Search
Search results
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Departed (2006) in Movies
Feb 20, 2021
The best gangster flick made to date
Film #15 on the 100 Movies List: The Departed
The Departed is Martin Scorcese’s Oscar winning Irish gangster film released in 2006, a remake of the 2002 Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs, and loosely based around the real life Boston Hill Gang led by Whitey Bulger. It’s a film I remember watching when it was first released when I was at university, and I was blown away. It centres around Irish gang boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) and his relationships with police detective mole Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) and undercover state trooper Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio), as the latter two attempt to uncover each other’s identities.
Colin Sullivan was introduced to Costello as a young boy, groomed into joining the Massachusetts State Police and soon rises to the ranks of detective in the Special Investigation Unit, led by Captain Ellerby (Alec Baldwin)and responsible for bringing down Costello and his gang. Conversely Billy Costigan suffered a troubled youth with numerous members of his family involved in Costello’s gang. He trains as a state trooper and due to his family’s criminal ties, is turned into an undercover agent by Captain Queenan (Martin Sheen) and Staff Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlberg), his role to infiltrate Costello’s gang. Soon suspicions are raised and the net begins to close in on everyone involved, with dire consequences.
Personally, I think this is one of the best gangster films I’ve ever seen, if not the best. It’s everything you’d expect and more from a film in this genre, and I’m not sure anyone other than Scorcese could pull off a crime thriller that manages to feature such prominent Celtic music with such flair. It has a whip smart, often funny script that features some cracking one liners and quips, especially from Mark Wahlberg’s Dignam. Yes it is a little crude and some of the dialogue could be considered as offensive by some, but to me this just makes it more realistic as you can’t exactly expect gangsters and police to talk politely. Of course the script is brought to life by a truly phenomenal cast, and arguably one of the best ensembles in a gangster film in terms of talent. Leonardo DiCaprio is no longer the fresh faced youngster he was in the days of Titanic, although he puts in a terrific performance as Billy. This is also one of the few films I’ve seen of Matt Damon’s where he doesn’t play a nice guy, and he really fits this surprisingly well. But it’s Nicholson who steals the show as Costello and he definitely gets the biggest share of the witty script, bringing some light humour to an otherwise menacing criminal figure. You can’t keep your eyes off him whenever he’s on screen, and I don’t believe anyone else could pull this off without seeming like an over the top caricature.
However it isn’t perfect. The relationship between police psychiatrist Madolyn Madden (Vera Farmiga) and both Sullivan and Costigan is a little unnecessary and not important to the main plot, but fortunately the performances from all involved mean this isn’t a major issue. And again, the film is rather long but fortunately the tense scenes and great acting, alongside a few well placed action scenes, mean it never feels too drawn out.
This is a shining example of how to do a gangster film, and one I’d wholeheartedly recommend. It’s an intelligent, performance driven masterpiece and entirely deserving of it’s Best Picture Academy Award win.
The Departed is Martin Scorcese’s Oscar winning Irish gangster film released in 2006, a remake of the 2002 Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs, and loosely based around the real life Boston Hill Gang led by Whitey Bulger. It’s a film I remember watching when it was first released when I was at university, and I was blown away. It centres around Irish gang boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) and his relationships with police detective mole Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) and undercover state trooper Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio), as the latter two attempt to uncover each other’s identities.
Colin Sullivan was introduced to Costello as a young boy, groomed into joining the Massachusetts State Police and soon rises to the ranks of detective in the Special Investigation Unit, led by Captain Ellerby (Alec Baldwin)and responsible for bringing down Costello and his gang. Conversely Billy Costigan suffered a troubled youth with numerous members of his family involved in Costello’s gang. He trains as a state trooper and due to his family’s criminal ties, is turned into an undercover agent by Captain Queenan (Martin Sheen) and Staff Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlberg), his role to infiltrate Costello’s gang. Soon suspicions are raised and the net begins to close in on everyone involved, with dire consequences.
Personally, I think this is one of the best gangster films I’ve ever seen, if not the best. It’s everything you’d expect and more from a film in this genre, and I’m not sure anyone other than Scorcese could pull off a crime thriller that manages to feature such prominent Celtic music with such flair. It has a whip smart, often funny script that features some cracking one liners and quips, especially from Mark Wahlberg’s Dignam. Yes it is a little crude and some of the dialogue could be considered as offensive by some, but to me this just makes it more realistic as you can’t exactly expect gangsters and police to talk politely. Of course the script is brought to life by a truly phenomenal cast, and arguably one of the best ensembles in a gangster film in terms of talent. Leonardo DiCaprio is no longer the fresh faced youngster he was in the days of Titanic, although he puts in a terrific performance as Billy. This is also one of the few films I’ve seen of Matt Damon’s where he doesn’t play a nice guy, and he really fits this surprisingly well. But it’s Nicholson who steals the show as Costello and he definitely gets the biggest share of the witty script, bringing some light humour to an otherwise menacing criminal figure. You can’t keep your eyes off him whenever he’s on screen, and I don’t believe anyone else could pull this off without seeming like an over the top caricature.
However it isn’t perfect. The relationship between police psychiatrist Madolyn Madden (Vera Farmiga) and both Sullivan and Costigan is a little unnecessary and not important to the main plot, but fortunately the performances from all involved mean this isn’t a major issue. And again, the film is rather long but fortunately the tense scenes and great acting, alongside a few well placed action scenes, mean it never feels too drawn out.
This is a shining example of how to do a gangster film, and one I’d wholeheartedly recommend. It’s an intelligent, performance driven masterpiece and entirely deserving of it’s Best Picture Academy Award win.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Ghosts of War (2020) in Movies
Nov 9, 2020
The ending is worth it
Ghosts of War follows a group of American soldiers as they make their way to take up post at a French chateau towards the end of the Second World War, and encounter much more than they bargained for in this slightly above average B movie.
Right from the start, this opens with your usual cliched group of soldiers that you’d find in any war film. Brenton Thwaites is Chris, the boss and leader, you have Skylar Astin as Eugene, the brains/intellectual, Kyle Gallner as the odd and trouble sniper Tappert, Alan Ritchson as a typical macho man and finally Theo Rossi as the filler. So far, so generic, and other than Tappert who gets a decent bit of creepy character development later on, the rest of the main group are virtually one dimensional. Which is a shame as the cast are a decent group of actors that have been let down by the poor writing. Although I did enjoy Billy Zane popping up with a intentionally cheesy blink and you’ll miss it cameo as a Nazi with horrific German accent.
The film begins like your typical war movie; a group of soldiers working their way across country to reach their destination. It’s nothing we haven’t seen before. However what helps lift this is a rather moving and poignant opening quote, and a score that accompanies this very well. The score in this would be at home on any dramatic war film, and almost seems out of place in a horror film. It gives this a feeling that it’s a lot more epic and grand than it actually turns out to be.
What really drags this film down is when the group arrive at the aforementioned chateau and begin to experience all of the supernatural going’s on. Aside from a a couple of potentially creepy scenes, the jump scares are tired and predictable and the ghosts look like every other spook that’s been in a modern day horror film recently. It reeks of a below average, typical ghost film with some hit and miss special effects (albeit with an respectable amount of blood and gore) and had it continued on like this, it would’ve been completely forgettable. However throughout the scenes in the chateau there are hints that there is something deeper and more sinister going on, and it starts to pick up again when the group encounter a party of Nazi soldiers trying to enter the building. Things start to get a little weird and confusing and then a big reveal in the last 20 minutes completely shifts this film into something you never expected. I didn’t see this particular twist coming and for me, this made this movie more than just a sub par horror film. The reveal has been met with mixed reviews from critics and reviews alike, but I think it injects some much needed enjoyment and intrigue – it’s just a shame we have to wait over an hour to get there. The entire twist and ending is rather disturbing and also quite moving and emotional, and the final scene, whilst one we’ve seen done many times before, did make this a satisfying and darkly entertaining end.
Ghosts of War starts off as a below average clichéd war horror film, however it you can get through the first hour, the ending packs a decent, enjoyable and rather surprising punch. It’s just a shame the first two acts don’t match up to the ending.
Right from the start, this opens with your usual cliched group of soldiers that you’d find in any war film. Brenton Thwaites is Chris, the boss and leader, you have Skylar Astin as Eugene, the brains/intellectual, Kyle Gallner as the odd and trouble sniper Tappert, Alan Ritchson as a typical macho man and finally Theo Rossi as the filler. So far, so generic, and other than Tappert who gets a decent bit of creepy character development later on, the rest of the main group are virtually one dimensional. Which is a shame as the cast are a decent group of actors that have been let down by the poor writing. Although I did enjoy Billy Zane popping up with a intentionally cheesy blink and you’ll miss it cameo as a Nazi with horrific German accent.
The film begins like your typical war movie; a group of soldiers working their way across country to reach their destination. It’s nothing we haven’t seen before. However what helps lift this is a rather moving and poignant opening quote, and a score that accompanies this very well. The score in this would be at home on any dramatic war film, and almost seems out of place in a horror film. It gives this a feeling that it’s a lot more epic and grand than it actually turns out to be.
What really drags this film down is when the group arrive at the aforementioned chateau and begin to experience all of the supernatural going’s on. Aside from a a couple of potentially creepy scenes, the jump scares are tired and predictable and the ghosts look like every other spook that’s been in a modern day horror film recently. It reeks of a below average, typical ghost film with some hit and miss special effects (albeit with an respectable amount of blood and gore) and had it continued on like this, it would’ve been completely forgettable. However throughout the scenes in the chateau there are hints that there is something deeper and more sinister going on, and it starts to pick up again when the group encounter a party of Nazi soldiers trying to enter the building. Things start to get a little weird and confusing and then a big reveal in the last 20 minutes completely shifts this film into something you never expected. I didn’t see this particular twist coming and for me, this made this movie more than just a sub par horror film. The reveal has been met with mixed reviews from critics and reviews alike, but I think it injects some much needed enjoyment and intrigue – it’s just a shame we have to wait over an hour to get there. The entire twist and ending is rather disturbing and also quite moving and emotional, and the final scene, whilst one we’ve seen done many times before, did make this a satisfying and darkly entertaining end.
Ghosts of War starts off as a below average clichéd war horror film, however it you can get through the first hour, the ending packs a decent, enjoyable and rather surprising punch. It’s just a shame the first two acts don’t match up to the ending.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated TRON (1982) in Movies
Nov 17, 2020
Before Player One, before Ralph and Neo and even before the Lawnmower Man there was Tron. Tron covers a lot of ground, some of which was quite advanced for a film from 1983, we have hackers, corporate espionage, teleportation experiments, A.I. and what we would now call Cyberspace.
Basically Ed Dillinger is the boss of an evil corporation, Encom, (yes IT corporations were evil as far back as the 1980s) who got to where he was by stealing the programs of five arcade games from Flynn. Ed is being blackmailed by the 'Master Control Program' or 'MCP' for short, a rouge A.I. that believes it can rule the world better than humans.
Alan works at Encom and is trying to create a Data monitoring program called Tron. Alan is also dating Flynn's ex, Lora who also works at Encom, in a department that is developing a way of digitising mater and transporting it down a laser beam to a new destination. The three team up to help Flynn find the proof of the theft but the MCP digitises Flynn who finds himself used as a gladiator in the program. When Flynn meets the Tron program they team up to bring the MCP down.
First off the whole thing could have been stopped if Encom had proper health and safety, the computer that Flynn was using was the same one that operated the digitising laser and the laser was set up right behind the screen with barriers or other safety measures.
Ok in all seriousness the concepts in Tron were quite advanced, baring in mind that this was out in 1983, a time when home P.C.s were just beginning to become popular and the internet wasn't really around (there were networked computers but really only in offices) Tron brought us a concept of Cyberspace (although it wasn't called that in the film), a world where the computer programs live and the games are real. Not only that but everything is linked together, there weren't any networked games back then any you had to go to an arcade to play most of the games that existed.
By todays standards the Cyberspace world wouldn't feel right. It is a lineal landscape with fractural crystals coloured in greys, red and blues, a far cry from Wreck-it Ralph's advert filled, brightly coloured internet. Again this is due to when it was made, no internet, no advertising and, of course the computers of the time had slightly less memory than the ones today, with the ZX81 being released that year with a massive 16 or 48 Kb of memory, yes kiddies that's Kilo-bites, not even one meg so the games that were available were quite basic (compared to what we have today) an, of course, outside of an arcade those games would have been stored on floppy disk or cassette tape.
The action in Tron is muted, mainly kept to bike crashes and people throwing Frisbees at each other but this is because Tron is; 1) a kids film and 2) a Disney film. The muted action doesn't take away from the film though, it's still an enjoyable adventure film whose influence can be seen even now with films like Wreck-it Ralph.
For a film that is mostly early 80's CGI (or even just early CGI) Tron hasn't aged too badly and the story could easily have been written now, especially with the recent advent of LitRGP books and 'Isekai' anime such as 'Sword Art Online'.
Basically Ed Dillinger is the boss of an evil corporation, Encom, (yes IT corporations were evil as far back as the 1980s) who got to where he was by stealing the programs of five arcade games from Flynn. Ed is being blackmailed by the 'Master Control Program' or 'MCP' for short, a rouge A.I. that believes it can rule the world better than humans.
Alan works at Encom and is trying to create a Data monitoring program called Tron. Alan is also dating Flynn's ex, Lora who also works at Encom, in a department that is developing a way of digitising mater and transporting it down a laser beam to a new destination. The three team up to help Flynn find the proof of the theft but the MCP digitises Flynn who finds himself used as a gladiator in the program. When Flynn meets the Tron program they team up to bring the MCP down.
First off the whole thing could have been stopped if Encom had proper health and safety, the computer that Flynn was using was the same one that operated the digitising laser and the laser was set up right behind the screen with barriers or other safety measures.
Ok in all seriousness the concepts in Tron were quite advanced, baring in mind that this was out in 1983, a time when home P.C.s were just beginning to become popular and the internet wasn't really around (there were networked computers but really only in offices) Tron brought us a concept of Cyberspace (although it wasn't called that in the film), a world where the computer programs live and the games are real. Not only that but everything is linked together, there weren't any networked games back then any you had to go to an arcade to play most of the games that existed.
By todays standards the Cyberspace world wouldn't feel right. It is a lineal landscape with fractural crystals coloured in greys, red and blues, a far cry from Wreck-it Ralph's advert filled, brightly coloured internet. Again this is due to when it was made, no internet, no advertising and, of course the computers of the time had slightly less memory than the ones today, with the ZX81 being released that year with a massive 16 or 48 Kb of memory, yes kiddies that's Kilo-bites, not even one meg so the games that were available were quite basic (compared to what we have today) an, of course, outside of an arcade those games would have been stored on floppy disk or cassette tape.
The action in Tron is muted, mainly kept to bike crashes and people throwing Frisbees at each other but this is because Tron is; 1) a kids film and 2) a Disney film. The muted action doesn't take away from the film though, it's still an enjoyable adventure film whose influence can be seen even now with films like Wreck-it Ralph.
For a film that is mostly early 80's CGI (or even just early CGI) Tron hasn't aged too badly and the story could easily have been written now, especially with the recent advent of LitRGP books and 'Isekai' anime such as 'Sword Art Online'.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Untouchables (1987) in Movies
Dec 16, 2020 (Updated Dec 16, 2020)
A little melodramatic
(not) Film #7 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: The Untouchables
As with most of the films on this list, The Untouchables is a film that has garnered a great deal of acclaim over the years, and yet if I’ve ever seen it, I’m ashamed to admit that I don’t remember it.
The Untouchables (1987) was directed by Brian De Palma and stars Kevin Costner as Eliot Ness, a treasury agent who recruits a group of fellow cops and agents to take down mob boss Al Capone (Robert De Niro) in Prohibition-era Chicago, with Ness and his agents soon becoming known as the “untouchables” after refusing large bribes. Sean Connery, Andy Garcia and Charles Martin Smith make up the rest of the Untouchables.
An American gangster film is a dime a dozen, there have been countless over the years and the 1920s and 30s are always featured fairly heavily, no doubt due to the large number of criminal gangs and mobsters around in that era. Personally whilst The Untouchables is a good film, I don’t think there’s a lot in this to make it particularly notable or outstanding above any of the others. It’s engaging and interesting, which it should be considering the subject matter – it is based on a true story after all. The entire production looks great too; the sets, costumes and locations are very well done and definitely look the part.
The issue with The Untouchables is it’s too melodramatic, too over the top and clichéd. This isn’t helped by Ennio Morricone’s score, which feels far too heavy handed, cheesy and out of place for the scenes. Even the open title credits is ridiculously over dramatic. You can definitely tell this film was made in the 80s and I’m afraid that’s not a good thing. There’s also some questionable acting from Kevin Costner, and while admittedly I’ve never been a big fan of his, the script and some of the almost cringeworthy scenes with Ness’s wife don’t help matters. And De Niro’s Capone pops up in scenes that feel rather random and forced during the first hour, and seem completely out of place with the rest of the story.
Despite this, The Untouchables is still fairly enjoyable and this is mostly due to Sean Connery’s Malone, the role that he won his only Oscar for. The Irishman, despite sounding very Scottish, injects some much needed heart, humour and spirit into the film and without him, this would have been a very lacklustre film indeed. Even Connery’s horrific Irish accent is a source of amusement, and without the character having been described as Irish, I would’ve just assumed he was Scottish.
Overall, I found The Untouchables to be a decent and entertaining gangster film as long as you can ignore the melodramatic overtones. But I’m not convinced that it’s anything memorable or above average, and if it even deserves a place on this list.
Update: So after having watched this film and headed to my Bucket List to scratch it off, I realised that the film on this list is actually The Intouchables, a French film from 2012 also known as Untouchable. Oops. So I’m afraid The Untouchables isn’t number 7 ticked off my bucket list after all 😆
As with most of the films on this list, The Untouchables is a film that has garnered a great deal of acclaim over the years, and yet if I’ve ever seen it, I’m ashamed to admit that I don’t remember it.
The Untouchables (1987) was directed by Brian De Palma and stars Kevin Costner as Eliot Ness, a treasury agent who recruits a group of fellow cops and agents to take down mob boss Al Capone (Robert De Niro) in Prohibition-era Chicago, with Ness and his agents soon becoming known as the “untouchables” after refusing large bribes. Sean Connery, Andy Garcia and Charles Martin Smith make up the rest of the Untouchables.
An American gangster film is a dime a dozen, there have been countless over the years and the 1920s and 30s are always featured fairly heavily, no doubt due to the large number of criminal gangs and mobsters around in that era. Personally whilst The Untouchables is a good film, I don’t think there’s a lot in this to make it particularly notable or outstanding above any of the others. It’s engaging and interesting, which it should be considering the subject matter – it is based on a true story after all. The entire production looks great too; the sets, costumes and locations are very well done and definitely look the part.
The issue with The Untouchables is it’s too melodramatic, too over the top and clichéd. This isn’t helped by Ennio Morricone’s score, which feels far too heavy handed, cheesy and out of place for the scenes. Even the open title credits is ridiculously over dramatic. You can definitely tell this film was made in the 80s and I’m afraid that’s not a good thing. There’s also some questionable acting from Kevin Costner, and while admittedly I’ve never been a big fan of his, the script and some of the almost cringeworthy scenes with Ness’s wife don’t help matters. And De Niro’s Capone pops up in scenes that feel rather random and forced during the first hour, and seem completely out of place with the rest of the story.
Despite this, The Untouchables is still fairly enjoyable and this is mostly due to Sean Connery’s Malone, the role that he won his only Oscar for. The Irishman, despite sounding very Scottish, injects some much needed heart, humour and spirit into the film and without him, this would have been a very lacklustre film indeed. Even Connery’s horrific Irish accent is a source of amusement, and without the character having been described as Irish, I would’ve just assumed he was Scottish.
Overall, I found The Untouchables to be a decent and entertaining gangster film as long as you can ignore the melodramatic overtones. But I’m not convinced that it’s anything memorable or above average, and if it even deserves a place on this list.
Update: So after having watched this film and headed to my Bucket List to scratch it off, I realised that the film on this list is actually The Intouchables, a French film from 2012 also known as Untouchable. Oops. So I’m afraid The Untouchables isn’t number 7 ticked off my bucket list after all 😆
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated The Informer (2019) in Movies
Sep 10, 2019
A real hidden gem.
I went into this film knowing very little about it, other than the two-line blurb on my local cinema's website. Released to a muted fanfare, this twisty-turny crime drama is a surprisingly gripping and taut thriller, with some stand-out performances from the cast.
Joel Kinnaman plays Pete Koslow, an ex-con that we soon discover is working undercover for the FBI to help take down a mob boss in New York City. Not much is known (or, frustratingly, revealed) about Koslow's backstory, but Kinnaman plays the part very well. It's not as in-depth as maybe it could've been, but his personal arc is a fresh and original spin on a tried-and-tested formula, and it is, at times, compelling to watch.
Needless to say, Koslow's arrangement with the FBI goes sour before too long, and he's left alone in prison with multiple groups of enemies with their own agendas trying to kill him. The second half of the film, where the twists and turns and clever plotting flows more freely, reminded me of Will Smith's "Enemy of the State" and Liam Neeson's "A Walk Among The Tombstones", in terms of the complex approach and execution to resolving a seemingly inescapable situation.
The story was told to great effect, with the gritty tone and the deliberate pacing perfectly suiting this competent thriller.
Ana de Armas is terrific as Koslow's long-suffering and admiringly-loyal partner, Sofia. She has a look of naivety and innocence throughout, with her perma-watering wide eyes and youthful good looks, yet she is as tough as they come and the perfect match for Kinnaman's lead.
Clive Owen also deserves a mention for another consistent performance, despite him being woefully underused here. He steals every scene he's in, playing a menacing background antagonist incredibly well.
For me, this movie was let down by two things. First, its ending, which felt sudden and rushed, as if it stopped mid-sentence. It's not the kind of film that warrants a sequel, nor was it, I imagine, made with the intention of one. So to leave so many questions unanswered serves little purpose and ultimately leaves you disappointed after what was otherwise a very, very clever film.
Secondly, Rosamund Pike's performance left a lot to be desired. Because of her outstanding lack of on-screen charisma, you never truly connect with her character, Agent Wilcox. Her handling of Koslow's operation felt hollow. She showed no emotional range whatsoever, and wore the same expression throughout the entire film. Consequently, the journey of her character and the impact her decisions have on both other people, and the movie's eventual outcome, felt empty and pointless.
Despite that, this is a real hidden gem. As I noted earlier, this wasn't what you would call a "big" release. It came out under the radar and, as a result, was the subject of very few expectations. But what you have here is an intelligent thriller that provides an original take on a typical storyline that delivers in almost every way it intended to.
This is the film you stream off Netflix on a Friday night while eating a takeaway after a hard week at work.
Joel Kinnaman plays Pete Koslow, an ex-con that we soon discover is working undercover for the FBI to help take down a mob boss in New York City. Not much is known (or, frustratingly, revealed) about Koslow's backstory, but Kinnaman plays the part very well. It's not as in-depth as maybe it could've been, but his personal arc is a fresh and original spin on a tried-and-tested formula, and it is, at times, compelling to watch.
Needless to say, Koslow's arrangement with the FBI goes sour before too long, and he's left alone in prison with multiple groups of enemies with their own agendas trying to kill him. The second half of the film, where the twists and turns and clever plotting flows more freely, reminded me of Will Smith's "Enemy of the State" and Liam Neeson's "A Walk Among The Tombstones", in terms of the complex approach and execution to resolving a seemingly inescapable situation.
The story was told to great effect, with the gritty tone and the deliberate pacing perfectly suiting this competent thriller.
Ana de Armas is terrific as Koslow's long-suffering and admiringly-loyal partner, Sofia. She has a look of naivety and innocence throughout, with her perma-watering wide eyes and youthful good looks, yet she is as tough as they come and the perfect match for Kinnaman's lead.
Clive Owen also deserves a mention for another consistent performance, despite him being woefully underused here. He steals every scene he's in, playing a menacing background antagonist incredibly well.
For me, this movie was let down by two things. First, its ending, which felt sudden and rushed, as if it stopped mid-sentence. It's not the kind of film that warrants a sequel, nor was it, I imagine, made with the intention of one. So to leave so many questions unanswered serves little purpose and ultimately leaves you disappointed after what was otherwise a very, very clever film.
Secondly, Rosamund Pike's performance left a lot to be desired. Because of her outstanding lack of on-screen charisma, you never truly connect with her character, Agent Wilcox. Her handling of Koslow's operation felt hollow. She showed no emotional range whatsoever, and wore the same expression throughout the entire film. Consequently, the journey of her character and the impact her decisions have on both other people, and the movie's eventual outcome, felt empty and pointless.
Despite that, this is a real hidden gem. As I noted earlier, this wasn't what you would call a "big" release. It came out under the radar and, as a result, was the subject of very few expectations. But what you have here is an intelligent thriller that provides an original take on a typical storyline that delivers in almost every way it intended to.
This is the film you stream off Netflix on a Friday night while eating a takeaway after a hard week at work.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Fly (1986) in Movies
Oct 3, 2019
Be Afraid...Be Very Afraid
Seth Brundle is his own version of Dr Frankenstein. Instead of reanimating dead issue, his desire is to teleport flesh from one "telepod" to another.
After a chance meeting at a social magazine function, Veronica "Ronnie" Quaife meets the eccentric genius Brundle. She agrees to come back to his spacious, warehouse studio loft to see what he has been working on. He tells her about his masterpiece that will change the concept of travel throughout the world. After a short demonstration, Ronnie is not sure what to believe.
The next day, she explains what happened to her editor and scummy, sexist former boyfriend who suggests Brundle is just a con man. Eventually, Ronnie takes the offer to be Brundle's exclusive recorder of the evolution of his creation which has still one major flaw, it can only teleport inanimate objects. When tried on something living, the computer doesn't understand "the flesh" turn disembowels its subjects.Ronnie and Brundle begin a torrid affair amidst more work on the pods ultimately concluding with the successful teleportation of a baboon.
After Ronnie's boss and former lover threatens to publish her story early, Brundle gets drunk and decides it is time for a human trial of his newly perfected equipment. In his haste, he does not notice an insect guest present within his pod with him. Although successful, Brundle is not aware of his transformation yet to come.
His evolution from man to man/insect begins slowly, but continues relentlessly though Brundle does not know the cause. Once he looks through his records and discovers the genesis of his misfortune, he may be too late to stop it.
The Fly has to be director David Cronenberg's biggest financial hit grossing north of $40 million in 1986. Adjusted for inflation and considering the subject matter, genre and R rating, that would have to be much more if released today. It's hard to say the film would be Cronenberg's highest critical success, although most of his early films are now considered cult classics since they had a hard time finding mainstream audiences due to their "body horror" often gruesome visuals and offbeat subject matter.
Although most would classify as horror due to the shocking visuals within the last 30 minutes of the film, I have always felt it was more of a thriller. Once Bundle is infected, he has to use his sharp, but now deteriorating wits to figure a solution to his problem before it is too late. Every subsequent Ronnie visit to Brundle's loft finds unexpected results which keep the viewer on edge and wondering what horrors they will view next.
The make up effects in the film rivaled any of the top work ever at that time and garnered effect artist Chris Walas an Academy Award in 1986. By today's standards of CGI and film perfection, some elements could look a bit dated to modern audiences, but I believe still hold up to present day scrutiny.
The film score by frequent Cronenberg collaborator Howard Shore is haunting, bleak somber, and excellent.
Too often mesmerizing acting performances in horror/thriller movies get overlooked for the Oscars (except if you are Anthony Hopkins) which is a shame here. Jeff Goldblum undergoes not only a physical transformation, but his mannerisms, ticks and speech all go from human to insect and he deserves a lot of credit for what he did to bring "Brundlefly" to life.
After a chance meeting at a social magazine function, Veronica "Ronnie" Quaife meets the eccentric genius Brundle. She agrees to come back to his spacious, warehouse studio loft to see what he has been working on. He tells her about his masterpiece that will change the concept of travel throughout the world. After a short demonstration, Ronnie is not sure what to believe.
The next day, she explains what happened to her editor and scummy, sexist former boyfriend who suggests Brundle is just a con man. Eventually, Ronnie takes the offer to be Brundle's exclusive recorder of the evolution of his creation which has still one major flaw, it can only teleport inanimate objects. When tried on something living, the computer doesn't understand "the flesh" turn disembowels its subjects.Ronnie and Brundle begin a torrid affair amidst more work on the pods ultimately concluding with the successful teleportation of a baboon.
After Ronnie's boss and former lover threatens to publish her story early, Brundle gets drunk and decides it is time for a human trial of his newly perfected equipment. In his haste, he does not notice an insect guest present within his pod with him. Although successful, Brundle is not aware of his transformation yet to come.
His evolution from man to man/insect begins slowly, but continues relentlessly though Brundle does not know the cause. Once he looks through his records and discovers the genesis of his misfortune, he may be too late to stop it.
The Fly has to be director David Cronenberg's biggest financial hit grossing north of $40 million in 1986. Adjusted for inflation and considering the subject matter, genre and R rating, that would have to be much more if released today. It's hard to say the film would be Cronenberg's highest critical success, although most of his early films are now considered cult classics since they had a hard time finding mainstream audiences due to their "body horror" often gruesome visuals and offbeat subject matter.
Although most would classify as horror due to the shocking visuals within the last 30 minutes of the film, I have always felt it was more of a thriller. Once Bundle is infected, he has to use his sharp, but now deteriorating wits to figure a solution to his problem before it is too late. Every subsequent Ronnie visit to Brundle's loft finds unexpected results which keep the viewer on edge and wondering what horrors they will view next.
The make up effects in the film rivaled any of the top work ever at that time and garnered effect artist Chris Walas an Academy Award in 1986. By today's standards of CGI and film perfection, some elements could look a bit dated to modern audiences, but I believe still hold up to present day scrutiny.
The film score by frequent Cronenberg collaborator Howard Shore is haunting, bleak somber, and excellent.
Too often mesmerizing acting performances in horror/thriller movies get overlooked for the Oscars (except if you are Anthony Hopkins) which is a shame here. Jeff Goldblum undergoes not only a physical transformation, but his mannerisms, ticks and speech all go from human to insect and he deserves a lot of credit for what he did to bring "Brundlefly" to life.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mission impossible dead reckoning part one (2023) in Movies
Jul 14, 2023
What A Summer Blockbuster Movie Should Be
Boy, that Tom Cruise sure knows how to make a crowd-pleasing, summer blockbuster movie.
Fresh off his cinema-saving success with TOP GUN: MAVERICK, Cruise (and Director Christopher McQuarrie) comes back with another giant summer tentpole film - MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD RECKONING, PART ONE - and they hit it out of the park again.
The 7th film in the Mission Impossible franchise (which debuted, incredibly, 27 years ago), DEAD RECKONING, PART ONE reunites Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) with his band of hero/outlaws to stop yet another world-wide crisis. It’s familiar ground but it is the journey not the destination that makes these types of films work and the journey (which, to be honest, is just an excuse to jump from action set piece to action set piece) is a fun one filled with comfortable characters/actors both old and new.
Besides Cruise (who’s got the Ethan Hunt character down), DR1 is filled with Hunt’s “regular” crew, Luther (Vingh Rhames - the only other actor besides Cruise to be in every MI film), Benji (SImon Pegg - around since MI 3) and Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson - on board since film 5). These are all familiar, comfortable characters and when the band gets back together about 1/2 way through the film, it felt liking sinking into your couch after a long, hard (but good) day of work to watch your favorite comfort show.
McQuarrie, wisely, populates the rest of the film with new, but comfortably familiar, faces such as Haley Atwell (Agent Carter in the MCU), Shea Wigham (ironically, he played Atwell’s boss in the Agent Carter TV Series), Pom Klementieff as Paris (the name of the character Leonard Nimoy played in the TV Series). Klementieff is also a veteran of the MCU having played Mantis in the Guardians of the Galaxy films, Esai Morales (one of the bosses in NYPD BLUE) and Cary Elwes (the Princess Bride). All bring their “A” game to the adventure and all of them acquit themselves just fine.
Oh…and Henry Czerny reprises his role as Kittridge from the first Mission Impossible film - and it was good to see him, too as was Vanessa Kirby’s re-appearance as Hunt’s “frenemie”, The White Widow (in a role that is a bit more expanded).
But, of course, all of these actors/performances takes a back seat to the action sequences and McQuarrie and Cruise are at the top of their game here. The big action set pieces are a marvel to watch - very enjoyable, exciting, nerve-wracking and easy to follow with some sense of humor rolled in. Unlike another big action flick (that leaned more towards the over-the-top comic-book type action), this Mission Impossible film relies on tension to make these action scenes pop off the screen - and McQuarrie succeeds.
Since this film is labeled as “Part One” you would expect to this film to end on a cliff-hanger and McQuarrie/Cruise were smart about that, too. It is more of “the mission isn’t finished” than a cliff-hanger, which helps this film hold together on it’s own and not just “Part One of a two-parter”.
Very smart, indeed.
A fun romp at the cinema - head out to the biggest screen possible to immerse yourself into this mission, you’ll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
A fun, escapist, action film that is satisfying (and not dumb), MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD
Fresh off his cinema-saving success with TOP GUN: MAVERICK, Cruise (and Director Christopher McQuarrie) comes back with another giant summer tentpole film - MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD RECKONING, PART ONE - and they hit it out of the park again.
The 7th film in the Mission Impossible franchise (which debuted, incredibly, 27 years ago), DEAD RECKONING, PART ONE reunites Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) with his band of hero/outlaws to stop yet another world-wide crisis. It’s familiar ground but it is the journey not the destination that makes these types of films work and the journey (which, to be honest, is just an excuse to jump from action set piece to action set piece) is a fun one filled with comfortable characters/actors both old and new.
Besides Cruise (who’s got the Ethan Hunt character down), DR1 is filled with Hunt’s “regular” crew, Luther (Vingh Rhames - the only other actor besides Cruise to be in every MI film), Benji (SImon Pegg - around since MI 3) and Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson - on board since film 5). These are all familiar, comfortable characters and when the band gets back together about 1/2 way through the film, it felt liking sinking into your couch after a long, hard (but good) day of work to watch your favorite comfort show.
McQuarrie, wisely, populates the rest of the film with new, but comfortably familiar, faces such as Haley Atwell (Agent Carter in the MCU), Shea Wigham (ironically, he played Atwell’s boss in the Agent Carter TV Series), Pom Klementieff as Paris (the name of the character Leonard Nimoy played in the TV Series). Klementieff is also a veteran of the MCU having played Mantis in the Guardians of the Galaxy films, Esai Morales (one of the bosses in NYPD BLUE) and Cary Elwes (the Princess Bride). All bring their “A” game to the adventure and all of them acquit themselves just fine.
Oh…and Henry Czerny reprises his role as Kittridge from the first Mission Impossible film - and it was good to see him, too as was Vanessa Kirby’s re-appearance as Hunt’s “frenemie”, The White Widow (in a role that is a bit more expanded).
But, of course, all of these actors/performances takes a back seat to the action sequences and McQuarrie and Cruise are at the top of their game here. The big action set pieces are a marvel to watch - very enjoyable, exciting, nerve-wracking and easy to follow with some sense of humor rolled in. Unlike another big action flick (that leaned more towards the over-the-top comic-book type action), this Mission Impossible film relies on tension to make these action scenes pop off the screen - and McQuarrie succeeds.
Since this film is labeled as “Part One” you would expect to this film to end on a cliff-hanger and McQuarrie/Cruise were smart about that, too. It is more of “the mission isn’t finished” than a cliff-hanger, which helps this film hold together on it’s own and not just “Part One of a two-parter”.
Very smart, indeed.
A fun romp at the cinema - head out to the biggest screen possible to immerse yourself into this mission, you’ll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
A fun, escapist, action film that is satisfying (and not dumb), MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Banshees of Inisherin (2022) in Movies
Jan 13, 2023
Strong Acting aids Character Study
Back in 2008, Writer/Director Martin McDonagh scored an improbable hit with IN BRUGES, a tale of two hitmen “laying low” in…well…Bruges, Belgium while awaiting instructions from their boss. During this down time these two characters muse about the meanings of life and love in a wonderful, Oscar Nominated, character study.
15 years later, McDonagh does it again with THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN.
Set in the 1920s in the fictional Island of Inisherin (off the coast of Ireland), BANSHEES reunites Writer/Director McDonagh with his two stars of the previous film - Brendan Gleeson (“Mad Eye” Mooney in the Harry Potter films) and Colin Farrell (unrecognizable as The Penguin in the recent BATMAN movie) - and the resultant character study is just as interesting and intriguing to watch in a setting just as interesting…and breath-takingly beautifully bleak.
McDonagh, more than likely, will be nominated (as he was with IN BRUGES) for his screenplay for this film - it IS Oscar worthy - but for me, he was better as the Director of this character study, pointing his camera with a keen eye and surety in what he wanted to show all the while letting the performers and the countryside tell the story.
Both lead performers (and the Supporting Actors) are perfectly cast. Farrell, as Padraic,is the protagonist - a simple man who just wants to be able to go to the pub everyday and have conversation with his best friend, Colm (Gleeson) who, one day, proclaims that he no longer wants to be friends with Padraic. Padraic, then spends the rest of the film trying to understand why this is so, what happened and what he can do to make amends.
Farrell will earn an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of the simple (but not simple-minded) Padraic who is having a hard time grappling with deeper issues seeping into his simple life. Farrell has really grown into a fine actor and he (at this point in time) has to be considered on of the FrontRunners for the Best Actor Oscar for his work in this film.
Just as good is Gleeson as Colm, the recalcitrant, stoic friend who stubbornly wants nothing to do with Padraic. In lesser hands, this character could have come off as “one-note” being, simply, an immovable object in the way of Padraic’s irresistible force, but in Gleeson’s skilled hands, Colm has layers and depth that seep out through the cracks of his stoney facade. I would not be surprised if Gleeson, too, is nominated for an Oscar (probably in the Supporting category).
These two are capably assisted by Kerry Condon (Stacey Ehrmantraut in BETTER CAUL SAUL) and Barry Keoghn (DUNKIRK) as Padraic’s sister and a friend of both Padraic and Colm (respectively). Both bring their “A” games to this film and truly show the meaning of the term “Supporting” in “Supporting Performance”.
Special mention needs to be made for the Cinematography of Ben Davis (GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY) who brings beauty to the bleak, stark and harsh Irish countryside. This cinematography is, actually, another character of this piece and brings strong emotional support to the performances.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever see, THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN is an interesting, intriguing - and beautifully shot - character study that will stay with you long after the film ends.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
15 years later, McDonagh does it again with THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN.
Set in the 1920s in the fictional Island of Inisherin (off the coast of Ireland), BANSHEES reunites Writer/Director McDonagh with his two stars of the previous film - Brendan Gleeson (“Mad Eye” Mooney in the Harry Potter films) and Colin Farrell (unrecognizable as The Penguin in the recent BATMAN movie) - and the resultant character study is just as interesting and intriguing to watch in a setting just as interesting…and breath-takingly beautifully bleak.
McDonagh, more than likely, will be nominated (as he was with IN BRUGES) for his screenplay for this film - it IS Oscar worthy - but for me, he was better as the Director of this character study, pointing his camera with a keen eye and surety in what he wanted to show all the while letting the performers and the countryside tell the story.
Both lead performers (and the Supporting Actors) are perfectly cast. Farrell, as Padraic,is the protagonist - a simple man who just wants to be able to go to the pub everyday and have conversation with his best friend, Colm (Gleeson) who, one day, proclaims that he no longer wants to be friends with Padraic. Padraic, then spends the rest of the film trying to understand why this is so, what happened and what he can do to make amends.
Farrell will earn an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of the simple (but not simple-minded) Padraic who is having a hard time grappling with deeper issues seeping into his simple life. Farrell has really grown into a fine actor and he (at this point in time) has to be considered on of the FrontRunners for the Best Actor Oscar for his work in this film.
Just as good is Gleeson as Colm, the recalcitrant, stoic friend who stubbornly wants nothing to do with Padraic. In lesser hands, this character could have come off as “one-note” being, simply, an immovable object in the way of Padraic’s irresistible force, but in Gleeson’s skilled hands, Colm has layers and depth that seep out through the cracks of his stoney facade. I would not be surprised if Gleeson, too, is nominated for an Oscar (probably in the Supporting category).
These two are capably assisted by Kerry Condon (Stacey Ehrmantraut in BETTER CAUL SAUL) and Barry Keoghn (DUNKIRK) as Padraic’s sister and a friend of both Padraic and Colm (respectively). Both bring their “A” games to this film and truly show the meaning of the term “Supporting” in “Supporting Performance”.
Special mention needs to be made for the Cinematography of Ben Davis (GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY) who brings beauty to the bleak, stark and harsh Irish countryside. This cinematography is, actually, another character of this piece and brings strong emotional support to the performances.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever see, THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN is an interesting, intriguing - and beautifully shot - character study that will stay with you long after the film ends.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Tiny Epic Western in Tabletop Games
Dec 30, 2021
It’s no secret that we at Purple Phoenix Games are fans of the Tiny Epic series. But one that had evaded our reviews until this point was Tiny Epic Western. Admittedly, this one has been sitting on my shelf of shame for quite some time, so I finally decided it was time to take it off the shelf and bring it to the table! After squaring up with TEW, how does it compare to the rest in the series? Is this the rootinest tootinest of the bunch, or should it be bucked off my shelf?
Disclaimer: I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook in this review, as there are just too many details, but will instead provide a more general overview of the rules and gameplay. -L
Tiny Epic Western is a game of worker placement and set collection in which players are trying to amass the most end-game victory points. Played over a series of rounds, players will be placing their Posse (Meeples), collecting Influence and taking actions, dueling opponents (if necessary), playing a bit of poker, and buying buildings in an effort to become the most powerful boss in this wild west town. To setup for a game, place the Location Mats as described in the rules, dealing a Building Card where appropriate. Each player receives a Boss card, 3 Posse tokens (Meeples), and one of each of the Influence trackers (Money, Law, and Force), placed on the 1 space of their card. Shuffle the decks of Building Cards and Poker Cards separately, choose a starting player (who receives the Dealer token), place the Wanted card/Gunslinger dice in the center of the play area, and the game is ready to begin! Pictured below is the starting setup for a 3-player game.
The game is played over 6 total rounds, each of which is broken into 4 phases: Shuffle and Deal, Posse Placement, Resolution, and Buy. To start a round, the Dealer shuffles the deck of Poker cards, and then deals 1 card face-up to the 6 empty spaces between the Location Mats. One Poker card is dealt face-down to the Rival Space (under the Town Hall Location Mat), and 2 Poker cards are dealt face-down to each player. Players look at both of their cards and pick 1 to keep, discarding the other. The round then moves to phase 2: Posse Placement. Starting with the Dealer, players will take turns placing Posse tokens onto the placement spots on any of the Location mats. All placement spots grant unique benefits (collecting different Influence or performing Building card actions) that are performed either immediately or during later phases of the round. What happens if an opponent took a placement spot that you wanted? Then it’s time for an old-fashioned duel! The dueling players each roll a Gunslinger die, modify it if they so choose, and determine a winner. Players continue taking turns placing Posse tokens until all available Posse tokens have been placed.
When all Posse tokens have been placed, the round moves to phase 3: Resolution. The first step of this phase is to reveal Poker cards – all players reveal their cards, and the card in the Rival Space is also revealed. Moving clockwise from the Town Hall, each Location will be resolved by ‘playing’ three-card poker. Each Location has 2 Poker cards directly adjacent to it (placed between the Locations in phase 1), and those 2 cards plus the one in your hand will form your Poker hand. Any players with Posse tokens on the Location will compare their Poker hands to determine a winner. If you win the hand, you collect the Winner’s Pot (extra benefits) and are able to collect any delayed benefits from placement spots in the Posse Placement phase. Losing the hand earns you nothing *womp womp*. If you are the only Posse on a Location (with no opponents) you will compare your hand to that of the Rival. The Rival’s hand uses the cards adjacent to the Town Hall, plus the revealed card in the Rival Space. If you have a better hand, you win the benefits on your Location. If the Rival wins, though, you do not collect these benefits. All Locations are resolved in this fashion before the last phase of the round, Buy, begins.
To start this phase, all players will compare their three-card Poker hands using the 2 Poker cards adjacent to the Town Hall. The player with the best hand will act first in this phase, followed by the next best hand, and so on. The first player may now choose to buy a Building card from any Location on which they have a Posse token. Pay the requisite amount of Influence to purchase a Building, and add it to the Porch Slot on your color-corresponding Location Mat. The power granted by this Building card is now available for use in future rounds. Once all players have had the option to purchase a Building, the player with the best hand will advance one of the Industry Tokens at Town Hall. The placements of Industry Tokens will affect end-game scoring, so keep that in mind as the game progresses. When all steps of the Buy phase are performed, the round now ends. Players collect all their Posse tokens back to their boss cards, all Poker cards are collected and re-shuffled, new Building cards are dealt to Locations from which they were purchased this round, and the Dealer token is passed to the next clockwise player. If a player did not buy a Building at all during the round, they have gained the Third Posse Benefit for the coming round – granting them an additional Posse token to place during phase 2. Otherwise, all players will only ever have 2 Posse tokens to place.
After a total of 6 complete rounds, the game ends and points are tallied. Victory Points are earned from Building cards bought throughout the game. Building cards have a specified VP amount, and also have a collection of Industry Icons on them. Using the final placement of the Industry Tokens on the board, players will earn points for Industry Icon sets they have collected. And finally, whomever holds the Wanted card (won the last duel) gains an additional 2 VP. Points are all counted, and the player with the highest score is the winner.
That all probably sounds pretty complicated. But I do have to say that verbally explaining/teaching the game (and being able to use components for examples) is waaaaay easier than doing so through a text review. So please do not let the seemingly complex gameplay turn you off from this game. Once you get a basic understanding of the phases of each round, the game moves along pretty seamlessly. Honestly, the biggest learning curve for me to conquer was playing three-card poker. As someone who has never played any form of poker before, this was probably what had me most hesitant about learning TEW. After having played it now, three-card poker really isn’t too complicated, and there are some nice player reference cards to help you figure it out.
Aside from the poker element, this game really comes down to worker placement and strategy. Each Location card only has a finite number of placement spots, and the resources required to buy Buildings are not exactly in abundance. This affects your strategy, as you must decide which resources to collect at what times, as well as deciding whether you need to duel someone for a coveted resource. Another element to your strategy? You may only buy Building cards from Locations on which you have a Posse token. Maybe none of those placement spots really appeal to you this round, but you reaaaaally want that specific Building card. Are you willing to ‘burn’ a Posse token for the chance to buy it? Or is there a different Location that offers a useful resources and a desirable Building card? Also, keep in mind how your poker hand will come into play. Since poker cards are dealt to each Location at the start of a round, you are able to see what your hand will be for each Location. Maybe you have a pretty strong hand at the Bank Location, but at the Courthouse the cards end up being a bust. Are you willing to risk a placement in hopes that you have the best hand of the bunch? Because remember – if you don’t have the best hand at a Location, you get no resources/rewards! There are so many elements to a successful strategy with this game, and it really keeps all players engaged at all times. Be warned though – the variety of strategic options could be difficult for some AP-prone players.
Let me touch on components for a minute. As with all Tiny Epic games, the production quality of TEW is pretty stellar. The cards are nice and sturdy, and the iconography is clear. The Posse tokens are cute Meeples with cowboy hats, and they are nice and chunky. The only thing I don’t really like about this game are the Gunslinger dice. In theory, they are super cool, but in actual execution, they leave much to be desired. The numbers aren’t really clearly define, so they’re a bit tricky to read. Aside from that, a pretty high quality game here.
So all in all, how does Tiny Epic Western stand up in the series? It is definitely one of the heavier games of the bunch, and there is so much more going on than initially meets the eye. It feels daunting for the first few plays, but once you get the phases under your belt, it really flows pretty well. I can’t say that it is my favorite Tiny Epic game, as I just personally feel like there are too many elements going on at the same time. You’re strategizing your worker placement, but also need to consider buying Buildings for VP and to collect sets of Industry Icons and for their specific abilities, as well as figuring out your poker hand for 5 different Locations, and dealing with duels. Some people might really be into that amount of strategic forethought, but it feels a bit cumbersome to me. That being said, Purple Phoenix Games gives this three-card poker game a 3/6. The gameplay is decent, just not really my kind of game.
Disclaimer: I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook in this review, as there are just too many details, but will instead provide a more general overview of the rules and gameplay. -L
Tiny Epic Western is a game of worker placement and set collection in which players are trying to amass the most end-game victory points. Played over a series of rounds, players will be placing their Posse (Meeples), collecting Influence and taking actions, dueling opponents (if necessary), playing a bit of poker, and buying buildings in an effort to become the most powerful boss in this wild west town. To setup for a game, place the Location Mats as described in the rules, dealing a Building Card where appropriate. Each player receives a Boss card, 3 Posse tokens (Meeples), and one of each of the Influence trackers (Money, Law, and Force), placed on the 1 space of their card. Shuffle the decks of Building Cards and Poker Cards separately, choose a starting player (who receives the Dealer token), place the Wanted card/Gunslinger dice in the center of the play area, and the game is ready to begin! Pictured below is the starting setup for a 3-player game.
The game is played over 6 total rounds, each of which is broken into 4 phases: Shuffle and Deal, Posse Placement, Resolution, and Buy. To start a round, the Dealer shuffles the deck of Poker cards, and then deals 1 card face-up to the 6 empty spaces between the Location Mats. One Poker card is dealt face-down to the Rival Space (under the Town Hall Location Mat), and 2 Poker cards are dealt face-down to each player. Players look at both of their cards and pick 1 to keep, discarding the other. The round then moves to phase 2: Posse Placement. Starting with the Dealer, players will take turns placing Posse tokens onto the placement spots on any of the Location mats. All placement spots grant unique benefits (collecting different Influence or performing Building card actions) that are performed either immediately or during later phases of the round. What happens if an opponent took a placement spot that you wanted? Then it’s time for an old-fashioned duel! The dueling players each roll a Gunslinger die, modify it if they so choose, and determine a winner. Players continue taking turns placing Posse tokens until all available Posse tokens have been placed.
When all Posse tokens have been placed, the round moves to phase 3: Resolution. The first step of this phase is to reveal Poker cards – all players reveal their cards, and the card in the Rival Space is also revealed. Moving clockwise from the Town Hall, each Location will be resolved by ‘playing’ three-card poker. Each Location has 2 Poker cards directly adjacent to it (placed between the Locations in phase 1), and those 2 cards plus the one in your hand will form your Poker hand. Any players with Posse tokens on the Location will compare their Poker hands to determine a winner. If you win the hand, you collect the Winner’s Pot (extra benefits) and are able to collect any delayed benefits from placement spots in the Posse Placement phase. Losing the hand earns you nothing *womp womp*. If you are the only Posse on a Location (with no opponents) you will compare your hand to that of the Rival. The Rival’s hand uses the cards adjacent to the Town Hall, plus the revealed card in the Rival Space. If you have a better hand, you win the benefits on your Location. If the Rival wins, though, you do not collect these benefits. All Locations are resolved in this fashion before the last phase of the round, Buy, begins.
To start this phase, all players will compare their three-card Poker hands using the 2 Poker cards adjacent to the Town Hall. The player with the best hand will act first in this phase, followed by the next best hand, and so on. The first player may now choose to buy a Building card from any Location on which they have a Posse token. Pay the requisite amount of Influence to purchase a Building, and add it to the Porch Slot on your color-corresponding Location Mat. The power granted by this Building card is now available for use in future rounds. Once all players have had the option to purchase a Building, the player with the best hand will advance one of the Industry Tokens at Town Hall. The placements of Industry Tokens will affect end-game scoring, so keep that in mind as the game progresses. When all steps of the Buy phase are performed, the round now ends. Players collect all their Posse tokens back to their boss cards, all Poker cards are collected and re-shuffled, new Building cards are dealt to Locations from which they were purchased this round, and the Dealer token is passed to the next clockwise player. If a player did not buy a Building at all during the round, they have gained the Third Posse Benefit for the coming round – granting them an additional Posse token to place during phase 2. Otherwise, all players will only ever have 2 Posse tokens to place.
After a total of 6 complete rounds, the game ends and points are tallied. Victory Points are earned from Building cards bought throughout the game. Building cards have a specified VP amount, and also have a collection of Industry Icons on them. Using the final placement of the Industry Tokens on the board, players will earn points for Industry Icon sets they have collected. And finally, whomever holds the Wanted card (won the last duel) gains an additional 2 VP. Points are all counted, and the player with the highest score is the winner.
That all probably sounds pretty complicated. But I do have to say that verbally explaining/teaching the game (and being able to use components for examples) is waaaaay easier than doing so through a text review. So please do not let the seemingly complex gameplay turn you off from this game. Once you get a basic understanding of the phases of each round, the game moves along pretty seamlessly. Honestly, the biggest learning curve for me to conquer was playing three-card poker. As someone who has never played any form of poker before, this was probably what had me most hesitant about learning TEW. After having played it now, three-card poker really isn’t too complicated, and there are some nice player reference cards to help you figure it out.
Aside from the poker element, this game really comes down to worker placement and strategy. Each Location card only has a finite number of placement spots, and the resources required to buy Buildings are not exactly in abundance. This affects your strategy, as you must decide which resources to collect at what times, as well as deciding whether you need to duel someone for a coveted resource. Another element to your strategy? You may only buy Building cards from Locations on which you have a Posse token. Maybe none of those placement spots really appeal to you this round, but you reaaaaally want that specific Building card. Are you willing to ‘burn’ a Posse token for the chance to buy it? Or is there a different Location that offers a useful resources and a desirable Building card? Also, keep in mind how your poker hand will come into play. Since poker cards are dealt to each Location at the start of a round, you are able to see what your hand will be for each Location. Maybe you have a pretty strong hand at the Bank Location, but at the Courthouse the cards end up being a bust. Are you willing to risk a placement in hopes that you have the best hand of the bunch? Because remember – if you don’t have the best hand at a Location, you get no resources/rewards! There are so many elements to a successful strategy with this game, and it really keeps all players engaged at all times. Be warned though – the variety of strategic options could be difficult for some AP-prone players.
Let me touch on components for a minute. As with all Tiny Epic games, the production quality of TEW is pretty stellar. The cards are nice and sturdy, and the iconography is clear. The Posse tokens are cute Meeples with cowboy hats, and they are nice and chunky. The only thing I don’t really like about this game are the Gunslinger dice. In theory, they are super cool, but in actual execution, they leave much to be desired. The numbers aren’t really clearly define, so they’re a bit tricky to read. Aside from that, a pretty high quality game here.
So all in all, how does Tiny Epic Western stand up in the series? It is definitely one of the heavier games of the bunch, and there is so much more going on than initially meets the eye. It feels daunting for the first few plays, but once you get the phases under your belt, it really flows pretty well. I can’t say that it is my favorite Tiny Epic game, as I just personally feel like there are too many elements going on at the same time. You’re strategizing your worker placement, but also need to consider buying Buildings for VP and to collect sets of Industry Icons and for their specific abilities, as well as figuring out your poker hand for 5 different Locations, and dealing with duels. Some people might really be into that amount of strategic forethought, but it feels a bit cumbersome to me. That being said, Purple Phoenix Games gives this three-card poker game a 3/6. The gameplay is decent, just not really my kind of game.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Covenant in Books
May 16, 2018
I was disappointed, to say the least. The synopsis of the story is interesting enough: fairly young married couple move to small town and buy a house with a history. That history is dark and twisted, centering upon a previous owner that moonlighted as a serial killer. When the husband dies in a freak accident, all suspicion falls upon the surviving wife... and then all Hell breaks loose.
Many of the books I've read lately have had a fairly substantial cast of characters. Covenant does not; in fact, I can count the amount of characters in this book on my fingers. Normally one might expect that to be a good thing, as it opens up the opportunity for extremely developed characters. Because this is a short work of fiction, that depth does not exist. The characters are flat and their pasts are, with the exception of the Padgett brothers, a bit too perfect. The Coopers have been together since they were twenty and twenty-one, and their marriage has been perfect bliss. They are joined by a run-of-the-mill detective, an aging medium, and Lindie Cooper's boss, Debra Moynihan. Considering that the Padgett brothers play an extremely small role, - one of them is only mentioned, - I can't help but feel a bit put off by the fact that they appear to be more complete than the main characters are.
As for the story's plot, I truly feel that Leverone could have done a lot more with it than he did. Covenant was a quick read, which worked to its disadvantage. Rather than rise to the climax like most books, Covenant jumped - and it did it in a manner that didn't quite make sense: freak accident, to mild haunting, to sudden inferno - literally. There were also too many inconsistencies, most notably in the latter portion of the book where most of the action takes place. Lindie manages to knock herself out in a manner that simply is not possible, for example. I won't delve further into the specifics there, because then I'd be crossing into spoiler territory.
In regards to the style of Leverone's writing, it definitely isn't to my taste. Much of it felt too clunky and there were far too many sentence fragments. That's not to say sentence fragments are a bad thing, because they aren't. There's a method to the way they are applied though, and leaving off pronouns entirely is not the way to do it. Some of the writing felt a bit too forced at times, and others it read a bit too much like an over cliched, badly written comedy.
<spoiler>My final complaint has to do with something that occurs at the end of the book, and I feel that it isn't a spoiler for me to bring it up so I'm going to. After everything is said and done, Lindie compares herself to Hester Prynne. While she is referring to how others see her, I find myself extremely vexed that this comparison was made - largely because Lindie is nothing like Hester Prynne. For anyone that hasn't read The Scarlet Letter, which is still on the curriculum for most high schools, Hester Prynne was an adulteress that became pregnant with another man's child while her husband was away. As a result, she was forced to where a red "A" upon her breast and was shunned by her community. Hester Prynne's suffering at small town gossip should not be trivialized by a character's poorly conceived notion of how others view her.</spoiler>
I found Covenant to be a quick and easy read, but it definitely didn't hit the spot for me, so to speak. I'd like to thank NetGalley and the publisher, DarkFuse, for providing me with an advanced copy in exchange for an honest, unbiased review.
Many of the books I've read lately have had a fairly substantial cast of characters. Covenant does not; in fact, I can count the amount of characters in this book on my fingers. Normally one might expect that to be a good thing, as it opens up the opportunity for extremely developed characters. Because this is a short work of fiction, that depth does not exist. The characters are flat and their pasts are, with the exception of the Padgett brothers, a bit too perfect. The Coopers have been together since they were twenty and twenty-one, and their marriage has been perfect bliss. They are joined by a run-of-the-mill detective, an aging medium, and Lindie Cooper's boss, Debra Moynihan. Considering that the Padgett brothers play an extremely small role, - one of them is only mentioned, - I can't help but feel a bit put off by the fact that they appear to be more complete than the main characters are.
As for the story's plot, I truly feel that Leverone could have done a lot more with it than he did. Covenant was a quick read, which worked to its disadvantage. Rather than rise to the climax like most books, Covenant jumped - and it did it in a manner that didn't quite make sense: freak accident, to mild haunting, to sudden inferno - literally. There were also too many inconsistencies, most notably in the latter portion of the book where most of the action takes place. Lindie manages to knock herself out in a manner that simply is not possible, for example. I won't delve further into the specifics there, because then I'd be crossing into spoiler territory.
In regards to the style of Leverone's writing, it definitely isn't to my taste. Much of it felt too clunky and there were far too many sentence fragments. That's not to say sentence fragments are a bad thing, because they aren't. There's a method to the way they are applied though, and leaving off pronouns entirely is not the way to do it. Some of the writing felt a bit too forced at times, and others it read a bit too much like an over cliched, badly written comedy.
<spoiler>My final complaint has to do with something that occurs at the end of the book, and I feel that it isn't a spoiler for me to bring it up so I'm going to. After everything is said and done, Lindie compares herself to Hester Prynne. While she is referring to how others see her, I find myself extremely vexed that this comparison was made - largely because Lindie is nothing like Hester Prynne. For anyone that hasn't read The Scarlet Letter, which is still on the curriculum for most high schools, Hester Prynne was an adulteress that became pregnant with another man's child while her husband was away. As a result, she was forced to where a red "A" upon her breast and was shunned by her community. Hester Prynne's suffering at small town gossip should not be trivialized by a character's poorly conceived notion of how others view her.</spoiler>
I found Covenant to be a quick and easy read, but it definitely didn't hit the spot for me, so to speak. I'd like to thank NetGalley and the publisher, DarkFuse, for providing me with an advanced copy in exchange for an honest, unbiased review.