust. Carmela tells Freeman of the secret that she has been forced by her uncle to lie to crowds of people for money.
I liked that Carmela was able to find true happiness. The story is captivating. It's a story of faith and the healing virtue of friendship and love.