Change Your Image
Zumbs
Reviews
Secrets of Blackmoor: The True History of Dungeons & Dragons (2019)
How roleplaying started
This documentary traces how the modern role playing game evolved from a group of war gamers, passionate for realistic and accurate battle simulations. Step by step they wanted to push the envelope, playing campaigns where they alternated between diplomacy and battles, drawing in storytelling and freedom to take actions not covered by the rules, e.g. talk to local peasants.
One step lead to another, sometimes with novel new ideas that eventually lead to Blackmoor, Chainmail and Dungeons & Dragons.
The fascinating story is mostly told by the survivors of the group of war gamers -- Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax are, sadly, no longer with us -- and focuses on Dave Arneson and the events leading to the development of Blackmoor.
I knew bits and pieces in advance, i.e. that role playing evolved from war gaming, but seeing the evolution (with certain revolutionary jumps) explained was quite interesting. I had no idea that a 1880s book to educate on military tactics proved to have such a profound influence on the hobby that I have been enjoying for 30 years.
It would have been nice to get a look at the early role playing games to see what elements they contained and why, but one can hope that this will be included in the sequel.
Disclaimer: I backed the project to create this documentary on Kickstarter, but I have no further stake in the documentary or the creators.
The Witcher (2019)
Broken timeline makes it too confusing for newcomers
Disclaimer: I have neither played the game or read the books that the series is based on, so my review is based on the merits of the show on its own.
The show jumps a lot in time, and does nothing to tell the viewer that it has jumped or how far. Some scenes happen in the "present" while others happen decades in the past. Helpful things like, say, showing a place and a date when a new string of story is told seems to be too hard for the showrunners to include, so they neither show nor tell.
This makes the plot weird and hard to follow, e.g. why does our hero go around doing odd jobs when he knows that there is a little girl in big trouble? (The answer is that he does not, because we have jumped umpteen years into the past.) Having seen the show, I see little reason for the story to not be told sequentially.
If I am so unhappy with this, why did I give the show an above average grade? Well, there is actually a good show in there. Most of the characters are interesting, understandable and display actual character growth for plausible reasons, which is uncommon.
The story line is mostly engaging, even though I would have liked a bit more world building, and I could not see why I should care about the international conflict. There is way too much destiny me this and destiny me that. If everything is resolved by destiny, where is the dramatic tension? The dialog is mostly good, but has some weird one-liners, especially in the first few episodes.
The set and costumes are good, as are the special effects.
Daredevil (2015)
Dark, violent and forgettable
Criminals are evil, and the only way to stop them from hurting good people is to have a vigilante hunt and kill them all. In the battle against Evil, the end justifies the means, and any objection is hippie hogwash. This is the basic premise of many an action movie, and it is also the basic premise of the Daredevil TV series. The main difference is that the vigilante is wearing a costume instead of regular clothes (ok, Punisher did that as well), and that he does not kill the criminals, though the first few episodes leave you wondering.
If that tired yarn is your thing, you are going to enjoy the series. If not, you will be bored with the main story pretty fast.
The action sequences are well choreographed, and if you are into kung fu movies, you will enjoy them, even though they are too long for my tastes. My main gripe with them is something else: Suspension of disbelief. There are a number of times where Daredevil gets into fights that should be impossible to win unless he was gifted with invulnerability and super strength, and yet, he wins without those abilities.
The best part of the series, however, is not Daredevil or his alter ego. Deborah Ann Woll (as Karen Page) and Elden Henson (as Foggy Nelson) brings some much needed humor, vulnerability and soul to the series, and there is an excellent chemistry between them. I really hope that we will see a lot more of them.
As usual in this type of series, most of the actors, especially those who have some sort of agency, are male. Of the leading criminals, only one is female. All the females appear to be quite weak physically, and need a strong (male) hero so save them. The cynic in me suspect that some of the female characters will be killed or maimed to provoke some emotional response in one or more of the male characters. I hope, I'm wrong, but only time will tell.
The lack of physically strong females is not surprising given that the comic book series that the series is based on started in the early 1960s, where the comics code authority required that all heroes and villains should be white men, and women were mostly there as rewards. Given that so many of the main characters of Daredevil (and many other comic books) were introduced and established back then, that crap is still weighing down on us today.
The creators of the TV series (fortunately) moved past the racism, but I am a bit sad that they only partially modernized the female characters when they were at it. Hopefully, it will come down the line.
As an adaption of the Daredevil comic book it is quite close to the original - if you like the comic book, you are going to like this. It should also be noted that the series gets better as it progresses, giving more space for story and character development. I may actually give 2nd season a chance.
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
What a Marvel!
Again the power of the characters and stories of Marvel Comics return to the silver screen to dazzle all who dare to behold! Tobey Maguire return as the Peter Parker, and give another touching performance as the human, torn between the woman he loves, the hero, and real life. This time, however, it seems to be working out. He's ready to propose to the love of his life, Mary Jane (great performance by Kirsten Dunst, btw), when the movie starts.
Then a storm of different problems come into his life - getting attacked by his former best friend, and new information on the murder of his uncle (enter Sandman) just to mention a few - which causes him to loose sight of what really matters. The performance by all actors range between good and great, but one really steal the picture: Thomas Haden Church as Sandman, a small time crook turned robber to get money for his little daughters operation (socialized medicine, anyone?), busts out of jail to get the money for the operation.
And again we see Sam Raimi follow in the footstep of some of the greatest of Marvels writers: Creating truly complex and believable characters - heroes aren't always perfect, villain aren't always evil. And not only that: The story allow the actors to show off their acting prowess. So a big thumbs up to the writers and director.
Only disappointment in Spiderman 3 is the addition of Venom. I never liked him - in the comic it felt like he was being added to sell more comics ("omg Venom rox") than to create a believable villain or move the story forward. Unfortunately, he'll probably be featured in Spiderman 4. Having said that, Sam Raimi actually manage to make Venom much more interesting than in the comic books.
All in all, this is a worthy addition to the Spiderman-saga. On some points it's the best, as it moved on from the "Peter Parker torn between love and Spiderman", and showed a Peter Parker older and more at peace with himself. It's definitely the darkest of the three, and that's not in everybodies taste. But I loved it! Hope you will to ...
Zombi 2 (1979)
Sub-standard zombie flick
A boat comes sailing into New York, and sends a reporter and a woman off to an island in the Caribbean. And then ... zombies attack! While the plot has interesting points, with some inspirations from other zombie flicks, it's fairly standard. The most interesting feature of the film is a fight between a shark and a zombie.
What really bothers me about this film is the total lack of survival instinct in the characters. They seem utterly uninterested in their own survival, especially the females who most of the time just look at their impending doom, waiting for it to catch up with them. This is bad. And even worse, it removes any notion of "suspension of disbelief" from the film. And hence, the low grade.
Cherez ternii k zvyozdam (1981)
A small Russian gem from the 80s
This movie begins when a spaceship discover another, derelict spaceship of unknown design and origin. They mount a salvage operation and discover that the crew are human of appearance but with considerable genetic differences. All but one (a woman) are dead.
Next, a group of scientists and officials discuss what to do with this alien called Neeya. They all want to study her, but should she be allowed to study humans as well? She doesn't seem to be able to communicate but has strong mental/telekinetic abilities. They decide to let her live in the house of one scientist with his family, under close surveillance.
As the story progresses we discover that she has a control center in her brain that allow others to take control over her - she has been designed like some sort of robot! Added to this story is a cast of interesting characters, a very unique alien, and lots of twists and turns to the main story.
The special effects are not as good as one have grown accustomed to from recent top-of-the-line Hollywood blockbusters, but they are okay, and manages to avoid being cheesy (which is the most important in my humble view).
All in all it is an excellent science fiction movie. I saw it in the theaters at a recent film festival in a restored version (from 2001 with English subtitles) and it was well worth the time and money. I give it 7/10 and recommend it to you all.