Watched a non-horror movie tonight, Ruby Sparks from 2012. It's the kind of movie that tacks a happy end on a story which would be better served without it.

(There will be spoilers).

The basic premise is as follows: a best-selling writer with writer's block writes a girlfriend who becomes real. She's the Ruby in the title. What he writes about her becomes true; something he proceeds to abuse.

Pro: The concept is an interesting one. It could be said to be about fiction-writing as wish-fulfillment, or as an excuse for not being a decent person. Or maybe it's about the idea of the non-threatening dream girl as it collides with reality (and a Real Person), and the creepiness that follows.
Paul Dano is good as the soft-spoken yet controlling writer-boyfriend, and Zoe Kazan (who wrote, produced and probably moonlighted as second unit gaffer) pretty much personifies the artsy non-threatening dream girl.
Asif Mandvi and Antonio Banderas have some small but funny roles as Dano's agent and stepfather respectively.

Con: It's unsubtle as fuck. This movie doesn't just make its points, it drives them home with a short-handled sledge. If you missed something, Deborah Ann Woll drops by as Dano's ex, articulating what even the people slurping Pepsi in the back row has grasped: Our main character wants a girlfriend that does not in any way challenge or annoy him.
The greatest sin is the mealy-mouthed happy end though. After writerboy's darkest moment, a sea-changed comes upon him. He writes an apologetic book about the whole thing, complete with self-congratulatory post-script (on a pristine Apple laptop, as if it was the mean typewriter what done it).
Then, of course he meets Ruby, who doesn't remember anything. They have a genuine meet cute, and it seems that romance is in the air. Eugh.
If I had my druthers, they would properly acknowledge writerboy's seriously unpleasant and controlling nature. Instead it's just magic'd away.

This entry was originally posted at http://hafwit.dreamwidth.org/23939.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

A pretty long bit of text, so it goes behind a cut.

( Read more...Collapse )

 In Dark Alleys is an rpg about people who have been touched by otherworldly forces, or have had some sort of reality-shattering experience. This has given them special insights and powers. This entry was originally posted at http://hafwit.dreamwidth.org/1254.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

I have received a review copy of the Leverage rpg!

Besides being all tingly about this, I'm also a bit nervous (in a mostly good way!) since this is the very first time I've been asked to review something. I gotta bring my a-game.

In the past I've reviewed everything from concerts to licorice. All for my own amusement.

I gotta run the game and get feedback for my players too.

Some of you people have done this sort of thing before. Anything I should be aware of or look out for? Anything you want to see/hat to see in a review?

Some time ago I read the horror anthology Gathering the Bones. The idea of the collection is to gather some of the best of US, UK and Australian horror short stories.

I think they've done a mostly good job. There's traditional horror here, punchy mini-thrillers, existential loathing, mind-fucks, dark satire, even an illustrated story by Gahan Wilson.

 

I'll give each story a few words, and a rating from zero to four stars. The grading system is really just a way for me to focus on each individual story and consider why I like it, since I'm often a fairly unreflective reader. Those stars may not do a thing for you, potential reader.

 

(There's a theoretical fifth star for life- or genre-changing stuff).
 

 

( Read more...Collapse )

 

I'm extremely picky about my Sherlock Holmes. The portrayal of him, I mean. For the longest time only Jeremy Brett would do. However I've been sufficiently intrigued by BBC's new Series Sherlock to try and watch it. It is an updated version of the characters, which helped me, I think.

John Watson is still a military doctor back from a grueling tour of duty in Afghanistan, and Sherlock Holmes is still the world's only consulting detective. He is also all the things that I've come to expect of the character, untidy, asocial, easily bored and utterly brilliant. He's also a younger Holmes, slightly more eager to prove himself.
Holmes is played by Benedict Cumberbatch. (The name sounds like a Harry Potter character, doesn't it?) I didn't know him before this series, but I'm pretty impressed. He does the boredom-to-laser-focus transition very well, the dramatic shift from Holmes without a case to Holmes when the game's afoot.
The danger of playing an iconic character is going through the motions, but failing to make the character come alive. Cumberbatch manages, and that is high praise.

Watson is not the bumbling fool he's sometimes portray as, but a practical and strong man, whose military background is as much a part of his character as the medicine. He is played by Martin Freeman (whom I know from The Office). He is doing a great job, playing an intelligent man with a low-key sense of humor, a lot of war-time baggage, and a bit of an adrenaline junkie too.

The partnership between the two develops quickly into a wonderful friendship, despite their differences, and it is done in a believable way, so that I pretty much considered them 'an item' at the end of the first episode. The 'shippers are already out there. I've seen them.

There are a few humorous jabs at the nature of their relationship (a Soho landlord referring to John as Sherlock's 'date', Mycroft archly asking John if 'a happy announcement' is in the cards), but it is quickly made clear that this is a bromance and not a romance.

The series is the brainchild of Steve Moffat and Mark Gatiss (Doctor Who, The League of Gentlemen, among other things). Mark also plays Sherlock's older brother Mycroft, an elegant and wonderfully smarmy take on that character.

Even with the addition of iPhone apps, internet and C.S.I shenanigans, the stories still rely on the same basic premise of deductive reason being the solution to all crimes, without ignoring or downplaying modern advances in technology. Moffat and Gatiss manage to add thse things in seamlessly, and often making very amusing use of something as ubiquitous as text messages.

The original stories are not used, except as jumping-off points for original creations. The first episode, A Study In Pink, contains some references to A Study In Scarlet, of course, but is a very different story. They've largely managed to retain the feel of a Holmes mystery, without covering the same ground again.

The second episode, The Blind Banker is the weakest of a good lot. The antagonists feel pulpy, which I don't mind, and a bit like a Yellow Peril stereotype, which may be a concern. The progress in the case feels a bit random at times, and less like good sleuthing. Despite this, it was very entertaining.

It is a short series with only three 90 minute episodes, though I'm told that more have been commissioned. I'm looking forward to it, as the third episode ended in a nerve-wracking cliffhanger!

(NB: Itras By exits in a Norwegian and a Finnish version. No translations are planned as far as I know. all translations in this review are by me, and entirely unofficial).

I'm reading the Norwegian rpg Itras By (Itra's City), and it is very interesting, as well as a little unusual.
The game bills itself as a surreal urban fable. The setting's Itra's City, a place that is steeped in 1920s tropes and color. Trams, flappers, jazz and anarchists. All that good stuff. It has no real geographical location, and is a few steps removed from the real world and into Kafka or Michael Ende-territory.

There are the Grimacers, a group of outcasts who pulled a face one time too many and found out that mom was right, it does get stuck that way.

There are cold nights where a layer of ice forms on the heavens themselves. The heaven-frost comes off in flakes, and these are used for rolling cigars.

In other words the everyday world operates partly according to dream-logic.

The setting is very well-written, it's full of nice hooks and opportunities for the GM, while at the same time leaving enough room for one's own inventions.

There are no dice and no quantified skills. This took a little getting used to for me, but I've grown to really like the system, as it fits the surreal setting very well.

The closest thing to character attributes are 'dramatic characteristics'. The players come up with these, but the book provides a few sample ones. Here's one, just to give you an idea:

Rajalingam: In Alan's ice box lives the ancient Indian wise man Rajalingam who knows everything. He provides cryptic wisdom and prophecy, all of which is completely true, but Alan never listens to him. It's almost as if Rajalingam didn't exist for Alan.

(Yes, I used that example before. I like it)

A character usually has between two and four of these. They can be good or bad, but mostly they're supposed to be interesting. Most of all they remind me of the Traits from Over The Edge, if you all remember that game.

The resolution mechanic is cards. The players themselves decide when a Resolution Card is to be drawn from the deck. The GM can't make them do so. Everyone can suggest it though.
The reasoning behind this is that the player owns his character and has control over it, and secondly that playing the game is something you develop together rather than the players exploring the GM's vision.
The cards have simple text that reads like something from improv theatre:

Yes, but... You succeed, but something completely unrelated goes wrong, for you or someone you care about.
Yes, but... You succeed, but lose something valuable in the process.
Yes, and... You succeed, and achieve more than you expected.
Yes, and... You succeed, and that gives you the initiative for a new thrust or follow-up.
No, but... You fail, but another positive thing happens instead, unrelated to what you were aiming for.
You need help. You end up understanding that you need the help of someone not currently in the scene to achieve this.
No, and… You fail, and something unrelated also goes wrong.
Yes, but only if... You can get what you want - but only if you choose to make a certain sacrifice.

The player who is attempting something designates another player or the GM to draw a card and interpret it. This is great fun, but it takes a lot more creativity than just interpreting a skill roll or two. It also requires that the participants are at least somewhat on the same page out of the gate.

The other deck of cards is the Chance Deck. Each player (including the GM) may draw one card from this deck each session. They influence a given scene (often pushing it towards the surreal) or even the way in which the scene is played. A few examples for the purpose of illustration:

Shit! I Remember: Play out a scene that has happened in the past, and is relevant to the present situation. The player who drew the card sets the scene and distributes roles.

It Just Got Worse! Something changes for the worse! The boat starts taking in water, an irate gang of confectioner’s apprentices show up, or your fiancé walks in at just the wrong time.

Amor Victor: The power of love influences the scene in some way. The details are up to you.

What Is Real? Reality twists and breaks, and you experience several things at once. Each player (but not the GM) get to narrate a version of what happens. After the last player has done so, reality goes *pling* and you decide which version really did happen.

The Chance Cards lead the story in unexpected directions and introduce new elements.

The book is rounded out with a lot of GM advice. The part I found most useful was the discussion of surrealism in gaming.

Itras By is a high-falutin' game (to use a technical term). It pretty much creates its own genre in rpgs and provides tools for that particular experienced. The game is focused, but it might not be for everyone, and certainly not all the time.

It's fookin' amazing for what it is though.

If you haven't tried it already, I can heartily recommend The Shab Al-Hiri Roach for an evening's entertainment. It is a light GM-less rpg, where the players take the part of faculty at a New England university in the year 1919. The characters are vying for status and sweet, sweet tenure, through social maneuvering and back-stabbing.

To this volatile mix is added the Roach, an insectile monster from pre-history who sees men as slaves. Having the insect live in your head gives you awesome perks, but the downside is that your character's controlled by an affront to decency and sanity. Also, you can't win the game with the Roach in your head. It's cool to have, but it must be gotten rid of at some point.

Play goes through six events, social occasions during the fall semester. During each event, players may each create a scene, something that happens, from a lecture, to a seduction, to a fist-fight. All players may narrate the presence of their own characters, and NPCs as well. Football teams, village idiots, regiments back from the Great War, everything's pretty much fair game. Go hog wild! During the course of our game, spouses, gardeners, campus cops and domestics were created from thin air, and popular co-eds and the university chaplains would turn up at the most unlikely places.
Stakes are set, and the scene culminates with the rolling of dice to see which side in a conflict wins.

A bit of libation with the game is pretty much prescribed, and when we played it, a fair amount of beer and tobacco was consumed.

Given the nature of the game and the time in which it set, it lends itself to political incorrectness. It is a good idea to be sure that you're on the same page with regards to what's allowed and what isn't.

In our game we had a patrician Bostonian professor of abstract geometry, a sport-loving Prussian professor of biology (with a bee in his bonnet about phrenology), a jewish professor of psychology with a drinking problem, and a womanizing British assistant professor of chemistry. It doesn't take much imagination to guess what sorts of insults flew across the table when we were playing through the Founder's Day Cheese & Wine Social (for instance).

Much of the scenes in the game feel like a British murder cozy where a couple of drug-addled monkeys had been introduced. My character, the math professor, was infested by the Roach from the beginning, and was compelled to beat up the chemistry professor and to consider the chancellor's office as a holy place.

Each event the players draw a card that they must act upon during one scene. These cards are open to interpretation, but usually have practical implications. We found the cards to be good catalysts for cool scenes, and not cramping our style at all.
During the last event (centered around a Christmas party) an insect-monster was regurgistated, a buffet table blown to smithereens, and ALL dirty laundry given a good airing. The cards suggested actions, but it was our creativity and sense of humor who gave the story form.

This is a cracker of a game, and doesn't require any real prep, beyond having one person who's able to explain the rules. Go nuts on campus!