Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated Happy Death Day (2017) in Movies
Oct 26, 2017
Plenty of humour (1 more)
Jessica Rothe is great
Enjoable Groundhog Day/Scream Mashup
It's not that scary, and there's no real blood or gore for die hard horror fans to enjoy, but Happy Death Day - the latest offering from Blumhouse Productions - still manages to deliver a wildly entertaining mashup of Groundhog Day and Scream.
College girl Tree Gelbman wakes up in the dorm of a boy she doesn't remember spending the night with. She has a pounding headache and can't wait to get out of there as quickly as possible. Sneering at the goth on her way out, avoiding the clipboard wielding tree hugger and blanking the less popular girl that smiles at her as she returns to her sorority house. Back in her room, her room mate has a birthday cupcake for Tree in honour of her special day, which she dumps in the bin on her way out to the class she's late for. Later on, we discover that she's sleeping with one of her college teachers, whose wife nearly catches them together. There certainly do seem to be a lot of people who have every right to be pissed at Tree. And, later that evening on her way to a party, Tree is approached by someone wearing a black hoodie and a baby mask. As the mysterious figure murders her, she wakes up, back in the boys dorm from that morning, and she finds herself having to endure her birth/death day once more.
Tree is understandably confused, as the days events begin to play out exactly as they did before, right up until the point where she's murdered again by the mask wearing killer. From there she goes through stages of anger, despair and acceptance, eventually coming to the conclusion that no matter what she does or where she hides, the Baby Faced killer is always going to find her and kill her, triggering the reset button on the day in the process. It's up to her to try and whittle down that big list of suspects, and take out the killer before they get chance to kill her. The only trouble is, each time that Tree dies the injuries she sustained leave a negative impact on her body, so she only has a limited number of days to find the killer and break the loop before she is gone forever.
So much of this movie rests on Jessica Rothe as Tree, and she just nails it, successfully moving Tree from victim to full-on bad-ass and becoming more and more likeable as she sets about changing her ways in order to get close to those potential suspects. There's a lot of humour throughout, and a pretty decent twist towards the end, just to keep you on your toes. Overall I really liked this. There's even a nice, last minute mention of Groundhog Day, the classic movie that this owes so much to.
College girl Tree Gelbman wakes up in the dorm of a boy she doesn't remember spending the night with. She has a pounding headache and can't wait to get out of there as quickly as possible. Sneering at the goth on her way out, avoiding the clipboard wielding tree hugger and blanking the less popular girl that smiles at her as she returns to her sorority house. Back in her room, her room mate has a birthday cupcake for Tree in honour of her special day, which she dumps in the bin on her way out to the class she's late for. Later on, we discover that she's sleeping with one of her college teachers, whose wife nearly catches them together. There certainly do seem to be a lot of people who have every right to be pissed at Tree. And, later that evening on her way to a party, Tree is approached by someone wearing a black hoodie and a baby mask. As the mysterious figure murders her, she wakes up, back in the boys dorm from that morning, and she finds herself having to endure her birth/death day once more.
Tree is understandably confused, as the days events begin to play out exactly as they did before, right up until the point where she's murdered again by the mask wearing killer. From there she goes through stages of anger, despair and acceptance, eventually coming to the conclusion that no matter what she does or where she hides, the Baby Faced killer is always going to find her and kill her, triggering the reset button on the day in the process. It's up to her to try and whittle down that big list of suspects, and take out the killer before they get chance to kill her. The only trouble is, each time that Tree dies the injuries she sustained leave a negative impact on her body, so she only has a limited number of days to find the killer and break the loop before she is gone forever.
So much of this movie rests on Jessica Rothe as Tree, and she just nails it, successfully moving Tree from victim to full-on bad-ass and becoming more and more likeable as she sets about changing her ways in order to get close to those potential suspects. There's a lot of humour throughout, and a pretty decent twist towards the end, just to keep you on your toes. Overall I really liked this. There's even a nice, last minute mention of Groundhog Day, the classic movie that this owes so much to.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Call Me by Your Name (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Of lazy Italian summer nights.
It took me two sittings on different transatlantic flights to get through Luca Guadagnino’s much vaunted coming of age film. And I accept that this piecemeal approach might not have enhanced my opinion of the movie. Because I’m going to upset some of you who claimed it to be your “film of the year” last year. While I enjoyed it, it certainly didn’t grab me like that.
What I will admit is that the film is gloriously sun-drenched and atmospheric, set as it is in the countryside around Crema in northern Italy. Shut your eyes and you can almost smell the olive trees and the bolognese simmering on the stove.
You have to hand it to them: the film just reeks of Italian class.
The story, set in 1983, concerns the 17 year-old musical prodigy Elio (Timothée Chalamet, “Lady Bird“, “Interstellar“) who, with his good looks, has the opportunity to seduce his fair share of Italian babes, specifically the gorgeous Marzia (Esther Garrel) who has the hots for him. Although not one to look a gift vagina in the mouth, Elio is sexually conflicted and finds himself increasingly drawn, romantically, to the dashing and cock-sure 24-year old American visitor Oliver (Armie Hammer, “Free Fire“, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“): a feeling that is, initially, reluctantly returned.
Love unrequited. Lady in red Marzia (Esther Garrel) – will she be eventually told to get on her bike?
The Oscar-winning screenplay by James Ivory (he of Merchant and Ivory production fame) is rich and deep with lines that roll off the actors’ tongues like syrup. The action also includes the most inappropriate use of foodstuffs since “American Pie” (and presumably that went in the bin afterwards!).
Family times around the dinner table can get exceptionally loud.
The drama is slow and drawn-out, so action-film fans will be asleep within the first 30 minutes. That wasn’t a problem for me…. it is a film in which you can really soak up the atmosphere. And it exquisitely explores the genuine pain of first love.
The pain of first love.
But what I’m afraid I really couldn’t relate to was Elio’s action about half-way through the film. In the main, he acts as a typically introspective and sensitive teenager, slightly awkward and bashful in approaching sexual matters. But then in a pivotal scene he makes a daring move which – to me – seemed completely out of character. This rather threw me, and I never really got my equilibrium back with the movie after that.
Elio and Oliver…. with Elio about to do something out of character.
It’s no doubt a finely crafted film. The sex scenes are beautifully shot and could never be accused of veering towards the pornographic. But I’m honestly not sure it’s a film that gripped me enough to seek it out to watch again in the future. (Sorry CMBYN lovers!)
What I will admit is that the film is gloriously sun-drenched and atmospheric, set as it is in the countryside around Crema in northern Italy. Shut your eyes and you can almost smell the olive trees and the bolognese simmering on the stove.
You have to hand it to them: the film just reeks of Italian class.
The story, set in 1983, concerns the 17 year-old musical prodigy Elio (Timothée Chalamet, “Lady Bird“, “Interstellar“) who, with his good looks, has the opportunity to seduce his fair share of Italian babes, specifically the gorgeous Marzia (Esther Garrel) who has the hots for him. Although not one to look a gift vagina in the mouth, Elio is sexually conflicted and finds himself increasingly drawn, romantically, to the dashing and cock-sure 24-year old American visitor Oliver (Armie Hammer, “Free Fire“, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“): a feeling that is, initially, reluctantly returned.
Love unrequited. Lady in red Marzia (Esther Garrel) – will she be eventually told to get on her bike?
The Oscar-winning screenplay by James Ivory (he of Merchant and Ivory production fame) is rich and deep with lines that roll off the actors’ tongues like syrup. The action also includes the most inappropriate use of foodstuffs since “American Pie” (and presumably that went in the bin afterwards!).
Family times around the dinner table can get exceptionally loud.
The drama is slow and drawn-out, so action-film fans will be asleep within the first 30 minutes. That wasn’t a problem for me…. it is a film in which you can really soak up the atmosphere. And it exquisitely explores the genuine pain of first love.
The pain of first love.
But what I’m afraid I really couldn’t relate to was Elio’s action about half-way through the film. In the main, he acts as a typically introspective and sensitive teenager, slightly awkward and bashful in approaching sexual matters. But then in a pivotal scene he makes a daring move which – to me – seemed completely out of character. This rather threw me, and I never really got my equilibrium back with the movie after that.
Elio and Oliver…. with Elio about to do something out of character.
It’s no doubt a finely crafted film. The sex scenes are beautifully shot and could never be accused of veering towards the pornographic. But I’m honestly not sure it’s a film that gripped me enough to seek it out to watch again in the future. (Sorry CMBYN lovers!)
Sheridan (209 KP) rated the Xbox One version of Fallout 76 in Video Games
Dec 29, 2018
Challenging Gameplay (3 more)
Huge Open World
Ability to Modify Items
CAMP Set Up
Tragic Graphics (4 more)
Online Only
No Dogmeat :(
STASH box limit
Feels Repetitive
A Game to End an Epic Series?
Let's face it - there's a lot of Fallout fans out there and these fans have a whole heap to say about this game. The big question is - is this a game for the fans? Not really, no. I don't *hate* it, but I'm not totally on board with it either. Now I've been playing the Fallout games for a very long time, I've completed both Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas serveral times and have completed the majority of Fallout 4 too. Fallout 76 is just - not a good game. There are aspects I quite like - the CAMP, the STASH boxes littered around so you don't have to fast travel all the time, the ability to modify weapons and amour, the huge open world to explore - I like all of that. What I hate is that it just doesn't feel like a Fallout game, the storyline just isn't there - I don't just start playing and realise literal hours have passed. There's no NPCs, no companions and worst of all there's no Dogmeat. I mean, sure other companions I understand, it's an online only game, I can see how running around with a crew could become combersome but - I miss my doggo! I can't stand that it's online only - sure give us the option to but I've never been a fan of being forced to play online, I game to relax, not to interact with others - plus no pause is extremely annoying. The graphics are terrible considering what other companies have come out with in 2018, it feels like FO3 graphics. The limit on the STASH box is currently 600lbs but mine is full and I keep having to get rid of stuff that I actually need. The repetitive going back and forth on missions and having to travel from one side of the map to the other while doing a mission is extremely frustrating, especially considering you're pretty much always carrying too much stuff (you literally need a ton of weapons, ammo, food & water to survive).
Overall I don't love it, but I don't hate it.
In short;
Was it worth the $120 preorder price? F**k no.
Is it something I'll play complusively until I've done everything?
No.
Does it ensare you and leave you excited to play again?
No.
Does it exceed Bethesda's big exciting lead up to release?
Certainly not.
Is it the worst game ever?
No, not really.
Is it truly a Fallout game?
Nope.
Does it feel like a dodgy, half-assed turd that the developers crapped out to make money?
Why, yes, yes it does.
Is it a game for Fallout fans?
Maybe, if you're into online play with friends then I guess? If you look past all the bugs, the sub-par graphics and the dull unimaginative storyline sure, this might be a game for you.
Would I recommend it?
No, not unless it's in the $20 bin at EB and you have literally NOTHING else to play.
I'm just saying if this game were a puddle, I could stand in it bare foot and not get my feet wet - that's how much depth it has...
It isn't the *worst* thing I've spent money on (Technomancer takes that spot with Recore as a close second), but it's definitely not something to play if you're a Fallout fan. Just stick to the old stuff, it's waaaay better...
Overall I don't love it, but I don't hate it.
In short;
Was it worth the $120 preorder price? F**k no.
Is it something I'll play complusively until I've done everything?
No.
Does it ensare you and leave you excited to play again?
No.
Does it exceed Bethesda's big exciting lead up to release?
Certainly not.
Is it the worst game ever?
No, not really.
Is it truly a Fallout game?
Nope.
Does it feel like a dodgy, half-assed turd that the developers crapped out to make money?
Why, yes, yes it does.
Is it a game for Fallout fans?
Maybe, if you're into online play with friends then I guess? If you look past all the bugs, the sub-par graphics and the dull unimaginative storyline sure, this might be a game for you.
Would I recommend it?
No, not unless it's in the $20 bin at EB and you have literally NOTHING else to play.
I'm just saying if this game were a puddle, I could stand in it bare foot and not get my feet wet - that's how much depth it has...
It isn't the *worst* thing I've spent money on (Technomancer takes that spot with Recore as a close second), but it's definitely not something to play if you're a Fallout fan. Just stick to the old stuff, it's waaaay better...
JT (287 KP) rated RoboCop (2014) in Movies
Mar 17, 2020
Reboot taints the original's good name
If you’re going to remake one of the 80s most iconic action films you’ve got to do it with some balls. Sadly José Padilha dropped this particular ball, pretty spectacularly in fact, to give us a sorry remake and leave fans of the original baying for blood (something which was missing in this).
It’s a story that was disjointed, rushed and ill-conceived in every possible way, with a leading actor who was miscast and non-believable in the role he was trusted to uphold. Kinnaman is Alex Murphy a Detroit Detective whose ill-fated sting operation ends badly after his cover is blown leaving him high on the villains most wanted list.
In the background is OmniCorp a leading company in robot technology priding itself on making the world a safer place with drones and the all too familiar ED-209 looking to serve and protect. Lead by CEO Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) the initiative has not reached American soil due to Government legislation and a bill that prohibits the use of robots on the streets.
Needing a new way to reach the public, Sellars turns to Murphy as a part-man part machine creation to reach out and grab justice by the throat and give America the hope it longs for, and a hero to put their faith in. The PG-13 rating and lack of graphic violence is stark contrast to the original, while the action scenes might be slick and bolstered with nifty CGI it does little to hide the fact that there isn’t a drop of claret anywhere to be seen.
While not completely adhering to the original it nods in its direction a few times, but only because it has to appease the die-hard fan. Once Robocop is up and about after being resurrected under the watchful eye of Dr Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman) he goes on a quick hunt to bring the perpetrators who tried to have him killed to justice.
Unlike Clarence J. Boddicker, Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow) is only a bit part villain, hopelessly moving illegal guns around the city he’s duly finished off in one of the film’s more colourful action shoot outs. The film is comical but not in a good way when Murphy demands to see what is behind the suit you almost laugh and then hang your head that Padilha could have included and thought up such a ridiculous scene.
Supporting cast do little to add much either, Samuel L. Jackson waves his arms and shouts a lot like a current affairs news anchor that in some way pays homage to the cut to’s of the Casey Wong era. Abbie Cornish is shockingly bad, and Jackie Earle Haley as much so, all in all, a pity. Only Oldman provides any shinning light in something that was slumping before it had even made it halfway through.
Robocop continues his quest back into the Detroit Police department, where corruption is rife and all trailing back to OmniCorps big cheese in charge, culminating in a finale that does little to finish on a high note. Paul Verhoeven will be able to rest easy at night knowing that his 1987 classic will continue to live long in the memory of true Robocop fans, while its 2014 compatriot should be cast aside into the recycle bin.
It’s a story that was disjointed, rushed and ill-conceived in every possible way, with a leading actor who was miscast and non-believable in the role he was trusted to uphold. Kinnaman is Alex Murphy a Detroit Detective whose ill-fated sting operation ends badly after his cover is blown leaving him high on the villains most wanted list.
In the background is OmniCorp a leading company in robot technology priding itself on making the world a safer place with drones and the all too familiar ED-209 looking to serve and protect. Lead by CEO Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) the initiative has not reached American soil due to Government legislation and a bill that prohibits the use of robots on the streets.
Needing a new way to reach the public, Sellars turns to Murphy as a part-man part machine creation to reach out and grab justice by the throat and give America the hope it longs for, and a hero to put their faith in. The PG-13 rating and lack of graphic violence is stark contrast to the original, while the action scenes might be slick and bolstered with nifty CGI it does little to hide the fact that there isn’t a drop of claret anywhere to be seen.
While not completely adhering to the original it nods in its direction a few times, but only because it has to appease the die-hard fan. Once Robocop is up and about after being resurrected under the watchful eye of Dr Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman) he goes on a quick hunt to bring the perpetrators who tried to have him killed to justice.
Unlike Clarence J. Boddicker, Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow) is only a bit part villain, hopelessly moving illegal guns around the city he’s duly finished off in one of the film’s more colourful action shoot outs. The film is comical but not in a good way when Murphy demands to see what is behind the suit you almost laugh and then hang your head that Padilha could have included and thought up such a ridiculous scene.
Supporting cast do little to add much either, Samuel L. Jackson waves his arms and shouts a lot like a current affairs news anchor that in some way pays homage to the cut to’s of the Casey Wong era. Abbie Cornish is shockingly bad, and Jackie Earle Haley as much so, all in all, a pity. Only Oldman provides any shinning light in something that was slumping before it had even made it halfway through.
Robocop continues his quest back into the Detroit Police department, where corruption is rife and all trailing back to OmniCorps big cheese in charge, culminating in a finale that does little to finish on a high note. Paul Verhoeven will be able to rest easy at night knowing that his 1987 classic will continue to live long in the memory of true Robocop fans, while its 2014 compatriot should be cast aside into the recycle bin.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Sweeping up a few older films that I wanted to see but missed at the cinema in the last few years. My current IMDb watch list sits at 488, and, unlike this movie, never seems to shrink! There is a lot to keep up with. Bad reviews have kept me away from Alexander Payne’s Downsizing until now. I have to say, without the burden of expectation, it is a lot better than I thought it would be.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Blinded by the Light (2019) in Movies
Jul 10, 2019
Not the feel good hit I was expecting
Blinded by the Light is based on a memoir by Guardian journalist Sarfaz Manzoor (who is also one of the screenwriters on the movie) and is directed by Gurinder Chadha (also one of the screenwriters), who had a hit back in 2002 with Bend it like Beckham. I remember seeing the trailer for this before watching Rocketman recently and it certainly looked like a pretty enjoyable 80s based British movie, set to a soundtrack of Bruce Springsteen songs. Unfortunately though, this turned out to be just a fairly average and generic drama, enjoyable at times, but kind of just meandering along and not really working for me.
The movie takes place in Luton during 1987, focusing on Pakistani teenager Javed (Viveik Kalra) as he struggles to find balance and purpose in his life against the backdrop of a Britain that's ruled by Margaret Thatcher and dominated by unemployment, uncertainty and racial tension. His father has very old fashioned views and his expectations for Javed begin to conflict with his own. Tensions within the family increase when his father is made redundant from the Vauxhall factory he has worked at for many years and Javed's dreams of becoming a writer don't really sit well with his father in terms of being a worthwhile career route. Javed begins sixth form college where his eyes are soon opened to a much bigger world, full of potential. And full of girls!
Everything comes to a head for Javed on the night of the famous UK storm of 1987. We see the infamous Michael Fish weather forecast on TV and a frustrated Javed, having dumped all of his poems outside in the bin, returning to his room and plugging into his Walkman the Bruce Springsteen cassette borrowed from his friend Roops. The song lyrics immediately click and resonate with Javed and we see them flashing up on the screen as he listens, swirling around his head or flashing up on walls. At the same time we see him remembering earlier scenes from the movie, elements of his life with which connect him with the message within the music, in a kind of low-key 80s music video style. It gives the impression of a major turning point in the movie, and the kind of uplifting musical direction in which the movie is heading. In a way, it kind of is, particularly with regard to Javed's 'awakening'. However, in terms of the musical sequences beyond this one, they're more along the lines of random singing and dancing at school or out on the town. It's more awkward and confusing than uplifting and enjoyable.
Blinded by the Light felt like the combination of a number movies I've seen before, with nothing really elevating it beyond those in terms of originality. So many generic characters - from the father stuck in his ways, dictating how his son should live his life, to the supportive and encouraging teacher (Hayley Atwell, on fine form here). And so many clichéd moments too - the best example being when an emotional Javed is arguing with his angry father and repeatedly waving in front of him the concert tickets he just bought without his knowledge. Three guesses as to what happens next...!
Overall, I didn't completely dislike this movie. I liked the 80s school setting, as that was the period that I was in secondary school, so could relate to that. But it also feels like the kind of movie drama that they used to make in the 80s too, and I expect more from my cinema experience these days. It also seems to be getting the usual "one of the best movies this year" phrase thrown at it though, something which I think is bandied around a little too freely at the moment. I put it squarely in the same camp as another movie from this year - Wild Rose, another movie that didn't really do it for me - so if you were one of the many people who enjoyed that movie, then Blinded by the Light will be well worth your time.
The movie takes place in Luton during 1987, focusing on Pakistani teenager Javed (Viveik Kalra) as he struggles to find balance and purpose in his life against the backdrop of a Britain that's ruled by Margaret Thatcher and dominated by unemployment, uncertainty and racial tension. His father has very old fashioned views and his expectations for Javed begin to conflict with his own. Tensions within the family increase when his father is made redundant from the Vauxhall factory he has worked at for many years and Javed's dreams of becoming a writer don't really sit well with his father in terms of being a worthwhile career route. Javed begins sixth form college where his eyes are soon opened to a much bigger world, full of potential. And full of girls!
Everything comes to a head for Javed on the night of the famous UK storm of 1987. We see the infamous Michael Fish weather forecast on TV and a frustrated Javed, having dumped all of his poems outside in the bin, returning to his room and plugging into his Walkman the Bruce Springsteen cassette borrowed from his friend Roops. The song lyrics immediately click and resonate with Javed and we see them flashing up on the screen as he listens, swirling around his head or flashing up on walls. At the same time we see him remembering earlier scenes from the movie, elements of his life with which connect him with the message within the music, in a kind of low-key 80s music video style. It gives the impression of a major turning point in the movie, and the kind of uplifting musical direction in which the movie is heading. In a way, it kind of is, particularly with regard to Javed's 'awakening'. However, in terms of the musical sequences beyond this one, they're more along the lines of random singing and dancing at school or out on the town. It's more awkward and confusing than uplifting and enjoyable.
Blinded by the Light felt like the combination of a number movies I've seen before, with nothing really elevating it beyond those in terms of originality. So many generic characters - from the father stuck in his ways, dictating how his son should live his life, to the supportive and encouraging teacher (Hayley Atwell, on fine form here). And so many clichéd moments too - the best example being when an emotional Javed is arguing with his angry father and repeatedly waving in front of him the concert tickets he just bought without his knowledge. Three guesses as to what happens next...!
Overall, I didn't completely dislike this movie. I liked the 80s school setting, as that was the period that I was in secondary school, so could relate to that. But it also feels like the kind of movie drama that they used to make in the 80s too, and I expect more from my cinema experience these days. It also seems to be getting the usual "one of the best movies this year" phrase thrown at it though, something which I think is bandied around a little too freely at the moment. I put it squarely in the same camp as another movie from this year - Wild Rose, another movie that didn't really do it for me - so if you were one of the many people who enjoyed that movie, then Blinded by the Light will be well worth your time.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Toy Story 4 (2019) in Movies
Jun 24, 2019 (Updated Jun 24, 2019)
I really can't believe it's been 9 years since Toy Story 3! It's even more unbelievable to think that the first Toy Story came out in 1995, meaning these beloved characters have now been with us for nearly a quarter of a century! I don't think anybody really expected, or even thought we needed, yet another sequel to these movies, as Toy Story 3 seemed to give us a natural, and highly emotional conclusion to the series. And yet here we are with number 4. Interestingly, I felt the trailers for this Toy Story didn't really highlight anything new and exciting for the series, possibly only existing as a bit of a cash grab. Thankfully, there's a lot here that's new and exciting, and I'm sure it will make a tonne of money too!
Toy Story 4 begins by taking us back 9 years, to a scene which helps to explain the absence of Bo Peep from the last movie, before bringing us back to present day. The gang are all right where we left them, living with Bonnie and being played with regularly. Although, worryingly for Woody, he seems to be getting left behind in Bonnie's wardrobe on a more regular basis during the play sessions. Overlooked in favour of the other toys and, worse still, even having his sheriff badge removed and placed on Jessie!
Woody still feels a duty of care towards Bonnie though, so when a taster day at kindergarten arrives, Woody decides to accompany a very nervous Bonnie for the day, stowing away in her backpack. We then get to relive what all of us have been through at some point during our younger years - going somewhere new and feeling very alone, scared, out of your comfort zone and thinking that everyone dislikes you. Woody does his best to try and make the day more bearable for Bonnie, without being seen of course, throwing discarded craft items from the bin so that she has something to work with during craft time.
Back in Bonnie's room later on, Woody reveals to the rest of the toys the result of Bonnie's crafting session - a spork with googly eyes, pipe-cleaner arms and a broken ice lolly stick for feet. His name is Forky and, having effectively just been 'born', Forky struggles to understand who he is, what he is or why he is. He's also constantly drawn to trash bins, as that's where he came from. As Bonnie's new favourite toy, Woody takes on the role of guardian, repeatedly removing Forky from the bins and ensuring that he's never out of Bonnie's sight in what is a very funny 15 minutes or so. So when Bonnie and her parents head out on a road trip with all the toys, and Forky leaps from the back of the RV, it's up to Woody to go find him and bring him back to Bonnie before she notices.
The journey back to Bonnie isn't quite that straightforward though. Side plots involving an antique store and a fairground provide lots of opportunities for drama and humour and also introduce us to some great new characters. But, Toy Story 4 is primarily about Woody and his journey of self discovery. He learns about what it means to be a toy and his experiences throughout the movie give him an insight into the very different lives that the toys he encounters have all experienced. What it's like to be without a child, whether you desperately want to be with one or aren't really bothered. The only downside of all of this is that the rest of our core team of characters from the original movies are pretty much sidelined, serving only to remain together back in Bonnie's room or the RV while they wait for word back on whether or not Woody is OK. Buzz does get a bit more involved in things than the others do, but seems to have reverted to being slightly dumb in a way that we haven't seen since the first movie.
But these are all very minor negatives. Toy Story 4 is very funny, with much of that humour stemming from the new characters, particularly stunt-rider Duke Caboom and fairground fluffy toys Ducky and Bunny. It's definitely not as sad as Toy Story 3 was, but it does manage to be pretty emotional at times as it tugs at the heartstrings and makes you think a little bit deeper about life, death and creation. After nearly 25 years though, it's incredible that these characters still manage to deliver such satisfyingly enjoyable movies. And if this really is the end of Toy Story movies, it's a great way to end the series.
Toy Story 4 begins by taking us back 9 years, to a scene which helps to explain the absence of Bo Peep from the last movie, before bringing us back to present day. The gang are all right where we left them, living with Bonnie and being played with regularly. Although, worryingly for Woody, he seems to be getting left behind in Bonnie's wardrobe on a more regular basis during the play sessions. Overlooked in favour of the other toys and, worse still, even having his sheriff badge removed and placed on Jessie!
Woody still feels a duty of care towards Bonnie though, so when a taster day at kindergarten arrives, Woody decides to accompany a very nervous Bonnie for the day, stowing away in her backpack. We then get to relive what all of us have been through at some point during our younger years - going somewhere new and feeling very alone, scared, out of your comfort zone and thinking that everyone dislikes you. Woody does his best to try and make the day more bearable for Bonnie, without being seen of course, throwing discarded craft items from the bin so that she has something to work with during craft time.
Back in Bonnie's room later on, Woody reveals to the rest of the toys the result of Bonnie's crafting session - a spork with googly eyes, pipe-cleaner arms and a broken ice lolly stick for feet. His name is Forky and, having effectively just been 'born', Forky struggles to understand who he is, what he is or why he is. He's also constantly drawn to trash bins, as that's where he came from. As Bonnie's new favourite toy, Woody takes on the role of guardian, repeatedly removing Forky from the bins and ensuring that he's never out of Bonnie's sight in what is a very funny 15 minutes or so. So when Bonnie and her parents head out on a road trip with all the toys, and Forky leaps from the back of the RV, it's up to Woody to go find him and bring him back to Bonnie before she notices.
The journey back to Bonnie isn't quite that straightforward though. Side plots involving an antique store and a fairground provide lots of opportunities for drama and humour and also introduce us to some great new characters. But, Toy Story 4 is primarily about Woody and his journey of self discovery. He learns about what it means to be a toy and his experiences throughout the movie give him an insight into the very different lives that the toys he encounters have all experienced. What it's like to be without a child, whether you desperately want to be with one or aren't really bothered. The only downside of all of this is that the rest of our core team of characters from the original movies are pretty much sidelined, serving only to remain together back in Bonnie's room or the RV while they wait for word back on whether or not Woody is OK. Buzz does get a bit more involved in things than the others do, but seems to have reverted to being slightly dumb in a way that we haven't seen since the first movie.
But these are all very minor negatives. Toy Story 4 is very funny, with much of that humour stemming from the new characters, particularly stunt-rider Duke Caboom and fairground fluffy toys Ducky and Bunny. It's definitely not as sad as Toy Story 3 was, but it does manage to be pretty emotional at times as it tugs at the heartstrings and makes you think a little bit deeper about life, death and creation. After nearly 25 years though, it's incredible that these characters still manage to deliver such satisfyingly enjoyable movies. And if this really is the end of Toy Story movies, it's a great way to end the series.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Richard Jewell (2019) in Movies
Jan 15, 2020
Richard Jewell tells the true story of a security guard, hailed a hero for spotting a suspicious package at the 1996 Olympic games in Atlanta, before going on to be accused of masterminding the whole thing and having his life turned upside down by the media and the FBI. Directed by Clint Eastwood, Richard Jewell is another one of those stories from recent history that I knew very few details about, other than there was a bombing at the Olympics, and it's a story that clearly deserves to be told.
We start by getting to know a bit about Richard Jewell (Paul Walter Hauser) and how he eventually found himself working security at such a high profile event. When we first meet Richard, he's working as a supply clerk for a public law firm in 1986. He meets attorney Watson Bryant (Sam Rockwell), who can be heard from across the other side of the office loudly and angrily shouting at somebody on the phone. He's not much friendlier to Richard when he puts the phone down either, discovering that Richard has very kindly replaced some stationery in his desk drawers, and even added some more Snickers bars in there after noticing empty wrappers in Watson's bin. But the pair do eventually build up a good rapport, even sharing an interest in playing video games at a local arcade during their lunch breaks.
Richard eventually leaves the firm to become a security guard at a college. With dreams of some day working his way up into law enforcement, Richard takes his role a bit too seriously, resulting in a number of complaints being made to the dean and his subsequent dismissal. Having moved in with his mother Bobi (Kathy Bates) in Atlanta, Richard lands a job working security at the Olympic games, working alongside police officers in Centennial Park during a number of events. His mother joins him to enjoy a Kenny Rogers concert one night, and then a few nights later Richard gets to work while his favourite group are playing. It's during that time, while trying to move on a group of drunk and rowdy boys, that Richard notices a suspicious backpack beneath a nearby bench. Police are alerted, and the backpack is determined to be carrying a bomb. As Richard and the police officers try to disperse the crowd, the bomb detonates and casualties are much lower than they could have been. Richard is hailed a hero.
As Richard quickly begins appearing on TV, and being offered book deals, the FBI begin their investigation. Agent Shaw (Jon Hamm) was there when the bomb went off and feels responsible for something that happened on his watch, so is determined to find the man responsible. It's not long before they decide that Richard fits the profile of previous bombers - a wannabe police officer who carries out attacks and then seeks fame and glory by helping out his victims. The situation isn't helped when ballsy reporter Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde), who will go to any lengths to get her story, including sleeping around, publishes a front page story declaring Richard to be prime suspect with the FBI. From there, Richard's life, along with his mothers, is sent into turmoil and Richard is forced to contact old friend Watson Bryant to see if he'll help defend him as his lawyer.
The dynamic between Richard and Watson is what really made this movie for me. They're old friends, but clearly two very different people - Watson doesn't take any crap from anyone while Richard is a kindly, thoughtful man who just wants to help everyone, so ends up not doing himself any favours. On one occasion, Watson tells Richard not to say a word while the FBI are searching his home, and then Richard proceeds to talk to them all about anything and everything, blissfully ignorant of the glares he's receiving from Watson. There's a lot of humour in Richard Jewell, which I wasn't really expecting, and while it did make for an enjoyable movie, I felt it detracted a little from the drama and tension at times. Outside of that, both Jon Hamm and Kathy Bates were perfect in their roles, Kathy Bates this week receiving an Oscar nomination for her performance.
As the movie progresses, the injustice of it all is truly incredible. Just by Watson walking the route from the phone-booth where the warning call originated and the location where Richard was when the bomb went off, it was clear that he couldn't have done it. He even passed a polygraph test and yet he still continued to be hounded in the absence of any other leads or suspects, as he was just an easy target. It's an enjoyable watch, and certainly an important story, but because of the humour I described earlier, it just didn't have enough intensity or drama to make a bigger impact on me.
We start by getting to know a bit about Richard Jewell (Paul Walter Hauser) and how he eventually found himself working security at such a high profile event. When we first meet Richard, he's working as a supply clerk for a public law firm in 1986. He meets attorney Watson Bryant (Sam Rockwell), who can be heard from across the other side of the office loudly and angrily shouting at somebody on the phone. He's not much friendlier to Richard when he puts the phone down either, discovering that Richard has very kindly replaced some stationery in his desk drawers, and even added some more Snickers bars in there after noticing empty wrappers in Watson's bin. But the pair do eventually build up a good rapport, even sharing an interest in playing video games at a local arcade during their lunch breaks.
Richard eventually leaves the firm to become a security guard at a college. With dreams of some day working his way up into law enforcement, Richard takes his role a bit too seriously, resulting in a number of complaints being made to the dean and his subsequent dismissal. Having moved in with his mother Bobi (Kathy Bates) in Atlanta, Richard lands a job working security at the Olympic games, working alongside police officers in Centennial Park during a number of events. His mother joins him to enjoy a Kenny Rogers concert one night, and then a few nights later Richard gets to work while his favourite group are playing. It's during that time, while trying to move on a group of drunk and rowdy boys, that Richard notices a suspicious backpack beneath a nearby bench. Police are alerted, and the backpack is determined to be carrying a bomb. As Richard and the police officers try to disperse the crowd, the bomb detonates and casualties are much lower than they could have been. Richard is hailed a hero.
As Richard quickly begins appearing on TV, and being offered book deals, the FBI begin their investigation. Agent Shaw (Jon Hamm) was there when the bomb went off and feels responsible for something that happened on his watch, so is determined to find the man responsible. It's not long before they decide that Richard fits the profile of previous bombers - a wannabe police officer who carries out attacks and then seeks fame and glory by helping out his victims. The situation isn't helped when ballsy reporter Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde), who will go to any lengths to get her story, including sleeping around, publishes a front page story declaring Richard to be prime suspect with the FBI. From there, Richard's life, along with his mothers, is sent into turmoil and Richard is forced to contact old friend Watson Bryant to see if he'll help defend him as his lawyer.
The dynamic between Richard and Watson is what really made this movie for me. They're old friends, but clearly two very different people - Watson doesn't take any crap from anyone while Richard is a kindly, thoughtful man who just wants to help everyone, so ends up not doing himself any favours. On one occasion, Watson tells Richard not to say a word while the FBI are searching his home, and then Richard proceeds to talk to them all about anything and everything, blissfully ignorant of the glares he's receiving from Watson. There's a lot of humour in Richard Jewell, which I wasn't really expecting, and while it did make for an enjoyable movie, I felt it detracted a little from the drama and tension at times. Outside of that, both Jon Hamm and Kathy Bates were perfect in their roles, Kathy Bates this week receiving an Oscar nomination for her performance.
As the movie progresses, the injustice of it all is truly incredible. Just by Watson walking the route from the phone-booth where the warning call originated and the location where Richard was when the bomb went off, it was clear that he couldn't have done it. He even passed a polygraph test and yet he still continued to be hounded in the absence of any other leads or suspects, as he was just an easy target. It's an enjoyable watch, and certainly an important story, but because of the humour I described earlier, it just didn't have enough intensity or drama to make a bigger impact on me.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Rent-A-Pal (2020) in Movies
Nov 2, 2020
If by any chance you’re feeling nostalgic for the days of VHS videotapes, then Rent-A-Pal is here to satisfy that craving. Set in Denver during 1990, VHS video features rather heavily throughout Rent-A-Pal, from the retro font used in the opening titles to the closeups of videotapes being inserted into a VCR, the internal mechanism engaging with the tape as it prepares to play.
The person responsible for firing up the VCR is David (Brian Landis Folkins), who is settling down to view the latest set of video profiles he’s received from dating agency Video Rendezvous, of which he is a member. David lives in the basement flat of his mum’s house, who has dementia. His father died ten years ago, meaning David is now the sole carer for his mother. And David is lonely, painfully lonely. When he calls Video Rendezvous for an update on any profile matches, he’s told that he has still not received any interest from potential partners who have viewed his profile. He is however urged to come into their office and record a new video profile, as his current one is now 6 months old.
When David sits down in front of the camera to record his new profile, he comes across well, showing just how much of a nice guy he is – a caregiver who simply wants the chance to care for a soulmate, sharing life within a loving relationship. You really do feel for him, certain that the genuine sincerity in his video will finally land him the date he so desperately needs and deserves. That is until the cameraman informs him that he has completely overrun the thirty-second limit allocated to male video profiles and that he is going to have to do it again. The shortened version David then delivers under pressure is rushed, with David now coming across as awkward and creepy, and your heart drops, knowing that he’s likely to remain single for a while longer yet. But then, as he’s having his credit card swiped by the dating agency yet again, David notices an interesting VHS sitting in the nearby bargain bin, titled Rent A Pal, and decides to buy it.
Back in his basement, David puts the Rent-A-Pal video into his VCR and presses play. He’s greeted by Andy (Will Wheaton), a cheery-looking man in a colourful knitted tank top. Andy talks of becoming best friends with David, asking him questions and leaving a pause to allow David to answer. Those pauses aren’t always long enough though, resulting in David being cut off mid-sentence, and the responses from Andy don’t always match the answers that David has given him either. But, desperate for a friend, David persists with this strange form of interaction.
We see that after repeat viewings of the tape David has managed to perfect his responses so that the conversation flows between him and Andy as if it were a real-life conversation. There are parts of the video where Andy plays cards with the viewer, takes a selfie with his back to the camera so that the viewer can be in it, and he and David are able to have the kind of deep and meaningful conversations that only two very good friends would have. It’s a rather lengthy and elaborate videotape, with certain sections earning a revisit should David ever feel the need to have a specific conversation about a certain aspect of his life. Eventually, we as the audience begin to wonder how much of this ‘relationship’ is real or imagined, with some of the questions or replies from Andy beginning to sound eerily close to being very specific and personal to David.
In his real life, David finally gets a lucky break with the dating agency, landing a date with Lisa (Amy Rutledge). Lisa also works in the care sector, and she comes across as a very nice person too. Once again you find yourself willing David to do well and thankfully, they do hit it off. But from the moment David brings Lisa down to his basement and you see that somebody is likely to sit on the VCR remote, you just know things are due to take a dark turn.
Watching David as he interacts with Andy for hours on end, day after day is surprisingly riveting. I was completely engrossed in him and his life as I waited and hoped he might catch a break. For much of the movie, I was just mesmerised by the wonderful performances from the entire cast, thoroughly enjoying the believable, likeable characters they portrayed. But, Rent-A-Pal is billed as a horror movie, so when things do eventually take a turn right at the end, we get a fast-paced, gory ending which felt somewhat disappointing, proving to be the weakest aspect of a movie which really did impress me overall.
The person responsible for firing up the VCR is David (Brian Landis Folkins), who is settling down to view the latest set of video profiles he’s received from dating agency Video Rendezvous, of which he is a member. David lives in the basement flat of his mum’s house, who has dementia. His father died ten years ago, meaning David is now the sole carer for his mother. And David is lonely, painfully lonely. When he calls Video Rendezvous for an update on any profile matches, he’s told that he has still not received any interest from potential partners who have viewed his profile. He is however urged to come into their office and record a new video profile, as his current one is now 6 months old.
When David sits down in front of the camera to record his new profile, he comes across well, showing just how much of a nice guy he is – a caregiver who simply wants the chance to care for a soulmate, sharing life within a loving relationship. You really do feel for him, certain that the genuine sincerity in his video will finally land him the date he so desperately needs and deserves. That is until the cameraman informs him that he has completely overrun the thirty-second limit allocated to male video profiles and that he is going to have to do it again. The shortened version David then delivers under pressure is rushed, with David now coming across as awkward and creepy, and your heart drops, knowing that he’s likely to remain single for a while longer yet. But then, as he’s having his credit card swiped by the dating agency yet again, David notices an interesting VHS sitting in the nearby bargain bin, titled Rent A Pal, and decides to buy it.
Back in his basement, David puts the Rent-A-Pal video into his VCR and presses play. He’s greeted by Andy (Will Wheaton), a cheery-looking man in a colourful knitted tank top. Andy talks of becoming best friends with David, asking him questions and leaving a pause to allow David to answer. Those pauses aren’t always long enough though, resulting in David being cut off mid-sentence, and the responses from Andy don’t always match the answers that David has given him either. But, desperate for a friend, David persists with this strange form of interaction.
We see that after repeat viewings of the tape David has managed to perfect his responses so that the conversation flows between him and Andy as if it were a real-life conversation. There are parts of the video where Andy plays cards with the viewer, takes a selfie with his back to the camera so that the viewer can be in it, and he and David are able to have the kind of deep and meaningful conversations that only two very good friends would have. It’s a rather lengthy and elaborate videotape, with certain sections earning a revisit should David ever feel the need to have a specific conversation about a certain aspect of his life. Eventually, we as the audience begin to wonder how much of this ‘relationship’ is real or imagined, with some of the questions or replies from Andy beginning to sound eerily close to being very specific and personal to David.
In his real life, David finally gets a lucky break with the dating agency, landing a date with Lisa (Amy Rutledge). Lisa also works in the care sector, and she comes across as a very nice person too. Once again you find yourself willing David to do well and thankfully, they do hit it off. But from the moment David brings Lisa down to his basement and you see that somebody is likely to sit on the VCR remote, you just know things are due to take a dark turn.
Watching David as he interacts with Andy for hours on end, day after day is surprisingly riveting. I was completely engrossed in him and his life as I waited and hoped he might catch a break. For much of the movie, I was just mesmerised by the wonderful performances from the entire cast, thoroughly enjoying the believable, likeable characters they portrayed. But, Rent-A-Pal is billed as a horror movie, so when things do eventually take a turn right at the end, we get a fast-paced, gory ending which felt somewhat disappointing, proving to be the weakest aspect of a movie which really did impress me overall.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Exit: The Game – The Polar Station in Tabletop Games
Mar 11, 2022
One thing that has grown in popularity over the recent years are Escape Rooms. You know, where you’re physically trapped inside a room and have to solve various puzzles, crack codes, and beat the clock in an effort to get out before it’s game over. It should come as no surprise that this premise has made its way into the world of board gaming. Yeah, you’re not physically trapped somewhere, but you still have tons of puzzles to sort out in the fastest time you can. So how does this EXIT game hold up when compared with a real-life escape room? Keep reading to find out!
Disclaimer: In order to avoid spoilers, I will not be going too in depth with this review, but rather provide a general overview of the type of gameplay involved. Also, this review covers one specific EXIT game, but the general mechanics and gameplay are the same across the entire EXIT family.
In EXIT: The Game – The Polar Station (simply referred to as just EXIT from hereon out), you are a member of a research team stationed in the Arctic. One morning, the evacuation alarm goes off unexpectedly, and everyone makes a break for the helicopters. Just one problem for your crew – your exit door is already locked and sealed! You make your way to another section of the lab to look for an alternate escape route. What you find is a room full of locked drawers/doors. You must quickly crack these codes, in hopes that the materials contained within will aid you in your attempts to escape before the final rescue helicopter takes off.
To setup for a game, sort the cards into their appropriate decks – Riddle cards, Answer cards, and Help cards. Place the Decoder disk and the Book in the center of the table. Leave the other items in the game box, to be introduced later in the gameplay. You will also most likely need a pen/pencil and paper to help you as you solve the riddles. And bam! You’re ready to start. You may then open the Book and begin the game. The game ends if or when players are able to successfully solve all of the riddles/puzzles and make their escape from the polar station.
Without spoilers, that’s basically as much detail as I can provide. Over the course of the gameplay, players will be using the pages of the Book to find clues, solve puzzles, or even identify secret symbols. Riddle cards will be drawn and used as ciphers, puzzles, or clues to help crack a code. When you think you have the correct 3-digit code for a specific Riddle Card, enter the code onto the Decoder disk. The disk will then provide the number of an Answer card, which you will draw and check to see if you were correct or incorrect. If your answer is incorrect, you simply keep trying to solve the Riddle card. If your answer is correct, you will then be instructed to draw other Riddle Cards, or the other items from the game box, and will continue with these new puzzles. If at any point in time you feel stuck, you may draw a Help card for the corresponding puzzle. The first and second Help cards will give you hints, and the final Help card will tell you the solution to the puzzle. Draw these sparingly if you can, as they affect your end-game score!
When all puzzles/riddles/codes have been completed and cracked, the game is over. Players will then check the rulebook to see how many Stars were earned, out of 10. The number of Help cards you use, as well as how much time you took to complete the game, will affect the overall score.
All in all, I think that EXIT is a unique game. The games of the series have varying difficulty levels, and this particular EXIT is rated a 3 out of 5. So this one isn’t the most difficult game in the bunch, but it wasn’t easy either! All of the puzzles require creative solutions, and the answers are rarely ever as straight-forward as they appear. Some puzzles are more logical than others, while some require you to physically manipulate components to be used in creative ways. I guess that’s as good a segue as any to get into components. This game consists of a deck of cards, a Decoder disk, a Book, and a couple of special ‘items.’ All decent quality overall. But here’s the thing – you will have to bend/cut/manipulate/destroy many of the components to help you in your mission to solve the riddles. So this game is literally a one-and-done. It cannot be played again.
Did I enjoy my play of this EXIT game? Yes. It was uniquely challenging, while forcing me to think creatively when addressing the different riddles. The method used to solve one riddle is not necessarily the same to solve the next, so you have be able to adjust on the fly. And often times you will have several riddles in play at once, so you have to decide which to address and when, when do you have the right information, which riddle it goes with, etc.
The biggest drawback for me is that it cannot be played again, The fact that you have to alter the components to a point of destroying the original card is something that was personally hard for me to get used to. I try to keep all my games so nice and pristine, that having to cut a card apart was tough! I got over it though. Having played a couple of the EXIT games, as well as a few of the Unlock! games, I would have to say I prefer the Unlock! system. The puzzles are just as challenging and creative, but you do not need to alter components to complete the game. That way, I can pass along an Unlock! game to a friend, as opposed to just tossing this EXIT game right in the recycling bin. I might pick up another EXIT game if I had a specific group/game night in mind, but in general I don’t think I’ll be grabbing any more of these, for the lack of replayability alone. The gameplay itself is pretty great, but the fact that I can’t play it again is a con I can’t ignore. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a chilling 4 / 6.
Disclaimer: In order to avoid spoilers, I will not be going too in depth with this review, but rather provide a general overview of the type of gameplay involved. Also, this review covers one specific EXIT game, but the general mechanics and gameplay are the same across the entire EXIT family.
In EXIT: The Game – The Polar Station (simply referred to as just EXIT from hereon out), you are a member of a research team stationed in the Arctic. One morning, the evacuation alarm goes off unexpectedly, and everyone makes a break for the helicopters. Just one problem for your crew – your exit door is already locked and sealed! You make your way to another section of the lab to look for an alternate escape route. What you find is a room full of locked drawers/doors. You must quickly crack these codes, in hopes that the materials contained within will aid you in your attempts to escape before the final rescue helicopter takes off.
To setup for a game, sort the cards into their appropriate decks – Riddle cards, Answer cards, and Help cards. Place the Decoder disk and the Book in the center of the table. Leave the other items in the game box, to be introduced later in the gameplay. You will also most likely need a pen/pencil and paper to help you as you solve the riddles. And bam! You’re ready to start. You may then open the Book and begin the game. The game ends if or when players are able to successfully solve all of the riddles/puzzles and make their escape from the polar station.
Without spoilers, that’s basically as much detail as I can provide. Over the course of the gameplay, players will be using the pages of the Book to find clues, solve puzzles, or even identify secret symbols. Riddle cards will be drawn and used as ciphers, puzzles, or clues to help crack a code. When you think you have the correct 3-digit code for a specific Riddle Card, enter the code onto the Decoder disk. The disk will then provide the number of an Answer card, which you will draw and check to see if you were correct or incorrect. If your answer is incorrect, you simply keep trying to solve the Riddle card. If your answer is correct, you will then be instructed to draw other Riddle Cards, or the other items from the game box, and will continue with these new puzzles. If at any point in time you feel stuck, you may draw a Help card for the corresponding puzzle. The first and second Help cards will give you hints, and the final Help card will tell you the solution to the puzzle. Draw these sparingly if you can, as they affect your end-game score!
When all puzzles/riddles/codes have been completed and cracked, the game is over. Players will then check the rulebook to see how many Stars were earned, out of 10. The number of Help cards you use, as well as how much time you took to complete the game, will affect the overall score.
All in all, I think that EXIT is a unique game. The games of the series have varying difficulty levels, and this particular EXIT is rated a 3 out of 5. So this one isn’t the most difficult game in the bunch, but it wasn’t easy either! All of the puzzles require creative solutions, and the answers are rarely ever as straight-forward as they appear. Some puzzles are more logical than others, while some require you to physically manipulate components to be used in creative ways. I guess that’s as good a segue as any to get into components. This game consists of a deck of cards, a Decoder disk, a Book, and a couple of special ‘items.’ All decent quality overall. But here’s the thing – you will have to bend/cut/manipulate/destroy many of the components to help you in your mission to solve the riddles. So this game is literally a one-and-done. It cannot be played again.
Did I enjoy my play of this EXIT game? Yes. It was uniquely challenging, while forcing me to think creatively when addressing the different riddles. The method used to solve one riddle is not necessarily the same to solve the next, so you have be able to adjust on the fly. And often times you will have several riddles in play at once, so you have to decide which to address and when, when do you have the right information, which riddle it goes with, etc.
The biggest drawback for me is that it cannot be played again, The fact that you have to alter the components to a point of destroying the original card is something that was personally hard for me to get used to. I try to keep all my games so nice and pristine, that having to cut a card apart was tough! I got over it though. Having played a couple of the EXIT games, as well as a few of the Unlock! games, I would have to say I prefer the Unlock! system. The puzzles are just as challenging and creative, but you do not need to alter components to complete the game. That way, I can pass along an Unlock! game to a friend, as opposed to just tossing this EXIT game right in the recycling bin. I might pick up another EXIT game if I had a specific group/game night in mind, but in general I don’t think I’ll be grabbing any more of these, for the lack of replayability alone. The gameplay itself is pretty great, but the fact that I can’t play it again is a con I can’t ignore. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a chilling 4 / 6.
