Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Tomorrowland (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I have to be honest. I was confused when I first heard that a movie was being made called Tomorrowland, and even more so when I heard it that actually is based on the themed area of Disney parks. How could they do it? What would it be about? It was strange. The teaser trailer didn’t give a whole lot away either (as teasers are designed to do). When I saw the full trailer, I had a little more understanding, and it definitely piqued my interest, but I was still totally in the dark. And I wanted to see the movie! I guess Disney really did their job right.
In this film, Tomorrowland is a place of unlimited possibilities. Another dimension, where the inhabitants of that dimension actively seek out intelligent people, inventors, who can do something that can change the world for the better. We begin at the 1964 World Fair in New York where we see a young Frank Walker (Thomas Robinson) entering into the inventor’s competition with a jetpack that doesn’t quite work. However, a mysterious young woman named Athena (Raffey Cassidy) takes an interest in him, offers him a pin and instructs him to follow her. Thus begins Frank’s adventure and we move forward in time to the present day, where we meet Casey Newton (Britt Robertson).
Casey is the teenage daughter of a NASA engineer, who is no slough in the intelligence department herself. We are introduced to her as she is sabotaging equipment at a NASA launch pad that is scheduled to be taken down, which will leave her father without a job. We see Athena again, who has mysteriously not aged, leaving a pin for Casey to discover Tomorrowland on her own. Only, this pin is a simple advertisement. We soon learn that something has gone terribly wrong, and our world is in danger. Athena leads Casey to an aged Frank Walker (George Clooney), who has since been banished from Tomorrowland, but still feeds off of their signal and sits and waits for the end of the world, which he knows when it will happen. But he and Athena see something in Casey that will help save both Tomorrowland, and our world.
Given the conversations, the imagery, and the theme of this movie, it is clearly targeted towards children more than adults. Though, there is plenty for an adult to enjoy about the movie, it is important to understand that the movie is clearly targeted to a younger audience. I say this because I feel, as did my guests who attended the press screening, that the main plot device, the main conflict of the movie, is far too complex a concept for this younger audience to understand. So before you read any further, spoiler alert. You have been forewarned. If you do not want to know, skip the next two paragraphs.
The idea here is that Frank Walker built a machine that could see any point in time. Past, future or present. With this machine, he saw the end of our world. The proposed resolution to stop the destruction of earth is this: turn off the machine. The argument being that the world ends because we see it ending. It becomes a fixation of our mind, and so it will happen. Apparently, the people of Tomorrowland have been streaming this information to Earth for years, but instead of taking steps to prevent it, Earth has embraced it. One of my favorite lines, delivered by one of my favorite actors (Hugh Laurie) indicated that we had simultaneous epidemics of obesity and starvation on Earth. It’s mind boggling. But the Casey comes up with the brilliant idea of turning it off, which will prevent the destruction of Earth because people will no longer be so focused on it. It’s a little more complicated than that, but this is the gist of it. Way too complex for your average child to comprehend.
Another part of the resolution and the end of the movie was brilliant, but I think it was poorly illustrated. As I mentioned earlier, the residents of Tomorrowland were searching for intelligent people, often high IQ inventors, who could make the world a better place. At the end of the film, Casey idea is to bring not only intelligent people, but anyone who will make a difference. Dancers, musicians, doctors, pilots, farmers, etc. I think I even saw a waitress in there. These are people who may not normally be recognized as highly intelligent, but can make huge differences in the world. The idea was to not be so limited in thinking, and understand how everything can contribute to a better world. However, they did not really do a great job of pointing this out, so some movie-goers may miss this point completely and simply see it as a rebuilding of Tomorrowland to its former glory.
Other than those two issues, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It had a great amount of humor, action and endearing moments. It was visually stunning, and took a concept that I never thought could be made into a movie and did just that. The movie was brilliantly cast, even down to the minor characters like Hugo (Keegan-Michael Key) and Ursula (Kathryn Hahn). Of course the score was fantastic, it is a Disney film after all. And despite my issues with the complexity of the plot, I still think that everyone, young and old, will enjoy this film.
Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But it is entertaining, and definitely worth seeing on the big screen. So go check it out. In theaters everywhere, today.
In this film, Tomorrowland is a place of unlimited possibilities. Another dimension, where the inhabitants of that dimension actively seek out intelligent people, inventors, who can do something that can change the world for the better. We begin at the 1964 World Fair in New York where we see a young Frank Walker (Thomas Robinson) entering into the inventor’s competition with a jetpack that doesn’t quite work. However, a mysterious young woman named Athena (Raffey Cassidy) takes an interest in him, offers him a pin and instructs him to follow her. Thus begins Frank’s adventure and we move forward in time to the present day, where we meet Casey Newton (Britt Robertson).
Casey is the teenage daughter of a NASA engineer, who is no slough in the intelligence department herself. We are introduced to her as she is sabotaging equipment at a NASA launch pad that is scheduled to be taken down, which will leave her father without a job. We see Athena again, who has mysteriously not aged, leaving a pin for Casey to discover Tomorrowland on her own. Only, this pin is a simple advertisement. We soon learn that something has gone terribly wrong, and our world is in danger. Athena leads Casey to an aged Frank Walker (George Clooney), who has since been banished from Tomorrowland, but still feeds off of their signal and sits and waits for the end of the world, which he knows when it will happen. But he and Athena see something in Casey that will help save both Tomorrowland, and our world.
Given the conversations, the imagery, and the theme of this movie, it is clearly targeted towards children more than adults. Though, there is plenty for an adult to enjoy about the movie, it is important to understand that the movie is clearly targeted to a younger audience. I say this because I feel, as did my guests who attended the press screening, that the main plot device, the main conflict of the movie, is far too complex a concept for this younger audience to understand. So before you read any further, spoiler alert. You have been forewarned. If you do not want to know, skip the next two paragraphs.
The idea here is that Frank Walker built a machine that could see any point in time. Past, future or present. With this machine, he saw the end of our world. The proposed resolution to stop the destruction of earth is this: turn off the machine. The argument being that the world ends because we see it ending. It becomes a fixation of our mind, and so it will happen. Apparently, the people of Tomorrowland have been streaming this information to Earth for years, but instead of taking steps to prevent it, Earth has embraced it. One of my favorite lines, delivered by one of my favorite actors (Hugh Laurie) indicated that we had simultaneous epidemics of obesity and starvation on Earth. It’s mind boggling. But the Casey comes up with the brilliant idea of turning it off, which will prevent the destruction of Earth because people will no longer be so focused on it. It’s a little more complicated than that, but this is the gist of it. Way too complex for your average child to comprehend.
Another part of the resolution and the end of the movie was brilliant, but I think it was poorly illustrated. As I mentioned earlier, the residents of Tomorrowland were searching for intelligent people, often high IQ inventors, who could make the world a better place. At the end of the film, Casey idea is to bring not only intelligent people, but anyone who will make a difference. Dancers, musicians, doctors, pilots, farmers, etc. I think I even saw a waitress in there. These are people who may not normally be recognized as highly intelligent, but can make huge differences in the world. The idea was to not be so limited in thinking, and understand how everything can contribute to a better world. However, they did not really do a great job of pointing this out, so some movie-goers may miss this point completely and simply see it as a rebuilding of Tomorrowland to its former glory.
Other than those two issues, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It had a great amount of humor, action and endearing moments. It was visually stunning, and took a concept that I never thought could be made into a movie and did just that. The movie was brilliantly cast, even down to the minor characters like Hugo (Keegan-Michael Key) and Ursula (Kathryn Hahn). Of course the score was fantastic, it is a Disney film after all. And despite my issues with the complexity of the plot, I still think that everyone, young and old, will enjoy this film.
Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But it is entertaining, and definitely worth seeing on the big screen. So go check it out. In theaters everywhere, today.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Gekitai in Tabletop Games
Feb 20, 2020
We have all played Chess, Checkers, Go, and even more recent abstracts like Azul, Patchwork, and Blokus, right? Most abstract strategy games are loosely themed, if themed at all, have perfect information, and offer very little luck factors. Furthermore, classic abstracts feature that familiar grid-board with moving pieces we all grew up learning with our grandparents. Right, we all have played and loved these. So when my friend posted PNP files online for his new game featuring a grid-board and pieces that move around it, I said, “Great. I just printed another PNP game and now I need to do another one!” But instead, the designer, Scott, messaged me and let me know he had a copy for me… which he hand-delivered to me at a high school concert I was attending. Then he taught it to me there.
Gekitai is an abstract strategy game with very minimal rules. The phrase, “easy to learn, but hard to master” is very overdone, but it certainly applies here. For those that are wondering, the term, “Gekitai” is Japanese for “Repel.” You will see why this nomenclature is perfect for this game soon.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. Though I know the designer personally, I will be reviewing this game as an impartial judge. -T
Normally I like to include setup instructions here in this paragraph for my reviews, so I shall do that now. To setup, place the board between the two players and give each player their eight matching pieces. In my game, they are red and black glass beads. For convenience I will refer to the red ones as apples and the black ones as 8-balls. That’s it. You’re setup to play.
The object of Gekitai is to fulfill one of two victory conditions: play until one player has three of their pieces in a row (diagonally OR orthogonally) or finish their turn with all eight of their pieces on the board. Easy, right? It most certainly is! Oh, you want the catch? Ok then, here’s the catch: while players can place any piece on any empty square, once placed the pieces will repel all other adjacent pieces away from itself. This includes their own pieces.
So let’s say you start the game and place your first 8-ball in a corner closest to you. Great opening noob. I mean move. You see, I would just place one of my apples adjacent to your 8-ball and repel it right off the board. That doesn’t mean that I have captured your 8-ball or anything like that. You would be able to use it again next turn if you like, but this is the danger of outside spaces. When repelled, a piece (your 8-ball) continues one space in the direction away from the most recently-placed piece (my apple). So diagonally if diagonal from the just-placed apple, or orthogonally otherwise. Again, this would affect all pieces that are adjacent, not just your opponent’s. Think of placing a piece as someone doing a cannonball in an infinity pool. Everyone already in the pool will get pushed away from the point of impact and may even fall out of the pool, but be able to hop back in soon.
One note about pushing other pieces. One piece can only push one other piece. Here’s what I mean. When my apple is placed near another 8-ball or apple, it repels it, right? Well, a piece may only be repelled if there is an empty space for it to go. If another apple is blocking the pathway of an affected apple or 8-ball, no movement happens. The pieces has been blocked. In this way strategy plays in integral part in Gekitai – you must always be thinking about 10 turns in the future. Play continues in this fashion until a player has achieved three-in-a-row or placed all of their pieces on the board.
Components. Again, we are playing with a PNP prototype game package. Granted, this PNP is assembled by the designer and looks WAAAY better than if I had tried to assemble it myself, so we do take that into consideration. Components aside (because unless you order a copy from the designer via Etsy in the future, you will probably download the files and play on a sheet of paper with coins or other stand-ins), this is a typical, classic abstract strategy-style game. The board can look any way you like in a 6×6 board and you can you use any bits for your game. Heck, you could even play with real apples and 8-balls. But what we were provided is excellent and looks great on the table.
But gameplay. Like I mentioned earlier, I know the designer and his family and they are wonderful people. Luckily that makes no difference here because the game itself is absolutely wonderful! My wife typically kicks my booty in all abstracts. Ok fine, usually in all games. BUT! After playing Gekitai lots with her, she has only beaten me once! When we do play it she asks for rematches several times over and I just love being able to have a go-to game for when we have a few minutes between running around with the kids. I love it. She loves it. We at Purple Phoenix Games, with an enthusiastic guest score from my wife, give Gekitai a cannonball-esque 11 / 12. We suggest you go to the BGG page where the PNP files can be printed. You will want this in your collection.
Gekitai is an abstract strategy game with very minimal rules. The phrase, “easy to learn, but hard to master” is very overdone, but it certainly applies here. For those that are wondering, the term, “Gekitai” is Japanese for “Repel.” You will see why this nomenclature is perfect for this game soon.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. Though I know the designer personally, I will be reviewing this game as an impartial judge. -T
Normally I like to include setup instructions here in this paragraph for my reviews, so I shall do that now. To setup, place the board between the two players and give each player their eight matching pieces. In my game, they are red and black glass beads. For convenience I will refer to the red ones as apples and the black ones as 8-balls. That’s it. You’re setup to play.
The object of Gekitai is to fulfill one of two victory conditions: play until one player has three of their pieces in a row (diagonally OR orthogonally) or finish their turn with all eight of their pieces on the board. Easy, right? It most certainly is! Oh, you want the catch? Ok then, here’s the catch: while players can place any piece on any empty square, once placed the pieces will repel all other adjacent pieces away from itself. This includes their own pieces.
So let’s say you start the game and place your first 8-ball in a corner closest to you. Great opening noob. I mean move. You see, I would just place one of my apples adjacent to your 8-ball and repel it right off the board. That doesn’t mean that I have captured your 8-ball or anything like that. You would be able to use it again next turn if you like, but this is the danger of outside spaces. When repelled, a piece (your 8-ball) continues one space in the direction away from the most recently-placed piece (my apple). So diagonally if diagonal from the just-placed apple, or orthogonally otherwise. Again, this would affect all pieces that are adjacent, not just your opponent’s. Think of placing a piece as someone doing a cannonball in an infinity pool. Everyone already in the pool will get pushed away from the point of impact and may even fall out of the pool, but be able to hop back in soon.
One note about pushing other pieces. One piece can only push one other piece. Here’s what I mean. When my apple is placed near another 8-ball or apple, it repels it, right? Well, a piece may only be repelled if there is an empty space for it to go. If another apple is blocking the pathway of an affected apple or 8-ball, no movement happens. The pieces has been blocked. In this way strategy plays in integral part in Gekitai – you must always be thinking about 10 turns in the future. Play continues in this fashion until a player has achieved three-in-a-row or placed all of their pieces on the board.
Components. Again, we are playing with a PNP prototype game package. Granted, this PNP is assembled by the designer and looks WAAAY better than if I had tried to assemble it myself, so we do take that into consideration. Components aside (because unless you order a copy from the designer via Etsy in the future, you will probably download the files and play on a sheet of paper with coins or other stand-ins), this is a typical, classic abstract strategy-style game. The board can look any way you like in a 6×6 board and you can you use any bits for your game. Heck, you could even play with real apples and 8-balls. But what we were provided is excellent and looks great on the table.
But gameplay. Like I mentioned earlier, I know the designer and his family and they are wonderful people. Luckily that makes no difference here because the game itself is absolutely wonderful! My wife typically kicks my booty in all abstracts. Ok fine, usually in all games. BUT! After playing Gekitai lots with her, she has only beaten me once! When we do play it she asks for rematches several times over and I just love being able to have a go-to game for when we have a few minutes between running around with the kids. I love it. She loves it. We at Purple Phoenix Games, with an enthusiastic guest score from my wife, give Gekitai a cannonball-esque 11 / 12. We suggest you go to the BGG page where the PNP files can be printed. You will want this in your collection.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Citadels in Tabletop Games
Aug 13, 2021
It has been documented several times that I, Travis Lopez, would be a horrible city planner. So why do I keep playing these games that require me to build city buildings and components and why do I enjoy them so much? Well, truth be told, this is a game that I had traded for years ago, got rid of, missed terribly, and repurchased. However, this is the newer version that includes a lot more in the box. Does it mean that the game is better? More stuff means better game, right?
In Citadels players will be donning the mantle of potential Master Builders and will need to build the greatest buildings within the city and manipulate the powers of special people within its walls. The game ends when a player has built their seventh district building. The player with the most VP at this time will be crowned Master Builder and winner of Citadels!
To setup, decide which eight characters will be used in the game, gather their cards and tokens, and place their tokens in ascending order on the table. This is to remind all players which characters (and their rank) is in play. Assemble the district (building) cards per the rules and shuffle the deck. Deal each player four of these district cards along with two gold coins. The eldest player will begin the game as the current First Player (complete with crown mini) and will begin the first phase of the first round.
Citadels is played over several rounds, each with two phases played within. The first phase is the Selection Phase, where the current First Player takes the character cards, shuffles them, adds zero to two cards (dependent upon number of players) face-up on the table and one card face-down. They then choose from the cards remaining in hand which character’s powers they would like to enact for the turn. The cards are passed to the next player in line who will do the same, and so on around the table.
Once all players have chosen their character card, the Turn Phase can begin. The current First Player (the one with the crown) will announce the characters in rank order, with the lowest character going first. In a typical game using only original base characters, this is “1: Assassin.” Whomever chose the Assassin card will flip over their character card, perform its special power, and then continue with their turn. In this case, the Assassin’s special power is to announce the name of a CHARACTER to assassinate. NOTE: This does NOT mean the name of the PLAYER. So the Assassin could choose to assassinate the King character, not the Travis player. After the character has used their power, the player can continue with the rest of their turn, though some character powers may be used at any time during the player’s turn.
After the character power is used, the player will gather resources in the form of two gold coins from the bank or by drawing two district cards from the deck and choosing one to keep in hand. After this choice, the player may then build one district in their play area if they wish and if they can afford to do so. Once complete, the crowned First Player will call out the next character rank (2: Thief in our example) who will continue their turn in the same way. The game continues in this fashion until a player has built their seventh district. The round continues until all players have had an equal amount of turns. Players then count VP on district cards and bonuses per the rulebook. The player with the most VP at the end of the game is crowned the Master Builder and winner of Citadels!
Components. I have to say that I enjoyed the components in the older version of Citadels I used to have just fine. I had sleeved all my cards, and the gold coins were nice back in the day. This version, however, includes many more components and each one is higher quality than the previous version’s. The art on the cards has been updated and is much much nicer now as well. The addition of the crown mini, the character tokens, and other components not mentioned here merely increases my love for Citadels. Windrider has knocked it out of the park with this version. And that’s saying nothing about all the additional characters now included in the game! Oh boy, so much variability!
Along with that variability is the customization of the game. You can play with one of the six pre-constructed provided suggestions in the rulebook or create your own combination of different characters. With three versions of each rank, many possibilities are… possible.
I do love Citadels, and with the right group can be a show-stopper all on its own. Some players may get a little offended or sassy because there is a fair amount of Take That in Citadels with the character interactions, so if playing with people who don’t understand the difference between a game and real life, I would prep them appropriately. I love being able to outwit my opponents by drafting certain characters they didn’t think I would want. Keeping them all on their toes during the game is sneaky fun.
So for me, with the amount of replayability, high quality and excellent components, and cutthroat gameplay I simply adore Citadels. I can pull it out with different groups and have different play experiences and try to tailor the character offering to the strengths of my players, or simply use one listed in the back of the rulebook. Purple Phoenix Games gives Citadels an underhanded, yet scholarly 21 / 24. It’s a stunning, magical, wonderful game and one of Bruno Faidutti’s best ever! Surely this is already in your collection, right? If not, make it so.
In Citadels players will be donning the mantle of potential Master Builders and will need to build the greatest buildings within the city and manipulate the powers of special people within its walls. The game ends when a player has built their seventh district building. The player with the most VP at this time will be crowned Master Builder and winner of Citadels!
To setup, decide which eight characters will be used in the game, gather their cards and tokens, and place their tokens in ascending order on the table. This is to remind all players which characters (and their rank) is in play. Assemble the district (building) cards per the rules and shuffle the deck. Deal each player four of these district cards along with two gold coins. The eldest player will begin the game as the current First Player (complete with crown mini) and will begin the first phase of the first round.
Citadels is played over several rounds, each with two phases played within. The first phase is the Selection Phase, where the current First Player takes the character cards, shuffles them, adds zero to two cards (dependent upon number of players) face-up on the table and one card face-down. They then choose from the cards remaining in hand which character’s powers they would like to enact for the turn. The cards are passed to the next player in line who will do the same, and so on around the table.
Once all players have chosen their character card, the Turn Phase can begin. The current First Player (the one with the crown) will announce the characters in rank order, with the lowest character going first. In a typical game using only original base characters, this is “1: Assassin.” Whomever chose the Assassin card will flip over their character card, perform its special power, and then continue with their turn. In this case, the Assassin’s special power is to announce the name of a CHARACTER to assassinate. NOTE: This does NOT mean the name of the PLAYER. So the Assassin could choose to assassinate the King character, not the Travis player. After the character has used their power, the player can continue with the rest of their turn, though some character powers may be used at any time during the player’s turn.
After the character power is used, the player will gather resources in the form of two gold coins from the bank or by drawing two district cards from the deck and choosing one to keep in hand. After this choice, the player may then build one district in their play area if they wish and if they can afford to do so. Once complete, the crowned First Player will call out the next character rank (2: Thief in our example) who will continue their turn in the same way. The game continues in this fashion until a player has built their seventh district. The round continues until all players have had an equal amount of turns. Players then count VP on district cards and bonuses per the rulebook. The player with the most VP at the end of the game is crowned the Master Builder and winner of Citadels!
Components. I have to say that I enjoyed the components in the older version of Citadels I used to have just fine. I had sleeved all my cards, and the gold coins were nice back in the day. This version, however, includes many more components and each one is higher quality than the previous version’s. The art on the cards has been updated and is much much nicer now as well. The addition of the crown mini, the character tokens, and other components not mentioned here merely increases my love for Citadels. Windrider has knocked it out of the park with this version. And that’s saying nothing about all the additional characters now included in the game! Oh boy, so much variability!
Along with that variability is the customization of the game. You can play with one of the six pre-constructed provided suggestions in the rulebook or create your own combination of different characters. With three versions of each rank, many possibilities are… possible.
I do love Citadels, and with the right group can be a show-stopper all on its own. Some players may get a little offended or sassy because there is a fair amount of Take That in Citadels with the character interactions, so if playing with people who don’t understand the difference between a game and real life, I would prep them appropriately. I love being able to outwit my opponents by drafting certain characters they didn’t think I would want. Keeping them all on their toes during the game is sneaky fun.
So for me, with the amount of replayability, high quality and excellent components, and cutthroat gameplay I simply adore Citadels. I can pull it out with different groups and have different play experiences and try to tailor the character offering to the strengths of my players, or simply use one listed in the back of the rulebook. Purple Phoenix Games gives Citadels an underhanded, yet scholarly 21 / 24. It’s a stunning, magical, wonderful game and one of Bruno Faidutti’s best ever! Surely this is already in your collection, right? If not, make it so.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Scream (2022) in Movies
Jan 29, 2022
Ghostface (up until the reveal) (2 more)
The kills
Chemistry between Neve Campbell and Courtney Cox
Terrible killer reveal (2 more)
Rehashes everything from the original film.
Too meta for its own good
Movies Make Psychos More Imitative
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Scream franchise has always been this love letter to the horror genre while simultaneously embracing this self-deprecating demeanor that was meta long before it was the trendy thing for movies to do. All of the films would lay out the rules of a slasher or horror sequel while sometimes following a familiar formula, but often broke the boundaries of the stabby, blood-soaked mold it was proud to pretend to stay within the lines of.
Now, 11 years after Scream 4, Scream not only references its roots it drowns itself in the accomplishments of the previous films. The film is a huge nostalgic throwback to the first films, especially the original and Scream 4. But nearly every new character introduced in the new film is related to someone in a previous Scream film.
The film opens with Ghostface calling and playing a horror trivia game over the phone with some unsuspecting high school girl, the killer is narrowed down to once again be one of a close-knit group of friends, and the finale literally takes place in the house of one of the characters from the first film.
It’s established within Scream’s dialogue that the film isn’t a reboot or a sequel, but a requel. It brings back legacy characters to make way for new blood while staying within a formula that is almost a carbon copy of the original film. The kills are a little different, the technology is modern, and Sidney, Gale, and Dewey are all older, but this all feels too familiar to feel like a refreshing entry in the franchise.
The highlight of the film is obviously Ghostface. Roger L. Jackson, the voice of Ghostface, is the unsung and unseen hero (or villain) of the franchise. He has not only been the voice of Ghostface for all five films, but was also the voice of Ghostface in season three of the television series. We’ll ignore the fact that who the killer turns out to be has a serious height difference in comparison to whoever is running around the rest of the film, but there are some pretty brutal moments here; his leg stomp to Tara in the film’s opening, the knife through the neck scene where we see the blade go through the victim’s throat and out the side to surprisingly satisfactory results, and even a kill on the sidewalk in front of someone’s house in broad daylight.
Ghostface has his most memorable kill while using two knives in the hall of a private floor of a hospital and it’s fantastic. The original film is a personal favorite, but there are several scenes where you can see another and seemingly cheaper and less detailed mask is used (the opening scene where Drew Barrymore gets stabbed on the front lawn comes to mind). There’s none of that in the new film as Ghostface shines in absolutely every sequence until he’s unmasked.
Characters from previous films that were stabbed or shot or both, but were never shown dying on screen were rumored to appear in this film. The most notable being Hayden Penettiere’s Kirby Reed from Scream 4 and Matthew Lillard’s Stu Macher from the original. Unfortunately, the return of either character would have been more interesting than what we ended up with.
Sisters Sam and Tara Carpenter (played by Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega) have an interesting character connection that results in a repeating Tell-Tale Heart motivation that could finally trigger Sam losing her sanity. The twins, Mindy and Chad (played by Jasmin Savoy Brown and Mason Gooding) are arguably the most useful. Next to Jack Quaid’s performance as Richie, Jasmin Savoy Brown may deliver the best performance from the new cast members.
The aspects that make the Scream franchise scary and suspenseful is the fact that Ghostface is just a horror obsessed human much like the people watching the film from the other side of the screen. Before the killer or killers are revealed, everyone is a suspect and Ghostface can be anyone behind the mask. That sense of dread that lies within never feeling safe even around your family and best friends while simultaneously watching them get slaughtered one by one while you helplessly sit on the sidelines are terrifying concepts that would drive anyone crazy in real life.
The killer(s) in Scream are trying to claim the same kind of legacy Billy Loomis and Stu Macher received; the movie franchise based on their killings, the fame, and the notoriety. Scream is a movie formulated around another movie (the 1996 Scream) that has a movie franchise within the movie franchise (Stab) that is constantly referencing itself and other films in the genre all while trying to erase its ugliest moments. It’s exhausting and disappointing at the same time.
Ghostface is my favorite cinematic serial killer and I love the first four films (yes, even Scream 3 and Gale’s terrible bangs) despite their flaws and fluctuating factors of entertainment. I’ll see and support any new Scream film or TV series that comes along because of it. I know this new installment was successful and some enjoyed it, but it is honestly my least favorite in the franchise.
This new film feels like it’s trying too hard to be one of the original Scream films when it should have just been more of its own thing. This is something the film addresses, but originality should always triumph over retreading familiar territory; especially when it seems like its kills are being plunged into the same stab wounds.
Now, 11 years after Scream 4, Scream not only references its roots it drowns itself in the accomplishments of the previous films. The film is a huge nostalgic throwback to the first films, especially the original and Scream 4. But nearly every new character introduced in the new film is related to someone in a previous Scream film.
The film opens with Ghostface calling and playing a horror trivia game over the phone with some unsuspecting high school girl, the killer is narrowed down to once again be one of a close-knit group of friends, and the finale literally takes place in the house of one of the characters from the first film.
It’s established within Scream’s dialogue that the film isn’t a reboot or a sequel, but a requel. It brings back legacy characters to make way for new blood while staying within a formula that is almost a carbon copy of the original film. The kills are a little different, the technology is modern, and Sidney, Gale, and Dewey are all older, but this all feels too familiar to feel like a refreshing entry in the franchise.
The highlight of the film is obviously Ghostface. Roger L. Jackson, the voice of Ghostface, is the unsung and unseen hero (or villain) of the franchise. He has not only been the voice of Ghostface for all five films, but was also the voice of Ghostface in season three of the television series. We’ll ignore the fact that who the killer turns out to be has a serious height difference in comparison to whoever is running around the rest of the film, but there are some pretty brutal moments here; his leg stomp to Tara in the film’s opening, the knife through the neck scene where we see the blade go through the victim’s throat and out the side to surprisingly satisfactory results, and even a kill on the sidewalk in front of someone’s house in broad daylight.
Ghostface has his most memorable kill while using two knives in the hall of a private floor of a hospital and it’s fantastic. The original film is a personal favorite, but there are several scenes where you can see another and seemingly cheaper and less detailed mask is used (the opening scene where Drew Barrymore gets stabbed on the front lawn comes to mind). There’s none of that in the new film as Ghostface shines in absolutely every sequence until he’s unmasked.
Characters from previous films that were stabbed or shot or both, but were never shown dying on screen were rumored to appear in this film. The most notable being Hayden Penettiere’s Kirby Reed from Scream 4 and Matthew Lillard’s Stu Macher from the original. Unfortunately, the return of either character would have been more interesting than what we ended up with.
Sisters Sam and Tara Carpenter (played by Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega) have an interesting character connection that results in a repeating Tell-Tale Heart motivation that could finally trigger Sam losing her sanity. The twins, Mindy and Chad (played by Jasmin Savoy Brown and Mason Gooding) are arguably the most useful. Next to Jack Quaid’s performance as Richie, Jasmin Savoy Brown may deliver the best performance from the new cast members.
The aspects that make the Scream franchise scary and suspenseful is the fact that Ghostface is just a horror obsessed human much like the people watching the film from the other side of the screen. Before the killer or killers are revealed, everyone is a suspect and Ghostface can be anyone behind the mask. That sense of dread that lies within never feeling safe even around your family and best friends while simultaneously watching them get slaughtered one by one while you helplessly sit on the sidelines are terrifying concepts that would drive anyone crazy in real life.
The killer(s) in Scream are trying to claim the same kind of legacy Billy Loomis and Stu Macher received; the movie franchise based on their killings, the fame, and the notoriety. Scream is a movie formulated around another movie (the 1996 Scream) that has a movie franchise within the movie franchise (Stab) that is constantly referencing itself and other films in the genre all while trying to erase its ugliest moments. It’s exhausting and disappointing at the same time.
Ghostface is my favorite cinematic serial killer and I love the first four films (yes, even Scream 3 and Gale’s terrible bangs) despite their flaws and fluctuating factors of entertainment. I’ll see and support any new Scream film or TV series that comes along because of it. I know this new installment was successful and some enjoyed it, but it is honestly my least favorite in the franchise.
This new film feels like it’s trying too hard to be one of the original Scream films when it should have just been more of its own thing. This is something the film addresses, but originality should always triumph over retreading familiar territory; especially when it seems like its kills are being plunged into the same stab wounds.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Similo: Spookies in Tabletop Games
Mar 11, 2022
Anyone who knows my gaming preferences will tell you that I am not at all a fan of many party games. I just find them less that gratifying, with usually little to no skill or strategy involved, and also typically invites lewd and disgusting suggestions and behaviors. No thanks. However, upon seeing many reviewers that I trust showing off their hauls from recent conventions including games from the Similo series, I just had to find out why. Have I been missing out, or is this just another lame excuse for a “party game?”
Similo: Spookies (which I will just call Similo from here on out, as they are all basically the same, but with different themes) is a party card game where one player knows information and attempts to persuade the other players to choose the correct character SILENTLY. One game lasts five rounds or less, and many times players will want to play multiple games in a row.
To setup, shuffle the deck of cards and place it face-down on the table. The player chosen to be the “Clue Giver” will then secretly look at the top card. This card will be the secret character for the entire game. Along with this card, the Clue Giver will draw an additional 11 cards and shuffle them. Next, lay out the 12 characters face-up in a 4×3 grid, so that all players can see. Finally, the Clue Giver draws another five cards to act as their starting hand of clues. The game may now begin in earnest!
The game lasts no more than five rounds, and each round is played mostly the same. During the first round the Clue Giver will place a card from their hand onto the table in either Portrait or Landscape mode (I know there are different words to describe these orientations, but they are failing me now). When a card is in Portrait mode, the Clue Giver is letting the players know that the secret character has similarities to the played card. Landscape placement means that the secret character has differences from the card played.
At the end of the first round, the other players must discuss and decide one card from the grid to remove from play, based on the Clue Giver’s information. If the card removed is the secret character (or at any time the secret character is removed in this way) the players all immediately lose the game. However, if the players have removed an appropriate character card, then the game moves to the second round. Each subsequent round is played exactly the same way, except the number of cards removed will match the round number being played. For example, during the third round three cards will be removed. The only exception here is the very last fifth round. During this round there will only be two cards remaining, and the players will need to choose the correct one to win the game. Win or lose, all players will most likely request to play another game with a different Clue Giver.
Components. This game is 30 cards in a tuckbox. The cards are all great quality with excellent linen finish. They each have the character’s name on the upper left corner and a small thematic quip on the lower right corner. The big thing here is the utterly amazing character art by Naiade (Seasons, Tokaido, Isla Dorada, etc). They are each so wonderfully illustrated, and they have to be, considering the entire game is based on the similarity or differences of each card. I was so very pleasantly surprised to see this beautiful set of cards pop out of the box when I opened it. Zero issues with components here.
This game is low-key a thinking person’s puzzle. How can I get the group to exclude one card specifically and throw away all the others? What the heck is this Clue Giver trying to tell us? What exactly is an Oni? With the right group of gamers, especially those that share many inside jokes and experiences, this could be a nightly hit. Now, determining the difference between Frankenstein’s Monster and a Zombie may be harder than you thought, so do be careful with those technicalities.
This one really reminds me of a much more compact version of Deception: Murder in Hong Kong. There is a silent Clue Giver in both trying to guide the other players to the right answer using cards. If I can get the same feeling from a game featuring 30 cards versus about 300 I might have a replacement situation on my hands here.
For its tiny table presence, excellent artwork, and overall game play, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a bone-chilling 4 / 6. I know at this very second that my score is hanging in the balance. I want it to be a 5 so very badly, and I feel that it may actually get there, assuming I can play with larger groups of people and a variety of types of gamers. For now, I am happy with the 4 it is assigned. If you are like me and didn’t know you needed a smaller game in your collection that can give similo experiences to bigger boxes, give this one a shot.
Oh PS – You can also combine the different sets into a larger and more chaotic game. I’m not sure I have the huevos for that quite yet, but I think a good counterpart to this Halloween-themed set may be the Fables or Myths sets. Let me know if you have combined these two and if my hunch is correct. I’m going to go fanboy over Naiade’s art now.
Similo: Spookies (which I will just call Similo from here on out, as they are all basically the same, but with different themes) is a party card game where one player knows information and attempts to persuade the other players to choose the correct character SILENTLY. One game lasts five rounds or less, and many times players will want to play multiple games in a row.
To setup, shuffle the deck of cards and place it face-down on the table. The player chosen to be the “Clue Giver” will then secretly look at the top card. This card will be the secret character for the entire game. Along with this card, the Clue Giver will draw an additional 11 cards and shuffle them. Next, lay out the 12 characters face-up in a 4×3 grid, so that all players can see. Finally, the Clue Giver draws another five cards to act as their starting hand of clues. The game may now begin in earnest!
The game lasts no more than five rounds, and each round is played mostly the same. During the first round the Clue Giver will place a card from their hand onto the table in either Portrait or Landscape mode (I know there are different words to describe these orientations, but they are failing me now). When a card is in Portrait mode, the Clue Giver is letting the players know that the secret character has similarities to the played card. Landscape placement means that the secret character has differences from the card played.
At the end of the first round, the other players must discuss and decide one card from the grid to remove from play, based on the Clue Giver’s information. If the card removed is the secret character (or at any time the secret character is removed in this way) the players all immediately lose the game. However, if the players have removed an appropriate character card, then the game moves to the second round. Each subsequent round is played exactly the same way, except the number of cards removed will match the round number being played. For example, during the third round three cards will be removed. The only exception here is the very last fifth round. During this round there will only be two cards remaining, and the players will need to choose the correct one to win the game. Win or lose, all players will most likely request to play another game with a different Clue Giver.
Components. This game is 30 cards in a tuckbox. The cards are all great quality with excellent linen finish. They each have the character’s name on the upper left corner and a small thematic quip on the lower right corner. The big thing here is the utterly amazing character art by Naiade (Seasons, Tokaido, Isla Dorada, etc). They are each so wonderfully illustrated, and they have to be, considering the entire game is based on the similarity or differences of each card. I was so very pleasantly surprised to see this beautiful set of cards pop out of the box when I opened it. Zero issues with components here.
This game is low-key a thinking person’s puzzle. How can I get the group to exclude one card specifically and throw away all the others? What the heck is this Clue Giver trying to tell us? What exactly is an Oni? With the right group of gamers, especially those that share many inside jokes and experiences, this could be a nightly hit. Now, determining the difference between Frankenstein’s Monster and a Zombie may be harder than you thought, so do be careful with those technicalities.
This one really reminds me of a much more compact version of Deception: Murder in Hong Kong. There is a silent Clue Giver in both trying to guide the other players to the right answer using cards. If I can get the same feeling from a game featuring 30 cards versus about 300 I might have a replacement situation on my hands here.
For its tiny table presence, excellent artwork, and overall game play, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a bone-chilling 4 / 6. I know at this very second that my score is hanging in the balance. I want it to be a 5 so very badly, and I feel that it may actually get there, assuming I can play with larger groups of people and a variety of types of gamers. For now, I am happy with the 4 it is assigned. If you are like me and didn’t know you needed a smaller game in your collection that can give similo experiences to bigger boxes, give this one a shot.
Oh PS – You can also combine the different sets into a larger and more chaotic game. I’m not sure I have the huevos for that quite yet, but I think a good counterpart to this Halloween-themed set may be the Fables or Myths sets. Let me know if you have combined these two and if my hunch is correct. I’m going to go fanboy over Naiade’s art now.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Arctic Scavengers 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!
Welcome to the Ice Age. No, not the animated movie. I’m talking about the real deal. Arctic Scavengers is set in a post-apocalyptic ice age where the cold is deadly and the resources are scarce. Any surviving humans have banded together to form ‘tribes’ that are competing for dominance in this frigid tundra. Can you and your tribe outwit your competitors to become the most powerful group? Or will a bigger and more menacing tribe overpower you and jeopardize your survival?
Disclaimer: The solo variant is only addressed in the Recon Expansion rules. There IS another expansion – HQ – but I have not used that content in my solo plays. This review only encompasses the Base Game and Recon Expansion.
Arctic Scavengers is a deck-building game where players are recruiting mercenaries to their tribes, searching for general resources, and battling other tribes for contested resources. Each turn has two main phases – Resource Gathering and Skirmish. During Resource Gathering, you play cards from your hand to either recruit new mercenaries or search the junkyard for general resources. Any remaining cards in your hand are then used during the Skirmish phase – where the player with the highest ‘fight’ value wins the contested resource for that round. At the end of the game, the player with the biggest tribe wins!
The solo variant has some minor differences, but is played essentially the same way. In a solo game, the contested resource cards are divided into 7 skirmishes to be encountered throughout the game. You can decide when to engage in a skirmish – it is not a requirement to encounter one each turn. After each skirmish, you either win and earn a contested resource, or lose and must permanently discard a card from your losing hand. The game ends when all 7 skirmishes have been encountered. The other difference is that each time you have to re-shuffle your discard pile, you must permanently remove the top card of your new deck from the game. Beyond those changes, the game remains the same. At the end of the game, all cards in your tribe are worth certain numbers of points – the goal is to beat your own personal best score.
In theory, this game sounds super cool! But when I actually got to play it solo, I was seriously underwhelmed. The game feels stagnant in the sense that there is no tension or urgency in your strategy. Since YOU get to decide when to engage in a skirmish, it is possible to just while away the time building up your deck until you have enough cards to beat every skirmish. Yes, you permanently discard a card each time you re-shuffle your discard pile, but if you are able to recruit one or two new cards each turn, it negates the penalty of discarding a card. The ability to choose when to engage in skirmishes is seriously over-powered because there is nothing stopping you from ignoring skirmishes and amassing cards for end-game scoring.
The other grievance I have with the game is regarding the Junkyard – the deck of cards where you ‘search’ for resources. The solo rules do not explicitly address setting up the Junkyard deck at all. So do you use one or not? Not having the Junkyard deck can be a serious hinderance – certain mercenaries cannot be recruited without certain resources. If you DO play with the Junkyard, how many cards do you use? Do you use the corresponding cards from the Base game and BOTH expansions? Only Base game and one expansion? Again, not explicitly addressed. I’ve tried using all of the Junkyard cards and that is difficult – there are just too many cards in that deck. I have gone entire games without coming across a necessary resource just because the size of the deck is too large (and I’m apparently a poor card-shuffler). The simple solution to this ambiguity would have been to just address it in the rulebook. But it’s not there, so I’m left guessing as to how I should set it up every time.
I really like the idea of this game. I really don’t like the solo variant though. Not having forced skirmishes makes the game extremely boring for me – I don’t really need a strategy since I can just recruit cards until I can draw a powerful hand. If there was a timeline for skirmishes – maybe something like “You must encounter one skirmish every other turn” – the game would be vastly different. I would actually need to strategize what cards to recruit and how I should delegate my cards on turns with a skirmish. In most games, I will reach a certain point where I choose to encounter a skirmish (that I know I will lose) just because I am starting to get bored. I appreciate the sentiment of including a solo variant, but this one just does not work.
Arctic Scavengers requires decent strategy and it offers good player interaction in group games. In a solo game, however, it is just imbalanced and boring. This is one solo variant that I would not recommend that you try, unless you are including drastic house rules.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/06/solo-chronicles-arctic-scavengers/
Welcome to the Ice Age. No, not the animated movie. I’m talking about the real deal. Arctic Scavengers is set in a post-apocalyptic ice age where the cold is deadly and the resources are scarce. Any surviving humans have banded together to form ‘tribes’ that are competing for dominance in this frigid tundra. Can you and your tribe outwit your competitors to become the most powerful group? Or will a bigger and more menacing tribe overpower you and jeopardize your survival?
Disclaimer: The solo variant is only addressed in the Recon Expansion rules. There IS another expansion – HQ – but I have not used that content in my solo plays. This review only encompasses the Base Game and Recon Expansion.
Arctic Scavengers is a deck-building game where players are recruiting mercenaries to their tribes, searching for general resources, and battling other tribes for contested resources. Each turn has two main phases – Resource Gathering and Skirmish. During Resource Gathering, you play cards from your hand to either recruit new mercenaries or search the junkyard for general resources. Any remaining cards in your hand are then used during the Skirmish phase – where the player with the highest ‘fight’ value wins the contested resource for that round. At the end of the game, the player with the biggest tribe wins!
The solo variant has some minor differences, but is played essentially the same way. In a solo game, the contested resource cards are divided into 7 skirmishes to be encountered throughout the game. You can decide when to engage in a skirmish – it is not a requirement to encounter one each turn. After each skirmish, you either win and earn a contested resource, or lose and must permanently discard a card from your losing hand. The game ends when all 7 skirmishes have been encountered. The other difference is that each time you have to re-shuffle your discard pile, you must permanently remove the top card of your new deck from the game. Beyond those changes, the game remains the same. At the end of the game, all cards in your tribe are worth certain numbers of points – the goal is to beat your own personal best score.
In theory, this game sounds super cool! But when I actually got to play it solo, I was seriously underwhelmed. The game feels stagnant in the sense that there is no tension or urgency in your strategy. Since YOU get to decide when to engage in a skirmish, it is possible to just while away the time building up your deck until you have enough cards to beat every skirmish. Yes, you permanently discard a card each time you re-shuffle your discard pile, but if you are able to recruit one or two new cards each turn, it negates the penalty of discarding a card. The ability to choose when to engage in skirmishes is seriously over-powered because there is nothing stopping you from ignoring skirmishes and amassing cards for end-game scoring.
The other grievance I have with the game is regarding the Junkyard – the deck of cards where you ‘search’ for resources. The solo rules do not explicitly address setting up the Junkyard deck at all. So do you use one or not? Not having the Junkyard deck can be a serious hinderance – certain mercenaries cannot be recruited without certain resources. If you DO play with the Junkyard, how many cards do you use? Do you use the corresponding cards from the Base game and BOTH expansions? Only Base game and one expansion? Again, not explicitly addressed. I’ve tried using all of the Junkyard cards and that is difficult – there are just too many cards in that deck. I have gone entire games without coming across a necessary resource just because the size of the deck is too large (and I’m apparently a poor card-shuffler). The simple solution to this ambiguity would have been to just address it in the rulebook. But it’s not there, so I’m left guessing as to how I should set it up every time.
I really like the idea of this game. I really don’t like the solo variant though. Not having forced skirmishes makes the game extremely boring for me – I don’t really need a strategy since I can just recruit cards until I can draw a powerful hand. If there was a timeline for skirmishes – maybe something like “You must encounter one skirmish every other turn” – the game would be vastly different. I would actually need to strategize what cards to recruit and how I should delegate my cards on turns with a skirmish. In most games, I will reach a certain point where I choose to encounter a skirmish (that I know I will lose) just because I am starting to get bored. I appreciate the sentiment of including a solo variant, but this one just does not work.
Arctic Scavengers requires decent strategy and it offers good player interaction in group games. In a solo game, however, it is just imbalanced and boring. This is one solo variant that I would not recommend that you try, unless you are including drastic house rules.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/06/solo-chronicles-arctic-scavengers/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Klang in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
Klang is a Rhythm/Platformer game and it’s the debut of the developer studio called Tinimations. The environments, visuals, story and gameplay aspects were done by one person named Tom-Ivar Arntzen while the music was done by the EDM composer bLiNd.
The Story:
The premise here is very simple. You assume the role of a tuneblade-wielding elite rave warrior called Klang who wants to free himself from the shackles of a Zeus-like figure named Soundlord Sonus. And so the game begins. There is barely any Story here and it isn’t the focus of the game and it doesn’t contribute to the game whatsoever and if the story is removed entirely, you will barely notice any difference. So if you are the type who plays a game for the story in it or a game that is accompanied by a good premise, then this game isn’t for you. The game focuses mostly on its gameplay aspects.
The Visuals:
The visuals of the game look very beautiful with its Tron-inspired aesthetics. Klang’s design is colorful and stylish. The environment looked gorgeous with all the vibrant neon colors popping out on the screen while you’re playing but on rare occasions, they can be distracting and a bit too much when there are so many things happening at once.
The Sound:
This is one of those games that are worth buying a quality headset or a subwoofer for because the sound design is excellent and the composer bLiNd did a marvelous job with it. Listening to the music with a normal headset or your TV’s sound system doesn’t do it justice. And the way the music and the beat sync with what’s on screen are perfect. The soundtrack is most definitely the best aspect of the game.
The gameplay:
The game mechanics tries to blend rhythm game mechanics and platform game mechanics into one game. That means instead of only pressing buttons that appears on the screen like you normally do in Rhythm games, you also have to traverse the levels by jumping and sliding while pressing the buttons in order to get through the stage.
The controls are fairly simple. Like most 2D games, you use the left thumbstick to move the character left and right and you use the Right thumbstick in one of the eight directions when the icon that looks like a slice of Pizza appears on the screen in one of those eight directions to deflect the incoming attacks. And you use LT to jump and RT to slide throughout the levels.
While blending those game mechanics works very well on most stages, they can also be overwhelming and frustrating at times. For instance, there is a place where you have to dodge lasers by jumping between 5 platforms that falls when the lasers make contact with them (They come back up after a few seconds) so you will have to jump left and right fast and all that combined with rhythm gameplay. It gets very confusing because there are so many things happening at once on the screen and you don’t know whether you should focus on deflecting the attacks or focus on the lasers. One mistake and you are dead so that made it a bit frustrating and annoying instead of challenging. There is a thin line between a game that put your skills to the test and a game that simply frustrates you to cover its flaws.
Unfortunately, I felt like this is the latter because the game itself is very short and if I hadn’t died in the game over 300 times, it would have lasted me an hour. So I felt like the difficulty spike was there just to mask the game’s short length which brings me to the final point in the review.
Difficulty, Length and Replay Value:
The game has three difficulty levels. Easy, Normal and Nightcore Mode. The higher the difficulty, the higher rank you can achieve when you finish a stage. On Easy mode, B Rank is the max possible rank, Normal mode, S Rank is the max possible rank and on Nightcore Mode, SSS Rank is the max possible rank. Also the higher the difficulty, the faster the game music sounds, and the faster the button prompts on screen moves
I started the game on Normal mode it took me 3 hours and 311 deaths to finish. Once you finish the game for the first time, you unlock the hardest mode in the game which is called NightCore mode where everything moves so fast and that includes the music.
In terms of Replay Value, there isn’t much to do after you finish all the stages except for collecting Pirate Tokens which are the in-game collectables that allow you to unlock the game’s Soundtrack in a special level where you can hear them without replaying the other levels just to hear that awesome track.
And you can also replay the game on Nightcore mode if you want to get the highest rank possible in the game. And if you are the Achievement Hunter type then you will find that getting all the achievements will be very time consuming. For instance, there is an achievement that requires you not to die even once throughout the whole game and that is excruciatingly difficult. So, if you are a completionist, then the game will last you for quite a while.
But if you are not, then you won’t find much to do here after you finish its short story mode because it doesn’t have much to offer after that.
Conclusion:
Klang is a great game but its short amount of content and sometimes overwhelmingly difficult levels can put you off. So for that, I give Klang 4/5. Great concept but if the gameplay was more fun and rewarding, and it had more content and unlockables, it would have been a superb game. And I give the developer Tom-Ivar Arntzen SSS for effort and for trying to innovate and do something new with the genre and I am definitely interested to see what he is going to do next.
http://sknr.net/2016/09/23/klang/
The Story:
The premise here is very simple. You assume the role of a tuneblade-wielding elite rave warrior called Klang who wants to free himself from the shackles of a Zeus-like figure named Soundlord Sonus. And so the game begins. There is barely any Story here and it isn’t the focus of the game and it doesn’t contribute to the game whatsoever and if the story is removed entirely, you will barely notice any difference. So if you are the type who plays a game for the story in it or a game that is accompanied by a good premise, then this game isn’t for you. The game focuses mostly on its gameplay aspects.
The Visuals:
The visuals of the game look very beautiful with its Tron-inspired aesthetics. Klang’s design is colorful and stylish. The environment looked gorgeous with all the vibrant neon colors popping out on the screen while you’re playing but on rare occasions, they can be distracting and a bit too much when there are so many things happening at once.
The Sound:
This is one of those games that are worth buying a quality headset or a subwoofer for because the sound design is excellent and the composer bLiNd did a marvelous job with it. Listening to the music with a normal headset or your TV’s sound system doesn’t do it justice. And the way the music and the beat sync with what’s on screen are perfect. The soundtrack is most definitely the best aspect of the game.
The gameplay:
The game mechanics tries to blend rhythm game mechanics and platform game mechanics into one game. That means instead of only pressing buttons that appears on the screen like you normally do in Rhythm games, you also have to traverse the levels by jumping and sliding while pressing the buttons in order to get through the stage.
The controls are fairly simple. Like most 2D games, you use the left thumbstick to move the character left and right and you use the Right thumbstick in one of the eight directions when the icon that looks like a slice of Pizza appears on the screen in one of those eight directions to deflect the incoming attacks. And you use LT to jump and RT to slide throughout the levels.
While blending those game mechanics works very well on most stages, they can also be overwhelming and frustrating at times. For instance, there is a place where you have to dodge lasers by jumping between 5 platforms that falls when the lasers make contact with them (They come back up after a few seconds) so you will have to jump left and right fast and all that combined with rhythm gameplay. It gets very confusing because there are so many things happening at once on the screen and you don’t know whether you should focus on deflecting the attacks or focus on the lasers. One mistake and you are dead so that made it a bit frustrating and annoying instead of challenging. There is a thin line between a game that put your skills to the test and a game that simply frustrates you to cover its flaws.
Unfortunately, I felt like this is the latter because the game itself is very short and if I hadn’t died in the game over 300 times, it would have lasted me an hour. So I felt like the difficulty spike was there just to mask the game’s short length which brings me to the final point in the review.
Difficulty, Length and Replay Value:
The game has three difficulty levels. Easy, Normal and Nightcore Mode. The higher the difficulty, the higher rank you can achieve when you finish a stage. On Easy mode, B Rank is the max possible rank, Normal mode, S Rank is the max possible rank and on Nightcore Mode, SSS Rank is the max possible rank. Also the higher the difficulty, the faster the game music sounds, and the faster the button prompts on screen moves
I started the game on Normal mode it took me 3 hours and 311 deaths to finish. Once you finish the game for the first time, you unlock the hardest mode in the game which is called NightCore mode where everything moves so fast and that includes the music.
In terms of Replay Value, there isn’t much to do after you finish all the stages except for collecting Pirate Tokens which are the in-game collectables that allow you to unlock the game’s Soundtrack in a special level where you can hear them without replaying the other levels just to hear that awesome track.
And you can also replay the game on Nightcore mode if you want to get the highest rank possible in the game. And if you are the Achievement Hunter type then you will find that getting all the achievements will be very time consuming. For instance, there is an achievement that requires you not to die even once throughout the whole game and that is excruciatingly difficult. So, if you are a completionist, then the game will last you for quite a while.
But if you are not, then you won’t find much to do here after you finish its short story mode because it doesn’t have much to offer after that.
Conclusion:
Klang is a great game but its short amount of content and sometimes overwhelmingly difficult levels can put you off. So for that, I give Klang 4/5. Great concept but if the gameplay was more fun and rewarding, and it had more content and unlockables, it would have been a superb game. And I give the developer Tom-Ivar Arntzen SSS for effort and for trying to innovate and do something new with the genre and I am definitely interested to see what he is going to do next.
http://sknr.net/2016/09/23/klang/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra in Tabletop Games
Oct 15, 2019
Sometimes, finding a game that the entire group loves can be extremely difficult. Such was not the case when Purple Phoenix Games played Azul. We immediately fell in love with it, as you can see by its well-earned Golden Feather Award. So when Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra was released, we knew we had to try it! A reimplementation of a game we all loved – we were so stoked to get it to the table. How does this ‘sequel’ hold up to the OG Azul? Keep reading to find out!
For many years you have worked as a tile layer, creating uniquely beautiful mosaics that adorn walls all around the world. Taking your expert skills, you’ve decided to hone your talent into a new form of mosaic decoration – stained glass windows. Select the most colorful glass combinations to create elaborate and beautiful designs, all while being careful not to waste or break any of your supplies in the process! Years of tile-laying have resulted in a steady hand, but glass is a different story. Does your talent and eye for design transcend materials, or are you better left to your familiar ceramic tiles?
Disclaimer: I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook in this review. I will briefly go over the turn order, but will leave the specifics for you to discover in the rulebook! – L
Like Azul, Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra is a game of pattern building, set collection, and tile placement. To set up, each player receives a palace board, 8 double-sided pattern strips, and glazier (pawn) in their chosen color. All players need to select the same side, A or B, for their palace boards, but the pattern strips can be placed with either side face-up. Place your glazier above the left-most pattern strip, and you are ready to go! The designated score-keeper sets up the score board – placing each players’ scoring cube on the score track and broken glass track, as well as randomly placing 1 tile of each color on the round tracker. Much like OG Azul, a certain number of factories are in play, each populated with 4 pane tiles. Now the game can begin!
On your turn, you may do one of two things – Advance a pattern, or Move your glazier to the left-most pattern strip. If you choose to advance a pattern, you complete these three steps: Select pane pieces of one color from a factory or the middle of the table, place the pieces on one of your pattern strips, and check to see if the pattern is complete. Easy enough! There are a few placement restrictions to keep in mind, and they are detailed in the rulebook. Moving on, after placing your tiles, if the pattern strip is not yet full, your turn is over and play continues with the next player. If you have successfully filled the entire pattern strip, you get to immediately score that window, and then your turn ends. Specific steps for scoring are found in the rulebook. The other action available to you on your turn is to move your glazier back to the left-most pattern strip. Once you do this, your turn is over. Play continues over six rounds, and the player at the end of the game with the most points is the winner!
So how does Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra hold up? I think it’s a pretty great game. It’s very mechanically and thematically similar to the original Azul, but there is enough of a difference in gameplay that keeps it interesting. It doesn’t just feel like the exact same game to me, even if there are many similarities between the two. There definitely is a good amount of strategy involved, and I think the addition of the glazier (which can sorta restrict your placement options) adds a new level of complexity to the game. Do you dare ‘waste’ a turn to reset your glazier, or do you risk the points and try to complete your current pattern strip?
Another great thing about this game is the variability of it. Each player receives 8 double-sided pattern strips to begin the game. The strips can be placed with whichever face up or down that you want. So no two players will ever have the same setup, just as you will probably never have the same setup yourself between plays. One wrong placement could maybe end up costing you the game! There is no ‘right’ setup, and the fact that everyone’s setup will be different makes the game a little more unique.
Of course, the components are great and the tiles are so much fun to handle. Unlike OG Azul, these tiles are semi-transparent and crystalline, giving them the semblance of actual glass. The pattern strips/palace boards are good, sturdy cardboard, and can definitely withstand the amount of manipulation they see each game. My one qualm is with the score tracker. Instead of moving linearly, the score tracker moves kind of zig-zag-y around the board, and it takes me a minute sometimes to read the points and move my marker quickly because my eyes have to figure out the score line. Yeah, it looks cool, but its just a little inconvenient for me while playing.
Overall, I think Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra is a great ‘sequel’ to Azul. It feels familiar in mechanics and theme, but different enough in overall gameplay that I think it is a good stand-alone reimplementation. And guess what? Another Azul game is in the works! Titled Azul: Summer Pavilion, it is yet another game of tile drafting/placement and set collection. Since I have high praise for Stained Glass of Sintra, I am definitely looking forward to this newest version of Azul, coming soon! Purple Phoenix Games gives Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra, a colorful 9 / 12.
For many years you have worked as a tile layer, creating uniquely beautiful mosaics that adorn walls all around the world. Taking your expert skills, you’ve decided to hone your talent into a new form of mosaic decoration – stained glass windows. Select the most colorful glass combinations to create elaborate and beautiful designs, all while being careful not to waste or break any of your supplies in the process! Years of tile-laying have resulted in a steady hand, but glass is a different story. Does your talent and eye for design transcend materials, or are you better left to your familiar ceramic tiles?
Disclaimer: I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook in this review. I will briefly go over the turn order, but will leave the specifics for you to discover in the rulebook! – L
Like Azul, Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra is a game of pattern building, set collection, and tile placement. To set up, each player receives a palace board, 8 double-sided pattern strips, and glazier (pawn) in their chosen color. All players need to select the same side, A or B, for their palace boards, but the pattern strips can be placed with either side face-up. Place your glazier above the left-most pattern strip, and you are ready to go! The designated score-keeper sets up the score board – placing each players’ scoring cube on the score track and broken glass track, as well as randomly placing 1 tile of each color on the round tracker. Much like OG Azul, a certain number of factories are in play, each populated with 4 pane tiles. Now the game can begin!
On your turn, you may do one of two things – Advance a pattern, or Move your glazier to the left-most pattern strip. If you choose to advance a pattern, you complete these three steps: Select pane pieces of one color from a factory or the middle of the table, place the pieces on one of your pattern strips, and check to see if the pattern is complete. Easy enough! There are a few placement restrictions to keep in mind, and they are detailed in the rulebook. Moving on, after placing your tiles, if the pattern strip is not yet full, your turn is over and play continues with the next player. If you have successfully filled the entire pattern strip, you get to immediately score that window, and then your turn ends. Specific steps for scoring are found in the rulebook. The other action available to you on your turn is to move your glazier back to the left-most pattern strip. Once you do this, your turn is over. Play continues over six rounds, and the player at the end of the game with the most points is the winner!
So how does Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra hold up? I think it’s a pretty great game. It’s very mechanically and thematically similar to the original Azul, but there is enough of a difference in gameplay that keeps it interesting. It doesn’t just feel like the exact same game to me, even if there are many similarities between the two. There definitely is a good amount of strategy involved, and I think the addition of the glazier (which can sorta restrict your placement options) adds a new level of complexity to the game. Do you dare ‘waste’ a turn to reset your glazier, or do you risk the points and try to complete your current pattern strip?
Another great thing about this game is the variability of it. Each player receives 8 double-sided pattern strips to begin the game. The strips can be placed with whichever face up or down that you want. So no two players will ever have the same setup, just as you will probably never have the same setup yourself between plays. One wrong placement could maybe end up costing you the game! There is no ‘right’ setup, and the fact that everyone’s setup will be different makes the game a little more unique.
Of course, the components are great and the tiles are so much fun to handle. Unlike OG Azul, these tiles are semi-transparent and crystalline, giving them the semblance of actual glass. The pattern strips/palace boards are good, sturdy cardboard, and can definitely withstand the amount of manipulation they see each game. My one qualm is with the score tracker. Instead of moving linearly, the score tracker moves kind of zig-zag-y around the board, and it takes me a minute sometimes to read the points and move my marker quickly because my eyes have to figure out the score line. Yeah, it looks cool, but its just a little inconvenient for me while playing.
Overall, I think Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra is a great ‘sequel’ to Azul. It feels familiar in mechanics and theme, but different enough in overall gameplay that I think it is a good stand-alone reimplementation. And guess what? Another Azul game is in the works! Titled Azul: Summer Pavilion, it is yet another game of tile drafting/placement and set collection. Since I have high praise for Stained Glass of Sintra, I am definitely looking forward to this newest version of Azul, coming soon! Purple Phoenix Games gives Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra, a colorful 9 / 12.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Dredd (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The mid 90’s was a strange time for movies. Sure, there were quite a few remembered fondly (just like with any era) but there were also many movies that are forgotten due to their ridiculousness. It was a time that gave us the style of adaptions on par with Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection, or the two Joel Schumacher Batman films. Likewise, there was a Judge Dredd film right in the middle of that time period.
It was a mess. It exemplified everything wrong with many adaptions in the 90’s. Big name actors, over-the-top designs, cheesy dialogue. It tried very hard to be akin to the original Total Recall but instead succeeded at only being a movie fun to laugh at. It featured Sylvester Stallone and Rob Schneider. That is all that needs to be said about that film. So, when Hollywood comes along and decides to make a new adaption, of course the original’s ridiculousness looms over the whole affair. Not helping is the fact that most of the cast and crew are relatively obscure, and its source material (the Judge Dredd comics) is not as well-known as most of Marvel’s or DC’s pantheon. Yet, this brand new adaption, Dredd 3D, soars much higher than the original and manages to be one of those well-hidden gems of Fall 2012. I don’t imagine this film breaking box office records, but it is a wholly worthwhile piece of screen entertainment, even if it has some notable flaws and is overshadowed by past outings in the franchise.
The future America is an irradiated waste land known as the Cursed Earth. On the east coast of North America lies Mega-City One, a vast, violent metropolis containing 800 million residents, where 17,000 crimes are reported daily and “Slo-Mo”, an addictive new drug that slows the user’s perception of time, has been introduced. The only force of order is the Judges, who act as police, judge, jury and executioner. Judge Dredd (Karl Urban) is tasked by the Chief Judge (Rakie Ayola) with evaluating rookie Judge Cassandra Anderson (Olivia Thirlby), a psychic who has failed the tests to become a full Judge. They become involved in a raid upon a crime and Slo-Mo ridden apartment complex known as Peach-Trees, which is ruled by a vicious crime boss Ma-Ma (Lena Heady).
You can guess from the title that the movie is meant to be watched in 3D. But that is where personal opinions of 3D come into play. For me personally, I cannot ding the film’s use of 3D because it uses it well enough that it becomes unnoticeable, which is to say it does not obnoxiously remind you at all times it is meant to be watched in 3D by throwing random things at the camera. But I will say that, although somewhat gimmicky, the “Slo-Mo” segments (which are shot from the perspective of those on the mind-altering drug ‘Slo-Mo’) do use 3D very well and manage to be some of the most visually striking and beautiful shots in the entire film.
The plot is simple to understand and straight forward. There are not huge twists and turns, and manages to be tightly written. It is not extremely memorable for plot standards, but it does not need to be. The story is held up by focusing on three major characters, which some good additional characterization of two more side characters. In that sense, the plot and characters do not pop off the screen into greatness, yet they are still tightly written enough that both elements (plot and characters) are not muddled or confusing. The simple plot, and the fact it all takes place in one apartment complex, makes it easier to focus on action and visuals.
While the visuals are all extremely well-done, the action could use some work. The setting of Mega-City One is extremely well established, as opposed to the original Judge Dredd adaption. It seems like it could be a real place not far off in the future, as it is set up with a realistic visual design – just with added grittiness and subtle science fictional elements. Also, there is not a huge amount of CG and the Judge uniforms especially look like iconic yet possibly realistic futuristic police suits. But the action could use some work, as stated. I could not help but constantly compare it to the recently released film, “The Raid: Redeption”, the Indonesian martial arts police film centering on a single police raid on an apartment complex. The similarities are there.
Both movies have very similar locations and plots, but the difference is that while Dredd has more interesting setting and science fiction elements (and arguably more interesting characters), The Raid: Redemption’s action is far more entertaining and engrossing. The real problem with Dredd is that there are never any real amazing feats of heroics on part of Judge Dredd. They set up the film in a sort of “’Die Hard’ in the future vibe” but that requires the hero to barely overcome overwhelming odds. As it stands, it never really feels like Judge Dredd is in a ton of danger. There are some cool shooting moments, and some even more interesting usage of Judge Anderson’s psychic powers. But at the end of the day, there simply are not many memorable action moments.
Overall, it does not ruin the film at all. It still manages to be an entertaining and interesting movie regardless of memorable action sequences. It has a tightly plotted narrative with fairly well done characters, not muddled by overuse of complexity or plot twists. It manages to be visually excellent with interesting science fictional elements, but never does it soar with its action set-pieces. It would have benefitted with some better use of gunplay or more clever feats of heroics on Judge Dredd’s part. But at least it takes itself seriously enough to not have anything akin to Rob Schneider following Sylvester Stallone around in a cheesy script.
It was a mess. It exemplified everything wrong with many adaptions in the 90’s. Big name actors, over-the-top designs, cheesy dialogue. It tried very hard to be akin to the original Total Recall but instead succeeded at only being a movie fun to laugh at. It featured Sylvester Stallone and Rob Schneider. That is all that needs to be said about that film. So, when Hollywood comes along and decides to make a new adaption, of course the original’s ridiculousness looms over the whole affair. Not helping is the fact that most of the cast and crew are relatively obscure, and its source material (the Judge Dredd comics) is not as well-known as most of Marvel’s or DC’s pantheon. Yet, this brand new adaption, Dredd 3D, soars much higher than the original and manages to be one of those well-hidden gems of Fall 2012. I don’t imagine this film breaking box office records, but it is a wholly worthwhile piece of screen entertainment, even if it has some notable flaws and is overshadowed by past outings in the franchise.
The future America is an irradiated waste land known as the Cursed Earth. On the east coast of North America lies Mega-City One, a vast, violent metropolis containing 800 million residents, where 17,000 crimes are reported daily and “Slo-Mo”, an addictive new drug that slows the user’s perception of time, has been introduced. The only force of order is the Judges, who act as police, judge, jury and executioner. Judge Dredd (Karl Urban) is tasked by the Chief Judge (Rakie Ayola) with evaluating rookie Judge Cassandra Anderson (Olivia Thirlby), a psychic who has failed the tests to become a full Judge. They become involved in a raid upon a crime and Slo-Mo ridden apartment complex known as Peach-Trees, which is ruled by a vicious crime boss Ma-Ma (Lena Heady).
You can guess from the title that the movie is meant to be watched in 3D. But that is where personal opinions of 3D come into play. For me personally, I cannot ding the film’s use of 3D because it uses it well enough that it becomes unnoticeable, which is to say it does not obnoxiously remind you at all times it is meant to be watched in 3D by throwing random things at the camera. But I will say that, although somewhat gimmicky, the “Slo-Mo” segments (which are shot from the perspective of those on the mind-altering drug ‘Slo-Mo’) do use 3D very well and manage to be some of the most visually striking and beautiful shots in the entire film.
The plot is simple to understand and straight forward. There are not huge twists and turns, and manages to be tightly written. It is not extremely memorable for plot standards, but it does not need to be. The story is held up by focusing on three major characters, which some good additional characterization of two more side characters. In that sense, the plot and characters do not pop off the screen into greatness, yet they are still tightly written enough that both elements (plot and characters) are not muddled or confusing. The simple plot, and the fact it all takes place in one apartment complex, makes it easier to focus on action and visuals.
While the visuals are all extremely well-done, the action could use some work. The setting of Mega-City One is extremely well established, as opposed to the original Judge Dredd adaption. It seems like it could be a real place not far off in the future, as it is set up with a realistic visual design – just with added grittiness and subtle science fictional elements. Also, there is not a huge amount of CG and the Judge uniforms especially look like iconic yet possibly realistic futuristic police suits. But the action could use some work, as stated. I could not help but constantly compare it to the recently released film, “The Raid: Redeption”, the Indonesian martial arts police film centering on a single police raid on an apartment complex. The similarities are there.
Both movies have very similar locations and plots, but the difference is that while Dredd has more interesting setting and science fiction elements (and arguably more interesting characters), The Raid: Redemption’s action is far more entertaining and engrossing. The real problem with Dredd is that there are never any real amazing feats of heroics on part of Judge Dredd. They set up the film in a sort of “’Die Hard’ in the future vibe” but that requires the hero to barely overcome overwhelming odds. As it stands, it never really feels like Judge Dredd is in a ton of danger. There are some cool shooting moments, and some even more interesting usage of Judge Anderson’s psychic powers. But at the end of the day, there simply are not many memorable action moments.
Overall, it does not ruin the film at all. It still manages to be an entertaining and interesting movie regardless of memorable action sequences. It has a tightly plotted narrative with fairly well done characters, not muddled by overuse of complexity or plot twists. It manages to be visually excellent with interesting science fictional elements, but never does it soar with its action set-pieces. It would have benefitted with some better use of gunplay or more clever feats of heroics on Judge Dredd’s part. But at least it takes itself seriously enough to not have anything akin to Rob Schneider following Sylvester Stallone around in a cheesy script.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Robert Eggers made a striking introduction for himself in 2015 with the moody and disconcerting The Witch, bringing a future star to the world’s attention in Anya Taylor-Joy in the process. You could argue after seeing his sophomore effort, The Lighthouse, that in terms of creating deliberately nauseating landscapes his work is the third cog in the arthouse revival of intellectual “horror”, after Ari Aster (Hereditary / Midsommar) and Jordan Peele (Get Out / Us). The group actually sits quite well together, as there is an obvious social commentary by metaphor crossover going on here, as well as just a little bit of “crazy”.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.