Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Into the Woods (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A charming adaptation
Wolves, witches and giants all appear in the film adaptation of Stephen Sondheim’s popular musical which takes all the best bits of our favourite fairytales and mashes them together in one engaging, song-filled rollercoaster.
However, musical movie adaptations are notoriously difficult to get right, from casting restraints to the inclusion of all the songs, transferring them to the silver screen is not something to be entered into lightly. So does director Rob Marhsall’s effort elevate itself above its peers?
Into the Woods has numerous plot threads that all end up coming together in one way or another, but the main storyline follows a baker (James Corden) and his wife, played gloriously by Emily Blunt, as they come to realise they cannot have a child.
Alas, a witch – who just so happens to live next door – has a way to provide them with what they want as long as they get a few items for her in the meantime.
An all-star cast including the likes of Chris Pine, Anna Kendrick, Christine Baranski, Lucy Punch, Johnny Depp and of course Meryl Streep all give their all in a film that is brimming with tantalising cinematography and stunning songs.
meryl-streep-into-the-woodsGenerally speaking, the female cast fares better in the singing portions of the film, although Chris Pine and Billy Magnussen had the audience in intentional fits of laughter in one particular sequence as two handsome Princes.
Unfortunately, Into the Wood’s greatest asset, its cast, is also its biggest undoing. Having so many story threads means that there isn’t any emotional attachment to the characters – despite the film’s numerous attempts to tug at the heartstrings.
Despite a deeply heartfelt performance of ‘Stay with Me’ from Meryl Streep, the film just steadily rolls itself from admittedly thrilling set piece to set piece without getting bogged down in nitty gritty character development.
Thankfully, the glorious cinematography that featured in the trailer continues throughout. An enclosed feeling makes you feel like you’re actually watching a stage show rather than a film, albeit one with a much higher budget, and this is one of its most captivating features.
Director Rob Marshall has managed to keep the pantomime feel despite the fact the audience is watching in a cinema – the locations are never overdone and everything feels nicely claustrophobic, adding to the eerie atmosphere.
However, the final act is unnecessarily long and its foray into deeper territory means the magic and sparkle is well and truly lost. This is a real shame as there are numerous moments where the film could end on a high, rather than delving into a murky and at times, incomprehensible final third.
Overall, Into the Woods is a charming adaptation of the popular musical and despite its slightly overlong running time and a disappointing final act, it manages to stay on course for a perfectly adequate, if underwhelming finale.
The entire cast have a ball with their characters with Meryl Streep and Emily Blunt being particular highlights throughout.
Parents beware however, its PG certification may be slightly too lenient for smaller children, who will no doubt be intrigued by the premise of combining our most-loved fairytales.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/17/a-charming-adaptation-into-the-woods-review/
However, musical movie adaptations are notoriously difficult to get right, from casting restraints to the inclusion of all the songs, transferring them to the silver screen is not something to be entered into lightly. So does director Rob Marhsall’s effort elevate itself above its peers?
Into the Woods has numerous plot threads that all end up coming together in one way or another, but the main storyline follows a baker (James Corden) and his wife, played gloriously by Emily Blunt, as they come to realise they cannot have a child.
Alas, a witch – who just so happens to live next door – has a way to provide them with what they want as long as they get a few items for her in the meantime.
An all-star cast including the likes of Chris Pine, Anna Kendrick, Christine Baranski, Lucy Punch, Johnny Depp and of course Meryl Streep all give their all in a film that is brimming with tantalising cinematography and stunning songs.
meryl-streep-into-the-woodsGenerally speaking, the female cast fares better in the singing portions of the film, although Chris Pine and Billy Magnussen had the audience in intentional fits of laughter in one particular sequence as two handsome Princes.
Unfortunately, Into the Wood’s greatest asset, its cast, is also its biggest undoing. Having so many story threads means that there isn’t any emotional attachment to the characters – despite the film’s numerous attempts to tug at the heartstrings.
Despite a deeply heartfelt performance of ‘Stay with Me’ from Meryl Streep, the film just steadily rolls itself from admittedly thrilling set piece to set piece without getting bogged down in nitty gritty character development.
Thankfully, the glorious cinematography that featured in the trailer continues throughout. An enclosed feeling makes you feel like you’re actually watching a stage show rather than a film, albeit one with a much higher budget, and this is one of its most captivating features.
Director Rob Marshall has managed to keep the pantomime feel despite the fact the audience is watching in a cinema – the locations are never overdone and everything feels nicely claustrophobic, adding to the eerie atmosphere.
However, the final act is unnecessarily long and its foray into deeper territory means the magic and sparkle is well and truly lost. This is a real shame as there are numerous moments where the film could end on a high, rather than delving into a murky and at times, incomprehensible final third.
Overall, Into the Woods is a charming adaptation of the popular musical and despite its slightly overlong running time and a disappointing final act, it manages to stay on course for a perfectly adequate, if underwhelming finale.
The entire cast have a ball with their characters with Meryl Streep and Emily Blunt being particular highlights throughout.
Parents beware however, its PG certification may be slightly too lenient for smaller children, who will no doubt be intrigued by the premise of combining our most-loved fairytales.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/17/a-charming-adaptation-into-the-woods-review/
Fred (860 KP) rated The Producers (2005) in Movies
May 27, 2019
If I had never seen the original, this may have been decent
No question that the original 1968 film is one of the greatest comedies of all time. Anyone who's seen the original is going to have a hard time not comparing this film to the original. As soon as this movie started, I knew I was in trouble. Let's just say that Nathan Lane & Matthew Broderick don't even come close to Zero Mostel & Gene Wilder. But it doesn't stop there. There is nobody in this film that is better than anyone in the original film. I realize they needed people that could not only act, but sing & in some cases, dance. But one cannot look at the first 10 minutes of the film & think, "Those are the worst impressions of Mostel & Wilder I've ever seen." Broderick is the hardest to look at. He just doesn't come off as natural when he becomes hysterical or when he's explaining things to Bialystock. Nathan Lane fares better, but somehow the jokes come out very stale & unfunny.
Some of my favorite jokes from the original are just awful in this film. For example, in the original, Max says, "Well, you know what they say; smile & the world smiles with you." He then turns & looks into the camera & says, "This man should be in a straight-jacket." Crossing the 4th wall works so well. Yet, in this film, Lane says the line to a statue. During the out-takes on the DVD, we see Lane deliver the line to the camera, ala Mostel. But he stops, realizing that he's not supposed to do it the same way as Zero, but the new, lamer version. The Hitler tryouts are also ruined in comparison to the original. In the original, the man singing "Have You Ever Heard the German Band", points to the piano player & orders, "You Vill Play It!" Hilarious. In this one the same character turns & say, "Play the song, please." or something weak like that. And finally, when the man (who has become a mentally challenged man for this film) goes to sing "The Little Wooden Boy", he goes into a stupid little dance, & when he is just about to start, the director yells, "Next!" Nowhere near as funny as the original, where we see a man so sure of himself & so confident get ready to sing & then is cut off with the much funnier, "Thank you!" More problems arise with the changing of the story from the original. The main change is the omission of LSD (Dick Shawn's character). I heard they removed him as a hippie wouldn't work today. So, instead of just making him something other than a hippie, let's get rid of him & throw the character of Franz in there. Doesn't work. Then, when the play is finally put on, the director, a very homosexual Roger DeBris, comes out & sings, creating an obviously gay Hitler. And the audience then loves the show. How weak. There are other changes too, none of them good.
Now, let's get to the good points of this film. Some of the original songs are pretty good. Broderick redeems his bad acting for some good singing & dancing. Even Will Ferrel does a pretty good job. I can't say the same for Uma Thurman though, as her song is annoying & screechy! There are some funny parts in the movie, & they are all new to the story as all the original jokes fall flat (even without comparison). But there are not enough of the funny parts to save this film.
I can see how some may like the Broadway aspect of this film & I myself might have if the film itself didn't stink on the whole. So, I'll stick to the original film, this film had no reason to be made & now that I have seen it, it had no reason to be watched either.
Some of my favorite jokes from the original are just awful in this film. For example, in the original, Max says, "Well, you know what they say; smile & the world smiles with you." He then turns & looks into the camera & says, "This man should be in a straight-jacket." Crossing the 4th wall works so well. Yet, in this film, Lane says the line to a statue. During the out-takes on the DVD, we see Lane deliver the line to the camera, ala Mostel. But he stops, realizing that he's not supposed to do it the same way as Zero, but the new, lamer version. The Hitler tryouts are also ruined in comparison to the original. In the original, the man singing "Have You Ever Heard the German Band", points to the piano player & orders, "You Vill Play It!" Hilarious. In this one the same character turns & say, "Play the song, please." or something weak like that. And finally, when the man (who has become a mentally challenged man for this film) goes to sing "The Little Wooden Boy", he goes into a stupid little dance, & when he is just about to start, the director yells, "Next!" Nowhere near as funny as the original, where we see a man so sure of himself & so confident get ready to sing & then is cut off with the much funnier, "Thank you!" More problems arise with the changing of the story from the original. The main change is the omission of LSD (Dick Shawn's character). I heard they removed him as a hippie wouldn't work today. So, instead of just making him something other than a hippie, let's get rid of him & throw the character of Franz in there. Doesn't work. Then, when the play is finally put on, the director, a very homosexual Roger DeBris, comes out & sings, creating an obviously gay Hitler. And the audience then loves the show. How weak. There are other changes too, none of them good.
Now, let's get to the good points of this film. Some of the original songs are pretty good. Broderick redeems his bad acting for some good singing & dancing. Even Will Ferrel does a pretty good job. I can't say the same for Uma Thurman though, as her song is annoying & screechy! There are some funny parts in the movie, & they are all new to the story as all the original jokes fall flat (even without comparison). But there are not enough of the funny parts to save this film.
I can see how some may like the Broadway aspect of this film & I myself might have if the film itself didn't stink on the whole. So, I'll stick to the original film, this film had no reason to be made & now that I have seen it, it had no reason to be watched either.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Utterly preposterous
Thor is arguably one of Marvel’s strongest characters. Played by the superb Chris Hemsworth since 2011, the God of thunder is one of the MCUs most popular assets.
It’s unfortunate then that he’s been lambasted with the weakest solo films of the entire series, the son of Odin really has deserved much better.
Thor’s inception in the first of his three solo outings was a competent if unremarkable origins story and the less said about Thor: The Dark World, which remains the poorest film of the entire MCU, the better. Now, just in time for Infinity War,Thor: Ragnarok rolls into cinemas. But does it do its leading man justice?Imprisoned on the other side of the universe, the mighty Thor (Hemsworth) finds himself in a deadly gladiatorial contest that pits him against the Hulk (Bruce Banner), his former ally and fellow Avenger. Thor’s quest for survival leads him in a race against time to prevent the all-powerful goddess of death, Hela, (Cate Blanchett) from destroying his home world and the Asgardian civilisation.
This third film for our mighty Avenger is really something. A film more akin to Guardians of the Galaxy than its overly stuffy predecessors. Director Taika Waititi in his first big-budget feature has managed what many had thought was impossible, he’s given Thor a rather brilliant movie.
But how? Well, he’s realised what no-one else has. The premise surrounding our titular hero is utterly ridiculous. Rather than shy away from that and create something serious, he’s embraced it with humour, music and my goodness, a lot of colour.
If you thought Guardians of the Galaxy used every colour on the spectrum, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Thor: Ragnarok is quite something to watch. From the gold-tipped spears of Asgard that glisten like never before, to the trash-topped planet of Sakaar, everything is dripping in colour.
“Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice.”
Speaking of Sakaar, it contains one of the MCUs best new additions: Jeff Goldbum. Sorry, I mean the Grandmaster. Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice. The 65-year-old legend has made a career on playing himself and it works exceptionally well here. His improvisation is absolutely spot on.
Ragnarok throws up a few other surprises too. One being that Chris Hemsworth is absolutely hilarious. He and Tom Hiddleston bounce off each other incredibly well and we see real chemistry – the chemistry that should have been evident from the start. Cate Blanchett also turns the cheese up to 11 as the latest throwaway Marvel villain, Hela.
She fares better than the majority of Marvel villains and is certainly more interesting than Christopher Eccelston’s, Malekith, but they never quite make the impact that the scriptwriters were clearly looking for. Nevertheless, Blanchett is excellent.
Thankfully, Thor: Ragnarok doesn’t suffer from the absence of Natalie Portman’s dull Jane Foster, and though she is referenced early on, newcomer Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie provides a fitting replacement and possible future love-interest for our intrepid hero.
Unfortunately, it’s not all good news. Surprisingly the first 30 minutes feel incredibly rushed as numerous loose storylines are brought together and the improvised nature of the script lends itself to a little too much humour. Yes, we get it, Marvel films are funny, but this should not be at the expense of the more emotional sequences that the movie tries to put across.
Nevertheless, Thor: Ragnarok is a resounding success, created by a man who clearly has a passion for this corner of the MCU. He manages to make an absolutely preposterous film – and that’s exactly how Thor should be. Take a bow Mr. Waititi.
A little tip – there are two end credit sequences waiting for you. You’re welcome.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/26/thor-ragnarok-review/
It’s unfortunate then that he’s been lambasted with the weakest solo films of the entire series, the son of Odin really has deserved much better.
Thor’s inception in the first of his three solo outings was a competent if unremarkable origins story and the less said about Thor: The Dark World, which remains the poorest film of the entire MCU, the better. Now, just in time for Infinity War,Thor: Ragnarok rolls into cinemas. But does it do its leading man justice?Imprisoned on the other side of the universe, the mighty Thor (Hemsworth) finds himself in a deadly gladiatorial contest that pits him against the Hulk (Bruce Banner), his former ally and fellow Avenger. Thor’s quest for survival leads him in a race against time to prevent the all-powerful goddess of death, Hela, (Cate Blanchett) from destroying his home world and the Asgardian civilisation.
This third film for our mighty Avenger is really something. A film more akin to Guardians of the Galaxy than its overly stuffy predecessors. Director Taika Waititi in his first big-budget feature has managed what many had thought was impossible, he’s given Thor a rather brilliant movie.
But how? Well, he’s realised what no-one else has. The premise surrounding our titular hero is utterly ridiculous. Rather than shy away from that and create something serious, he’s embraced it with humour, music and my goodness, a lot of colour.
If you thought Guardians of the Galaxy used every colour on the spectrum, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Thor: Ragnarok is quite something to watch. From the gold-tipped spears of Asgard that glisten like never before, to the trash-topped planet of Sakaar, everything is dripping in colour.
“Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice.”
Speaking of Sakaar, it contains one of the MCUs best new additions: Jeff Goldbum. Sorry, I mean the Grandmaster. Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice. The 65-year-old legend has made a career on playing himself and it works exceptionally well here. His improvisation is absolutely spot on.
Ragnarok throws up a few other surprises too. One being that Chris Hemsworth is absolutely hilarious. He and Tom Hiddleston bounce off each other incredibly well and we see real chemistry – the chemistry that should have been evident from the start. Cate Blanchett also turns the cheese up to 11 as the latest throwaway Marvel villain, Hela.
She fares better than the majority of Marvel villains and is certainly more interesting than Christopher Eccelston’s, Malekith, but they never quite make the impact that the scriptwriters were clearly looking for. Nevertheless, Blanchett is excellent.
Thankfully, Thor: Ragnarok doesn’t suffer from the absence of Natalie Portman’s dull Jane Foster, and though she is referenced early on, newcomer Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie provides a fitting replacement and possible future love-interest for our intrepid hero.
Unfortunately, it’s not all good news. Surprisingly the first 30 minutes feel incredibly rushed as numerous loose storylines are brought together and the improvised nature of the script lends itself to a little too much humour. Yes, we get it, Marvel films are funny, but this should not be at the expense of the more emotional sequences that the movie tries to put across.
Nevertheless, Thor: Ragnarok is a resounding success, created by a man who clearly has a passion for this corner of the MCU. He manages to make an absolutely preposterous film – and that’s exactly how Thor should be. Take a bow Mr. Waititi.
A little tip – there are two end credit sequences waiting for you. You’re welcome.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/26/thor-ragnarok-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019
GREAT chemistry between Bale and Damon
Most people are attending - or staying away from - the new James Mangold film, FORD v FERRARI because it is a "race car flick". But to label it as just that is doing a disservice to this film, so if that is what is keeping you away from this movie, think again, for this film is much more than a race car film.
It is, at it's core, a film about friendship and loyalty in the face of adversity and is a very serious contender for multiple awards this Oscar season.
A long gestating film project (Director Mangold first came across this property in 2010), FORD v FERRARI tells the tale of the Ford Motor Company's attempt to unseat the Italian car company, Ferrari, as an elite race car producer by defeating it on it's own turf - the 24 hour race at LeMans.
Entrusted to make this dream a reality by Henry Ford II (Tracy Letts) is (now) legendary race car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) who turns to his reckless friend - and top race car driver - Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help put this project over the top.
Will this duo succeed? Will Ford topple Ferrari? Can Shelby help smooth the rough waters that the temperamental Miles will, inevitably, create? What do you think?
But it is the journey - and not the destination - that is the joy of this film, for under the watchful, steady eye of veteran Director Mangold (WALK THE LINE) this film is much, much more than the cliched journey of a maverick bucking the system to, ultimately, prevail. It is a study of friendship and loyalty under intense pressure and Mangold finds the right balance between showing hardcore racing and the friendship and camaraderie of Miles and Shelby.
Mangold, of course, smartly knew that the success (or failure) of this film will rest on the chemistry between the two leads of this film - and he cast them well. Matt Damon brings his usual charm and easy-going attitude to Carroll Shelby, making him the heart and anchor of this film - we see the events unfold through his eyes - and he is a an easy stand-in for the audience during the proceedings and is someone that we are happy, and comfortable, to spend the 2 1/2 hours of this film with.
This is good, for he is strongly complimented - and challenged - by the hard intensity that Christian Bale brings to his portrayal of Ken Miles. This real-life racing car legend is driven (pun intended) to excellence, and does not suffer fools gladly. We spend a good amount of time in this film with Miles staring intently out the window of his race car and no one does smoldering, staring intensity better than Bale. This is another Oscar-worthy performance by an actor who has made a career of Oscar-worthy performances and has me asking - is he the finest actor working today? He certainly is in the conversation.
Bale and Damon play off each other very well, their chemistry seems real and we believe that these are 2 old friends working together. This is the first pairing of these two, and based on these results, I would guess that we'll be seeing these two in a film together again.
They are joined by strong supporting work by the likes of Letts, Jon Bernthal (portraying Lee Iacocca) and Caitriona Balfe (as Miles wife, Mollie). Only Josh Lucas (as the a-hole antagonist of the film) fares less well as his character is written in one note and Lucas just plays that note.
The racing scenes are well done - giving us the visceral intensity of what it must be like in the car, and in the pits, of a major race experience. But it is the friendship between Miles and Shelby that really is the engine that drives this film.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
It is, at it's core, a film about friendship and loyalty in the face of adversity and is a very serious contender for multiple awards this Oscar season.
A long gestating film project (Director Mangold first came across this property in 2010), FORD v FERRARI tells the tale of the Ford Motor Company's attempt to unseat the Italian car company, Ferrari, as an elite race car producer by defeating it on it's own turf - the 24 hour race at LeMans.
Entrusted to make this dream a reality by Henry Ford II (Tracy Letts) is (now) legendary race car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) who turns to his reckless friend - and top race car driver - Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help put this project over the top.
Will this duo succeed? Will Ford topple Ferrari? Can Shelby help smooth the rough waters that the temperamental Miles will, inevitably, create? What do you think?
But it is the journey - and not the destination - that is the joy of this film, for under the watchful, steady eye of veteran Director Mangold (WALK THE LINE) this film is much, much more than the cliched journey of a maverick bucking the system to, ultimately, prevail. It is a study of friendship and loyalty under intense pressure and Mangold finds the right balance between showing hardcore racing and the friendship and camaraderie of Miles and Shelby.
Mangold, of course, smartly knew that the success (or failure) of this film will rest on the chemistry between the two leads of this film - and he cast them well. Matt Damon brings his usual charm and easy-going attitude to Carroll Shelby, making him the heart and anchor of this film - we see the events unfold through his eyes - and he is a an easy stand-in for the audience during the proceedings and is someone that we are happy, and comfortable, to spend the 2 1/2 hours of this film with.
This is good, for he is strongly complimented - and challenged - by the hard intensity that Christian Bale brings to his portrayal of Ken Miles. This real-life racing car legend is driven (pun intended) to excellence, and does not suffer fools gladly. We spend a good amount of time in this film with Miles staring intently out the window of his race car and no one does smoldering, staring intensity better than Bale. This is another Oscar-worthy performance by an actor who has made a career of Oscar-worthy performances and has me asking - is he the finest actor working today? He certainly is in the conversation.
Bale and Damon play off each other very well, their chemistry seems real and we believe that these are 2 old friends working together. This is the first pairing of these two, and based on these results, I would guess that we'll be seeing these two in a film together again.
They are joined by strong supporting work by the likes of Letts, Jon Bernthal (portraying Lee Iacocca) and Caitriona Balfe (as Miles wife, Mollie). Only Josh Lucas (as the a-hole antagonist of the film) fares less well as his character is written in one note and Lucas just plays that note.
The racing scenes are well done - giving us the visceral intensity of what it must be like in the car, and in the pits, of a major race experience. But it is the friendship between Miles and Shelby that really is the engine that drives this film.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Hunters of the Lost Creatures in Tabletop Games
May 8, 2022
If you are reading this, then we can agree on a few things: board games are cool and interesting, silly themes are usually fun, and we are all kids at heart. I appreciate other gamers so much because we all share a common bond of experiencing good and bad games, good and bad rules, as well as good and bad explanations of these rules. I would spoil it up top here if I let on which of these categories our featured game falls into, right? So keep reading.
Hunters of the Lost Creatures is a silly set collection card game for three to four players. In it, players assume the roles of zoological park curators charged with collecting unique creatures for their parks. They do this by bidding on and drafting creature cards, playing take-that style cards on their opponents, and blocking their cards from being manipulated by others.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, players choose one hunter card from each of the four hunting zones: Sea, Forest, Plains, and Air, as well as three “Park Closed” cards. The creature cards are to be split by zone and shuffled, with one special card (Turnado and Cat-a-Pult) added. These shuffled decks are then placed on the table and the top card revealed from each deck. Players decide turn order and the game may begin!
Hands are mostly played simultaneously, with players choosing either a hunter or special card from their hand and placing it face-down in front of themselves. All cards are revealed simultaneously and the card effects are applied. If a player has revealed a hunter, and no other players have the same-colored background/terrain type, that player receives the matching card from those on offer and places it in their park (tableau), or ANY OTHER PLAYER’S park. If ALL players have chosen the same terrain type hunters, the card on offer is removed from the game entirely. However, if not all hunters match, but at least one matches, the matching hunters’ players receive no cards.
Should a player choose to play a special card, their effects are triggered once per game. These include Turnado (switch any two creatures in any two parks), Cat-a-Pult (discards any creature from any player’s park), Thieves (steal any one terrain-matching creature and places it in the Thieves player’s park) and Closed Park (protects the player from the effects of aforementioned special cards). Again, these special cards may only be played once per game, so special consideration is needed as part of their strategy.
The game continues in this fashion of players throwing cards, messing with each other using special cards, and protecting themselves from said special cards until only one stack of creature cards remains. The game ends and points are tallied per the scoring table in the rulebook. The winner is promoted to Head Creature Park Guy and is carried around by the other players. Okay, that’s not at all true. They just win the game.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of Hunters of the Lost Creatures, so all components shown here are subject to change at any time. That said, I received a huge deck of cards in a cute black cloth bag. The cards are all decent quality, and not super glossy, which I appreciate. The art on these cards are all whimsical and silly, which match the silly and punny titles for each. Some of these punny titles can be seen in our photos, with my favorites being the Dandylion (a well-“dressed” weed with a cane and lion face) and the Cougar (which is subtle, but portrays an adult apex big cat with a smaller and younger cat hanging on it). If you enjoy these somewhat intellectual, and sometimes visual, puns you will enjoy these cards.
What I have found in playing through this several times is that it is best when all players are taught the game backwards…ly. I mean to say that players need to know the premise, but most importantly, the scoring system before even the setup. Points are scored for having a run of 1-2-3, a straight of 0-1-2-3-10, at least one card from each terrain type, and for the printed value on the cards. It is more than simply collecting all the favorite cards or even highest value 10 cards. So there is strategy in collecting the best assortment of creatures for scoring purposes, which is great because otherwise this game is not really a game at all.
As players play their hunters to draft creatures, I have found that many players choose to chase the same cards over and over. It becomes obvious that most players will be vying for the value 10 cards, so the players who figure this out and grab the second best card is usually happier with the hand. Of course, more strategy is employed once the special cards are played, as they each mess with opponents in different ways. So even though I may not have acquired that 10 of Forest, I might grab the Turnado and switch out a value 0 or -10 card for that sparkling value 10. Wait, negative 10? Yep. Sometimes life just smacks you around and you get stuck with a -10 card to really punish your great play. Not that it ever happened to me, and not that I would be bitter about it.
The real game hinges on the usage of the special cards. When do you play them? Whom do you target? Turnabout is fair play, after all, and no alliances can be formed whilst playing Hunters of the Lost Creatures. Now, it is hinted at in the rulebook that preview copies ship with entry-level rules, which mean (to me) that more advanced rules may be coming in the final game, or at least some variants to spice up the gameplay. If true, then this game becomes much more interesting to me. Don’t get me wrong. I have enjoyed almost all of my plays, but be warned that playing with spiteful gamers may end poorly for a fun-filled game night.
All in all, I am excited to see how the campaign for Hunters of the Lost Creatures fares, as I believe many gamers and non-gamers alike will enjoy it. I would be super jazzed to grab a final copy if it does in fact ship with alternate or advanced rules, or if the creatures of the same value had unique names and art. That would really satisfy. Keep the bag or go traditional cardboard box, it matters not to me. Just beef up the card quality, add even more uniqueness and fanciful art and you’ve got a fan in me. Grab your copy during the Kickstarter campaign launching May 10, 2022!
Hunters of the Lost Creatures is a silly set collection card game for three to four players. In it, players assume the roles of zoological park curators charged with collecting unique creatures for their parks. They do this by bidding on and drafting creature cards, playing take-that style cards on their opponents, and blocking their cards from being manipulated by others.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, players choose one hunter card from each of the four hunting zones: Sea, Forest, Plains, and Air, as well as three “Park Closed” cards. The creature cards are to be split by zone and shuffled, with one special card (Turnado and Cat-a-Pult) added. These shuffled decks are then placed on the table and the top card revealed from each deck. Players decide turn order and the game may begin!
Hands are mostly played simultaneously, with players choosing either a hunter or special card from their hand and placing it face-down in front of themselves. All cards are revealed simultaneously and the card effects are applied. If a player has revealed a hunter, and no other players have the same-colored background/terrain type, that player receives the matching card from those on offer and places it in their park (tableau), or ANY OTHER PLAYER’S park. If ALL players have chosen the same terrain type hunters, the card on offer is removed from the game entirely. However, if not all hunters match, but at least one matches, the matching hunters’ players receive no cards.
Should a player choose to play a special card, their effects are triggered once per game. These include Turnado (switch any two creatures in any two parks), Cat-a-Pult (discards any creature from any player’s park), Thieves (steal any one terrain-matching creature and places it in the Thieves player’s park) and Closed Park (protects the player from the effects of aforementioned special cards). Again, these special cards may only be played once per game, so special consideration is needed as part of their strategy.
The game continues in this fashion of players throwing cards, messing with each other using special cards, and protecting themselves from said special cards until only one stack of creature cards remains. The game ends and points are tallied per the scoring table in the rulebook. The winner is promoted to Head Creature Park Guy and is carried around by the other players. Okay, that’s not at all true. They just win the game.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of Hunters of the Lost Creatures, so all components shown here are subject to change at any time. That said, I received a huge deck of cards in a cute black cloth bag. The cards are all decent quality, and not super glossy, which I appreciate. The art on these cards are all whimsical and silly, which match the silly and punny titles for each. Some of these punny titles can be seen in our photos, with my favorites being the Dandylion (a well-“dressed” weed with a cane and lion face) and the Cougar (which is subtle, but portrays an adult apex big cat with a smaller and younger cat hanging on it). If you enjoy these somewhat intellectual, and sometimes visual, puns you will enjoy these cards.
What I have found in playing through this several times is that it is best when all players are taught the game backwards…ly. I mean to say that players need to know the premise, but most importantly, the scoring system before even the setup. Points are scored for having a run of 1-2-3, a straight of 0-1-2-3-10, at least one card from each terrain type, and for the printed value on the cards. It is more than simply collecting all the favorite cards or even highest value 10 cards. So there is strategy in collecting the best assortment of creatures for scoring purposes, which is great because otherwise this game is not really a game at all.
As players play their hunters to draft creatures, I have found that many players choose to chase the same cards over and over. It becomes obvious that most players will be vying for the value 10 cards, so the players who figure this out and grab the second best card is usually happier with the hand. Of course, more strategy is employed once the special cards are played, as they each mess with opponents in different ways. So even though I may not have acquired that 10 of Forest, I might grab the Turnado and switch out a value 0 or -10 card for that sparkling value 10. Wait, negative 10? Yep. Sometimes life just smacks you around and you get stuck with a -10 card to really punish your great play. Not that it ever happened to me, and not that I would be bitter about it.
The real game hinges on the usage of the special cards. When do you play them? Whom do you target? Turnabout is fair play, after all, and no alliances can be formed whilst playing Hunters of the Lost Creatures. Now, it is hinted at in the rulebook that preview copies ship with entry-level rules, which mean (to me) that more advanced rules may be coming in the final game, or at least some variants to spice up the gameplay. If true, then this game becomes much more interesting to me. Don’t get me wrong. I have enjoyed almost all of my plays, but be warned that playing with spiteful gamers may end poorly for a fun-filled game night.
All in all, I am excited to see how the campaign for Hunters of the Lost Creatures fares, as I believe many gamers and non-gamers alike will enjoy it. I would be super jazzed to grab a final copy if it does in fact ship with alternate or advanced rules, or if the creatures of the same value had unique names and art. That would really satisfy. Keep the bag or go traditional cardboard box, it matters not to me. Just beef up the card quality, add even more uniqueness and fanciful art and you’ve got a fan in me. Grab your copy during the Kickstarter campaign launching May 10, 2022!
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated The Road to Canterbury in Tabletop Games
Oct 4, 2021
I am not a sinless man. In fact, it’s been years since I’ve been to confession, and at this point I’m afraid I would be there for hours just spilling the beans. I know many pious people, but alas, I am not one. However, I do appreciate those that attempt to live that holy life. It takes a lot of guts and a lot of hard work. I guess I’m a little slothy when it comes to that, personally. Anyway, I know of the Seven Deadly Sins, Cardinal Sins, Capital Vices, or whatever you’d like to call them. In fact, I really like the movie Seven – I think it’s great! That said, let’s find out just “what’s in the box?”
The Road To Canterbury is a game of medieval hand management and area influence. In it players are false pardoners stalking the road to the city of Canterbury as pilgrims make their way there from London. As their companies run across these pardoners, they are offered the chance to purchase pardons – salvation and forgiveness for their sins. However, these pardoners are also keen to help the pilgrims along the path of sin, thus making their faux pardons worth even more money! The pardoner who ends the game with the most money will win along The Road to Canterbury.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of the Impoverished Pilgrim Edition (2nd edition) game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, follow the rulebook, as there are many components to track. The main areas are the Circle of Sin mat that holds the Parson pawn, the decks area that hold the various decks of cards from which players will be drawing, and each player’s personal area where players will hide their earnings and hand of cards behind the privacy screen. Once all is setup somewhat correctly, it should look similar to the photo below. Warning: When I set this up and took the photo, I neglected to realize the red company and the map tiles were translated to the wrong spaces, so just switch those.
The Road to Canterbury is a game of rounds, and each round players will be taking similar steps: Play One Card, Redraw, Perform a Reckoning of Sin. Players will have access to three different types of cards that can be played during the Play One Card phase: Sin cards (five of which are dealt at setup), Pardon cards, and Relic cards. During this phase, the active player can play a Sin card to one of the active Pilgrims to tempt them towards committing that sin. The first time the player adds a Sin card to a Pilgrim, they place one of their corruption cubes on the matching sin on the Circle of Sin. Alternatively, they may play a powerful Relic card that offers adjustments to the rules, or has some interesting results. When a player feels that enough Sin cards of a specific type have been played on a Pilgrim, they may opt to play a matching Pardon card in order to gain precious coin to their pockets. Each Pardon card essentially pardons ALL the sins of that type on the Pilgrim, and the player then collects coins exponentially for a larger total of matching Sin cards on that Pilgrim. If the Parson is currently sitting on the matching sin, the pardoner receives extra coin for it being an especially egregious sin in the eyes of the church. Each time the Pilgrim is pardoned, the pardoner places one of their corruption cubes upon the Pilgrim.
After the active player has played their card, they must Redraw their hand back to five cards, choosing to draw from the Sin, Pardon, or Relic offerings. Some Sin cards may be drawn that are Death Approaches cards. When these surface, they are immediately attached to the Pilgrim whose color matches that of the drawn card’s border color. This essentially eats up a slot on the Pilgrim that could be used for a Sin card to be pardoned.
Once the player has redrawn cards to their hand they must next Perform a Reckoning of Sin. The active player assesses each active Pilgrim to see if they have seven or more cards attached to them. If so, that Pilgrim will perish from the “deadly” sins. Whichever player has placed the most number of corruption cubes upon the Pilgrim is considered present at time of death and will receive credit for the sending to the heavens. They move one of the cubes upon the Pilgrim to the first space on the map tile, earning bonus points and a Last Rites token. Last Rites may be performed immediately to take another turn, or may be held until the end of the game for a 3 VP bonus per token. The most interesting aspect of a Pilgrim dying is the fact that their card now becomes a permanent placeholder underneath their company’s colored banner. So the next Pilgrim to enter play for that company will need only six additional cards to kick the bucket, and so on.
Play continues in this fashion of players taking turns through their three phases. The game ends when all the spaces on the map tile are filled with cubes. Bonus points are counted, coins are added, and the player with the most money/highest score is the winner! The best temptress and pardoner this side of Yorkshire!
Components. I have no experience with the first edition of The Road to Canterbury, so unfortunately I cannot compare and contrast components. However, I have seen many photos and even checked out a review video or two. What I can say about components is that this edition has refreshed the look of nearly everything, and so much for the better. Instead of boring plain cards, there’s just a little more decoration. Not so much to be invasive or distracting, but very tasteful. The component quality throughout is quite stellar. There’s a lot of cardboard in this box, and it all looks and feels great. I do quite like the art style, even though it’s all medievall-y and too artsy for my normal preference. All in all a great quality box of game.
So like I said, I have no experience with this game prior to receiving it and playing through it now. It certainly doesn’t feel like a 10-year-old game, nor does it really feel like many of the Alf Seegert games I have played in the past. Neither of these points are bad at all, just some thoughts I had.
It should be obvious by my ratings graphic that I dig this game a lot. I have nothing like it in my collection, and I am super excited to really bring this out with different types of gamers to see how it fares (once the COVID is no longer an issue, of course). I see this being a hit with my family, who enjoys a lot of take that style games. I see this being a hit with my more thinky gamer friends, because there are just so many juicy choices to be had every turn. I can see this even being a hit with my more gateway friends, because it isn’t terribly heavy, has some humor in it, and I can see the prospect of sowing sin and killing off innocent Pilgrims being attractive to some of my more morbid friends.
For me, I love the ability to take every turn and make important decisions. I try to make every turn meaningful to my agenda, but tactical with what may be at my disposal at the time. When should I play this Relic? Why is named something ridiculous? Should I wait a while longer to pardon this sin, or should I pile on another and then pardon next turn? Ooh, but what if my opponent has the same Pardon card. Am I truly happy that this poor Wife of Bath is about to kick it? GAAHHHHH!
Now it’s no secret that I am a big fan of Dr. Seegert’s games, as I have previously reviewed Fantastiqa and Haven with very high ratings. So, I was not at all surprised that I would love this one as well. It offers so many great choices, looks great on the table, fills a unique void that was present in my collection, and can be played with various types of gamers, even though it is designed for two or three players total. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an unapologetic 5 / 6. I don’t think it will break into my Top 10, but I certainly won’t rule it out quite yet. More plays with different types of gamers may change my mind on that statement, and I eagerly await my plateful of crow. So if you are like me in your gaming preferences, check out this version of The Road to Canterbury. Let me know how often you tend to grab Relics too, because I feel like I need to utilize them more, but it is so hard to pass up a Sin or Pardon. I Lust after them so very badly.
The Road To Canterbury is a game of medieval hand management and area influence. In it players are false pardoners stalking the road to the city of Canterbury as pilgrims make their way there from London. As their companies run across these pardoners, they are offered the chance to purchase pardons – salvation and forgiveness for their sins. However, these pardoners are also keen to help the pilgrims along the path of sin, thus making their faux pardons worth even more money! The pardoner who ends the game with the most money will win along The Road to Canterbury.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of the Impoverished Pilgrim Edition (2nd edition) game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, follow the rulebook, as there are many components to track. The main areas are the Circle of Sin mat that holds the Parson pawn, the decks area that hold the various decks of cards from which players will be drawing, and each player’s personal area where players will hide their earnings and hand of cards behind the privacy screen. Once all is setup somewhat correctly, it should look similar to the photo below. Warning: When I set this up and took the photo, I neglected to realize the red company and the map tiles were translated to the wrong spaces, so just switch those.
The Road to Canterbury is a game of rounds, and each round players will be taking similar steps: Play One Card, Redraw, Perform a Reckoning of Sin. Players will have access to three different types of cards that can be played during the Play One Card phase: Sin cards (five of which are dealt at setup), Pardon cards, and Relic cards. During this phase, the active player can play a Sin card to one of the active Pilgrims to tempt them towards committing that sin. The first time the player adds a Sin card to a Pilgrim, they place one of their corruption cubes on the matching sin on the Circle of Sin. Alternatively, they may play a powerful Relic card that offers adjustments to the rules, or has some interesting results. When a player feels that enough Sin cards of a specific type have been played on a Pilgrim, they may opt to play a matching Pardon card in order to gain precious coin to their pockets. Each Pardon card essentially pardons ALL the sins of that type on the Pilgrim, and the player then collects coins exponentially for a larger total of matching Sin cards on that Pilgrim. If the Parson is currently sitting on the matching sin, the pardoner receives extra coin for it being an especially egregious sin in the eyes of the church. Each time the Pilgrim is pardoned, the pardoner places one of their corruption cubes upon the Pilgrim.
After the active player has played their card, they must Redraw their hand back to five cards, choosing to draw from the Sin, Pardon, or Relic offerings. Some Sin cards may be drawn that are Death Approaches cards. When these surface, they are immediately attached to the Pilgrim whose color matches that of the drawn card’s border color. This essentially eats up a slot on the Pilgrim that could be used for a Sin card to be pardoned.
Once the player has redrawn cards to their hand they must next Perform a Reckoning of Sin. The active player assesses each active Pilgrim to see if they have seven or more cards attached to them. If so, that Pilgrim will perish from the “deadly” sins. Whichever player has placed the most number of corruption cubes upon the Pilgrim is considered present at time of death and will receive credit for the sending to the heavens. They move one of the cubes upon the Pilgrim to the first space on the map tile, earning bonus points and a Last Rites token. Last Rites may be performed immediately to take another turn, or may be held until the end of the game for a 3 VP bonus per token. The most interesting aspect of a Pilgrim dying is the fact that their card now becomes a permanent placeholder underneath their company’s colored banner. So the next Pilgrim to enter play for that company will need only six additional cards to kick the bucket, and so on.
Play continues in this fashion of players taking turns through their three phases. The game ends when all the spaces on the map tile are filled with cubes. Bonus points are counted, coins are added, and the player with the most money/highest score is the winner! The best temptress and pardoner this side of Yorkshire!
Components. I have no experience with the first edition of The Road to Canterbury, so unfortunately I cannot compare and contrast components. However, I have seen many photos and even checked out a review video or two. What I can say about components is that this edition has refreshed the look of nearly everything, and so much for the better. Instead of boring plain cards, there’s just a little more decoration. Not so much to be invasive or distracting, but very tasteful. The component quality throughout is quite stellar. There’s a lot of cardboard in this box, and it all looks and feels great. I do quite like the art style, even though it’s all medievall-y and too artsy for my normal preference. All in all a great quality box of game.
So like I said, I have no experience with this game prior to receiving it and playing through it now. It certainly doesn’t feel like a 10-year-old game, nor does it really feel like many of the Alf Seegert games I have played in the past. Neither of these points are bad at all, just some thoughts I had.
It should be obvious by my ratings graphic that I dig this game a lot. I have nothing like it in my collection, and I am super excited to really bring this out with different types of gamers to see how it fares (once the COVID is no longer an issue, of course). I see this being a hit with my family, who enjoys a lot of take that style games. I see this being a hit with my more thinky gamer friends, because there are just so many juicy choices to be had every turn. I can see this even being a hit with my more gateway friends, because it isn’t terribly heavy, has some humor in it, and I can see the prospect of sowing sin and killing off innocent Pilgrims being attractive to some of my more morbid friends.
For me, I love the ability to take every turn and make important decisions. I try to make every turn meaningful to my agenda, but tactical with what may be at my disposal at the time. When should I play this Relic? Why is named something ridiculous? Should I wait a while longer to pardon this sin, or should I pile on another and then pardon next turn? Ooh, but what if my opponent has the same Pardon card. Am I truly happy that this poor Wife of Bath is about to kick it? GAAHHHHH!
Now it’s no secret that I am a big fan of Dr. Seegert’s games, as I have previously reviewed Fantastiqa and Haven with very high ratings. So, I was not at all surprised that I would love this one as well. It offers so many great choices, looks great on the table, fills a unique void that was present in my collection, and can be played with various types of gamers, even though it is designed for two or three players total. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an unapologetic 5 / 6. I don’t think it will break into my Top 10, but I certainly won’t rule it out quite yet. More plays with different types of gamers may change my mind on that statement, and I eagerly await my plateful of crow. So if you are like me in your gaming preferences, check out this version of The Road to Canterbury. Let me know how often you tend to grab Relics too, because I feel like I need to utilize them more, but it is so hard to pass up a Sin or Pardon. I Lust after them so very badly.