Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Roland Emmerich does big budget disaster flicks as well as Dairylea does cheese. However, some of his most recent attempts to dominate the box office have been panned by viewers and critics alike, who say that he has become too reliant on special effects.
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play president’s daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesn’t have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesn’t need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, it’s all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play president’s daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesn’t have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesn’t need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, it’s all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Go Back to China (2020) in Movies
Sep 3, 2020
Couldn't Hold My Interest
I’m always on the lookout for hidden gems, especially when it comes to films starring minorities. I was hoping to find that in Go Back to China but wasn’t as impressed as I thought it would be. In the movie, a woman living in the states is forced to go to China to work for her father in his toy factory after he cuts off her trust fund.
Acting: 10
Great performances all around from a stellar Asian cast. While I don’t know much about them from previous films, I was extremely impressed with the range of Anna Akana, Richard Ng, and Lynn Chen who all shared the most screen time. They breathed a life and a realism into their characters that really made them feel like family.
Beginning: 2
Characters: 10
I appreciated that the three main characters experienced a great growth over the course of the movie. Each of them played off of each others’ personalities and experiences which gave the movie a true dynamic feel. The main character Sasha Li is likable right from jump even as a pretentious snob. She gives you a reason to stay interested in the movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
The camera work is just slightly above par here. Outside of the toy factory, the setpieces are pretty bland. I honestly can’t remember any scenes that stand out or a shot that made my jaw drop. The movie instead seems content with going through the motions.
Conflict: 3
Entertainment Value: 6
Go Back to China is not without its share of entertaining moments but unfortunately those moments are too few and far between for the movie to consistently be entertaining. Just when it starts to get a bit of momentum, it finds itself going in reverse. Too much talking, not enough action. In the thick of it, it felt more like a Hallmark movie than anything else.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 8
The story moves along gracefully, albeit with a few trip-ups here and there. I always felt like the story was going somewhere at the very least. This would have worked more in the film’s favor had the story itself been a little more solid.
Plot: 5
As I mentioned above, the story definitely has a very Hallmarky-type feel. The cheese runs super high throughout. The premise is interesting, but things become very predictable very fast the longer the story plays out.
Resolution: 10
Say what you want about Hallmark movies, who doesn’t love a good Hallmark ending? All the pieces of the puzzle ended up exactly where they needed to be. If the movie had began just as strongly as it had ended, the movie would have been way more enjoyable.
Overall: 68
As a man that loves to appreciate and understand different cultures, I did love the perspective the movie provided into the life of people in China and the different hardships they face. Unfortunately, I didn’t love Go Back to China as a whole. A few tweaks here and there and this review would look a lot different.
Acting: 10
Great performances all around from a stellar Asian cast. While I don’t know much about them from previous films, I was extremely impressed with the range of Anna Akana, Richard Ng, and Lynn Chen who all shared the most screen time. They breathed a life and a realism into their characters that really made them feel like family.
Beginning: 2
Characters: 10
I appreciated that the three main characters experienced a great growth over the course of the movie. Each of them played off of each others’ personalities and experiences which gave the movie a true dynamic feel. The main character Sasha Li is likable right from jump even as a pretentious snob. She gives you a reason to stay interested in the movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
The camera work is just slightly above par here. Outside of the toy factory, the setpieces are pretty bland. I honestly can’t remember any scenes that stand out or a shot that made my jaw drop. The movie instead seems content with going through the motions.
Conflict: 3
Entertainment Value: 6
Go Back to China is not without its share of entertaining moments but unfortunately those moments are too few and far between for the movie to consistently be entertaining. Just when it starts to get a bit of momentum, it finds itself going in reverse. Too much talking, not enough action. In the thick of it, it felt more like a Hallmark movie than anything else.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 8
The story moves along gracefully, albeit with a few trip-ups here and there. I always felt like the story was going somewhere at the very least. This would have worked more in the film’s favor had the story itself been a little more solid.
Plot: 5
As I mentioned above, the story definitely has a very Hallmarky-type feel. The cheese runs super high throughout. The premise is interesting, but things become very predictable very fast the longer the story plays out.
Resolution: 10
Say what you want about Hallmark movies, who doesn’t love a good Hallmark ending? All the pieces of the puzzle ended up exactly where they needed to be. If the movie had began just as strongly as it had ended, the movie would have been way more enjoyable.
Overall: 68
As a man that loves to appreciate and understand different cultures, I did love the perspective the movie provided into the life of people in China and the different hardships they face. Unfortunately, I didn’t love Go Back to China as a whole. A few tweaks here and there and this review would look a lot different.
Beckie Shelton (40 KP) rated Two Sisters in Books
May 28, 2017
Such a great Read
Two Sisters By Kerry Wilkinson is well worth a read.
I would describe this as a psychological mystery but with the added bonus of it dipping its toe into the waters of mental illness and addiction to.
To summarise we have two sisters Megan and Chloe who after the death of their parents in a road accident, journey back to their parents holiday cottage in Whitecliff to stay, supposedly to sort out their affairs and get the cottage in order.
But for Megan, there are different reasons for her return she has received a postcard with the letter Z spelt on it.
years ago the girls older brother Zak went missing at Whitecliff his body never found, Megan the oldest sister is determined to figure out the truth of what has happened to her brother and she will bulldoze down whoever gets in her way.
Now the sisters are an interesting pair, having spent their time at different boarding schools growing up, these two are like chalk and cheese.
We have Chloe the younger of the two nearly seventeen a bit shy, but friendly and open, Chloe doesn't like to rock the waters and I get the impression she's a bit of a people pleaser. She's also a fabulous artist, A vegan and looks like her mother.
Now Megan, by contrast, is the exact polar opposite of her younger sister, she's prickly, bad tempered, goes out of her way to cause strife and shock in people.
there's a lot of deep-seated issues that are girl needs to get a handle on she is addicted to prescription drugs which she acquires through dubious means and as if that's not enough she is also suffering from an eating disorder, which her sister pretends to turn a blind eye too.
So as you can see there is an awful lot going on here.
As the story progresses truths that people want buried come to light, Megan puts herself and sister in extreme danger and some people are so not what they seem in Whitecliff.
Two sisters was definitely a page turner with a flowing easy storyline that sucked you in from the start. I especially appreciated Megan's issues, this added a whole extra layer to the storyline enriching it greatly. Eating disorders are a subject close to my heart, so it was fascinating to kind of get into the mindset of an individual suffering from this type of mental illness. The addiction storyline was also an extremely fascinating issue, we often see drug taking in novels but prescription drug addiction, even know so prevalent, is not explored so frequently in fiction.
But I have to say my favourite aspect of Two Sisters was seeing the two girls connect together after being virtual strangers growing up, now that was really charming indeed.
So, in conclusion, I found this a Fabulous book and I would definitely recommend this to other readers.
Thank you to the publisher and NetGalley for providing me with a free advance reader copy of Two Sisters by Kerry Wilkinson. This is my own unbiased opinion of this novel.
Arc Reviewed By BeckieBookworm
https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
https://www.facebook.com/beckiebookworm/
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/9460945-bex-beckie-bookworm
I would describe this as a psychological mystery but with the added bonus of it dipping its toe into the waters of mental illness and addiction to.
To summarise we have two sisters Megan and Chloe who after the death of their parents in a road accident, journey back to their parents holiday cottage in Whitecliff to stay, supposedly to sort out their affairs and get the cottage in order.
But for Megan, there are different reasons for her return she has received a postcard with the letter Z spelt on it.
years ago the girls older brother Zak went missing at Whitecliff his body never found, Megan the oldest sister is determined to figure out the truth of what has happened to her brother and she will bulldoze down whoever gets in her way.
Now the sisters are an interesting pair, having spent their time at different boarding schools growing up, these two are like chalk and cheese.
We have Chloe the younger of the two nearly seventeen a bit shy, but friendly and open, Chloe doesn't like to rock the waters and I get the impression she's a bit of a people pleaser. She's also a fabulous artist, A vegan and looks like her mother.
Now Megan, by contrast, is the exact polar opposite of her younger sister, she's prickly, bad tempered, goes out of her way to cause strife and shock in people.
there's a lot of deep-seated issues that are girl needs to get a handle on she is addicted to prescription drugs which she acquires through dubious means and as if that's not enough she is also suffering from an eating disorder, which her sister pretends to turn a blind eye too.
So as you can see there is an awful lot going on here.
As the story progresses truths that people want buried come to light, Megan puts herself and sister in extreme danger and some people are so not what they seem in Whitecliff.
Two sisters was definitely a page turner with a flowing easy storyline that sucked you in from the start. I especially appreciated Megan's issues, this added a whole extra layer to the storyline enriching it greatly. Eating disorders are a subject close to my heart, so it was fascinating to kind of get into the mindset of an individual suffering from this type of mental illness. The addiction storyline was also an extremely fascinating issue, we often see drug taking in novels but prescription drug addiction, even know so prevalent, is not explored so frequently in fiction.
But I have to say my favourite aspect of Two Sisters was seeing the two girls connect together after being virtual strangers growing up, now that was really charming indeed.
So, in conclusion, I found this a Fabulous book and I would definitely recommend this to other readers.
Thank you to the publisher and NetGalley for providing me with a free advance reader copy of Two Sisters by Kerry Wilkinson. This is my own unbiased opinion of this novel.
Arc Reviewed By BeckieBookworm
https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
https://www.facebook.com/beckiebookworm/
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/9460945-bex-beckie-bookworm
JT (287 KP) rated RoboCop (2014) in Movies
Mar 17, 2020
Reboot taints the original's good name
If you’re going to remake one of the 80s most iconic action films you’ve got to do it with some balls. Sadly José Padilha dropped this particular ball, pretty spectacularly in fact, to give us a sorry remake and leave fans of the original baying for blood (something which was missing in this).
It’s a story that was disjointed, rushed and ill-conceived in every possible way, with a leading actor who was miscast and non-believable in the role he was trusted to uphold. Kinnaman is Alex Murphy a Detroit Detective whose ill-fated sting operation ends badly after his cover is blown leaving him high on the villains most wanted list.
In the background is OmniCorp a leading company in robot technology priding itself on making the world a safer place with drones and the all too familiar ED-209 looking to serve and protect. Lead by CEO Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) the initiative has not reached American soil due to Government legislation and a bill that prohibits the use of robots on the streets.
Needing a new way to reach the public, Sellars turns to Murphy as a part-man part machine creation to reach out and grab justice by the throat and give America the hope it longs for, and a hero to put their faith in. The PG-13 rating and lack of graphic violence is stark contrast to the original, while the action scenes might be slick and bolstered with nifty CGI it does little to hide the fact that there isn’t a drop of claret anywhere to be seen.
While not completely adhering to the original it nods in its direction a few times, but only because it has to appease the die-hard fan. Once Robocop is up and about after being resurrected under the watchful eye of Dr Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman) he goes on a quick hunt to bring the perpetrators who tried to have him killed to justice.
Unlike Clarence J. Boddicker, Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow) is only a bit part villain, hopelessly moving illegal guns around the city he’s duly finished off in one of the film’s more colourful action shoot outs. The film is comical but not in a good way when Murphy demands to see what is behind the suit you almost laugh and then hang your head that Padilha could have included and thought up such a ridiculous scene.
Supporting cast do little to add much either, Samuel L. Jackson waves his arms and shouts a lot like a current affairs news anchor that in some way pays homage to the cut to’s of the Casey Wong era. Abbie Cornish is shockingly bad, and Jackie Earle Haley as much so, all in all, a pity. Only Oldman provides any shinning light in something that was slumping before it had even made it halfway through.
Robocop continues his quest back into the Detroit Police department, where corruption is rife and all trailing back to OmniCorps big cheese in charge, culminating in a finale that does little to finish on a high note. Paul Verhoeven will be able to rest easy at night knowing that his 1987 classic will continue to live long in the memory of true Robocop fans, while its 2014 compatriot should be cast aside into the recycle bin.
It’s a story that was disjointed, rushed and ill-conceived in every possible way, with a leading actor who was miscast and non-believable in the role he was trusted to uphold. Kinnaman is Alex Murphy a Detroit Detective whose ill-fated sting operation ends badly after his cover is blown leaving him high on the villains most wanted list.
In the background is OmniCorp a leading company in robot technology priding itself on making the world a safer place with drones and the all too familiar ED-209 looking to serve and protect. Lead by CEO Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) the initiative has not reached American soil due to Government legislation and a bill that prohibits the use of robots on the streets.
Needing a new way to reach the public, Sellars turns to Murphy as a part-man part machine creation to reach out and grab justice by the throat and give America the hope it longs for, and a hero to put their faith in. The PG-13 rating and lack of graphic violence is stark contrast to the original, while the action scenes might be slick and bolstered with nifty CGI it does little to hide the fact that there isn’t a drop of claret anywhere to be seen.
While not completely adhering to the original it nods in its direction a few times, but only because it has to appease the die-hard fan. Once Robocop is up and about after being resurrected under the watchful eye of Dr Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman) he goes on a quick hunt to bring the perpetrators who tried to have him killed to justice.
Unlike Clarence J. Boddicker, Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow) is only a bit part villain, hopelessly moving illegal guns around the city he’s duly finished off in one of the film’s more colourful action shoot outs. The film is comical but not in a good way when Murphy demands to see what is behind the suit you almost laugh and then hang your head that Padilha could have included and thought up such a ridiculous scene.
Supporting cast do little to add much either, Samuel L. Jackson waves his arms and shouts a lot like a current affairs news anchor that in some way pays homage to the cut to’s of the Casey Wong era. Abbie Cornish is shockingly bad, and Jackie Earle Haley as much so, all in all, a pity. Only Oldman provides any shinning light in something that was slumping before it had even made it halfway through.
Robocop continues his quest back into the Detroit Police department, where corruption is rife and all trailing back to OmniCorps big cheese in charge, culminating in a finale that does little to finish on a high note. Paul Verhoeven will be able to rest easy at night knowing that his 1987 classic will continue to live long in the memory of true Robocop fans, while its 2014 compatriot should be cast aside into the recycle bin.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Utterly preposterous
Thor is arguably one of Marvel’s strongest characters. Played by the superb Chris Hemsworth since 2011, the God of thunder is one of the MCUs most popular assets.
It’s unfortunate then that he’s been lambasted with the weakest solo films of the entire series, the son of Odin really has deserved much better.
Thor’s inception in the first of his three solo outings was a competent if unremarkable origins story and the less said about Thor: The Dark World, which remains the poorest film of the entire MCU, the better. Now, just in time for Infinity War,Thor: Ragnarok rolls into cinemas. But does it do its leading man justice?Imprisoned on the other side of the universe, the mighty Thor (Hemsworth) finds himself in a deadly gladiatorial contest that pits him against the Hulk (Bruce Banner), his former ally and fellow Avenger. Thor’s quest for survival leads him in a race against time to prevent the all-powerful goddess of death, Hela, (Cate Blanchett) from destroying his home world and the Asgardian civilisation.
This third film for our mighty Avenger is really something. A film more akin to Guardians of the Galaxy than its overly stuffy predecessors. Director Taika Waititi in his first big-budget feature has managed what many had thought was impossible, he’s given Thor a rather brilliant movie.
But how? Well, he’s realised what no-one else has. The premise surrounding our titular hero is utterly ridiculous. Rather than shy away from that and create something serious, he’s embraced it with humour, music and my goodness, a lot of colour.
If you thought Guardians of the Galaxy used every colour on the spectrum, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Thor: Ragnarok is quite something to watch. From the gold-tipped spears of Asgard that glisten like never before, to the trash-topped planet of Sakaar, everything is dripping in colour.
“Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice.”
Speaking of Sakaar, it contains one of the MCUs best new additions: Jeff Goldbum. Sorry, I mean the Grandmaster. Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice. The 65-year-old legend has made a career on playing himself and it works exceptionally well here. His improvisation is absolutely spot on.
Ragnarok throws up a few other surprises too. One being that Chris Hemsworth is absolutely hilarious. He and Tom Hiddleston bounce off each other incredibly well and we see real chemistry – the chemistry that should have been evident from the start. Cate Blanchett also turns the cheese up to 11 as the latest throwaway Marvel villain, Hela.
She fares better than the majority of Marvel villains and is certainly more interesting than Christopher Eccelston’s, Malekith, but they never quite make the impact that the scriptwriters were clearly looking for. Nevertheless, Blanchett is excellent.
Thankfully, Thor: Ragnarok doesn’t suffer from the absence of Natalie Portman’s dull Jane Foster, and though she is referenced early on, newcomer Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie provides a fitting replacement and possible future love-interest for our intrepid hero.
Unfortunately, it’s not all good news. Surprisingly the first 30 minutes feel incredibly rushed as numerous loose storylines are brought together and the improvised nature of the script lends itself to a little too much humour. Yes, we get it, Marvel films are funny, but this should not be at the expense of the more emotional sequences that the movie tries to put across.
Nevertheless, Thor: Ragnarok is a resounding success, created by a man who clearly has a passion for this corner of the MCU. He manages to make an absolutely preposterous film – and that’s exactly how Thor should be. Take a bow Mr. Waititi.
A little tip – there are two end credit sequences waiting for you. You’re welcome.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/26/thor-ragnarok-review/
It’s unfortunate then that he’s been lambasted with the weakest solo films of the entire series, the son of Odin really has deserved much better.
Thor’s inception in the first of his three solo outings was a competent if unremarkable origins story and the less said about Thor: The Dark World, which remains the poorest film of the entire MCU, the better. Now, just in time for Infinity War,Thor: Ragnarok rolls into cinemas. But does it do its leading man justice?Imprisoned on the other side of the universe, the mighty Thor (Hemsworth) finds himself in a deadly gladiatorial contest that pits him against the Hulk (Bruce Banner), his former ally and fellow Avenger. Thor’s quest for survival leads him in a race against time to prevent the all-powerful goddess of death, Hela, (Cate Blanchett) from destroying his home world and the Asgardian civilisation.
This third film for our mighty Avenger is really something. A film more akin to Guardians of the Galaxy than its overly stuffy predecessors. Director Taika Waititi in his first big-budget feature has managed what many had thought was impossible, he’s given Thor a rather brilliant movie.
But how? Well, he’s realised what no-one else has. The premise surrounding our titular hero is utterly ridiculous. Rather than shy away from that and create something serious, he’s embraced it with humour, music and my goodness, a lot of colour.
If you thought Guardians of the Galaxy used every colour on the spectrum, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Thor: Ragnarok is quite something to watch. From the gold-tipped spears of Asgard that glisten like never before, to the trash-topped planet of Sakaar, everything is dripping in colour.
“Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice.”
Speaking of Sakaar, it contains one of the MCUs best new additions: Jeff Goldbum. Sorry, I mean the Grandmaster. Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice. The 65-year-old legend has made a career on playing himself and it works exceptionally well here. His improvisation is absolutely spot on.
Ragnarok throws up a few other surprises too. One being that Chris Hemsworth is absolutely hilarious. He and Tom Hiddleston bounce off each other incredibly well and we see real chemistry – the chemistry that should have been evident from the start. Cate Blanchett also turns the cheese up to 11 as the latest throwaway Marvel villain, Hela.
She fares better than the majority of Marvel villains and is certainly more interesting than Christopher Eccelston’s, Malekith, but they never quite make the impact that the scriptwriters were clearly looking for. Nevertheless, Blanchett is excellent.
Thankfully, Thor: Ragnarok doesn’t suffer from the absence of Natalie Portman’s dull Jane Foster, and though she is referenced early on, newcomer Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie provides a fitting replacement and possible future love-interest for our intrepid hero.
Unfortunately, it’s not all good news. Surprisingly the first 30 minutes feel incredibly rushed as numerous loose storylines are brought together and the improvised nature of the script lends itself to a little too much humour. Yes, we get it, Marvel films are funny, but this should not be at the expense of the more emotional sequences that the movie tries to put across.
Nevertheless, Thor: Ragnarok is a resounding success, created by a man who clearly has a passion for this corner of the MCU. He manages to make an absolutely preposterous film – and that’s exactly how Thor should be. Take a bow Mr. Waititi.
A little tip – there are two end credit sequences waiting for you. You’re welcome.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/26/thor-ragnarok-review/
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Shatter Me in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Lupe and I made a random, out of the blue deal where I read <i>Shatter Me</i> (the entire series), and she finally gets her act together to read the amazingness called <i>Harry Potter</i> (the entire series). <b>She's trekking her way merrily - I've made a fan out of her yet. #SophiaIsProud</b>
<b>Let’s be honest here: she gets the better deal.</b> This trilogy and I will have a strong love/hate relationship that knows no bounds because all I wanted to do was:
<ul>
<li>Throw my iPad at Lupe if she shows herself (not literally)</li>
<li>Hug the book</li>
<li>Die of laughter</li>
<li>Stop torturing myself</li>
<li>Repeat</li>
</ul>
<i>Shatter Me</i> is straight up the alley of everything I will read because a character who kills anything they touch is a golden novel. It’s like King Midas’s curse gone completely wrong.
But unfortunately, it’s my cup of tea with way too much sugar and other weird flavors.
<b>
</b> <b>There is a massive amount of numbers.</b> The first 5-6 chapters had my eyes crying because 1) I really hate numbers, 2) numbers just remind me of math, 3) I don’t like math, 4) it reminds me of Calculus, which went POORLY (AKA failed the final with a giant fish flop) and 5) I think I’m allergic to numbers.
<b>
</b> <b>There is also a lot of strikeouts.</b> Honestly, I can’t complain, because I use strikeouts on my own blog and if I say I hated them I would be contradicting myself. I’ve basically learned that strikeouts take up space and are sometimes unnecessary, which is the case with <i>Shatter Me</i>.
There are fewer numbers and strikeouts as the book progresses, but they remain. My eyes cry less, and I <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">whine</span> complain less about the massive use of numbers to Lupe. Poor Anelise had to witness this (as it is the tragedy of being a coblogger and dealing with two beans who actually know each other personally and outside blogging).
<b>
</b> <b>I don’t care about Adam or Warner.</b> I think Adam is a shallow cheese ball (it might be his romance with Juliette because I cringed every time they’re doing romance things) and Warner is a creepy pervert, so I don’t understand why Lupe swoons over Warner. If he’s still a creepy pervert by book three, I might have to <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">interrogate</span> question Lupe on her fictional boy choices.
<b>
</b> <b>But thanks to Adam, I know about Juliette as a person, so that’s a plus.</b> <b>Does this mean I care about Juliette? No...</b>
If there’s one thing I’ll agree with Lupe on this series, it’s Kenji. He is a precious little bean who deserves so much more page time than he got.
There are a lot of birds. So many birds and no explanation (not even a little). I like metaphors and all, but I still don’t get the concept of a million birds mentioned throughout the book, and Lupe isn’t too helpful. I have to go wallow in misery and torture myself some more.
I’ll be reading the rest of the series for the following reasons:
<ul>
<li>It’s Lupe’s fault</li>
<li>Kenji the precious bean</li>
<li>Why are there so many birds</li>
<li>Mainly it’s just for the sake of Lupe</li>
<li>It brought my reviewing soul back I think</li>
</ul>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/shatter-me-by-tahereh-mafi-review/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<b>Let’s be honest here: she gets the better deal.</b> This trilogy and I will have a strong love/hate relationship that knows no bounds because all I wanted to do was:
<ul>
<li>Throw my iPad at Lupe if she shows herself (not literally)</li>
<li>Hug the book</li>
<li>Die of laughter</li>
<li>Stop torturing myself</li>
<li>Repeat</li>
</ul>
<i>Shatter Me</i> is straight up the alley of everything I will read because a character who kills anything they touch is a golden novel. It’s like King Midas’s curse gone completely wrong.
But unfortunately, it’s my cup of tea with way too much sugar and other weird flavors.
<b>
</b> <b>There is a massive amount of numbers.</b> The first 5-6 chapters had my eyes crying because 1) I really hate numbers, 2) numbers just remind me of math, 3) I don’t like math, 4) it reminds me of Calculus, which went POORLY (AKA failed the final with a giant fish flop) and 5) I think I’m allergic to numbers.
<b>
</b> <b>There is also a lot of strikeouts.</b> Honestly, I can’t complain, because I use strikeouts on my own blog and if I say I hated them I would be contradicting myself. I’ve basically learned that strikeouts take up space and are sometimes unnecessary, which is the case with <i>Shatter Me</i>.
There are fewer numbers and strikeouts as the book progresses, but they remain. My eyes cry less, and I <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">whine</span> complain less about the massive use of numbers to Lupe. Poor Anelise had to witness this (as it is the tragedy of being a coblogger and dealing with two beans who actually know each other personally and outside blogging).
<b>
</b> <b>I don’t care about Adam or Warner.</b> I think Adam is a shallow cheese ball (it might be his romance with Juliette because I cringed every time they’re doing romance things) and Warner is a creepy pervert, so I don’t understand why Lupe swoons over Warner. If he’s still a creepy pervert by book three, I might have to <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">interrogate</span> question Lupe on her fictional boy choices.
<b>
</b> <b>But thanks to Adam, I know about Juliette as a person, so that’s a plus.</b> <b>Does this mean I care about Juliette? No...</b>
If there’s one thing I’ll agree with Lupe on this series, it’s Kenji. He is a precious little bean who deserves so much more page time than he got.
There are a lot of birds. So many birds and no explanation (not even a little). I like metaphors and all, but I still don’t get the concept of a million birds mentioned throughout the book, and Lupe isn’t too helpful. I have to go wallow in misery and torture myself some more.
I’ll be reading the rest of the series for the following reasons:
<ul>
<li>It’s Lupe’s fault</li>
<li>Kenji the precious bean</li>
<li>Why are there so many birds</li>
<li>Mainly it’s just for the sake of Lupe</li>
<li>It brought my reviewing soul back I think</li>
</ul>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/shatter-me-by-tahereh-mafi-review/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Ghosts in the Mirror in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Ghosts in the Mirror pretty much lands on my list of most unique ghost (okay, related to ghosts) reads of all time.
The particular uniqueness of the story? The main character, Jeremy, goes into a coma every time a ghost possesses him due to unfinished business. The only way to "see" the ghost is to use a mirror. To see how a ghost feels depends on the color of Jeremy's vomit. I know, it's really gross, but it's pretty cool.
Except... Jeremy keeps going in and out of sleep. Interesting? Um... no. Not after awhile. Apparently when you're asleep way too much, you don't really accomplish much. Add that to Jeremy as a character, and how this ghost possession thingamajig works. The ghost possession is all very confusing I don't get this "spirit hand" or "phantom hand." Does Jeremy have a third hand? Is it still his right hand but the ghost possessing him can only "access" his right hand and that's why he calls it a phantom/spirit hand? Is it basically as though he and the ghost are like one spirit? I have some ideas on what it may all mean, but I'm not 100% sure. It all feels very much as though Mangola knows what she's talking about and explains it as much as she can, but has a bit of a hard time getting her point across and clarifying how it all works.
<img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NBKk2YUdg_o/U-PQlt7nnrI/AAAAAAAADtc/Z8jqVhV4-uk/s1600/Very+Unclear.gif"; border="0">
Jeremy as a character. He has quite a few moments in the book where I'm wondering if he's 6 years old or 16 years old. I don't really mind it as much since when you're in a coma a lot and suddenly realize you're growing up, you're going to want to retain your kid years as much as possible before having to officially grow up. And time goes by really fast OMG, I'm almost 17. NOOO.
But he eats soooooo much junk food candy and lollipops and donuts, oh my! I pretty much started wondering what would get to him first: the Strigoi, or a heart attack? If it were the latter, I would have been extremely furious because then I would assume the book's point is to tell us not to eat so much junk food or we would all get a heart attack one day (or we'll be in a Wall-E world). I do hate one too many sugar, thank you very much (moi can't handle too much vanilla frosting).
Which pretty much makes me bring up a point about him getting car sick so easily. Cannoli and Lattes? They have dairy products. Cannoli have cream and cheese, lattes have cream it's the perfect one way trip to Vomit Wonderland (at least one of the ways). Getting a car ride after eating what looks like a gallon of milk and dairy products? Of course the guy's going to throw up all over the place. And if anyone's going to make a point about Jeremy's condition in defense, I get car sick just as easily and I'm technically normal.
Of course, after Jeremy's millions of trips to Vomit Wonderland throughout the book, I'm pretty grossed out. The book doesn't sound as cool as it did in the beginning, but I believe Mangola has not just the bones of a really good book, but the tissues. Or muscles. *sigh* I may have prolonged my trip to the Medical world, but I probably won't get the anatomy of myself or anyone really right anytime soon. Certainly no future doctors are going to be impressed by my pitiful attempts.
----------------------
Review copy provided by the author for review
original review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/08/review-ghosts-in-the-mirror-by-joyce-mangola.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
The particular uniqueness of the story? The main character, Jeremy, goes into a coma every time a ghost possesses him due to unfinished business. The only way to "see" the ghost is to use a mirror. To see how a ghost feels depends on the color of Jeremy's vomit. I know, it's really gross, but it's pretty cool.
Except... Jeremy keeps going in and out of sleep. Interesting? Um... no. Not after awhile. Apparently when you're asleep way too much, you don't really accomplish much. Add that to Jeremy as a character, and how this ghost possession thingamajig works. The ghost possession is all very confusing I don't get this "spirit hand" or "phantom hand." Does Jeremy have a third hand? Is it still his right hand but the ghost possessing him can only "access" his right hand and that's why he calls it a phantom/spirit hand? Is it basically as though he and the ghost are like one spirit? I have some ideas on what it may all mean, but I'm not 100% sure. It all feels very much as though Mangola knows what she's talking about and explains it as much as she can, but has a bit of a hard time getting her point across and clarifying how it all works.
<img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NBKk2YUdg_o/U-PQlt7nnrI/AAAAAAAADtc/Z8jqVhV4-uk/s1600/Very+Unclear.gif"; border="0">
Jeremy as a character. He has quite a few moments in the book where I'm wondering if he's 6 years old or 16 years old. I don't really mind it as much since when you're in a coma a lot and suddenly realize you're growing up, you're going to want to retain your kid years as much as possible before having to officially grow up. And time goes by really fast OMG, I'm almost 17. NOOO.
But he eats soooooo much junk food candy and lollipops and donuts, oh my! I pretty much started wondering what would get to him first: the Strigoi, or a heart attack? If it were the latter, I would have been extremely furious because then I would assume the book's point is to tell us not to eat so much junk food or we would all get a heart attack one day (or we'll be in a Wall-E world). I do hate one too many sugar, thank you very much (moi can't handle too much vanilla frosting).
Which pretty much makes me bring up a point about him getting car sick so easily. Cannoli and Lattes? They have dairy products. Cannoli have cream and cheese, lattes have cream it's the perfect one way trip to Vomit Wonderland (at least one of the ways). Getting a car ride after eating what looks like a gallon of milk and dairy products? Of course the guy's going to throw up all over the place. And if anyone's going to make a point about Jeremy's condition in defense, I get car sick just as easily and I'm technically normal.
Of course, after Jeremy's millions of trips to Vomit Wonderland throughout the book, I'm pretty grossed out. The book doesn't sound as cool as it did in the beginning, but I believe Mangola has not just the bones of a really good book, but the tissues. Or muscles. *sigh* I may have prolonged my trip to the Medical world, but I probably won't get the anatomy of myself or anyone really right anytime soon. Certainly no future doctors are going to be impressed by my pitiful attempts.
----------------------
Review copy provided by the author for review
original review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/08/review-ghosts-in-the-mirror-by-joyce-mangola.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Army of Thieves (2021) in Movies
Nov 4, 2021
“Did He Just Say Gulp?”
I have Covid-19, and am confined to quarters. So time to catch up on some streaming films. New on Netflix is “Army of Thieves”, a quirky prequel, of sorts, to Zac Snyder’s “Army of the Dead“.
Plot Summary:
Sebastian Schlencht-Wöhnert (Matthias Schweighöfer) is a geek obsessed with the work of legendary safe-manufacturer Hans Wagner whose magnum opus was a series of four intricate safes named after the four parts of his namesake’s Ring cycle: The Rhinegold, The Valkyrie, Siegfried and Götterdämmerung.
Seeking more the glory of cracking the legendary safes (rather than the riches within), high-class jewel-thief Gwendoline (Nathalie Emmanuel) teams with Sebastian to crack the three known safes (in Paris, Prague and St Moritz) before they are officially ‘retired’. Together with Korina (Ruby O. Fee), muscle-man Brad (Stuart Martin) and getaway driver Rolph (Guz Khan) the gang try to stay one step ahead of obsessed Interpol agent Delacroix (Jonathan Cohen).
Certification:
US: TV-MA. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Matthias Schweighöfer, Nathalie Emmanuel, Ruby O. Fee, Stuart Martin, Guz Khan, Jonathan Cohen.
Directed by: Matthias Schweighöfer.
Written by: Shay Hatten (from a story by Shay Hatten and Zack Snyder).
“Army of Thieves” Review: Positives:
I really wasn’t expecting much from this offering. For me, the character of Dieter in “Army of the Dead” was an annoyingly quirky comedy character in a zombie-actioner that you just wanted to punch in the face…. repeatedly. But in contrast, this Dieter-centric film is deliberately quirky throughout and it just all worked for me. Under his own direction, Schweighöfer’s Sebastian/Dieter becomes a genuinely quirky, lovelorn and loveable loser that you want to root for.
The look and feel of the film is utterly glorious. The wonderful cinematography by Bernhard Jasper makes the introduction to the European locations feel Bond-like and the combination of Production Design and Special Effects make the safe-cracking scenes tense, dynamic and beautiful to watch. It’s all nicely rounded off by a quirky Steve Mazzaro / Hans Zimmer score.
Shay Hatten’s script delivers a nice balance of action and exposition. It actually – shock horror – takes time to flesh out some character behind the generic heist-movie stereotypes. Setting the movie in the same timeline as the emerging Nevada zombie-apocalypse as “Army of the Dead” is neat: (although those expecting extensive zombie-action will feel short-changed). And having the Las Vegas safe as the mythical Götterdämmerung is a nice touch. Above all – “SURPRISE!!!” – the script surpassed the essential six-laughs test.
The acting is above par, with Schweighöfer putting in a fabulous turn and the stunningly beautiful Nathalie Emmanuel (best known for being Ramsey in the Fast and Furious series) gets to be a lot more than mere window-dressing here. Stuart Martin is notable here for looking astonishingly like Hugh Jackman…. I mean, really, they could be twins.
Negatives:
I mean, honestly, there are more holes in this story than a St Moritz swiss-cheese. Why would all of the safes, owned by different private institutions, be being “decommissioned” due to a Zombie outbreak on the other side of the world? Can the Interpol team really be that incompetent? And however clever he is, I don’t buy that you can open safes like that!
Although I liked the balance of the script overall, the story is pretty simplistic and linear.
Summary Thoughts on “Army of Thieves”
Sometimes a little movie appears that surprises and delights you, and this was one of those for me. It’s not big and it’s not clever. But it is very nicely made, thoroughly entertained me and was – for me – way better than its source movie. A recommended watch on Netflix.
Plot Summary:
Sebastian Schlencht-Wöhnert (Matthias Schweighöfer) is a geek obsessed with the work of legendary safe-manufacturer Hans Wagner whose magnum opus was a series of four intricate safes named after the four parts of his namesake’s Ring cycle: The Rhinegold, The Valkyrie, Siegfried and Götterdämmerung.
Seeking more the glory of cracking the legendary safes (rather than the riches within), high-class jewel-thief Gwendoline (Nathalie Emmanuel) teams with Sebastian to crack the three known safes (in Paris, Prague and St Moritz) before they are officially ‘retired’. Together with Korina (Ruby O. Fee), muscle-man Brad (Stuart Martin) and getaway driver Rolph (Guz Khan) the gang try to stay one step ahead of obsessed Interpol agent Delacroix (Jonathan Cohen).
Certification:
US: TV-MA. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Matthias Schweighöfer, Nathalie Emmanuel, Ruby O. Fee, Stuart Martin, Guz Khan, Jonathan Cohen.
Directed by: Matthias Schweighöfer.
Written by: Shay Hatten (from a story by Shay Hatten and Zack Snyder).
“Army of Thieves” Review: Positives:
I really wasn’t expecting much from this offering. For me, the character of Dieter in “Army of the Dead” was an annoyingly quirky comedy character in a zombie-actioner that you just wanted to punch in the face…. repeatedly. But in contrast, this Dieter-centric film is deliberately quirky throughout and it just all worked for me. Under his own direction, Schweighöfer’s Sebastian/Dieter becomes a genuinely quirky, lovelorn and loveable loser that you want to root for.
The look and feel of the film is utterly glorious. The wonderful cinematography by Bernhard Jasper makes the introduction to the European locations feel Bond-like and the combination of Production Design and Special Effects make the safe-cracking scenes tense, dynamic and beautiful to watch. It’s all nicely rounded off by a quirky Steve Mazzaro / Hans Zimmer score.
Shay Hatten’s script delivers a nice balance of action and exposition. It actually – shock horror – takes time to flesh out some character behind the generic heist-movie stereotypes. Setting the movie in the same timeline as the emerging Nevada zombie-apocalypse as “Army of the Dead” is neat: (although those expecting extensive zombie-action will feel short-changed). And having the Las Vegas safe as the mythical Götterdämmerung is a nice touch. Above all – “SURPRISE!!!” – the script surpassed the essential six-laughs test.
The acting is above par, with Schweighöfer putting in a fabulous turn and the stunningly beautiful Nathalie Emmanuel (best known for being Ramsey in the Fast and Furious series) gets to be a lot more than mere window-dressing here. Stuart Martin is notable here for looking astonishingly like Hugh Jackman…. I mean, really, they could be twins.
Negatives:
I mean, honestly, there are more holes in this story than a St Moritz swiss-cheese. Why would all of the safes, owned by different private institutions, be being “decommissioned” due to a Zombie outbreak on the other side of the world? Can the Interpol team really be that incompetent? And however clever he is, I don’t buy that you can open safes like that!
Although I liked the balance of the script overall, the story is pretty simplistic and linear.
Summary Thoughts on “Army of Thieves”
Sometimes a little movie appears that surprises and delights you, and this was one of those for me. It’s not big and it’s not clever. But it is very nicely made, thoroughly entertained me and was – for me – way better than its source movie. A recommended watch on Netflix.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Impressive Cast & Visuals Are Not Enough When Compared To The First Film's Magical Story
Contains spoilers, click to show
The beginning started off strong for this movie and it immediately reminded me of what i liked about the first one. Angelina Jolie is just magnificent as Maleficent and you can tell she really enjoys acting the part. I didn't really understand why the people feared her is she wasn't a bad guy (which was the point of the first one I thought, showing the story from her side), but apparently the Queen was spreading rumors or stories to make people frightened. At the dinner scene it was quite believable from Maleficent's outburst that she might have done something to the King but to me it was too out of character that Aurora would believe her to do something like that. Also it was too Deus Ex Machina for another Fey, Connall to have been around close enough for him to save Maleficent when she is shot by an iron bullet. I really liked the scene where they fly around the underground caverns where the other Fey live and show the different biomes and talk about her unknown heritage. It bothered me that the Queen had that little fairy guy that was doing the experiments for her on his own people and how that stuff could kill him too, but what bothered me more was that it never showed his motivations when he released the little creatures in the dungeon. It just showed him do it and never said why or what changed his mind, I feel like there might have been a scene cut there or something. And then there was a couple of ridiculous scenes for me that almost killed this movie for me. One was that all the fairy creatures were invited to the wedding, which was obviously a trap with the red powder already being hinted at, but the fact that the people didn't make as much a deal about it like they did when Maleficent came to dinner surprised me. I mean they had guards holding back the citizens but when Maleficent appeared they ran away, wouldn't they have acted similarly if there were monsters coming to their kingdom. The attack by the Dark Fey on the castle was also one of those parts that made me wonder what the hell was going on. They are massacred on a big scale by the red powder which earlier in the film, it said that it was hard to make or took a long time, but they had butt loads of it in this battle. They had so much that when the Dark Fey retreat and change where they attack the humans even had traps setup in those areas as well. I mean it made for an interesting intense battle scene but Maleficent was the only one of her kind the humans had ever seen and only the Queen's servant said she saw one similar to her save her from the water. How did they know an army was coming and attacking by air. Good planning, smart Queen I guess. I was greatly disappointed that Maleficent didn't turn into a dragon like the cartoon. I love seeing a good dragon on screen but I guess the Phoenix was a good change and fit more with the story especially with her sacrifice. Phoenix's are reborn from their ashes as it says. The last part I found to be laughable was that when the battle is over Aurora is like, "Weddings back on". Her and the Prince are like, we will live in peace from now on with the Moors. Ok, you were just killing each other a couple of minutes ago, and so many Dark Fey died it wasn't even funny. Oh yeah, this movie also did quite a great job of hiding any blood whatsoever in a lot of scenes where there probably should have been some maybe a little. I mean Maleficent gets shot, Connall gets shot up like swiss-cheese, and the soldiers are shooting in the final battle and everyone has weapons like axes, swords, etc..
The beginning started off strong for this movie and it immediately reminded me of what i liked about the first one. Angelina Jolie is just magnificent as Maleficent and you can tell she really enjoys acting the part. I didn't really understand why the people feared her is she wasn't a bad guy (which was the point of the first one I thought, showing the story from her side), but apparently the Queen was spreading rumors or stories to make people frightened. At the dinner scene it was quite believable from Maleficent's outburst that she might have done something to the King but to me it was too out of character that Aurora would believe her to do something like that. Also it was too Deus Ex Machina for another Fey, Connall to have been around close enough for him to save Maleficent when she is shot by an iron bullet. I really liked the scene where they fly around the underground caverns where the other Fey live and show the different biomes and talk about her unkown heritage. It bothered me that the Queen had that little fairy guy that was doing the experiments for her on his own people and how that stuff could kill him too, but what bothered me more was that it never showed his motivations when he released the little creatures in the dungeon. It just showed him do it and never said why or what changed his mind, I feel like there might have been a scene cut there or something. And then there was a couple of ridiculous scenes for me that almost killed this movie for me. One was that all the fairy creatures were invited to the wedding, which was obviously a trap with the red powder already being hinted at, but the fact that the people didn't make as much a deal about it like they did when Maleficent came to dinner surprised me. I mean they had guards holding back the citizens but when Maleficent appeared they ran away, wouldn't they have acted similarly if there were monsters coming to their kingdom. The attack by the Dark Fey on the castle was also one of those parts that made me wonder what the hell was going on. They are massacred on a big scale by the red powder which earlier in the film, it said that it was hard to make or took a long time, but they had butt loads of it in this battle. They had so much that when the Dark Fey retreat and change where they attack the humans even had traps setup in those areas as well. I mean it made for an interesting intense battle scene but Maleficent was the only one of her kind the humans had ever seen and only the Queen's servant said she saw one similar to her save her from the water. How did they know an army was coming and attacking by air. Good planning, smart Queen I guess. I was greatly disappointed that Maleficent didn't turn into a dragon like the cartoon. I love seeing a good dragon on screen but I guess the Phoenix was a good change and fit more with the story especially with her sacrifice. Phoenix's are reborn from their ashes as it says. The last part I found to be laughable was that when the battle is over Aurora is like, "Weddings back on". Her and the Prince are like, we will live in peace from now on with the Moors. Ok, you were just killing each other a couple of minutes ago, and so many Dark Fey died it wasn't even funny. Oh yeah, this movie also did quite a great job of hiding any blood whatsoever in a lot of scenes where there probably should have been some maybe a little. I mean Maleficent gets shot, Connall gets shot up like swiss-cheese, and the soldiers are shooting in the final battle and everyone has weapons like axes, swords, etc.. I really wanted to give this movie a 7 but I have to give it a 6/10.
The beginning started off strong for this movie and it immediately reminded me of what i liked about the first one. Angelina Jolie is just magnificent as Maleficent and you can tell she really enjoys acting the part. I didn't really understand why the people feared her is she wasn't a bad guy (which was the point of the first one I thought, showing the story from her side), but apparently the Queen was spreading rumors or stories to make people frightened. At the dinner scene it was quite believable from Maleficent's outburst that she might have done something to the King but to me it was too out of character that Aurora would believe her to do something like that. Also it was too Deus Ex Machina for another Fey, Connall to have been around close enough for him to save Maleficent when she is shot by an iron bullet. I really liked the scene where they fly around the underground caverns where the other Fey live and show the different biomes and talk about her unkown heritage. It bothered me that the Queen had that little fairy guy that was doing the experiments for her on his own people and how that stuff could kill him too, but what bothered me more was that it never showed his motivations when he released the little creatures in the dungeon. It just showed him do it and never said why or what changed his mind, I feel like there might have been a scene cut there or something. And then there was a couple of ridiculous scenes for me that almost killed this movie for me. One was that all the fairy creatures were invited to the wedding, which was obviously a trap with the red powder already being hinted at, but the fact that the people didn't make as much a deal about it like they did when Maleficent came to dinner surprised me. I mean they had guards holding back the citizens but when Maleficent appeared they ran away, wouldn't they have acted similarly if there were monsters coming to their kingdom. The attack by the Dark Fey on the castle was also one of those parts that made me wonder what the hell was going on. They are massacred on a big scale by the red powder which earlier in the film, it said that it was hard to make or took a long time, but they had butt loads of it in this battle. They had so much that when the Dark Fey retreat and change where they attack the humans even had traps setup in those areas as well. I mean it made for an interesting intense battle scene but Maleficent was the only one of her kind the humans had ever seen and only the Queen's servant said she saw one similar to her save her from the water. How did they know an army was coming and attacking by air. Good planning, smart Queen I guess. I was greatly disappointed that Maleficent didn't turn into a dragon like the cartoon. I love seeing a good dragon on screen but I guess the Phoenix was a good change and fit more with the story especially with her sacrifice. Phoenix's are reborn from their ashes as it says. The last part I found to be laughable was that when the battle is over Aurora is like, "Weddings back on". Her and the Prince are like, we will live in peace from now on with the Moors. Ok, you were just killing each other a couple of minutes ago, and so many Dark Fey died it wasn't even funny. Oh yeah, this movie also did quite a great job of hiding any blood whatsoever in a lot of scenes where there probably should have been some maybe a little. I mean Maleficent gets shot, Connall gets shot up like swiss-cheese, and the soldiers are shooting in the final battle and everyone has weapons like axes, swords, etc.. I really wanted to give this movie a 7 but I have to give it a 6/10.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Cubitos in Tabletop Games
Mar 17, 2022
Let me tell you a story about how I came to own Cubitos. My FLGS, which since moving to Tennessee is an hour away in Knoxville (Sci-Fi City), had great stock of this game a couple months ago. I would step in, browse around, and pass on picking up a copy since they seemed to have so many. Forward in time to a month ago, when I was ready to grab my own copy, they are sold out. WHAT. Well, I had to order a copy online from somewhere I don’t normally shop because my favorite online sellers were also out of stock. Then Christmas came and my brother gifted me a copy of Cubitos. So then I had two. Long story now short – I have a copy and that’s all that matters because Cubitos is amazing.
Cubitos is a push-your-luck, dice building, racing game for two to four players. In it, players have runners that will be moving around a crazy race track, and another runner who keeps track of fans (the manager maybe?), and the first player’s runner to cross the finish line will be the winner! Now, managing movement and special abilities is where the game REALLY is, and it all boils down to which special dice are purchased and used, and whether Lady Luck will find favor or not. It’s a wild ride, so prepare your runner and let’s go!
To setup, place out one of the double-sided Racetrack boards, along with the Fan Track board. Runners for each player are placed at the Starting Line on the Racetrack board, and the other on the bleachers of the Fan Track. Each player receives a color-coded Player Board and nine gray starting dice. They receive a Phase Token to keep track of each phase in a round, and the starting player receives the Start Player Die. Each dice box is placed around the boards with the dice on top. All corresponding cards for each die type is placed by the dice box, and the game may now begin!
DISCLAIMER: We have adopted an unofficial variant/house rule that differs from the rules because we find it works better for us. During the phases where all players may play simultaneously we instead just have each player take a turn individually. -T
A turn in Cubitos is divided into two main phases with several sub-phases for each. During the main Roll Phase, players will first Draw dice from their personal Draw Zone (on the Player Board) and place them into the Roll Zone. Initially, players will have a hand size of nine, but that may be adjusted as the game progresses. Once the dice have been drawn the player then Rolls their dice. Every die face showing an icon is counted as a Hit, and every die showing a blank face is considered a Miss. All dice showing Hits are moved to the Active Zone of the board, and the player then decides if they wish to Push (their luck) and re-roll all the Misses in hopes of more Hits, or if they are done rolling. Once a player re-rolls their Misses, if the result is all Misses, the player Busts and must move ALL rolled dice to the Discard Zone on their board. However, players may continue to roll all Misses until they Bust or are content and stop.
The Run Phase then begins with players resolving their red die icons (crossed swords for attacks), and determining their other icons rolled for coins and movement. Feet icons (and certain dice special abilities) provide players with movement along the Racetrack board, and coins provide the player with purchasing power to buy new dice. Once a player’s Runner has landed on a reward spot on the board, the player receives the benefit and moves all dice used this turn to the Discard Zone on the Player board.
Every time a player Busts, or lands on a Fan icon on the Racetrack, the other matching Runner on the Fan Track board will move one spot along the track, and the player receives the benefits of the new space. These benefits are either an increase in hand limit of dice drawn, or more purchasing power in the form of credits. Reward spaces on the board could give players extra dice for free, allow players to remove dice from their collection, or even gain credits to be used at any time. The game continues in this fashion of each player taking their turns until one player crosses the finish line and wins!
Components. This box is chock full of tasty components that we all just adore. The boards and cards are all good quality and feature some fantastic art, and the custom dice are just so fun to handle. A truly ingenious use of folding arts is used when setting up all the dice boxes. Not only are they used in-game to remind players what icons are on each die face, but they also hold the dice during play, and store the dice in the box. I mean, triple duty dice boxes are where it’s at! Everything is super colorful and just a joy to play with each time. My one quibble is the very offensive block of cheese on the box cover. I am a big Chicago Bears fan, and seeing something so proudly displayed that even remotely resembles an homage to the Packers is such a shame to me. I really hope that wasn’t intentional, but I am also joking. Mostly.
The absolute best part about this game is the selection of action cards associated with each special set of dice. For example, the purple dinosaur dice could be paired with seven different cards, each with different abilities when the icon is rolled. Each color has a seven card deck, from which a card could randomly be used each game. The rulebook also offers 10 suggested combinations of cards, and also invites players to choose their own combos. This reminds me of a similar mechanic I first saw with the Dice Masters system, where each die’s faces could mean something completely different depending on the card associated with it. I loved that mechanic back then, and I do now as well.
I cannot believe I passed on this game for as long as I did. I mean, I like AEG-published games. We have reviewed John D. Clair games positively: Mystic Vale, with Custom Heroes and Space Base coming soon. Was it a subconscious dislike for the dumb cheese man on the cover? I am not too sure, but I am clearly glad to have it now. The cool dice. The interesting theme. The multi-use dice/card components. The fact they included both orange and purple dice. Am I into racing games now? The reasons are plentiful, and I just cannot wait for my next play of Cubitos. Maybe I can get my wife into it and it can be a staple in our rotation.
There are several other little rules that I did not mention here, but all in all I have had a blast every time I play Cubitos. I was certainly correct in wanting to add it to my collection, and having Josh teach Laura and me originally just adds a unique personal touch to the game for me. Creating lasting memories is a big reason I am so into board games in the first place, and I think Cubitos will hold a special place in my heart simply because I was able to play it with my best friends. They agree with me that this is a special game, and Purple Phoenix Games gives this a nonsquare 16 / 18. If you see this at your LFGS I highly recommend you pick up a copy. Don’t wait, like I did, because when you do get around to it, they just may be out of stock. And a suggestion: because the cheeseperson is wearing lederhosen, just refer to them as a great German friend. AND THAT’S IT. Go Bears.
Cubitos is a push-your-luck, dice building, racing game for two to four players. In it, players have runners that will be moving around a crazy race track, and another runner who keeps track of fans (the manager maybe?), and the first player’s runner to cross the finish line will be the winner! Now, managing movement and special abilities is where the game REALLY is, and it all boils down to which special dice are purchased and used, and whether Lady Luck will find favor or not. It’s a wild ride, so prepare your runner and let’s go!
To setup, place out one of the double-sided Racetrack boards, along with the Fan Track board. Runners for each player are placed at the Starting Line on the Racetrack board, and the other on the bleachers of the Fan Track. Each player receives a color-coded Player Board and nine gray starting dice. They receive a Phase Token to keep track of each phase in a round, and the starting player receives the Start Player Die. Each dice box is placed around the boards with the dice on top. All corresponding cards for each die type is placed by the dice box, and the game may now begin!
DISCLAIMER: We have adopted an unofficial variant/house rule that differs from the rules because we find it works better for us. During the phases where all players may play simultaneously we instead just have each player take a turn individually. -T
A turn in Cubitos is divided into two main phases with several sub-phases for each. During the main Roll Phase, players will first Draw dice from their personal Draw Zone (on the Player Board) and place them into the Roll Zone. Initially, players will have a hand size of nine, but that may be adjusted as the game progresses. Once the dice have been drawn the player then Rolls their dice. Every die face showing an icon is counted as a Hit, and every die showing a blank face is considered a Miss. All dice showing Hits are moved to the Active Zone of the board, and the player then decides if they wish to Push (their luck) and re-roll all the Misses in hopes of more Hits, or if they are done rolling. Once a player re-rolls their Misses, if the result is all Misses, the player Busts and must move ALL rolled dice to the Discard Zone on their board. However, players may continue to roll all Misses until they Bust or are content and stop.
The Run Phase then begins with players resolving their red die icons (crossed swords for attacks), and determining their other icons rolled for coins and movement. Feet icons (and certain dice special abilities) provide players with movement along the Racetrack board, and coins provide the player with purchasing power to buy new dice. Once a player’s Runner has landed on a reward spot on the board, the player receives the benefit and moves all dice used this turn to the Discard Zone on the Player board.
Every time a player Busts, or lands on a Fan icon on the Racetrack, the other matching Runner on the Fan Track board will move one spot along the track, and the player receives the benefits of the new space. These benefits are either an increase in hand limit of dice drawn, or more purchasing power in the form of credits. Reward spaces on the board could give players extra dice for free, allow players to remove dice from their collection, or even gain credits to be used at any time. The game continues in this fashion of each player taking their turns until one player crosses the finish line and wins!
Components. This box is chock full of tasty components that we all just adore. The boards and cards are all good quality and feature some fantastic art, and the custom dice are just so fun to handle. A truly ingenious use of folding arts is used when setting up all the dice boxes. Not only are they used in-game to remind players what icons are on each die face, but they also hold the dice during play, and store the dice in the box. I mean, triple duty dice boxes are where it’s at! Everything is super colorful and just a joy to play with each time. My one quibble is the very offensive block of cheese on the box cover. I am a big Chicago Bears fan, and seeing something so proudly displayed that even remotely resembles an homage to the Packers is such a shame to me. I really hope that wasn’t intentional, but I am also joking. Mostly.
The absolute best part about this game is the selection of action cards associated with each special set of dice. For example, the purple dinosaur dice could be paired with seven different cards, each with different abilities when the icon is rolled. Each color has a seven card deck, from which a card could randomly be used each game. The rulebook also offers 10 suggested combinations of cards, and also invites players to choose their own combos. This reminds me of a similar mechanic I first saw with the Dice Masters system, where each die’s faces could mean something completely different depending on the card associated with it. I loved that mechanic back then, and I do now as well.
I cannot believe I passed on this game for as long as I did. I mean, I like AEG-published games. We have reviewed John D. Clair games positively: Mystic Vale, with Custom Heroes and Space Base coming soon. Was it a subconscious dislike for the dumb cheese man on the cover? I am not too sure, but I am clearly glad to have it now. The cool dice. The interesting theme. The multi-use dice/card components. The fact they included both orange and purple dice. Am I into racing games now? The reasons are plentiful, and I just cannot wait for my next play of Cubitos. Maybe I can get my wife into it and it can be a staple in our rotation.
There are several other little rules that I did not mention here, but all in all I have had a blast every time I play Cubitos. I was certainly correct in wanting to add it to my collection, and having Josh teach Laura and me originally just adds a unique personal touch to the game for me. Creating lasting memories is a big reason I am so into board games in the first place, and I think Cubitos will hold a special place in my heart simply because I was able to play it with my best friends. They agree with me that this is a special game, and Purple Phoenix Games gives this a nonsquare 16 / 18. If you see this at your LFGS I highly recommend you pick up a copy. Don’t wait, like I did, because when you do get around to it, they just may be out of stock. And a suggestion: because the cheeseperson is wearing lederhosen, just refer to them as a great German friend. AND THAT’S IT. Go Bears.
