Search
Search results
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Who thought it was a good idea to remake Ben-Hur? Well, on paper, it would seem to be a possibility. Ben-Hur has been hitting our cinema screens since 1907, with three other theatrical versions before this one; a short silent effort in 1907, the 1925 silent epic and the blockbusting MGM epic from 1959.
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Commuter (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Liam Neeson's special set of skills return
The Movie Metropolis Alternative Oscars have received over 650 votes so far and it’s proving to be the closest run awards ever. Make sure you cast your vote for the best films and performances from 2017 before March 6th.
Liam Neeson is this generation’s formidable action hero. From protecting his family in Taken and protecting his family in Run All Night, to protecting his family in Taken 2, and you know, protecting his family in Taken 3, Neeson is a family man if ever I’ve seen one.
Teaming up with director Jaume Collet-Serra for the fourth time, the rather excellent Non-Stop being their best work together, Neeson takes the action and moves it on-board, you guessed it, a commuter train. But does The Commuter work? Or are we starting to get derailed by these constant action roles?
Insurance salesman Michael (Neeson) is on his daily commute home, which quickly becomes anything but routine. After being contacted by a mysterious stranger (Vera Farmiga), Michael is forced to uncover the identity of a hidden passenger on the train before the last stop. As he works against the clock to solve the puzzle, he realizes a deadly plan is unfolding, and he is unwittingly caught up in a criminal conspiracy that carries life and death stakes for everyone on the train.
The premise is a borderline carbon copy of what we saw in Non-Stop, but with Neeson battling a series of bad guys on a train instead of in the air, and while it is at times, ridiculous, it’s directed with the usual Collet-Serra sense of style that would make even a dog food commercial look intriguing.
Where last year’s Murder on the Orient Express opted for opulence and fairly static camerawork, here The Commuter utilises every part of the train to its advantage. From underneath the carriages, to through the windows and even cleverly framed through a ticket stub, Collet-Serra’s direction is unique, if a little over-stylised at times.
Casting wise, Neeson is the perfect choice to play the world-weary protagonist with a very special set of skills, after all, it’s a role he has been playing for many years now. Some might say typecast, I prefer to think of it as knowing what he wants. Elsewhere, Vera Farmiga is a disappointingly underused presence and it would have been nice to see her a little more throughout the fairly taut 105-minute running time. It’s also nice to see Sam Neill back on the big screen and he remains dependable company.
It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG
The action is choreographed well considering the limitations of the set and while it’s clear that the carriages have been manipulated during some of the fight scenes, it’s still impressive to think of all the camera equipment being squeezed into a fairly small space. There’s always been something oddly satisfying at seeing 65-year-old Neeson taking down a group of ruffians half his age and that shows no sign of dissipating any time soon.
Unfortunately, it appears that the limitations of the set also manifested themselves in limits to the script. There are numerous scenes of Neeson pacing up and down the carriages with very little dialogue and while this worked reasonably well in Non-Stop, the result is less successful here, probably due to a less engaging supporting cast.
And while the cinematography is very clever indeed, the low budget, less than $20million in fact, means some of the CGI and special effects leave a lot to be desired, especially towards the film’s climax. It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG.
Overall, The Commuter is another thrilling slice of popcorn entertainment from Jaume Collet-Serra and Liam Neeson. At 65-years-old, you’d think everyone’s favourite Irish actor would want to be settling down into cosier rom-com territory and who could blame him? I’m just thankful he’s not. The Commuter may be utterly preposterous and completely unoriginal, but you’ll have a blast watching it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/20/the-commuter-review-liam-neesons-special-set-of-skills-return/
Liam Neeson is this generation’s formidable action hero. From protecting his family in Taken and protecting his family in Run All Night, to protecting his family in Taken 2, and you know, protecting his family in Taken 3, Neeson is a family man if ever I’ve seen one.
Teaming up with director Jaume Collet-Serra for the fourth time, the rather excellent Non-Stop being their best work together, Neeson takes the action and moves it on-board, you guessed it, a commuter train. But does The Commuter work? Or are we starting to get derailed by these constant action roles?
Insurance salesman Michael (Neeson) is on his daily commute home, which quickly becomes anything but routine. After being contacted by a mysterious stranger (Vera Farmiga), Michael is forced to uncover the identity of a hidden passenger on the train before the last stop. As he works against the clock to solve the puzzle, he realizes a deadly plan is unfolding, and he is unwittingly caught up in a criminal conspiracy that carries life and death stakes for everyone on the train.
The premise is a borderline carbon copy of what we saw in Non-Stop, but with Neeson battling a series of bad guys on a train instead of in the air, and while it is at times, ridiculous, it’s directed with the usual Collet-Serra sense of style that would make even a dog food commercial look intriguing.
Where last year’s Murder on the Orient Express opted for opulence and fairly static camerawork, here The Commuter utilises every part of the train to its advantage. From underneath the carriages, to through the windows and even cleverly framed through a ticket stub, Collet-Serra’s direction is unique, if a little over-stylised at times.
Casting wise, Neeson is the perfect choice to play the world-weary protagonist with a very special set of skills, after all, it’s a role he has been playing for many years now. Some might say typecast, I prefer to think of it as knowing what he wants. Elsewhere, Vera Farmiga is a disappointingly underused presence and it would have been nice to see her a little more throughout the fairly taut 105-minute running time. It’s also nice to see Sam Neill back on the big screen and he remains dependable company.
It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG
The action is choreographed well considering the limitations of the set and while it’s clear that the carriages have been manipulated during some of the fight scenes, it’s still impressive to think of all the camera equipment being squeezed into a fairly small space. There’s always been something oddly satisfying at seeing 65-year-old Neeson taking down a group of ruffians half his age and that shows no sign of dissipating any time soon.
Unfortunately, it appears that the limitations of the set also manifested themselves in limits to the script. There are numerous scenes of Neeson pacing up and down the carriages with very little dialogue and while this worked reasonably well in Non-Stop, the result is less successful here, probably due to a less engaging supporting cast.
And while the cinematography is very clever indeed, the low budget, less than $20million in fact, means some of the CGI and special effects leave a lot to be desired, especially towards the film’s climax. It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG.
Overall, The Commuter is another thrilling slice of popcorn entertainment from Jaume Collet-Serra and Liam Neeson. At 65-years-old, you’d think everyone’s favourite Irish actor would want to be settling down into cosier rom-com territory and who could blame him? I’m just thankful he’s not. The Commuter may be utterly preposterous and completely unoriginal, but you’ll have a blast watching it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/20/the-commuter-review-liam-neesons-special-set-of-skills-return/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Hoorah, it's not a total dud
The entire production of Justice League has been enveloped in the tragedy surrounding director Zack Snyder’s sudden departure from the project in March this year.
After losing his daughter, Autumn, to suicide, the DC regular decided to hand over the reins of his passion project to Avengers director Joss Whedon so that he could spend time with his family. Whedon came on board and decided to undertake costly reshoots in order to get the film finished on time.
In that respect, it’s a miracle we’ve even got a Justice League movie in the first place. What’s even more of a miracle is that it turns out to be not rubbish – unfortunately that’s probably the biggest compliment I can give this frequently entertaining but messy outing for our favourite selection of DC Comic superheroes.
Fuelled by his restored faith in humanity and inspired by Superman’s (Henry Cavill) act of selflessness, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) enlists newfound ally Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) to face an even greater threat. Together, Batman and Wonder Woman work quickly to recruit a team to stand against their newly awakened enemy, Steppenwolf. Despite the formation of an unprecedented league of heroes — Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and the Flash (Ezra Miller) – it may be too late to save the planet from an assault of catastrophic proportions.
This year’s Wonder Woman proved that the DC Universe can be at least a passable alternative to the might of Marvel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was an entertaining, if entirely forgettable mash up of the two titular heroes. Justice League sits somewhere in between – it’s not as much of an ordeal as BvS, but it’s also not as interesting as Wonder Woman. The less said about Suicide Squad, the better.
Acting wise, it’s a good start for the League. Ben Affleck is a cracking Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is lacking the gritty humanity of Christian Bale’s turn as the caped crusader. Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa and Ray Fisher all perform well with the former in particular being a highlight, but their rushed introductions do them no favours. However, the standout once again is the wonderful Gal Gadot. Her selfless Diana Prince really is magnificent and her increased screen-time in Justice League when compared to Batman v Superman is more than welcome.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film.
The main villain, Steppenwolf, voiced well by Ciarán Hinds is less successful. Masked behind walls of at-times poor CGI, his threat never feels truly realised and poor Hinds is wasted in a role reminiscent of the dreadful work 20th Century Fox did on Oscar Issac in X-Men: Apocalypse. He gets some good lines however, and makes for a decent, if unremarkable antagonist.
Amy Adams and Diane Lane are once again side-lined in their roles as Lois Lane and Martha Kent respectively. These incredible actresses really are wasted in roles that have little-to-no outcome to the plot. And this is a problem that has blighted the DCEU from the get-go. The calibre of actors used in these films is frankly, astounding and each one of them deserves better than the overly expositional and cringe worthy dialogue they continue to be lumped with.
The final act, like so many films before it, is a mess of ugly CGI that spoils a very decent middle section that has some truly poignant moments. The return of Superman (that isn’t a spoiler if you’ve been following the marketing for Justice League) is handled well and the moment he is reunited with his mother is touching and well-acted.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film. It’s also painfully obvious where Snyder’s very ‘operatic’ filming style is replaced with Joss Whedon’s trademark wit and this doesn’t sit well all of the time. It’s clear that a turbulent production has created a film that’s biggest merit is that it even managed to exist in the first place, and that’s a real shame. Entertaining? Yes. But entertainment can’t mask a film that reeks of mediocrity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/19/justice-league-review/
After losing his daughter, Autumn, to suicide, the DC regular decided to hand over the reins of his passion project to Avengers director Joss Whedon so that he could spend time with his family. Whedon came on board and decided to undertake costly reshoots in order to get the film finished on time.
In that respect, it’s a miracle we’ve even got a Justice League movie in the first place. What’s even more of a miracle is that it turns out to be not rubbish – unfortunately that’s probably the biggest compliment I can give this frequently entertaining but messy outing for our favourite selection of DC Comic superheroes.
Fuelled by his restored faith in humanity and inspired by Superman’s (Henry Cavill) act of selflessness, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) enlists newfound ally Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) to face an even greater threat. Together, Batman and Wonder Woman work quickly to recruit a team to stand against their newly awakened enemy, Steppenwolf. Despite the formation of an unprecedented league of heroes — Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and the Flash (Ezra Miller) – it may be too late to save the planet from an assault of catastrophic proportions.
This year’s Wonder Woman proved that the DC Universe can be at least a passable alternative to the might of Marvel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was an entertaining, if entirely forgettable mash up of the two titular heroes. Justice League sits somewhere in between – it’s not as much of an ordeal as BvS, but it’s also not as interesting as Wonder Woman. The less said about Suicide Squad, the better.
Acting wise, it’s a good start for the League. Ben Affleck is a cracking Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is lacking the gritty humanity of Christian Bale’s turn as the caped crusader. Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa and Ray Fisher all perform well with the former in particular being a highlight, but their rushed introductions do them no favours. However, the standout once again is the wonderful Gal Gadot. Her selfless Diana Prince really is magnificent and her increased screen-time in Justice League when compared to Batman v Superman is more than welcome.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film.
The main villain, Steppenwolf, voiced well by Ciarán Hinds is less successful. Masked behind walls of at-times poor CGI, his threat never feels truly realised and poor Hinds is wasted in a role reminiscent of the dreadful work 20th Century Fox did on Oscar Issac in X-Men: Apocalypse. He gets some good lines however, and makes for a decent, if unremarkable antagonist.
Amy Adams and Diane Lane are once again side-lined in their roles as Lois Lane and Martha Kent respectively. These incredible actresses really are wasted in roles that have little-to-no outcome to the plot. And this is a problem that has blighted the DCEU from the get-go. The calibre of actors used in these films is frankly, astounding and each one of them deserves better than the overly expositional and cringe worthy dialogue they continue to be lumped with.
The final act, like so many films before it, is a mess of ugly CGI that spoils a very decent middle section that has some truly poignant moments. The return of Superman (that isn’t a spoiler if you’ve been following the marketing for Justice League) is handled well and the moment he is reunited with his mother is touching and well-acted.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film. It’s also painfully obvious where Snyder’s very ‘operatic’ filming style is replaced with Joss Whedon’s trademark wit and this doesn’t sit well all of the time. It’s clear that a turbulent production has created a film that’s biggest merit is that it even managed to exist in the first place, and that’s a real shame. Entertaining? Yes. But entertainment can’t mask a film that reeks of mediocrity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/19/justice-league-review/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Sagrada in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
One of the best parts of the board gaming experience is finding a fun group of people with whom to play! Sometimes, though, coordinating a game night is easier said than done. We all must occasionally forego the group experience and face the world as the Lonely Only. But fear not! The world of solo-play is a vast and exciting realm! What follows is a chronicle of my journey into the solo-playing world – notes on gameplay, mechanics, rules, difficulty, and overall experience with solo variations of commonly multiplayer games! I hope this will provide some insight as you continue to grow your collection, or explore your already owned games!
In Sagrada, you are an artist who has been tasked with creating a beautiful stained glass window. Working piece by piece, you build a masterpiece – the likes of which have never before been witnessed. Finding the perfect pieces can be tricky, but through careful use of your tools and with your artistic vision, you can create the best window in the town! The game is played over 10 rounds in which players draft dice and place them in their windows, following certain placement restrictions. A set number of tools are available for use, and can aid you in manipulating the dice to your benefit. Points are scored based on successful completion of private and public objectives, and the player with the highest score at the end of 10 drafting rounds is the winner!
My favorite part about playing Sagrada solo is that the game is essentially played the same way, regardless of player count. The only difference is how you win! In both group and solo play, each player will draft two dice every round. In group play, any leftover dice are discarded, while in solo play, the remaining two dice will be added towards the Target Score – the score you are trying to beat at the end of the game! To find the Target Score, you add all of the die values of your unused dice from each round. If, at the end of the 10 rounds, you have earned more points than the Target Score, you win! But if the Target Score is higher than your final score, you lose.
The game play differences are simple enough, but actually winning the game solo is a different story. I have played Sagrada solo quite a bit, and have won maybe 25% of the time. Depending on which window card and objectives are in play, and because of placement restrictions, I often have to sacrifice high-valued dice to the Target Score. And since there are no placement restrictions for the Target Score, and two dice are added to it each round, it is very easy for that score to sky-rocket. I either barely pull off a win, or I lose by a huge margin. Playing in a group is nicer in this regard because the other players have the same placement restrictions that I have – nobody is just getting points for free. Without the Target Score, there really is no way to play Sagrada solo, but it makes the game feel a little imbalanced to me.
Just because it is difficult to win solo does not mean that I do not like the game. It requires quite a bit of strategy, and that keeps me engaged for the entire game. There are dice placement restrictions based on color AND value, so there are two different ways in which you have to constantly be strategizing. You can’t just focus on either value or color – your strategy must always be changing based on which color dice are drawn and what values are subsequently rolled. Even with the amount of strategy required, Sagrada actually plays pretty quickly as a solo game, and I really like that. I like the challenge of this game, and often try to play until I can win. Since I can finish an entire solo game in probably 10-15 minutes, I am able to get multiple plays in a row!
Sagrada is a challenging game to play solo, but not in a way that feels futile. I don’t win a lot, but the strategic implications and the pretty dice colors are what keep me coming back to this game! If you haven’t tried Sagrada solo yet, I’d encourage you to give it a shot. But be warned – you might not always win.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/02/26/solo-chronicles-sagrada/
In Sagrada, you are an artist who has been tasked with creating a beautiful stained glass window. Working piece by piece, you build a masterpiece – the likes of which have never before been witnessed. Finding the perfect pieces can be tricky, but through careful use of your tools and with your artistic vision, you can create the best window in the town! The game is played over 10 rounds in which players draft dice and place them in their windows, following certain placement restrictions. A set number of tools are available for use, and can aid you in manipulating the dice to your benefit. Points are scored based on successful completion of private and public objectives, and the player with the highest score at the end of 10 drafting rounds is the winner!
My favorite part about playing Sagrada solo is that the game is essentially played the same way, regardless of player count. The only difference is how you win! In both group and solo play, each player will draft two dice every round. In group play, any leftover dice are discarded, while in solo play, the remaining two dice will be added towards the Target Score – the score you are trying to beat at the end of the game! To find the Target Score, you add all of the die values of your unused dice from each round. If, at the end of the 10 rounds, you have earned more points than the Target Score, you win! But if the Target Score is higher than your final score, you lose.
The game play differences are simple enough, but actually winning the game solo is a different story. I have played Sagrada solo quite a bit, and have won maybe 25% of the time. Depending on which window card and objectives are in play, and because of placement restrictions, I often have to sacrifice high-valued dice to the Target Score. And since there are no placement restrictions for the Target Score, and two dice are added to it each round, it is very easy for that score to sky-rocket. I either barely pull off a win, or I lose by a huge margin. Playing in a group is nicer in this regard because the other players have the same placement restrictions that I have – nobody is just getting points for free. Without the Target Score, there really is no way to play Sagrada solo, but it makes the game feel a little imbalanced to me.
Just because it is difficult to win solo does not mean that I do not like the game. It requires quite a bit of strategy, and that keeps me engaged for the entire game. There are dice placement restrictions based on color AND value, so there are two different ways in which you have to constantly be strategizing. You can’t just focus on either value or color – your strategy must always be changing based on which color dice are drawn and what values are subsequently rolled. Even with the amount of strategy required, Sagrada actually plays pretty quickly as a solo game, and I really like that. I like the challenge of this game, and often try to play until I can win. Since I can finish an entire solo game in probably 10-15 minutes, I am able to get multiple plays in a row!
Sagrada is a challenging game to play solo, but not in a way that feels futile. I don’t win a lot, but the strategic implications and the pretty dice colors are what keep me coming back to this game! If you haven’t tried Sagrada solo yet, I’d encourage you to give it a shot. But be warned – you might not always win.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/02/26/solo-chronicles-sagrada/
What can I say about <i>Revenger</i>?
It was my first ever Space Opera and it has opened my eyes to a whole new genre.
It was my first ever Space Opera and it has primed my taste-buds for more.
It was my first ever Alastair Reynolds and now I want more.
Revenger itself was amazingly well written. As mentioned above this was my first book from Alastair Reynolds and it was just the kind of book I could get into again and again; the writing style flowed with a shocking ease and the plot line was very Firefly-esque with a hint more action and a smidge more ‘oh-shit’ factor.
Revenger follows the story of Adrana and Arafura Ness – two sisters from Mazarile whose sick father had made some very poor choices in business – as they embark on a journey into space to end all journeys.
It begins with Adrana convincing her younger sister Arafura to escape into Neural Alley for a reading by Madam Granity. There’s aliens, robots and weird looking men with bad attitudes and then there’s Captain Rackamore. Pol Rackamore is the captain of the Monetta’s Mourn – a sunjammer spaceship – and he’s in need of a new Boney on his ship as his current one is getting too old to ‘read the bones’ and I mean that in the literal sense of the word.
Adrana convinces Cap’n Rack to take both her and Arafura on board the Monetta in the position of new Bone Readers (with the aide of Cazaray the current Boney) and that is where the story really begins. We’re introduced to the rest of the crew and the Monetta sails off into the Empty in search of baubles. As they sail towards their first bauble Arafura becomes a lot closer to the rest of the crew while I feel that Adrana is doing her best to stay away from them all even though she’s front and center.
Story progresses and little hints are dropped about Bosa Sennen and Cap’n Rack’s long lost daughter. There’s several shocking deaths, a mad woman, a kidnapping or two and a young girl bent on revenge.
Around the mid way mark Arafura changes, subtly at first and then a lot more drastic and she becomes Just Fura. This is where the story becomes a lot darker and a lot less like Firefly and a lot more like the Firefly from hell; the second half of this book is based around Fura getting Revenger on Bosa Sennen for what she did and the things that Fura puts herself through to get where she needs to be? She started off as a little timid and shy but after the 50% mark she changed completely and became hard and unyielding.
You know how they say that the future is bright? That brightness is swallowed by the Empty and the future is dark and full of terrors (oh yeah I went there) there’s a doctor with a God complex, a father with a total lack of regard for his daughters, a totally bad ass soldier robot with logic barricades and all sorts of other people.
I think I loved the world building the most about Revenger it was such a smooth transition from place to place and from time to time that it was almost seamless; my second favourite thing was the characters – hands down they were some of the best characters I’ve ever read and I’d love to see if AR takes this book any further as it was seemingly left open for another book but we shall see.
The book gave off a distinctly pirate feeling but with the space element it felt more like Firefly than it did Pirates of the Caribbean which as a fan of both was saying something. Pirates sailing the high skies rather than the high seas! Some of the characters left much to be desired – Bosa, Adrana and Dr Moonface I’m looking at y’all – but the likes of Rack, Prozor and Paladin more than made up for them.
The dialogue was great and the story wasn’t overly scientific which sometimes can be an issue for me, I like my books to be a little less science fact and a bit more science fiction but with Revenger, I felt like AR was giving us regular folk an explanation without going overboard on the description.
It was my first ever Space Opera and it has opened my eyes to a whole new genre.
It was my first ever Space Opera and it has primed my taste-buds for more.
It was my first ever Alastair Reynolds and now I want more.
Revenger itself was amazingly well written. As mentioned above this was my first book from Alastair Reynolds and it was just the kind of book I could get into again and again; the writing style flowed with a shocking ease and the plot line was very Firefly-esque with a hint more action and a smidge more ‘oh-shit’ factor.
Revenger follows the story of Adrana and Arafura Ness – two sisters from Mazarile whose sick father had made some very poor choices in business – as they embark on a journey into space to end all journeys.
It begins with Adrana convincing her younger sister Arafura to escape into Neural Alley for a reading by Madam Granity. There’s aliens, robots and weird looking men with bad attitudes and then there’s Captain Rackamore. Pol Rackamore is the captain of the Monetta’s Mourn – a sunjammer spaceship – and he’s in need of a new Boney on his ship as his current one is getting too old to ‘read the bones’ and I mean that in the literal sense of the word.
Adrana convinces Cap’n Rack to take both her and Arafura on board the Monetta in the position of new Bone Readers (with the aide of Cazaray the current Boney) and that is where the story really begins. We’re introduced to the rest of the crew and the Monetta sails off into the Empty in search of baubles. As they sail towards their first bauble Arafura becomes a lot closer to the rest of the crew while I feel that Adrana is doing her best to stay away from them all even though she’s front and center.
Story progresses and little hints are dropped about Bosa Sennen and Cap’n Rack’s long lost daughter. There’s several shocking deaths, a mad woman, a kidnapping or two and a young girl bent on revenge.
Around the mid way mark Arafura changes, subtly at first and then a lot more drastic and she becomes Just Fura. This is where the story becomes a lot darker and a lot less like Firefly and a lot more like the Firefly from hell; the second half of this book is based around Fura getting Revenger on Bosa Sennen for what she did and the things that Fura puts herself through to get where she needs to be? She started off as a little timid and shy but after the 50% mark she changed completely and became hard and unyielding.
You know how they say that the future is bright? That brightness is swallowed by the Empty and the future is dark and full of terrors (oh yeah I went there) there’s a doctor with a God complex, a father with a total lack of regard for his daughters, a totally bad ass soldier robot with logic barricades and all sorts of other people.
I think I loved the world building the most about Revenger it was such a smooth transition from place to place and from time to time that it was almost seamless; my second favourite thing was the characters – hands down they were some of the best characters I’ve ever read and I’d love to see if AR takes this book any further as it was seemingly left open for another book but we shall see.
The book gave off a distinctly pirate feeling but with the space element it felt more like Firefly than it did Pirates of the Caribbean which as a fan of both was saying something. Pirates sailing the high skies rather than the high seas! Some of the characters left much to be desired – Bosa, Adrana and Dr Moonface I’m looking at y’all – but the likes of Rack, Prozor and Paladin more than made up for them.
The dialogue was great and the story wasn’t overly scientific which sometimes can be an issue for me, I like my books to be a little less science fact and a bit more science fiction but with Revenger, I felt like AR was giving us regular folk an explanation without going overboard on the description.
Ross (3284 KP) rated Perfect Death in Books
Sep 28, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have debated with myself over a rating for this, the third in the "DI Luc Callanach" series of Edinburgh police procedurals. While the overall story is definitely a 4 star, verging on 5, certain aspects of the dialogue in this one were a little jarring at times, and the plot hinged on a couple of very out of character decisions on the part of the murderer.
As with the previous two books, we join the story at the start of two independent investigations, which inevitably expand and take up the whole team's efforts (it's almost as if there was no crime in the city before these came along as no other cases seem to be mentioned or worked on!). We have the apparent death by misadventure of a young girl on the hills around Arthur's Seat, and the apparent suicide of former DCI Begbie.
Both cases are interesting and very different, the former being a more typical murder investigation, the latter being more focused on police corruption and the Glasgow gangland (I do enjoy the fact that any nasty gangsters in these Edinburgh-based stories have to be based in Glasgow, almost like they are sponsored by the Edinburgh tourist board, or someone with an anti-East Coast agenda).
While the murder investigation is decent, a number of clangers really spoiled it for me. We have a young man who appears to be poisoning people after having ingratiated themselves into their lives and the lives of their loved ones under different false names. However, as is so often the case in these stories, the killer is made too clever to be caught (at least too clever to be caught in under 300 pages!), and so the slightest mistake or piece of luck is what the investigation hinges on. Here it transpires that, while the killer has used false names in every interaction, in one of them he seems to have for some reason used the name of someone who leads the police directly to his backstory and hence uncovering his real identity. This piece of Batman vs Superman ("Your Mom was called Martha?!") level plot pivot was just so jarring and so out of character for this supposedly clever murderer. And yet without it there was pretty much no way of the murderer being found. For a secret poisoner to then start waving a gun around was also a bit hard to accept.
And also, all characters seem to be very well spoken. We have a young man who grew up in care homes from the age of 5, a Glasgow gangster and his henchmen and numerous bad sorts along the way and all are very well spoken, to the point that none of them have a voice and are just ... there. And, of course everyone refers to the police in the same way as the police refer to themselves - I cannot imagine anyone referring to a policeman as "DI something" or ""your DCI said this". It just totally jars and again comes across as the author simply inserting their voice into the mouths of characters that they could not be bothered to properly consider.
This brings me on to the dialogue gripe. I have always struggled to accept the formality in the way fictional detectives speak to members of the public. I get that interviews etc have to be carried out in a certain way, but at one point DCI Turner is speaking to a 17 year old boy about the death of his mother and she says "I cannot leave someone who might be a danger to themselves without establishing first-hand contact". This just struck me as the author inserting a piece of research into dialogue rather than considering how that point would be addressed in a human conversation. Similarly, at one point a DC refers to one of the victims as "she" and Callanach snapped at her "We use victims' names not pronouns", which just struck me as an odd thing to say, and at several times throughout the book he himself refers to victims with pronouns.
And finally, while there was never a great deal of swearing in the first two books, it was believable swearing. Here we have the occasional use of "frigging" instead of the other "f" word, which I cannot think I have ever heard a Scottish person say, unless singing along to the Sex Pistols sea shanty.
Overall, I give this book 4 stars for the plot, 3 stars for the writing, then averaged out and rounded down for the annoying little things.
A definite step down from the second book, and a more slapdash feel to it.
As with the previous two books, we join the story at the start of two independent investigations, which inevitably expand and take up the whole team's efforts (it's almost as if there was no crime in the city before these came along as no other cases seem to be mentioned or worked on!). We have the apparent death by misadventure of a young girl on the hills around Arthur's Seat, and the apparent suicide of former DCI Begbie.
Both cases are interesting and very different, the former being a more typical murder investigation, the latter being more focused on police corruption and the Glasgow gangland (I do enjoy the fact that any nasty gangsters in these Edinburgh-based stories have to be based in Glasgow, almost like they are sponsored by the Edinburgh tourist board, or someone with an anti-East Coast agenda).
While the murder investigation is decent, a number of clangers really spoiled it for me. We have a young man who appears to be poisoning people after having ingratiated themselves into their lives and the lives of their loved ones under different false names. However, as is so often the case in these stories, the killer is made too clever to be caught (at least too clever to be caught in under 300 pages!), and so the slightest mistake or piece of luck is what the investigation hinges on. Here it transpires that, while the killer has used false names in every interaction, in one of them he seems to have for some reason used the name of someone who leads the police directly to his backstory and hence uncovering his real identity. This piece of Batman vs Superman ("Your Mom was called Martha?!") level plot pivot was just so jarring and so out of character for this supposedly clever murderer. And yet without it there was pretty much no way of the murderer being found. For a secret poisoner to then start waving a gun around was also a bit hard to accept.
And also, all characters seem to be very well spoken. We have a young man who grew up in care homes from the age of 5, a Glasgow gangster and his henchmen and numerous bad sorts along the way and all are very well spoken, to the point that none of them have a voice and are just ... there. And, of course everyone refers to the police in the same way as the police refer to themselves - I cannot imagine anyone referring to a policeman as "DI something" or ""your DCI said this". It just totally jars and again comes across as the author simply inserting their voice into the mouths of characters that they could not be bothered to properly consider.
This brings me on to the dialogue gripe. I have always struggled to accept the formality in the way fictional detectives speak to members of the public. I get that interviews etc have to be carried out in a certain way, but at one point DCI Turner is speaking to a 17 year old boy about the death of his mother and she says "I cannot leave someone who might be a danger to themselves without establishing first-hand contact". This just struck me as the author inserting a piece of research into dialogue rather than considering how that point would be addressed in a human conversation. Similarly, at one point a DC refers to one of the victims as "she" and Callanach snapped at her "We use victims' names not pronouns", which just struck me as an odd thing to say, and at several times throughout the book he himself refers to victims with pronouns.
And finally, while there was never a great deal of swearing in the first two books, it was believable swearing. Here we have the occasional use of "frigging" instead of the other "f" word, which I cannot think I have ever heard a Scottish person say, unless singing along to the Sex Pistols sea shanty.
Overall, I give this book 4 stars for the plot, 3 stars for the writing, then averaged out and rounded down for the annoying little things.
A definite step down from the second book, and a more slapdash feel to it.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Exorcist (1973) in Movies
Oct 17, 2019
Its a scream
This is a guest review for the stage show of The Exorcist not for the movie written by my good friend jappyscraps (on instagram) which I'm very thankful for.
The Exorcist on stage – Alexandra Theatre, Birmingham, 16/10/19
It’s my number one film of all-time so naturally I approached this production with some caution. Any stage adaptations of films have to be stripped down for obvious reasons and with The Exorcist having some key technical moments I was eager to see how they achieved them or even included them at all.
There’s a very clever build-up to the show with a steady drone of religious chanting and indecipherable voices, whispers and moans which stay with you before a massive crack rips through the sound system and the theatre is plunged into total darkness. It’s quite unsettling and there were a lot of nervous giggles and squeaks in the audience. A light appears at the top of the stage set and Father Merrin (played by Paul Nicholas, yes him of 80’s sitcom ‘Just Good Friends’ fame and one-time pop star) appears, speaks a few lines which we couldn’t hear at all and then promptly disappears and the stage lights reveal the MacNeil household below where Chris MacNeil and her daughter Regan. They obviously have a close bond and the next few minutes is spent establishing this and introducing the character of Burke, a film director and friend of actress Chris, who provides some occasional comedy touches. There are scenes of Regan playing with a Ouija board which she discovers in the attic. This is the first introduction of the demon that Regan refers to as Captain Howdy. Unlike the film, we hear the demon speaking in the early stages of Regan’s possession. The demon’s voice is provided by (a pre-recorded) Sir Ian McKellen and his performance is brilliant despite it sounding nothing like Mercedes McCambridge in the original.
At this stage we have lost one of the key characters and if you know the story well you will know who this is. As Reagan’s behaviour deteriorates, we are introduced to various doctors and psychiatrists before a priest friend of Chris suggests she talks to Father Karras, a key character in The Exorcist. When Karras first meets Regan she is in her bed, restrained by straps and speaking in the demon’s voice. Susannah Edgeley as Regan does a magnificent job lip-synching to McKellen’s voice, she does not miss a beat and her performance overall steals the show.
Father Karras is not convinced that an exorcism is the answer but, as we know, events take a turn for the worse and a frail Father Merrin is summoned for a showdown with the demon, which is the show’s dramatic (and loud) finale.
If you are wondering if all of The Exorcist’s key moments are included in the stage show I can confirm that most of them are, even if they don’t appear in the same scenes in the film. So, the crucifix scene is present and correct, though not so bloody and graphic. Regan’s head spin is there, achieved by what you might describe as a Penn & Teller trick but it is surprisingly effective. Regan does vomit during the exorcism but the classic scene of her projectile vomiting over Karras isn’t there, probably a step too far for a stage show. There is no levitation in the exorcism but there is a clever effect where Regan is catapulted forward on the bed, as if pushed forward by the demon. It’s all very impressive stuff.
The Exorcist on stage is very good, fans of the film will enjoy picking up on the original dialogue and dissecting the new lines and plotline. Some characters from the film don’t appear at all, the key one being Lieutenant Kinderman (played by Lee J. Cobb in the film) which I was a little disappointed about. My main issues were with the sound on occasions, particularly not hearing the actors deliver their lines clearly but it was a minor niggle. The character of Burke Dennings is renamed Burke Dennis in the stage show and I have no idea why – I was frankly irritated by it. The performances of Susannah Edgeley and McKellen’s demon more than make up for it though. The stage set is excellent and the lights and sound effects were top notch. I’d recommend it without hesitation, just don’t expect a scene for scene reboot of the film or you will be very disappointed.
The Exorcist on stage – Alexandra Theatre, Birmingham, 16/10/19
It’s my number one film of all-time so naturally I approached this production with some caution. Any stage adaptations of films have to be stripped down for obvious reasons and with The Exorcist having some key technical moments I was eager to see how they achieved them or even included them at all.
There’s a very clever build-up to the show with a steady drone of religious chanting and indecipherable voices, whispers and moans which stay with you before a massive crack rips through the sound system and the theatre is plunged into total darkness. It’s quite unsettling and there were a lot of nervous giggles and squeaks in the audience. A light appears at the top of the stage set and Father Merrin (played by Paul Nicholas, yes him of 80’s sitcom ‘Just Good Friends’ fame and one-time pop star) appears, speaks a few lines which we couldn’t hear at all and then promptly disappears and the stage lights reveal the MacNeil household below where Chris MacNeil and her daughter Regan. They obviously have a close bond and the next few minutes is spent establishing this and introducing the character of Burke, a film director and friend of actress Chris, who provides some occasional comedy touches. There are scenes of Regan playing with a Ouija board which she discovers in the attic. This is the first introduction of the demon that Regan refers to as Captain Howdy. Unlike the film, we hear the demon speaking in the early stages of Regan’s possession. The demon’s voice is provided by (a pre-recorded) Sir Ian McKellen and his performance is brilliant despite it sounding nothing like Mercedes McCambridge in the original.
At this stage we have lost one of the key characters and if you know the story well you will know who this is. As Reagan’s behaviour deteriorates, we are introduced to various doctors and psychiatrists before a priest friend of Chris suggests she talks to Father Karras, a key character in The Exorcist. When Karras first meets Regan she is in her bed, restrained by straps and speaking in the demon’s voice. Susannah Edgeley as Regan does a magnificent job lip-synching to McKellen’s voice, she does not miss a beat and her performance overall steals the show.
Father Karras is not convinced that an exorcism is the answer but, as we know, events take a turn for the worse and a frail Father Merrin is summoned for a showdown with the demon, which is the show’s dramatic (and loud) finale.
If you are wondering if all of The Exorcist’s key moments are included in the stage show I can confirm that most of them are, even if they don’t appear in the same scenes in the film. So, the crucifix scene is present and correct, though not so bloody and graphic. Regan’s head spin is there, achieved by what you might describe as a Penn & Teller trick but it is surprisingly effective. Regan does vomit during the exorcism but the classic scene of her projectile vomiting over Karras isn’t there, probably a step too far for a stage show. There is no levitation in the exorcism but there is a clever effect where Regan is catapulted forward on the bed, as if pushed forward by the demon. It’s all very impressive stuff.
The Exorcist on stage is very good, fans of the film will enjoy picking up on the original dialogue and dissecting the new lines and plotline. Some characters from the film don’t appear at all, the key one being Lieutenant Kinderman (played by Lee J. Cobb in the film) which I was a little disappointed about. My main issues were with the sound on occasions, particularly not hearing the actors deliver their lines clearly but it was a minor niggle. The character of Burke Dennings is renamed Burke Dennis in the stage show and I have no idea why – I was frankly irritated by it. The performances of Susannah Edgeley and McKellen’s demon more than make up for it though. The stage set is excellent and the lights and sound effects were top notch. I’d recommend it without hesitation, just don’t expect a scene for scene reboot of the film or you will be very disappointed.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Elder Sign in Tabletop Games
Jul 16, 2019 (Updated Aug 21, 2019)
One of the best parts of the board gaming experience is finding a fun group of people with whom to play! Sometimes, though, coordinating a game night is easier said than done. We all must occasionally forego the group experience and face the world as the Lonely Only. But fear not! The world of solo-play is a vast and exciting realm! What follows is a chronicle of my journey into the solo-playing world – notes on gameplay, mechanics, rules, difficulty, and overall experience with solo variations of commonly multiplayer games! I hope this will provide some insight as you continue to grow your collection, or explore your already owned games!
Disclaimer: There are many expansions for Elder Sign. I do not have any of them, nor do I have any gameplay experience with any of them. If and when I do get them added into my base game, I will either amend this review or write a new one! – L
In Elder Sign, players take on the roles of Investigators who must use their supernatural knowledge and keen wit to seal dimensional portals and prevent the Ancient Ones from entering our world and destroying humanity. Just another day at the office, right? Players take turns rolling dice to fight monsters and complete adventures that will reward them with artifacts, health and/or sanity, clues, or even Elder Signs – the symbols necessary for sealing away the Ancient Ones for good. Be careful, though – if you fail to complete an adventure, you will be harshly punished! I’m talking losing health and sanity, accidentally summoning monsters, or even bringing the Ancient One one step closer to our world! As a solo game, Elder Sign plays the same way as it would in a group setting. The only difference is that the solo player cannot use the ‘Assisting’ ability because there are no other players who can offer you aid. Besides that, gameplay remains the same – even a lone Investigator can put their dice to good use to ward off evil!
I enjoy playing Elder Sign as a solo game. Although mostly dominated by dice rolling, there is a fair amount of strategy required for this game. I don’t feel like I’m mindlessly rolling dice – I have to decide which adventures are attainable with my given items, and which rewards benefit me the most in my overall task. There are rewards and consequences to be weighed with every decision, so action must be taken with great thought. Because of the strategic implications, Elder Sign keeps me thoroughly engaged, even when playing solo, and that’s one reason why I keep coming back to it.
On the flip side, one thing that isn’t my favorite about Elder Sign is its reliance on dice rolls to progress in the game. Yeah, I know, it’s a dice game – what did I expect? Sometimes, though, you just can’t roll to save your life (quite literally, in this game) and that can make the game frustrating to play. A series of poor rolls can feel like they completely negate any strategy you’ve enacted and can unravel your entire plan. On a good dice-rolling day for me, I love this game! On a not-so-good dice-rolling day, I find it a little harder to enjoy myself. But hey – if it was totally easy, it wouldn’t be fun, right? One positive of this, I guess, is that I always have to be adjusting my strategy to take the current dice into account. I can’t just pick one strategy and run with it since almost all outcomes are dependent on the luck of the roll! Elder Sign keeps me on my toes, that’s for sure.
I got Elder Sign from Travis as a birthday present last year, and it has been a good addition to my collection. There is enough going on to keep me engaged the entire game, but not so much that I feel overwhelmed. And yeah, maybe I’m not always the greatest dice-roller, but that just makes me adapt my strategy to deal with the current situation. I have read that adding expansions makes the game even more enjoyable, and hopefully one of these days I’ll get to experience that for myself. For the time being, though, I’m content with the base game. If you enjoy Elder Sign, I recommend you try it solo – it doesn’t feel any different to play, and I think you’ll enjoy it just as much as a group game!
Disclaimer: There are many expansions for Elder Sign. I do not have any of them, nor do I have any gameplay experience with any of them. If and when I do get them added into my base game, I will either amend this review or write a new one! – L
In Elder Sign, players take on the roles of Investigators who must use their supernatural knowledge and keen wit to seal dimensional portals and prevent the Ancient Ones from entering our world and destroying humanity. Just another day at the office, right? Players take turns rolling dice to fight monsters and complete adventures that will reward them with artifacts, health and/or sanity, clues, or even Elder Signs – the symbols necessary for sealing away the Ancient Ones for good. Be careful, though – if you fail to complete an adventure, you will be harshly punished! I’m talking losing health and sanity, accidentally summoning monsters, or even bringing the Ancient One one step closer to our world! As a solo game, Elder Sign plays the same way as it would in a group setting. The only difference is that the solo player cannot use the ‘Assisting’ ability because there are no other players who can offer you aid. Besides that, gameplay remains the same – even a lone Investigator can put their dice to good use to ward off evil!
I enjoy playing Elder Sign as a solo game. Although mostly dominated by dice rolling, there is a fair amount of strategy required for this game. I don’t feel like I’m mindlessly rolling dice – I have to decide which adventures are attainable with my given items, and which rewards benefit me the most in my overall task. There are rewards and consequences to be weighed with every decision, so action must be taken with great thought. Because of the strategic implications, Elder Sign keeps me thoroughly engaged, even when playing solo, and that’s one reason why I keep coming back to it.
On the flip side, one thing that isn’t my favorite about Elder Sign is its reliance on dice rolls to progress in the game. Yeah, I know, it’s a dice game – what did I expect? Sometimes, though, you just can’t roll to save your life (quite literally, in this game) and that can make the game frustrating to play. A series of poor rolls can feel like they completely negate any strategy you’ve enacted and can unravel your entire plan. On a good dice-rolling day for me, I love this game! On a not-so-good dice-rolling day, I find it a little harder to enjoy myself. But hey – if it was totally easy, it wouldn’t be fun, right? One positive of this, I guess, is that I always have to be adjusting my strategy to take the current dice into account. I can’t just pick one strategy and run with it since almost all outcomes are dependent on the luck of the roll! Elder Sign keeps me on my toes, that’s for sure.
I got Elder Sign from Travis as a birthday present last year, and it has been a good addition to my collection. There is enough going on to keep me engaged the entire game, but not so much that I feel overwhelmed. And yeah, maybe I’m not always the greatest dice-roller, but that just makes me adapt my strategy to deal with the current situation. I have read that adding expansions makes the game even more enjoyable, and hopefully one of these days I’ll get to experience that for myself. For the time being, though, I’m content with the base game. If you enjoy Elder Sign, I recommend you try it solo – it doesn’t feel any different to play, and I think you’ll enjoy it just as much as a group game!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Us (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
We’ve all heard that somewhere out in the world there is a true Doppelganger for each and every one of us. An almost exact copy which may not behave the same but would otherwise be indistinguishable from the other. In a common instance a Doppelganger might be a set of identical twins who share the same DNA, or in pop culture references we might look to the definition of a Doppelganger in Dungeons and Dragons, defined as a monstrous humanoid able to change the shape and read the minds of their intended target to mimic them completely. Somewhere in the middle is where Jordan Peele’s latest masterpiece takes us.
The film begins in the mid 80’s, when Michael Jackson’s Thriller is topping the charts and Hands Across America was a very real idea (worth looking up for younger readers who may not even know what I’m talking about). A young Adelaide Wilson is exploring the boardwalk on a beach in Santa Cruz with her parents. When her father is distracted by a game of Whack a’ Mole something draws Adelaide down to the beach where she passes a man holding a sign referencing Jeremiah 11:11, one of the first messages that foreshadows what is to come. On the beach she encounters an empty and sinister looking hall of mirrors attraction. Wandering through the hall of mirrors a young Adelaide encounters a girl in the mirror, an exact duplicate of herself whose encounter is so traumatic that it leaves her unable to speak.
The film transitions to present day where the now adult Adelaide (Lupita Nyong’o) is traveling with her husband Gabriel (Winston Duke) and her two children Zora (Shahadi Wright Joseph) and youngest son Jason (Evan Alex) to her parents’ home near the beach in Santa Cruz. Adelaide has resisted going back to the very same boardwalk where she had encountered her doppelganger as a young child. With her husband and children pressing her to go to the beach, she reluctantly agrees as long as they promise to be home before dark. The day at the beach is relatively uneventful until it is nearing time to go home and the family has lost sight of young Jason. Adelaide in a panic frantically searches for him, finally finding him returning from the bathroom.
The incident, while minor, convinces Adelaide that they should never have come back and wants to leave immediately. Various subtle “coincidences” occur that leave her feeling as though a black cloud hangs over her and a sense of dread that something terrible is about to happen. Before the family turns in for the evening, Jason sees “A family” at the edge of their driveway. Gabriel attempts to get to the bottom of who these mysterious visitors are, only for a night of unimaginable terror to ensue.
Us takes queues from several other movie types, The Strangers, Night of the Living Dead and Invasion of the Body Snatchers mashing them together to weave its frightening (and often funny) tale. It takes a little time to gain momentum, but once it does It never once lets off the gas. While at first it seems nothing more than a home invasion from characters who look exactly like the Wilson family, it quickly grows into something substantially more terrifying. The backdrop varies between a somewhat isolated house in the woods, to the bustling beach, giving a sense of isolation even at the most crowded of places. The boardwalk is a place that is both wonderous and terrifying at the same time, reminiscent of the early scenes in the 80’s classic The Lost Boys. While lacking in both clowns or vampires, it holds its own secrets (and terrors).
Us is a movie that is unlike any other and is refreshing when stacked against similar fright films that have been released recently. If you are a fan of Jordan Peele’s Get Out, you will find a lot to like here as well. It maintains its dark humor without ever going over board and has plenty of thrills and scares to keep you on your toes at all times. It’s not a movie that will keep you up all night hiding under your covers, but it may cause you to rethink your next vacation to the beach or the boardwalk. In the end, I feel this is another film that is sure to become a cult classic, enjoyable for fans of the genre.
The film begins in the mid 80’s, when Michael Jackson’s Thriller is topping the charts and Hands Across America was a very real idea (worth looking up for younger readers who may not even know what I’m talking about). A young Adelaide Wilson is exploring the boardwalk on a beach in Santa Cruz with her parents. When her father is distracted by a game of Whack a’ Mole something draws Adelaide down to the beach where she passes a man holding a sign referencing Jeremiah 11:11, one of the first messages that foreshadows what is to come. On the beach she encounters an empty and sinister looking hall of mirrors attraction. Wandering through the hall of mirrors a young Adelaide encounters a girl in the mirror, an exact duplicate of herself whose encounter is so traumatic that it leaves her unable to speak.
The film transitions to present day where the now adult Adelaide (Lupita Nyong’o) is traveling with her husband Gabriel (Winston Duke) and her two children Zora (Shahadi Wright Joseph) and youngest son Jason (Evan Alex) to her parents’ home near the beach in Santa Cruz. Adelaide has resisted going back to the very same boardwalk where she had encountered her doppelganger as a young child. With her husband and children pressing her to go to the beach, she reluctantly agrees as long as they promise to be home before dark. The day at the beach is relatively uneventful until it is nearing time to go home and the family has lost sight of young Jason. Adelaide in a panic frantically searches for him, finally finding him returning from the bathroom.
The incident, while minor, convinces Adelaide that they should never have come back and wants to leave immediately. Various subtle “coincidences” occur that leave her feeling as though a black cloud hangs over her and a sense of dread that something terrible is about to happen. Before the family turns in for the evening, Jason sees “A family” at the edge of their driveway. Gabriel attempts to get to the bottom of who these mysterious visitors are, only for a night of unimaginable terror to ensue.
Us takes queues from several other movie types, The Strangers, Night of the Living Dead and Invasion of the Body Snatchers mashing them together to weave its frightening (and often funny) tale. It takes a little time to gain momentum, but once it does It never once lets off the gas. While at first it seems nothing more than a home invasion from characters who look exactly like the Wilson family, it quickly grows into something substantially more terrifying. The backdrop varies between a somewhat isolated house in the woods, to the bustling beach, giving a sense of isolation even at the most crowded of places. The boardwalk is a place that is both wonderous and terrifying at the same time, reminiscent of the early scenes in the 80’s classic The Lost Boys. While lacking in both clowns or vampires, it holds its own secrets (and terrors).
Us is a movie that is unlike any other and is refreshing when stacked against similar fright films that have been released recently. If you are a fan of Jordan Peele’s Get Out, you will find a lot to like here as well. It maintains its dark humor without ever going over board and has plenty of thrills and scares to keep you on your toes at all times. It’s not a movie that will keep you up all night hiding under your covers, but it may cause you to rethink your next vacation to the beach or the boardwalk. In the end, I feel this is another film that is sure to become a cult classic, enjoyable for fans of the genre.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Cartagena in Tabletop Games
Dec 3, 2019
Avast and whatnot! Yar, this be a piratey-themed game of prison escape, and it be very good. You and ye mateys must escape a prison of Cartagena and reach the boat to sail to freedom! But do you have the resources available to navigate the treacherous tunnels to the outside? Or will you have to retreat to bolster your holdings for your final surge? This is Cartagena!
If you know me, you know I’m kind of a sucker for pirate games. Why? I don’t know. I’m not necessarily a fan of pirate-themed things in the real world, but it’s a gaming theme I truly enjoy. I don’t remember exactly where or from whom I heard of this game, but I am very glad I did because I really enjoy it.
During a game of Cartagena you play a “team” of pirates that are escaping a dungeon through a wacky tunnel to get to the getaway boat at the end. You do this by playing cards from your hand that match symbols printed on the tunnel tiles assembled in the middle of the table. When you play a card you must move one of your pirates – any one you wish – to the next closest unoccupied space on the board that matches the symbol on the card you played. If you play a card, let’s say a flag, and there is a pirate already on the next closest flag symbol, you keep moving your pirate along through the tunnel until you reach the next flag without a pirate on it. You have two actions on your turn and you will likely be playing two cards every turn to advance your pirates.
“Easy. This is great! But, now my starting hand is depleted and you told me I couldn’t draw a card at the end of my turn.” Correct. Herein lies the struggle and tension in the game.
If you do not have any cards in your hand, or if you just want to improve your hand, you must move one of your pirates backward through the tunnel to the next pirate behind you. If there is just one pirate when you arrive you draw one card. Two pirates two cards. Three pirates already there? Keep on truckin, matey. You need to continue backward to find a solitary or couple of pirates; there can never be more than three pirates on a space. You then take the amount of cards dependent on existing pirates and continue your turn.
Play continues like this until a player has successfully gotten their pirate crew to the boat and escapes the dungeons in Cartagena.
So like I said, I’m a sucker for pirate-themed games. However, this game could have so many other themes applied to it and it would work just as well. I do not necessarily feel like a pirate as I am playing, but I do appreciate the effort here. What I really enjoy about this game is the fact that it is mechanically very simple, so it works well with many different age groups. In fact, I am sure you can play this with gamers younger than the suggested age of 8 and be completely happy with the result. The rules are very light, the decisions are sometimes very heartbreaking if you do not plan ahead well enough. It will never be considered a brain burner, nor will it be the crown jewel of a collection or game night, but it is fun. Racing your opponents to the end of a tunnel to freedom, but also knowing that you will eventually need to regress to fuel future turns is a great little balancing exercise and I dig it, like a fine treasure chest.
Components? Well, the version we have is akin to the version on the main ratings graphic here, with that box art. The art in the game, however, is much more cartoony (see image below). It’s not BAD, but it’s not amazing either. I believe the newer version has much better art throughout. The cards are of decent quality, as are the tiles that make up the tunnel. The best components are the little pirateeples. Piraeeples? I’m never very good at the -eepling. All in all it’s a small game that packs up easily and quickly and is great to pull out pretty much any time you need a great filler. We at Purple Phoenix Games give this one a swashbuckling 13 / 18.
If you know me, you know I’m kind of a sucker for pirate games. Why? I don’t know. I’m not necessarily a fan of pirate-themed things in the real world, but it’s a gaming theme I truly enjoy. I don’t remember exactly where or from whom I heard of this game, but I am very glad I did because I really enjoy it.
During a game of Cartagena you play a “team” of pirates that are escaping a dungeon through a wacky tunnel to get to the getaway boat at the end. You do this by playing cards from your hand that match symbols printed on the tunnel tiles assembled in the middle of the table. When you play a card you must move one of your pirates – any one you wish – to the next closest unoccupied space on the board that matches the symbol on the card you played. If you play a card, let’s say a flag, and there is a pirate already on the next closest flag symbol, you keep moving your pirate along through the tunnel until you reach the next flag without a pirate on it. You have two actions on your turn and you will likely be playing two cards every turn to advance your pirates.
“Easy. This is great! But, now my starting hand is depleted and you told me I couldn’t draw a card at the end of my turn.” Correct. Herein lies the struggle and tension in the game.
If you do not have any cards in your hand, or if you just want to improve your hand, you must move one of your pirates backward through the tunnel to the next pirate behind you. If there is just one pirate when you arrive you draw one card. Two pirates two cards. Three pirates already there? Keep on truckin, matey. You need to continue backward to find a solitary or couple of pirates; there can never be more than three pirates on a space. You then take the amount of cards dependent on existing pirates and continue your turn.
Play continues like this until a player has successfully gotten their pirate crew to the boat and escapes the dungeons in Cartagena.
So like I said, I’m a sucker for pirate-themed games. However, this game could have so many other themes applied to it and it would work just as well. I do not necessarily feel like a pirate as I am playing, but I do appreciate the effort here. What I really enjoy about this game is the fact that it is mechanically very simple, so it works well with many different age groups. In fact, I am sure you can play this with gamers younger than the suggested age of 8 and be completely happy with the result. The rules are very light, the decisions are sometimes very heartbreaking if you do not plan ahead well enough. It will never be considered a brain burner, nor will it be the crown jewel of a collection or game night, but it is fun. Racing your opponents to the end of a tunnel to freedom, but also knowing that you will eventually need to regress to fuel future turns is a great little balancing exercise and I dig it, like a fine treasure chest.
Components? Well, the version we have is akin to the version on the main ratings graphic here, with that box art. The art in the game, however, is much more cartoony (see image below). It’s not BAD, but it’s not amazing either. I believe the newer version has much better art throughout. The cards are of decent quality, as are the tiles that make up the tunnel. The best components are the little pirateeples. Piraeeples? I’m never very good at the -eepling. All in all it’s a small game that packs up easily and quickly and is great to pull out pretty much any time you need a great filler. We at Purple Phoenix Games give this one a swashbuckling 13 / 18.
