Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) and her friends have more on their plate to worry about than typical high school drama. A child murderer named Fred Krueger (Robert Englund) was killed by the parents residing on Elm Street after they took matters into their own hands when the justice system failed to get the redemption the parents so desperately seeked. That was thought to be the end of it and everyone tried to move on with their lives. That is until Nancy, her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp), her best friend Tina (Amanda Wyss), and Tina's boyfriend Rod (Jsu Garcia) begin having nightmares about the same man. A man wearing a red and green striped sweater, brown fedora, and a four finger-bladed leather glove. Could Fred Krueger really be exacting his revenge from beyond the grave and in the dreams of his victims?
Wes Craven is probably best known for the Scream franchise since it's the most successful set of films he's ever been a part of, at least as far as the box office is concerned, but there was another film that he created that spawned seven sequels and a remake. A film that is looked at as a horror classic and is considered to be the first commercially successful release from New Line Cinema. That film is A Nightmare on Elm Street.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is looked at by some (including myself) as the best film in the franchise. While most of the sequels feature a Freddy that is more interested in cracking a joke than being an intimidating serial killer, the original film is where he seems to shine brightest. He seems to always be lurking in the shadows making it nearly impossible to get a clear look at his face. Remember when films left a bit of a mystery to things rather than being entirely realistic and showing every little detail when it came to gore? Well, this is a good example.
The deaths of Tina and Glen could arguably be reason alone to watch the film. Tina's death is so original and so well done. One of the reasons it still holds up today is because it was done with practical effects. The same can be said about Glen's death. The only thing more impressive than his death is the fact that it's Johnny Depp's debut. Both deaths are two of the most memorable in horror film history.
Despite A Nightmare on Elm Street being one of the most influential horror films of our time, it still has that cheesiness associated with most horror films that come out of the eighties. Bad acting (Heather Langenkamp especially. The "Screw your pass!" scene is a good example, but is hilarious in its own right) and dated special effects being the best examples. While the practical effects are a good thing and are much preferred over CGI, some of them haven't aged well over the past 26 years. The scene of Freddy chasing Tina is probably the best example of this. His arms stretching inhuman lengths to scratch the walls and Tina ripping off his face just didn't hold up as well as other effects in the film.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is a beloved horror classic that gave birth to one of the most iconic serial killers in the genre. The original film features some of the most creative deaths and practical effects (seeing Freddy in the wall above Nancy's bed in the beginning of the film is one of the best scenes) to come out of any horror film held in such high regard. The film's charm will go over a lot of people's heads who look into it for the first time after seeing the remake which will probably result in the film getting more flack than it deserves. But nevertheless, it's hard to deny the impact Freddy and Wes Craven have had on this genre thanks to this film.
Special Features: The two-disc Infinifilm is packed with extras including:
Feature commentary including a variety of topics: the financial problems the film had with writer/director Wes Craven, producer Bob Shaye, actor John Saxon, and cinematographer Jacques Haitkin sharing their thoughts, Heather Langenkamp and Wes Craven talk about how great it was to work with Johnny Depp, Amanda Wyss goes into detail about not knowing much about the horror genre before taking her role as Tina, a discussion of how Robert Englund got the role of Fred Krueger and Englund shares his thoughts on the Fred Krueger character. Everything from the problems the film had to Freddy's popularity to the film's reputation and more are discussed by the cast and crew.
Original commentary includes Heather Langenkamp, John Saxon, Wes Craven, and Jacques Haitkin.
Beyond the Movie Features include The House That Freddy Built: The Legacy of New Line Horror and Night Terrors: The Origins of Wes Craven's Nightmares.
All Access Pass Features include three alternate endings, Never Sleep Again: The making of A Nightmare on Elm Street, a trivia challenge and the theatrical trailer.
There's also Infinifilm bonus features that can be accessed while the film is playing and the original screenplay can be viewed as a DVD-ROM feature.
The film is remastered and restored from the original film negative and is presented in both Dolby Digital 5.1-EX surround sound and DTS-ES 6.1 Surround Sound.
Wes Craven is probably best known for the Scream franchise since it's the most successful set of films he's ever been a part of, at least as far as the box office is concerned, but there was another film that he created that spawned seven sequels and a remake. A film that is looked at as a horror classic and is considered to be the first commercially successful release from New Line Cinema. That film is A Nightmare on Elm Street.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is looked at by some (including myself) as the best film in the franchise. While most of the sequels feature a Freddy that is more interested in cracking a joke than being an intimidating serial killer, the original film is where he seems to shine brightest. He seems to always be lurking in the shadows making it nearly impossible to get a clear look at his face. Remember when films left a bit of a mystery to things rather than being entirely realistic and showing every little detail when it came to gore? Well, this is a good example.
The deaths of Tina and Glen could arguably be reason alone to watch the film. Tina's death is so original and so well done. One of the reasons it still holds up today is because it was done with practical effects. The same can be said about Glen's death. The only thing more impressive than his death is the fact that it's Johnny Depp's debut. Both deaths are two of the most memorable in horror film history.
Despite A Nightmare on Elm Street being one of the most influential horror films of our time, it still has that cheesiness associated with most horror films that come out of the eighties. Bad acting (Heather Langenkamp especially. The "Screw your pass!" scene is a good example, but is hilarious in its own right) and dated special effects being the best examples. While the practical effects are a good thing and are much preferred over CGI, some of them haven't aged well over the past 26 years. The scene of Freddy chasing Tina is probably the best example of this. His arms stretching inhuman lengths to scratch the walls and Tina ripping off his face just didn't hold up as well as other effects in the film.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is a beloved horror classic that gave birth to one of the most iconic serial killers in the genre. The original film features some of the most creative deaths and practical effects (seeing Freddy in the wall above Nancy's bed in the beginning of the film is one of the best scenes) to come out of any horror film held in such high regard. The film's charm will go over a lot of people's heads who look into it for the first time after seeing the remake which will probably result in the film getting more flack than it deserves. But nevertheless, it's hard to deny the impact Freddy and Wes Craven have had on this genre thanks to this film.
Special Features: The two-disc Infinifilm is packed with extras including:
Feature commentary including a variety of topics: the financial problems the film had with writer/director Wes Craven, producer Bob Shaye, actor John Saxon, and cinematographer Jacques Haitkin sharing their thoughts, Heather Langenkamp and Wes Craven talk about how great it was to work with Johnny Depp, Amanda Wyss goes into detail about not knowing much about the horror genre before taking her role as Tina, a discussion of how Robert Englund got the role of Fred Krueger and Englund shares his thoughts on the Fred Krueger character. Everything from the problems the film had to Freddy's popularity to the film's reputation and more are discussed by the cast and crew.
Original commentary includes Heather Langenkamp, John Saxon, Wes Craven, and Jacques Haitkin.
Beyond the Movie Features include The House That Freddy Built: The Legacy of New Line Horror and Night Terrors: The Origins of Wes Craven's Nightmares.
All Access Pass Features include three alternate endings, Never Sleep Again: The making of A Nightmare on Elm Street, a trivia challenge and the theatrical trailer.
There's also Infinifilm bonus features that can be accessed while the film is playing and the original screenplay can be viewed as a DVD-ROM feature.
The film is remastered and restored from the original film negative and is presented in both Dolby Digital 5.1-EX surround sound and DTS-ES 6.1 Surround Sound.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Thing (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
After the success of a videogame based on the original film, rumors of a sequel arose many times but never came to fruition, with creative differences between Universal and John Carpenter cited as the main reason. It was oft-speculated that Carpenter made a deal to write and produce a sequel provided he got to name has director. But when he opted to name himself director the studio balked and the project fell apart. In the aftermath, rumors of a miniseries on the SyfY channel arose along with the possibility of retelling the story with 20-somethings on a tropical island but (thankfully) they never saw the light of day.
Rather than do a sequel or remake, Universal opted to jump start the franchise with a prequel that covers the events leading up to the John Carpenter film. It is set in 1982 at a Norwegian research station in Antarctica shortly before the scientists make an amazing discovery. When they uncover an alien craft that had been buried in the ice for over 100,000 years, as well as a frozen crewmember from the craft, they quickly celebrate the scientific discovery of a lifetime.
Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), is recruited by a famed scientist to travel to the desolate continent to research the find. Told only that they are about to research an amazing discovery, Kate and a team of specialists arrive and are absolutely stunned by the magnitude of their discovery. Kate urges caution but is overridden by the expedition leader Dr. Halvorsan (Ulrich Thomsen), who insists on taking a tissue sample of the frozen creature encassed in a block of ice.
Later that evening while celebrating, the very much alive creature escapes from its icy prison and begins to systematically hunt the members of the research team. The creature is eventually trapped and burned which causes some consternation over the loss of the creature for further scientific study, but many in the camp applaud its loss after seeing firsthand the destruction it is capable of.
After a bizarre series of events, Kate makes the startling discovery that the cells of the creature are able to imitate and perfectly replicate any thing that it comes in contact with. As a result, not only is the creature very much alive, but the individuals in the camp may no longer be human. Trapped in a remote location with an advancing winter storm, suspicions and paranoia go through the roof as the survivors are pitted against one another, unsure of who is still human. What follows is a high-octane adventure awash in action and grisly special-effects as the two species are locked in the ultimate battle for survival.
The film has a good supporting cast and Joel Edgerton does solid supporting work as an American helicopter pilot assigned to the camp. Eric Christian Olsen provides a steadying presence as a research assistant but his character is not as developed as it could be. It is known that he and Kate know each other but their past history is undefined which makes their relationship a bit puzzling in the film especially when the survivors begin to pick sides.
While the movie is not going to make fans forget the original, it is a very worthy companion piece. As the film was winding down I found myself checking off a couple of inconsistencies with the original film, but was very pleasantly surprised when this was all explained during the end credits which perfectly synced the end of this film with the opening of John Carpenter’s classic.
In many ways the weakness of film is due to the success of John Carpenter’s previous film, in that the creature is not that much of a mystery this time around. Part of the suspense of the previous film was not knowing how the creature operated nor how it was capable of infecting and replicating numerous individuals.
This time around the suspense is lost due to the familiarity with the creature. As a result, director Matthijs van Heijningen focused his efforts on a more action adventure oriented film that gave very little time for character development. We are not told very much about many of the characters in the film as they simply exist to serve as potential victims for the creature. All one really needs to know is they are scientists or support staff as aside from a handful of characters we’re not really given much reason to care whether they survive.
Visually the film is sharp and it is clear that a lot of attention was paid to replicate the look of the previous film. The shots of vast fields of ice and snow emphasized the remote and isolated setting that the characters find themselves in and served as a reminder that danger lurks all around. The special-effects have obviously been upgraded since 1982 and it was nice to see that the creative elements did not go overboard on CGI effects, and actually used puppetry and animatronics to provide updated creature effects that were still in keeping with the look and tone from the previous film.
While the film is not likely to reach the iconic status of the previous film, it is still a worthy companion piece that has enough action and effects to keep it interesting to fans of the series – just so long as they keep their expectations reasonable and do not expect a film on par with the previous one.
Rather than do a sequel or remake, Universal opted to jump start the franchise with a prequel that covers the events leading up to the John Carpenter film. It is set in 1982 at a Norwegian research station in Antarctica shortly before the scientists make an amazing discovery. When they uncover an alien craft that had been buried in the ice for over 100,000 years, as well as a frozen crewmember from the craft, they quickly celebrate the scientific discovery of a lifetime.
Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), is recruited by a famed scientist to travel to the desolate continent to research the find. Told only that they are about to research an amazing discovery, Kate and a team of specialists arrive and are absolutely stunned by the magnitude of their discovery. Kate urges caution but is overridden by the expedition leader Dr. Halvorsan (Ulrich Thomsen), who insists on taking a tissue sample of the frozen creature encassed in a block of ice.
Later that evening while celebrating, the very much alive creature escapes from its icy prison and begins to systematically hunt the members of the research team. The creature is eventually trapped and burned which causes some consternation over the loss of the creature for further scientific study, but many in the camp applaud its loss after seeing firsthand the destruction it is capable of.
After a bizarre series of events, Kate makes the startling discovery that the cells of the creature are able to imitate and perfectly replicate any thing that it comes in contact with. As a result, not only is the creature very much alive, but the individuals in the camp may no longer be human. Trapped in a remote location with an advancing winter storm, suspicions and paranoia go through the roof as the survivors are pitted against one another, unsure of who is still human. What follows is a high-octane adventure awash in action and grisly special-effects as the two species are locked in the ultimate battle for survival.
The film has a good supporting cast and Joel Edgerton does solid supporting work as an American helicopter pilot assigned to the camp. Eric Christian Olsen provides a steadying presence as a research assistant but his character is not as developed as it could be. It is known that he and Kate know each other but their past history is undefined which makes their relationship a bit puzzling in the film especially when the survivors begin to pick sides.
While the movie is not going to make fans forget the original, it is a very worthy companion piece. As the film was winding down I found myself checking off a couple of inconsistencies with the original film, but was very pleasantly surprised when this was all explained during the end credits which perfectly synced the end of this film with the opening of John Carpenter’s classic.
In many ways the weakness of film is due to the success of John Carpenter’s previous film, in that the creature is not that much of a mystery this time around. Part of the suspense of the previous film was not knowing how the creature operated nor how it was capable of infecting and replicating numerous individuals.
This time around the suspense is lost due to the familiarity with the creature. As a result, director Matthijs van Heijningen focused his efforts on a more action adventure oriented film that gave very little time for character development. We are not told very much about many of the characters in the film as they simply exist to serve as potential victims for the creature. All one really needs to know is they are scientists or support staff as aside from a handful of characters we’re not really given much reason to care whether they survive.
Visually the film is sharp and it is clear that a lot of attention was paid to replicate the look of the previous film. The shots of vast fields of ice and snow emphasized the remote and isolated setting that the characters find themselves in and served as a reminder that danger lurks all around. The special-effects have obviously been upgraded since 1982 and it was nice to see that the creative elements did not go overboard on CGI effects, and actually used puppetry and animatronics to provide updated creature effects that were still in keeping with the look and tone from the previous film.
While the film is not likely to reach the iconic status of the previous film, it is still a worthy companion piece that has enough action and effects to keep it interesting to fans of the series – just so long as they keep their expectations reasonable and do not expect a film on par with the previous one.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2020
It has felt like a long wait to get to this film, there was a lot of talk when Midway was coming out so I was very glad it finally arrived.
Lance Corporal Blake has been told to report with another soldier, the respite from war was short but something important must be afoot. It's more than just important, it's life and death for Blake's older brother. His company have sent word that they're going to advance on the retreating German troops but communications are down and they don't know they're going headfirst into a trap.
Blake and Schofield are tasked with finding a way to their position to stop the advance before they lead 1,600 men into the ambush. Between them and their objective? No man's land, abandoned German trenches and large expanses of open land. One another and vigilance are all they have to get them to their objective.
I ended up seeing this twice on its opening weekend, mainly for technical reasons. When I completed my first watch I saw a lot of tweets about its "one-shot" filming and details of an interview about the filming techniques used, that all made me want to go back and watch for more detail.
If I'm honest with you I didn't notice the "one-shot" filming during my first trip to the cinema. In the interview I saw it said that there were no takes longer than 9 minutes, with its running time that meant that at the very least there were 14 cuts... of course I wanted to go and try to spot them. There were only a few "obvious" ones, but even then some of those felt so seamless that you wouldn't question if they said it was done in one (two) shot(s).
The effects in the film are fantastic, but also one of my only quibbles. There are several video clips with and without effects on floating around the internet and you'll see the massive effort that went into these effects. The major scene that comes to mind is in the trailer, Schofield is running across the field as the regiment is advancing around him. I had just assumed that the shot was aerial, but no, it was filmed from the back of a truck. That doesn't sound all that strange until you see in this video that the truck has a road to drive down that is then CGId out for the final cut. That was incredible to see. But this scene is also the only scene that made me doubt the effects too. When I watched it on the big screen it felt clear that some of the explosions were generated, and watching the clips proved that feeling to be right.
I could ramble on about the effects in this for ages but I need to remember there are other things to talk about... but well, I want to rave a little.
The nighttime scene is truly incredible to watch. It makes you paranoid and scared, you watch the shadows for soldiers and survivors, ugh, gripping and terrifying all at the same time.
Right, come one... move along, Emma!
Not much of a switch but I want to mention what I believe are mainly physical effects. One of the first scenes shows Blake and Schofield going through the trenches and over no man's land, walking through the trenches takes a long time, the fact they dug all of that and decked out the entire length for what is sometimes just a fleeting view. The soldiers as they sleep against the walls blending in like they're not there, the claustrophobic feeling as they walls creep higher and closer around them, and just the sheer volume of people down there. Both fast-paced and drawn out at the same time this whole sequence is complex and important.
After the trenches we see them go over the top into no man's land. The pair of them make an amazing job of playing in the mud. It's another part of the film that makes you look around. What's floating in the water? What's hidden in the mud? Truly spectacular additions and I imagine that on every viewing you'd see something different and horrific appear.
Come on, Emma... acting.
There are a lot of cameos from recognisable talented actors but the nature of the story means they're only the briefest of scenes. Mark Strong was probably my favourite of those, his tone at that critical part of the film was perfect.
To our main duo... Blake is played by Dean-Charles Chapman, a face I recognised but had to look up. I'd seen him most recently in The King and Blinded By The Light but clearly neither of those roles stuck with me. Schofield is played by George MacKay who I haven't seen in anything before. The pair had an interesting dynamic, there was certainly a camaraderie there but I swung between thinking they were good friends and just acquaintances because of their behaviour towards each other. Their characters felt very much at two ends of the scale, Blake optimistic and almost a little green, Schofield, battle-worn and sceptical.
Between the two I can easily say that George MacKay was the better performer. He does get some of the headier scenes to deal with but Chapman felt like he wasn't in a warzone. There were still good moments there but I wasn't as convinced by his performance. MacKay was acting even when he wasn't acting, his moments of silence were just as impressive as his scripted parts.
There is just so much in 1917 to look at, the background is so well thought out that you're drawn to it just as much as the action that's in the foreground. You're scanning everything as they move with them like you're a member of their regiment. It feels like it needs to be watched a couple of times. I watched it to see it, I watched it to watch the techniques and I feel like I want to see it again just to watch that background. None of these watches are for anything other than the technical side of things though. Even though I felt emotional connections with parts of the story it's still a basic quest with obstacles and while it's an interesting look at soldiers and their dedication it's not all that extraordinary.
This truly deserves to win a lot of technical awards. I'm not sure that the acting or script hit the same heights, but as a whole 1917 is definitely something special to see.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/1917-movie-review.html
Lance Corporal Blake has been told to report with another soldier, the respite from war was short but something important must be afoot. It's more than just important, it's life and death for Blake's older brother. His company have sent word that they're going to advance on the retreating German troops but communications are down and they don't know they're going headfirst into a trap.
Blake and Schofield are tasked with finding a way to their position to stop the advance before they lead 1,600 men into the ambush. Between them and their objective? No man's land, abandoned German trenches and large expanses of open land. One another and vigilance are all they have to get them to their objective.
I ended up seeing this twice on its opening weekend, mainly for technical reasons. When I completed my first watch I saw a lot of tweets about its "one-shot" filming and details of an interview about the filming techniques used, that all made me want to go back and watch for more detail.
If I'm honest with you I didn't notice the "one-shot" filming during my first trip to the cinema. In the interview I saw it said that there were no takes longer than 9 minutes, with its running time that meant that at the very least there were 14 cuts... of course I wanted to go and try to spot them. There were only a few "obvious" ones, but even then some of those felt so seamless that you wouldn't question if they said it was done in one (two) shot(s).
The effects in the film are fantastic, but also one of my only quibbles. There are several video clips with and without effects on floating around the internet and you'll see the massive effort that went into these effects. The major scene that comes to mind is in the trailer, Schofield is running across the field as the regiment is advancing around him. I had just assumed that the shot was aerial, but no, it was filmed from the back of a truck. That doesn't sound all that strange until you see in this video that the truck has a road to drive down that is then CGId out for the final cut. That was incredible to see. But this scene is also the only scene that made me doubt the effects too. When I watched it on the big screen it felt clear that some of the explosions were generated, and watching the clips proved that feeling to be right.
I could ramble on about the effects in this for ages but I need to remember there are other things to talk about... but well, I want to rave a little.
The nighttime scene is truly incredible to watch. It makes you paranoid and scared, you watch the shadows for soldiers and survivors, ugh, gripping and terrifying all at the same time.
Right, come one... move along, Emma!
Not much of a switch but I want to mention what I believe are mainly physical effects. One of the first scenes shows Blake and Schofield going through the trenches and over no man's land, walking through the trenches takes a long time, the fact they dug all of that and decked out the entire length for what is sometimes just a fleeting view. The soldiers as they sleep against the walls blending in like they're not there, the claustrophobic feeling as they walls creep higher and closer around them, and just the sheer volume of people down there. Both fast-paced and drawn out at the same time this whole sequence is complex and important.
After the trenches we see them go over the top into no man's land. The pair of them make an amazing job of playing in the mud. It's another part of the film that makes you look around. What's floating in the water? What's hidden in the mud? Truly spectacular additions and I imagine that on every viewing you'd see something different and horrific appear.
Come on, Emma... acting.
There are a lot of cameos from recognisable talented actors but the nature of the story means they're only the briefest of scenes. Mark Strong was probably my favourite of those, his tone at that critical part of the film was perfect.
To our main duo... Blake is played by Dean-Charles Chapman, a face I recognised but had to look up. I'd seen him most recently in The King and Blinded By The Light but clearly neither of those roles stuck with me. Schofield is played by George MacKay who I haven't seen in anything before. The pair had an interesting dynamic, there was certainly a camaraderie there but I swung between thinking they were good friends and just acquaintances because of their behaviour towards each other. Their characters felt very much at two ends of the scale, Blake optimistic and almost a little green, Schofield, battle-worn and sceptical.
Between the two I can easily say that George MacKay was the better performer. He does get some of the headier scenes to deal with but Chapman felt like he wasn't in a warzone. There were still good moments there but I wasn't as convinced by his performance. MacKay was acting even when he wasn't acting, his moments of silence were just as impressive as his scripted parts.
There is just so much in 1917 to look at, the background is so well thought out that you're drawn to it just as much as the action that's in the foreground. You're scanning everything as they move with them like you're a member of their regiment. It feels like it needs to be watched a couple of times. I watched it to see it, I watched it to watch the techniques and I feel like I want to see it again just to watch that background. None of these watches are for anything other than the technical side of things though. Even though I felt emotional connections with parts of the story it's still a basic quest with obstacles and while it's an interesting look at soldiers and their dedication it's not all that extraordinary.
This truly deserves to win a lot of technical awards. I'm not sure that the acting or script hit the same heights, but as a whole 1917 is definitely something special to see.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/1917-movie-review.html
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Crazier Eights: Camelot in Tabletop Games
Dec 23, 2020
DISCLAIMER: We have previously reviewed Crazier Eights: Olympus and Crazier Eights: Pantheon, and this preview has much of the same verbiage as the family of games share most things. Near the end of the preview are my thoughts about the differences in Camelot vs Olympus and Pantheon.
War. Old Maid. Go Fish. Crazy Eights. These are classic card games we probably all grew up playing. There have been many re-themes and new difficulty layers spread upon them to make them even more interesting. While UNO certainly has cornered the market on the Crazy Eights base, we have a new contender: Crazier Eights. Recoculous has published several versions of this card game with different themes: Avalon, One Thousand & One Nights, Olympus, and Shahrzad. Today we are taking a preview of Crazier Eights: Camelot.
You HAVE played Crazy Eights right? The card game where you attempt to be the first to exhaust your hand of cards, but you can only play down if you can match the suit or number on top of the discard pile? And if you can’t, you throw down an 8 as a wild and call the color to be played next? Well there you have the easy rules. Crazier Eights: Camelot (which I will from here call C8C) holds basically the same rule-set with a few new mechanics and a theme. The win condition is still the same: be the first to exhaust your hand of cards, but to win you will need to play your hand strategically against your opponents.
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, shuffle the large deck of cards and place the deck in the middle of the table. Flip the top card to begin the discard pile and dictate the first card play. Deal each player seven cards and you are ready to begin!
The turn structure is familiar: check for any “start of turn” effects and apply them, draw a card, play and/or discard a card, then resolve any “end of turn” effects. The deck is comprised of Events and Assets in different colors (suits) and numbers like in a typical deck of playing cards. After checking and resolving start of turn effects on Asset cards in your personal tableau, you must draw a card from the deck. This is where C8C strays from OG Crazy Eights a bit. You may play a card from your hand (Assets and Events) and discard a card to the discard pile (matching the suit/number/or an Eight), or simply play a card from your hand without discarding. Cards played from your hand can be Event cards that are played, resolved, and then discarded to the bottom of the discard pile, or an Asset card that is played to your tableau that cause chain reactions or other abilities on future turns. Next, resolve any end of turn effects from Assets in your tableau before the next player begins their turn.
Play continues in this fashion until one player has rid themselves of their hand and is crowned the Master of the Camelot! Or at least, the winner of the game.
Components. This game is a box full of cards. The cards are good. The layout makes sense, and the art on the faces of the cards remind me of very classic art depicting ancient Arthurian scenes. I am no art historian, so I do not know if they are existing art pieces or new ones crafted for this game, but either way, they are a joy to behold… if you can spend the time appreciating the art instead of tracking what cards you need to play and what effects you can chain together (that was me). Extra points to the Recoculous team for associating symbols with the different suit colors for our colorblind friends. This is something that unfortunately goes unaddressed far too often.
This implementation is the third Crazier Eights we have had the chance to try, and I can say that we really enjoyed our plays of it (we played Olympus first and recently also reviewed Pantheon). The game comes with many interesting and varied effects to craft an ingenious strategy, and the art is stellar. Beware of playing with AP-prone gamers, as there is a lot going on and it is more than just a skinned Crazy Eights.
This Camelot set is slightly different than our previous experiences with both Olympus and Pantheon in a few ways. Firstly, it is more of a base game deck like Olympus instead of a standalone/expansion like Pantheon. Secondly, this set seems to use more cards that affect the assets of other players, specifically in destroying them. Additionally, I have noticed a few cards in the deck that specifically say if certain criteria are met one player automatically wins or loses the game. That’s it. Done-zo. Maybe I missed these cards in the other sets, but I do not remember them ever surfacing. Having each set focus on different aspects of the game and the manipulation of the rules ever so slightly to affect a player’s strategy from one set to the next is quite enchanting to me. Could you put all the sets together to make a massive meta-deck a la Munchkin with all the sets and expansions? Probably, but like Munchkin, I probably would rather keep them separate.
Now having played this family of games several times, I can say that it is my favorite Crazy Eights derivative and certainly worthy of a look. If your game collection is sorely lacking in Arthurian-themed card games, or if you want a hybrid game of old school rules with interesting twists, then do consider purchasing this or one of its predecessors.
PS – Don’t worry if, while you are playing, you have all your Assets stolen or destroyed. I have won the game with zero Assets in front of me while opponents have had eight, ironically. Assets are great, but you still need to shed your hand.
War. Old Maid. Go Fish. Crazy Eights. These are classic card games we probably all grew up playing. There have been many re-themes and new difficulty layers spread upon them to make them even more interesting. While UNO certainly has cornered the market on the Crazy Eights base, we have a new contender: Crazier Eights. Recoculous has published several versions of this card game with different themes: Avalon, One Thousand & One Nights, Olympus, and Shahrzad. Today we are taking a preview of Crazier Eights: Camelot.
You HAVE played Crazy Eights right? The card game where you attempt to be the first to exhaust your hand of cards, but you can only play down if you can match the suit or number on top of the discard pile? And if you can’t, you throw down an 8 as a wild and call the color to be played next? Well there you have the easy rules. Crazier Eights: Camelot (which I will from here call C8C) holds basically the same rule-set with a few new mechanics and a theme. The win condition is still the same: be the first to exhaust your hand of cards, but to win you will need to play your hand strategically against your opponents.
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, shuffle the large deck of cards and place the deck in the middle of the table. Flip the top card to begin the discard pile and dictate the first card play. Deal each player seven cards and you are ready to begin!
The turn structure is familiar: check for any “start of turn” effects and apply them, draw a card, play and/or discard a card, then resolve any “end of turn” effects. The deck is comprised of Events and Assets in different colors (suits) and numbers like in a typical deck of playing cards. After checking and resolving start of turn effects on Asset cards in your personal tableau, you must draw a card from the deck. This is where C8C strays from OG Crazy Eights a bit. You may play a card from your hand (Assets and Events) and discard a card to the discard pile (matching the suit/number/or an Eight), or simply play a card from your hand without discarding. Cards played from your hand can be Event cards that are played, resolved, and then discarded to the bottom of the discard pile, or an Asset card that is played to your tableau that cause chain reactions or other abilities on future turns. Next, resolve any end of turn effects from Assets in your tableau before the next player begins their turn.
Play continues in this fashion until one player has rid themselves of their hand and is crowned the Master of the Camelot! Or at least, the winner of the game.
Components. This game is a box full of cards. The cards are good. The layout makes sense, and the art on the faces of the cards remind me of very classic art depicting ancient Arthurian scenes. I am no art historian, so I do not know if they are existing art pieces or new ones crafted for this game, but either way, they are a joy to behold… if you can spend the time appreciating the art instead of tracking what cards you need to play and what effects you can chain together (that was me). Extra points to the Recoculous team for associating symbols with the different suit colors for our colorblind friends. This is something that unfortunately goes unaddressed far too often.
This implementation is the third Crazier Eights we have had the chance to try, and I can say that we really enjoyed our plays of it (we played Olympus first and recently also reviewed Pantheon). The game comes with many interesting and varied effects to craft an ingenious strategy, and the art is stellar. Beware of playing with AP-prone gamers, as there is a lot going on and it is more than just a skinned Crazy Eights.
This Camelot set is slightly different than our previous experiences with both Olympus and Pantheon in a few ways. Firstly, it is more of a base game deck like Olympus instead of a standalone/expansion like Pantheon. Secondly, this set seems to use more cards that affect the assets of other players, specifically in destroying them. Additionally, I have noticed a few cards in the deck that specifically say if certain criteria are met one player automatically wins or loses the game. That’s it. Done-zo. Maybe I missed these cards in the other sets, but I do not remember them ever surfacing. Having each set focus on different aspects of the game and the manipulation of the rules ever so slightly to affect a player’s strategy from one set to the next is quite enchanting to me. Could you put all the sets together to make a massive meta-deck a la Munchkin with all the sets and expansions? Probably, but like Munchkin, I probably would rather keep them separate.
Now having played this family of games several times, I can say that it is my favorite Crazy Eights derivative and certainly worthy of a look. If your game collection is sorely lacking in Arthurian-themed card games, or if you want a hybrid game of old school rules with interesting twists, then do consider purchasing this or one of its predecessors.
PS – Don’t worry if, while you are playing, you have all your Assets stolen or destroyed. I have won the game with zero Assets in front of me while opponents have had eight, ironically. Assets are great, but you still need to shed your hand.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Triple Frontier (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Triple threat
#tripplefrontier is a slick #film that at its depest focuses on the casualties & sacrafises that five mens obbsessions, greed & selfishness have on all the people they encounter. Bar #apostle & #cargo ive not really enjoyed any of the #netflix movies but seeing the impressive cast & equaly impressive director attached to tripple frontier i really couldnt pass this one up & ive got to say i was very impressed. Acting is great all round with #benafflek & #oscarisaac taking the front seat here. I was also #excited to see #garretthedlund in this but sadly his character isnt given much screentime at all or explored enough. Affleck has the most intresting character a father that at first seems like an all round good guy until we start to see the cracks in his personality housing traits such as neglect, coldness, #obbsession, greed, #addiction & agressive streaks. Watching him change from the weak man to this #heartless, job adict, selfish yet highly trained person is engrosing & helps ramp up tension with a certain unpredictability. Group dinamic is also a joy to watch & the #relationships they have with each other are belivable & help the viewer form a nice connection with them all. Some solid metaphors of how much a life costs & how #america takes whatever they want from people regardless of the effects or casualties it has are subley weaved in here at points. Themes of how #combat effects individuals mentaly, how a job in the #specialforces fails on the risk vs reward scale forcing many to seek higher paid mercinary work instead & also alot about trust/reliability in #hostile situations not just with unknowns but in #friendships too. Shot impressibly there are some #beautiful establishing shots & some #gorgeous camera work too (especially during the firefights & car chases). Sets are all visually pleasing to the eye & locations feel varied & full of life/hostility. Cgi is belivable & the soundtrack is memorable also. Tension is great giving you the #feeling that somethings about to go wrong at every turn & the action is exilirating. While nothing particually new its a very well made film thats certainly sets the bar for Netflix films to follow. #ciniphile #filmbuff
Kristin (149 KP) rated The Boon: Thoughts of a Schizophrenic in Remission in Books
Dec 7, 2018
Disclaimer: I was given an e-copy by the author in exchange for an honest review.
I'll start by saying I hold a Master's Degree in Forensic Psychology, so when I was approached to read and review this book, I jumped at it. Schizophrenia was one of the many different topics throughout my coursework, and I'm always eager to learn more about anything Psychology-related. I thought back on my different classes, and while we discussed all sorts of things about Schizophrenia (symptoms, effects on the individual and family/friends, therapeutic treatment, drug treatment, etc.), I don't recall having ever read an anecdotal account from someone with the illness, and I think it's just a fantastic idea.
While this book is very long, it's well worth the read if you're either like me and are interested in Psychology, or if you either have or know someone who has Schizophrenia (Sz for short). Reading this book gave me all sorts of personal insight into the illness that you just can't find in a textbook, and I'm sure it would greatly benefit anyone who is affected in their life by Sz in some way. I found the opening philosophies on God to be very interesting, as it was a new way of looking at the topic for me, and it really drew me in to see what all Eugene believed, had been through, is going through, etc. The various quotes from song lyrics, psychologists, other Sz memoirs, and numerous other sources really worked to convey just what Eugene was thinking and feeling, especially the ones pulled from his earlier writings.
As I said, I would definitely recommend this to anyone who has Sz in some form of their life: either themselves, a family member or friend, therapists, social workers, etc, as well as those who are studying or just interested in Psychology. First-hand accounts are few and far between, and I feel I learned more about Sz, its effects on the mind as well as the idea of "remission," from this book than I did throughout my coursework.
5 stars for its ability to suck you in and keep you reading and learning, no matter how long it is =)
I'll start by saying I hold a Master's Degree in Forensic Psychology, so when I was approached to read and review this book, I jumped at it. Schizophrenia was one of the many different topics throughout my coursework, and I'm always eager to learn more about anything Psychology-related. I thought back on my different classes, and while we discussed all sorts of things about Schizophrenia (symptoms, effects on the individual and family/friends, therapeutic treatment, drug treatment, etc.), I don't recall having ever read an anecdotal account from someone with the illness, and I think it's just a fantastic idea.
While this book is very long, it's well worth the read if you're either like me and are interested in Psychology, or if you either have or know someone who has Schizophrenia (Sz for short). Reading this book gave me all sorts of personal insight into the illness that you just can't find in a textbook, and I'm sure it would greatly benefit anyone who is affected in their life by Sz in some way. I found the opening philosophies on God to be very interesting, as it was a new way of looking at the topic for me, and it really drew me in to see what all Eugene believed, had been through, is going through, etc. The various quotes from song lyrics, psychologists, other Sz memoirs, and numerous other sources really worked to convey just what Eugene was thinking and feeling, especially the ones pulled from his earlier writings.
As I said, I would definitely recommend this to anyone who has Sz in some form of their life: either themselves, a family member or friend, therapists, social workers, etc, as well as those who are studying or just interested in Psychology. First-hand accounts are few and far between, and I feel I learned more about Sz, its effects on the mind as well as the idea of "remission," from this book than I did throughout my coursework.
5 stars for its ability to suck you in and keep you reading and learning, no matter how long it is =)
Dean (6927 KP) rated the Xbox One version of Forza Horizon 3 in Video Games
Aug 21, 2018
Amazing Graphics, from the cars, scenery and weather effects (2 more)
Good soundtrack
Sooo many options: Freeroam, events, championship, bucket list challenges... Almost endless
Auction system could use tweaking (1 more)
Another mode so xbox live races focus more on where you finish
Groundbreaking Driving game
I've been playing video games for a long time, since the spectrum before moving on to the Megadrive. I love driving games and can honestly say this is probably the best and most fun I've played to date! Not since PGR2 has a driving game been this groundbreaking.
You can sense the PGR2 influence in the realism of the environments and cars and some game modes. Along with a similar skill system. The weather effects are amazing from Fog, rain, clouds along with the times of day including dawn, sunset, night time create so many looks and experiences. You'll pull over to stop and watch a sunset. Every car looks and sounds as it should right down to the interior drivers view. It's a beautiful looking game.
The game itself has tons of variety. You can just cruise around, challenge a rival to a set route, random 1 on 1 races in Free roam. There are exhibitions and championships, you can create your own as well and fully customise the weather and time of day, car class and types of cars. There are bucket list challenges that can be done for times, skills, drifts, jumps, speed etc. Again fully customisable to create your own. There is something for everyone here and it's just so much fun.
The only minor points are the auction system for selling, buying could be better but you don't really need to use it. The other issue when racing others online your place is overall is decided partly on your skills during the race. This does include being quick and clean racing... but you might find slower drivers who drift a lot get more xp and end up ahead of you on the leaderboard even if you beat them in the race.
Overall though the best driving game to date. Roll on Horizon 4 in October.
You can sense the PGR2 influence in the realism of the environments and cars and some game modes. Along with a similar skill system. The weather effects are amazing from Fog, rain, clouds along with the times of day including dawn, sunset, night time create so many looks and experiences. You'll pull over to stop and watch a sunset. Every car looks and sounds as it should right down to the interior drivers view. It's a beautiful looking game.
The game itself has tons of variety. You can just cruise around, challenge a rival to a set route, random 1 on 1 races in Free roam. There are exhibitions and championships, you can create your own as well and fully customise the weather and time of day, car class and types of cars. There are bucket list challenges that can be done for times, skills, drifts, jumps, speed etc. Again fully customisable to create your own. There is something for everyone here and it's just so much fun.
The only minor points are the auction system for selling, buying could be better but you don't really need to use it. The other issue when racing others online your place is overall is decided partly on your skills during the race. This does include being quick and clean racing... but you might find slower drivers who drift a lot get more xp and end up ahead of you on the leaderboard even if you beat them in the race.
Overall though the best driving game to date. Roll on Horizon 4 in October.
Cat Goddess Freyja (16 KP) rated The House with a Clock in Its Walls (2018) in Movies
Dec 5, 2018
Cool Movie
Contains spoilers, click to show
I enjoyed this movie. The actors were all good choices, and the effects were great- for the most part. The movie was definitely influenced by the book, but did not stick close to the book. The choice to not stick close to the book could be seen as a wise one, as the director/ producer probably wanted it to be relatable for the viewers. The problems I had with the movie, was the time period, that they took strong women characters and made them weak, and that the Uncle was hiding his powers. The time period was a few decades earlier in the book, which helped explain the main characters quirks a bit better than the movie did. The women in the movie got the "Women in the Refrigerator" treatment. Meaning the two big women roles, who in the book were highly powerful, were lowered in their abilities in the movie. The neighbor witch to the main character, was elderly and was more powerful than the Uncle was and never had a curse put on her in the book and didn't have a romantic relationship with the Uncle. Also, Selena was the one who was summoned in the book and was the main baddie, while in the movie they teamed her up with her husband effectively making her character useless. Another point, the magicians and witches in the books didn't hide their powers, magic was meant for anyone to learn or study. In the movie, magic is hidden and only for a select few. I did love the part were the demon showed up, it was very freaky and made what was meant to be a kids movie into a "uh...well that was disturbing," kind of dark tone to the show. I love Eli Roth's films, but he could have done a little bit more with this than he did.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Unnatural (2015) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Characters – Martin is the expert in the area where the photoshoot takes place, he knows the wildlife and how to deal with any threats that come his way and must protect the people who are not used to the threat. Dr Lindval was part of the research team that created the polar bear, she is desperate to survive once it is free but does know more than she is letting on. Brooking in the photographer on the shoot, he does lack the guts to defend himself from the threat. We also have the models but they are here to look pretty through the terror.
Performance – James Remar is clearly the biggest draw in this film and he is good without being his best, when you look into the other performance we get the mystery from Fenn and the annoying wimpy guy from Carlson hitting the marks we are expecting to see in the film like this.
Story – Group of people in Alaska with no escape must rely on one expert to keep them safe against an unknown creature for a set amount of days, well this is easy enough to go with and stops a lot of pointless discussion about trying to get help when there isn’t any, we also have the characters getting picked off in the random order like you would expect which is fine too.
Action/Horror – The action is mostly running from the attacks from the creature which isn’t the most impressive either.
Settings – The setting is the highlight as we have the group trapped with nowhere to run for the 3 days before the next plan arrives.
Special Effects – The effects look mostly practical as we barely get to see the monster apart from in the shadows.
Scene of the Movie – The first attack is a fun moment.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We don’t see enough of the creature.
Final Thoughts – This is a forgettable creature feature that tries to ask bigger questions but doesn’t seem to want to try and answer them.
Overall: Not one of the best.
Performance – James Remar is clearly the biggest draw in this film and he is good without being his best, when you look into the other performance we get the mystery from Fenn and the annoying wimpy guy from Carlson hitting the marks we are expecting to see in the film like this.
Story – Group of people in Alaska with no escape must rely on one expert to keep them safe against an unknown creature for a set amount of days, well this is easy enough to go with and stops a lot of pointless discussion about trying to get help when there isn’t any, we also have the characters getting picked off in the random order like you would expect which is fine too.
Action/Horror – The action is mostly running from the attacks from the creature which isn’t the most impressive either.
Settings – The setting is the highlight as we have the group trapped with nowhere to run for the 3 days before the next plan arrives.
Special Effects – The effects look mostly practical as we barely get to see the monster apart from in the shadows.
Scene of the Movie – The first attack is a fun moment.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We don’t see enough of the creature.
Final Thoughts – This is a forgettable creature feature that tries to ask bigger questions but doesn’t seem to want to try and answer them.
Overall: Not one of the best.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Midsommar (2019) in Movies
Jul 5, 2019
I'm A Believer
Midsommar is a modern day folklore fairytale masterpiece that's traumatizing, intoxicating, stomach churning & deeply hypnotic. If you've seen Raw or the Witch & enjoyed them Midsommar is easily on par standard wise & comparability wise to them. A tale of love, passion, grievance, trauma, connection, communion, religion, celebration, purity & punishment. Filled with folklore, depth, symbolisum, metaphores & small visual clues Midsommar is one giant puzzle box & for everyone paying close attention there are entire multiple layers hidden in everything. Be it the pictures hung on the walls in the background, dialog, music cues, camera angles, subbtle special effects, screen transitions, facial expressions & props. Most people watching this film will leave wondering what strange horror movie they just saw & while technically it is a horror as the film played out I began to realise its intentions thus seeing its beauty & messages clearly. For instance like how if we all united as one unity & learnt to love rather than hate we could live in perfect harmony with nature. Acting is jaw dropping especially from the lead actress & sound design realises that creating tension doesn't necessarily need any sound at all. Visually its vibrant & striking with subtle effects like things pulsing & warping as if reality its self is an illusion. Midsommar made me feel quezy, disturbed, intreagued & so happy with chills going up & down my spine frequently as I also couldn't shake this feeling of dread the entire time. When violence hits it hits hard & sickeningly rough but as the last scene played out & the perfect ending hit I was smiling the most I have during a film in a long time. What an intelligent, thought provoking look at how a trauma in life can make us more susceptible & easily lead, how guilt/trauma manifests in us, how innocence & purity thrives above deceit & selfishness, but most importantly how we could all live way happier & more for filling lives as if we all respected each other & the world around us experiencing both pain & pleasure as one. Go see it sit in the front row & let Midsommar embrace & absorb you in the best experience of the year so far by far.
