Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Mountain Between Us (2017) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Characters – Ben Bass is a surgeon, he needs to get back to New York to perform an operation, when the crash happens, he focuses on aiming to stay at the crash site believing he will get rescued, reluctant to follow Alex’s idea to find their own way out. His skills as a doctor are key to survive this one. Alex is a photographer heading home for her wedding, she does get hurt in the crash and wants to go in search of help rather than wait. These two are professionals that make decisions based on logic over panic which is why even if they are opposite, their discussions make sense.
Performances – Idris Elba and Kate Winslet are the only ones that get any major screen time, they are both great in this film as we see them both playing to their strengths.
Story – The story here follows two strangers who are involved in a plane crash in a mountain range and must put their differences a side to survive while searching and hoping for rescue. This is a survival movie at heart with a weak romance movie on the side, we go through the normal can they survive situations, each one becoming deadlier as they go along and leaving us guessing how rather than if they will get rescued, it seems to clear to say that they won’t make it because of it only being a two person. The fact that the dog is the most interesting character doesn’t help us out here and the timing we go through just seems weak when it comes to telling us how long they have been there, we get the odd scene, but learn nothing about moments inbetween.
Action/Adventure/Romance – The action comes from the scene in which the plane crashed, it is shot well but is the only one we see. The adventure side of the film shows us just what the two must go through to survive their ordeal. The romance between them seems to just get tagged in for no particular reasons.
Settings – The film puts us in the middle of nowhere in a mountain range, it looks stunning with views from the top, the biggest problem with the setting is we just don’t get the full scale of the situation.
Scene of the Movie – The crash scene.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not explaining the time period there are lost for.
Final Thoughts – This is a standard movie with a simple story that gets everything it needs to in the film without being anything overly memorable.
Overall: Standard and safe.
Performances – Idris Elba and Kate Winslet are the only ones that get any major screen time, they are both great in this film as we see them both playing to their strengths.
Story – The story here follows two strangers who are involved in a plane crash in a mountain range and must put their differences a side to survive while searching and hoping for rescue. This is a survival movie at heart with a weak romance movie on the side, we go through the normal can they survive situations, each one becoming deadlier as they go along and leaving us guessing how rather than if they will get rescued, it seems to clear to say that they won’t make it because of it only being a two person. The fact that the dog is the most interesting character doesn’t help us out here and the timing we go through just seems weak when it comes to telling us how long they have been there, we get the odd scene, but learn nothing about moments inbetween.
Action/Adventure/Romance – The action comes from the scene in which the plane crashed, it is shot well but is the only one we see. The adventure side of the film shows us just what the two must go through to survive their ordeal. The romance between them seems to just get tagged in for no particular reasons.
Settings – The film puts us in the middle of nowhere in a mountain range, it looks stunning with views from the top, the biggest problem with the setting is we just don’t get the full scale of the situation.
Scene of the Movie – The crash scene.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not explaining the time period there are lost for.
Final Thoughts – This is a standard movie with a simple story that gets everything it needs to in the film without being anything overly memorable.
Overall: Standard and safe.
Benedick Lewis (3001 KP) rated Nothing Lasts Forever (Die Hard, #1) in Books
Sep 30, 2020
Good to see origins to a great film (1 more)
Quick read - less than 250 pages
Only one perspective- feels like it needs more character viewpoints (1 more)
Prose can be difficult to follow
Surprising: film better than book
Nothing Lasts Forever was the framework for the great film Die Hard. Being a massive fan of the film as well as putting it under academic scrutiny, it was interesting to see the similarities and differences between book and film.
However, having seen Die Hard multiple times, it was sometimes difficult to picture the protagonist, Joe Leland, doing the John McClane things. Further more, the book only depicts Leland’s point of view and the story could have benefited from being told from multiple perspectives: Leland’s, the terrorists and the hostages. Unfortunately, the terrorists’ motive is summed up in one page and it doesn’t wholly satisfy, especially given in the film, the plot is more devious and fiendishly clever giving cinema one of its all time greatest villains.
To talk more about the comparisons is doing literature an injustice. Time and again, it needs to be reminded that they are two different mediums with different requirements. That said, there is definitely one big major difference that really distinguishes the two products of this idea and the only thing that can be said is that it is towards the end. Those that know the film and decide to read this book will know when you get to that part but it is one that really sets it apart.
Frank Sinartra played Leland in the prequel to this book, The Detective. It’s not essential that you read that book first to understand this one. Author Roderick Thorp plays catch up in the opening chapters. He does however spoil that story so if you are looking to read that, best put this to one side.
Thorp’s style is a little all over the place, especially regarding the set pieces and it can be difficult to imagine the scenes he is trying to depict. Leland is not the most likeable of heroes either and it can be difficult to root for him but it is a short story and can be done in one sitting so it’ll be over before you have the time to really dislike him.
Read this if you haven’t seen Die Hard. Read this but make sure you watch Die Hard rather adjacent to that. It would be surprising if you found the book better. In this case, the film is superior. A rare case indeed.
However, having seen Die Hard multiple times, it was sometimes difficult to picture the protagonist, Joe Leland, doing the John McClane things. Further more, the book only depicts Leland’s point of view and the story could have benefited from being told from multiple perspectives: Leland’s, the terrorists and the hostages. Unfortunately, the terrorists’ motive is summed up in one page and it doesn’t wholly satisfy, especially given in the film, the plot is more devious and fiendishly clever giving cinema one of its all time greatest villains.
To talk more about the comparisons is doing literature an injustice. Time and again, it needs to be reminded that they are two different mediums with different requirements. That said, there is definitely one big major difference that really distinguishes the two products of this idea and the only thing that can be said is that it is towards the end. Those that know the film and decide to read this book will know when you get to that part but it is one that really sets it apart.
Frank Sinartra played Leland in the prequel to this book, The Detective. It’s not essential that you read that book first to understand this one. Author Roderick Thorp plays catch up in the opening chapters. He does however spoil that story so if you are looking to read that, best put this to one side.
Thorp’s style is a little all over the place, especially regarding the set pieces and it can be difficult to imagine the scenes he is trying to depict. Leland is not the most likeable of heroes either and it can be difficult to root for him but it is a short story and can be done in one sitting so it’ll be over before you have the time to really dislike him.
Read this if you haven’t seen Die Hard. Read this but make sure you watch Die Hard rather adjacent to that. It would be surprising if you found the book better. In this case, the film is superior. A rare case indeed.
colin... (64 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019) in Movies
Sep 30, 2020
So, I'd like to preface this review by saying that I never thought i would. Thank you Star Wars fans. My experience while watching Endgame on opening night was one of the most atrocious theater going experiences I have ever had, with every single person yelping like baboons at every single line or character appearance. The Star Wars fans that showed up to almost sell out my theater were super respectful and didn't make a single peep through the runtime, thus making my experience much more enjoyable and giving me a clearer head to rate this film. Therefore, I have made the assertion that Marvel is the lowest common denominator and Star Wars gains a bit of respect in my books!
Now, on to the actual film. Listen, if you love the series, you're gonna love this film. It does enough fan service that it satisfies the craving, yet doesn't let it interfere with the story too much. If you hate what the series has become, you're gonna hate the movie. It's way too convenient how everything works out and there are multiple points where I resisted face palming or aggressively whispering to myself. That being said, as I do on most blockbuster films such as this, I land pretty solidly in the middle.
Listen, this piece has a lot of issues with double and triple twists constricting the narrative and not giving it enough room to breathe. It also implements the music in a worse way than I have observed in a Star Wars film to date and the acting by most of the cast was just average at best to me. I was invested for the first eighty minutes or so, but then I just got uninvested and a tad bored. It felt like we were kinda just being ran around the same circle in a repetitive manner without getting to the point until the last twenty minutes or so.
Yet, there's magic here and it is undeniable. I considered it to be nostalgia and then I realised that I don't have the right to be nostalgic about this property. There's just something about the universe construction that seems masterful, and the performances by Adam Driver and Daisy Ridley kick it into overdrive into getting me to care about a world that I would normally give two shits about. The cinematography is surprisingly well done and cleverly varied to accompany certain emotions or appropriate responses.
Overall, it is an acceptable ending to the franchise that doesn't blow anything out of the water, but instead skids along with a bit of turbulence. Thanks for the ride, Abrams.
Now, on to the actual film. Listen, if you love the series, you're gonna love this film. It does enough fan service that it satisfies the craving, yet doesn't let it interfere with the story too much. If you hate what the series has become, you're gonna hate the movie. It's way too convenient how everything works out and there are multiple points where I resisted face palming or aggressively whispering to myself. That being said, as I do on most blockbuster films such as this, I land pretty solidly in the middle.
Listen, this piece has a lot of issues with double and triple twists constricting the narrative and not giving it enough room to breathe. It also implements the music in a worse way than I have observed in a Star Wars film to date and the acting by most of the cast was just average at best to me. I was invested for the first eighty minutes or so, but then I just got uninvested and a tad bored. It felt like we were kinda just being ran around the same circle in a repetitive manner without getting to the point until the last twenty minutes or so.
Yet, there's magic here and it is undeniable. I considered it to be nostalgia and then I realised that I don't have the right to be nostalgic about this property. There's just something about the universe construction that seems masterful, and the performances by Adam Driver and Daisy Ridley kick it into overdrive into getting me to care about a world that I would normally give two shits about. The cinematography is surprisingly well done and cleverly varied to accompany certain emotions or appropriate responses.
Overall, it is an acceptable ending to the franchise that doesn't blow anything out of the water, but instead skids along with a bit of turbulence. Thanks for the ride, Abrams.
Marked Yours (Sentries #1)
10.0
Rate It
Book
When one society fell, assaulted by natural disaster, in its place rose another, molded into...
Action Adventure Science Fiction Futuristic MM Romance
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Courier (2020) in Movies
Aug 16, 2021
Cumberbatch is brilliant. (1 more)
Great real life history lesson
A peerless Cumberbatch and a miscast Buckley.
It's not to be confused with the Olga Kurylenko / Gary Oldman 2019 movie of the same title. But with a fresh Berlin current-day Russian spy scandal in the news this week, seeing the cold war spy drama "The Courier" is a timely thing to do.
Positives:
- Benedict Cumberbatch is outstandingly good in this. He could have been born to play the slightly bemused English gentlemen of the time. All golf, tweed suits and gentlemen's clubs. No spoilers, but there is a physical transformation as well that's impressive to observe. The film would have been decidedly so-so I think without that core central performance.
- The film is based on a true story. As someone who was born in 1961, it's a good reminder to count our blessings that you, me and everyone else are still around to live our lives at all. The world was on the brink of a precipice and learning the story of Wynne's part in this was insightful history.
- There's a nice catchy Russian-themed score by Abel Korzeniowski.
Negatives:
- I'm a big fan of Jessie Buckley. Really, I am. And to be fair to her, her performance is really good. I particularly liked a scene where she dismissed on the doorstep a local busybody. But I just didn't see her as Wynne's pearl-neckless-wearing wife in this part. Perhaps the problem is that although there's a 13 year age gap between the leads, I always imagine Buckley as being much younger that her 31 years. For whatever reason, the casting didn't work for me.
Summary Thoughts on "The Courier": As a true-life spy story, the movie is interesting and Cumberbatch's performance is brilliant. But I can't say that I was 100% grabbed by it. While having a few moments of high drama and tension - particularly one on a plane - I never felt that to be maintained for enough of the movie. Director Dominic Cooke has a limited filmography (with the Saoirse Ronan movie "On Chesil Beach" being his only other feature) and writer Tom O'Connor is the guy behind the more flippant "Hitman's Bodyguard" films. Perhaps a more experienced writer/director team would have elevated this to a higher level.
So it's eminently watchable but not memorable. Just a marginal hit in my book.
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Benedict Cumberbatch is outstandingly good in this. He could have been born to play the slightly bemused English gentlemen of the time. All golf, tweed suits and gentlemen's clubs. No spoilers, but there is a physical transformation as well that's impressive to observe. The film would have been decidedly so-so I think without that core central performance.
- The film is based on a true story. As someone who was born in 1961, it's a good reminder to count our blessings that you, me and everyone else are still around to live our lives at all. The world was on the brink of a precipice and learning the story of Wynne's part in this was insightful history.
- There's a nice catchy Russian-themed score by Abel Korzeniowski.
Negatives:
- I'm a big fan of Jessie Buckley. Really, I am. And to be fair to her, her performance is really good. I particularly liked a scene where she dismissed on the doorstep a local busybody. But I just didn't see her as Wynne's pearl-neckless-wearing wife in this part. Perhaps the problem is that although there's a 13 year age gap between the leads, I always imagine Buckley as being much younger that her 31 years. For whatever reason, the casting didn't work for me.
Summary Thoughts on "The Courier": As a true-life spy story, the movie is interesting and Cumberbatch's performance is brilliant. But I can't say that I was 100% grabbed by it. While having a few moments of high drama and tension - particularly one on a plane - I never felt that to be maintained for enough of the movie. Director Dominic Cooke has a limited filmography (with the Saoirse Ronan movie "On Chesil Beach" being his only other feature) and writer Tom O'Connor is the guy behind the more flippant "Hitman's Bodyguard" films. Perhaps a more experienced writer/director team would have elevated this to a higher level.
So it's eminently watchable but not memorable. Just a marginal hit in my book.
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Don't Stop Believin' in Books
May 28, 2019
I was obsessed with Olivia Newton-John as a little girl. As a little girl, I knew all of her songs by heart, and I had watched all of her movies over and over. I do admit that as I grew up, my obsession faded. However, when I saw Olivia's autobiography, Don't Stop Believin', on the shelf at my local library, I decided to give it a read. While it was enjoyable, it just came across as kind of preachy.
Olivia Newton-John rose to fame in the United States as the character of Sandy in the movie Grease. She also had a bunch of hit songs and records afterwards. Olivia's autobiography does mention her rise to fame although I felt as if there wasn't enough time spent on her rise to fame. She does write about her time with Grease and other films as well as recording her songs throughout the book. I felt the movies and songs were written about well.
We get a taste of her life as a child in England and Australia, although I felt she didn't discuss her pre-fame life too much. I would have liked to read more about her childhood instead of just being rushed into when she started performing. I know Olivia Newton-John likes to keep her private life out of the limelight, but when writing an autobiography, it's important to give the reader a little more details than what Don't Stop Believin' gave us.
There was so much name dropping throughout this book! While I understand that famous people know other famous people, sometimes I felt as if Olivia was dropping names just for show instead of because it fit the story. You have a lot of famous friends. We get it!
Another thing that annoyed me about the book was how some parts seemed like an advertisement for her Olivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness and Research Centre as well as for her husband, John Easterling's, herb company. I know she's done so much for her cancer center, (which I give her mad props for), but she goes on and on about how great and lovely of a place it was especially after she was an inpatient there. Of course the staff would treat her better when her name is on the building! There's more than one chapter devoted to how great the place is. I'm sure it is lovely, but I felt like I didn't need to a chapter (and more) about how great it is. As for her husband's herb company, she went on and on towards the end of the book how his herbs really helped her out which is great, but again, does the reader really need the specifics and being told over and over again how helpful it was?
The major thing that annoyed me was how preachy Don't Stop Believin' was in a lot of chapters. In fact, it made me feel guilty sometimes that I rely on modern medicine. Olivia writes how she'd rather take the natural approach to fighting off viruses and diseases, and I get that because I don't like to take medicine needlessly either, but sometimes, it's the best thing. However, I just felt that Olivia was berating those who choose to go the medicinal route. I felt like she was implying that natural remedies work better than modern medicine. This can be dangerous especially if someone gets off their medicines they need to survive to try the natural approach. People should always discuss any changes of medication with their doctors.
To me, Don't Stop Believin' writes like someone who's always been privileged and sheltered throughout their life. A lot of it feels like Olivia Newton-John is out of touch with reality and like she's living in La-La Land. I just found it hard to relate to her throughout the book. Yes, she has gone through some hardships such as deaths in the family, her cancer diagnoses, and her ex-boyfriend disappearing, but for the most part, her autobiography is just too sunshine and rainbows for me to truly relate.
Don't Stop Believin' flows beautifully though, and the writing is done very well, so it has that going for it. I did find myself enjoying the book most of the time when Olivia wasn't been preachy or advertising something. There were some interesting tidbits about her life throughout the book.
Trigger warnings include some profanity use, death, cancer, drinking, and smoking.
Overall, Don't Stop Believin' isn't a bad book, quite the contrary. It's just a bit too hippie dippy for me to have truly enjoyed it to its fullest. I did find the book interesting though despite some flaws. I would recommend Don't Stop Believin' by Olivia Newton-John especially to those who have been diagnosed with cancer as this book does come with a bunch of positivity when it comes to dealing with cancer.
Olivia Newton-John rose to fame in the United States as the character of Sandy in the movie Grease. She also had a bunch of hit songs and records afterwards. Olivia's autobiography does mention her rise to fame although I felt as if there wasn't enough time spent on her rise to fame. She does write about her time with Grease and other films as well as recording her songs throughout the book. I felt the movies and songs were written about well.
We get a taste of her life as a child in England and Australia, although I felt she didn't discuss her pre-fame life too much. I would have liked to read more about her childhood instead of just being rushed into when she started performing. I know Olivia Newton-John likes to keep her private life out of the limelight, but when writing an autobiography, it's important to give the reader a little more details than what Don't Stop Believin' gave us.
There was so much name dropping throughout this book! While I understand that famous people know other famous people, sometimes I felt as if Olivia was dropping names just for show instead of because it fit the story. You have a lot of famous friends. We get it!
Another thing that annoyed me about the book was how some parts seemed like an advertisement for her Olivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness and Research Centre as well as for her husband, John Easterling's, herb company. I know she's done so much for her cancer center, (which I give her mad props for), but she goes on and on about how great and lovely of a place it was especially after she was an inpatient there. Of course the staff would treat her better when her name is on the building! There's more than one chapter devoted to how great the place is. I'm sure it is lovely, but I felt like I didn't need to a chapter (and more) about how great it is. As for her husband's herb company, she went on and on towards the end of the book how his herbs really helped her out which is great, but again, does the reader really need the specifics and being told over and over again how helpful it was?
The major thing that annoyed me was how preachy Don't Stop Believin' was in a lot of chapters. In fact, it made me feel guilty sometimes that I rely on modern medicine. Olivia writes how she'd rather take the natural approach to fighting off viruses and diseases, and I get that because I don't like to take medicine needlessly either, but sometimes, it's the best thing. However, I just felt that Olivia was berating those who choose to go the medicinal route. I felt like she was implying that natural remedies work better than modern medicine. This can be dangerous especially if someone gets off their medicines they need to survive to try the natural approach. People should always discuss any changes of medication with their doctors.
To me, Don't Stop Believin' writes like someone who's always been privileged and sheltered throughout their life. A lot of it feels like Olivia Newton-John is out of touch with reality and like she's living in La-La Land. I just found it hard to relate to her throughout the book. Yes, she has gone through some hardships such as deaths in the family, her cancer diagnoses, and her ex-boyfriend disappearing, but for the most part, her autobiography is just too sunshine and rainbows for me to truly relate.
Don't Stop Believin' flows beautifully though, and the writing is done very well, so it has that going for it. I did find myself enjoying the book most of the time when Olivia wasn't been preachy or advertising something. There were some interesting tidbits about her life throughout the book.
Trigger warnings include some profanity use, death, cancer, drinking, and smoking.
Overall, Don't Stop Believin' isn't a bad book, quite the contrary. It's just a bit too hippie dippy for me to have truly enjoyed it to its fullest. I did find the book interesting though despite some flaws. I would recommend Don't Stop Believin' by Olivia Newton-John especially to those who have been diagnosed with cancer as this book does come with a bunch of positivity when it comes to dealing with cancer.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Bad Wigs aside it's really rather good
You could be forgiven for being rather sceptical walking into the cinema to see Aquaman, and it’s easy to see why. An uninspiring set of trailers preceded by the DCEU’s shall we say reluctance to resonate with audiences.
Of course, Wonder Woman was a sterling effort by Patty Jenkins, only hampered by a poor final act and the feeling that the female superhero couldn’t quite shake off the trappings of Zac Snyder’s overarching vision for the DC Extended Universe.
Justice League was a steaming pile of mediocrity and Batman vs Superman was fun if entirely forgettable. Aquaman arrives on the scene with the hopes of Warner Bros. entire franchise on its shoulders. But is it any good?
After the events of Justice League and the defeat of Steppenwolf, Aquaman (Jason Momoa) finds himself caught between a surface world that ravages the sea and the underwater Atlanteans who are ready to revolt. Much like the murky depths of the many oceans the film takes us to, Aquaman is at times, a clouded and muddled blockbuster that lacks the subtle nuances of the MCU, but do you know what, it’s actually really rather good.
As we should have been expecting, Aquaman plays the sensible card when it comes to plot and features numerous references to how we as human beings are destroying our oceans, and this is more than welcome. With the ongoing environmental crisis, the more we plug it in mainstream films, the better.
Jason Momoa takes to the role of Arthur Curry like a duck to water and gets to prove his acting prowess in some of the film’s more poignant moments. Nicole Kidman marks her superhero movie debut as his mother, Queen Atlanna and she looks like she’s having a royally good time. Elsewhere, Amber Heard battles against a truly ghastly wig as Momoa’s love-interest and sidekick – she’s fabulous, wig aside.
The supporting cast is also very strong. We get to see superhero veteran Willem Dafoe having a great time as wise Vulko and Patrick Wilson as Aquaman’s scaly brother, Orm. It’s a cracking cast that bolsters a film that is well-written and enjoyable throughout.
Director James Wan, mastermind of the Saw franchise and director of Furious 7brings his trademark filming style to the superhero blockbuster. There’s some stunning imagery throughout and it’s up there with Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom as one of the best-looking films of the year. There’s something delightful to look at lurking in every frame and it’s leagues ahead of anything the DCEU has thrown at us.
The underwater world of Atlantis is brimming with life, albeit of the CGI variety. The neon colour-palate works incredibly well and it feels at times like you’re watching a Star Wars cloud city, but in the depths of the ocean. It’s nicely detailed and very well put together.
For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal
The special effects are on the whole, a bit of a mixed bag. The underwater worlds look fab and the sea creatures too have been improved after the critical mauling they received in the trailers. Nevertheless, there are some moments of shaky CGI, normally involving surface dwellers or Atlantean individuals, rather than scenery or creatures. That’s a shame as it distracts from a gorgeous looking film.
When it comes to villainy, both the DCEU and MCU have struggled to create compelling bad guys and unfortunately the same is true here. Yes, Patrick Wilson’s scheming brother is fun to watch, but he feels like a poor man’s Loki and that’s exactly what he is.
Then there’s Black Manta, portrayed by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II from The Greatest Showman. Despite being part of one of the film’s best sequences (a fantastically filmed rooftop chase in Italy), he doesn’t get to do a lot and his motives are very Killmonger-esque.
And therein lies the fundamental flaw with Aquaman. For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal. From Star Wars to Harry Potter and Thor to Black Panther, elements are borrowed here and there until they make up a film that at 143 minutes is a good 20 minutes too long.
But, it doesn’t take itself too seriously (a problem the DCEU has suffered previously) and Jason Momoa somehow manages to make that Aquaman suit work very well indeed. As far as the DCEU is concerned, this is by far the best film the franchise has put out so far – there’s life in the old dog yet. Aquaman is cheesy, campy fun, and I have to say, I really rather liked it. Just ignore the bad wigs.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/13/aquaman-review-bad-wigs-aside-its-really-rather-good/
Of course, Wonder Woman was a sterling effort by Patty Jenkins, only hampered by a poor final act and the feeling that the female superhero couldn’t quite shake off the trappings of Zac Snyder’s overarching vision for the DC Extended Universe.
Justice League was a steaming pile of mediocrity and Batman vs Superman was fun if entirely forgettable. Aquaman arrives on the scene with the hopes of Warner Bros. entire franchise on its shoulders. But is it any good?
After the events of Justice League and the defeat of Steppenwolf, Aquaman (Jason Momoa) finds himself caught between a surface world that ravages the sea and the underwater Atlanteans who are ready to revolt. Much like the murky depths of the many oceans the film takes us to, Aquaman is at times, a clouded and muddled blockbuster that lacks the subtle nuances of the MCU, but do you know what, it’s actually really rather good.
As we should have been expecting, Aquaman plays the sensible card when it comes to plot and features numerous references to how we as human beings are destroying our oceans, and this is more than welcome. With the ongoing environmental crisis, the more we plug it in mainstream films, the better.
Jason Momoa takes to the role of Arthur Curry like a duck to water and gets to prove his acting prowess in some of the film’s more poignant moments. Nicole Kidman marks her superhero movie debut as his mother, Queen Atlanna and she looks like she’s having a royally good time. Elsewhere, Amber Heard battles against a truly ghastly wig as Momoa’s love-interest and sidekick – she’s fabulous, wig aside.
The supporting cast is also very strong. We get to see superhero veteran Willem Dafoe having a great time as wise Vulko and Patrick Wilson as Aquaman’s scaly brother, Orm. It’s a cracking cast that bolsters a film that is well-written and enjoyable throughout.
Director James Wan, mastermind of the Saw franchise and director of Furious 7brings his trademark filming style to the superhero blockbuster. There’s some stunning imagery throughout and it’s up there with Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom as one of the best-looking films of the year. There’s something delightful to look at lurking in every frame and it’s leagues ahead of anything the DCEU has thrown at us.
The underwater world of Atlantis is brimming with life, albeit of the CGI variety. The neon colour-palate works incredibly well and it feels at times like you’re watching a Star Wars cloud city, but in the depths of the ocean. It’s nicely detailed and very well put together.
For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal
The special effects are on the whole, a bit of a mixed bag. The underwater worlds look fab and the sea creatures too have been improved after the critical mauling they received in the trailers. Nevertheless, there are some moments of shaky CGI, normally involving surface dwellers or Atlantean individuals, rather than scenery or creatures. That’s a shame as it distracts from a gorgeous looking film.
When it comes to villainy, both the DCEU and MCU have struggled to create compelling bad guys and unfortunately the same is true here. Yes, Patrick Wilson’s scheming brother is fun to watch, but he feels like a poor man’s Loki and that’s exactly what he is.
Then there’s Black Manta, portrayed by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II from The Greatest Showman. Despite being part of one of the film’s best sequences (a fantastically filmed rooftop chase in Italy), he doesn’t get to do a lot and his motives are very Killmonger-esque.
And therein lies the fundamental flaw with Aquaman. For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal. From Star Wars to Harry Potter and Thor to Black Panther, elements are borrowed here and there until they make up a film that at 143 minutes is a good 20 minutes too long.
But, it doesn’t take itself too seriously (a problem the DCEU has suffered previously) and Jason Momoa somehow manages to make that Aquaman suit work very well indeed. As far as the DCEU is concerned, this is by far the best film the franchise has put out so far – there’s life in the old dog yet. Aquaman is cheesy, campy fun, and I have to say, I really rather liked it. Just ignore the bad wigs.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/13/aquaman-review-bad-wigs-aside-its-really-rather-good/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Land of the Dead (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Twenty years after his last installment of the classic “Dead” zombie genre, landmark Horror writer/director George Romero has returned to the delight of fans worldwide.
After years of various horror projects, and remakes of his previous “Dead” films, fans had begun to wonder if they had seen the last of Romero’s Zombie films and had to content themselves with the remakes and rumored offshoots and sequels from such.
Thankfully, with Land of the Dead Romero has returned to his basics and has crafted a Zombie thriller that is not only better than 85’s disappointing “Day of the Dead”, but on par with the ground breaking “Dawn of the Dead and the classic Original “Night of the Living Dead.”
For those who are not familiar with the series, the dead have arisen and now walk the earth looking for humans to feed upon. Gone is any memory of their former selves, only the insatiable desire to feed remains. How this event happened is never explained in the films viewers simply have to accept that it is happening and that those who are bitten by zombies are destined to join the ranks of the undead.
Like the previous films, the story follows a group of humans who are attempting to survive against the zombie hordes and who seek shelter and a way to stave off the zombie masses.
In Land of the Dead, a group of survivors have taken refuge in a fortified city where the common folks live in the streets while the affluent live in pristine high rise complex with many of the luxuries of their past lives.
One such survivor is Riley (Simon Baker), who spends his time venturing beyond the walls of the city with his team as they attempt to locate food, medicines, and other needed items in cities that have been abandoned due to zombie infestation.
As the film opens, Riley is completing his last run as he plans to venture north to find a cold and desolated area that is devoid of zombies and huddled masses.
His second in command Cholo, (John Leguizamo), is anxious to take over, as he sees the expeditions as a chance to obtain valuable items such as cigars and whiskey, which he can in turn sell to those who live in luxury. This desire causes much friction between Riley and Cholo but with the pending departure of Riley, Cholo realizes he may be able to finally purchase a home of his own in the luxury high rise.
Things do not go as planned for Cholo as when he tells his boss, Kaufman (Dennis Hopper), about his plans to move into the new complex, he is shocked to learn that Riley’s prediction of class exclusions in the building apply to him as well.
Furious over being used and cheated of his dreams and money, and an attempt upon his life, Cholo decides to hijack a well-armed armored vehicle that defends the city in an effort to extort his payment from Kaufman.
At the same time, Riley has learned that he has be swindled from his car, and soon finds himself working with Kaufman in an attempt to recover the armored vehicle from Cholo before he unleashes a hail of rockets upon the city. In short order, Riley and his support team are forced to enter the zombie infested streets to save the day.
Of course with “Land” being a Zombie film, the city will soon find itself overrun with all manner of ghouls and there will be plenty of flesh splitting, blood spattering, gore spewing scenes that will delight fans of the genre and elicit more than a few shrieks and cheers from the audience.
It is learned that the zombies have started to evolve and as such, now communicate with each other in a basic way, which makes their attacks even more dangerous as they are organized and starting to use tools and weapons.
What this all ads up to is a thrilling romp that will delight fans of the genre. Sure the story and characters are not the deepest, but as horror films go, there is a complexity to them. Hopper does great work as Kaufman as his malicious and selfish nature provides the perfect focal point to the films numerous commentaries on topics ranging from social class, to politics and well fare as well as the plight of the inner cities.
The genius of Romero is that he can insert so many topics into the film without it every seeming heavy-handed or over the top. The use of social commentary adds strength to the story as while the characters are in a very unrealistic situation, their base desires, motivations and behaviors are easily identifiable and strong.
Some may see Land of the Dead as just another blood and guts film with a basic story that lacks depth. To those who are fans of the genre and series, “Land” will likely be seen as a triumphant return to the genre he made his own by Romero and will enjoy the ride.
After years of various horror projects, and remakes of his previous “Dead” films, fans had begun to wonder if they had seen the last of Romero’s Zombie films and had to content themselves with the remakes and rumored offshoots and sequels from such.
Thankfully, with Land of the Dead Romero has returned to his basics and has crafted a Zombie thriller that is not only better than 85’s disappointing “Day of the Dead”, but on par with the ground breaking “Dawn of the Dead and the classic Original “Night of the Living Dead.”
For those who are not familiar with the series, the dead have arisen and now walk the earth looking for humans to feed upon. Gone is any memory of their former selves, only the insatiable desire to feed remains. How this event happened is never explained in the films viewers simply have to accept that it is happening and that those who are bitten by zombies are destined to join the ranks of the undead.
Like the previous films, the story follows a group of humans who are attempting to survive against the zombie hordes and who seek shelter and a way to stave off the zombie masses.
In Land of the Dead, a group of survivors have taken refuge in a fortified city where the common folks live in the streets while the affluent live in pristine high rise complex with many of the luxuries of their past lives.
One such survivor is Riley (Simon Baker), who spends his time venturing beyond the walls of the city with his team as they attempt to locate food, medicines, and other needed items in cities that have been abandoned due to zombie infestation.
As the film opens, Riley is completing his last run as he plans to venture north to find a cold and desolated area that is devoid of zombies and huddled masses.
His second in command Cholo, (John Leguizamo), is anxious to take over, as he sees the expeditions as a chance to obtain valuable items such as cigars and whiskey, which he can in turn sell to those who live in luxury. This desire causes much friction between Riley and Cholo but with the pending departure of Riley, Cholo realizes he may be able to finally purchase a home of his own in the luxury high rise.
Things do not go as planned for Cholo as when he tells his boss, Kaufman (Dennis Hopper), about his plans to move into the new complex, he is shocked to learn that Riley’s prediction of class exclusions in the building apply to him as well.
Furious over being used and cheated of his dreams and money, and an attempt upon his life, Cholo decides to hijack a well-armed armored vehicle that defends the city in an effort to extort his payment from Kaufman.
At the same time, Riley has learned that he has be swindled from his car, and soon finds himself working with Kaufman in an attempt to recover the armored vehicle from Cholo before he unleashes a hail of rockets upon the city. In short order, Riley and his support team are forced to enter the zombie infested streets to save the day.
Of course with “Land” being a Zombie film, the city will soon find itself overrun with all manner of ghouls and there will be plenty of flesh splitting, blood spattering, gore spewing scenes that will delight fans of the genre and elicit more than a few shrieks and cheers from the audience.
It is learned that the zombies have started to evolve and as such, now communicate with each other in a basic way, which makes their attacks even more dangerous as they are organized and starting to use tools and weapons.
What this all ads up to is a thrilling romp that will delight fans of the genre. Sure the story and characters are not the deepest, but as horror films go, there is a complexity to them. Hopper does great work as Kaufman as his malicious and selfish nature provides the perfect focal point to the films numerous commentaries on topics ranging from social class, to politics and well fare as well as the plight of the inner cities.
The genius of Romero is that he can insert so many topics into the film without it every seeming heavy-handed or over the top. The use of social commentary adds strength to the story as while the characters are in a very unrealistic situation, their base desires, motivations and behaviors are easily identifiable and strong.
Some may see Land of the Dead as just another blood and guts film with a basic story that lacks depth. To those who are fans of the genre and series, “Land” will likely be seen as a triumphant return to the genre he made his own by Romero and will enjoy the ride.
JT (287 KP) rated Skyfall (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
I wondered recently who my favourite Bond is? Do I enjoy the comical quips of Roger Moore or the smooth suave debonair approach of Sean Connery. But everytime I think about it, I keep coming full circle to Daniel Craig, in particularly Skyfall.
After the somewhat disappointment of Quantum of Solace Oscar winning director Sam Mendes has taken Bond 23 and given it a grittier more emotional look while paying homage to some of the past Bond classics. The opening credits are an explosive introduction as we see Bond give chase through a Turkish bazaar which includes an impressive motor bike pursuit and a brilliantly choreographed fist fight on top of a moving train.
After being shot Bond is seen falling to his certain death and the film explodes into its trademark opening credits, complete with Adele’s powerful voice, a song that really evokes everything Bond. When 007 finally returns from the grave having spent time away partaking in scorpion drinking games, post shag Heineken’s and ultimately ’enjoying death’ he comes back to find that MI6 has moved deep into subterranean London after an attack on MI6.
He’s unshaven, disheveled and is a shadow of the former agent, not even able to shoot straight or do a succession of chin-ups without collapsing. Skyfall scratches deep beneath the emotional undertones of both Bond and M as their pasts are dragged up for all to see. Judi Dench in her seventh Bond outing gets a much bigger slice of the action, she is without question the main Bond girl here. Joined by Naomie Harris and Bérénice Marlohe who both take a relative back seat.
The Bond franchise has always had a rich tradition of producing menacing and iconic villains, Bloefeld, Scaramanga and Goldfinger to name a few, but the introduction of Javier Bardem will now have a place in Bond folk-law as one of the best modern day baddies.
His entrance was perfect, with Bond tied to a chair Bardem’s Silva (himself a former agent) entered from an elevator at the far side of the room, and in one take slowly walked forward as he produced a monologue about rats in a barrel, proceeding to taunt 007 about his own past and the connections that they both have with M.
The last few films have also lacked any real gadgetry in terms of Q branch, something which after being around for so long was definitely missing. Ben Wishaw’s appearance as a much younger Q, “you’ve still got spots” points out 007, was a much needed injection as he hands out Bond his new Walter PPK and radio transmitter (they don’t go in for exploding pens anymore).
It’s simple stuff but it was great to see that character back where he belongs.
There is subtle humour throughout and light hearted moments, Bond himself throwing a few winks here and there as Roger Moore used to do so well back in the day. The action of course is another high point, believable or not it’s stunning but then this is what we have come to expect from one of the longest running franchises in film history.
The locations and cinematography were sublime, from the depths of the London underground to the Scottish highlands in the film’s pulsating climax; Skyfall brought Bond back to Britain. The scenes set in Shanghai where also exceptional, the highlight for me, the neon lit skyscraper fight in which Bond fails to hang onto the information he needs, quite literally.
Ralph Fiennes bureaucratic Mallory is another casting masterstroke, Albert Finney ads some touching moments of his own, while MI6 agent Eve who after shooting 007 by mistake and takes a back seat from active duty will no doubt please many fans with her new role.
Skyfall, of which I was not sure what on earth the title meant at the time is all the more clear in the third act. Bond chooses to revisit his child hood home and use that against Silva in a make shift home defense that even MacAulay Culkin would be proud of. It is fantastically shot and is the perfect ending to a film that has been top draw all the way through.
Some comparisons have been drawn to this and The Dark Knight in that the main characters are lost and then re-born in some way, both have a past that haunts them as well as dead parents. Mendes and the writers have taken this film down a darker route but an emotive one as well and that is credit to them, it all made sense and the story flowed well.
Skyfall is nothing short of a triumph and has given Bond fans everything they could have asked for and so much more.
After the somewhat disappointment of Quantum of Solace Oscar winning director Sam Mendes has taken Bond 23 and given it a grittier more emotional look while paying homage to some of the past Bond classics. The opening credits are an explosive introduction as we see Bond give chase through a Turkish bazaar which includes an impressive motor bike pursuit and a brilliantly choreographed fist fight on top of a moving train.
After being shot Bond is seen falling to his certain death and the film explodes into its trademark opening credits, complete with Adele’s powerful voice, a song that really evokes everything Bond. When 007 finally returns from the grave having spent time away partaking in scorpion drinking games, post shag Heineken’s and ultimately ’enjoying death’ he comes back to find that MI6 has moved deep into subterranean London after an attack on MI6.
He’s unshaven, disheveled and is a shadow of the former agent, not even able to shoot straight or do a succession of chin-ups without collapsing. Skyfall scratches deep beneath the emotional undertones of both Bond and M as their pasts are dragged up for all to see. Judi Dench in her seventh Bond outing gets a much bigger slice of the action, she is without question the main Bond girl here. Joined by Naomie Harris and Bérénice Marlohe who both take a relative back seat.
The Bond franchise has always had a rich tradition of producing menacing and iconic villains, Bloefeld, Scaramanga and Goldfinger to name a few, but the introduction of Javier Bardem will now have a place in Bond folk-law as one of the best modern day baddies.
His entrance was perfect, with Bond tied to a chair Bardem’s Silva (himself a former agent) entered from an elevator at the far side of the room, and in one take slowly walked forward as he produced a monologue about rats in a barrel, proceeding to taunt 007 about his own past and the connections that they both have with M.
The last few films have also lacked any real gadgetry in terms of Q branch, something which after being around for so long was definitely missing. Ben Wishaw’s appearance as a much younger Q, “you’ve still got spots” points out 007, was a much needed injection as he hands out Bond his new Walter PPK and radio transmitter (they don’t go in for exploding pens anymore).
It’s simple stuff but it was great to see that character back where he belongs.
There is subtle humour throughout and light hearted moments, Bond himself throwing a few winks here and there as Roger Moore used to do so well back in the day. The action of course is another high point, believable or not it’s stunning but then this is what we have come to expect from one of the longest running franchises in film history.
The locations and cinematography were sublime, from the depths of the London underground to the Scottish highlands in the film’s pulsating climax; Skyfall brought Bond back to Britain. The scenes set in Shanghai where also exceptional, the highlight for me, the neon lit skyscraper fight in which Bond fails to hang onto the information he needs, quite literally.
Ralph Fiennes bureaucratic Mallory is another casting masterstroke, Albert Finney ads some touching moments of his own, while MI6 agent Eve who after shooting 007 by mistake and takes a back seat from active duty will no doubt please many fans with her new role.
Skyfall, of which I was not sure what on earth the title meant at the time is all the more clear in the third act. Bond chooses to revisit his child hood home and use that against Silva in a make shift home defense that even MacAulay Culkin would be proud of. It is fantastically shot and is the perfect ending to a film that has been top draw all the way through.
Some comparisons have been drawn to this and The Dark Knight in that the main characters are lost and then re-born in some way, both have a past that haunts them as well as dead parents. Mendes and the writers have taken this film down a darker route but an emotive one as well and that is credit to them, it all made sense and the story flowed well.
Skyfall is nothing short of a triumph and has given Bond fans everything they could have asked for and so much more.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Death Valley in Tabletop Games
Jan 18, 2022
This past summer, 2021, I had the opportunity to visit Las Vegas for the first time in my life. The casinos, the strip, the lights – everything was over-the-top and pretty impressive. But my trip took me beyond the city borders, as I got to visit several national parks and see some unique landmarks as well. One of which being Death Valley National Park. They’re not lying with the name – during my trip there, the temperature climbed to over 110°F. Does this pocket-sized game about the real-life location do justice to the scorching scenery? Keep reading to find out!
Death Valley is a game for 1-2 players in which you are documenting your journey across the Death Valley park. You will see different sights on your journey, and add cherished memories to your scrapbook. The player who amasses the most points by the end of the game is the winner! To setup for a game, shuffle the deck of Feature cards and reveal one face-up while the rest remain in a face-down deck. These cards make up the Desert. That’s it. The game is ready to start! Choose a starting player and get to sight-seeing!
Throughout the game, players will be adding Feature cards to their Journey tableau (places they have visited) and their Scrapbook tableau (the more memorable locations). On your turn, you will perform one of 2 actions: Travel or Rest. When you choose to Travel, you will select either the Feature card from the Desert (the face-up card), or draw the top card from the face-down deck and add it to your Journey. Conversely, when you choose to Rest, you will move a Feature card from your Journey into your Scrapbook. When moving Feature cards to your Scrapbook, you are allowed to hide other cards from your Journey underneath that card. Hiding cards can be beneficial for end-game points, or for preventing you from Busting. Many Feature cards have additional text at the bottom, that either provides ongoing abilities for the remainder of the game, or that provide extra scoring abilities at the end of the game. Choosing which Feature cards to move when and where is key!
After you have performed your chosen Action, you check to see if you Bust. If you have 3 Feature cards of the same type in your Journey and Scrapbook, you Bust! To resolve a Bust, you will discard from the game the right-most card in your Journey, and then will re-shuffle any remaining Journey cards back into the draw deck. So there’s a small element of push-your-luck in here! Once you resolve a Bust (if necessary), you will refresh the Desert – reveal a new face-up card if you just took the face-up card this turn. Your turn then ends, and play moves to your opponent. The game continues in this fashion, with players drawing/placing/moving Feature cards in their 2 tableaus, until only 1 card remains in the Desert. Points are then tallied: 1 point per Star on cards visible in your Journey, and points based on the extra scoring abilities of cards in your Journey and/or Scrapbook. The player with the highest score is declared the winner!
So, let’s get into this gameplay. For being a 2-player game, I appreciate that it’s not necessarily directly competitive. Yes, you want to score more points at the end of the game, but there really isn’t any player interaction, which keeps the energy level of the game more low-key. That being said, it’s decently strategic. Some Feature cards provide on-going abilities that can be used throughout the game, and can help you get some benefit out of a Bust. Certain card abilities rely on adjacency of other cards, so you have to know when/where to place a card to get the most points for the end of the game. That being said, you also have to make sure you don’t Bust. Luckily, you don’t resolve/check for a Bust until after you have performed your action, so perhaps you are able to sneak by with some clever planning. One part of the gameplay that misses the mark for me is the fact that you can only perform 1 Action per turn. I feel like that can really inhibit your ability to strategize, and makes it difficult to feel like you’re accomplishing something on your turns. Maybe if players had to perform both Actions per turn (either Travel/Rest, or vice versa), it would offer a few more options in terms of strategy. I just personally feel like taking only 1 Action per turn makes the gameplay a little too choppy, and makes it hard to really get into – especially when the game itself is so short. Maybe I’m not thinking strategically enough, but these are my thoughts thus far with Death Valley!
Components. As to be expected from ButtonShy – excellent quality of the cards and wallet. The artwork is colorful and thematic, and I just like looking at the different locations represented in the game. This game is satisfying to look at, and it earns high marks from me. Another neat thing? Each Feature card has a little interesting fact about its location, so you can learn a neat tidbit while playing the game!
Nothing can really compare to seeing Death Valley in person, but this game does offer a nice representation. The beauty of the location artwork coupled with the interesting facts has me intrigued outside of the game itself. The gameplay isn’t necessarily a home-run in my eyes, but it is strategic enough that I know I’ll keep pulling this one out from time to time. There is a solo mode, as well as a variant to give you more of a press-your-luck element, and I will definitely be trying those to see if they change my thoughts on this game. But for the time being, Purple Phoenix Games gives Death Valley a singed 4 / 6.
Death Valley is a game for 1-2 players in which you are documenting your journey across the Death Valley park. You will see different sights on your journey, and add cherished memories to your scrapbook. The player who amasses the most points by the end of the game is the winner! To setup for a game, shuffle the deck of Feature cards and reveal one face-up while the rest remain in a face-down deck. These cards make up the Desert. That’s it. The game is ready to start! Choose a starting player and get to sight-seeing!
Throughout the game, players will be adding Feature cards to their Journey tableau (places they have visited) and their Scrapbook tableau (the more memorable locations). On your turn, you will perform one of 2 actions: Travel or Rest. When you choose to Travel, you will select either the Feature card from the Desert (the face-up card), or draw the top card from the face-down deck and add it to your Journey. Conversely, when you choose to Rest, you will move a Feature card from your Journey into your Scrapbook. When moving Feature cards to your Scrapbook, you are allowed to hide other cards from your Journey underneath that card. Hiding cards can be beneficial for end-game points, or for preventing you from Busting. Many Feature cards have additional text at the bottom, that either provides ongoing abilities for the remainder of the game, or that provide extra scoring abilities at the end of the game. Choosing which Feature cards to move when and where is key!
After you have performed your chosen Action, you check to see if you Bust. If you have 3 Feature cards of the same type in your Journey and Scrapbook, you Bust! To resolve a Bust, you will discard from the game the right-most card in your Journey, and then will re-shuffle any remaining Journey cards back into the draw deck. So there’s a small element of push-your-luck in here! Once you resolve a Bust (if necessary), you will refresh the Desert – reveal a new face-up card if you just took the face-up card this turn. Your turn then ends, and play moves to your opponent. The game continues in this fashion, with players drawing/placing/moving Feature cards in their 2 tableaus, until only 1 card remains in the Desert. Points are then tallied: 1 point per Star on cards visible in your Journey, and points based on the extra scoring abilities of cards in your Journey and/or Scrapbook. The player with the highest score is declared the winner!
So, let’s get into this gameplay. For being a 2-player game, I appreciate that it’s not necessarily directly competitive. Yes, you want to score more points at the end of the game, but there really isn’t any player interaction, which keeps the energy level of the game more low-key. That being said, it’s decently strategic. Some Feature cards provide on-going abilities that can be used throughout the game, and can help you get some benefit out of a Bust. Certain card abilities rely on adjacency of other cards, so you have to know when/where to place a card to get the most points for the end of the game. That being said, you also have to make sure you don’t Bust. Luckily, you don’t resolve/check for a Bust until after you have performed your action, so perhaps you are able to sneak by with some clever planning. One part of the gameplay that misses the mark for me is the fact that you can only perform 1 Action per turn. I feel like that can really inhibit your ability to strategize, and makes it difficult to feel like you’re accomplishing something on your turns. Maybe if players had to perform both Actions per turn (either Travel/Rest, or vice versa), it would offer a few more options in terms of strategy. I just personally feel like taking only 1 Action per turn makes the gameplay a little too choppy, and makes it hard to really get into – especially when the game itself is so short. Maybe I’m not thinking strategically enough, but these are my thoughts thus far with Death Valley!
Components. As to be expected from ButtonShy – excellent quality of the cards and wallet. The artwork is colorful and thematic, and I just like looking at the different locations represented in the game. This game is satisfying to look at, and it earns high marks from me. Another neat thing? Each Feature card has a little interesting fact about its location, so you can learn a neat tidbit while playing the game!
Nothing can really compare to seeing Death Valley in person, but this game does offer a nice representation. The beauty of the location artwork coupled with the interesting facts has me intrigued outside of the game itself. The gameplay isn’t necessarily a home-run in my eyes, but it is strategic enough that I know I’ll keep pulling this one out from time to time. There is a solo mode, as well as a variant to give you more of a press-your-luck element, and I will definitely be trying those to see if they change my thoughts on this game. But for the time being, Purple Phoenix Games gives Death Valley a singed 4 / 6.
