Search
Search results
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Electric Dreams (1984) in Movies
Oct 13, 2019
Let me start off by saying I recently purchased a region free DVD/Blu Ray player for myself when I discovered there were films I have not seen in 20+ years because they have never had a DVD/Blu Ray release in the US, but are actually available overseas! When I discovered this fact, among the first movies I purchased is this 1980s classic which has been mostly forgotten due to its unavailability.
Miles is an unorganized, nerdy architect who is delighted to discover a young, beautiful cellist moving in to the apartment above his sparse decorated pad in San Francisco. At the same time, a work colleague tells Miles he should get himself organized so he doesn't miss meetings spending all his time working on a new earthquake=proof brick, his dream pet project. Miles heads to his local electronic store (80s version) and gets talked into buying one of these "new" personal computers which everyone seems to be getting.
After some initial difficulty during set up, Miles decides to fully jump in to the PC world and not only sets up his new toy, but decides to have it fully integrated into his apartment including running his lights, door locks and appliances. He then thinks it would be a good idea to do a mass download of information for his work servers to beef up his own unit's capacity. He quickly realizes this is an overload to his machine when it starts to buzz and flash. In a panic, he douses the machine with some champagne to cool it off inadvertently giving it the spark of "life".
His new machine works quickly to understand its new world around including listening and harmonizing music with the beautiful neighbor upstairs. This leads to the two town house cohabitants developing a relationship. This does not sit well with the PC eventually as "he" has now also evolved to the point where he wants to understand love. Tensions escalate and there is a confrontation for the ultimate fate of the relationships and who will ultimately get the girl.
Since it had been probably 30 years since I had seen Electric Dreams, one of those guilty pleasures from the 80s, I was extremely anxious to rewatch; however, was also worried a new viewing in my adulthood would ruin the magic I had remembered from my youth. I couldn't have been more wrong.
The first thing I had forgotten was all the humor of the film including those awkward moments when Miles and the computer where getting to know each other and the goofy dialogue. Also, it's funny how I read a lot of the functions the computer performed had to be simulated at the time since home PCs were still pretty new to everyone at that point, but now those functions are fairly commonplace including the aforementioned "Smart Home" features among other things.
Yes fine, there are plenty of 80s staples present almost immediately like music montages, bad hairdos, leg warmers and boom boxes, but that still gives the movie charm. After thinking about it, there were elements from other 80s classics like Weird Science, WarGames, and a lot of Short Circuit where an AI was learning about itself. Who remembers Max Headroom?
The soundtrack for the film is also front and center with much of it playing a key role in the budding relationship between Miles and his musical love interest, but it works well and still holds up.
I also have to mention Virginia Madsen. I looked up she was 23 when she made this film (she looked like she was 18), but still looks as remarkable as she did then (80s crush speaking here).
I'm sure I probably still revere this movie more than the people who actually made it, but I can handle that.
Miles is an unorganized, nerdy architect who is delighted to discover a young, beautiful cellist moving in to the apartment above his sparse decorated pad in San Francisco. At the same time, a work colleague tells Miles he should get himself organized so he doesn't miss meetings spending all his time working on a new earthquake=proof brick, his dream pet project. Miles heads to his local electronic store (80s version) and gets talked into buying one of these "new" personal computers which everyone seems to be getting.
After some initial difficulty during set up, Miles decides to fully jump in to the PC world and not only sets up his new toy, but decides to have it fully integrated into his apartment including running his lights, door locks and appliances. He then thinks it would be a good idea to do a mass download of information for his work servers to beef up his own unit's capacity. He quickly realizes this is an overload to his machine when it starts to buzz and flash. In a panic, he douses the machine with some champagne to cool it off inadvertently giving it the spark of "life".
His new machine works quickly to understand its new world around including listening and harmonizing music with the beautiful neighbor upstairs. This leads to the two town house cohabitants developing a relationship. This does not sit well with the PC eventually as "he" has now also evolved to the point where he wants to understand love. Tensions escalate and there is a confrontation for the ultimate fate of the relationships and who will ultimately get the girl.
Since it had been probably 30 years since I had seen Electric Dreams, one of those guilty pleasures from the 80s, I was extremely anxious to rewatch; however, was also worried a new viewing in my adulthood would ruin the magic I had remembered from my youth. I couldn't have been more wrong.
The first thing I had forgotten was all the humor of the film including those awkward moments when Miles and the computer where getting to know each other and the goofy dialogue. Also, it's funny how I read a lot of the functions the computer performed had to be simulated at the time since home PCs were still pretty new to everyone at that point, but now those functions are fairly commonplace including the aforementioned "Smart Home" features among other things.
Yes fine, there are plenty of 80s staples present almost immediately like music montages, bad hairdos, leg warmers and boom boxes, but that still gives the movie charm. After thinking about it, there were elements from other 80s classics like Weird Science, WarGames, and a lot of Short Circuit where an AI was learning about itself. Who remembers Max Headroom?
The soundtrack for the film is also front and center with much of it playing a key role in the budding relationship between Miles and his musical love interest, but it works well and still holds up.
I also have to mention Virginia Madsen. I looked up she was 23 when she made this film (she looked like she was 18), but still looks as remarkable as she did then (80s crush speaking here).
I'm sure I probably still revere this movie more than the people who actually made it, but I can handle that.
Sign Docs - Best Digital Signature & Business Document Manager App for iPad
Productivity and Business
App
##### Special discounted price for a limited time ##### ✓ Featured in iTunes 'New & Noteworthy'...
TrialPad ™
Business and Productivity
App
Organize and access all your evidence more efficiently, and present more effectively with the top...
My Dictionary Pro
Education and Entertainment
App
Do you want to learn a foreign language quickly? A unique program for memorizing words will help you...
KidloLand: Kids Nursery Rhymes
Education and Games
App
KidloLand is an award-winning app for kids (1-5 yrs) with 1000+ nursery rhymes, songs, games and...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Light Between Oceans (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“You only have to forgive once. To resent, you have to do it all day, every day”.
In my review of “The Two Faces of January” I described it as a film that “will be particularly enjoyed by older viewers who remember when story and location were put far ahead of CGI-based special effects”. In watching this film I was again linking in my mind to that earlier film… and that was before the lead character suddenly brought up the two faces of Janus!
For this is a good old-fashioned weepy melodrama: leisurely, character based and guaranteed to give the tear ducts a good old cleaning out.
It’s 1918 and Michael Fassbender plays Tom Sherbourne, a damaged man seeking solitude and reflection after four years of hell in the trenches. As a short-term job he takes the post of lighthouse keeper on the isolated slab of rock called Janus – sat between two oceans (presumably as this is Western Australia, the Indian and the Southern Oceans). The isolation of the job previously sent his predecessor off his trolley.
En route to his workplace he is immediately attracted to headmaster’s daughter Isabel (Alicia Vikander) who practically THROWS herself at Tom (the hussy), given that they only have snatches of a day at a time to be together during shore leave. Tom falls for her (as a hot blooded man, and with Vikander’s performance, this is entirely believable!) and the two marry to retire to their ‘fortress of solitude’ together to raise a family and live happily ever after…. or not… For the path of true motherhood runs not smoothly for poor Isabel, and a baby in a drifting boat spells both joy and despair for the couple as the story unwinds.
(I’ll stop my synopsis there, since I think the trailer – and other reviews I’ve read – give too much away).
While Fassbender again demonstrates what a mesmerising actor he is, the acting kudos in this one really goes again to Vikander, who pulls out all the stops in a role that demands fragility, naivety, resentment, anger and despair across its course. While I don’t think the film in general will trouble the Oscars, this is a leading actress performance that I could well see nominated. In a supporting role, with less screen-time, is Rachel Weisz who again needs to demonstrate her acting stripes in a demanding role. (Also a shout-out to young Florence Clery who is wonderfully naturalistic as the 4 year old Lucy-Grace.)
So this is a film with a stellar class, but it doesn’t really all gel together satisfyingly into a stellar – or at least particularly memorable – movie. After a slow start, director Derek Cianfrance (“The Place Beyond the Pines”) ladles on the melodrama interminably, and over a two hour running time the word overwrought comes to mind.
The script (also by Cianfrance, from the novel by M.L.Stedman) could have been tightened up, particularly in the first reel, and the audience given a bit more time to reflect and absorb in the second half.
The film is also curiously ‘place-less’. I assumed this was somewhere off Ireland until someone suddenly starting singing “Waltzing Matilda” (badly) and random people started talking in Aussie accents: most strange.
Cinematography by Adam Arkapaw (“Macbeth”) is also frustratingly inconsistent. The landscapes of the island, steam trains, sunsets and the multiple boatings in between is just beautiful (assisted by a delicate score by the great Alexandre Desplat which is well used) but get close up (and the camera does often get VERY close up) and a lack of ‘steadicam’ becomes infuriating, with faces dancing about the screen and – in one particular scene early on – wandering off on either side with the camera apparently unsure which one to follow!
A memorable cinema experience only for Vikander’s outstanding performance. Now where are those tissues…
For this is a good old-fashioned weepy melodrama: leisurely, character based and guaranteed to give the tear ducts a good old cleaning out.
It’s 1918 and Michael Fassbender plays Tom Sherbourne, a damaged man seeking solitude and reflection after four years of hell in the trenches. As a short-term job he takes the post of lighthouse keeper on the isolated slab of rock called Janus – sat between two oceans (presumably as this is Western Australia, the Indian and the Southern Oceans). The isolation of the job previously sent his predecessor off his trolley.
En route to his workplace he is immediately attracted to headmaster’s daughter Isabel (Alicia Vikander) who practically THROWS herself at Tom (the hussy), given that they only have snatches of a day at a time to be together during shore leave. Tom falls for her (as a hot blooded man, and with Vikander’s performance, this is entirely believable!) and the two marry to retire to their ‘fortress of solitude’ together to raise a family and live happily ever after…. or not… For the path of true motherhood runs not smoothly for poor Isabel, and a baby in a drifting boat spells both joy and despair for the couple as the story unwinds.
(I’ll stop my synopsis there, since I think the trailer – and other reviews I’ve read – give too much away).
While Fassbender again demonstrates what a mesmerising actor he is, the acting kudos in this one really goes again to Vikander, who pulls out all the stops in a role that demands fragility, naivety, resentment, anger and despair across its course. While I don’t think the film in general will trouble the Oscars, this is a leading actress performance that I could well see nominated. In a supporting role, with less screen-time, is Rachel Weisz who again needs to demonstrate her acting stripes in a demanding role. (Also a shout-out to young Florence Clery who is wonderfully naturalistic as the 4 year old Lucy-Grace.)
So this is a film with a stellar class, but it doesn’t really all gel together satisfyingly into a stellar – or at least particularly memorable – movie. After a slow start, director Derek Cianfrance (“The Place Beyond the Pines”) ladles on the melodrama interminably, and over a two hour running time the word overwrought comes to mind.
The script (also by Cianfrance, from the novel by M.L.Stedman) could have been tightened up, particularly in the first reel, and the audience given a bit more time to reflect and absorb in the second half.
The film is also curiously ‘place-less’. I assumed this was somewhere off Ireland until someone suddenly starting singing “Waltzing Matilda” (badly) and random people started talking in Aussie accents: most strange.
Cinematography by Adam Arkapaw (“Macbeth”) is also frustratingly inconsistent. The landscapes of the island, steam trains, sunsets and the multiple boatings in between is just beautiful (assisted by a delicate score by the great Alexandre Desplat which is well used) but get close up (and the camera does often get VERY close up) and a lack of ‘steadicam’ becomes infuriating, with faces dancing about the screen and – in one particular scene early on – wandering off on either side with the camera apparently unsure which one to follow!
A memorable cinema experience only for Vikander’s outstanding performance. Now where are those tissues…
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated ICECOOL in Tabletop Games
Jun 25, 2019 (Updated Aug 13, 2020)
Moving components around the board/play area is a staple of most board games. As board games have evolved, that mechanic has maintained an integral role in many games. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, right? Well just because it’s not broken, doesn’t mean it can’t use a little innovation….and that’s where ICECOOL comes into play.
You and your Penguin buddies are so hungry that you decide to skip out on class early to go grab some snacks. But you’ve forgotten about the Hall Monitor! Their mission is to catch any unauthorized hall wanderers and send them back to class. Can you outmaneuver the Hall Monitor, or will you be caught and forced to go hungry until the end of class?
Disclaimer: I do not intend to rehash the rulebook in its entirety in this review, but rather provide a general overview of the rules and gameplay. To read the rules more in-depth, grab a copy of the game from your FLGS! -L
ICECOOL is a dexterity game in which players are trying to amass the most points over a number of rounds. Here’s how a round plays out. Select one player to be the Hall Monitor (called the Catcher) for the first round, and place their Penguin pawn in the kitchen box. All other players, aka the Runners, take their 3 colored fish tokens and attach them to the three corresponding doorways, and begin with their Penguin pawns in the classroom box. As a Runner, your goal is to collect your 3 fish tokens from their doorways. How do you do that? Flick your Penguin through a fish doorway to collect your snack. Yes, you read that right – flick. In this game, all movement is achieved by literally flicking your pieces throughout the boxes. To collect a fish, you must pass through the corresponding doorway completely in one single flick. Each time you collect a fish, draw the top card from the fish deck and keep it hidden from your opponents. Your other goal? Avoid the Catcher. If at any point, your Penguin comes into contact with the Catcher, you must forfeit your Hall Pass to the Catcher.
As the Catcher, your goal is to collect the Hall Pass of every other player. You achieve this goal by flicking your Penguin into any of the Runners. Turn order is as follows: Runners-Catcher, Runners-Catcher, etc., until the end of the round is triggered. The round is over when the Catcher has collected Hall Passes from every other player, or any Runner has collected all 3 of their fish. At the end of the round, each player collects 1 fish card per Hall Pass in their possession. So if you were caught by the Catcher, you’re outta luck! For the next round a new player is selected to be the Catcher, and play continues as above. The game ends once every player has taken a turn as the Catcher. Count up the points from your collected fish cards, and the player with the most points wins!
So a game of flicking Penguins around some boxes – sounds pretty simple, right? Yes and no. ICECOOL admittedly does not really require any serious strategy. Yes, you are trying to collect all 3 of your fish, but you’re mainly playing keep-away from the Catcher. And as the Catcher, you’re “It” in this quasi-game of Tag. So strategic, this is not. On the other hand, mastering the art of flicking your Penguin is a long and arduous process. Ok, it’s not arduous, but it is tricky to master! ICECOOL really puts your dexterity to the test to see if you have the proper form and control to move your Penguin to exactly where you want it to go. Half of the fun of this game is all the whiffed flicks and the comically accidental misdirections. The rulebook offers some flicking techniques to try out before your first game, and they are actually pretty helpful. I’ve not yet been able to achieve the jumping flick, but maybe one day I will rise to that level.
One other super neat thing about ICECOOL is the game setup. You’re playing with boxes of varying sizes. But here’s the kicker: they all nest into each other!!! So for storing, it looks like you just have one box. But in reality, there are 4 other boxes hidden inside. This concept is not one I’ve seen before in any other game, so that just makes ICECOOL a little bit more unique and interesting for me. Since I’m talking about the boxes, let me touch on components. The boxes are all of great quality, and are sturdy enough to hold up to clashing penguins. The Penguins themselves are good solid plastic, and I know they will last forever. Be careful though, flicking too hard might hurt your fingers! The deck of fish cards are a standard card quality. The artwork of the game is cute and thematic, and overall it’s a fun, immersive experience.
ICECOOL is not a game that I pull off the shelf at every game night. But it is one that is light enough, and entertaining enough, that it certainly gets a good amount of gameplay from my collection. Whether you are using it as a nice, short filler game, or you’re playing with some young’uns, it makes for a happy atmosphere full of energy and happiness. And that’s why Purple Phoenix Games gives ICECOOL a brrrrrrrrrilliant 18 / 24.
You and your Penguin buddies are so hungry that you decide to skip out on class early to go grab some snacks. But you’ve forgotten about the Hall Monitor! Their mission is to catch any unauthorized hall wanderers and send them back to class. Can you outmaneuver the Hall Monitor, or will you be caught and forced to go hungry until the end of class?
Disclaimer: I do not intend to rehash the rulebook in its entirety in this review, but rather provide a general overview of the rules and gameplay. To read the rules more in-depth, grab a copy of the game from your FLGS! -L
ICECOOL is a dexterity game in which players are trying to amass the most points over a number of rounds. Here’s how a round plays out. Select one player to be the Hall Monitor (called the Catcher) for the first round, and place their Penguin pawn in the kitchen box. All other players, aka the Runners, take their 3 colored fish tokens and attach them to the three corresponding doorways, and begin with their Penguin pawns in the classroom box. As a Runner, your goal is to collect your 3 fish tokens from their doorways. How do you do that? Flick your Penguin through a fish doorway to collect your snack. Yes, you read that right – flick. In this game, all movement is achieved by literally flicking your pieces throughout the boxes. To collect a fish, you must pass through the corresponding doorway completely in one single flick. Each time you collect a fish, draw the top card from the fish deck and keep it hidden from your opponents. Your other goal? Avoid the Catcher. If at any point, your Penguin comes into contact with the Catcher, you must forfeit your Hall Pass to the Catcher.
As the Catcher, your goal is to collect the Hall Pass of every other player. You achieve this goal by flicking your Penguin into any of the Runners. Turn order is as follows: Runners-Catcher, Runners-Catcher, etc., until the end of the round is triggered. The round is over when the Catcher has collected Hall Passes from every other player, or any Runner has collected all 3 of their fish. At the end of the round, each player collects 1 fish card per Hall Pass in their possession. So if you were caught by the Catcher, you’re outta luck! For the next round a new player is selected to be the Catcher, and play continues as above. The game ends once every player has taken a turn as the Catcher. Count up the points from your collected fish cards, and the player with the most points wins!
So a game of flicking Penguins around some boxes – sounds pretty simple, right? Yes and no. ICECOOL admittedly does not really require any serious strategy. Yes, you are trying to collect all 3 of your fish, but you’re mainly playing keep-away from the Catcher. And as the Catcher, you’re “It” in this quasi-game of Tag. So strategic, this is not. On the other hand, mastering the art of flicking your Penguin is a long and arduous process. Ok, it’s not arduous, but it is tricky to master! ICECOOL really puts your dexterity to the test to see if you have the proper form and control to move your Penguin to exactly where you want it to go. Half of the fun of this game is all the whiffed flicks and the comically accidental misdirections. The rulebook offers some flicking techniques to try out before your first game, and they are actually pretty helpful. I’ve not yet been able to achieve the jumping flick, but maybe one day I will rise to that level.
One other super neat thing about ICECOOL is the game setup. You’re playing with boxes of varying sizes. But here’s the kicker: they all nest into each other!!! So for storing, it looks like you just have one box. But in reality, there are 4 other boxes hidden inside. This concept is not one I’ve seen before in any other game, so that just makes ICECOOL a little bit more unique and interesting for me. Since I’m talking about the boxes, let me touch on components. The boxes are all of great quality, and are sturdy enough to hold up to clashing penguins. The Penguins themselves are good solid plastic, and I know they will last forever. Be careful though, flicking too hard might hurt your fingers! The deck of fish cards are a standard card quality. The artwork of the game is cute and thematic, and overall it’s a fun, immersive experience.
ICECOOL is not a game that I pull off the shelf at every game night. But it is one that is light enough, and entertaining enough, that it certainly gets a good amount of gameplay from my collection. Whether you are using it as a nice, short filler game, or you’re playing with some young’uns, it makes for a happy atmosphere full of energy and happiness. And that’s why Purple Phoenix Games gives ICECOOL a brrrrrrrrrilliant 18 / 24.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated The Company of Wolves (1984) in Movies
Apr 19, 2017
Very Different from most films (3 more)
Transformation Sequences
Great Cast
Brilliant lore
May seem confusing (1 more)
Rosaleen younger than originally planned
Of Wolves and Men
Where do I begin when reviewing a film as obscure and brilliant as, The Company of Wolves. Well for starters I should probably introduce it as it's not a film a lot of people are aware of.
The Company of Wolves is a British Gothic Horror movie adapted from an Anthology of short stories called The Curious Room, written by Angela Carter, and the short story that the film was adapted from was in fact of the same name, The Company of Wolves.
Angela Carter worked with Neil Jordan to write the screenplay and whilst it has some differences (I've not yet read the original story so I couldn't tell you the differences....just google it) the movie is still pretty close to the source material from what I have heard.
One thing I can tell you about this film is that it is brilliant and unlike anything you will ever watch (at least its unlike anything I have seen as of writing this). When I first watched this film, my initial thought was "What on earth did I just watch?" and after viewing it several more times I understood more and more and each viewing was like a new experience.
It's cast add to the creepy dark tone of the film whilst still feeling like a light fantasy film, but with gore and death. The soundtrack is certainly the creepiest element of the film, and it creates an eerily uncomfortable atmosphere. To add to this atmosphere we have a cast that includes the likes of famous names such as Angela Lansbury (Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast, Murder She Wrote etc.), Stephen Rea (V for Vendetta, The Crying Game, Underworld: Awakening etc.), David Warner (Titanic, Tron, The Omen etc.) and Brian Glover (An American Werewolf in London, Alien 3, KES etc.) just to name a few, but we also have brilliant talent from lesser known actors\actresses such as Micha Bergese (Interview With A Vampire) and the lead role of young Rosaleen, portrayed by Sarah Patterson who only ever starred in 3 more films after The Company of Wolves.
So why do I love this movie? I have a love for werewolf lore and the subtle messages about reality the legends may be formed from and this film explores some of that. With Angela Lansbury as Granny telling young Rosaleen stories about how she shouldn't trust men who's eyebrows meet, and how she shouldn't stray from the path when walking through the forest. Tradition superstition that were actual beliefs many years ago. The Company of Wolves is a combination of stories, but with an overall plot similar in many ways to that of Little Red Riding Hood, including Granny knitting Rosaleen a red shoal, and being challenged by a huntsman to a race to Granny's house, which concludes with SPOILERS!!!!
Granny is murdered, and the huntsman is discovered by Rosaleen who them puts the pieces of the puzzle together and comes to the truthful conclusion that the huntsman is in fact a werewolf.
However, my only issue with the film is not being able to explore the story properly, as the casting of Rosaleen was actually too young for the original script. The film is a somewhat coming of age movie for Rosaleen and a young boy who is infatuated with her (known only in the credits as Amerous Boy, portrayed by Shane Johnstone. Never heard of him? That's because this was his only movie). The original script was essentially going to explore more of the sexuality between a young girl and the handsome stranger known as The Huntsman. However, during casting, Sarah Patterson shined above the other young performers and was chosen for the role, but due to her being so young (only 12/13 years old) they had to change the script and so their interaction was reduced to nothing more than a bet which would lead to a kiss, but the kiss is then a simple peck on the lips as the Rosaleen jumps back with the line "My what big teeth you have!".
Here's a tip when you watch this movie. Look around Rosaleens room at the beginning and pay attention to her dolls etc. Some of the props will help the film make more sense because one thing I should have mentioned at the start is that this story takes place in a young girls dream (Also portrayed by Sarah Patterson) and the finale is spectacular.
The wolves for the majority of their appearances are easily noticeable as being nothing more than domestic German Shepherds, but that makes sense when you think about this being a girl's dream, and this girl in fact owns a pet German Shepherd.
The best part and the most horrific part of this movie, is the transformations of two of the characters. Stephen Rea's character is a young groom in one of Granny's stories that she tells to Rosaleen, and his transformation into wolf form is one of the most graphic transformations I have ever seen in a film, and despite the use of an animatronic dog, which in part takes away some of the magic, you have to remember this was 1984 and these kinds of films were not going to have the amazing technology we have today and you have to give so much credit and respect to Neil Jordan for using practical effects.
The Huntsmans transformation is less gory but definitely not any less creepier, as we see an extended tongue, and a lot of physical body transformation before a wolf snout comes bursting out of his mouth and fur rips through his skin. Both of these portrayals of the transformation were a representation of the running theme that men have beasts inside of them, that only appear when they are angry or upset.
I highly recommend this film, but I have warned you beforehand. If you do watch this film, feel free to discuss it with me because as I said it is one of my favourites and is lesser known to many audiences.
The Company of Wolves is a British Gothic Horror movie adapted from an Anthology of short stories called The Curious Room, written by Angela Carter, and the short story that the film was adapted from was in fact of the same name, The Company of Wolves.
Angela Carter worked with Neil Jordan to write the screenplay and whilst it has some differences (I've not yet read the original story so I couldn't tell you the differences....just google it) the movie is still pretty close to the source material from what I have heard.
One thing I can tell you about this film is that it is brilliant and unlike anything you will ever watch (at least its unlike anything I have seen as of writing this). When I first watched this film, my initial thought was "What on earth did I just watch?" and after viewing it several more times I understood more and more and each viewing was like a new experience.
It's cast add to the creepy dark tone of the film whilst still feeling like a light fantasy film, but with gore and death. The soundtrack is certainly the creepiest element of the film, and it creates an eerily uncomfortable atmosphere. To add to this atmosphere we have a cast that includes the likes of famous names such as Angela Lansbury (Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast, Murder She Wrote etc.), Stephen Rea (V for Vendetta, The Crying Game, Underworld: Awakening etc.), David Warner (Titanic, Tron, The Omen etc.) and Brian Glover (An American Werewolf in London, Alien 3, KES etc.) just to name a few, but we also have brilliant talent from lesser known actors\actresses such as Micha Bergese (Interview With A Vampire) and the lead role of young Rosaleen, portrayed by Sarah Patterson who only ever starred in 3 more films after The Company of Wolves.
So why do I love this movie? I have a love for werewolf lore and the subtle messages about reality the legends may be formed from and this film explores some of that. With Angela Lansbury as Granny telling young Rosaleen stories about how she shouldn't trust men who's eyebrows meet, and how she shouldn't stray from the path when walking through the forest. Tradition superstition that were actual beliefs many years ago. The Company of Wolves is a combination of stories, but with an overall plot similar in many ways to that of Little Red Riding Hood, including Granny knitting Rosaleen a red shoal, and being challenged by a huntsman to a race to Granny's house, which concludes with SPOILERS!!!!
Granny is murdered, and the huntsman is discovered by Rosaleen who them puts the pieces of the puzzle together and comes to the truthful conclusion that the huntsman is in fact a werewolf.
However, my only issue with the film is not being able to explore the story properly, as the casting of Rosaleen was actually too young for the original script. The film is a somewhat coming of age movie for Rosaleen and a young boy who is infatuated with her (known only in the credits as Amerous Boy, portrayed by Shane Johnstone. Never heard of him? That's because this was his only movie). The original script was essentially going to explore more of the sexuality between a young girl and the handsome stranger known as The Huntsman. However, during casting, Sarah Patterson shined above the other young performers and was chosen for the role, but due to her being so young (only 12/13 years old) they had to change the script and so their interaction was reduced to nothing more than a bet which would lead to a kiss, but the kiss is then a simple peck on the lips as the Rosaleen jumps back with the line "My what big teeth you have!".
Here's a tip when you watch this movie. Look around Rosaleens room at the beginning and pay attention to her dolls etc. Some of the props will help the film make more sense because one thing I should have mentioned at the start is that this story takes place in a young girls dream (Also portrayed by Sarah Patterson) and the finale is spectacular.
The wolves for the majority of their appearances are easily noticeable as being nothing more than domestic German Shepherds, but that makes sense when you think about this being a girl's dream, and this girl in fact owns a pet German Shepherd.
The best part and the most horrific part of this movie, is the transformations of two of the characters. Stephen Rea's character is a young groom in one of Granny's stories that she tells to Rosaleen, and his transformation into wolf form is one of the most graphic transformations I have ever seen in a film, and despite the use of an animatronic dog, which in part takes away some of the magic, you have to remember this was 1984 and these kinds of films were not going to have the amazing technology we have today and you have to give so much credit and respect to Neil Jordan for using practical effects.
The Huntsmans transformation is less gory but definitely not any less creepier, as we see an extended tongue, and a lot of physical body transformation before a wolf snout comes bursting out of his mouth and fur rips through his skin. Both of these portrayals of the transformation were a representation of the running theme that men have beasts inside of them, that only appear when they are angry or upset.
I highly recommend this film, but I have warned you beforehand. If you do watch this film, feel free to discuss it with me because as I said it is one of my favourites and is lesser known to many audiences.
Sheridan (209 KP) rated Love, Death & Robots in TV
Apr 20, 2019
CGI is amazing (1 more)
The Perfect Mix of Morbid Humour and Gore
A Masterpiece of the Weird and Fantastical
This is going to be a long one, I'm going to review each episode as they aren't linked or related in any way, but just know, they are all gorgeous works of art and you should totally go watch the whole thing ?.
Beyond the Aquila Rift - CGI was beautiful from the moment it started, I was like 'shiiiit this series is going to be everything I love'. This one is about a crew making a delivery in space, however nothing quite goes to plan. For me, it had a very 'Mass Effect' feel with the FTL travel. I was not expecting a full out sex scene in the first 6 minutes but then again the episodes are on average only 16 minutes long. It was rauncy yet somehow, still quite tasteful, but as with most animated stuff there was an excessive amount of topless boob shots. I won't spoil it, but it ended up as a horrific mind fuck that left a shiver down my spine ?.
Secret War - Again, CGI was epic and the story was the perfect mix of unsettling, gory, and tragic. It follows a platoon of Red Army soldiers who are hunting down mysterious 'monsters'. There's blood, there's guts, a guy has an arm off at one point - what more could you ask for?
Sonnie's Edge - Immediately feels hellishly grunge and rave. I absolutely adored the blacklight effects and a strong female styling, the fight is gorgeous, the monsters have almost a Kaju feel which really made me happy as I love Pacific Rim. Of course this epicness is immediately ruined by a sloppy scene (I won't spoil it) which cemented the fact in my mind this was written by a man (I checked later and found I was correct), it does save itself with a fantastic twist at the end though so it was still an amazing short.
Sucker of Souls - This had a great grungy cartooning that felt half Kill Bill, half 2003 TMNT. It ended up being a real bad day for an archaeological expedition. Gore injected with humour is always a favourite of mine and this ticked all those boxes, including a wisecracking explosives expert (looking at you Gary!) If we've learnt anything from Indiana Jones and Rick O'Connell it's, don't fuck with tombs. This time was no different.
Three Robots - There's something just so fucking fantastic about robots going on holiday and speculating about 'human' stuff. It's just the perfect injection of morbid humour and I love it. The twist at the end had me laughing harder than I had any right to ?.
Ice Age - I haven't seen Topher Grace since That 70's Show so I was like 'heeeey cool'. This was the first one that wasn't soley animation so that was really cool. They find a civilization in their freezer - yes, you read that right, their freezer - and the story is awesome ?. It's a neat reflection on humans and our place in the world.
The Witness - Set in a brightly coloured city the animation here feels very Borderlands-y, which is super cool because I fricking love that game ?. There's murder, full frontal nudity, erotic dancing, and an ending that will tear your head right off. Pretty neat all in all.
Suits - Great Googamooga, this is my absolutely favourite so far, a perfectly normal looking farm, complete with adorable hick accents, discovers a breach in their fence. This isn't just any breach, this is an alien style swarm complete with Mech Warrior suits and a woman named Mel, who I'm convinced is Tank Girl as an old lady. 17 minutes of utter badassery you do not want to miss. Utterly LOVED it, and would 10/10 watch this as its own series.
When the Yogurt Took Over - Ok so the name - I was like 'should I take this seriously? Oooor' ?. Weirdly serious - yet hysterical. A five minute journey into what happened when Yogurt became sentient. You will not be disaappointed ?.
Good Hunting - With animation that reminds me of The Last Airbender, it's a story of magic, friendship, and the industrial age. A beautiful and tragic story, with horrific overtones of what greed and 'progress' can do.
The Dump - The animation this reminds me of would be sorta like, if the people at Pixar got high with Tim Burton. There was one random thing - I found Pearly's dick swing in the wind much funnier than any sane person probably would ?. A great story about man's best friend and let me tell ya, everyone needs an Otto ❤.
Shape-Shifter - There's something so deeply interesting about putting the supernatural into regular life. Two men, who are not human, in the US marines. Insanely intense story for under 15 minutes. Gorgeous CGI work too.
Helping Hand - This had a great "Gravity" feel to it, when everything goes wrong you just keep going, give a little and then a little more and you achieve the impossible. Breathtaking space visuals is just an added bonus ?.
Fish Night - Telltale style animation, depicts a story of a father and son on the road. The car breaks down and something both magical and tragic happens. The ending left me reeling ?.
Lucky 13 - The CGI in this one was so good it took me half the time to figure out that it wasn't real. Lucky 13 was to Cutter like the Normandy was to Joker. Just - the best goddamn ship ❤.
Zima Blues - Animated in a style similiar to Archer, this was an interesting piece about art and how it effects us, we search for meaning through it sometimes it's about appreciating the little things ❤.
Blindspot - 90's animation and a rad story about robots. This is my second favourite after Suits, would 10/10 watch as its own movie ?.
Alternate Histories - Did not stop laughing the entire time. Utter gold. I will recommend one thing - pause it at the blue screen bit, you won't be disappointed ?.
The only thing I'm sad about is there wasn't more of this to watch, it was incredible ?.
Beyond the Aquila Rift - CGI was beautiful from the moment it started, I was like 'shiiiit this series is going to be everything I love'. This one is about a crew making a delivery in space, however nothing quite goes to plan. For me, it had a very 'Mass Effect' feel with the FTL travel. I was not expecting a full out sex scene in the first 6 minutes but then again the episodes are on average only 16 minutes long. It was rauncy yet somehow, still quite tasteful, but as with most animated stuff there was an excessive amount of topless boob shots. I won't spoil it, but it ended up as a horrific mind fuck that left a shiver down my spine ?.
Secret War - Again, CGI was epic and the story was the perfect mix of unsettling, gory, and tragic. It follows a platoon of Red Army soldiers who are hunting down mysterious 'monsters'. There's blood, there's guts, a guy has an arm off at one point - what more could you ask for?
Sonnie's Edge - Immediately feels hellishly grunge and rave. I absolutely adored the blacklight effects and a strong female styling, the fight is gorgeous, the monsters have almost a Kaju feel which really made me happy as I love Pacific Rim. Of course this epicness is immediately ruined by a sloppy scene (I won't spoil it) which cemented the fact in my mind this was written by a man (I checked later and found I was correct), it does save itself with a fantastic twist at the end though so it was still an amazing short.
Sucker of Souls - This had a great grungy cartooning that felt half Kill Bill, half 2003 TMNT. It ended up being a real bad day for an archaeological expedition. Gore injected with humour is always a favourite of mine and this ticked all those boxes, including a wisecracking explosives expert (looking at you Gary!) If we've learnt anything from Indiana Jones and Rick O'Connell it's, don't fuck with tombs. This time was no different.
Three Robots - There's something just so fucking fantastic about robots going on holiday and speculating about 'human' stuff. It's just the perfect injection of morbid humour and I love it. The twist at the end had me laughing harder than I had any right to ?.
Ice Age - I haven't seen Topher Grace since That 70's Show so I was like 'heeeey cool'. This was the first one that wasn't soley animation so that was really cool. They find a civilization in their freezer - yes, you read that right, their freezer - and the story is awesome ?. It's a neat reflection on humans and our place in the world.
The Witness - Set in a brightly coloured city the animation here feels very Borderlands-y, which is super cool because I fricking love that game ?. There's murder, full frontal nudity, erotic dancing, and an ending that will tear your head right off. Pretty neat all in all.
Suits - Great Googamooga, this is my absolutely favourite so far, a perfectly normal looking farm, complete with adorable hick accents, discovers a breach in their fence. This isn't just any breach, this is an alien style swarm complete with Mech Warrior suits and a woman named Mel, who I'm convinced is Tank Girl as an old lady. 17 minutes of utter badassery you do not want to miss. Utterly LOVED it, and would 10/10 watch this as its own series.
When the Yogurt Took Over - Ok so the name - I was like 'should I take this seriously? Oooor' ?. Weirdly serious - yet hysterical. A five minute journey into what happened when Yogurt became sentient. You will not be disaappointed ?.
Good Hunting - With animation that reminds me of The Last Airbender, it's a story of magic, friendship, and the industrial age. A beautiful and tragic story, with horrific overtones of what greed and 'progress' can do.
The Dump - The animation this reminds me of would be sorta like, if the people at Pixar got high with Tim Burton. There was one random thing - I found Pearly's dick swing in the wind much funnier than any sane person probably would ?. A great story about man's best friend and let me tell ya, everyone needs an Otto ❤.
Shape-Shifter - There's something so deeply interesting about putting the supernatural into regular life. Two men, who are not human, in the US marines. Insanely intense story for under 15 minutes. Gorgeous CGI work too.
Helping Hand - This had a great "Gravity" feel to it, when everything goes wrong you just keep going, give a little and then a little more and you achieve the impossible. Breathtaking space visuals is just an added bonus ?.
Fish Night - Telltale style animation, depicts a story of a father and son on the road. The car breaks down and something both magical and tragic happens. The ending left me reeling ?.
Lucky 13 - The CGI in this one was so good it took me half the time to figure out that it wasn't real. Lucky 13 was to Cutter like the Normandy was to Joker. Just - the best goddamn ship ❤.
Zima Blues - Animated in a style similiar to Archer, this was an interesting piece about art and how it effects us, we search for meaning through it sometimes it's about appreciating the little things ❤.
Blindspot - 90's animation and a rad story about robots. This is my second favourite after Suits, would 10/10 watch as its own movie ?.
Alternate Histories - Did not stop laughing the entire time. Utter gold. I will recommend one thing - pause it at the blue screen bit, you won't be disappointed ?.
The only thing I'm sad about is there wasn't more of this to watch, it was incredible ?.
