Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Black Water: Abyss (2020) in Movies
Aug 22, 2020
I don't know how I've never seen Black Water, but I saw the trailer for Abyss and it caught my eye so I'll be going back to check the first one out as they're usually better.
When Cash finds a cave while out searching for two missing hikers he invites his friends to explore it with him. Deep in the cave system they come upon a cavern, as they look around they're suddenly hit by a torrent of water and become trapped by the rising water... and they might not be alone.
Where to start... I love creature features, at this point that's common knowledge, but there are some that make me a little sad. Black Water: Abyss might be one of those. It has all the potential but somehow it wasn't engaging, perhaps it took itself a little too seriously?
It suffered from excessive length, or rather the perception of length as it had a runtime of just 1 hour 38 minutes. It felt a lot longer. 98 minutes would be a perfect length for this sort of film but this dragged on and on.
There's a tried and tested formula: group gets trapped, there's peril, group have to escape, most die or at least get maimed. 47 Meters Down, Deep Blue Sea, Crawl... I won't go on. It's a simple story that so many films before have done, it shouldn't have been hard to recreate.
The actors are all good. Luke Mitchell (Blindspot) and Jessica McNamee (The Meg) were both faces I recognised and their previous roles sat positively with me. They play Jen and Eric who are a happy couple on the surface but the tension builds, they work well together. Anthony J Sharpe as Cash givens off some heavy Murdock vibes, the slightly crazy character did lighten everything a little but I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing in the long run. Our other couple are Yolanda and Viktor (Amali Golden and Benjamin Hoetjes), they're made to be the opposites of Jen and Eric seemingly one particular line of dialogue in the middle. They didn't have the same presence but that wasn't really necessary.
CGI crocs. I'll give them some credit for the fact that there were a couple of shots where I couldn't say if they were CG, real or practical. For the most part though I wasn't excited by what I saw, there was a lot of eye and snout shots or just ripples in the water. The bigger shots were chaotic and mainly obscured by fast motion and water, when you do get a good view it doesn't gel with anything around it, the colourings in particular seem to be inconsistent with the light inside the cave.
There are a lot of leading shots that should help with suspense, but somehow don't. They're typical off-set characters with open space that make you think a croc is going to jump out, classic right? But it seems like they made a concerted effort to combat predictability by putting a few of those shots together and not using the first one for the scare... which had a negative effect for me. Part of the fun of these films is that you know something is coming and you can get a gratifying win from guessing what's going to happen, after a few thwarted attempts at that it became really frustrating and less than satisfying to watch.
Despite a lot of disappointment this isn't a bad film, swapping some of the drama for more action and giving the viewers a few "wins" would have easily made the runtime a bit more bearable. I did get a solid laugh out of it towards the end, perhaps it missed its calling as a comedy.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/black-water-abyss-movie-review.html
When Cash finds a cave while out searching for two missing hikers he invites his friends to explore it with him. Deep in the cave system they come upon a cavern, as they look around they're suddenly hit by a torrent of water and become trapped by the rising water... and they might not be alone.
Where to start... I love creature features, at this point that's common knowledge, but there are some that make me a little sad. Black Water: Abyss might be one of those. It has all the potential but somehow it wasn't engaging, perhaps it took itself a little too seriously?
It suffered from excessive length, or rather the perception of length as it had a runtime of just 1 hour 38 minutes. It felt a lot longer. 98 minutes would be a perfect length for this sort of film but this dragged on and on.
There's a tried and tested formula: group gets trapped, there's peril, group have to escape, most die or at least get maimed. 47 Meters Down, Deep Blue Sea, Crawl... I won't go on. It's a simple story that so many films before have done, it shouldn't have been hard to recreate.
The actors are all good. Luke Mitchell (Blindspot) and Jessica McNamee (The Meg) were both faces I recognised and their previous roles sat positively with me. They play Jen and Eric who are a happy couple on the surface but the tension builds, they work well together. Anthony J Sharpe as Cash givens off some heavy Murdock vibes, the slightly crazy character did lighten everything a little but I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing in the long run. Our other couple are Yolanda and Viktor (Amali Golden and Benjamin Hoetjes), they're made to be the opposites of Jen and Eric seemingly one particular line of dialogue in the middle. They didn't have the same presence but that wasn't really necessary.
CGI crocs. I'll give them some credit for the fact that there were a couple of shots where I couldn't say if they were CG, real or practical. For the most part though I wasn't excited by what I saw, there was a lot of eye and snout shots or just ripples in the water. The bigger shots were chaotic and mainly obscured by fast motion and water, when you do get a good view it doesn't gel with anything around it, the colourings in particular seem to be inconsistent with the light inside the cave.
There are a lot of leading shots that should help with suspense, but somehow don't. They're typical off-set characters with open space that make you think a croc is going to jump out, classic right? But it seems like they made a concerted effort to combat predictability by putting a few of those shots together and not using the first one for the scare... which had a negative effect for me. Part of the fun of these films is that you know something is coming and you can get a gratifying win from guessing what's going to happen, after a few thwarted attempts at that it became really frustrating and less than satisfying to watch.
Despite a lot of disappointment this isn't a bad film, swapping some of the drama for more action and giving the viewers a few "wins" would have easily made the runtime a bit more bearable. I did get a solid laugh out of it towards the end, perhaps it missed its calling as a comedy.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/black-water-abyss-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Tenet (2020) in Movies
Aug 30, 2020
This is the first big new release in a long time I've gone into basically blind. I hadn't seen a trailer, read a synopsis, and I only picked up a few things off Twitter because people seem to forget how to use hashtags.
A CIA operative is brought into the fold of a secret operation to prevent a Russian arms dealer starting World War 3 with the most extraordinary ordinary weapons anyone has ever seen.
My initial reaction on Tenet as I walked out of the cinema was that I'd just watched the most predictable and confusing films I've ever seen... I really don't know how it manages to be both.
There are lots of faces in Tenet you'll recognise and all of them do a wonderful job of delivering their parts. I was particularly impressed with Kenneth Branagh and John David Washington, though the latter felt rather understated for an operative at that sort of level... but then that's probably just my opinion on something I only know about from action films. RPatz felt wrong, his delivery was good but my personal preference about his acting technique came out in full force.
When you have a lot of characters it can be difficult to follow everything but surprisingly that was the easiest thing to keep track of. I'm not sure if I was surprised about the way they were handled though. We delve heavily into Andrei and Kat with background and their life, and yes they're main characters but apart from them we don't seem to learn a great deal about anyone else. Is it because of the secretive nature of their situation? Perhaps, but it felt very off balance.
I want to talk about the predictability very briefly because it crosses over into my next point as well. Once you discover the reality behind everything it actually becomes very easy to spot things that are going to lead to something, and that partly because bit stick out like sore thumbs. A few pieces did elude me, but I'm putting that mainly down to the other distractions getting in the way.
So, those distractions came in two forms for me. Firstly, the sound. The music was good and the sound effects there helped with tension and atmosphere... but the volume... there's intense and then there's feeling your ribs rattle in your chest. I wondered if it was the screen's audio initially but there are so many other people saying it that it's definitely designed that way. At its most intense I found it difficult to follow anything, some times we got speech that was hidden by the sound intentionally but at least once the sound overtook some lines with no real purpose. Secondly, the action sequences. They are impressive, you can't deny that, but I found the necessary "transitions" distracting from the scenes which was a major drawback. Any momentum and excitement of the action was knocked straight out of me when I'd noticed that odd movement, it was rather deflating.
There are several good things about Tenet but I think I'd want to watch it twice more. I like going back to watch films to catch the little things I missed, but a second rewatch would almost be a first watch. I'm sure this won't go down well but perhaps it thinks it's rather clever when in fact it's just slightly too complicated to be enjoyable... there are several pieces that feel like they're from other things and in the end I don't think that enough comes together to be good enough to deal with the sound issues.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/tenet-movie-review.html
A CIA operative is brought into the fold of a secret operation to prevent a Russian arms dealer starting World War 3 with the most extraordinary ordinary weapons anyone has ever seen.
My initial reaction on Tenet as I walked out of the cinema was that I'd just watched the most predictable and confusing films I've ever seen... I really don't know how it manages to be both.
There are lots of faces in Tenet you'll recognise and all of them do a wonderful job of delivering their parts. I was particularly impressed with Kenneth Branagh and John David Washington, though the latter felt rather understated for an operative at that sort of level... but then that's probably just my opinion on something I only know about from action films. RPatz felt wrong, his delivery was good but my personal preference about his acting technique came out in full force.
When you have a lot of characters it can be difficult to follow everything but surprisingly that was the easiest thing to keep track of. I'm not sure if I was surprised about the way they were handled though. We delve heavily into Andrei and Kat with background and their life, and yes they're main characters but apart from them we don't seem to learn a great deal about anyone else. Is it because of the secretive nature of their situation? Perhaps, but it felt very off balance.
I want to talk about the predictability very briefly because it crosses over into my next point as well. Once you discover the reality behind everything it actually becomes very easy to spot things that are going to lead to something, and that partly because bit stick out like sore thumbs. A few pieces did elude me, but I'm putting that mainly down to the other distractions getting in the way.
So, those distractions came in two forms for me. Firstly, the sound. The music was good and the sound effects there helped with tension and atmosphere... but the volume... there's intense and then there's feeling your ribs rattle in your chest. I wondered if it was the screen's audio initially but there are so many other people saying it that it's definitely designed that way. At its most intense I found it difficult to follow anything, some times we got speech that was hidden by the sound intentionally but at least once the sound overtook some lines with no real purpose. Secondly, the action sequences. They are impressive, you can't deny that, but I found the necessary "transitions" distracting from the scenes which was a major drawback. Any momentum and excitement of the action was knocked straight out of me when I'd noticed that odd movement, it was rather deflating.
There are several good things about Tenet but I think I'd want to watch it twice more. I like going back to watch films to catch the little things I missed, but a second rewatch would almost be a first watch. I'm sure this won't go down well but perhaps it thinks it's rather clever when in fact it's just slightly too complicated to be enjoyable... there are several pieces that feel like they're from other things and in the end I don't think that enough comes together to be good enough to deal with the sound issues.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/tenet-movie-review.html
The Sister
6.0
Rate It
Book
‘I did something terrible Grace. I hope you can forgive me…’ Grace hasn't been the same...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Shallows (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The Deathly Shallows, part 1
Every shark movie is inevitably compared (unfavourably) against Spielberg’s classic 1975 tourist-muncher. And “The Shallows” is no exception. But while not a 5-Fad classic, this flick comes pretty close by being hugely enjoyable and having a lot going for it.
Waxing lyrically. The shapely Blake Liveley.
Waxing lyrically. The shapely Blake Liveley.
Blake Lively (“The Age of Adeline“) plays surfer and trainee doctor Nancy, still grieving the recent death from cancer of her mother and travelling to a remote Mexican surf beach where she has photos of her mother surfing while pregnant with her. While surfing alone, Nancy is attacked a couple of hundred yards from the shore by a Great White and severely injured. She has the choice of refuge of either a low rock or another less palatable floating object. Choosing the rock (at low tide) she is faced with the dilemma of both surviving her injuries and then being rescued before the high tide takes the rock and leaves her to the mercy of the ever circling big-fish.
We're going to need a bigger rock.
We’re going to need a bigger rock.
A big summer blockbuster this is not, with a total cast of eleven (not including a guest appearance of Steven Seagull (as himself)). But the small cast doesn’t make it less gripping, and gripping it most certainly is, with tension building progressively (emphasised periodically by an on-screen clock) with the countdown to high tide.
Blake Lively is an underrated actress and really delivers the goods here. And bearing in mind the problems that Spielberg had with his mechanical shark Bruce (named after Spielberg’s lawyer) the appearance of the shark is limited to where actually needed, with Lively having to fill in the blanks with reaction shots. As your imagination is still far better than any special effects, this is hugely effective for certain sequences.
Pure horror: here Dad had gone down to the video rental and come back with 'Dirty Grandpa'.
Pure horror: her Dad had gone down to the video rental and come back with ‘Dirty Grandpa’.
The film draws similarities to another interesting entry in the “Jaws” genre – “Open Water 2: Adrift” from 2006. In that film there was the same incessant threat of shark attack combined with the audience frustration that safety (in that case, the deck of their yacht, if only they had let a ladder down) being so near. Here the 200 yards to the shore is shoutable to but still 190 yards too far.
The cinematography (by Flavio Martínez Labiano) is also just beautifully done with some stunning surf and underwater shots that not only highlight Ms Lively’s lithely (sic) figure and her Californian surfing skills, but also the beauty of the ‘Mexican coast’ (actually Lord Howe Island in New South Wales, Australia).
“The Shallows” was written by Anthony Jaswinski and directed by Jaume Collet-Serra (the director of “Non-Stop“, aka Taken 3.5). It comes with a truly impressive BvS quotient of just 5.9%!
So with all of this going for it, you would think that my rating is heading towards at least a 4.5. But all films like this require a satisfying denouement, and unfortunately this is where this one comes off the rails. It is just plain silly and, together with an unnecessary and irritating epilogue scene, diminishes what was on track to be one of the best films of the summer. So here’s the “One Mann’s Movies” solution:
Using Final Cut X, Adobe Premier or your favourite video editing suite, cut out the scene from 115:00 to 116:00 from “Jaws”;
Photoshop Blake Lively’s face onto Roy Scheider’s body.
Insert the finished clip into “The Shallows” at about 82 minutes in.
Enjoy a 5-Fad classic!
This limitation aside, it’s still worth your while hunting it out at a cinema near you, since the fantastic cinematography is best suited to a big screen.
Waxing lyrically. The shapely Blake Liveley.
Waxing lyrically. The shapely Blake Liveley.
Blake Lively (“The Age of Adeline“) plays surfer and trainee doctor Nancy, still grieving the recent death from cancer of her mother and travelling to a remote Mexican surf beach where she has photos of her mother surfing while pregnant with her. While surfing alone, Nancy is attacked a couple of hundred yards from the shore by a Great White and severely injured. She has the choice of refuge of either a low rock or another less palatable floating object. Choosing the rock (at low tide) she is faced with the dilemma of both surviving her injuries and then being rescued before the high tide takes the rock and leaves her to the mercy of the ever circling big-fish.
We're going to need a bigger rock.
We’re going to need a bigger rock.
A big summer blockbuster this is not, with a total cast of eleven (not including a guest appearance of Steven Seagull (as himself)). But the small cast doesn’t make it less gripping, and gripping it most certainly is, with tension building progressively (emphasised periodically by an on-screen clock) with the countdown to high tide.
Blake Lively is an underrated actress and really delivers the goods here. And bearing in mind the problems that Spielberg had with his mechanical shark Bruce (named after Spielberg’s lawyer) the appearance of the shark is limited to where actually needed, with Lively having to fill in the blanks with reaction shots. As your imagination is still far better than any special effects, this is hugely effective for certain sequences.
Pure horror: here Dad had gone down to the video rental and come back with 'Dirty Grandpa'.
Pure horror: her Dad had gone down to the video rental and come back with ‘Dirty Grandpa’.
The film draws similarities to another interesting entry in the “Jaws” genre – “Open Water 2: Adrift” from 2006. In that film there was the same incessant threat of shark attack combined with the audience frustration that safety (in that case, the deck of their yacht, if only they had let a ladder down) being so near. Here the 200 yards to the shore is shoutable to but still 190 yards too far.
The cinematography (by Flavio Martínez Labiano) is also just beautifully done with some stunning surf and underwater shots that not only highlight Ms Lively’s lithely (sic) figure and her Californian surfing skills, but also the beauty of the ‘Mexican coast’ (actually Lord Howe Island in New South Wales, Australia).
“The Shallows” was written by Anthony Jaswinski and directed by Jaume Collet-Serra (the director of “Non-Stop“, aka Taken 3.5). It comes with a truly impressive BvS quotient of just 5.9%!
So with all of this going for it, you would think that my rating is heading towards at least a 4.5. But all films like this require a satisfying denouement, and unfortunately this is where this one comes off the rails. It is just plain silly and, together with an unnecessary and irritating epilogue scene, diminishes what was on track to be one of the best films of the summer. So here’s the “One Mann’s Movies” solution:
Using Final Cut X, Adobe Premier or your favourite video editing suite, cut out the scene from 115:00 to 116:00 from “Jaws”;
Photoshop Blake Lively’s face onto Roy Scheider’s body.
Insert the finished clip into “The Shallows” at about 82 minutes in.
Enjoy a 5-Fad classic!
This limitation aside, it’s still worth your while hunting it out at a cinema near you, since the fantastic cinematography is best suited to a big screen.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Sing Me to Sleep in Books
Apr 27, 2018
My Summary: Beth is a ridiculously tall, horribly ugly girl suffering though high school. Her nickname is “the Beast.” She is bullied by everyone. Her face is scared and pimply and messed up, she was born that way and nothing works to get rid of it. The only people in the world that she has are her mother—who loves her fiercely—and her best friend since pre-school, Scott.
But then through the course of several unexpected events, Beth ends up with the solo in her choir. She goes from ugly and in the back rows to re-made, re-styled, and re-“faced” after laser surgery. Her choir gets a chance to go to a competition in Switzerland.
And she meets Derek. Derek is on one of the other teams, the biggest, best, most famous choir. He’s the hottest guy she’s ever met. And he’s in love with her.
But there’s something wrong with Derek. He won’t tell her what it is, and she’s scared to ask because every time she brings it up, he runs away.
And the fact that Scott has admitted that he’s in love with her—and she’s pretty sure she loves him too—isn’t making anything less complicated…
Review:
I enjoyed Sing Me To Sleep. Please realize and remember that. It kept me reading, it moved quickly. But there were a few things that drove me crazy while I read this and took away from the overall enjoyment.
The first was the writing. There’s a difference between a writing style, and writing crappy. 75% of the “sentences” in this book were fragments. No, I did not count the sentences and take a literal percentage, but that’s what it felt like. There were a lot of two or three word phrases stacked next to each other. That does not count as a writing style, it’s poor grammar. It was so distracting that I found myself annoyed and wanting to put it down.
The second was the romance. In the beginning, the romance between Derek and Beth was just too rushed. There were no meaningful conversations, there wasn’t much plot, there wasn’t much talking. There was a lot of “I love you’s” and a lot of tension and a lot of kissing (hot kissing, but just kissing none the less). Beth was convinced she was in love with him—and he with her—but their relationship was so shallow, that I expected him to dump her any minute (or vice versa). It didn’t feel real.
Near the end, it became a little more real after Derek’s secret came out and Beth began to feel a little different about him. For the sake of keeping this review spoiler-free, I won’t say much more than that. However because their “love” was built on such shaky ground in the first place, most of the end didn’t feel very real either. Beth didn’t know what love really meant until the very end of the book. Poor girl.
The third… sadly, the characters. I didn’t feel much of a connection to them. Believe it or not, the one character I related to most was Scott. He wasn’t even in most of the book—most of it was Beth and Derek—but Scott was the most realistic character (and I’m totally in love with him) and the character that I could understand the best. But Beth and Derek both… I just didn’t connect.
I feel really bad that I’ve complained so much. I also feel really sad that I didn’t love this one. But as a reviewer I promise to be honest, and this is how I feel. Again, as I said at the top, I enjoyed the book, it kept me reading though it wasn’t a sit-on-the-edge-of-your-seat kind of page-turner. But it was a bit of a let-down after all the 5-star or A+ reviews I’ve read for it. Don’t listen to just one opinion. Check out some other reviews for this one before you decide to believe me.
But then through the course of several unexpected events, Beth ends up with the solo in her choir. She goes from ugly and in the back rows to re-made, re-styled, and re-“faced” after laser surgery. Her choir gets a chance to go to a competition in Switzerland.
And she meets Derek. Derek is on one of the other teams, the biggest, best, most famous choir. He’s the hottest guy she’s ever met. And he’s in love with her.
But there’s something wrong with Derek. He won’t tell her what it is, and she’s scared to ask because every time she brings it up, he runs away.
And the fact that Scott has admitted that he’s in love with her—and she’s pretty sure she loves him too—isn’t making anything less complicated…
Review:
I enjoyed Sing Me To Sleep. Please realize and remember that. It kept me reading, it moved quickly. But there were a few things that drove me crazy while I read this and took away from the overall enjoyment.
The first was the writing. There’s a difference between a writing style, and writing crappy. 75% of the “sentences” in this book were fragments. No, I did not count the sentences and take a literal percentage, but that’s what it felt like. There were a lot of two or three word phrases stacked next to each other. That does not count as a writing style, it’s poor grammar. It was so distracting that I found myself annoyed and wanting to put it down.
The second was the romance. In the beginning, the romance between Derek and Beth was just too rushed. There were no meaningful conversations, there wasn’t much plot, there wasn’t much talking. There was a lot of “I love you’s” and a lot of tension and a lot of kissing (hot kissing, but just kissing none the less). Beth was convinced she was in love with him—and he with her—but their relationship was so shallow, that I expected him to dump her any minute (or vice versa). It didn’t feel real.
Near the end, it became a little more real after Derek’s secret came out and Beth began to feel a little different about him. For the sake of keeping this review spoiler-free, I won’t say much more than that. However because their “love” was built on such shaky ground in the first place, most of the end didn’t feel very real either. Beth didn’t know what love really meant until the very end of the book. Poor girl.
The third… sadly, the characters. I didn’t feel much of a connection to them. Believe it or not, the one character I related to most was Scott. He wasn’t even in most of the book—most of it was Beth and Derek—but Scott was the most realistic character (and I’m totally in love with him) and the character that I could understand the best. But Beth and Derek both… I just didn’t connect.
I feel really bad that I’ve complained so much. I also feel really sad that I didn’t love this one. But as a reviewer I promise to be honest, and this is how I feel. Again, as I said at the top, I enjoyed the book, it kept me reading though it wasn’t a sit-on-the-edge-of-your-seat kind of page-turner. But it was a bit of a let-down after all the 5-star or A+ reviews I’ve read for it. Don’t listen to just one opinion. Check out some other reviews for this one before you decide to believe me.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Godzilla (1954) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
The beginning was inspired...
Contains spoilers, click to show
I was first introduced to Godzilla in cartoon form in the 1980′s as a child, but it wasn't until 1998, with Roland Emmerich's blockbuster reboot that I had seen the infamous beast on the pearl screen. I had also seem bits and bobs of the many original sequels as a child and they had made absolutely no impact on me what so ever! But I became aware of the significance of this, the original, only recently and it was due to this discovery that I hunted down the best copy available.
I ended up with the 2005 Region 1 release, which also includes the U.S. reworking from 1956, Godzilla: King Of The Monsters!. I could not have imagined that a the 1954 version of Godzilla, or more literally, Gojira, could have been so mature, so sombre, or so tempered with its sledgehammer philosophising. Produced just nine years after the devastating nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which effectively ended the Second World War, Gojira takes up the mantle on doing what Science Fiction does best, and created the cypher in the form of Godzilla, to represent the devastation left over from the nuking of these cities.
Godzilla is a nuclear beast, affected by U.S. nuclear tests and is now toxically radioactive and upon landfall on Tokyo, rains down, literally, nuclear destruction up on the city, in a manner not dissimilar too that levied upon either of the cities, Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But its not just about that. It about the creation of the next WMD which would ultimately be used against Godzilla but poses and moral dilemma that Robert Oppenheimer himself would appreciate, as to whether such a creation should be allowed to be developed. It also looks quite seriously into establishing the potential evolution of a creature such as Godzilla and uses plausible palaeontological arguments to justify his existence.
The pacing was good and though Godzilla strikes from almost the opening frame, there is a sense of an ongoing crisis rather than an impending apocalypse, with news outlets reporting throughout as plans, both military and civilian are sited.
All in all, this is not just the birth of the massive and largely corny and cheap Godzilla series, it is a striking, intelligent, moving and incredibly well judged masterpiece of 50′s cinema. But I should have known. Most rubbish franchises began with an inspired first movie, something to break the mould and this does the job perfectly.
But it isn't without its flaws. The special effects, though not all bad, are below par even for the time, but effective as for telling the story, some were very good with ALL being well conceived and ambitious. Some were very poor though, such as the model ships, which were unnecessarily below the standards and look like bath toys. But the cinematography was wonderful, with Honda shooting this in a classically manner. Tension was built brilliantly and the action rose to several crescendos and the excellent score by Akira Ifukube was not overused but brought to perfect effect when needed.
The acting was first-rate as well, proving Japanese cinemas reputation. But this was my first real foray into Japanese cinema, and what a treat it was. Many would look at this and see a cheap old film and others will see a film that whist let down by some less that brilliant visual effects and the fact that a lot of people, certainly in the U.K. find subtitles difficult, as a masterpiece not only of Eastern cinema but of cinema full stop. Truly realising its narrative and spirit, its cause and message. This was about a county in mourning not only for the hundreds of thousands lost by Fat Man and Little Boy, but for the war full stop. The 1950′s were a time of great political fear and reconstruction after WW2, and this is a film which taps into the brewing Cold War and fear of annihilation from human behemoths which once released can never be returned.
HIGHLY recommended but not for children as they will bore, miss the point, get put off by the subtitles, black and white and quite frankly its a mature and bleak film and not the 1998 remake. And thank God or Godzilla for that!
I ended up with the 2005 Region 1 release, which also includes the U.S. reworking from 1956, Godzilla: King Of The Monsters!. I could not have imagined that a the 1954 version of Godzilla, or more literally, Gojira, could have been so mature, so sombre, or so tempered with its sledgehammer philosophising. Produced just nine years after the devastating nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which effectively ended the Second World War, Gojira takes up the mantle on doing what Science Fiction does best, and created the cypher in the form of Godzilla, to represent the devastation left over from the nuking of these cities.
Godzilla is a nuclear beast, affected by U.S. nuclear tests and is now toxically radioactive and upon landfall on Tokyo, rains down, literally, nuclear destruction up on the city, in a manner not dissimilar too that levied upon either of the cities, Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But its not just about that. It about the creation of the next WMD which would ultimately be used against Godzilla but poses and moral dilemma that Robert Oppenheimer himself would appreciate, as to whether such a creation should be allowed to be developed. It also looks quite seriously into establishing the potential evolution of a creature such as Godzilla and uses plausible palaeontological arguments to justify his existence.
The pacing was good and though Godzilla strikes from almost the opening frame, there is a sense of an ongoing crisis rather than an impending apocalypse, with news outlets reporting throughout as plans, both military and civilian are sited.
All in all, this is not just the birth of the massive and largely corny and cheap Godzilla series, it is a striking, intelligent, moving and incredibly well judged masterpiece of 50′s cinema. But I should have known. Most rubbish franchises began with an inspired first movie, something to break the mould and this does the job perfectly.
But it isn't without its flaws. The special effects, though not all bad, are below par even for the time, but effective as for telling the story, some were very good with ALL being well conceived and ambitious. Some were very poor though, such as the model ships, which were unnecessarily below the standards and look like bath toys. But the cinematography was wonderful, with Honda shooting this in a classically manner. Tension was built brilliantly and the action rose to several crescendos and the excellent score by Akira Ifukube was not overused but brought to perfect effect when needed.
The acting was first-rate as well, proving Japanese cinemas reputation. But this was my first real foray into Japanese cinema, and what a treat it was. Many would look at this and see a cheap old film and others will see a film that whist let down by some less that brilliant visual effects and the fact that a lot of people, certainly in the U.K. find subtitles difficult, as a masterpiece not only of Eastern cinema but of cinema full stop. Truly realising its narrative and spirit, its cause and message. This was about a county in mourning not only for the hundreds of thousands lost by Fat Man and Little Boy, but for the war full stop. The 1950′s were a time of great political fear and reconstruction after WW2, and this is a film which taps into the brewing Cold War and fear of annihilation from human behemoths which once released can never be returned.
HIGHLY recommended but not for children as they will bore, miss the point, get put off by the subtitles, black and white and quite frankly its a mature and bleak film and not the 1998 remake. And thank God or Godzilla for that!
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Us (2019) in Movies
Apr 10, 2019 (Updated Apr 10, 2019)
Fantastic performances all round (2 more)
Brilliant direction
Lighting is on point
Just You & I
Contains spoilers, click to show
I saw Us last night and I really enjoyed it. It's the latest movie by comedian turned horror auteur Jordan Peele and after how much I loved Get Out, I was very much looking forward to seeing this. I think that if Us had came before Get Out, I probably would have enjoyed it more, as for every element that I enjoyed in Us, I couldn't help but keep thinking that it had already been done better in Get Out.
Okay, from this point on I am going to dive into spoilers, so please make sure that you have seen the movie before you continue reading.
The main reason that I am having to go into spoilers pretty soon into my review is because the shit hits the fan in this film fairly early on. In Get Out the first 3 quarters of the movie was build up before things eventually got nuts in the last 30 minutes, whereas in Us we are only just at the end of the first act when crazy shit starts to go down. I get why Peele did this from a filmmaker's perspective; in Get Out, we didn't really know what we were in for and he had the benefit of keeping us in the dark for as long as he wanted to, whereas in Us we all went in expecting bizarre things to take place, so rather than messing about for too long building tension, Peele lets things get weird fairly early in the film. Whether you prefer the slower burn of Get Out like I did, or the faster pace in Us will be down to personal preference.
The worst thing about Us is that it is following Get Out. Even when something really cool happens, it was done better in Get Out. Take the score for example; it is pretty great in Us, but was superior in Get Out. The same goes for the editing, the script, the cinematography and a whole load of other technical elements. One thing that did stand out was the fantastic use of lighting. It was perfect in every scene throughout the film and conveyed the feelings that Peele was subjecting the audience to flawlessly.
The performances were also great. The whole cast did a fantastic job, (including the kids,) but the stand outs for me were Lupita Nyong'o and Elisabeth Moss. They were pretty good as the normal versions of their characters, but they really shone when they got to play the psychotic doppelgangers, for way more reasons than just how scary they were.
Another thing that I liked was that for the most part, the film doesn't treat you like you are dumb, with one exception. The film opens on a shot of an old CRT TV showing various adverts. One of these is an advert for Santa Cruz tourism and another tells us that the year is 1986. In the very next shot we are shown a title card reading, "Santa Cruz, 1986." This isn't an outrageous inclusion, just one that causes an eyeroll for anyone actually paying attention to what they are seeing onscreen.
Another thing that didn't quite work for me was the use of comedy. Where Get Out used comedy to cut away from the intensity and give the audience a breather, Us intertwined it more with the carnage, which made it come off as fairly messy in parts. Don't get me wrong, any comedic lines were well written and well delivered, I just feel that they could have been implemented a bit better.
Overall, Us is another great horror/thriller from Jordan Peele. I know that I compared it to Get Out all the way through this review, but even when watching it, it is extremely hard not to make comparisons. That does not mean that this is a bad movie by any stretch though and I am very much looking forward to seeing Peele's upcoming Twilight Zone series as well as any other projects he is working on.
Okay, from this point on I am going to dive into spoilers, so please make sure that you have seen the movie before you continue reading.
The main reason that I am having to go into spoilers pretty soon into my review is because the shit hits the fan in this film fairly early on. In Get Out the first 3 quarters of the movie was build up before things eventually got nuts in the last 30 minutes, whereas in Us we are only just at the end of the first act when crazy shit starts to go down. I get why Peele did this from a filmmaker's perspective; in Get Out, we didn't really know what we were in for and he had the benefit of keeping us in the dark for as long as he wanted to, whereas in Us we all went in expecting bizarre things to take place, so rather than messing about for too long building tension, Peele lets things get weird fairly early in the film. Whether you prefer the slower burn of Get Out like I did, or the faster pace in Us will be down to personal preference.
The worst thing about Us is that it is following Get Out. Even when something really cool happens, it was done better in Get Out. Take the score for example; it is pretty great in Us, but was superior in Get Out. The same goes for the editing, the script, the cinematography and a whole load of other technical elements. One thing that did stand out was the fantastic use of lighting. It was perfect in every scene throughout the film and conveyed the feelings that Peele was subjecting the audience to flawlessly.
The performances were also great. The whole cast did a fantastic job, (including the kids,) but the stand outs for me were Lupita Nyong'o and Elisabeth Moss. They were pretty good as the normal versions of their characters, but they really shone when they got to play the psychotic doppelgangers, for way more reasons than just how scary they were.
Another thing that I liked was that for the most part, the film doesn't treat you like you are dumb, with one exception. The film opens on a shot of an old CRT TV showing various adverts. One of these is an advert for Santa Cruz tourism and another tells us that the year is 1986. In the very next shot we are shown a title card reading, "Santa Cruz, 1986." This isn't an outrageous inclusion, just one that causes an eyeroll for anyone actually paying attention to what they are seeing onscreen.
Another thing that didn't quite work for me was the use of comedy. Where Get Out used comedy to cut away from the intensity and give the audience a breather, Us intertwined it more with the carnage, which made it come off as fairly messy in parts. Don't get me wrong, any comedic lines were well written and well delivered, I just feel that they could have been implemented a bit better.
Overall, Us is another great horror/thriller from Jordan Peele. I know that I compared it to Get Out all the way through this review, but even when watching it, it is extremely hard not to make comparisons. That does not mean that this is a bad movie by any stretch though and I am very much looking forward to seeing Peele's upcoming Twilight Zone series as well as any other projects he is working on.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated The Resistance: Avalon in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
Do you appreciate your friends and your relationships with them? If so, please read no further. Do you want to dissolve your friendships and cause your family members to wonder what went wrong with you and never trust you again? Play The Resistance: Avalon with them.
The Resistance: Avalon (which we always just refer to as simply Avalon) is a game of hidden roles played over several rounds where the “good guys” from King Arthur’s court are pitted against the “bad guys” in Mordred’s thrall. The number of players at the table determines the number of players to be assigned to the good and bad guys squads and the required goals for victory for each team.
To begin, role cards are divvied up and players secretly find out which team they are on for the game. Blue background cards are good guys, red are bad guys. ALERT! Yes, already. I cannot tell you how many times games have been voided because a player was not quite sure what team they were on, so make sure your players know what’s up before continuing. From here a narrator player reads the script in the rulebook to give instructions to players with their eyes closed (a la Mafia or Werewolf). This allows different members of each team to know certain information about their own team or even the opposite team. Players are then instructed to open their eyes simultaneously and thus begins the game of facades.
A player is chosen at random to be the quest giver for now. This person then assigns other players to go on a quest. The “quest” is just a generic quest where it will either succeed or fail. Once the quest giver has made their choices, everyone at the table has a chance to vote to approve the quest team or deny the quest team. Simple majority vote wins. If the team is approved, the quest happens. If the team is denied, the next player in the circle becomes the quest giver and must create a new team of players to go questing.
Once approved, the quest team players are each given two cards: Success and Fail. Secretly, under the table works best, the players make their choices. ALERT! All good guys MUST CHOOSE SUCCESS CARDS so the quest can succeed. Bad guys can choose either one. The questers then pass their cards to an uninvolved player who will then shuffle the cards without looking at them. Once completed, the cards are revealed and thus the success or failure of the quest. If all cards are Success, then the quest was a success and the good guys mark this on the main board. If even just one Fail card appears the quest fails and the bad guys mark it on the main board. This continues until either the good guys win or the bad guys claim victory!
Components. The box is small (akin to the Tiny Epic size boxes). I’m not sure if the game comes with an insert because I won mine from a BGG auction. The cards included in the game are fine, and I sleeved mine because they get held quite a bit. The other miscellaneous tokens are nice and do the job well. This is a game that is less reliant on components, and much more so on game play.
If my intro seemed dark a foreboding, it was completely intentional. Have I witnessed friendships dissolving as a result of this game? Ok not entirely, but there have been some pretty amazing head turns and surprise reveals coupled with slapping and yelling. Not me, mind you, but others. In any case, this game is definitely one to check out if you are a fan of hidden role games and if you want to add tons of tension to your game night. I honestly have no idea why this game (or its older sibling The Resistance if you are more into that theme) isn’t in every game collection. Yes, I know, there are now TONS of hidden role games out there. But this is my favorite of the lot. By far.
We at Purple Phoenix Games are split somehow, giving this one 18 / 24. Obviously it is because Josh is a minion of Mordred and wants our review to fail.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/04/24/the-resistance-avalon-review/
The Resistance: Avalon (which we always just refer to as simply Avalon) is a game of hidden roles played over several rounds where the “good guys” from King Arthur’s court are pitted against the “bad guys” in Mordred’s thrall. The number of players at the table determines the number of players to be assigned to the good and bad guys squads and the required goals for victory for each team.
To begin, role cards are divvied up and players secretly find out which team they are on for the game. Blue background cards are good guys, red are bad guys. ALERT! Yes, already. I cannot tell you how many times games have been voided because a player was not quite sure what team they were on, so make sure your players know what’s up before continuing. From here a narrator player reads the script in the rulebook to give instructions to players with their eyes closed (a la Mafia or Werewolf). This allows different members of each team to know certain information about their own team or even the opposite team. Players are then instructed to open their eyes simultaneously and thus begins the game of facades.
A player is chosen at random to be the quest giver for now. This person then assigns other players to go on a quest. The “quest” is just a generic quest where it will either succeed or fail. Once the quest giver has made their choices, everyone at the table has a chance to vote to approve the quest team or deny the quest team. Simple majority vote wins. If the team is approved, the quest happens. If the team is denied, the next player in the circle becomes the quest giver and must create a new team of players to go questing.
Once approved, the quest team players are each given two cards: Success and Fail. Secretly, under the table works best, the players make their choices. ALERT! All good guys MUST CHOOSE SUCCESS CARDS so the quest can succeed. Bad guys can choose either one. The questers then pass their cards to an uninvolved player who will then shuffle the cards without looking at them. Once completed, the cards are revealed and thus the success or failure of the quest. If all cards are Success, then the quest was a success and the good guys mark this on the main board. If even just one Fail card appears the quest fails and the bad guys mark it on the main board. This continues until either the good guys win or the bad guys claim victory!
Components. The box is small (akin to the Tiny Epic size boxes). I’m not sure if the game comes with an insert because I won mine from a BGG auction. The cards included in the game are fine, and I sleeved mine because they get held quite a bit. The other miscellaneous tokens are nice and do the job well. This is a game that is less reliant on components, and much more so on game play.
If my intro seemed dark a foreboding, it was completely intentional. Have I witnessed friendships dissolving as a result of this game? Ok not entirely, but there have been some pretty amazing head turns and surprise reveals coupled with slapping and yelling. Not me, mind you, but others. In any case, this game is definitely one to check out if you are a fan of hidden role games and if you want to add tons of tension to your game night. I honestly have no idea why this game (or its older sibling The Resistance if you are more into that theme) isn’t in every game collection. Yes, I know, there are now TONS of hidden role games out there. But this is my favorite of the lot. By far.
We at Purple Phoenix Games are split somehow, giving this one 18 / 24. Obviously it is because Josh is a minion of Mordred and wants our review to fail.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/04/24/the-resistance-avalon-review/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Cthulhu Realms in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
Cthulhu – a theme that is deeply rooted in the board gaming world. There are SO MANY Cthulhu-based games and spin-offs of standard games. Some people really dig the theme, and some people really don’t. So where does this particular game fall on the spectrum? Keep reading to find out!
In Cthulhu Realms, a deck-building game, you are a Cthulhu cultist that is trying to drive your rivals literally insane. By gathering followers, collecting artifacts, and discovering new locations, you will gain enough power to influence the sanity of those who would oppose you! On your turn, you will play cards from your hand to Conjure (acquire new cards from the communal pool), Draw/Discard cards, Gain/Lose Sanity, or Abjure (permanently discard cards from the game). The game ends when a player is reduced to zero sanity – and the player who has retained their sanity is the winner!
I love deck-building games. I really do. I think it’s a neat mechanic that allows you to customize your strategy with every play. So I enjoy playing Cthulhu Realms because of that element. And that’s kind of where my enjoyment ends with this game. Don’t get me wrong – it’s a decent game. I just have a couple of issues with the actual cards and abilities. The cards themselves are very reliant on iconography to communicate powers/abilities. Props to the player boards for having a quick reference for the basic actions, but I still always keep the rule sheet on hand for the in-depth explanation as I play. And even then, the rule sheet still has a bit of ambiguity on how some of the powers work. I wish they’d provided a couple of examples because sometimes I still get confused by certain combinations of icons. Just a little more detail in the rule sheet could alleviate some of the ambiguity of the icon abilities.
For card abilities, each individual card can have anywhere from 1-3 special abilities. The tricky thing is that the abilities do not all have to be used at the same time. So I could use 1 ability from a card, use an ability from a different card, and then come back to my first card and use another of it’s printed abilities. And with a hand of 5 cards every turn (not counting additional cards you may draw…), it can be hard to keep track of which abilities you’ve already used that turn. On top of that, many of the abilities have prerequisites – you can’t use that specific ability unless you’ve already played/have in play the requisite card. Some abilities only have 1 prerequisite, but some have 2, which just adds another layer of bookkeeping to your turns. Not only are you trying to remember which card abilities you’ve already used, but you’re also trying to keep track of your cards/actions that turn that could unlock other card abilities. The rule sheet suggests sliding a card to one side of your play area once you’ve used one of its powers. But again, if it has more than 1 ability on it, you’ve got to remember which ones you’ve used/haven’t used yet, regardless of where they are in your play area. This is a competitive game overall, but with all of these elements to track on your turns, it saps the tension from the game and makes it feel a little more luck-based than strategic.
To alleviate some of my grievances, I think the game could just have more cards with fewer abilities on each. That would make it much easier to execute all of your turns. And eliminate some of the ability prerequisites – having them on most of the abilities just adds another element for you to keep track of, and it feels a little unnecessary. If the turns were a little more clear and concise, I would like this game a lot more. It’s not bad, it just gets bogged down a little bit with too much action on your turns. That’s why Purple Phoenix Games gives Cthulhu Realms a 6/12.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/22/cthulhu-realms-review/
In Cthulhu Realms, a deck-building game, you are a Cthulhu cultist that is trying to drive your rivals literally insane. By gathering followers, collecting artifacts, and discovering new locations, you will gain enough power to influence the sanity of those who would oppose you! On your turn, you will play cards from your hand to Conjure (acquire new cards from the communal pool), Draw/Discard cards, Gain/Lose Sanity, or Abjure (permanently discard cards from the game). The game ends when a player is reduced to zero sanity – and the player who has retained their sanity is the winner!
I love deck-building games. I really do. I think it’s a neat mechanic that allows you to customize your strategy with every play. So I enjoy playing Cthulhu Realms because of that element. And that’s kind of where my enjoyment ends with this game. Don’t get me wrong – it’s a decent game. I just have a couple of issues with the actual cards and abilities. The cards themselves are very reliant on iconography to communicate powers/abilities. Props to the player boards for having a quick reference for the basic actions, but I still always keep the rule sheet on hand for the in-depth explanation as I play. And even then, the rule sheet still has a bit of ambiguity on how some of the powers work. I wish they’d provided a couple of examples because sometimes I still get confused by certain combinations of icons. Just a little more detail in the rule sheet could alleviate some of the ambiguity of the icon abilities.
For card abilities, each individual card can have anywhere from 1-3 special abilities. The tricky thing is that the abilities do not all have to be used at the same time. So I could use 1 ability from a card, use an ability from a different card, and then come back to my first card and use another of it’s printed abilities. And with a hand of 5 cards every turn (not counting additional cards you may draw…), it can be hard to keep track of which abilities you’ve already used that turn. On top of that, many of the abilities have prerequisites – you can’t use that specific ability unless you’ve already played/have in play the requisite card. Some abilities only have 1 prerequisite, but some have 2, which just adds another layer of bookkeeping to your turns. Not only are you trying to remember which card abilities you’ve already used, but you’re also trying to keep track of your cards/actions that turn that could unlock other card abilities. The rule sheet suggests sliding a card to one side of your play area once you’ve used one of its powers. But again, if it has more than 1 ability on it, you’ve got to remember which ones you’ve used/haven’t used yet, regardless of where they are in your play area. This is a competitive game overall, but with all of these elements to track on your turns, it saps the tension from the game and makes it feel a little more luck-based than strategic.
To alleviate some of my grievances, I think the game could just have more cards with fewer abilities on each. That would make it much easier to execute all of your turns. And eliminate some of the ability prerequisites – having them on most of the abilities just adds another element for you to keep track of, and it feels a little unnecessary. If the turns were a little more clear and concise, I would like this game a lot more. It’s not bad, it just gets bogged down a little bit with too much action on your turns. That’s why Purple Phoenix Games gives Cthulhu Realms a 6/12.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/22/cthulhu-realms-review/