Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated BlacKkKlansman (2018) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
I have had my issues with Spike Lee as a filmmaker over the years. It always seemed like his next film was the most “important” one, and that he didn’t make a film if it didn’t have something to say about race and the oppression of African Americans. Which in itself is not a problem, as long as that point isn’t laboured to the detriment of all other aspects of the film. My problem wasn’t the message, it was that a lot of the films were dull or just not that great.
I like Malcolm X to a point, but it is overlong and uneven. I think Do the Right Thing is a fine example of indie bravura, but also has faults. Of the rest, I really only rate 25th Hour and Inside Man, both of which are entertaining movies that move tentatively away from full on politics and therefore avoid the trap of being bombastic. In short, I’ve always wanted to like him as a director a lot more than I do.
The thing that drew me to BlacKkKlansman more than Lee, or the yet little known John David Washington, was the 100% dependable Adam Driver. I have yet to see a performance of his I didn’t like, and I’d heard that he was the standout of this film too, so it went on my list of must sees. And, yes, he is excellent, of course he is – there’s something about how easy and relaxed he can be within a character that is very rare. I’d suggest he is one of the very best male actors of that age group working today.
Now, obviously, it is entirely intentional that the two leads and eventual partners in the film are black and white… but the idea that this is a problem, or a thing at all, is not addressed as the only issue; in BlacKkKlansman it isn’t being black or white or anything else that defines you, it is what you do, what you say and what you stand for. And that idea is so crystal clear and well achieved that as an entertainment the film can then go anywhere it wants around that framework. Which it revels in doing.
It is both a good looking film and an exciting one; funny when it wants to be, smart all the time, and razor serious when it needs to be. A balancing act not to be sniffed at! And one that Lee has struggled with in the past. Here he nails the tone so well that it feels like his entire back catalogue was just a training exercise to get him to this point. I wouldn’t say it’s a masterpiece, but it is a damn fine work of art on many levels.
Washington as the focus of the tale, which also functions perfectly as an undercover cop movie of basic intent, i.e. infiltrate the bad guys and take them down, is perfectly cast and believable from minute one. His chemistry with the insanely gorgeous and talented Laura Harrier is a highlight, especially watching them dance and move with absolute cool in those 70s clothes and hairstyles. This movie has serious style that leaves you in no doubt that the black sub-culture is where it’s at, and the stupid bigoted klansmen are shown up as ridiculous as much as dangerous.
Every trope and icon of the Blacksploitation era is referenced and reclaimed as cool. Perhaps to a degree I am not aware of, as I’ve only seen one or two obvious examples in my time. We are given the tease to follow the notion that racism of this kind was a thing of the past, specifically related to the 70s and now it’s better in many ways. Before we are hit with the hammer blow of realisation at the very end of the film, where a juxtaposition of fantasy and horrific reality collide to magnificently shocking and depressing effect.
I felt after seeing it that I had been cleverly schooled. As in, I’m glad you enjoyed this, now go away and really think about it… and it worked, because I have tried to think about it more than I have before. And feel just that little bit more educated to a problem that is worldwide, but has never really felt directly part of my world.
Discussing anything related to the BLM movement in 2020 feels important and complicated in so many ways. It is an emotive subject that I’d feel I mostly want to avoid for fear of saying the wrong thing. Even though the basic idea of human rights and basic rights for all people has always been a no brainer; prejudice and hate crimes and fear are wrong, and we collectively must do whatever we can to educate ourselves and others not to make the mistakes of the past. Can a movie do that? No of course not, but it can open the door to dialogue that might not have happened otherwise.
Lee isn’t scared of what you think of this film, or any argument you may have against it. He knows his subject, and you feel that confidence in every scene. He doesn’t want to lecture you, or scream at you in despair, he wants to tell you an entertaining story that comes with a whole side discussion if you want it. Which is so much more powerful than any tactic he has tried before. And I think it works. I’d recommend anyone watch this, without hesitation.
I like Malcolm X to a point, but it is overlong and uneven. I think Do the Right Thing is a fine example of indie bravura, but also has faults. Of the rest, I really only rate 25th Hour and Inside Man, both of which are entertaining movies that move tentatively away from full on politics and therefore avoid the trap of being bombastic. In short, I’ve always wanted to like him as a director a lot more than I do.
The thing that drew me to BlacKkKlansman more than Lee, or the yet little known John David Washington, was the 100% dependable Adam Driver. I have yet to see a performance of his I didn’t like, and I’d heard that he was the standout of this film too, so it went on my list of must sees. And, yes, he is excellent, of course he is – there’s something about how easy and relaxed he can be within a character that is very rare. I’d suggest he is one of the very best male actors of that age group working today.
Now, obviously, it is entirely intentional that the two leads and eventual partners in the film are black and white… but the idea that this is a problem, or a thing at all, is not addressed as the only issue; in BlacKkKlansman it isn’t being black or white or anything else that defines you, it is what you do, what you say and what you stand for. And that idea is so crystal clear and well achieved that as an entertainment the film can then go anywhere it wants around that framework. Which it revels in doing.
It is both a good looking film and an exciting one; funny when it wants to be, smart all the time, and razor serious when it needs to be. A balancing act not to be sniffed at! And one that Lee has struggled with in the past. Here he nails the tone so well that it feels like his entire back catalogue was just a training exercise to get him to this point. I wouldn’t say it’s a masterpiece, but it is a damn fine work of art on many levels.
Washington as the focus of the tale, which also functions perfectly as an undercover cop movie of basic intent, i.e. infiltrate the bad guys and take them down, is perfectly cast and believable from minute one. His chemistry with the insanely gorgeous and talented Laura Harrier is a highlight, especially watching them dance and move with absolute cool in those 70s clothes and hairstyles. This movie has serious style that leaves you in no doubt that the black sub-culture is where it’s at, and the stupid bigoted klansmen are shown up as ridiculous as much as dangerous.
Every trope and icon of the Blacksploitation era is referenced and reclaimed as cool. Perhaps to a degree I am not aware of, as I’ve only seen one or two obvious examples in my time. We are given the tease to follow the notion that racism of this kind was a thing of the past, specifically related to the 70s and now it’s better in many ways. Before we are hit with the hammer blow of realisation at the very end of the film, where a juxtaposition of fantasy and horrific reality collide to magnificently shocking and depressing effect.
I felt after seeing it that I had been cleverly schooled. As in, I’m glad you enjoyed this, now go away and really think about it… and it worked, because I have tried to think about it more than I have before. And feel just that little bit more educated to a problem that is worldwide, but has never really felt directly part of my world.
Discussing anything related to the BLM movement in 2020 feels important and complicated in so many ways. It is an emotive subject that I’d feel I mostly want to avoid for fear of saying the wrong thing. Even though the basic idea of human rights and basic rights for all people has always been a no brainer; prejudice and hate crimes and fear are wrong, and we collectively must do whatever we can to educate ourselves and others not to make the mistakes of the past. Can a movie do that? No of course not, but it can open the door to dialogue that might not have happened otherwise.
Lee isn’t scared of what you think of this film, or any argument you may have against it. He knows his subject, and you feel that confidence in every scene. He doesn’t want to lecture you, or scream at you in despair, he wants to tell you an entertaining story that comes with a whole side discussion if you want it. Which is so much more powerful than any tactic he has tried before. And I think it works. I’d recommend anyone watch this, without hesitation.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Lightyear (2022) in Movies
Jun 17, 2022
Visually gorgeous animation (2 more)
Sox
Designs of the insects, robots, and especially Zurg
Too much Star Wars influence (1 more)
Writing is a bit underwhelming
A Visually Gorgeous Nod to Science Fiction
Lightyear has a simple premise that fits it into the Toy Story timeline while also giving the film the freedom to creatively do just about whatever it wants. This on-screen version of Buzz Lightyear is what inspired the toy and this film was Andy’s favorite film.
Test pilot Buzz Lightyear (now voiced by Chris Evans) wakes up from hyper sleep to research and explore a nearby planet that is off the course of his ship’s destination. The mission results in Buzz’s entire crew being marooned on a planet overrun by giant insects and bothersome vines. With guilt weighing heavily on his shoulders, Buzz takes it upon himself to be the pilot responsible for hyper speed tests.
After spending a year on the planet, there’s finally enough resources for a test flight. But the mission fails and when Buzz returns, four years have passed. Intending to finish the mission despite the consequences, Buzz pilots test flight after test flight as each mission results in years passing while he’s away. He watches his friends age and die until he finally returns to a planet that now cowers to the ominous Zurg and his battalion of relentlessly inhuman robots.
After co-directing Finding Dory and while working as an animator for Pixar since 1998’s A Bug’s Life, Lightyear is the directorial debut of Angus MacLane. Written by MacLane, Matthew Aldrich (Coco), and Jason Headley (Onward), Lightyear is receiving a lot of backlash for including a same sex relationship as well as an on-screen lesbian kiss (some countries are refusing to release the film in theaters because of it). The relationship involves another Space Ranger named Alisha Hawthorne (Uzo Aduba, Orange is the New Black, Steven Universe). Hawthorne and the life she builds on a planet she is essentially stuck on ends up being the inspiration for not only Buzz, but as well as Alisha’s granddaughter, Izzy (Keke Palmer). Even if you’re against homosexuality, Alisha’s relationship is undeniably the most sentimental aspect of the film. Lightyear wouldn’t be the same without its inclusion.
The film does some different stuff with Zurg as far as who he is and how he relates to Buzz that may or may not retcon what was established in Toy Story 2. Both the story and the writing of the film seem to play it safe as they take a predictable approach to what essentially could have been something more unique. The discussion that’s been floating around about the film is that the jokes, sillier moments, and more absurd lines of dialogue seem to always disrupt the film whenever it tries to take a step towards being a thrilling sci-fi film. It’s difficult to argue with this statement, especially since Mo Morrison’s (Taika Waititi) whole purpose in the film is to broadcast his incompetence and the film revolves around a team of misfits attempting to save the planet despite their shortcomings.
The film is visually one of the year’s best looking films; animated or otherwise. Taking inspiration from early sci-fi films and space operas like Star Wars, Angus MacLane wanted Lightyear to look, “cinematic,” and, “chunky.” If you see the film in IMAX, this is the first animated film to ever have sequences shown in the 1.43:1 aspect ratio (it’s usually 2.39:1) as visual effects supervisor Jane Yen states that a virtual IMAX camera was developed to shoot said sequences, which were then cropped to standard definition. The film is gorgeous and even looks different in comparison to other Pixar films. With its lush colors, heavy use of shadows, bright lighting for highlights, and character designs for insects and robots that seem to be directly inspired by the likes of Starship Troopers and Gundam, Lightyear is a visually delicious treat.
Angus MacLane has his love for Star Wars showcased a bit too often in Lightyear as certain sequences seem to be directly lifted from the George Lucas created franchise. Many of Zurg’s scenes are a direct homage to various Darth Vader sequences in the Star Wars films. When Buzz is carried upside down by a Zyclops as Izzy and the others try to help him free borrows heavily from The Empire Strikes Back when Luke is hanging upside down in the icy Wampa cave; Buzz is even wearing an orange and white outfit that resembles Luke’s when he pilots the X-Wing. The love for Star Wars is as much a hindrance as it is an inspiration. The film spends more time referencing its origins rather than putting more of a focus on establishing its own identity.
Sox is legitimately the most fun character of the film. He’s humorous and resourceful; a robot cat that is Buzz’s most useful tool and companion. If Disney doesn’t resurrect Teddy Ruxpin technology for a new Sox animatronic toy then it will end up being wasted potential to a soul crushing extent.
Like Toy Story 4, Lightyear is an unnecessary installment to the Toy Story franchise, but is enjoyable nevertheless. Its homage to science fiction makes the animated film feel more like a sci-fi actioner rather than an animated film the majority of the time. It has a rich and palpable atmosphere that is gorgeously animated and is filled with the laugh out loud and heartfelt moments Pixar is typically known for.
Test pilot Buzz Lightyear (now voiced by Chris Evans) wakes up from hyper sleep to research and explore a nearby planet that is off the course of his ship’s destination. The mission results in Buzz’s entire crew being marooned on a planet overrun by giant insects and bothersome vines. With guilt weighing heavily on his shoulders, Buzz takes it upon himself to be the pilot responsible for hyper speed tests.
After spending a year on the planet, there’s finally enough resources for a test flight. But the mission fails and when Buzz returns, four years have passed. Intending to finish the mission despite the consequences, Buzz pilots test flight after test flight as each mission results in years passing while he’s away. He watches his friends age and die until he finally returns to a planet that now cowers to the ominous Zurg and his battalion of relentlessly inhuman robots.
After co-directing Finding Dory and while working as an animator for Pixar since 1998’s A Bug’s Life, Lightyear is the directorial debut of Angus MacLane. Written by MacLane, Matthew Aldrich (Coco), and Jason Headley (Onward), Lightyear is receiving a lot of backlash for including a same sex relationship as well as an on-screen lesbian kiss (some countries are refusing to release the film in theaters because of it). The relationship involves another Space Ranger named Alisha Hawthorne (Uzo Aduba, Orange is the New Black, Steven Universe). Hawthorne and the life she builds on a planet she is essentially stuck on ends up being the inspiration for not only Buzz, but as well as Alisha’s granddaughter, Izzy (Keke Palmer). Even if you’re against homosexuality, Alisha’s relationship is undeniably the most sentimental aspect of the film. Lightyear wouldn’t be the same without its inclusion.
The film does some different stuff with Zurg as far as who he is and how he relates to Buzz that may or may not retcon what was established in Toy Story 2. Both the story and the writing of the film seem to play it safe as they take a predictable approach to what essentially could have been something more unique. The discussion that’s been floating around about the film is that the jokes, sillier moments, and more absurd lines of dialogue seem to always disrupt the film whenever it tries to take a step towards being a thrilling sci-fi film. It’s difficult to argue with this statement, especially since Mo Morrison’s (Taika Waititi) whole purpose in the film is to broadcast his incompetence and the film revolves around a team of misfits attempting to save the planet despite their shortcomings.
The film is visually one of the year’s best looking films; animated or otherwise. Taking inspiration from early sci-fi films and space operas like Star Wars, Angus MacLane wanted Lightyear to look, “cinematic,” and, “chunky.” If you see the film in IMAX, this is the first animated film to ever have sequences shown in the 1.43:1 aspect ratio (it’s usually 2.39:1) as visual effects supervisor Jane Yen states that a virtual IMAX camera was developed to shoot said sequences, which were then cropped to standard definition. The film is gorgeous and even looks different in comparison to other Pixar films. With its lush colors, heavy use of shadows, bright lighting for highlights, and character designs for insects and robots that seem to be directly inspired by the likes of Starship Troopers and Gundam, Lightyear is a visually delicious treat.
Angus MacLane has his love for Star Wars showcased a bit too often in Lightyear as certain sequences seem to be directly lifted from the George Lucas created franchise. Many of Zurg’s scenes are a direct homage to various Darth Vader sequences in the Star Wars films. When Buzz is carried upside down by a Zyclops as Izzy and the others try to help him free borrows heavily from The Empire Strikes Back when Luke is hanging upside down in the icy Wampa cave; Buzz is even wearing an orange and white outfit that resembles Luke’s when he pilots the X-Wing. The love for Star Wars is as much a hindrance as it is an inspiration. The film spends more time referencing its origins rather than putting more of a focus on establishing its own identity.
Sox is legitimately the most fun character of the film. He’s humorous and resourceful; a robot cat that is Buzz’s most useful tool and companion. If Disney doesn’t resurrect Teddy Ruxpin technology for a new Sox animatronic toy then it will end up being wasted potential to a soul crushing extent.
Like Toy Story 4, Lightyear is an unnecessary installment to the Toy Story franchise, but is enjoyable nevertheless. Its homage to science fiction makes the animated film feel more like a sci-fi actioner rather than an animated film the majority of the time. It has a rich and palpable atmosphere that is gorgeously animated and is filled with the laugh out loud and heartfelt moments Pixar is typically known for.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Candidate for a downfall.
We can all probably rattle off some of the classics movies with US politics as their backdrop. For me, “All the President’s Men”; “Primary Colors”; and “Frost/Nixon” might make that list. In the next tier down there are many great drama/thrillers – “Miss Sloane“; “The Post“; “The Ides of March”; “The American President”; “JFK” – and even some pretty funny comedies – “Dave” and “My Fellow Americans” for example. It’s actually quite difficult to think of many films on the subject that are outright dire, proving it remains a fertile ground for film-makers.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
Darren (1599 KP) rated American Heist (2015) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: American Heist starts with James (Christensen) waiting before starting to look for someone then an explosion surprises him bring us back a day in time where we follow James going about his everyday life. James has a brother Frankie (Brody) fresh out of prison being picked up by his criminal connection Sugar (Akon) who keeps him happy with drinks, drugs and girls on his first night out before meeting the boss Ray (Kittles).
James has turned his life around where he now works on the straight life working as a mechanic, he sees an old flame Emily (Brewster) back in town where James sees his life moving in the right direction. Frankie turns up to see his brother’s life after ten years locked away. Frankie arranges to meet for drinks with James which leads to him discussion a new job opportunity which leads us back to the opening scene where James gets tricked into a job as Frankie is trying to repay his debts.
Ray has assembled a team to pull off an elaborate bank robbery which will finally see Frankie pay back the debts he owes because James has the skills to get part of the plan done.
American Heist is a story that does seem to follow the traditional idea of a recently released from prison criminal goes straight back into the criminal world even if it isn’t fully his desire. We also see how the man thinking he has escaped from the criminal world gets dragged back in for one more job. This side of the story has been done before but is does really push the two brothers on an emotional level. When it comes to the actual heist it does become the secondary story behind the brothers relationship with the preparation being a quick flash scene and like most heist films go completely wrong. The story will have to go down as a solid entry into the genre but won’t be a film climbing into anyone’s best. (7/10)
Actor Review
Hayden Christensen: James is the former criminal who has turned his life around with a clean cut job where he is trying to get his own business, his life may not be perfect but he is happy that everything is all legal now. When his brothers released from prison he ends up caught up trying to pay off Frankie’s debts forced into working for criminal Ray. Hayden continues to try and recover from the criticism he got for Star Wars with another anti pretty boy film where he tries to play tough but doesn’t quite pull it off. (6/10)
james
Adrien Brody: Frankie is James’ brother who fresh out of prisoner does straight back into his criminal underworld where criminal boss Ray wants both Frankie and James to work for him. Frankie went through a lot in prison and always stood up for his brothers, as well as helping him become the man he is now. Adrien gives a performance you would expect from an Oscar winner, he does show his skills but sometimes feels like he is overacting to the situations. (7/10)
frankie
Jordana Brewster: Emily is the old flame who comes back into James’ life. Emily just so happens to be a dispatch caller for the police which could make the bank job all that much harder as Emily and James start rekindling their romance. Jordana does a good job but really doesn’t get enough screen time for the romantic angle in the story. (6/10)
Akon: Sugar is the second in command to Ray who gets the dirty jobs done when other people won’t get involved. Akon does make a good supporting actor never trying to over act like many musicians do when they enter the acting world. (7/10)
Tory Kittles: Ray is the criminal who helped Frankie in prison leaving him being owed a favour from Frankie when he finally gets out. Ray makes Frankie bring James back into the criminal world to take part in an elaborate heist. Tory makes for a good emotionless tough criminal who believes in every word he is saying. (7/10)
Support Cast: American Heist doesn’t really have many more characters involved in the story, we have the generic characters trying to chase down the criminals and the members of the group trying to pull off the heist.
Director Review: Sarik Andreasyan – Sarik gives us a solid heist film that really does focus on the relationship between the two brothers who have gone down different paths but must work together one last time. (7/10)
Action: American Heist keeps the action in a realistic level apart from one moment, making each feel like it could be a real heist and aftermath. (7/10)
Drama: American Heist creates a dysfunctional relationship between the two brothers which helps show just how far they would go for each other. (7/10)
Settings: American Heist keeps the settings in location where you would imagine the characters would want to turn to crime to end all the suffering they are going through. (8/10)
Suggestion: American Heist is one to try, I do think if you are a fan of the genre you will enjoy but there is only so much you can do with a heist film without fully copying anything else. (Try It)
Best Part: I really liked how the film ended, but can’t give it away.
Worst Part: How James gets pulled into the criminal world again.
Action Scene Of The Film: Ray’s escape attempt.
Believability: The heist feels like it could be how a real one would end, but the relationship side mixed with the heist not so. (4/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Kill Point (TV Show)
Oscar Chances: None
Budget: $10 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 34 Minutes
Overall: American Heist will go down as an emotionally gritty heist film about two brothers.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/26/american-heist-2015/
James has turned his life around where he now works on the straight life working as a mechanic, he sees an old flame Emily (Brewster) back in town where James sees his life moving in the right direction. Frankie turns up to see his brother’s life after ten years locked away. Frankie arranges to meet for drinks with James which leads to him discussion a new job opportunity which leads us back to the opening scene where James gets tricked into a job as Frankie is trying to repay his debts.
Ray has assembled a team to pull off an elaborate bank robbery which will finally see Frankie pay back the debts he owes because James has the skills to get part of the plan done.
American Heist is a story that does seem to follow the traditional idea of a recently released from prison criminal goes straight back into the criminal world even if it isn’t fully his desire. We also see how the man thinking he has escaped from the criminal world gets dragged back in for one more job. This side of the story has been done before but is does really push the two brothers on an emotional level. When it comes to the actual heist it does become the secondary story behind the brothers relationship with the preparation being a quick flash scene and like most heist films go completely wrong. The story will have to go down as a solid entry into the genre but won’t be a film climbing into anyone’s best. (7/10)
Actor Review
Hayden Christensen: James is the former criminal who has turned his life around with a clean cut job where he is trying to get his own business, his life may not be perfect but he is happy that everything is all legal now. When his brothers released from prison he ends up caught up trying to pay off Frankie’s debts forced into working for criminal Ray. Hayden continues to try and recover from the criticism he got for Star Wars with another anti pretty boy film where he tries to play tough but doesn’t quite pull it off. (6/10)
james
Adrien Brody: Frankie is James’ brother who fresh out of prisoner does straight back into his criminal underworld where criminal boss Ray wants both Frankie and James to work for him. Frankie went through a lot in prison and always stood up for his brothers, as well as helping him become the man he is now. Adrien gives a performance you would expect from an Oscar winner, he does show his skills but sometimes feels like he is overacting to the situations. (7/10)
frankie
Jordana Brewster: Emily is the old flame who comes back into James’ life. Emily just so happens to be a dispatch caller for the police which could make the bank job all that much harder as Emily and James start rekindling their romance. Jordana does a good job but really doesn’t get enough screen time for the romantic angle in the story. (6/10)
Akon: Sugar is the second in command to Ray who gets the dirty jobs done when other people won’t get involved. Akon does make a good supporting actor never trying to over act like many musicians do when they enter the acting world. (7/10)
Tory Kittles: Ray is the criminal who helped Frankie in prison leaving him being owed a favour from Frankie when he finally gets out. Ray makes Frankie bring James back into the criminal world to take part in an elaborate heist. Tory makes for a good emotionless tough criminal who believes in every word he is saying. (7/10)
Support Cast: American Heist doesn’t really have many more characters involved in the story, we have the generic characters trying to chase down the criminals and the members of the group trying to pull off the heist.
Director Review: Sarik Andreasyan – Sarik gives us a solid heist film that really does focus on the relationship between the two brothers who have gone down different paths but must work together one last time. (7/10)
Action: American Heist keeps the action in a realistic level apart from one moment, making each feel like it could be a real heist and aftermath. (7/10)
Drama: American Heist creates a dysfunctional relationship between the two brothers which helps show just how far they would go for each other. (7/10)
Settings: American Heist keeps the settings in location where you would imagine the characters would want to turn to crime to end all the suffering they are going through. (8/10)
Suggestion: American Heist is one to try, I do think if you are a fan of the genre you will enjoy but there is only so much you can do with a heist film without fully copying anything else. (Try It)
Best Part: I really liked how the film ended, but can’t give it away.
Worst Part: How James gets pulled into the criminal world again.
Action Scene Of The Film: Ray’s escape attempt.
Believability: The heist feels like it could be how a real one would end, but the relationship side mixed with the heist not so. (4/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Kill Point (TV Show)
Oscar Chances: None
Budget: $10 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 34 Minutes
Overall: American Heist will go down as an emotionally gritty heist film about two brothers.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/26/american-heist-2015/
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Apr 18, 2017
The Good, The Bad and The Editing
So...here's a movie that split so many fans and has caused COUNTLESS arguments online. My review may also cause arguments, but I'm willing to risk that as I have a fair bit to say about this movie, most importantly and foremost;
I enjoyed the movie!
The Good:
Let me start with what's good because I feel there's never enough positivity around this movie so here goes.
Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot were the two focuses of this movie because they had a lot of pressure on them to bring Batman and Wonder Woman to life and do the characters justice (terrible I know but I couldn't resist). All over the internet I saw hate for Ben Affleck and people saying Gal Gadot was too skinny. At first, I'll be honest, I did think Gal Gadot was really skinny and couldn't imagine her as Wonder Woman, BUT, unlike most people, I knew that before they would film her scenes, she would be 'buffing up' because I have faith in Zack Snyder because he is a fan and has made brilliant films. Man Of Steel made me like Superman, because of the way he was written as conflicted and the whole film made him more human and I loved it.
Here's where some people will disagree highly with me....I am not a big fan of the Nolan trilogy Batman. Now, before you throw a fit and verbally kick my ass, let me try and tell you why. The Voice! (it's not the only reason, but this is the reason I'm trying to make a point of) Batman a.k.a Bruce Wayne is a BILLIONAIRE, so who thought that the best way for him to disguise his voice would be to make him sound like he's fucked up his throat somehow? A billionaire with all those gadgets would surely think that what he needs is a voice modulator. Snyder brought in the voice modulator and I fell in love in that first trailer from hearing Batman talk through a voice modulator because I was sat there like "Hallelujah they finally worked out what a billionaire vigilante would do!" and I think it could be just me, but I honestly would prefer to think of Batman using one of those rather than grumbling his voice, because it just makes more sense.
So...Batfleck was incredible. My favourite portrayal so far and here's why:
- Arkham game fighting style
- Aged personality that says it all about why he's that violent
- He's definitely a great portrayal of the Dark Knight Returns version of Batman
- Ben Affleck is a great actor (in my opinion)
People's biggest complaint was 'Batman Kills' and I've had this discussion with my friends many times. Yes people died, IT'S HAPPENED BEFORE! It's rare but it's happened. You like the realism of Nolan's trilogy but there's a realism to Batfleck that you might not be seeing. He's been through all the same shit year in, year out for decades. Villains cause chaos, Batman fights villain, lets them live, puts them away, they break out, rinse repeat. Doing that for decades, losing people you love because of your choice not to kill, would surely cause a spark in your mind and Bruce Wayne says this in the movie through less words. "How many good guys are left? How many stay that way?"
If you think about it, he's essentially saying "I was a good guy but even I have had my boundaries pushed to the line and over". He's finally at the age where he has a state of mind that from his perspective...bad guys don't deserve to be shown mercy, but at the same time, he doesn't necessarily kill the bad guys directly.
Think of the warehouse scene. Bad Guy throws grenade, Batman kicks it back at him. Grenade goes BOOM. Bad guys die. BUT! If the guy hadn't have tried to throw the grenade, Batman wouldn't have kicked it back, and it wouldn't have ended in their death. Simple as that.
Let's move on though.
Superman is conflicted and the movie gets very political with a message of "Here's a God-Like figure. Should he be allowed to do what he wants or should we take away Choice by having under the Governments thumb?" and Superman personally is having internal issues of "I want this to be my home because it's the only home I've known, but these people don't want me and this stress is affecting both Clark Kent and Superman". He should have been able to see or hear the bomb in the wheelchair, but his mind was preoccupied with "Why does this government and these people hate me when I saved not only my city but the whole world?". Think about your stress with work, with college, school etc. and how it really does effect everything else around you. You might not want to go out with friends because you feel drained from the stress, now try to imagine that on the level of Superman! The poor guy just wanted to help.
My biggest enjoyment from this film was ALL OF THE DC REFERENCES! There were so many cool easter eggs, references etc. that I adored from Riddler Question Marks, to seeing Superman in a skeletal form after the Nuke explosion and then regaining his life force from the flowers through their Photosynthesis just like in the graphic novel! It was an incredible experience and I loved the film mainly for that.
The Bad:
Doomsday....I want to hope it's not the actual Doomsday and maybe just a failed experiment that Lex tried out but at the same time I know it probably is meant to be THE Doomsday.
The Editing:
The editing was jumpy and some cuts didn't make sense UNTIL the Ultimate Cut. The Ultimate Cut gives us some scenes with Clark Kent in Gotham BEFORE the big introduction to Batman in person, and hearing stories and investigating why people fear him, but also respect him. This would have worked so much better in the Theatrical Cut but sadly studios like to cut the film and people blame the Director for it which annoys me slightly.
Guaranteed this post might not change your mind, but I must say that you should try watching the film again if you've avoided it, watch the Ultimate Cut and really pay attention to how its being shown to the audience. Overall this is one of my favourite superhero movies and I will always stand up for it, BUT I'm not blind to it's faults.
I enjoyed the movie!
The Good:
Let me start with what's good because I feel there's never enough positivity around this movie so here goes.
Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot were the two focuses of this movie because they had a lot of pressure on them to bring Batman and Wonder Woman to life and do the characters justice (terrible I know but I couldn't resist). All over the internet I saw hate for Ben Affleck and people saying Gal Gadot was too skinny. At first, I'll be honest, I did think Gal Gadot was really skinny and couldn't imagine her as Wonder Woman, BUT, unlike most people, I knew that before they would film her scenes, she would be 'buffing up' because I have faith in Zack Snyder because he is a fan and has made brilliant films. Man Of Steel made me like Superman, because of the way he was written as conflicted and the whole film made him more human and I loved it.
Here's where some people will disagree highly with me....I am not a big fan of the Nolan trilogy Batman. Now, before you throw a fit and verbally kick my ass, let me try and tell you why. The Voice! (it's not the only reason, but this is the reason I'm trying to make a point of) Batman a.k.a Bruce Wayne is a BILLIONAIRE, so who thought that the best way for him to disguise his voice would be to make him sound like he's fucked up his throat somehow? A billionaire with all those gadgets would surely think that what he needs is a voice modulator. Snyder brought in the voice modulator and I fell in love in that first trailer from hearing Batman talk through a voice modulator because I was sat there like "Hallelujah they finally worked out what a billionaire vigilante would do!" and I think it could be just me, but I honestly would prefer to think of Batman using one of those rather than grumbling his voice, because it just makes more sense.
So...Batfleck was incredible. My favourite portrayal so far and here's why:
- Arkham game fighting style
- Aged personality that says it all about why he's that violent
- He's definitely a great portrayal of the Dark Knight Returns version of Batman
- Ben Affleck is a great actor (in my opinion)
People's biggest complaint was 'Batman Kills' and I've had this discussion with my friends many times. Yes people died, IT'S HAPPENED BEFORE! It's rare but it's happened. You like the realism of Nolan's trilogy but there's a realism to Batfleck that you might not be seeing. He's been through all the same shit year in, year out for decades. Villains cause chaos, Batman fights villain, lets them live, puts them away, they break out, rinse repeat. Doing that for decades, losing people you love because of your choice not to kill, would surely cause a spark in your mind and Bruce Wayne says this in the movie through less words. "How many good guys are left? How many stay that way?"
If you think about it, he's essentially saying "I was a good guy but even I have had my boundaries pushed to the line and over". He's finally at the age where he has a state of mind that from his perspective...bad guys don't deserve to be shown mercy, but at the same time, he doesn't necessarily kill the bad guys directly.
Think of the warehouse scene. Bad Guy throws grenade, Batman kicks it back at him. Grenade goes BOOM. Bad guys die. BUT! If the guy hadn't have tried to throw the grenade, Batman wouldn't have kicked it back, and it wouldn't have ended in their death. Simple as that.
Let's move on though.
Superman is conflicted and the movie gets very political with a message of "Here's a God-Like figure. Should he be allowed to do what he wants or should we take away Choice by having under the Governments thumb?" and Superman personally is having internal issues of "I want this to be my home because it's the only home I've known, but these people don't want me and this stress is affecting both Clark Kent and Superman". He should have been able to see or hear the bomb in the wheelchair, but his mind was preoccupied with "Why does this government and these people hate me when I saved not only my city but the whole world?". Think about your stress with work, with college, school etc. and how it really does effect everything else around you. You might not want to go out with friends because you feel drained from the stress, now try to imagine that on the level of Superman! The poor guy just wanted to help.
My biggest enjoyment from this film was ALL OF THE DC REFERENCES! There were so many cool easter eggs, references etc. that I adored from Riddler Question Marks, to seeing Superman in a skeletal form after the Nuke explosion and then regaining his life force from the flowers through their Photosynthesis just like in the graphic novel! It was an incredible experience and I loved the film mainly for that.
The Bad:
Doomsday....I want to hope it's not the actual Doomsday and maybe just a failed experiment that Lex tried out but at the same time I know it probably is meant to be THE Doomsday.
The Editing:
The editing was jumpy and some cuts didn't make sense UNTIL the Ultimate Cut. The Ultimate Cut gives us some scenes with Clark Kent in Gotham BEFORE the big introduction to Batman in person, and hearing stories and investigating why people fear him, but also respect him. This would have worked so much better in the Theatrical Cut but sadly studios like to cut the film and people blame the Director for it which annoys me slightly.
Guaranteed this post might not change your mind, but I must say that you should try watching the film again if you've avoided it, watch the Ultimate Cut and really pay attention to how its being shown to the audience. Overall this is one of my favourite superhero movies and I will always stand up for it, BUT I'm not blind to it's faults.
honingwords (32 KP) rated No Good Reason in Books
Jul 5, 2018
Cari Hunter is most definitely as top notch a writer as you are going to find in crime/thriller writing.
Cari Hunter’s Dark Peak crime series, starting with No Good Reason, was recommended to me by a Lesfic author. I reckon you have to be pretty good for your peers to claim you are ‘top notch’ and after reading four of her books in quick succession I can guarantee that Cari is most definitely as top notch a writer as you are going to find in crime/thriller writing.
Let me admit to you that I generally find crime novels too much hard work to follow. I like my books to be romances, and the sexier the better. I’m surprised as all get out to find I love Cari’s thrilling ride through these Police stroke Hospital novels. Especially as there is almost no juicy sex to lubricate the grit. The infrequency of sex scenes is because the main characters, Sanne and Meg, aren’t officially a couple. Or maybe they are. It’s entirely possible everyone knows they are, except themselves.
The story isn't necessarily about their sexual tension, but it was always in the back of my mind that they would see sense in the end and I patiently waited them out.
I have found in the last few years that there are many padded-out books on the market by well-respected authors, where you can skip through whole pages at a time without losing any real sense of the plot. Not so with No Good Reason which kept me riveted through each paragraph and exquisite word right from the tense prologue.
Cari definitely makes every single word count and I felt engaged in the story and with her main characters within the first few pages.
I’d already read Snowbound, which was a fantastic debut novel, but the characters in No Good Reason are one smidge more sophisticatedly written.
Sanne and Meg go back a very long time, from before their first kiss at the age of twelve, and they know each other better than they know themselves. They have generated a world around them where they are each others’ support and comfort. They are BFFs, they are Friends With Benefits, but somehow Cari has written them as even more than these things. They are each others’ absolute other halves.
These two girls have aches and bruises, and tears and emotions, and genuine exhaustion from their ridiculously long work hours.
They do things like accidentally drop perishable shopping on the floor, but eat it anyway; burn their tea; and turn the shower off when the toilet flushes for fear of being scalded.
I love details like these. I love that they can have a discussion about putting the bins out and HobNobs can fall in their tea the same as they do for you and me, without making the whole book boring and mundane. It simply endears the characters to me all the more.
They made me smile a lot. Meg prefers ham and quaver butties, for goodness sake, what’s not to love?
It doesn’t take long for Cari to completely draw you into their world in Northern England, around the Manchester area, and mainly in the Peak District which is where Cari lives and I feel like I have travelled the hills and crunched the snow and tramped through the same streets as she has now.
This area has its own accent, Northern English, and it is noticeable that she uses phrases and words particular to there. I can’t remember which words I picked up on first, probably some dialogue, but you quickly become used to the fact this is not written by an American. It’s refreshing to have only regional UK main characters: no Londoners; no Americans.
Don’t let the idea of a local accent and local characters put you off, there is nothing in the book you wouldn’t understand, it is still all ‘plain English’ and if you come across a word you can’t decipher I will more than happily translate for you!
Other than the almost-a-romance-but-so-much-more between the two girls there is also this whole other kidnapping / crime malarkey going on. Sanne is a little too personally involved in the case right from the beginning, being caught up in the initial rescue of the victim. She and her police partner, the sensitive, caring, supportive, gorgeously written Nelson, are embroiled in working the case together. Needless to say they spend a lot of time visiting Meg in her role as A&E Doctor in the local hospital for one reason or another. Nelson is a beautiful soul and just the kind of partner Sanne needs, but that writers seldom allow their straight characters to be, especially in Police fiction.
The kidnapping plot is fast paced and exciting. The characters on both sides of the investigation were all believable and there was an audible ‘Huh!’ out of me with the final twist at the end. I really didn’t see that coming. Such a simple way to pull the whole plot together. Chilling!
Cari has a remarkable flair for descriptive writing and she pays particular attention to details like sounds and how things feel against skin. You are left in no doubt every time a character is sore, almost feeling the pain and peeling off the scabs with them.
Sometimes you have to reread a passage to understand the gist of what an author means, or furrow your brow over a combination of words because they just don’t make sense or even belong together, but with Cari Hunter the only thing I can point out to her is ‘Try feeding goldfinches niger seeds instead of nuts.’ That’s it. No other tweaking or corrections required. Nothing. Cari Hunter writes sheer perfection.
My favourite line in the book is the first one I stopped at, blinked appreciatively and re-read.
“Sanne ran her fingertips across the gritstone, letting it wear away her skin like an over-keen emery board.”
From that point on I knew I was going to love not only the book, but also Cari’s style and I wasn’t disappointed with further chapters.
I have a simple test for new authors, to find out how much I like them. The test is ‘how sick has this author made me?’ By that I mean - how long did they keep me awake reading when I ought to have been asleep for work the next day. If I am awake too long it makes me sick for several days after - it shouldn’t be something I am proud of but
Let me admit to you that I generally find crime novels too much hard work to follow. I like my books to be romances, and the sexier the better. I’m surprised as all get out to find I love Cari’s thrilling ride through these Police stroke Hospital novels. Especially as there is almost no juicy sex to lubricate the grit. The infrequency of sex scenes is because the main characters, Sanne and Meg, aren’t officially a couple. Or maybe they are. It’s entirely possible everyone knows they are, except themselves.
The story isn't necessarily about their sexual tension, but it was always in the back of my mind that they would see sense in the end and I patiently waited them out.
I have found in the last few years that there are many padded-out books on the market by well-respected authors, where you can skip through whole pages at a time without losing any real sense of the plot. Not so with No Good Reason which kept me riveted through each paragraph and exquisite word right from the tense prologue.
Cari definitely makes every single word count and I felt engaged in the story and with her main characters within the first few pages.
I’d already read Snowbound, which was a fantastic debut novel, but the characters in No Good Reason are one smidge more sophisticatedly written.
Sanne and Meg go back a very long time, from before their first kiss at the age of twelve, and they know each other better than they know themselves. They have generated a world around them where they are each others’ support and comfort. They are BFFs, they are Friends With Benefits, but somehow Cari has written them as even more than these things. They are each others’ absolute other halves.
These two girls have aches and bruises, and tears and emotions, and genuine exhaustion from their ridiculously long work hours.
They do things like accidentally drop perishable shopping on the floor, but eat it anyway; burn their tea; and turn the shower off when the toilet flushes for fear of being scalded.
I love details like these. I love that they can have a discussion about putting the bins out and HobNobs can fall in their tea the same as they do for you and me, without making the whole book boring and mundane. It simply endears the characters to me all the more.
They made me smile a lot. Meg prefers ham and quaver butties, for goodness sake, what’s not to love?
It doesn’t take long for Cari to completely draw you into their world in Northern England, around the Manchester area, and mainly in the Peak District which is where Cari lives and I feel like I have travelled the hills and crunched the snow and tramped through the same streets as she has now.
This area has its own accent, Northern English, and it is noticeable that she uses phrases and words particular to there. I can’t remember which words I picked up on first, probably some dialogue, but you quickly become used to the fact this is not written by an American. It’s refreshing to have only regional UK main characters: no Londoners; no Americans.
Don’t let the idea of a local accent and local characters put you off, there is nothing in the book you wouldn’t understand, it is still all ‘plain English’ and if you come across a word you can’t decipher I will more than happily translate for you!
Other than the almost-a-romance-but-so-much-more between the two girls there is also this whole other kidnapping / crime malarkey going on. Sanne is a little too personally involved in the case right from the beginning, being caught up in the initial rescue of the victim. She and her police partner, the sensitive, caring, supportive, gorgeously written Nelson, are embroiled in working the case together. Needless to say they spend a lot of time visiting Meg in her role as A&E Doctor in the local hospital for one reason or another. Nelson is a beautiful soul and just the kind of partner Sanne needs, but that writers seldom allow their straight characters to be, especially in Police fiction.
The kidnapping plot is fast paced and exciting. The characters on both sides of the investigation were all believable and there was an audible ‘Huh!’ out of me with the final twist at the end. I really didn’t see that coming. Such a simple way to pull the whole plot together. Chilling!
Cari has a remarkable flair for descriptive writing and she pays particular attention to details like sounds and how things feel against skin. You are left in no doubt every time a character is sore, almost feeling the pain and peeling off the scabs with them.
Sometimes you have to reread a passage to understand the gist of what an author means, or furrow your brow over a combination of words because they just don’t make sense or even belong together, but with Cari Hunter the only thing I can point out to her is ‘Try feeding goldfinches niger seeds instead of nuts.’ That’s it. No other tweaking or corrections required. Nothing. Cari Hunter writes sheer perfection.
My favourite line in the book is the first one I stopped at, blinked appreciatively and re-read.
“Sanne ran her fingertips across the gritstone, letting it wear away her skin like an over-keen emery board.”
From that point on I knew I was going to love not only the book, but also Cari’s style and I wasn’t disappointed with further chapters.
I have a simple test for new authors, to find out how much I like them. The test is ‘how sick has this author made me?’ By that I mean - how long did they keep me awake reading when I ought to have been asleep for work the next day. If I am awake too long it makes me sick for several days after - it shouldn’t be something I am proud of but
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Tales of Evil in Tabletop Games
Oct 1, 2020
It is no surprise that following the enormous success of Netflix’s “Stranger Things” that creators would begin developing ideas borrowed from the show’s setting or characters. Of course we have seen games in this “80s kids Goonie-esque adventure game” genre before, and I have to say that I love the setting. When I saw the Kickstarter campaign for Tales of Evil I was immediately drawn to it. Did my investment pay off or is this one a gnarly bust?
Tales of Evil is a cooperative, horror, storytelling, adventure game that uses a unique new “Fusion System” throughout the game. Players will be taking on personas of kids from the 1980s who belong to a club named “Pizza & Investigation.” I do not wish to reveal too much in this review, so I will be covering this as a Solo Chronicles using one character going through the introductory tutorial mission.
DISCLAIMER: We are using the Kickstarter Deluxe version of the game. We do have the expansions from the KS campaign, but will not be using those for this review. Also, we do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, well, just follow the setup instructions in the rulebook. There’s too much for me to explain here. For one character playing the tutorial scenario, the game setup should look similar to what is pictured below. Maybe. The rulebook does not specifically state WHERE each item should be placed, so players will have ultimate freedom to setup items where they see fit to be most efficient for themselves.
Players in Tales of Evil will have no real “turn structure” as most games do, because all players will be adventuring together as a group. So characters will be moving as a group and never splitting the party (RPGers breathe a sigh of relief… maybe). However, as with many adventure games of this style, once players explore into new areas certain markers will placed on the board (Clue, Darkness, Mystery, Search, etc). These markers signify different actions that can be taken, or entrances to areas that are blocked or found, or something that could be traced from one area to another. The leader of the group for the time being is in possession of the Walkie-Talkie and will make all final decisions for the group after any discussion (for solo players, it is just a nice prop). Usually searching for items will result in a card draw and upon the card will be a test to pass using the stats on the player character mat to roll dice for successes. Of course, the other side of that are horrible losses as well.
Players will be traipsing through the area and reading passages from two actual books: the Story Book and the Event Book. Most of the action happens in the Story Book and it will guide players through the story and once choices are made or tests succeeded/failed, the book will instruct players what to do next and to which section to turn to further the story (a la Tales of the Arabian Nights). The game continues in this fashion until the story ends with victory or defeat.
Components. Why yes, that is a real spoon in the photo above. No, it does not come with the game. I will explain in a bit. The components in this game are great. Each character has their own mat for organization, action cards, equipment cards, and status cards that dictate the difficulty of the game and how the character degrades over time in the horror-filled mission. Some components are even glow-in-the-dark! A nice touch, but certainly unnecessary. I find everything to be wonderful quality, even the cards that are kind of polarizing on the KS comments are nice (people are complaining that they are not linen-finished, but I believe the publisher made the right call to make them matte finished if the linen obscured the look and art on them). Thumbs up for components from me.
I wanted to wait until my final thoughts to explain the whole “Fusion System” that is in play here. Tales of Evil uses the catchphrase, “You will get into the game and the game will get into you!” Now, I’m not sure exactly how this game is getting into me, but I’m certainly digging the game and this Fusion System. You see, some cards (in the tutorial, remember, so I’m not really giving much away here) will give players 60 seconds to grab a kitchen spoon for some benefit and a debilitation if they are unable to find one – hence the spoon in my photos. Another card relies on the character (and also then the player) removing their shoes. Still yet another deals with fire or people smoking in the vicinity. If there is fire nearby in real life, it affects the effects of the card drawn. It’s ingenious and I love every little bit of it! I can’t wait to see how the Fusion System will work in this game more and how it can be applied to other games in the future.
All in all I love everything about Tales of Evil. The setting is great, the Pizza & Investigation kids are awesome, and the game itself is incredibly engaging and makes you really think about the choices you make within. Perhaps the haunting feeling of doubting some choices is how the game gets into you, because I did find myself wondering what would have happened had I chosen a different course for some instances. I am very drawn to this game and I want to tackle all of the scenarios. Even solo! And another great thing about Tales of Evil is the fact that a player (or players) can join a game already in progress! So if I am exploring solo and my wife decides she wants to hop in, she just grabs a character mat, sets up the character, and dives right in with me. I LOVE games like that. So versatile.
While I should probably stop gushing at this point I just can’t. This game is so much fun and worth every penny spent on it. I implore you, if you are a fan of exploration adventure games in this vein you definitely need to snatch up a copy whenever you see one. And if you love it as much as I do let me know. We can swap adventure stories.
Oh did I mention the designer is even created a way for us normies to create our own scenarios and upload them to other Tales of Evil players? Yeah, I’m fascinated by that as well…
Tales of Evil is a cooperative, horror, storytelling, adventure game that uses a unique new “Fusion System” throughout the game. Players will be taking on personas of kids from the 1980s who belong to a club named “Pizza & Investigation.” I do not wish to reveal too much in this review, so I will be covering this as a Solo Chronicles using one character going through the introductory tutorial mission.
DISCLAIMER: We are using the Kickstarter Deluxe version of the game. We do have the expansions from the KS campaign, but will not be using those for this review. Also, we do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, well, just follow the setup instructions in the rulebook. There’s too much for me to explain here. For one character playing the tutorial scenario, the game setup should look similar to what is pictured below. Maybe. The rulebook does not specifically state WHERE each item should be placed, so players will have ultimate freedom to setup items where they see fit to be most efficient for themselves.
Players in Tales of Evil will have no real “turn structure” as most games do, because all players will be adventuring together as a group. So characters will be moving as a group and never splitting the party (RPGers breathe a sigh of relief… maybe). However, as with many adventure games of this style, once players explore into new areas certain markers will placed on the board (Clue, Darkness, Mystery, Search, etc). These markers signify different actions that can be taken, or entrances to areas that are blocked or found, or something that could be traced from one area to another. The leader of the group for the time being is in possession of the Walkie-Talkie and will make all final decisions for the group after any discussion (for solo players, it is just a nice prop). Usually searching for items will result in a card draw and upon the card will be a test to pass using the stats on the player character mat to roll dice for successes. Of course, the other side of that are horrible losses as well.
Players will be traipsing through the area and reading passages from two actual books: the Story Book and the Event Book. Most of the action happens in the Story Book and it will guide players through the story and once choices are made or tests succeeded/failed, the book will instruct players what to do next and to which section to turn to further the story (a la Tales of the Arabian Nights). The game continues in this fashion until the story ends with victory or defeat.
Components. Why yes, that is a real spoon in the photo above. No, it does not come with the game. I will explain in a bit. The components in this game are great. Each character has their own mat for organization, action cards, equipment cards, and status cards that dictate the difficulty of the game and how the character degrades over time in the horror-filled mission. Some components are even glow-in-the-dark! A nice touch, but certainly unnecessary. I find everything to be wonderful quality, even the cards that are kind of polarizing on the KS comments are nice (people are complaining that they are not linen-finished, but I believe the publisher made the right call to make them matte finished if the linen obscured the look and art on them). Thumbs up for components from me.
I wanted to wait until my final thoughts to explain the whole “Fusion System” that is in play here. Tales of Evil uses the catchphrase, “You will get into the game and the game will get into you!” Now, I’m not sure exactly how this game is getting into me, but I’m certainly digging the game and this Fusion System. You see, some cards (in the tutorial, remember, so I’m not really giving much away here) will give players 60 seconds to grab a kitchen spoon for some benefit and a debilitation if they are unable to find one – hence the spoon in my photos. Another card relies on the character (and also then the player) removing their shoes. Still yet another deals with fire or people smoking in the vicinity. If there is fire nearby in real life, it affects the effects of the card drawn. It’s ingenious and I love every little bit of it! I can’t wait to see how the Fusion System will work in this game more and how it can be applied to other games in the future.
All in all I love everything about Tales of Evil. The setting is great, the Pizza & Investigation kids are awesome, and the game itself is incredibly engaging and makes you really think about the choices you make within. Perhaps the haunting feeling of doubting some choices is how the game gets into you, because I did find myself wondering what would have happened had I chosen a different course for some instances. I am very drawn to this game and I want to tackle all of the scenarios. Even solo! And another great thing about Tales of Evil is the fact that a player (or players) can join a game already in progress! So if I am exploring solo and my wife decides she wants to hop in, she just grabs a character mat, sets up the character, and dives right in with me. I LOVE games like that. So versatile.
While I should probably stop gushing at this point I just can’t. This game is so much fun and worth every penny spent on it. I implore you, if you are a fan of exploration adventure games in this vein you definitely need to snatch up a copy whenever you see one. And if you love it as much as I do let me know. We can swap adventure stories.
Oh did I mention the designer is even created a way for us normies to create our own scenarios and upload them to other Tales of Evil players? Yeah, I’m fascinated by that as well…
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament in Books
Jun 29, 2018
In Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2006), Eugene H. Merrill sets out to provide a theology of the Old Testament which represents the O.T. as a consistent whole that has God as its ultimate source. As such, he supports a high view of biblical inspiration as verbal: “The word of God to the prophets was verbal; and what they spoke and wrote, therefore, was also verbal. The means by which the verbalizing was effected is never disclosed, nor is it necessary to know. The point is that the prophetic word, the highest form of divine revelation, was recognized at the time to be the words of God, a view maintained by virtually unanimous consensus in Jewish and Christian tradition until the inroads of modern criticism.”
Insofar as Merrill is a Christian writing about the Old Testament's theology, this creates a dilemma in regard to the role the New Testament is allowed to play in his interpretation. Merrill acknowledges this from the get go:
“Old Testament theology is the study of biblical theology that employs the methods of that discipline to the Old Testament alone while being aware of the limitations inherent in not addressing the New Testament witness in any comprehensive way. This delimitation can be justified on the grounds that the Old Testament speaks its own message, one that is legitimate and authoritative in every sense of the term even if, from the Christian viewpoint, its message is not ultimately complete.”
As such, his work attempts to focus on what the Old Testament says on its own, though he occasionally appeals to New Testament ideas as a means of providing an additional witness to his interpretation.
Merrill tends to provide basic level interpretation in the canonical order of the Old Testament books. As such, little of his exegesis is particularly creative. However, he does have one unique idea which comes up throughout the book and indeed inspired the title-- the idea that man was made by God as an intermediary for God's dominion over the world:
“The crowning work of creation was the appearance of mankind on the sixth day (Gen. 1:26–28). He is said to be in the image and likeness of God, but the grammar permits and theology favors the idea that he was created as his image and likeness, that is, as God's representative on earth... [This passage] is also the clearest expression of the divine purpose in creation. After all things else had been made and put into their several positions of function and interrelationship, the Lord said, 'Let Us make man [as] Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule' (Gen. 1:26). The significance of this for communicating a (if not the) major theme of Old Testament theology cannot be overstated, and the fact that it is the first divinely articulated expression of the reason for man's existence makes it doubly significant. What is lacking apparently after the whole cosmos has been spoken into existence is its management, a caretaker as it were who will govern it all according to the will of the Creator. He could have done it himself without mediation, but for reasons never revealed in the sacred record, God elected to reign through a subordinate, a surrogate king responsible only to him.”
Merrill explains what had been lost in this divine intention after the Fall: “No longer did man have dominion over all things; instead, he abdicated his role as sovereign and worshipped what he should have ruled.” However, he still highlights partial fulfillments of the divine plan even after the Fall, such as in the Israelite monarchy:
“The creation mandate that mankind should 'be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it' and 'rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth' (Gen. 1:28) finds tangible expression even if only in a highly preliminary and anticipatory manner. David and his dynastic successors never exhibited this kind of universal dominion, of course, but the limited success they did enjoy, especially under Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 4:20–34), was a foretaste of the splendor, glory, and power of his descendants yet to come at the end of human history.”
Of course, this idea of human dominion as a vice-regent of God would only find its final fulfillment in Christ, the second Adam and the second David:
“If paradise was lost at the fall, it will be regained at the re-creation, not least in the restoration of man's glory as the vice-regent of the King of kings.”
The book seems to go out of its way to contrast the wild speculation of liberal theology, resulting in a work which is so straight-forward as to be dull. This is by no means always the case with Merrill's writings, as his Historical Survey of the Old Testament was one of the most interesting books I read as a new Christian. In Everlasting Dominion, however, where skeptical scholarship always assumes that the text is hiding something, Merrill takes it at face value. The result is a theology of the Old Testament which is more grounded, but that also often fails to soar to the heights that the text might allow for. Instead of elucidation and theologizing, Merrill tends to resort to extended (and I do mean extended) summary of the Hebrew canon.
The one major exception to this tendency is in Merrill's discussion of dominion, which we discussed above in detail. However, more work could certainly have been done on this topic, particularly in regard to how Jesus brings the idea to its fulfillment. Since it is Merrill's goal to explain the Old Testament with as little light from the New as possible, it is difficult to fault him for this. But it's also hard to fault the reader for wanting more when he reads tantalizing sections like this:
“What we propose in the following comments is done with a great deal of tentativeness since, as far as we can determine, we are virtually alone in making the case that Jesus, in his earthly ministry, frequently performed miraculous works to demonstrate not just his full deity but also his role as Urmensch, the second Adam who came to display in character and life what God had intended as the ideal for the whole human race. Without pursuing the biblical arguments for a full-blown Christology that is sensitive to both his divine and human natures, let it be said that there is universal consensus that the New Testament presents Jesus not only as God but also as perfect man.”
That being said, it does seem like an exaggeration to claim that Genesis 1:26 is the key text to understanding Old Testament theology. That it is a major theme, particularly in relation to its underemphasis by most biblical commentators, does not by any means strain credulity. It also seems to be in the back of the mind of many New Testament authors who emphasize restoration of the Kingdom of God involving our reigning with Christ and inheriting the eternal life and dominion over the world which was originally connected with our Edenic charge.
In the final analysis, Everlasting Dominion provides a good straight-forward overview of the Old Testament, but simply doesn't provide enough insight to warrant its nearly 700 pages.
Insofar as Merrill is a Christian writing about the Old Testament's theology, this creates a dilemma in regard to the role the New Testament is allowed to play in his interpretation. Merrill acknowledges this from the get go:
“Old Testament theology is the study of biblical theology that employs the methods of that discipline to the Old Testament alone while being aware of the limitations inherent in not addressing the New Testament witness in any comprehensive way. This delimitation can be justified on the grounds that the Old Testament speaks its own message, one that is legitimate and authoritative in every sense of the term even if, from the Christian viewpoint, its message is not ultimately complete.”
As such, his work attempts to focus on what the Old Testament says on its own, though he occasionally appeals to New Testament ideas as a means of providing an additional witness to his interpretation.
Merrill tends to provide basic level interpretation in the canonical order of the Old Testament books. As such, little of his exegesis is particularly creative. However, he does have one unique idea which comes up throughout the book and indeed inspired the title-- the idea that man was made by God as an intermediary for God's dominion over the world:
“The crowning work of creation was the appearance of mankind on the sixth day (Gen. 1:26–28). He is said to be in the image and likeness of God, but the grammar permits and theology favors the idea that he was created as his image and likeness, that is, as God's representative on earth... [This passage] is also the clearest expression of the divine purpose in creation. After all things else had been made and put into their several positions of function and interrelationship, the Lord said, 'Let Us make man [as] Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule' (Gen. 1:26). The significance of this for communicating a (if not the) major theme of Old Testament theology cannot be overstated, and the fact that it is the first divinely articulated expression of the reason for man's existence makes it doubly significant. What is lacking apparently after the whole cosmos has been spoken into existence is its management, a caretaker as it were who will govern it all according to the will of the Creator. He could have done it himself without mediation, but for reasons never revealed in the sacred record, God elected to reign through a subordinate, a surrogate king responsible only to him.”
Merrill explains what had been lost in this divine intention after the Fall: “No longer did man have dominion over all things; instead, he abdicated his role as sovereign and worshipped what he should have ruled.” However, he still highlights partial fulfillments of the divine plan even after the Fall, such as in the Israelite monarchy:
“The creation mandate that mankind should 'be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it' and 'rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth' (Gen. 1:28) finds tangible expression even if only in a highly preliminary and anticipatory manner. David and his dynastic successors never exhibited this kind of universal dominion, of course, but the limited success they did enjoy, especially under Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 4:20–34), was a foretaste of the splendor, glory, and power of his descendants yet to come at the end of human history.”
Of course, this idea of human dominion as a vice-regent of God would only find its final fulfillment in Christ, the second Adam and the second David:
“If paradise was lost at the fall, it will be regained at the re-creation, not least in the restoration of man's glory as the vice-regent of the King of kings.”
The book seems to go out of its way to contrast the wild speculation of liberal theology, resulting in a work which is so straight-forward as to be dull. This is by no means always the case with Merrill's writings, as his Historical Survey of the Old Testament was one of the most interesting books I read as a new Christian. In Everlasting Dominion, however, where skeptical scholarship always assumes that the text is hiding something, Merrill takes it at face value. The result is a theology of the Old Testament which is more grounded, but that also often fails to soar to the heights that the text might allow for. Instead of elucidation and theologizing, Merrill tends to resort to extended (and I do mean extended) summary of the Hebrew canon.
The one major exception to this tendency is in Merrill's discussion of dominion, which we discussed above in detail. However, more work could certainly have been done on this topic, particularly in regard to how Jesus brings the idea to its fulfillment. Since it is Merrill's goal to explain the Old Testament with as little light from the New as possible, it is difficult to fault him for this. But it's also hard to fault the reader for wanting more when he reads tantalizing sections like this:
“What we propose in the following comments is done with a great deal of tentativeness since, as far as we can determine, we are virtually alone in making the case that Jesus, in his earthly ministry, frequently performed miraculous works to demonstrate not just his full deity but also his role as Urmensch, the second Adam who came to display in character and life what God had intended as the ideal for the whole human race. Without pursuing the biblical arguments for a full-blown Christology that is sensitive to both his divine and human natures, let it be said that there is universal consensus that the New Testament presents Jesus not only as God but also as perfect man.”
That being said, it does seem like an exaggeration to claim that Genesis 1:26 is the key text to understanding Old Testament theology. That it is a major theme, particularly in relation to its underemphasis by most biblical commentators, does not by any means strain credulity. It also seems to be in the back of the mind of many New Testament authors who emphasize restoration of the Kingdom of God involving our reigning with Christ and inheriting the eternal life and dominion over the world which was originally connected with our Edenic charge.
In the final analysis, Everlasting Dominion provides a good straight-forward overview of the Old Testament, but simply doesn't provide enough insight to warrant its nearly 700 pages.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Tutankhamun in Tabletop Games
Jul 9, 2021
Tutankhamun (per dictionary.com, the pronunciation is as such: [ toot-ahng-kah-muhn ]) is regularly shortened and often referred to as “King Tut.” My real question is that if the first syllable is “toot,” why do we not call him King Toot? I have a 5 year old boy and a 2 year old girl at the time of this writing, so I can tell you EXACTLY why we don’t call him King Toot, but that’s for another discussion. Never having played the original version, will I enjoy this new version of the game by world-renowned designer Dr. Reiner Knizia?
In Tutankhamun, players take on the roles of Egyptian priests attempting to cleanse their souls by gifting the sarcophagus with relics found along the Nile River. The priest who can cleanse their soul quickest will be proclaimed the next High Priest and winner of the game!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, place the King Tut sarcophagus on the table somewhere inside the box bottom. From this starting place (or you could place these components last I suppose), begin the laborious job of creating the Nile from the trapezoidal Relic TIles. This part took me a good several minutes each game. Place out the Underworld Mat near the start of the Nile, and place upon it the two Guardian Statue standees. From there give every player a reference card, have them choose a player color, place their boats at the start of the Nile, and Canopic Jar scoring markers on the appropriate space along the box bottom score track. The game may now begin!
Tutankhamun is played in turns starting with the starting player and proceeding clockwise. The starting player will choose ANY Relic Tile to collect and move their boat to that location. Once collected, the player will check to make sure there are still matching Relics along the Nile. If so, then play continues to the next player. If the active player had collected the last Relic of that type still active in the game, then the Relic type is scored.
Each Relic Tile features art of a Relic, a God, or a Scarab Ring. Relics come in sets, and when the final Relic of its type is collected, scoring immediately follows. Whichever player possesses the most Relic Tiles of the one being scored will earn points (or rather, negative points, as the priests are trying to cleanse their souls down to the winning score of zero) equal to the number printed on the tile. That number stands for the score earned as well as the number of Relics of that type in the game. The player with the second most Relics of the scored type will score half the number printed on the tile. All others do not score.
God Tiles feature art of one of five ancient Egyptian Gods: Osiris, Isis, Ra, Thoth, and Horus. Each of these Gods provide the collecting player with special powers to be used during the turn, and are always positive for the player.
Finally, Scarab Ring tiles are special in that they feature no number upon them. There are 10 tiles in the game, and as soon as a player collects one they immediately score one point (or one negative point). These tiles are not thrown into the box bottom, as the other scoring tiles are once scored, but are kept with the players to be scored at the end of the game. The player holding the most Scarab Tiles scores five negative points.
Any tile along the Nile that has been passed by all players is deposited onto the Underworld Mat and not added to the box bottom with the King Tut sarcophagus. Tiles may still be collected from the Underworld by permission of the Gods being collected in-game. Whichever priest is able to dwindle down their points and cleanse their soul first will win the game and become the next High Priest of Egypt!
Components. I am more and more becoming a fan of everything 25th Century Games is putting out. This is certainly no exception. I have seen photos of the original versions of this game, entitled Tutankhamen (with an E at the end instead of a U) and this game was certainly begging for a renovation. All the components have updated art, more vibrant colors, and the game even includes luxurious (and completely unnecessary) components. These are the very cool, but very unnecessary King Tut sarcophagus, and the Guardian Statue standees that add nothing to the gameplay but definitely help set the mood and theme. That all said, this version looks amazing on the table and has nearly infinite setup configurations!
What I like most about the game is the fact that on a player’s turn they can literally move forward to ANYWHERE along the Nile to gather whatever Relic they wish. They can pass up a tile or twelve along the way to snatch exactly what they want. However, the quicker a player reaches the sarcophagus does not automatically make them the winner. No, they still need to reduce their soul spirit score to zero in order to win (or be closest by the time all players reach the final spot). Conversely, dilly-dallying along the River just picking up every available tile also will not guarantee a victory. Specializing in a select few items may be the ticket to a victory, or setting oneself to win a couple types and win runner-up on the remainder may be a great path to victory.
Unlike many other games with this lazy race mechanic, the player furthest back does NOT get to keep taking turns to catch up (I’m looking at you, Tokaido), but rather just means that player has many more options ahead of themselves than the other players have. This is very interesting to me, and definitely something worth exploring more. It makes for tough turns when players have to really crunch which options are best for them: take the tile right ahead of them, diversify vs bolster the collection, or hate block another player by taking what you know they need. Ahh, so beautiful are the choices given!
At the end of the day (and this review), Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an Obama-meme-where-he-is-drinking-a-beer-and-giving-a-thumbs-up 5 / 6. I would certainly not have purchased this game in its original form had I seen it in a game store. However, with the changes made to make it more pretty, I would have given it a chance. I am so very glad I have the opportunity to play this a lot, as I can see this getting to the table allllllll the time. It is right up my alley, and I place it high among other Knizia games. Long live King Toot!!
In Tutankhamun, players take on the roles of Egyptian priests attempting to cleanse their souls by gifting the sarcophagus with relics found along the Nile River. The priest who can cleanse their soul quickest will be proclaimed the next High Priest and winner of the game!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, place the King Tut sarcophagus on the table somewhere inside the box bottom. From this starting place (or you could place these components last I suppose), begin the laborious job of creating the Nile from the trapezoidal Relic TIles. This part took me a good several minutes each game. Place out the Underworld Mat near the start of the Nile, and place upon it the two Guardian Statue standees. From there give every player a reference card, have them choose a player color, place their boats at the start of the Nile, and Canopic Jar scoring markers on the appropriate space along the box bottom score track. The game may now begin!
Tutankhamun is played in turns starting with the starting player and proceeding clockwise. The starting player will choose ANY Relic Tile to collect and move their boat to that location. Once collected, the player will check to make sure there are still matching Relics along the Nile. If so, then play continues to the next player. If the active player had collected the last Relic of that type still active in the game, then the Relic type is scored.
Each Relic Tile features art of a Relic, a God, or a Scarab Ring. Relics come in sets, and when the final Relic of its type is collected, scoring immediately follows. Whichever player possesses the most Relic Tiles of the one being scored will earn points (or rather, negative points, as the priests are trying to cleanse their souls down to the winning score of zero) equal to the number printed on the tile. That number stands for the score earned as well as the number of Relics of that type in the game. The player with the second most Relics of the scored type will score half the number printed on the tile. All others do not score.
God Tiles feature art of one of five ancient Egyptian Gods: Osiris, Isis, Ra, Thoth, and Horus. Each of these Gods provide the collecting player with special powers to be used during the turn, and are always positive for the player.
Finally, Scarab Ring tiles are special in that they feature no number upon them. There are 10 tiles in the game, and as soon as a player collects one they immediately score one point (or one negative point). These tiles are not thrown into the box bottom, as the other scoring tiles are once scored, but are kept with the players to be scored at the end of the game. The player holding the most Scarab Tiles scores five negative points.
Any tile along the Nile that has been passed by all players is deposited onto the Underworld Mat and not added to the box bottom with the King Tut sarcophagus. Tiles may still be collected from the Underworld by permission of the Gods being collected in-game. Whichever priest is able to dwindle down their points and cleanse their soul first will win the game and become the next High Priest of Egypt!
Components. I am more and more becoming a fan of everything 25th Century Games is putting out. This is certainly no exception. I have seen photos of the original versions of this game, entitled Tutankhamen (with an E at the end instead of a U) and this game was certainly begging for a renovation. All the components have updated art, more vibrant colors, and the game even includes luxurious (and completely unnecessary) components. These are the very cool, but very unnecessary King Tut sarcophagus, and the Guardian Statue standees that add nothing to the gameplay but definitely help set the mood and theme. That all said, this version looks amazing on the table and has nearly infinite setup configurations!
What I like most about the game is the fact that on a player’s turn they can literally move forward to ANYWHERE along the Nile to gather whatever Relic they wish. They can pass up a tile or twelve along the way to snatch exactly what they want. However, the quicker a player reaches the sarcophagus does not automatically make them the winner. No, they still need to reduce their soul spirit score to zero in order to win (or be closest by the time all players reach the final spot). Conversely, dilly-dallying along the River just picking up every available tile also will not guarantee a victory. Specializing in a select few items may be the ticket to a victory, or setting oneself to win a couple types and win runner-up on the remainder may be a great path to victory.
Unlike many other games with this lazy race mechanic, the player furthest back does NOT get to keep taking turns to catch up (I’m looking at you, Tokaido), but rather just means that player has many more options ahead of themselves than the other players have. This is very interesting to me, and definitely something worth exploring more. It makes for tough turns when players have to really crunch which options are best for them: take the tile right ahead of them, diversify vs bolster the collection, or hate block another player by taking what you know they need. Ahh, so beautiful are the choices given!
At the end of the day (and this review), Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an Obama-meme-where-he-is-drinking-a-beer-and-giving-a-thumbs-up 5 / 6. I would certainly not have purchased this game in its original form had I seen it in a game store. However, with the changes made to make it more pretty, I would have given it a chance. I am so very glad I have the opportunity to play this a lot, as I can see this getting to the table allllllll the time. It is right up my alley, and I place it high among other Knizia games. Long live King Toot!!
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015) in Movies
Jul 20, 2017
There has been an awakening...
Contains spoilers, click to show
There was a point where I honestly thought that this day was never going to come. Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time in 30 years we have an exciting, entertaining Star Wars movie. Now this review will contain a non spoilers section and a spoilers section, so if you haven’t seen the movie yet, maybe don’t read past the spoiler warning. So, strap in because if this franchise is starting as it means to go on, then I’ve got a good feeling about this…
First off, let’s talk about the new cast. All three of them are fantastic in their performances, with Daisy Ridley as Rey, John Boyega as Finn and Oscar Isaac as Poe Dameron respectively. Poe has the smallest role, which is my biggest and only complaint about the character, because he is awesome. He is funny, he’s an amazing pilot, he reeks of cool and he is the one character in this movie that I’d love to get a pint with. Finn is another new character, dealing with an inner conflict, (which I won’t ruin,) but is still likeable and relatable. Rey is arguably the most central of the three new main cast members and she delivers also, she sold the fairly bland character dealing with an exciting new adventure calling her name pretty well, but possibly could have done more in a few scenes, as it sort of feels like they could have cast anyone of the same age in this role and they would have delivered, but she did well enough. Of course, the old cast are also back, Anthony Daniels as C3PO is just as irritating as he was 30 years ago and while it’s nice to see Peter Mahew back as Chewie, they really could have put any tall, thin guy into the furry costume and it wouldn’t have made any difference. Carrie Fisher is back as Leia and the while lines she had were entertaining and at times touching, she simply wasn’t in the movie enough. I won’t talk about Luke until the spoilers section, so let’s move on to Han. It’s nice to see grumpy old gramps Harrison Ford actually look enthusiastic and as if he is actually enjoying himself for a change. His performance surprisingly isn’t phoned in and he genuinely commits to the role just as much as he did 30 years ago. Also, out of the original returning cast, he is definitely in the movie most.
Now that we have discussed the light side, now let’s move onto the dark side. Personally I don’t think these characters are as strong as the protagonists. It’s not the fault of the actors, Domnall Gleason as Hux is great, super evil and almost Nazi-like, Andy Serkis as Snoke is intimidating in his performance also and Adam Driver as Kylo Ren is one of the best performances in the movie, showing sadness and anger, all while being an unhinged threatening presence. The problem here is that the villains in this movie just don’t have the same impact as the villains in the original , Hux and Ren are made out to be young and naïve and while Snoke is pulling the strings, but we only ever see him as a hologram and even then, we don’t see him all that much. It’s as if this is these villain’s origin story, but in A New Hope, the villains and the Empire already felt like an established, villainous organisation, whereas in this movie it is as if a bunch of amateurs have happened across a new death star (let’s not lie, that’s all that the Starkiller base is,) and they don’t really know what they are doing. And Captain Phasma? Hardly worth talking about, she is in two scenes and does nothing in either of them besides let herself get taken advantage of. So that’s a summary on how I felt about the characters in general, onto the movie as a whole.
I feel that Abrams has gotten the tone of this movie just right. It’s funny enough that it’s constantly entertaining and never boring and it’s serious enough that you feel a genuine, palpable threat throughout. The score is also fantastic, as is expected from John Williams and overall the effects are spot on also. I did have a slight problem with some of the CGI characters, namely Snoke, the tentacle monsters that show up briefly and the market owner that was in possession of the Falcon at the start of the movie played by Simon Pegg, but there were also a lot of puppets and practical effects were used and it really pays off in the overall look of the movie, no more crammed scenes of cartoon garbage like the prequels, just what matters. The pacing of this movie is very fast, some might say too fast, with Abrams not really giving the viewers time to breathe and digest what they just saw before throwing another dogfight or lightsaber battle at them, but hey, at least you can’t say it’s boring and I’m happy to say that there isn’t a senate discussion in sight. I really do feel like I have to see the movie again however before making an overall verdict and that is due to the extremely fast pacing and because of all of the significant events that happen nothing really stands out, which leaves a lack of meat on the bone. The story is well written however, the world is built well and the characters are all introduced well, but the story does follow a lot of the same beats as the original trilogy. Without giving anything away, the story is divided up into three distinct acts, with each taking place on a different planet followed by an epilogue at the end. There is a cantina scene, a robot carrying an important message to be delivered, Tie Fighter vs. X Wing dogfights and a death star-like weapon of mass destruction, there is even a trench run.
Okay, so I saw the movie again on Tuesday this week and while most of what I felt the first time I felt again, making a lot of the feelings I had after my first viewing more concrete, I did notice a few new things. Also, from this point on there will be spoilers.
Knowing what was coming before it did really helped the pacing of this movie, it was much easier to digest a second time, but at no point was it a chore to watch the film again. I also noticed a lot more lens flares this time, upon first viewing I thought that the only lens flare in the movie was when the Starkiller base fires it’s weapon, but there are in fact quite a few throughout the film. Also the end scene with Luke was a lot better the second time, it didn’t feel as awkward or drawn out and felt more like a fitting end to the movie, although if you ask me, Luke should have at least had a line. Also the revelation that Kylo Ren was actually Ben Solo, Han’s son and Han’s death scene at the hands of Ren were also better on second viewing. While Han’s death was somewhat predictable and probably could have been executed better, it was nice to have him in this movie for the time we got him and I’m sure Harrison Ford is more than happy to never have to play the character again. Also BB-8 is possibly even more likable the second time. Seeing the movie again I also gained a greater appreciation for the cinematography in it, with some awesome long shots showing off the dogfights and the First Order vs. Resistance action. I’m glad I got to see the movie a second time as it has upped my opinion of the movie and if you are a Star Wars fan, it’s something that I would strongly recommend you do.
First off, let’s talk about the new cast. All three of them are fantastic in their performances, with Daisy Ridley as Rey, John Boyega as Finn and Oscar Isaac as Poe Dameron respectively. Poe has the smallest role, which is my biggest and only complaint about the character, because he is awesome. He is funny, he’s an amazing pilot, he reeks of cool and he is the one character in this movie that I’d love to get a pint with. Finn is another new character, dealing with an inner conflict, (which I won’t ruin,) but is still likeable and relatable. Rey is arguably the most central of the three new main cast members and she delivers also, she sold the fairly bland character dealing with an exciting new adventure calling her name pretty well, but possibly could have done more in a few scenes, as it sort of feels like they could have cast anyone of the same age in this role and they would have delivered, but she did well enough. Of course, the old cast are also back, Anthony Daniels as C3PO is just as irritating as he was 30 years ago and while it’s nice to see Peter Mahew back as Chewie, they really could have put any tall, thin guy into the furry costume and it wouldn’t have made any difference. Carrie Fisher is back as Leia and the while lines she had were entertaining and at times touching, she simply wasn’t in the movie enough. I won’t talk about Luke until the spoilers section, so let’s move on to Han. It’s nice to see grumpy old gramps Harrison Ford actually look enthusiastic and as if he is actually enjoying himself for a change. His performance surprisingly isn’t phoned in and he genuinely commits to the role just as much as he did 30 years ago. Also, out of the original returning cast, he is definitely in the movie most.
Now that we have discussed the light side, now let’s move onto the dark side. Personally I don’t think these characters are as strong as the protagonists. It’s not the fault of the actors, Domnall Gleason as Hux is great, super evil and almost Nazi-like, Andy Serkis as Snoke is intimidating in his performance also and Adam Driver as Kylo Ren is one of the best performances in the movie, showing sadness and anger, all while being an unhinged threatening presence. The problem here is that the villains in this movie just don’t have the same impact as the villains in the original , Hux and Ren are made out to be young and naïve and while Snoke is pulling the strings, but we only ever see him as a hologram and even then, we don’t see him all that much. It’s as if this is these villain’s origin story, but in A New Hope, the villains and the Empire already felt like an established, villainous organisation, whereas in this movie it is as if a bunch of amateurs have happened across a new death star (let’s not lie, that’s all that the Starkiller base is,) and they don’t really know what they are doing. And Captain Phasma? Hardly worth talking about, she is in two scenes and does nothing in either of them besides let herself get taken advantage of. So that’s a summary on how I felt about the characters in general, onto the movie as a whole.
I feel that Abrams has gotten the tone of this movie just right. It’s funny enough that it’s constantly entertaining and never boring and it’s serious enough that you feel a genuine, palpable threat throughout. The score is also fantastic, as is expected from John Williams and overall the effects are spot on also. I did have a slight problem with some of the CGI characters, namely Snoke, the tentacle monsters that show up briefly and the market owner that was in possession of the Falcon at the start of the movie played by Simon Pegg, but there were also a lot of puppets and practical effects were used and it really pays off in the overall look of the movie, no more crammed scenes of cartoon garbage like the prequels, just what matters. The pacing of this movie is very fast, some might say too fast, with Abrams not really giving the viewers time to breathe and digest what they just saw before throwing another dogfight or lightsaber battle at them, but hey, at least you can’t say it’s boring and I’m happy to say that there isn’t a senate discussion in sight. I really do feel like I have to see the movie again however before making an overall verdict and that is due to the extremely fast pacing and because of all of the significant events that happen nothing really stands out, which leaves a lack of meat on the bone. The story is well written however, the world is built well and the characters are all introduced well, but the story does follow a lot of the same beats as the original trilogy. Without giving anything away, the story is divided up into three distinct acts, with each taking place on a different planet followed by an epilogue at the end. There is a cantina scene, a robot carrying an important message to be delivered, Tie Fighter vs. X Wing dogfights and a death star-like weapon of mass destruction, there is even a trench run.
Okay, so I saw the movie again on Tuesday this week and while most of what I felt the first time I felt again, making a lot of the feelings I had after my first viewing more concrete, I did notice a few new things. Also, from this point on there will be spoilers.
Knowing what was coming before it did really helped the pacing of this movie, it was much easier to digest a second time, but at no point was it a chore to watch the film again. I also noticed a lot more lens flares this time, upon first viewing I thought that the only lens flare in the movie was when the Starkiller base fires it’s weapon, but there are in fact quite a few throughout the film. Also the end scene with Luke was a lot better the second time, it didn’t feel as awkward or drawn out and felt more like a fitting end to the movie, although if you ask me, Luke should have at least had a line. Also the revelation that Kylo Ren was actually Ben Solo, Han’s son and Han’s death scene at the hands of Ren were also better on second viewing. While Han’s death was somewhat predictable and probably could have been executed better, it was nice to have him in this movie for the time we got him and I’m sure Harrison Ford is more than happy to never have to play the character again. Also BB-8 is possibly even more likable the second time. Seeing the movie again I also gained a greater appreciation for the cinematography in it, with some awesome long shots showing off the dogfights and the First Order vs. Resistance action. I’m glad I got to see the movie a second time as it has upped my opinion of the movie and if you are a Star Wars fan, it’s something that I would strongly recommend you do.