Search
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated The Bloody Inn in Tabletop Games
Feb 12, 2022
It’s cliche to post a game review like this so near to Halloween, so I will probably hold off on that. However, what a perfect game to go along with the macabre tone of the Halloween season! Get this: you and your family own a motel in a small town where many travelers stop to rest. You are strapped for cash, so what is a logical step in achieving wealth? Of course! Murdering and robbing your customers upon their stays! No? Not a typical business model? Unsustainable? Pfft. You just aren’t robbing the right customers…
The Bloody Inn is a card-drafting, hand management, horror game of recruiting accomplices and having them carry out dastardly deeds to secure the most money at the end of the game. In it, players take on the roles of one of the inn’s staff members and control pawns in their evil schemes in order to swindle and kill for mountains of francs (it’s set in France, pre-Euro).
To setup, place the main board on the table, give each player the components of their color choice, two Peasant cards, a 10 franc (f) check, and a player aid card. The “traveler deck” is assembled and shuffled per the rules, and placed on the Entrance side of the board. Players choose one room to place a key token in their color, and several gray neutral key tokens are placed in other rooms. Unsuspecting travelers will be staying in these rooms each night. Per the rules, the greediest player is given the first player card and the mischief may begin!
The Bloody Inn is played over several rounds, and each round has players completing three phases: Welcome Travelers, Player Actions, and End of Round. Players will Welcome Travelers to signify the start of the round by the first player drawing one card from the deck at a time and choosing in which room they will be placed.
After Travelers have been welcomed and turn in for the evening, the second phase may begin: Player Actions. In turn order players will be able to perform two actions each round. Players may choose from five different actions, and actions can be repeated for the second action of the round. Players may Bribe a Guest by discarding cards from hand equal to the printed value on the target card’s front. Initially all players simply employ the two starter Peasants, so Bribing is only performed on cards that show a value of 0-2. When a player Bribes a guest, they essentially spend cards from hand to recruit the new guest to their employ. These new employees (accomplices) are then available to be used on future actions. One or two Peasants may also be Bribed from the bistro, adding to a player’s hand of usable human resources.
A player may instead choose to Kill a Guest by similarly discarding the appropriate number of accomplices and adding the freshly-slain guest to their tableau, face-down. The card backs feature a coffin with their “rank” (action number) printed on it. Corpses normally cause no issues, but they will need to be buried under an Annex in order to collect the money in their pockets. Players may use an action to Build an Annex by discarding the appropriate number of accomplices and using a card from hand to build and staff the Annex. Annexes can be used for the action printed on the card bottom, and/or as a housing for corpses, with the Corpses being sent to any player’s Annex via the Bury a Corpse action. Discard the requisite number of accomplices to bury a corpse, and avoid suspicion from the Law.
If none of these actions are attractive to the player, or if they simply wish, they may instead Pass and launder money from the village notary. To do this, either reduce the number of francs from the Wealth Track on the main board in order to gain a 10f check, or turn in a check for 10f on the Wealth Track.
Once all players have taken their two actions, the End of Round is performed. Firstly, if any Travelers remain belonging to the Police type (signified by pistol icons on the top of the card), they will conduct an investigation, finding any unburied corpses. Should a corpse be found in this way, the owning player will need to pay 10f for the local undertaker to dispose of the body respectfully. This not only costs the player 10f, but also the amount of money that could have been gained if they had only buried them or dealt with the Police traveler prior. Next, the Travelers who remain all wake up feeling refreshed and leave the inn by being placed in the discard pile. Once the board has been cleared of all Travelers, accomplices must be paid their wages for their help. For each accomplice in hand, the players must pay 1f from the Wealth Track.
Play continues in this fashion until the main Traveler deck has been depleted twice. Then, players add up their francs and the player with the most in francs and checks is the winner, and just the greatest little murderer/robber/briber in all the land!
Components. This game really has a modest amount of components, but they are all similarly great quality. The main board acts as the inn’s room display, the Wealth Track, AND the bistro (where Peasants are discarded, as opposed to being placed in the normal discard pile). I love when components pull double or triple duty. That said, the player aids not only remind the players of the phases and actions from which they may choose, but it also provides the player with a starter Annex that can be used to bury their first corpse! HOW COOL IS THAT?! However, the greatest thing that stands out in regards to the components is the overall look and feel of the game. The character artist for this one is Weberson Santiago, and he has also illustrated games such as the new Quest (the new version of The Resistance: Avalon), Coup, and the new Whirling Witchcraft. I adore his art style, even though I shouldn’t. My typical preference of character art is semi-realism (like that of Kwanchai Moriya), but this style is really unique and perfectly applied to the theme. Great matchup of artist and game here. I do have one silly wish for this game: PLEASE change the player colors. I mean, I am so tired of having the choice between red, blue, green, and yellow. Take a Cue from my good friend Scott Brady and use one of the more interesting color choices. I mean, even to fit in with the theme here a more appropriate palette could include a brown, black, orange, and yellow or something. Be bold!!
I knew right away that this was a great game for me. Yes, the theme is super dark and macabre, which is rare for me to enjoy, but I would only play this with adults anyway so I am unbothered by it. However, the puzzle that lies within this box is one that I thoroughly enjoy solving every round. What I neglected to mention up top is the fact that when actions are taken (Bribing, Killing, Building Annexes, and Burying Corpses) if you happen to have certain card types in hand, then the cost of discards is reduced by the number of cards present. For example, if I were to Bribe a Police card from the rooms in my first action, they have an affinity for killing (messed up, I know) and will thus help me to perform a Kill action on the next turn by reducing the number of accomplices I would need to discard for that action. Side benefit: by taking the Police Travelers off the board, they then will not perform their investigations in the morning.
Another aspect I truly enjoy about The Bloody Inn is that many cards have that dual-purpose mechanic I appreciate. The player aid is also an Annex. Brilliant! Many of the Annex cards can also offer one-time or recurring powers. It’s just so satisfying to grab cards that can combo well with each other in order to fulfill your evil plans. Every card is important, and when they can offer more than one benefit, I am a happy gamer.
I cannot express how happy I am to have decided to purchase this one. I have seen the BGG ratings and rankings, but always thought I wouldn’t like it due to its very adult theme, but boy was I wrong! This is one of the best games I have played recently and I hope to even bling it out a bit, maybe even with new player colors like I suggested earlier. Laura and my wife were able to join me for this one and they agree with me – this one is excellent and definitely worth consideration into anyone’s collection. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a dastardly 15 / 18. Yeah, it’s perfect for Halloweentime, but also for ANY time. If you are looking for something a little grim and grisly with lighter rules and lots of interesting choices, you need to check out The Bloody Inn. Grab lots of Police cards and go on a killing spree for me!
The Bloody Inn is a card-drafting, hand management, horror game of recruiting accomplices and having them carry out dastardly deeds to secure the most money at the end of the game. In it, players take on the roles of one of the inn’s staff members and control pawns in their evil schemes in order to swindle and kill for mountains of francs (it’s set in France, pre-Euro).
To setup, place the main board on the table, give each player the components of their color choice, two Peasant cards, a 10 franc (f) check, and a player aid card. The “traveler deck” is assembled and shuffled per the rules, and placed on the Entrance side of the board. Players choose one room to place a key token in their color, and several gray neutral key tokens are placed in other rooms. Unsuspecting travelers will be staying in these rooms each night. Per the rules, the greediest player is given the first player card and the mischief may begin!
The Bloody Inn is played over several rounds, and each round has players completing three phases: Welcome Travelers, Player Actions, and End of Round. Players will Welcome Travelers to signify the start of the round by the first player drawing one card from the deck at a time and choosing in which room they will be placed.
After Travelers have been welcomed and turn in for the evening, the second phase may begin: Player Actions. In turn order players will be able to perform two actions each round. Players may choose from five different actions, and actions can be repeated for the second action of the round. Players may Bribe a Guest by discarding cards from hand equal to the printed value on the target card’s front. Initially all players simply employ the two starter Peasants, so Bribing is only performed on cards that show a value of 0-2. When a player Bribes a guest, they essentially spend cards from hand to recruit the new guest to their employ. These new employees (accomplices) are then available to be used on future actions. One or two Peasants may also be Bribed from the bistro, adding to a player’s hand of usable human resources.
A player may instead choose to Kill a Guest by similarly discarding the appropriate number of accomplices and adding the freshly-slain guest to their tableau, face-down. The card backs feature a coffin with their “rank” (action number) printed on it. Corpses normally cause no issues, but they will need to be buried under an Annex in order to collect the money in their pockets. Players may use an action to Build an Annex by discarding the appropriate number of accomplices and using a card from hand to build and staff the Annex. Annexes can be used for the action printed on the card bottom, and/or as a housing for corpses, with the Corpses being sent to any player’s Annex via the Bury a Corpse action. Discard the requisite number of accomplices to bury a corpse, and avoid suspicion from the Law.
If none of these actions are attractive to the player, or if they simply wish, they may instead Pass and launder money from the village notary. To do this, either reduce the number of francs from the Wealth Track on the main board in order to gain a 10f check, or turn in a check for 10f on the Wealth Track.
Once all players have taken their two actions, the End of Round is performed. Firstly, if any Travelers remain belonging to the Police type (signified by pistol icons on the top of the card), they will conduct an investigation, finding any unburied corpses. Should a corpse be found in this way, the owning player will need to pay 10f for the local undertaker to dispose of the body respectfully. This not only costs the player 10f, but also the amount of money that could have been gained if they had only buried them or dealt with the Police traveler prior. Next, the Travelers who remain all wake up feeling refreshed and leave the inn by being placed in the discard pile. Once the board has been cleared of all Travelers, accomplices must be paid their wages for their help. For each accomplice in hand, the players must pay 1f from the Wealth Track.
Play continues in this fashion until the main Traveler deck has been depleted twice. Then, players add up their francs and the player with the most in francs and checks is the winner, and just the greatest little murderer/robber/briber in all the land!
Components. This game really has a modest amount of components, but they are all similarly great quality. The main board acts as the inn’s room display, the Wealth Track, AND the bistro (where Peasants are discarded, as opposed to being placed in the normal discard pile). I love when components pull double or triple duty. That said, the player aids not only remind the players of the phases and actions from which they may choose, but it also provides the player with a starter Annex that can be used to bury their first corpse! HOW COOL IS THAT?! However, the greatest thing that stands out in regards to the components is the overall look and feel of the game. The character artist for this one is Weberson Santiago, and he has also illustrated games such as the new Quest (the new version of The Resistance: Avalon), Coup, and the new Whirling Witchcraft. I adore his art style, even though I shouldn’t. My typical preference of character art is semi-realism (like that of Kwanchai Moriya), but this style is really unique and perfectly applied to the theme. Great matchup of artist and game here. I do have one silly wish for this game: PLEASE change the player colors. I mean, I am so tired of having the choice between red, blue, green, and yellow. Take a Cue from my good friend Scott Brady and use one of the more interesting color choices. I mean, even to fit in with the theme here a more appropriate palette could include a brown, black, orange, and yellow or something. Be bold!!
I knew right away that this was a great game for me. Yes, the theme is super dark and macabre, which is rare for me to enjoy, but I would only play this with adults anyway so I am unbothered by it. However, the puzzle that lies within this box is one that I thoroughly enjoy solving every round. What I neglected to mention up top is the fact that when actions are taken (Bribing, Killing, Building Annexes, and Burying Corpses) if you happen to have certain card types in hand, then the cost of discards is reduced by the number of cards present. For example, if I were to Bribe a Police card from the rooms in my first action, they have an affinity for killing (messed up, I know) and will thus help me to perform a Kill action on the next turn by reducing the number of accomplices I would need to discard for that action. Side benefit: by taking the Police Travelers off the board, they then will not perform their investigations in the morning.
Another aspect I truly enjoy about The Bloody Inn is that many cards have that dual-purpose mechanic I appreciate. The player aid is also an Annex. Brilliant! Many of the Annex cards can also offer one-time or recurring powers. It’s just so satisfying to grab cards that can combo well with each other in order to fulfill your evil plans. Every card is important, and when they can offer more than one benefit, I am a happy gamer.
I cannot express how happy I am to have decided to purchase this one. I have seen the BGG ratings and rankings, but always thought I wouldn’t like it due to its very adult theme, but boy was I wrong! This is one of the best games I have played recently and I hope to even bling it out a bit, maybe even with new player colors like I suggested earlier. Laura and my wife were able to join me for this one and they agree with me – this one is excellent and definitely worth consideration into anyone’s collection. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a dastardly 15 / 18. Yeah, it’s perfect for Halloweentime, but also for ANY time. If you are looking for something a little grim and grisly with lighter rules and lots of interesting choices, you need to check out The Bloody Inn. Grab lots of Police cards and go on a killing spree for me!
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Last of Us Part II in Video Games
Jun 30, 2020 (Updated Jul 1, 2020)
Gameplay (2 more)
Graphics
Sound
I'm Not Mad, I'm Just Disappointed
Contains spoilers, click to show
It's been a while since I've written anything, but I couldn't let this one go by without saying anything about it.
The Last Of Us Part 2 is the biggest disappointment of 2020.
I finished the game a few days ago and have been letting it process in my mind in the hopes that it will somehow make more sense to me. So far that hasn't been the case.
Let me provide you with some context, I wanted to like this game more than anyone. The first Last Of Us is one of my favourite games of all time and because of the spectacular writing and performances in that first game, I was really excited to see what would happen to these characters. This was definitely one of my most anticipated releases in recent years and I'm genuinely in awe at how much of a let down it was, especially after the 10/10 reviews I had been reading leading up to the game's release.
Spoilers will follow from this point on as it's pretty difficult to discuss my reasoning for being let down by the game without getting in depth, so please tread carefully if you have yet to play through the game.
First off, I don't normally like to bring up my personal politics when discussing fictional media, but I do feel that it's necessary to mention that I am pro LGBTQ+ and none of my issues with this game stem from any sort of political bias that I may have.
The game opens slowly, juxtaposing the intense opening of the first game. However these slow opening few hours really allow you to drink in the breathtaking visuals and fantastic sound design. These elements really help to sell the cinematic nature of the game, along with consistently stellar performances.
Then we are shown the main conflict that will propel the story for the sequel. Joel is unceremoniosly murdered by Abby, a new character that we know nothing about at this point.
Now I don't have a problem with main characters being killed off in a story, in fact as a Tarantino fan, I relish it when it's done properly. The problem with Joel's death is the way that it was executed. First off, Joel and Tommy would never in a million years have blindly trusted this random faction that they've just bumped into enough to give them their names so quickly. They've both survived 25 years in the apocalypse and yet the writers still expect you to believe that they would be this naïve and stupid. Then, there's the fact that this is how they choose to introduce this new group that you are later expected to sympathize with and this character that they will later force you to play as for half the game. Why would anyone who is a fan of this world and these characters want to play and learn about this random ruthless killer?
Now, what you might be asking is "aren't Joel and Ellie ruthless killers at this point?" And you would be right, they are. However the point is that we were already invested in these characters before we seen them ruthlessly murdering infected and humans alike and therefore are able to put it down to them having to do what they had to in order to survive. With Abby you are introduced to her killing a beloved character from the first game for the sake of pure shock value.
The first game came out during an oversaturation period of zombie stories across media and yet because of it's stellar writing, it managed to stand out from the crowd and actually become one of the most unique games of the last generation in terms of the story it told. The story in this game feels so generic by comparison. I remember watching interviews with Neil Druckman in the lead up to the game's release where he would talk about how the main hurdle of writing this game was justifying it's existence after the first one ended so well. Really? You had seven years and another generic revenge plot was the best thing that you could come up with?
Another highlight from the first game was the fleshed out side characters that all felt deep and like they really existed in the world. Characters like Tess, Bill and Marlene all naturally fitted into the plot and felt necessary to the overall story being told. The same cannot be said for the side characters in this game. I have already mentioned how it is made impossible to sympathize with Abby and her crew after seeing what they did to Joel. There are two other new characters introduced called Yara and Lev. They are siblings, which put me in mind of Henry and Sam from the first game, but where Henry and Sam felt layered and genuine, Yara and Lev feel shallow and shoehorned in to give Abby's plotline some narrative weight.
Then there is the strange pacing of the story. I feel like I must reiterate, they introduce a character that murders the beloved protagonist from the first game and later expect you to sympathize with her. Then there is the fact that you play as Ellie for the next 8 hours or so before they present you with a shocking cliffhanger, only to then force you to play as Abby for the next 10 hours. Not only are they making you play as the character that murdered Joel and Jessie in cold blood, but every extra hour that they unsuccessfully attempt to make you feel sorry for Abby is another hour before you can get back to see how the cliffhanger, (that was introduced 10 hours ago,) is resolved. And then, they bafflingly make you fight Ellie while playing as Abby. Why would the game expect me to want to hurt this character that I care about as this brand new random stranger?
You are then eventually given control back as Ellie and the game lulls you into a false sense of thinking that you are finally done playing as Abby. Then Ellie makes the totally nonsensical decision to abandon a nice, cushty, quiet farm life that she's carved out for herself, to go after Abby yet again.
After that, you guessed it! You are forced to play as Abby yet again. Thankfully it's only briefly as we then at long last get to properly play as Ellie again. Not sure if you remember her at this point, she's the one that's in all of the trailers and posters and on the cover of the damn game?
Then we get what is probably the most anticlimactic ending in the history of gaming. Ellie lets Abby go. After Abby killed Joel and Jessie and crippled Tommy and after Ellie murdered all of Abby's friends and after Ellie abandoned her girlfriend and step-son and had her fingers bitten off, she's just like, "nah fam, I'm good."
I'm sorry, what?
You are going to break your promise to Tommy and let the person that murdered your father figure get away? Why?
If getting your revenge wasn't worth it, you should have really realized that back on the farm when you were surrounded by people you love and a chance at a family life. If you chose to leave that behind you must be committed enough to see it through, otherwise it is all for nothing. There is subverting audience expectations and then there is having your characters make nonsensical decisions and I feel like TLOU2 was full of the latter.
On a positive note, the gameplay is extremely fun and satisfying. Every blow lands with more force and every bullet seems to strike even harder than in the first game. It does get a bit repetitive after a while and the actual function of taking out a group of enemies hasn't evolved a great deal since the first game, but I still really enjoyed it. The upgrading and crafting systems have also been fleshed out. This, along with the immaculate graphical presentation, tight, fluid animations, brilliant audio and expectedly phenomenal performances make for something with so much potential, with only the writing and direction letting it down. Unfortunately, writing and directing are both pretty essential in a story driven game.
Before I summarise, I'd like to highlight that I am not against stories that explore the moral grey area and don't have clear heroes and villains. For example, Metal Gear Solid is my favourite franchise in gaming and the whole point of that series is to show that there is no black and white, but we all do things for our own reasons. A good story should be able to make you see the things from the "villain's" point of view without being like, "look see what you did to them? That is why they are the way they are! Look see, she is a good person because she plays fetch with dogs!" In TLOU2 it all just feels so forced and unnatural. A good storyteller should show a character's motivations and then show their actions and leave it up to audience to decide if it's justified, instead of strictly saying, "this character is 100% justified in the heinous act that you just seen her commit, now you must be on her side!"
I think that's all that I've got to say and I guess at the very least, this game has got people talking. You cannot accuse it of playing it safe, but there are a ton of different ways that the plot could have went that probably would have been a lot more satisfying for fans of the series like myself. 6/10
The Last Of Us Part 2 is the biggest disappointment of 2020.
I finished the game a few days ago and have been letting it process in my mind in the hopes that it will somehow make more sense to me. So far that hasn't been the case.
Let me provide you with some context, I wanted to like this game more than anyone. The first Last Of Us is one of my favourite games of all time and because of the spectacular writing and performances in that first game, I was really excited to see what would happen to these characters. This was definitely one of my most anticipated releases in recent years and I'm genuinely in awe at how much of a let down it was, especially after the 10/10 reviews I had been reading leading up to the game's release.
Spoilers will follow from this point on as it's pretty difficult to discuss my reasoning for being let down by the game without getting in depth, so please tread carefully if you have yet to play through the game.
First off, I don't normally like to bring up my personal politics when discussing fictional media, but I do feel that it's necessary to mention that I am pro LGBTQ+ and none of my issues with this game stem from any sort of political bias that I may have.
The game opens slowly, juxtaposing the intense opening of the first game. However these slow opening few hours really allow you to drink in the breathtaking visuals and fantastic sound design. These elements really help to sell the cinematic nature of the game, along with consistently stellar performances.
Then we are shown the main conflict that will propel the story for the sequel. Joel is unceremoniosly murdered by Abby, a new character that we know nothing about at this point.
Now I don't have a problem with main characters being killed off in a story, in fact as a Tarantino fan, I relish it when it's done properly. The problem with Joel's death is the way that it was executed. First off, Joel and Tommy would never in a million years have blindly trusted this random faction that they've just bumped into enough to give them their names so quickly. They've both survived 25 years in the apocalypse and yet the writers still expect you to believe that they would be this naïve and stupid. Then, there's the fact that this is how they choose to introduce this new group that you are later expected to sympathize with and this character that they will later force you to play as for half the game. Why would anyone who is a fan of this world and these characters want to play and learn about this random ruthless killer?
Now, what you might be asking is "aren't Joel and Ellie ruthless killers at this point?" And you would be right, they are. However the point is that we were already invested in these characters before we seen them ruthlessly murdering infected and humans alike and therefore are able to put it down to them having to do what they had to in order to survive. With Abby you are introduced to her killing a beloved character from the first game for the sake of pure shock value.
The first game came out during an oversaturation period of zombie stories across media and yet because of it's stellar writing, it managed to stand out from the crowd and actually become one of the most unique games of the last generation in terms of the story it told. The story in this game feels so generic by comparison. I remember watching interviews with Neil Druckman in the lead up to the game's release where he would talk about how the main hurdle of writing this game was justifying it's existence after the first one ended so well. Really? You had seven years and another generic revenge plot was the best thing that you could come up with?
Another highlight from the first game was the fleshed out side characters that all felt deep and like they really existed in the world. Characters like Tess, Bill and Marlene all naturally fitted into the plot and felt necessary to the overall story being told. The same cannot be said for the side characters in this game. I have already mentioned how it is made impossible to sympathize with Abby and her crew after seeing what they did to Joel. There are two other new characters introduced called Yara and Lev. They are siblings, which put me in mind of Henry and Sam from the first game, but where Henry and Sam felt layered and genuine, Yara and Lev feel shallow and shoehorned in to give Abby's plotline some narrative weight.
Then there is the strange pacing of the story. I feel like I must reiterate, they introduce a character that murders the beloved protagonist from the first game and later expect you to sympathize with her. Then there is the fact that you play as Ellie for the next 8 hours or so before they present you with a shocking cliffhanger, only to then force you to play as Abby for the next 10 hours. Not only are they making you play as the character that murdered Joel and Jessie in cold blood, but every extra hour that they unsuccessfully attempt to make you feel sorry for Abby is another hour before you can get back to see how the cliffhanger, (that was introduced 10 hours ago,) is resolved. And then, they bafflingly make you fight Ellie while playing as Abby. Why would the game expect me to want to hurt this character that I care about as this brand new random stranger?
You are then eventually given control back as Ellie and the game lulls you into a false sense of thinking that you are finally done playing as Abby. Then Ellie makes the totally nonsensical decision to abandon a nice, cushty, quiet farm life that she's carved out for herself, to go after Abby yet again.
After that, you guessed it! You are forced to play as Abby yet again. Thankfully it's only briefly as we then at long last get to properly play as Ellie again. Not sure if you remember her at this point, she's the one that's in all of the trailers and posters and on the cover of the damn game?
Then we get what is probably the most anticlimactic ending in the history of gaming. Ellie lets Abby go. After Abby killed Joel and Jessie and crippled Tommy and after Ellie murdered all of Abby's friends and after Ellie abandoned her girlfriend and step-son and had her fingers bitten off, she's just like, "nah fam, I'm good."
I'm sorry, what?
You are going to break your promise to Tommy and let the person that murdered your father figure get away? Why?
If getting your revenge wasn't worth it, you should have really realized that back on the farm when you were surrounded by people you love and a chance at a family life. If you chose to leave that behind you must be committed enough to see it through, otherwise it is all for nothing. There is subverting audience expectations and then there is having your characters make nonsensical decisions and I feel like TLOU2 was full of the latter.
On a positive note, the gameplay is extremely fun and satisfying. Every blow lands with more force and every bullet seems to strike even harder than in the first game. It does get a bit repetitive after a while and the actual function of taking out a group of enemies hasn't evolved a great deal since the first game, but I still really enjoyed it. The upgrading and crafting systems have also been fleshed out. This, along with the immaculate graphical presentation, tight, fluid animations, brilliant audio and expectedly phenomenal performances make for something with so much potential, with only the writing and direction letting it down. Unfortunately, writing and directing are both pretty essential in a story driven game.
Before I summarise, I'd like to highlight that I am not against stories that explore the moral grey area and don't have clear heroes and villains. For example, Metal Gear Solid is my favourite franchise in gaming and the whole point of that series is to show that there is no black and white, but we all do things for our own reasons. A good story should be able to make you see the things from the "villain's" point of view without being like, "look see what you did to them? That is why they are the way they are! Look see, she is a good person because she plays fetch with dogs!" In TLOU2 it all just feels so forced and unnatural. A good storyteller should show a character's motivations and then show their actions and leave it up to audience to decide if it's justified, instead of strictly saying, "this character is 100% justified in the heinous act that you just seen her commit, now you must be on her side!"
I think that's all that I've got to say and I guess at the very least, this game has got people talking. You cannot accuse it of playing it safe, but there are a ton of different ways that the plot could have went that probably would have been a lot more satisfying for fans of the series like myself. 6/10
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Godzilla (2014) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019
Godzilla's gigantic scale is impressive. (1 more)
Bryan Cranston gives a terrific performance.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson is a horribly lifeless protagonist. (2 more)
The film repeatedly obscures our chances to see Godzilla or cuts away from him completely.
There seems to be very little sense of panic or concern despite Godzilla and MUTO's destruction.
As promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 version.
This year marks the 60th anniversary of the original Godzilla film, when the King of the Monsters first emerged from the Pacific and terrorized Tokyo, Japan. Roughly 10 years after America dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II, Godzilla was artistically created to be a physical, living representation of the destructive force of those bombs. Even the texture of his skin is modelled after keloid scars, which were found on survivors as a result of the radiation. Godzilla’s arrival and subsequent attacks were spurred by the use of nuclear weapons, and he as a character wholly embodies the consequences of nuclear warfare.
60 years later, Godzilla remains a global icon, having spawned dozens of movie sequels, while introducing several other enormous monsters to battle with. Then 16 years ago, he was reimagined as he first came to America in Roland Emmerich’s lackluster 1998 film Godzilla, leaving many fans severely disappointed with not only the film, but also the new rendition of the famous monster. While Godzilla is visually depicted much more accurately in Gareth Edward’s new 2014 Godzilla than he was in ’98, his entire presence is surprisingly different than usual. This isn’t the angry, vengeful Godzilla of the past. He actually now seems almost entirely indifferent to humans. Unfortunately, as promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 Godzilla.
Godzilla (2014) starts off pretty well, strengthened by the performance of Bryan Cranston, who plays Joe Brody, a nuclear power plant engineer living in Japan. Brody is present when an unknown disaster occurs at the plant, costing many innocent lives. Despite what the trailers suggest, Cranston’s Brody is not the main character of the film. Nor is it fellow all-star actor Ken Watanabe. The main character is actually only seen for about 4 seconds of the film’s original 2 and a half minute trailer. It’s Joe Brody’s son, Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, in a performance that is decent but far from engaging. The protagonist Ford Brody is a character that is largely uninteresting, and who just casually wants to get back to his family after the monster invasion. He fails to convey any genuine sense of urgency amidst the chaos, although the same can be said for the entire cast, with the exception of Cranston’s Brody. Cranston’s performance is the only one that has any emotional weight to it, but he can’t carry the film alone. Meanwhile, Ken Watanabe is essentially reduced to being the quiet, ever-present voice of reason that no one wants to listen to. The film has a solid cast of actors, but they’re not given enough to work with in this convoluted mess of a movie.
For a movie that has so much death and destruction, the people in the film never seem all that concerned. You get no sense of global panic and hysteria. You have a 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities, with millions of people dying, and yet nobody seems all that freaked out by it. It’s almost like the situation isn’t treated as a serious threat, and there’s a major lack of suspense altogether. There’s rarely any edge-of-your-seat terror or excitement, and the lack of emotion just makes the action come off as sort of flat and dull. Not only that, the majority of the destruction that’s taking place isn’t even seen, with the movie instead opting to show you the aftermath. Throughout the first two-thirds of the movie, the camera continuously cuts away from the action you’ve been waiting for. Rather than showing you what you want to see in full-glory, the movie frequently will take you to a different location where you’ll briefly see a few seconds of the catastrophe being watched by someone on television. It feels like a cheap trick to build up to some amazing climax, but it’s incredibly frustrating. It’s like when watching a reality TV show and then the show cuts to a commercial break before revealing the winner. Perhaps it would be more forgivable if the end was enjoyable, but even though it does give you a full display of the showdown, it’s bogged down by a tiresome human story and still lacks any real emotional punch. Despite the fact that the movie tries to convey a serious tone, it’s also incredibly cheesy. To the extent that the big finale that this movie has been trying so hard to build up to ends up being almost laughable. Ultimately the movie ends up just being unsatisfying, disappointing, and overly long.
There are a lot of ways in which Godzilla goes wrong, despite the film’s great potential. One of my issues is with the musical score, which ends up coming off like a bad punchline. Music is supposed to accentuate the action and drama of a film, yet the film feels emotionless and boring. The only time the music really stood out to me was when it was being used to heighten the suspense of the climactic battle, and essentially narrate who was winning. It was done so ineffectively that it was both kind of comical and embarrassing. I also have an issue with all of the special effects, which are being touted as absolutely amazing. They’re not. However, I will say that the use of special effects in the movie is quite ambitious, but it works to the film’s detriment. There’s simply too much of them, and this excessive nature of the film is, I think, its biggest mistake. Godzilla (2014) is ridiculously CGI-heavy, and while their scope is admirable, I really think the quality would have been substantially improved if they didn’t overdo it so much. I think a less-is-more approach would have benefited the film in many ways. It’s excessive to the point of making good things turn bad. Everything is way too over the top, causing the action to lose its impact. It’s evident the filmmakers were trying so hard to make this big-budget movie as epic as possible, but this enormous scale ends up backfiring. The rampage covers two continents, multiple cities, and even traverses the length of the Pacific Ocean. I can appreciate their attempt, but the movie is trying to do too much. In other words, Godzilla (2014) bites off more than it can chew.
I also have some problems with the film’s treatment of the titular character, Godzilla. First of all, for a movie named after him, he sure doesn’t appear much in it. He’s the reason why we want to see the movie, but he’s absent for the majority of the film. Even when he’s around, he’s largely obscured by CGI smoke and storm clouds, up until the final moments of the movie. I’m also not particularly fond of his appearance. He just doesn’t quite look like Godzilla to me. It’s like looking at a T-Rex head on Godzilla’s body. I’m aware that Godzilla’s facial appearance has changed many times over 60 years, but something just doesn’t look quite right here. Additionally, I feel that Godzilla’s face is actually too expressive in this new film. I wonder if this was done to cause viewers to feel more sympathetic to him, because in the film, Godzilla is actually depicted as something of a tragic hero, rather than a colossal beast. This is my biggest concern with the movie’s handling of his character. Godzilla’s destruction in the film is treated like it’s all unintentional, and just a result of his massive size. Even though humans attack him, he’s not angry about it or anything. Never mind the movie’s claim that all of America’s nuclear bomb tests after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually secretive but unsuccessful attempts to kill Godzilla. He doesn’t mind. He’s just a poor gentle giant that’s misunderstood. Really, Hollywood? Give me a break!
To say that Godzilla (2014) is almost as bad of a film as Godzilla (1998) is a statement that I don’t take lightly. It’s a bold and controversial thing to say, and it may seem a bit absurd considering that this film goes in the right direction, whereas the previous film was all wrong from the beginning. Yet while the new movie has all the right pieces for greatness, it extends its reach too far and attempts to do too much, while never managing to make any of it very good. In all seriousness, I was more entertained with the ’98 film than I was with this one. I can hardly comprehend how a movie with a giant 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities can be so boring. Godzilla (2014) focuses so much on trying to build up to an epic conclusion that it forgets to worry about making the audience care, or even about keeping them entertained, and it just gets worse as it goes on. It repeatedly tries to raise the stakes, as well as our expectations, while attempting to delay gratification until the end. It’s a risky move, and unsurprisingly, it certainly doesn’t pay off. On the bright side, Godzilla (2014) is probably a pretty sweet movie if you’re a 12-year-old. There’s plenty of action, some cool special effects, and he’s still a pretty awesome monster. However, for me, I was totally pumped up for this movie, but an hour and a half into it, I had endured enough and wanted to walk out. Godzilla (2014) disappointed me on so many levels. It’s a movie without a beating heart. It’s predictable, overly long, has uninspired characters and a weak story, and the action just never hits the right note. A little more emotion and a little less CGI could have a gone a long way in making this movie better. As a fan of Godzilla, I felt frustrated, detached, and perplexed with how they were able to do so much wrong when they had the groundwork for something great. You know, perhaps I’m wrong in claiming it’s comparably bad as Godzilla (1998). After all, the last time I saw that movie was in the theaters when I was 12.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.17.14.)
60 years later, Godzilla remains a global icon, having spawned dozens of movie sequels, while introducing several other enormous monsters to battle with. Then 16 years ago, he was reimagined as he first came to America in Roland Emmerich’s lackluster 1998 film Godzilla, leaving many fans severely disappointed with not only the film, but also the new rendition of the famous monster. While Godzilla is visually depicted much more accurately in Gareth Edward’s new 2014 Godzilla than he was in ’98, his entire presence is surprisingly different than usual. This isn’t the angry, vengeful Godzilla of the past. He actually now seems almost entirely indifferent to humans. Unfortunately, as promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 Godzilla.
Godzilla (2014) starts off pretty well, strengthened by the performance of Bryan Cranston, who plays Joe Brody, a nuclear power plant engineer living in Japan. Brody is present when an unknown disaster occurs at the plant, costing many innocent lives. Despite what the trailers suggest, Cranston’s Brody is not the main character of the film. Nor is it fellow all-star actor Ken Watanabe. The main character is actually only seen for about 4 seconds of the film’s original 2 and a half minute trailer. It’s Joe Brody’s son, Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, in a performance that is decent but far from engaging. The protagonist Ford Brody is a character that is largely uninteresting, and who just casually wants to get back to his family after the monster invasion. He fails to convey any genuine sense of urgency amidst the chaos, although the same can be said for the entire cast, with the exception of Cranston’s Brody. Cranston’s performance is the only one that has any emotional weight to it, but he can’t carry the film alone. Meanwhile, Ken Watanabe is essentially reduced to being the quiet, ever-present voice of reason that no one wants to listen to. The film has a solid cast of actors, but they’re not given enough to work with in this convoluted mess of a movie.
For a movie that has so much death and destruction, the people in the film never seem all that concerned. You get no sense of global panic and hysteria. You have a 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities, with millions of people dying, and yet nobody seems all that freaked out by it. It’s almost like the situation isn’t treated as a serious threat, and there’s a major lack of suspense altogether. There’s rarely any edge-of-your-seat terror or excitement, and the lack of emotion just makes the action come off as sort of flat and dull. Not only that, the majority of the destruction that’s taking place isn’t even seen, with the movie instead opting to show you the aftermath. Throughout the first two-thirds of the movie, the camera continuously cuts away from the action you’ve been waiting for. Rather than showing you what you want to see in full-glory, the movie frequently will take you to a different location where you’ll briefly see a few seconds of the catastrophe being watched by someone on television. It feels like a cheap trick to build up to some amazing climax, but it’s incredibly frustrating. It’s like when watching a reality TV show and then the show cuts to a commercial break before revealing the winner. Perhaps it would be more forgivable if the end was enjoyable, but even though it does give you a full display of the showdown, it’s bogged down by a tiresome human story and still lacks any real emotional punch. Despite the fact that the movie tries to convey a serious tone, it’s also incredibly cheesy. To the extent that the big finale that this movie has been trying so hard to build up to ends up being almost laughable. Ultimately the movie ends up just being unsatisfying, disappointing, and overly long.
There are a lot of ways in which Godzilla goes wrong, despite the film’s great potential. One of my issues is with the musical score, which ends up coming off like a bad punchline. Music is supposed to accentuate the action and drama of a film, yet the film feels emotionless and boring. The only time the music really stood out to me was when it was being used to heighten the suspense of the climactic battle, and essentially narrate who was winning. It was done so ineffectively that it was both kind of comical and embarrassing. I also have an issue with all of the special effects, which are being touted as absolutely amazing. They’re not. However, I will say that the use of special effects in the movie is quite ambitious, but it works to the film’s detriment. There’s simply too much of them, and this excessive nature of the film is, I think, its biggest mistake. Godzilla (2014) is ridiculously CGI-heavy, and while their scope is admirable, I really think the quality would have been substantially improved if they didn’t overdo it so much. I think a less-is-more approach would have benefited the film in many ways. It’s excessive to the point of making good things turn bad. Everything is way too over the top, causing the action to lose its impact. It’s evident the filmmakers were trying so hard to make this big-budget movie as epic as possible, but this enormous scale ends up backfiring. The rampage covers two continents, multiple cities, and even traverses the length of the Pacific Ocean. I can appreciate their attempt, but the movie is trying to do too much. In other words, Godzilla (2014) bites off more than it can chew.
I also have some problems with the film’s treatment of the titular character, Godzilla. First of all, for a movie named after him, he sure doesn’t appear much in it. He’s the reason why we want to see the movie, but he’s absent for the majority of the film. Even when he’s around, he’s largely obscured by CGI smoke and storm clouds, up until the final moments of the movie. I’m also not particularly fond of his appearance. He just doesn’t quite look like Godzilla to me. It’s like looking at a T-Rex head on Godzilla’s body. I’m aware that Godzilla’s facial appearance has changed many times over 60 years, but something just doesn’t look quite right here. Additionally, I feel that Godzilla’s face is actually too expressive in this new film. I wonder if this was done to cause viewers to feel more sympathetic to him, because in the film, Godzilla is actually depicted as something of a tragic hero, rather than a colossal beast. This is my biggest concern with the movie’s handling of his character. Godzilla’s destruction in the film is treated like it’s all unintentional, and just a result of his massive size. Even though humans attack him, he’s not angry about it or anything. Never mind the movie’s claim that all of America’s nuclear bomb tests after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually secretive but unsuccessful attempts to kill Godzilla. He doesn’t mind. He’s just a poor gentle giant that’s misunderstood. Really, Hollywood? Give me a break!
To say that Godzilla (2014) is almost as bad of a film as Godzilla (1998) is a statement that I don’t take lightly. It’s a bold and controversial thing to say, and it may seem a bit absurd considering that this film goes in the right direction, whereas the previous film was all wrong from the beginning. Yet while the new movie has all the right pieces for greatness, it extends its reach too far and attempts to do too much, while never managing to make any of it very good. In all seriousness, I was more entertained with the ’98 film than I was with this one. I can hardly comprehend how a movie with a giant 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities can be so boring. Godzilla (2014) focuses so much on trying to build up to an epic conclusion that it forgets to worry about making the audience care, or even about keeping them entertained, and it just gets worse as it goes on. It repeatedly tries to raise the stakes, as well as our expectations, while attempting to delay gratification until the end. It’s a risky move, and unsurprisingly, it certainly doesn’t pay off. On the bright side, Godzilla (2014) is probably a pretty sweet movie if you’re a 12-year-old. There’s plenty of action, some cool special effects, and he’s still a pretty awesome monster. However, for me, I was totally pumped up for this movie, but an hour and a half into it, I had endured enough and wanted to walk out. Godzilla (2014) disappointed me on so many levels. It’s a movie without a beating heart. It’s predictable, overly long, has uninspired characters and a weak story, and the action just never hits the right note. A little more emotion and a little less CGI could have a gone a long way in making this movie better. As a fan of Godzilla, I felt frustrated, detached, and perplexed with how they were able to do so much wrong when they had the groundwork for something great. You know, perhaps I’m wrong in claiming it’s comparably bad as Godzilla (1998). After all, the last time I saw that movie was in the theaters when I was 12.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.17.14.)