Search
Search results
DigimonLinks
Games and Entertainment
App
In Digimon Links connect both the real and digital worlds! All your Digimon favorites come to life...
Eugène Delacroix image gallery and wallpapers
Education
App
Ferdinand Victor Eugène Delacroix; 26 April 1798 – 13 August 1863) was a French Romantic artist...
Lane Splitter
Games
App
Over 16 million players have experienced the thrill of Lane Splitter! "The graphics are bright and...
Banner Saga 2
Games and Entertainment
App
The epic award winning story-based role-playing game continues its emotional journey across a...
Newton
7.5
Rate It
Tabletop Game
Around the middle of the 17th century with the advent of the scientific method, a period of great...
Boardgames 2018Games ScienceGames BrainGames ComplexGames
Live Well Every Day
Book
What can you change today, and not put off until tomorrow? Dr Alex is on a mission to empower us...
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated The More you Ignore me in Books
Feb 20, 2022
31 of 230
Book
The more you ignore me
By Jo Brand
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Celebrity obsession, coming of age and cow shit - an hilarious, poignant and darkly comic novel by the Queen of Comedy.
Alice is a young girl growing up in a dysfunctional family in Herefordshire in the 1980s. Her mother is suffering a mental illness - she is on medication, is put away in an institution, but constantly escapes - while her father, Keith, very sweetly, tries to keep everything together. His in-laws, the Wildgooses, are a bunch of reckless, lawless country bumpkins and can offer very little help or sensible advice, preferring instead to remain in the pub or to use a shotgun to solve life's little problems. The only thing that gives meaning and hope to Alice as she makes her way through childhood, school and teenage trauma is her obsession with the singer Morrissey of The Smiths. She is desperate to see The Smiths at a live gig, but somehow her family always manages to derail her plans. Gradually her mother begins to share her fascination with the rock god and his presence in their lives goes someway to healing her and repairing her relationship with her long-suffering daughter.
This was really good! It was funny and darkly so. It follows the life of a young girl dealing with the effects her mothers mental illness has on her and her father. It’s has a dark underlay that as someone who struggles mentally I can relate too. So much better than I was expecting.
Book
The more you ignore me
By Jo Brand
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Celebrity obsession, coming of age and cow shit - an hilarious, poignant and darkly comic novel by the Queen of Comedy.
Alice is a young girl growing up in a dysfunctional family in Herefordshire in the 1980s. Her mother is suffering a mental illness - she is on medication, is put away in an institution, but constantly escapes - while her father, Keith, very sweetly, tries to keep everything together. His in-laws, the Wildgooses, are a bunch of reckless, lawless country bumpkins and can offer very little help or sensible advice, preferring instead to remain in the pub or to use a shotgun to solve life's little problems. The only thing that gives meaning and hope to Alice as she makes her way through childhood, school and teenage trauma is her obsession with the singer Morrissey of The Smiths. She is desperate to see The Smiths at a live gig, but somehow her family always manages to derail her plans. Gradually her mother begins to share her fascination with the rock god and his presence in their lives goes someway to healing her and repairing her relationship with her long-suffering daughter.
This was really good! It was funny and darkly so. It follows the life of a young girl dealing with the effects her mothers mental illness has on her and her father. It’s has a dark underlay that as someone who struggles mentally I can relate too. So much better than I was expecting.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988) in Movies
Nov 24, 2021
Hellbound is a sequel that stands next to it's groundbreaking predecessor as a proud equal. It's quick turnaround and it's returning crew ensure that it feels like a smooth continuation, and both films could easily be watched back to back.
The visuals go bigger and harder this time around. A longer portion of the movie is spent in the cenobites' hellish dimension, and it's a striking and otherwordly design. Once again, Pinhead and his cronies don't take up too much screentime, ensuring that they're presence is impactful. The narrative does explore the background of these antagonists a little more, but thankfully, doesn't completely destroy the mystery surrounding them, and provides an interesting plot device a bit later on.
The main villain is Dr Channard, a psychiatrist who has a dangerous obsession with the legend of the Lament Configuration. Kenneth Cranham steals the show in the role, and makes for a memorable bad guy, especially during the last half. He also has the best line - "and to think... I hesitated" - definitely a top moment in the history of horror.
Clare Higgins is another highlight, as she is in the first Hellraiser, her character delightfully more sinister than before.
Once again, Hellbound boasts some top class practical effects, contributing to its unique aesthetic, and Christopher Young absolutely smashes it out the park with another incredible music score.
Both Hellraiser and Hellbound are astonishing examples of how excellent, nightmarish, and beautiful this genre can be, and will always be hailed as high points. Great stuff.
The visuals go bigger and harder this time around. A longer portion of the movie is spent in the cenobites' hellish dimension, and it's a striking and otherwordly design. Once again, Pinhead and his cronies don't take up too much screentime, ensuring that they're presence is impactful. The narrative does explore the background of these antagonists a little more, but thankfully, doesn't completely destroy the mystery surrounding them, and provides an interesting plot device a bit later on.
The main villain is Dr Channard, a psychiatrist who has a dangerous obsession with the legend of the Lament Configuration. Kenneth Cranham steals the show in the role, and makes for a memorable bad guy, especially during the last half. He also has the best line - "and to think... I hesitated" - definitely a top moment in the history of horror.
Clare Higgins is another highlight, as she is in the first Hellraiser, her character delightfully more sinister than before.
Once again, Hellbound boasts some top class practical effects, contributing to its unique aesthetic, and Christopher Young absolutely smashes it out the park with another incredible music score.
Both Hellraiser and Hellbound are astonishing examples of how excellent, nightmarish, and beautiful this genre can be, and will always be hailed as high points. Great stuff.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Gem Blenders in Tabletop Games
Oct 24, 2019
Collectible Card Games (CCG) and Living Card Games (LCG) are enjoyed by the members of Purple Phoenix Games. From these genres we primarily play Lord of the Rings LCG, A Game of Thrones (2e) LCG, and DiceMasters (ok we kinda cheated here but it still applies). So we are no strangers to constructing decks or teams and going head-to-head to defeat opponents. When I heard about Gem Blenders being a CCG with an interesting theme, I knew we had to try it.
Gem Blenders is a competitive card game of upgrading (blending) heroes into stronger forces that will attack your opponent’s HP. The winner is the player who can decrease their opponent’s HP to zero first.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. As this is a preview copy of the game, I do not know if the final rules or components will be similar or different to what we were provided. Similarly, our copy came with two pre-constructed decks ready to duel. -T
To setup, players will need to construct their decks according to the construction requirements and limitations found in the rulebook. I will not be covering every rule found in the rulebook here, as the rules are very extensive. Once the four heroes per player are chosen, they must be arranged in a diamond pattern with the Left, Center, and Right heroes being on the “front line” and the Back hero being the sole back liner. Front line heroes can attack, but the hero in back cannot. Draw your opening hand of six cards and you are ready to play! Wait, you don’t like your initial draw? Ok then, shuffle back into your deck and draw a new set of six. You are ready to play!
On a turn a player will complete three phases. Firstly, draw a card. The next phase is to play cards from your hand. You are allowed to play one gem card per turn, so initially players will probably be attaching gems to heroes. Simply slide the gem card under the top of the hero card so that the colored gem graphic can be seen (see below). Other actions include attack (once per turn), blend or de-blend heroes, discard gems, activate hero effects, and play action cards.
Heroes will have effects printed on their cards with instructions on how to use them. You may use all four heroes’ effects if possible in any turn. Discarding gems is self-explanatory, and there are cards in the game that can activate or become more powerful depending on having gems in the discard pile. Action cards can help players manipulate their decks, search for specific cards, or even cancel another player’s action out of turn. They can be severely powerful, so there are strict limitations as to which Action cards and how many of them you may keep in your deck.
Blending heroes is a crux of the game and the way to make your heroes stronger in battle. By collecting the gems and attaching them to your heroes you are providing them with requirements for blending. You may only blend a hero when they have the appropriate gems attached to them according to the Blend card you wish to play. The hero then becomes the blended hero with the new effects and stronger Attack and Defense values. These are important stats for the Attack action. When a player Attacks, they choose which of their front line heroes they would like to send into battle (or all of them). The attackers may only attack the heroes directly opposite them on the table. So a Center hero may only attack the other Center hero across from them (in a 2 player game). Stats are simply compared and any attack power that remains undefended will be deducted from the defender player’s HP.
The last step of a turn is declaring your turn over. Then the next player may take their turn. Play will continue in this fashion until one player has zero HP and a winner is figured.
Components. To reiterate, we were provided a prototype copy of the game, so I will not comment on aspects that may be changed as a result of a successful Kickstarter campaign or through any stretch goals. I was given no information or scoops about what is planned, so I will merely comment on what I can here. This is a card game, and came to us in a box similar to that of the Tiny Epic series, but a bit smaller. It was enough for two constructed decks of 54 cards each and a couple reference cards. We were able to play the game right out of the box this way and that was very appreciated.
However, the card layout and art style of the game is where we have our issues. I recently turned 40 and, well, my eyesight isn’t what it used to be. When playing Gem Blenders, much of the game is about upgrading your forces and attacking your opponent(s). So when I look across the table at my opponent’s card, I want to be able to clearly see their Attack and Defense. Unfortunately, the text is so small in this version of the game that we were constantly asking each other what the A and D numbers were. Now, I mentioned earlier that we play and love DiceMasters as well, and that game also suffers from readability issues, so we can begrudgingly overlook that. I hope the finished version of the game addresses this and makes adjustments on visibility of important stats.
Also, the art style of the game just did not resonate with us at all. Again, it could be such that the art will change once the game is truly finished, but considering the cards we were provided, we were hoping for something a bit flashier or more polished. As you can see from the shots here on this review, the hero cards are all black and white, the gem cards have a colorful gem in the middle of the white background of the card with a smaller iteration of the gem in the upper portion of the card. The action cards are also the stark black and white similar to the hero cards. The blend cards feature different wallpapers with a somewhat improved illustration on the front. I found that I would rather see more of the text and battle stats than the illustrations of this game.
That all said, the game is really solid, the theme is interesting, and the game play is quite fun. If it looked better it would be a great option for a quick head-to-head CCG with an excellent and inventive theme. I do hope improvements to the game are planned, and if that’s the case then I will definitely be keeping it on my radar.
Gem Blenders is a competitive card game of upgrading (blending) heroes into stronger forces that will attack your opponent’s HP. The winner is the player who can decrease their opponent’s HP to zero first.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. As this is a preview copy of the game, I do not know if the final rules or components will be similar or different to what we were provided. Similarly, our copy came with two pre-constructed decks ready to duel. -T
To setup, players will need to construct their decks according to the construction requirements and limitations found in the rulebook. I will not be covering every rule found in the rulebook here, as the rules are very extensive. Once the four heroes per player are chosen, they must be arranged in a diamond pattern with the Left, Center, and Right heroes being on the “front line” and the Back hero being the sole back liner. Front line heroes can attack, but the hero in back cannot. Draw your opening hand of six cards and you are ready to play! Wait, you don’t like your initial draw? Ok then, shuffle back into your deck and draw a new set of six. You are ready to play!
On a turn a player will complete three phases. Firstly, draw a card. The next phase is to play cards from your hand. You are allowed to play one gem card per turn, so initially players will probably be attaching gems to heroes. Simply slide the gem card under the top of the hero card so that the colored gem graphic can be seen (see below). Other actions include attack (once per turn), blend or de-blend heroes, discard gems, activate hero effects, and play action cards.
Heroes will have effects printed on their cards with instructions on how to use them. You may use all four heroes’ effects if possible in any turn. Discarding gems is self-explanatory, and there are cards in the game that can activate or become more powerful depending on having gems in the discard pile. Action cards can help players manipulate their decks, search for specific cards, or even cancel another player’s action out of turn. They can be severely powerful, so there are strict limitations as to which Action cards and how many of them you may keep in your deck.
Blending heroes is a crux of the game and the way to make your heroes stronger in battle. By collecting the gems and attaching them to your heroes you are providing them with requirements for blending. You may only blend a hero when they have the appropriate gems attached to them according to the Blend card you wish to play. The hero then becomes the blended hero with the new effects and stronger Attack and Defense values. These are important stats for the Attack action. When a player Attacks, they choose which of their front line heroes they would like to send into battle (or all of them). The attackers may only attack the heroes directly opposite them on the table. So a Center hero may only attack the other Center hero across from them (in a 2 player game). Stats are simply compared and any attack power that remains undefended will be deducted from the defender player’s HP.
The last step of a turn is declaring your turn over. Then the next player may take their turn. Play will continue in this fashion until one player has zero HP and a winner is figured.
Components. To reiterate, we were provided a prototype copy of the game, so I will not comment on aspects that may be changed as a result of a successful Kickstarter campaign or through any stretch goals. I was given no information or scoops about what is planned, so I will merely comment on what I can here. This is a card game, and came to us in a box similar to that of the Tiny Epic series, but a bit smaller. It was enough for two constructed decks of 54 cards each and a couple reference cards. We were able to play the game right out of the box this way and that was very appreciated.
However, the card layout and art style of the game is where we have our issues. I recently turned 40 and, well, my eyesight isn’t what it used to be. When playing Gem Blenders, much of the game is about upgrading your forces and attacking your opponent(s). So when I look across the table at my opponent’s card, I want to be able to clearly see their Attack and Defense. Unfortunately, the text is so small in this version of the game that we were constantly asking each other what the A and D numbers were. Now, I mentioned earlier that we play and love DiceMasters as well, and that game also suffers from readability issues, so we can begrudgingly overlook that. I hope the finished version of the game addresses this and makes adjustments on visibility of important stats.
Also, the art style of the game just did not resonate with us at all. Again, it could be such that the art will change once the game is truly finished, but considering the cards we were provided, we were hoping for something a bit flashier or more polished. As you can see from the shots here on this review, the hero cards are all black and white, the gem cards have a colorful gem in the middle of the white background of the card with a smaller iteration of the gem in the upper portion of the card. The action cards are also the stark black and white similar to the hero cards. The blend cards feature different wallpapers with a somewhat improved illustration on the front. I found that I would rather see more of the text and battle stats than the illustrations of this game.
That all said, the game is really solid, the theme is interesting, and the game play is quite fun. If it looked better it would be a great option for a quick head-to-head CCG with an excellent and inventive theme. I do hope improvements to the game are planned, and if that’s the case then I will definitely be keeping it on my radar.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tail as old as Kline.
With the Disney marketing machine in full swing, its hard to separate the hype from the movie reality in this latest live-action remake of one of their classic animated features from 1991. If you are lucky enough to have children you will know that each child tends to have “their” Disney feature: for my second daughter (then 4) that film would be “Beauty and the Beast”. With a VHS video tape worn down to the substrate, this is a film I know every line of dialogue to (“I’m especially good at expectorating”). So seeing this movie was always going to be a wander down Nostalgia Avenue and a left turn into Emotion Crescent, regardless of how good a film it was. And so it proved.
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….