Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Wreck-It-Ralph (2012) in Movies
May 20, 2019
Underrated Masterpiece
Trying to prove his worth, star video game bad guy Ralph (John C. Reilly) goes on a quest to earn a medal and show the world he’s actually good.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
The intro is everything you want for the start of a movie. It builds a beautiful world while getting you immersed in it at the same time. I loved how the characters are introduced in true video game style fashion. By the time you see the characters ending their shift and stepping out of their games to go home, you already feel like you are a part of the world. The Bad Guys Anonymous meeting Ralph attends is easily one of my favorite scenes done in a movie. Just seeing the characters from my childhood talking about what it was like being a bad guy just puts a smile on my face everytime I watch it.
Characters: 10
Ralph is someone you can easily sympathize with as he really doesn’t seem like that bad of a guy. He’s gotten a bad rap because of his job but you watch him giving away fruit to lesser characters whose games have been unplugged and you can’t help but like the guy. Outside of Ralph, the sheer number of video game characters they were able to include was just plain amazing. It’s eye candy for both older and newer generations. The supporting cast will keep you entertained as well from Fix-it Felix (Jack McBrayer) who is a stickler for doing the right thing to Vanellope Von Schweetz (Sarah Silverman), a crazy game glitch that’s also on a quest to earn a medal. There is no shortage of depth or originality.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
I’ll stand by this statement and I’ll fight anyone on it: Because of it’s originality, visuals, and message, Wreck-it Ralph is not only one of the greatest animated films of all time, but one of the greatest films of all time. Period. It sets a new bar for animated movies from top to bottom. Every single time i watch it, I find something different to appreciate.
Memorability: 10
In one scene, Ralph finds himself in the middle of a Starship Trooper-esque battle fighting alien bugs and trying to make it to the top of a tower. It’s such an amazing scene to watch and one of my favorites…until, that is, I make it to the next scene where that one becomes my favorite. From one wild ride to the next, no moment is wasted in this movie. Neither is one easily forgotten. The movie also packs a beautiful message about embracing who you are in spite of your weaknesses.
Pace: 10
As I mentioned earlier, the movie makes full use of its time as it moves quickly from one scene to the next, never lingering. Where I find myself saying “Get to the point already” when I watch a lot of movies, director Rich More manages the pace excellently. Even during slower moments where Ralph and Vanellope are bantering back and forth, the movie forces you to have a good time.
Plot: 10
Video game stories are typically very linear but that isn’t a problem in the least with Wreck-it Ralph. There are enough twists and turns to renew your interest and keep you entertained. Each character was handled perfectly, given just enough screen time to impact the movie in their own way. Each piece of story is carefully crafted and never breaks the laws of the world in which the story takes place.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 100
What can I say? Some reviewers give perfect scores to Citizen Kane. I give them to movies like Wreck-it Ralph, movies that remind us of what watching movies is all about: Escape and having fun. Wreck-it Ralph will wow you, make you cheer, and leave you with enough memories to last ages.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
The intro is everything you want for the start of a movie. It builds a beautiful world while getting you immersed in it at the same time. I loved how the characters are introduced in true video game style fashion. By the time you see the characters ending their shift and stepping out of their games to go home, you already feel like you are a part of the world. The Bad Guys Anonymous meeting Ralph attends is easily one of my favorite scenes done in a movie. Just seeing the characters from my childhood talking about what it was like being a bad guy just puts a smile on my face everytime I watch it.
Characters: 10
Ralph is someone you can easily sympathize with as he really doesn’t seem like that bad of a guy. He’s gotten a bad rap because of his job but you watch him giving away fruit to lesser characters whose games have been unplugged and you can’t help but like the guy. Outside of Ralph, the sheer number of video game characters they were able to include was just plain amazing. It’s eye candy for both older and newer generations. The supporting cast will keep you entertained as well from Fix-it Felix (Jack McBrayer) who is a stickler for doing the right thing to Vanellope Von Schweetz (Sarah Silverman), a crazy game glitch that’s also on a quest to earn a medal. There is no shortage of depth or originality.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
I’ll stand by this statement and I’ll fight anyone on it: Because of it’s originality, visuals, and message, Wreck-it Ralph is not only one of the greatest animated films of all time, but one of the greatest films of all time. Period. It sets a new bar for animated movies from top to bottom. Every single time i watch it, I find something different to appreciate.
Memorability: 10
In one scene, Ralph finds himself in the middle of a Starship Trooper-esque battle fighting alien bugs and trying to make it to the top of a tower. It’s such an amazing scene to watch and one of my favorites…until, that is, I make it to the next scene where that one becomes my favorite. From one wild ride to the next, no moment is wasted in this movie. Neither is one easily forgotten. The movie also packs a beautiful message about embracing who you are in spite of your weaknesses.
Pace: 10
As I mentioned earlier, the movie makes full use of its time as it moves quickly from one scene to the next, never lingering. Where I find myself saying “Get to the point already” when I watch a lot of movies, director Rich More manages the pace excellently. Even during slower moments where Ralph and Vanellope are bantering back and forth, the movie forces you to have a good time.
Plot: 10
Video game stories are typically very linear but that isn’t a problem in the least with Wreck-it Ralph. There are enough twists and turns to renew your interest and keep you entertained. Each character was handled perfectly, given just enough screen time to impact the movie in their own way. Each piece of story is carefully crafted and never breaks the laws of the world in which the story takes place.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 100
What can I say? Some reviewers give perfect scores to Citizen Kane. I give them to movies like Wreck-it Ralph, movies that remind us of what watching movies is all about: Escape and having fun. Wreck-it Ralph will wow you, make you cheer, and leave you with enough memories to last ages.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Gerald's Game (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Not a very fun game
The horror film market is huge. Hundreds, if not thousands, of horror films are made every year, with only few standing out of the blood-drenched crowd. Netflix, with a penchant for outstanding horrors and thrillers, decided to hop on the horror flick train, bringing about an adaptation of Stephen King’s terrifying novel ‘Gerald’s Game’.
The film follows Jessie (Carla Gugino) and her husband, Gerald (Bruce Greenwood), as they head to a remote lake house in order to spice up their marriage. One thing leads to another, and then Gerald has a heart attack and dies, leaving Jessie handcuffed to the bed with the keys out of reach. She must then fight to survive, whilst having a few disturbing flashbacks and encounters along the way.
This movie is really disturbing. Like, really, really disturbing. It’s not particularly scary, there’s the odd jump-scare or three, but its the imagery and the situation that really get your heart going.
Carla Gugino as the shackled wife is a stand-out in this film. She basically carries it, only with a few interruptions from inside her head, and this makes for very entertaining viewing. She’s amusing, in a way that you didn’t think anyone could be whilst fighting dehydration, a hungry dog at the end of her bed and death himself. In all honesty, it’s not a very fun game.
Her husband, however, is brilliant at being horrible. Greenwood really amps up the bad husband vibes in the 20 minutes he is alive, which then are exacerbated in Jessie’s head after he has died. He’s manipulative, seedy and slimy: something that Jessie realises at the end of the film.
It could be argued that this film isn’t really a horror film in the typical sense. It’s more a horror film about what has happened to Jessie, the main character, and how she comes to terms with her past and survives. She calls on past experiences to escape her confines on the bed, and her horrible history.
That’s not to say that it doesn’t have stereotypical horror movie attributes. The Moonlight Man is their contribution to the supernatural – or more the ‘is he actually there or am I insane?’ kind of gimmick that sometimes comes with this genre. The Moonlight Man is a shadowy figure, lurking in the shadows with his box of trinkets and bones. He’s absolutely terrifying.
He’s also real. In the film and book, he’s a necrophiliac who’s waiting for Jessie to die so he can add her wedding ring and one of her bones to his box. The Moonlight Man is the kind of horror movie villain that you have nightmares about. Which is why he is one of the highlights of Gerald’s Game.
The film isn’t exactly the most complex plot in the world. It plays a bit too much on the stereotypes in some cases and the ending, in true horror film fashion, is too happy, is too well put together after such a traumatic experience. It all ends a bit too neatly after such a messy first three-quarters.
Even though this isn’t the best horror film ever, it certainly is not the worst. It has it’s flaws, but the acting and the scriptwriting make up for the few it has. In an era of horror trying too hard, this film is simple and refreshing, bringing a new feeling to the horror industry as a whole.
So, the moral of the story is: don’t handcuff yourself to the bed because your husband will die on top of you and then a stray dog will eat him and a necrophiliac will come into your house at night. Quite an easy thing to remember, right?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/06/geralds-game-review-not-a-very-fun-game/
The film follows Jessie (Carla Gugino) and her husband, Gerald (Bruce Greenwood), as they head to a remote lake house in order to spice up their marriage. One thing leads to another, and then Gerald has a heart attack and dies, leaving Jessie handcuffed to the bed with the keys out of reach. She must then fight to survive, whilst having a few disturbing flashbacks and encounters along the way.
This movie is really disturbing. Like, really, really disturbing. It’s not particularly scary, there’s the odd jump-scare or three, but its the imagery and the situation that really get your heart going.
Carla Gugino as the shackled wife is a stand-out in this film. She basically carries it, only with a few interruptions from inside her head, and this makes for very entertaining viewing. She’s amusing, in a way that you didn’t think anyone could be whilst fighting dehydration, a hungry dog at the end of her bed and death himself. In all honesty, it’s not a very fun game.
Her husband, however, is brilliant at being horrible. Greenwood really amps up the bad husband vibes in the 20 minutes he is alive, which then are exacerbated in Jessie’s head after he has died. He’s manipulative, seedy and slimy: something that Jessie realises at the end of the film.
It could be argued that this film isn’t really a horror film in the typical sense. It’s more a horror film about what has happened to Jessie, the main character, and how she comes to terms with her past and survives. She calls on past experiences to escape her confines on the bed, and her horrible history.
That’s not to say that it doesn’t have stereotypical horror movie attributes. The Moonlight Man is their contribution to the supernatural – or more the ‘is he actually there or am I insane?’ kind of gimmick that sometimes comes with this genre. The Moonlight Man is a shadowy figure, lurking in the shadows with his box of trinkets and bones. He’s absolutely terrifying.
He’s also real. In the film and book, he’s a necrophiliac who’s waiting for Jessie to die so he can add her wedding ring and one of her bones to his box. The Moonlight Man is the kind of horror movie villain that you have nightmares about. Which is why he is one of the highlights of Gerald’s Game.
The film isn’t exactly the most complex plot in the world. It plays a bit too much on the stereotypes in some cases and the ending, in true horror film fashion, is too happy, is too well put together after such a traumatic experience. It all ends a bit too neatly after such a messy first three-quarters.
Even though this isn’t the best horror film ever, it certainly is not the worst. It has it’s flaws, but the acting and the scriptwriting make up for the few it has. In an era of horror trying too hard, this film is simple and refreshing, bringing a new feeling to the horror industry as a whole.
So, the moral of the story is: don’t handcuff yourself to the bed because your husband will die on top of you and then a stray dog will eat him and a necrophiliac will come into your house at night. Quite an easy thing to remember, right?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/06/geralds-game-review-not-a-very-fun-game/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pompeii (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
The disaster movie has always been a genre guaranteed to create incredible box-office returns. If you look at Roland Emmerich’s impressive blockbuster hit 2012, which grossed over $750million, it is clear that destroying well-known landmarks = bums on seats.
However since 2012‘s 2009 release the genre has fallen into a dormant state. Nevertheless, four years later Paul W.S. Anderson attempts to reawaken this box-office behemoth with his take on the tragic true events at Pompeii, but does the film succeed in its task?
Partially is the short answer. Anderson’s first film since 2012’s disaster Resident Evil: Retribution is as cheesy as a Dairylea triangle, but it also has some stunning special effects to give it some life.
Game of Thrones’ Kit Harington stars as Milo, a slave captured by the Romans after they wiped out his entire family. He is taken to a gloriously recreated Pompeii and immediately sets his sights on the very beautiful Lady Cassia, played by a rather dull Emily Browning, who just so happens to be the daughter of the city ruler, Severus. I’m sure you can guess the plot…
What ensues is a cheesy mess of terrible acting and stilted dialogue that jars with the period nature of the film. Only the knowing of what is to come from Mt Vesuvius, which is beautifully rendered in CGI, stops the film from grinding to a halt.
Kiefer Sutherland dons a downright ridiculous English accent for the role of Senator Corvus, the chief antagonist in the film. He is on business in Pompeii to see if trade can be established and investment can be agreed with the great city of Rome – though this plot point gets lost along the way.
Another issue is the true story which Pompeii is based on. The great tale of tragedy and mother nature showing her ruthless side is one we all know – but all we really want to see is the mountain going boom. Unfortunately we must wait whilst Anderson tries his best to make us care about the characters with their sickly back-stories, for which he fails in breathtaking fashion.
Finally after nearly an hour of what feels like a poor-mans Gladiator we are treat to a stunning spectacle, as Mt Vesuvius explodes in rip-roaring style. As the mountain blows and the fireballs rage Anderson once again tries to get us interested in the paper-thin story, thankfully not pushing too hard this time, and he lets the special effects take over.
Historical accuracy is, surprisingly, very good. According to the director, Pompeii was faithfully recreated for the film with aerial shots of the city as it stands today topped up with CGI to show the thriving metropolis we see in the film.
Unfortunately, scientific accuracy takes a back-seat for the sake of high drama, which is the case with many films of this nature. The iconic pyroclastic flow, attributed to killing the majority of Pompeii’s inhabitants due to its huge speed and massive temperatures is slowed right down to ensure the film can last another ten minutes or so – though this is perhaps to be expected.
Overall, Paul W.S. Anderson has created a film which certainly looks the part, but is lacking in so many other areas. Kiefer Sutherland’s villain is completely upstaged by the constant shots of the volcano, which are almost pantomime like in their ‘it’s behind you’ staging, and the rest of the cast are wooden and not particularly likeable.
However, what it lacks in story and acting finesse it makes up in the beautiful special effects and engaging cinematography. It’s worth a watch just to see Pompeii get obliterated – which is probably not a very nice thing to say at all.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/05/03/pompeii-3d-review/
However since 2012‘s 2009 release the genre has fallen into a dormant state. Nevertheless, four years later Paul W.S. Anderson attempts to reawaken this box-office behemoth with his take on the tragic true events at Pompeii, but does the film succeed in its task?
Partially is the short answer. Anderson’s first film since 2012’s disaster Resident Evil: Retribution is as cheesy as a Dairylea triangle, but it also has some stunning special effects to give it some life.
Game of Thrones’ Kit Harington stars as Milo, a slave captured by the Romans after they wiped out his entire family. He is taken to a gloriously recreated Pompeii and immediately sets his sights on the very beautiful Lady Cassia, played by a rather dull Emily Browning, who just so happens to be the daughter of the city ruler, Severus. I’m sure you can guess the plot…
What ensues is a cheesy mess of terrible acting and stilted dialogue that jars with the period nature of the film. Only the knowing of what is to come from Mt Vesuvius, which is beautifully rendered in CGI, stops the film from grinding to a halt.
Kiefer Sutherland dons a downright ridiculous English accent for the role of Senator Corvus, the chief antagonist in the film. He is on business in Pompeii to see if trade can be established and investment can be agreed with the great city of Rome – though this plot point gets lost along the way.
Another issue is the true story which Pompeii is based on. The great tale of tragedy and mother nature showing her ruthless side is one we all know – but all we really want to see is the mountain going boom. Unfortunately we must wait whilst Anderson tries his best to make us care about the characters with their sickly back-stories, for which he fails in breathtaking fashion.
Finally after nearly an hour of what feels like a poor-mans Gladiator we are treat to a stunning spectacle, as Mt Vesuvius explodes in rip-roaring style. As the mountain blows and the fireballs rage Anderson once again tries to get us interested in the paper-thin story, thankfully not pushing too hard this time, and he lets the special effects take over.
Historical accuracy is, surprisingly, very good. According to the director, Pompeii was faithfully recreated for the film with aerial shots of the city as it stands today topped up with CGI to show the thriving metropolis we see in the film.
Unfortunately, scientific accuracy takes a back-seat for the sake of high drama, which is the case with many films of this nature. The iconic pyroclastic flow, attributed to killing the majority of Pompeii’s inhabitants due to its huge speed and massive temperatures is slowed right down to ensure the film can last another ten minutes or so – though this is perhaps to be expected.
Overall, Paul W.S. Anderson has created a film which certainly looks the part, but is lacking in so many other areas. Kiefer Sutherland’s villain is completely upstaged by the constant shots of the volcano, which are almost pantomime like in their ‘it’s behind you’ staging, and the rest of the cast are wooden and not particularly likeable.
However, what it lacks in story and acting finesse it makes up in the beautiful special effects and engaging cinematography. It’s worth a watch just to see Pompeii get obliterated – which is probably not a very nice thing to say at all.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/05/03/pompeii-3d-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Rocketman (2019) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Strong Lead Performance
I have to admit, I thought the Freddy Mercury bio-pic BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY was just "meh" and that Rami Malek was "just o'k" as the Queen frontman (personally, I would have given the Oscar to Christian Bale for his portrayal of Dick Cheney in VICE) so I was not rushing to the multi-plex to check out the Elton John musical film ROCKETMAN. And the fact that the release of this film was "buried" in the summer and not right before "Oscar Season" gave me room to pause.
And...I would be wrong...for ROCKETMAN is a fun, fantastical fantasy musical depicting the rise and fall (by drug and alcohol abuse) of one of rock's most flamboyant showman of the 1970's.
Following the "Jukebox Musical" blueprint of something like JERSEY BOYS, Rocketman follows a young Reggie Dwight as he discovers his musical talent and grows into the Global Superstar known as Elton John.
I was happy that the filmmakers went this route (vs the bio-pic route that BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY went) for they were able to use the vast catalog of Elton John/Bernie Taupin tunes to their fullest advantage, when it made sense to drive the narrative forward - or to give the storytelling a shot of adrenaline.
This film had Elton John's blessings and he was not kind to a few people in his life - most notably his mother (an almost unrecognizable Bryce Dallas Howard in a strong turn), his father (Steve Mackintosh, who I had never seen before) and his Manager, John Reid (Game of Throne's Richard Madden). All 3 are pretty one-dimensional villains that help contribute to Elton's drug and alcohol abuse.
On the other side of the coin is his writing partner, Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell, the original BILLY ELLIOT in a performance that I think is the best of his career) and his Grandmother, Ivy (good ol' Gemma Jones BRIDGET JONES DIARY and Madam Pomfrey in the Harry Potter films). Both of these characters are generally positive influences on Elton's life, trying to understand and support our hero on his journey.
As for our hero, Taran Egerton (the KINGSMAN films) embodies Elton with panache and zeal while showing an underlying shyness and insecurity that helps lead to his abuse issues. Egerton is EXCELLENT in this role - both in acting and singing. He doesn't so much imitate Elton John but embodies the essence of Sir Elton and his performance is quite effective. If Rami Malek deserved his Oscar for playing Freddy Mercury in BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY then Taran Egerton better be in the Oscar conversation this year.
The film was Directed by Dexter Fletcher (who was brought on to finish BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY once Bryan Singer was fired from that film for his on-set behavior), so he puts to good use his experience on the Queen movie, keeping the action moving fast, the characterizations simple (but satisfying) enough while showcasing just enough music to fill a "Best of" Album.
While BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY was a "meh" movie with a buffo ending (the recreation of the LIVE AID concert was amazing), ROCKETMAN suffers from just the opposite problem. Starting off strong and growing weaker until it ends in "meh" fashion. The fact that this film musical fantasy decided to end with a faithful recreation of the I'M STILL STANDING music video is at the heart of the issue. I understand the implied underlying meaning of this song selection, but it just doesn't pack the punch that a live concert appearance would have.
Come for the music, stay for Egerton's performance and you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...I would be wrong...for ROCKETMAN is a fun, fantastical fantasy musical depicting the rise and fall (by drug and alcohol abuse) of one of rock's most flamboyant showman of the 1970's.
Following the "Jukebox Musical" blueprint of something like JERSEY BOYS, Rocketman follows a young Reggie Dwight as he discovers his musical talent and grows into the Global Superstar known as Elton John.
I was happy that the filmmakers went this route (vs the bio-pic route that BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY went) for they were able to use the vast catalog of Elton John/Bernie Taupin tunes to their fullest advantage, when it made sense to drive the narrative forward - or to give the storytelling a shot of adrenaline.
This film had Elton John's blessings and he was not kind to a few people in his life - most notably his mother (an almost unrecognizable Bryce Dallas Howard in a strong turn), his father (Steve Mackintosh, who I had never seen before) and his Manager, John Reid (Game of Throne's Richard Madden). All 3 are pretty one-dimensional villains that help contribute to Elton's drug and alcohol abuse.
On the other side of the coin is his writing partner, Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell, the original BILLY ELLIOT in a performance that I think is the best of his career) and his Grandmother, Ivy (good ol' Gemma Jones BRIDGET JONES DIARY and Madam Pomfrey in the Harry Potter films). Both of these characters are generally positive influences on Elton's life, trying to understand and support our hero on his journey.
As for our hero, Taran Egerton (the KINGSMAN films) embodies Elton with panache and zeal while showing an underlying shyness and insecurity that helps lead to his abuse issues. Egerton is EXCELLENT in this role - both in acting and singing. He doesn't so much imitate Elton John but embodies the essence of Sir Elton and his performance is quite effective. If Rami Malek deserved his Oscar for playing Freddy Mercury in BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY then Taran Egerton better be in the Oscar conversation this year.
The film was Directed by Dexter Fletcher (who was brought on to finish BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY once Bryan Singer was fired from that film for his on-set behavior), so he puts to good use his experience on the Queen movie, keeping the action moving fast, the characterizations simple (but satisfying) enough while showcasing just enough music to fill a "Best of" Album.
While BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY was a "meh" movie with a buffo ending (the recreation of the LIVE AID concert was amazing), ROCKETMAN suffers from just the opposite problem. Starting off strong and growing weaker until it ends in "meh" fashion. The fact that this film musical fantasy decided to end with a faithful recreation of the I'M STILL STANDING music video is at the heart of the issue. I understand the implied underlying meaning of this song selection, but it just doesn't pack the punch that a live concert appearance would have.
Come for the music, stay for Egerton's performance and you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated A Game of Thrones: Hand of the King in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
I’ll be honest with you. I’m a big A Game of Thrones fan. We watch it religiously on Sunday nights at my dad’s house. Now, when I say “we” I mean my brother Bryan, my dad, and me. My wife has zero interest in it, and it’s really not her style anyway. So imagine my surprise when she agreed to play this little card game featuring the IP and she didn’t hate it! She didn’t really love it either, as shown by her guest score on the graphic above.
A Game of Thrones: Hand of the King (that’s a lot to say/type) is a dueling set collection card game. To setup, you create a grid of randomized character cards that all belong to one of the seven houses (save for Varys, who is our pawn in all this). Also reveal six of the 14 provided companion cards to be used for this game. Each player will control Varys on their turn, spreading influence and intrigue throughout the houses.
On your turn you will announce the house you would like to influence (Stark, Greyjoy, etc), and then move the Varys card in any of the four cardinal directions to a character belonging to your announced house. Any character cards you pass along the way bearing the same house will be collected along with the card on which you stopped. If you now have simple majority of characters in that house, you claim the corresponding house banner and place it in front of you to taunt your opponent. Should you influence the last character of said house you will be able to recruit and use one of the companion cards that are available from the beginning of the game. These cards are game-changers sometimes and provide very powerful abilities. Play continues in this fashion until Varys has no more legal moves. And that’s the game. Each player is trying to have simple majority ownership of the house banners at the end of the game.
Components. This is easy. There are square character cards featuring excellent artwork from The Mico (who always does an amazing job IMO), smaller companion cards, and the house banners. The cards are of good quality, and the banners are good too. I have no complaints about the components at all.
Now, I have only played this with my wife and she can be pretty ruthless when gaming. That’s pretty much expected for a game of this IP. That being said, this is an easy and light filler card game that is enjoyable, but not overly strategic. You really do not have to make many choices, as the placement of characters mostly determine how you are going to attack the grid. The companions, however, make this game much more interesting because they can be loose cannons and otherwise monkey wrenches in your opponent’s plans. Outside of being a simple annoyance, there isn’t a lot of player interaction unless you are specifically hate-drafting (which we typically do not do). After all, it’s not similar to its cousin big boy board game that destroys friendships over a 6 hour+ slog. This one is light and quick and a good filler for two. My wife may not love it, but I don’t think I will be getting rid of it. Kind of a nice surprise from a game I was gifted (and it was not originally on my wish list).
That said, we at Purple Phoenix Games (with the help of my wife Kristin) give this one a 7 / 12. Not the best game based on this IP but worth keeping for a quick filler.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/13/a-game-of-thrones-hand-of-the-king-review/
A Game of Thrones: Hand of the King (that’s a lot to say/type) is a dueling set collection card game. To setup, you create a grid of randomized character cards that all belong to one of the seven houses (save for Varys, who is our pawn in all this). Also reveal six of the 14 provided companion cards to be used for this game. Each player will control Varys on their turn, spreading influence and intrigue throughout the houses.
On your turn you will announce the house you would like to influence (Stark, Greyjoy, etc), and then move the Varys card in any of the four cardinal directions to a character belonging to your announced house. Any character cards you pass along the way bearing the same house will be collected along with the card on which you stopped. If you now have simple majority of characters in that house, you claim the corresponding house banner and place it in front of you to taunt your opponent. Should you influence the last character of said house you will be able to recruit and use one of the companion cards that are available from the beginning of the game. These cards are game-changers sometimes and provide very powerful abilities. Play continues in this fashion until Varys has no more legal moves. And that’s the game. Each player is trying to have simple majority ownership of the house banners at the end of the game.
Components. This is easy. There are square character cards featuring excellent artwork from The Mico (who always does an amazing job IMO), smaller companion cards, and the house banners. The cards are of good quality, and the banners are good too. I have no complaints about the components at all.
Now, I have only played this with my wife and she can be pretty ruthless when gaming. That’s pretty much expected for a game of this IP. That being said, this is an easy and light filler card game that is enjoyable, but not overly strategic. You really do not have to make many choices, as the placement of characters mostly determine how you are going to attack the grid. The companions, however, make this game much more interesting because they can be loose cannons and otherwise monkey wrenches in your opponent’s plans. Outside of being a simple annoyance, there isn’t a lot of player interaction unless you are specifically hate-drafting (which we typically do not do). After all, it’s not similar to its cousin big boy board game that destroys friendships over a 6 hour+ slog. This one is light and quick and a good filler for two. My wife may not love it, but I don’t think I will be getting rid of it. Kind of a nice surprise from a game I was gifted (and it was not originally on my wish list).
That said, we at Purple Phoenix Games (with the help of my wife Kristin) give this one a 7 / 12. Not the best game based on this IP but worth keeping for a quick filler.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/13/a-game-of-thrones-hand-of-the-king-review/
Kyera (8 KP) rated The 5th Wave: Book 1 in Books
Jan 31, 2018
What do you do when the Others come? You can't trust your senses, you can't trust anyone. Your only goal is to survive and maybe keep some of your humanity intact. When you can't trust anything or anyone - do you shoot first or take the chance when that hesitation will probably mean your life?
When the first wave comes, all technology is gone in a moment. An EMP takes everything out. The second wave caused massive tsunamis and destroyed the coasts of the world. The third wave infected and killed 97% of the remaining population in brutal fashion. The fourth wave destroyed all trust in humanity and introduced the constant threat of drones. The wave that makes you question every action... and the fifth wave... is us.
Cassie must survive in this strange world with no mother, father or brother to care for anymore - fighting and living because if she is the last human on Earth she refuses to go out with a whimper. She will fight until she can fight no longer. But she is not the only body left, even if she may be the only one with her own mind left. It is possible that one in every three people left is an Other. A Silencer. An Imposter. Has your mind and body been hacked? Do they look like us or can they make themselves look like us? Or maybe they've been here all along. Waiting. That's when you can't trust your eyes. You may be looking at an Other and not even realize it.
We next meet Ben, who must rediscover his fighting spirit if he wants to survive and survive he must. After not succumbing to the virus that infected him, he cannot give up. Taught to fight and given a new name, he must battle for his place.
Part III shows us a new perspective, an Other awakened in a human body and given a mission. To kill. To finish the human race, one by one. He has been tracking Cassie for a while and takes aim. Shoots. Traps her, but for some reason cannot bring himself to finish her.
Hunted. Shot. Then saved? Cassie wakes up being tended to by Evan on the family farm. He is the only one left of his family. Evan helps to nurse her back to health, bakes bread, carves walking sticks and wants to help her rescue her brother Sammy. What can't this farm boy do? And why does this make us so suspicious? Even Cassie can't quite bring herself to trust him. There are just little things that seem off, like a life-long farm boy with smooth hands and perfect cuticles. No callouses to be found. There's a small nagging feeling in her mind that asks- what if he's an Other?
The characters are well written and believable. You feel for them. Root for their successes and hurt when they fail. You wish for their survival despite the current chaos and destruction of the world. The world is familiar and yet fundamentally altered by the Others.
The book draws you in from the start and you puzzle over people and motives. Who will survive and if the human race survives this destruction, how will this ordeal fundamentally change the survivors? I am constantly questioning my conclusions and re-evaluating what I believe i happening. A great book is able to reveal just enough that the entire plot is not given away by page ten. This post-apocalyptic, alien-invasion novel is highly recommenede, especially if you plan to watch the movie. I cannot wait to read the next book, Infinite Sea!
When the first wave comes, all technology is gone in a moment. An EMP takes everything out. The second wave caused massive tsunamis and destroyed the coasts of the world. The third wave infected and killed 97% of the remaining population in brutal fashion. The fourth wave destroyed all trust in humanity and introduced the constant threat of drones. The wave that makes you question every action... and the fifth wave... is us.
Cassie must survive in this strange world with no mother, father or brother to care for anymore - fighting and living because if she is the last human on Earth she refuses to go out with a whimper. She will fight until she can fight no longer. But she is not the only body left, even if she may be the only one with her own mind left. It is possible that one in every three people left is an Other. A Silencer. An Imposter. Has your mind and body been hacked? Do they look like us or can they make themselves look like us? Or maybe they've been here all along. Waiting. That's when you can't trust your eyes. You may be looking at an Other and not even realize it.
We next meet Ben, who must rediscover his fighting spirit if he wants to survive and survive he must. After not succumbing to the virus that infected him, he cannot give up. Taught to fight and given a new name, he must battle for his place.
Part III shows us a new perspective, an Other awakened in a human body and given a mission. To kill. To finish the human race, one by one. He has been tracking Cassie for a while and takes aim. Shoots. Traps her, but for some reason cannot bring himself to finish her.
Hunted. Shot. Then saved? Cassie wakes up being tended to by Evan on the family farm. He is the only one left of his family. Evan helps to nurse her back to health, bakes bread, carves walking sticks and wants to help her rescue her brother Sammy. What can't this farm boy do? And why does this make us so suspicious? Even Cassie can't quite bring herself to trust him. There are just little things that seem off, like a life-long farm boy with smooth hands and perfect cuticles. No callouses to be found. There's a small nagging feeling in her mind that asks- what if he's an Other?
The characters are well written and believable. You feel for them. Root for their successes and hurt when they fail. You wish for their survival despite the current chaos and destruction of the world. The world is familiar and yet fundamentally altered by the Others.
The book draws you in from the start and you puzzle over people and motives. Who will survive and if the human race survives this destruction, how will this ordeal fundamentally change the survivors? I am constantly questioning my conclusions and re-evaluating what I believe i happening. A great book is able to reveal just enough that the entire plot is not given away by page ten. This post-apocalyptic, alien-invasion novel is highly recommenede, especially if you plan to watch the movie. I cannot wait to read the next book, Infinite Sea!
Kyera (8 KP) rated The Young Elites in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Despite the fact that I found the main character disagreeable - the premise was enjoyable. Initially, Adelina is very dark and unrelatable. She relishes pain and fear, as a result, I don't have sympathy for her character. Even though her father treated her abysmally her entire life, that treatment only seemed to nurture the darkness inside her. It did not create it. The darkness is all her own.
The only time I truly felt her humanity was when she was with the kind Gemma. It is in those moments she allows herself to feel. even concern for her sister seems forced, like familial obligation rather than a love. Her concern is usually accompanied with ill thoughts and blackened memories towards her sister.
Raffaele and Gemma are the most human of the characters and more likeable than the rest. Dante's main role is to antagonize. Enzo's role is to function as a romantic interest and future savior of the realm. The Windwalker, Lucent, and the Architect, Michel, serve more as background pieces than fully developed characters. Obviously, this is an over=simplification of their roles but it helps to illustrate the weaknesses in character development in the book. Over the course of the novel, the reader is given small glimpses into the character or their backstory but it is insufficient as these are her main and supporting characters for which the book is titled. The Young Elites.
The world the author builds draws you in with its unique holidays, three moons, elegant dress and giant rays that swim through the sky. The elaborate and opulent headquarters (Fortunata Court) of the Dagger Society rise in your mind surrounded by towers, merchants and Inquisitors. Stylistically, the world is reminiscent of Renaissance Italy with its gondolas, dress and canals that might draw you in like the world of Assassin's Creed.
During the course of the novel, we watch as Adelina trains her abilities and before long she joins the Daggers on a mission. She also seems to adopt more humanity as the book progresses which makes her a slightly more appealing character - but she is unable to hold onto that ray of light for long before succumbing to the festering darkness within. (Leaving the reader just as unsympathetic as before.)
She would be more likeable if she didn't welcome that darkness and unless her character arc leads her to light and love, changing her affinities, I have no emotional stake in her well-being. I understand that the author wants to write a dark character, but I personally just don't have an emotional stake in the outcome of this book because I don't particularly identify with any of her characters. Without redeeming qualities, you cannot justify or form an attachment to the character (especially because she is the main character). I'm sure others would like her character, and she is certainly an interesting character, but I prefer a lead who is flawed but inherently good. Perhaps an anti-hero but not the villain.
Growing up unloved, she quickly falls in with the Daggers but questions their motivation and is willing to betray them with the slightest provocation. In her mind, no one could possibly just be kind. They must have an agenda or be using her in some fashion. She is easily manipulated and swayed. Whether she follows through with her vengeance, betrays or redeems is something you must discover by reading the book yourself. Will Adelina redeems herself or succumb to the darkness?
I'm intrigued by the premise and the characters, despite the critical parts of my review. As such, I look forward to seeing where this series goes. I would definitely recommend it to YA fans who enjoy rich worlds that aren't modern or people with special abilities.
The only time I truly felt her humanity was when she was with the kind Gemma. It is in those moments she allows herself to feel. even concern for her sister seems forced, like familial obligation rather than a love. Her concern is usually accompanied with ill thoughts and blackened memories towards her sister.
Raffaele and Gemma are the most human of the characters and more likeable than the rest. Dante's main role is to antagonize. Enzo's role is to function as a romantic interest and future savior of the realm. The Windwalker, Lucent, and the Architect, Michel, serve more as background pieces than fully developed characters. Obviously, this is an over=simplification of their roles but it helps to illustrate the weaknesses in character development in the book. Over the course of the novel, the reader is given small glimpses into the character or their backstory but it is insufficient as these are her main and supporting characters for which the book is titled. The Young Elites.
The world the author builds draws you in with its unique holidays, three moons, elegant dress and giant rays that swim through the sky. The elaborate and opulent headquarters (Fortunata Court) of the Dagger Society rise in your mind surrounded by towers, merchants and Inquisitors. Stylistically, the world is reminiscent of Renaissance Italy with its gondolas, dress and canals that might draw you in like the world of Assassin's Creed.
During the course of the novel, we watch as Adelina trains her abilities and before long she joins the Daggers on a mission. She also seems to adopt more humanity as the book progresses which makes her a slightly more appealing character - but she is unable to hold onto that ray of light for long before succumbing to the festering darkness within. (Leaving the reader just as unsympathetic as before.)
She would be more likeable if she didn't welcome that darkness and unless her character arc leads her to light and love, changing her affinities, I have no emotional stake in her well-being. I understand that the author wants to write a dark character, but I personally just don't have an emotional stake in the outcome of this book because I don't particularly identify with any of her characters. Without redeeming qualities, you cannot justify or form an attachment to the character (especially because she is the main character). I'm sure others would like her character, and she is certainly an interesting character, but I prefer a lead who is flawed but inherently good. Perhaps an anti-hero but not the villain.
Growing up unloved, she quickly falls in with the Daggers but questions their motivation and is willing to betray them with the slightest provocation. In her mind, no one could possibly just be kind. They must have an agenda or be using her in some fashion. She is easily manipulated and swayed. Whether she follows through with her vengeance, betrays or redeems is something you must discover by reading the book yourself. Will Adelina redeems herself or succumb to the darkness?
I'm intrigued by the premise and the characters, despite the critical parts of my review. As such, I look forward to seeing where this series goes. I would definitely recommend it to YA fans who enjoy rich worlds that aren't modern or people with special abilities.
Kyera (8 KP) rated Princess of Thorns in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Princess of Thorns is a not-so-classic retelling of the Sleeping Beauty story. The main character is actually the daughter of the cursed princess, who awoke from a kiss. Her name is Aurora, like the Disney movie's princess and her mother's name is Rose. In the french version of the tale, Sleeping Beauty's daughter is named Aurore. I believe that her mother's is the shortened form of Briar Rose, like German version of her tale by the Brother's Grimm. If you are familiar with the Grimm and Perrault versions of the tale, not only the Disney one, then you will notice many similarities. In a few versions of the tale, there is an evil step-mother or mother-in-law who attempts to eat the leading lady's children.
The author makes use of these characters and plots in her novel. She chooses to include the ill-fated mother, brother and sister, as well as the villainous step-mother. Although that familial tie is not explicitly stated, the King was the children's father and he married the ogre. Thus, she would be their step-mother. And you thought you had a dysfunctional family?
In true fairytale fashion, there are ogres, witches, fairies, and ruffians. Not all are portrayed as you would expect. The ogres have evolved, or perhaps devolved depending upon who you ask. In the early years, the ogres were monstrous creatures that devoured souls whole. They did not control themselves, but feasted on the entire soul leaving nothing behind. As time went on, they were forced to change and limit how much they took. After a time, the ogres began to become smaller and take on much more human-like appearances. Their food source never changed and they prided themselves upon each soul they took, marking their bare skulls.
The Fae seem human, although they possess extra-human traits and magic. One may not think of fairies and immediately imagine a human-like creature with great dexterity, skill in battle, and a lack of guilt -but the Fair Folk are shown this way in the novel. A fairy can bestow a gift upon a human child, like beauty, courage, eloquence, obedience, or strength. But each blessing comes with a curse, as the magic always finds a way to turn the gift into a burden. There are untold consequences to the blessings that cannot be avoided. As such, the fairies stopped giving their gifts to human children.
As with most fairytales, there is an element of romance. The love story blossoms under unusual circumstances and not without its share of problems. The two characters get to know each other throughout the journey, but their are many secrets left untold. As they are discovered, the relationship is altered for good or bad. And in the end, a choice must be made.
Most importantly, the novel isn't entirely predictable (although the budding romance was expected). Generally, you expect good to triumph over evil in most modern retellings of the story - unlike their Grimm counterparts. The plot's climax was frankly a little anti-climactic, but enjoyable non-the-less.
I think the author showed an average amount of character development, although I usually think more would be incredibly beneficial. Certain aspects of the world were explained, but not vividly enough. The "show-don't-tell" method could have been employed here to create a richer, more immersive world. Overall, I was pleased with the author's lexicon, grammar, and spelling - which happens much less often than should reasonably be expected.
I would certainly read another novel by this author as I love stories based upon fairytales. If you read Alex Flinn, I would highly recommend this novel to you just keep in mind it is slightly darker. Readers of fantasy, romance, and the like will enjoy this book and should give it a chance. It seems to target the female demographic, but males should enjoy it as well.
The author makes use of these characters and plots in her novel. She chooses to include the ill-fated mother, brother and sister, as well as the villainous step-mother. Although that familial tie is not explicitly stated, the King was the children's father and he married the ogre. Thus, she would be their step-mother. And you thought you had a dysfunctional family?
In true fairytale fashion, there are ogres, witches, fairies, and ruffians. Not all are portrayed as you would expect. The ogres have evolved, or perhaps devolved depending upon who you ask. In the early years, the ogres were monstrous creatures that devoured souls whole. They did not control themselves, but feasted on the entire soul leaving nothing behind. As time went on, they were forced to change and limit how much they took. After a time, the ogres began to become smaller and take on much more human-like appearances. Their food source never changed and they prided themselves upon each soul they took, marking their bare skulls.
The Fae seem human, although they possess extra-human traits and magic. One may not think of fairies and immediately imagine a human-like creature with great dexterity, skill in battle, and a lack of guilt -but the Fair Folk are shown this way in the novel. A fairy can bestow a gift upon a human child, like beauty, courage, eloquence, obedience, or strength. But each blessing comes with a curse, as the magic always finds a way to turn the gift into a burden. There are untold consequences to the blessings that cannot be avoided. As such, the fairies stopped giving their gifts to human children.
As with most fairytales, there is an element of romance. The love story blossoms under unusual circumstances and not without its share of problems. The two characters get to know each other throughout the journey, but their are many secrets left untold. As they are discovered, the relationship is altered for good or bad. And in the end, a choice must be made.
Most importantly, the novel isn't entirely predictable (although the budding romance was expected). Generally, you expect good to triumph over evil in most modern retellings of the story - unlike their Grimm counterparts. The plot's climax was frankly a little anti-climactic, but enjoyable non-the-less.
I think the author showed an average amount of character development, although I usually think more would be incredibly beneficial. Certain aspects of the world were explained, but not vividly enough. The "show-don't-tell" method could have been employed here to create a richer, more immersive world. Overall, I was pleased with the author's lexicon, grammar, and spelling - which happens much less often than should reasonably be expected.
I would certainly read another novel by this author as I love stories based upon fairytales. If you read Alex Flinn, I would highly recommend this novel to you just keep in mind it is slightly darker. Readers of fantasy, romance, and the like will enjoy this book and should give it a chance. It seems to target the female demographic, but males should enjoy it as well.
The four Plumb siblings aren't exactly the most likable group of brothers and sisters. Is their rather despicable, hands-off mother, Francie, to blame? Further, the siblings can't agree on much, either, except how they are all looking forward to the inheritance they've deemed "The Nest." Their late father intended the money to simply be a small sum to help each of his children along late in life (they can't get the money until the youngest turns 40), but the money has been inflated by the stock market and wise investments, and now each sibling is seriously relying on the money in some way. But then, one evening at a wedding, the eldest brother Leo drunkenly gets behind the wheel of his Porsche, a young waitress from the party at his side, and crashes the car. The waitress is badly injured, and the children's mother dips deeply into The Nest to get Leo out of his jam. The other siblings are enraged as they are forced to confront their own financial problems. Melody, the youngest, needs to send her twins to college. Jack, the other brother, has been secretly borrowing against his vacation home, without telling his lawyer husband. And Bea, their sister, hasn't been able to follow up on the success of her early work and finish her novel: she even had to pay back the advance. Leo promises his siblings he will pay them back; but can their wayward older brother be trusted?
This novel received a lot of hype, so of course I avoided reading it for a while. As I was reading it, I thought for quite some time that I'd been duped, as it seemed to be about a bunch of greedy, hateful siblings who cared about nothing but money and appearances. But D'Aprix Sweeney has a deft way with words and somehow, amazingly, this book is compulsively readable and surprisingly enjoyable. After a while, you get to know each Plumb sibling fairly well. While some are pretty despicable (ahem, Leo, ahem), some are just people and parents trying to get by--albeit not always in the most reasonable fashion. I felt the worst for Bea and Melody.
The most interesting part about this novel is that D'Aprix Sweeney doesn't just focus on the four siblings, but she opens up the aperture to include a whole cast of supporting characters, and that is where the novel really shines. Everyone becomes connected somehow, but it doesn't feel trite. We hear from folks in the literary world who work (and love) Bea and Leo, for instance. Leo's love interest (and Bea's editor) Stephanie is my favorite. So while parts of the novel are predictable and I found myself wondering if I cared about any of the Plumbs whatsoever, it's the characters to whom they are connected that are interesting. It takes a talented author to make you want to read a story, even if you don't like the main characters, per se. However, you'll find yourself caught up in the story and wanting to find out what happens. The bonus of extending the characters beyond the four Plumbs is that you get several characters' perspective on an issue or event. In the end, things tie up and together, but again, not too neatly or annoyingly. The ending is perfect somehow--again, a testament to the author's skill.
Overall, the novel surprised me. I honestly usually am not a fan of the spoiled New Yorker novels, but this one was different. It really drew me in. There's a depth and a warmth behind the characters. Definitely worth reading.
<a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">My Blog</a> ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/justacatandbook">Twitter</a>;
This novel received a lot of hype, so of course I avoided reading it for a while. As I was reading it, I thought for quite some time that I'd been duped, as it seemed to be about a bunch of greedy, hateful siblings who cared about nothing but money and appearances. But D'Aprix Sweeney has a deft way with words and somehow, amazingly, this book is compulsively readable and surprisingly enjoyable. After a while, you get to know each Plumb sibling fairly well. While some are pretty despicable (ahem, Leo, ahem), some are just people and parents trying to get by--albeit not always in the most reasonable fashion. I felt the worst for Bea and Melody.
The most interesting part about this novel is that D'Aprix Sweeney doesn't just focus on the four siblings, but she opens up the aperture to include a whole cast of supporting characters, and that is where the novel really shines. Everyone becomes connected somehow, but it doesn't feel trite. We hear from folks in the literary world who work (and love) Bea and Leo, for instance. Leo's love interest (and Bea's editor) Stephanie is my favorite. So while parts of the novel are predictable and I found myself wondering if I cared about any of the Plumbs whatsoever, it's the characters to whom they are connected that are interesting. It takes a talented author to make you want to read a story, even if you don't like the main characters, per se. However, you'll find yourself caught up in the story and wanting to find out what happens. The bonus of extending the characters beyond the four Plumbs is that you get several characters' perspective on an issue or event. In the end, things tie up and together, but again, not too neatly or annoyingly. The ending is perfect somehow--again, a testament to the author's skill.
Overall, the novel surprised me. I honestly usually am not a fan of the spoiled New Yorker novels, but this one was different. It really drew me in. There's a depth and a warmth behind the characters. Definitely worth reading.
<a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">My Blog</a> ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/justacatandbook">Twitter</a>;
Nick doonan (0 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Apr 4, 2018
A movie you only watch once.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Okay so i was sceptical about watching this movie and have put off watching it for quite some time but, as it is Christopher Nolan and the IMDb ratings seem to show above average on it, i thought i'd give it a chance seen as i loved all his previous movies.
Boy was i disappointed. .
I don't quite know where Nolan was planning to go with this movie or what it was even for but it is completely out of sync with all his other creations. I wanted to actually turn off the movie half way through it but my liking for Nolan kept me watching until it's pitiful and yet quite anticipated ending.
So the movie starts off with soldiers walking through the streets. Looking at the mess left behind from the still engaging warfare of the french. Then we cut to a young lad, separated from his group, avoiding gunfire, running away to stay alive. It's fast paced and it looks like a great start. THEN...
The young lad ends up at the beach where all the soldiers are waiting to be picked up and taken back home to England. A lot of long staring goes on and a very dramatic run by two soldiers taking an injured soldier to one of the boats prevails, but what was the dramatic music for? We then cut to our only 2 fighter pilots, protecting the skies. They seem to have a good friendship but we don't see any of it materialise until the end where one goes ''come on Farrier''. It is hard at this point to actually get on board with any of the characters, whether to like them or dislike them. The majority of the movie is spent watching a young lad trying to get on a board to get back home but keeps meeting obstacles on his way. Eventually, in particular fashion at the end, boats arrive and everyone safely returns home after what felt like eternity.
Conclusion?
I watched this movie purely because it was by Christopher Nolan. If it hadn't been, i wouldn't recommend this to anyone or even watched it myself. It's a movie you would only watch once and this suprises me. I expected so much better from such a great director. It was sloppy, messy and rushed and more importantly... it was just absolutely dull all the way through.
Cillian Murphy had a great part but felt watered down. I really struggled to get on board with anything that was going on.
I wanted to really enjoy this movie, i really did. but i struggled to actually get into anything that was going on. There was no character depth or explanation behind anything that was going on.
*SPOILER HERE....but it's not major so don't worry.* What was the deal with the young lad that died? Why did he mean so much to the old man and his son? Why was the dramatic music used so much for when ziltch was happening? I mean, literally, dramatic music getting faster and faster and then cuts to silence and nothing?
This movie started off quite promising. Walking the streets in the aftermath of battle, avoiding gunfire and then 3 minutes later, nothing. I feel like it was going to go back and explain why certain things was happening but it never did. I honestly don't understand this movie at all. The majority of the movie felt like a filler. The spitfire scenes were tedious and boring, despite the fact they were probably the only best scenes from the movie. This movie is a ''watch once, never again'' type movie. It had absolutely nothing make you want to come back. You can't like any of the characters because of the character depth being missing and it just felt messy.
I'm genuinely dissapointed that this movie wasn't as good or enjoyable.
Boy was i disappointed. .
I don't quite know where Nolan was planning to go with this movie or what it was even for but it is completely out of sync with all his other creations. I wanted to actually turn off the movie half way through it but my liking for Nolan kept me watching until it's pitiful and yet quite anticipated ending.
So the movie starts off with soldiers walking through the streets. Looking at the mess left behind from the still engaging warfare of the french. Then we cut to a young lad, separated from his group, avoiding gunfire, running away to stay alive. It's fast paced and it looks like a great start. THEN...
The young lad ends up at the beach where all the soldiers are waiting to be picked up and taken back home to England. A lot of long staring goes on and a very dramatic run by two soldiers taking an injured soldier to one of the boats prevails, but what was the dramatic music for? We then cut to our only 2 fighter pilots, protecting the skies. They seem to have a good friendship but we don't see any of it materialise until the end where one goes ''come on Farrier''. It is hard at this point to actually get on board with any of the characters, whether to like them or dislike them. The majority of the movie is spent watching a young lad trying to get on a board to get back home but keeps meeting obstacles on his way. Eventually, in particular fashion at the end, boats arrive and everyone safely returns home after what felt like eternity.
Conclusion?
I watched this movie purely because it was by Christopher Nolan. If it hadn't been, i wouldn't recommend this to anyone or even watched it myself. It's a movie you would only watch once and this suprises me. I expected so much better from such a great director. It was sloppy, messy and rushed and more importantly... it was just absolutely dull all the way through.
Cillian Murphy had a great part but felt watered down. I really struggled to get on board with anything that was going on.
I wanted to really enjoy this movie, i really did. but i struggled to actually get into anything that was going on. There was no character depth or explanation behind anything that was going on.
*SPOILER HERE....but it's not major so don't worry.* What was the deal with the young lad that died? Why did he mean so much to the old man and his son? Why was the dramatic music used so much for when ziltch was happening? I mean, literally, dramatic music getting faster and faster and then cuts to silence and nothing?
This movie started off quite promising. Walking the streets in the aftermath of battle, avoiding gunfire and then 3 minutes later, nothing. I feel like it was going to go back and explain why certain things was happening but it never did. I honestly don't understand this movie at all. The majority of the movie felt like a filler. The spitfire scenes were tedious and boring, despite the fact they were probably the only best scenes from the movie. This movie is a ''watch once, never again'' type movie. It had absolutely nothing make you want to come back. You can't like any of the characters because of the character depth being missing and it just felt messy.
I'm genuinely dissapointed that this movie wasn't as good or enjoyable.