Search
vouchercloud: vouchers offers
Lifestyle and Shopping
7.4
Rate It
App
Get the best savings and offers for your favourite restaurants, high-street stores, supermarkets and...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Alien: Covenant (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Horrific Beasts and How to Avoid Them.
I seem to be in a bit of a minority in quite liking Ridley Scott’s last Alien outing – 2012’s “Prometheus”: a heady, if at times ponderous, theory to the origins of man. The first hour of that film is really good. But for me, what made the original 1979 film so enthralling was the life cycle of the ‘traditional’ Xenomorph aliens through egg to evil hatchling to vicious killing machine. This somewhat got lost with “Prometheus” with a range of alien-like-things ranging from wiggly black goo to something more familiar… and frankly I was confused. Some – repeat, some – of the explanation for that diversity of forms in “Prometheus” is made clearer in the sequel “Alien: Covenant”.
“Covenant” (named again after the spaceship at its heart) is a follow-on sequel to “Prometheus”, so it is worth re-watching it if you can before a cinema trip. At the end of that film we saw Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) and a reconstructed android David (Michael Fassbender, “Steve Jobs“) flying off in an alien craft still loaded with its cargo of nasty alien black goo. Shaw had a mission to seek out The Engineer’s home world – named “Paradise” – to find out why after creating man they were intent on going back to finish them off with a WMD. A neat prologue has been released which documents this… here:
We pick up the action 10 years later in a totally improbable 2104. (Give us a break writing team! [Story by Jack Paglen and Michael Green; screenplay by John Logan and Dante Harper]. We know they won’t have got through planning permission on the third Heathrow runway by then, let alone invented interplanetary travel…! 2504, maybe!)
Daniels (Katherine Waterston, “Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them“) has just suffered a sudden bereavement (an uncredited James Franco – – blink and you’ll miss him). She has also been rudely awakened from hypersleep due to a sudden system mishap: no, not to find Chris Pratt there like “Passengers“, but by the ship’s android Walter (also Michael Fassbender) who’s also revived the rest of the crew. While effecting repairs they receive a garbled John Denver track mysteriously beamed to them from an earth-like planet not too far away. As this might be a suitable homestead, and as spending weeks more in hypersleep is unattractive, Captain Oram (Billy Crudup, “Spotlight“) votes to check it out, against Daniels’ strong objections. Needless to say, this proves to be a BIG MISTAKE as the new film neatly links hands with the first film.
Kick-ass… Katherine Waterston being careful not to slip in the shower.
There’s a limit to what more I can say about the film without delivering spoilers (so I have added a few more comments in the spoiler section BELOW the trailer). It’s a far more action-oriented film than “Prometheus” and has enough jump scares and gore to please most Alien fans. (In fact, it’s a surprise to me that it got a UK “15” certificate rather than an “18”: how much more violence do you need to show in the film?) A shower scene towards the end of the film is particularly effective and will likely put an end to relaxing shower sex for many people for good!
It also looks visually stunning (cinematography is by Dariusz Wolski (“The Martian“, “Pirates of the Caribbean”) with location shooting in Milford Sound in New Zealand. The special effects are also a cut-above the normal CGI with a devastated Pompeii-like city, a picture of blacks and greys, being particularly effective.
In the acting stakes it is really all down to Waterston and Fassbinder. I wasn’t a great fan of Waterston in “Fantastic Beasts” – a bit insipid I thought – but here she adopts Ripley’s kick-ass mantle with ease but blends it beautifully with doe-eyed vulnerability. Some of her scenes reminded me strongly of Demi Moore in “Ghost”. Fassbinder is fascinating to watch with his dual roles of Walter and David, both slightly different versions of the same being. And the special effects around the Fassbinder-on-Fassbinder action, tending somewhat towards the homoerotic in places, are well done.
Unfortunately the rest of the crew get little in the way of background development, which limits the impact of the inevitable demises. They are also about as clinically stupid as the spaceship crew in “Life” in some of their actions; I guess you could put some of this down to the effects of panic, but in other cases you might see it as a simple cleansing of the gene pool in Darwinian fashion.
Also making uncredited guest appearances are Guy Pearce as Weyland (in a flashback scene) and Noomi Rapace.
Music is “by” Jed Kurzel, but to be honest he does little than wrap around re-versions of the original Jerry Goldsmith classics: not that this is a bad thing, since those themes are iconic and a joy to hear again on the big screen.
My expectations for this movie were sky-high, as it was hinted as a return to form for the franchise. And in many ways it was, with a “man, Gods and androids” theme adding depth to the traditional anatomical-bursting gore. But to be honest, some of the storytelling was highly predictable, and I left slightly disappointed with the overall effort. If my expectations were an 11/10, my reality was more like a 7/10. It’s still a good film, and I look forward to watching it again. But perhaps this is a franchise that has really run its course now for Mr Scott and he should look to his next “Martian”-type movie for a more novel foundation to build his next movie “log cabin on the lake” on.
“Covenant” (named again after the spaceship at its heart) is a follow-on sequel to “Prometheus”, so it is worth re-watching it if you can before a cinema trip. At the end of that film we saw Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) and a reconstructed android David (Michael Fassbender, “Steve Jobs“) flying off in an alien craft still loaded with its cargo of nasty alien black goo. Shaw had a mission to seek out The Engineer’s home world – named “Paradise” – to find out why after creating man they were intent on going back to finish them off with a WMD. A neat prologue has been released which documents this… here:
We pick up the action 10 years later in a totally improbable 2104. (Give us a break writing team! [Story by Jack Paglen and Michael Green; screenplay by John Logan and Dante Harper]. We know they won’t have got through planning permission on the third Heathrow runway by then, let alone invented interplanetary travel…! 2504, maybe!)
Daniels (Katherine Waterston, “Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them“) has just suffered a sudden bereavement (an uncredited James Franco – – blink and you’ll miss him). She has also been rudely awakened from hypersleep due to a sudden system mishap: no, not to find Chris Pratt there like “Passengers“, but by the ship’s android Walter (also Michael Fassbender) who’s also revived the rest of the crew. While effecting repairs they receive a garbled John Denver track mysteriously beamed to them from an earth-like planet not too far away. As this might be a suitable homestead, and as spending weeks more in hypersleep is unattractive, Captain Oram (Billy Crudup, “Spotlight“) votes to check it out, against Daniels’ strong objections. Needless to say, this proves to be a BIG MISTAKE as the new film neatly links hands with the first film.
Kick-ass… Katherine Waterston being careful not to slip in the shower.
There’s a limit to what more I can say about the film without delivering spoilers (so I have added a few more comments in the spoiler section BELOW the trailer). It’s a far more action-oriented film than “Prometheus” and has enough jump scares and gore to please most Alien fans. (In fact, it’s a surprise to me that it got a UK “15” certificate rather than an “18”: how much more violence do you need to show in the film?) A shower scene towards the end of the film is particularly effective and will likely put an end to relaxing shower sex for many people for good!
It also looks visually stunning (cinematography is by Dariusz Wolski (“The Martian“, “Pirates of the Caribbean”) with location shooting in Milford Sound in New Zealand. The special effects are also a cut-above the normal CGI with a devastated Pompeii-like city, a picture of blacks and greys, being particularly effective.
In the acting stakes it is really all down to Waterston and Fassbinder. I wasn’t a great fan of Waterston in “Fantastic Beasts” – a bit insipid I thought – but here she adopts Ripley’s kick-ass mantle with ease but blends it beautifully with doe-eyed vulnerability. Some of her scenes reminded me strongly of Demi Moore in “Ghost”. Fassbinder is fascinating to watch with his dual roles of Walter and David, both slightly different versions of the same being. And the special effects around the Fassbinder-on-Fassbinder action, tending somewhat towards the homoerotic in places, are well done.
Unfortunately the rest of the crew get little in the way of background development, which limits the impact of the inevitable demises. They are also about as clinically stupid as the spaceship crew in “Life” in some of their actions; I guess you could put some of this down to the effects of panic, but in other cases you might see it as a simple cleansing of the gene pool in Darwinian fashion.
Also making uncredited guest appearances are Guy Pearce as Weyland (in a flashback scene) and Noomi Rapace.
Music is “by” Jed Kurzel, but to be honest he does little than wrap around re-versions of the original Jerry Goldsmith classics: not that this is a bad thing, since those themes are iconic and a joy to hear again on the big screen.
My expectations for this movie were sky-high, as it was hinted as a return to form for the franchise. And in many ways it was, with a “man, Gods and androids” theme adding depth to the traditional anatomical-bursting gore. But to be honest, some of the storytelling was highly predictable, and I left slightly disappointed with the overall effort. If my expectations were an 11/10, my reality was more like a 7/10. It’s still a good film, and I look forward to watching it again. But perhaps this is a franchise that has really run its course now for Mr Scott and he should look to his next “Martian”-type movie for a more novel foundation to build his next movie “log cabin on the lake” on.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Feb 14, 2018
IT is very good
I met the clown and IT is...fascinating, gripping, thrilling, humorous, intense and good.
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
This was a massive turn out for an Unlimited Screening, the last time it was this busy was when we had the secret screening for The Incredibles 2. I guess everyone loves a bit of action, I know I do, so thank you very much, Cineworld.
Captain Sparkle Fingers amused and entertained, and it produced some of those goosebump moments you get from the anticipation. This is going to be a winner of the East period with the schools being out, I think that means I'll be avoiding the cinema for a bit.
I was concerned early on as it was a rather slow start and the tone was nothing like what we'd been seeing in the promotional material, but once that stumbling block was out of the way we started down a very fun path.
Billy Batson's search for his birth mother lands him with a new foster situation after his antics are no longer tolerated by his previous home. There he meets his new family who have a spectacular amount of alliterative name. Freddy Freeman, Darla Dudley, Victor Vasquez, Pedro Peña, (I really do think that alliteration should be mandatory in super movies) and the rather less rhythmic Rosa Vasquez, Mary Bromfield and Eugene Choi.
Billy is set on not being part of the family until two bullies set upon Freddy outside school, his instincts kick in and he wades in to protect him. This act catches the attention of The Wizard, Shazam, and knowing that the world needs a saviour he bestows his power on Billy.
The fact that Billy probably would have failed to be worthy of the power, or declined it, does sit a little heavy when you see it in the film. But we know that it eventually comes good so I let it slide.
Shazam is a massive departure for DC, it's very Marvel meets Teen Titans GO! To The Movies. It feels a little like the film is fighting with the brand's roots though, there's obviously a darkness around our villain but when you compare it to the goofy nature of the hero side it begins to feel like two different films. Had either of those films been made on their own I don't think we'd have been in for something quite so entertaining.
By far the most entertaining bits of Shazam are when we see Billy and Freddy exploring what superpowers Captain Sparkle Fingers has. Keep an eye out for the teleportation test, that was my favourite. I could quite happily have watched an entire film of these scenes.
I don't think there are many people out there that could have played this role, Zachary Levi is certainly the right fit. The childlike glee is so good that I can't help but think he was channelling Chuck Bartowski. I think there's something even more appealing about characters when the character gets to be a little wacky and act outside the expected. Jack Black in Jumanji, Tom Hanks in Big, Paul Rudd briefly in Ant-Man And The Wasp, they all produced some really amusing moments.
Mark Strong is brilliant, in general as well as in this film. I love him being menacing. He does a superb job with what he's given but I would have loved him to have had a few humorous moments in the whole lolfest. Being the serious thing in a film with so much humour wasn't a great situation to be in.
The family aspect in the movie is a strong theme throughout and our band of actors all work well as a team. I'm sad to say that individually I'm not a real fan of any of the characters apart from perhaps Eugene and his video games, but when they're together it's a great dynamic.
Shazam manages to be both brilliant and terrible all at the same time. Despite its identity crisis it is still a great film, I came out feeling happy and entertained, and that's all you really ask for in a movie.
What you should do
If you love superhero movies then definitely fit it into your schedule, you'll definitely be entertained.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I've said Shazam a lot over the last week and I've been hoping for some superpowers but nothing is happening... yet... SHAZAM!
Captain Sparkle Fingers amused and entertained, and it produced some of those goosebump moments you get from the anticipation. This is going to be a winner of the East period with the schools being out, I think that means I'll be avoiding the cinema for a bit.
I was concerned early on as it was a rather slow start and the tone was nothing like what we'd been seeing in the promotional material, but once that stumbling block was out of the way we started down a very fun path.
Billy Batson's search for his birth mother lands him with a new foster situation after his antics are no longer tolerated by his previous home. There he meets his new family who have a spectacular amount of alliterative name. Freddy Freeman, Darla Dudley, Victor Vasquez, Pedro Peña, (I really do think that alliteration should be mandatory in super movies) and the rather less rhythmic Rosa Vasquez, Mary Bromfield and Eugene Choi.
Billy is set on not being part of the family until two bullies set upon Freddy outside school, his instincts kick in and he wades in to protect him. This act catches the attention of The Wizard, Shazam, and knowing that the world needs a saviour he bestows his power on Billy.
The fact that Billy probably would have failed to be worthy of the power, or declined it, does sit a little heavy when you see it in the film. But we know that it eventually comes good so I let it slide.
Shazam is a massive departure for DC, it's very Marvel meets Teen Titans GO! To The Movies. It feels a little like the film is fighting with the brand's roots though, there's obviously a darkness around our villain but when you compare it to the goofy nature of the hero side it begins to feel like two different films. Had either of those films been made on their own I don't think we'd have been in for something quite so entertaining.
By far the most entertaining bits of Shazam are when we see Billy and Freddy exploring what superpowers Captain Sparkle Fingers has. Keep an eye out for the teleportation test, that was my favourite. I could quite happily have watched an entire film of these scenes.
I don't think there are many people out there that could have played this role, Zachary Levi is certainly the right fit. The childlike glee is so good that I can't help but think he was channelling Chuck Bartowski. I think there's something even more appealing about characters when the character gets to be a little wacky and act outside the expected. Jack Black in Jumanji, Tom Hanks in Big, Paul Rudd briefly in Ant-Man And The Wasp, they all produced some really amusing moments.
Mark Strong is brilliant, in general as well as in this film. I love him being menacing. He does a superb job with what he's given but I would have loved him to have had a few humorous moments in the whole lolfest. Being the serious thing in a film with so much humour wasn't a great situation to be in.
The family aspect in the movie is a strong theme throughout and our band of actors all work well as a team. I'm sad to say that individually I'm not a real fan of any of the characters apart from perhaps Eugene and his video games, but when they're together it's a great dynamic.
Shazam manages to be both brilliant and terrible all at the same time. Despite its identity crisis it is still a great film, I came out feeling happy and entertained, and that's all you really ask for in a movie.
What you should do
If you love superhero movies then definitely fit it into your schedule, you'll definitely be entertained.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I've said Shazam a lot over the last week and I've been hoping for some superpowers but nothing is happening... yet... SHAZAM!
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 21, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Joker follows Arthur Fleck’s descent from a somewhat mentally troubled comedian to becoming the Joker, arch Batman villain and force for chaos.
Joker is not a superhero film, there are no super powers, no gimmick arrows, no trained fighters like Black Widow and, most defiantly NO batman. Arthur is a normal, if somewhat strange man who is slowly pushed to breaking point by the world around him. He doesn’t even fall into a vat of acid ala Jack Nicholson or Jared Leto’s characters. There is little to link this film to anything DC when it starts except the fact that it is set in Gotham as the film focus mainly on Arthur, the troubles he has working as a clown and the society around him. As the film continues we hear that Thomas Wayne (Bruce’s dad) is running for mayor and we do meet Bruce which helps the viewer know when the film is set although it does cause a slight problem in that the Joker would be around 60+ when he finally fights Batman (Something that doesn’t happen in this film) but the problem may be sorted depending on how you translate the final scene, but that’s something I’ll get to later.
The tone of Joker is dark, probably darker than the latest Batman/Superman films due to the fact that is a lot more ‘real’. As I said there is no ‘falling in acid’ or any other type of super villain/hero origin, just the tale of a man pushed over the edge. The film is, in style part ‘Falling Down’, part ‘Taxi Driver’ and part ‘V for Vendetta’ with a bit of DC (comics) law sprinkled on top and you can see why Jared Leto’s Joker was not used. I have nothing against the Jared Joker, I think It fit the feel ‘Suicide Squad’ but it was cartoony for this gritty version that was based more in reality, this Joker would have fit better as a villain in one of the earlier films like Batman v Superman.
There are Major Spoilers from this point on
There are a couple of odd things in this film, one is who is Arthur’s dad, the film could have worked without this storyline but I think it was added for two reasons; 1 to help tie the movie into the DC universe and 2 to keep a bit of mystery about the Jokers origin.
I have already mentioned that the Jokers age doesn’t seem to fit with the traditional Batman story but the film gives us two ways this could be handled. DC comics have (sometimes) said that there is more than one Joker, this is a way of the comics explaining the number of different origin stories, time lines and other contradiction caused by over 60 years of comics and this could also happen in this movies universe, many citizens of Gotham are seen in clown makeup so it’s would be easy for other people to take on the mantel.
The other solution ties into the last odd thing about the film. The last scene has the Joker in Arkham Hospital (probably Arkham Asylum in the comics), we don’t know how he got there and he is being interviewed by a nurse, he smiles and when asked what’s funny he replies ‘I just thought of a joke’. The nurse asks him tell her the joke and he replies ‘You wouldn’t get it’. I’ve read a lot of people say that this shows that the whole film is just happening in Arthur's imagination but I feel that it’s more likely to be him remembering what happened especially as it’s shown over the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne. This means that the events of the film are what led up to the shooting in the ally (not by Arthur), so, if the film is just in Jokers imagination then the shooting wouldn’t have happened so there would be no Batman and we have to remember that this is a DC movie.
Joker is not a superhero film, there are no super powers, no gimmick arrows, no trained fighters like Black Widow and, most defiantly NO batman. Arthur is a normal, if somewhat strange man who is slowly pushed to breaking point by the world around him. He doesn’t even fall into a vat of acid ala Jack Nicholson or Jared Leto’s characters. There is little to link this film to anything DC when it starts except the fact that it is set in Gotham as the film focus mainly on Arthur, the troubles he has working as a clown and the society around him. As the film continues we hear that Thomas Wayne (Bruce’s dad) is running for mayor and we do meet Bruce which helps the viewer know when the film is set although it does cause a slight problem in that the Joker would be around 60+ when he finally fights Batman (Something that doesn’t happen in this film) but the problem may be sorted depending on how you translate the final scene, but that’s something I’ll get to later.
The tone of Joker is dark, probably darker than the latest Batman/Superman films due to the fact that is a lot more ‘real’. As I said there is no ‘falling in acid’ or any other type of super villain/hero origin, just the tale of a man pushed over the edge. The film is, in style part ‘Falling Down’, part ‘Taxi Driver’ and part ‘V for Vendetta’ with a bit of DC (comics) law sprinkled on top and you can see why Jared Leto’s Joker was not used. I have nothing against the Jared Joker, I think It fit the feel ‘Suicide Squad’ but it was cartoony for this gritty version that was based more in reality, this Joker would have fit better as a villain in one of the earlier films like Batman v Superman.
There are Major Spoilers from this point on
There are a couple of odd things in this film, one is who is Arthur’s dad, the film could have worked without this storyline but I think it was added for two reasons; 1 to help tie the movie into the DC universe and 2 to keep a bit of mystery about the Jokers origin.
I have already mentioned that the Jokers age doesn’t seem to fit with the traditional Batman story but the film gives us two ways this could be handled. DC comics have (sometimes) said that there is more than one Joker, this is a way of the comics explaining the number of different origin stories, time lines and other contradiction caused by over 60 years of comics and this could also happen in this movies universe, many citizens of Gotham are seen in clown makeup so it’s would be easy for other people to take on the mantel.
The other solution ties into the last odd thing about the film. The last scene has the Joker in Arkham Hospital (probably Arkham Asylum in the comics), we don’t know how he got there and he is being interviewed by a nurse, he smiles and when asked what’s funny he replies ‘I just thought of a joke’. The nurse asks him tell her the joke and he replies ‘You wouldn’t get it’. I’ve read a lot of people say that this shows that the whole film is just happening in Arthur's imagination but I feel that it’s more likely to be him remembering what happened especially as it’s shown over the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne. This means that the events of the film are what led up to the shooting in the ally (not by Arthur), so, if the film is just in Jokers imagination then the shooting wouldn’t have happened so there would be no Batman and we have to remember that this is a DC movie.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jumanji: The Next Level (2019) in Movies
Dec 27, 2019
Ensemble cast (1 more)
Plain good fun
Rebooted again, and just as fun.
One of the pleasant movie surprises of Christmas 2017 for me was "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle". I expected it to be a tired retread of the original classic, but instead it turned into a highly entertaining action comedy. Reading my review again, I was rather po-faced about it and scored it with a rather measly 7/10. But this rather belies my secret love of the movie: it is a film that I can invariably watch and enjoy again and again.
This was also a film that raked in a HUGE return at the box office, getting close to the billion dollar number on its $90 million budget. During the spring of 2018, this was an almost permanent resident at the multiplexes (until "The Greatest Showman" and "Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again" took over the residence for the rest of the year!) . A sequel was inevitable
We rejoin the cast some time after the events of the first film, and the geeky teenage lovers - Spencer and Bethany - are trying, unsuccessfully, to carry on their long distance relationship while at separate colleges. Spencer is struggling mentally; lacking in confidence and momentum and desperate to feel like 'Smoulder' Bravestone again.
On returning to his home town for the holidays, Spencer fixes the shattered game. But the console is unpredictable and when the game sucks people into Jumanji this time it's not just Spencer and two of his friends that go in, but Spencer's Grandpa Eddie (Danny DeVito) and his old friend Milo (Danny Glover).
When they get there though, things have changed and the mission is a different one. A "next level" indeed!
This is very much 'much of the same' from the first film. Yes, there's a different backdrop with desert and mountain 'levels' to play through. But the same fun, with exploding avatars and dangerous cake, is to be had again. The script team had to do something different here, and they did that by mixing up the avatars (including a surprising equine player) and throwing in the 'pensioners' to the mix. There is new fun to be mined here from the now nimble-again Eddie and the slow-talking and laconic Milo never quite getting to the point in time.
The stars were all persuaded back for another ride. The four avatar leads (Dwayne Johnson, Karen Gillan, Jack Black and Kevin Hart) all return, together with the young teens (Alex Wolff, Morgan Turner, Ser'Darius Blain and Madison Iseman). Nick Jonas and his older real-life player Colin Hanks are back. Even Nigel "Welcome to Jumanji" Billingsley (Rhys Darby) returns, this time swapping his jeep for a plane.
The newcomers to the cast are also welcome. Glover and DeVito are at their cranky best, and introduce a genuinely touching moment into the film. And a new avatar - Ming Fleetfoot - is fabulous in the form of Awkwafina, so brilliant in this year's "The Farewell".
There's not much more to say on this. If you liked the original, you'll enjoy this one too. Many of the same jokes are trotted out again. The villain (here Rory McCann) is as forgettable as in the first film. It's not breaking any records in terms of originality, but the producers won't mind about that as long as it drags the crowds in again. At the time of writing it has made $320K on its $125K budget, so that seems to be working.
Jake Kasdan is again at the helm. But I really hope enough is enough, and they leave it at this. The mid-credits scene might suggest though that greed is going to dictate a Jumanji 4 (or 5 in some people's books). The returns, I fear, from the franchise will be ever diminishing from this point forwards.
(For the full graphical review go here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/27/one-manns-movies-film-review-jumanji-the-next-level-2019/ .)
This was also a film that raked in a HUGE return at the box office, getting close to the billion dollar number on its $90 million budget. During the spring of 2018, this was an almost permanent resident at the multiplexes (until "The Greatest Showman" and "Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again" took over the residence for the rest of the year!) . A sequel was inevitable
We rejoin the cast some time after the events of the first film, and the geeky teenage lovers - Spencer and Bethany - are trying, unsuccessfully, to carry on their long distance relationship while at separate colleges. Spencer is struggling mentally; lacking in confidence and momentum and desperate to feel like 'Smoulder' Bravestone again.
On returning to his home town for the holidays, Spencer fixes the shattered game. But the console is unpredictable and when the game sucks people into Jumanji this time it's not just Spencer and two of his friends that go in, but Spencer's Grandpa Eddie (Danny DeVito) and his old friend Milo (Danny Glover).
When they get there though, things have changed and the mission is a different one. A "next level" indeed!
This is very much 'much of the same' from the first film. Yes, there's a different backdrop with desert and mountain 'levels' to play through. But the same fun, with exploding avatars and dangerous cake, is to be had again. The script team had to do something different here, and they did that by mixing up the avatars (including a surprising equine player) and throwing in the 'pensioners' to the mix. There is new fun to be mined here from the now nimble-again Eddie and the slow-talking and laconic Milo never quite getting to the point in time.
The stars were all persuaded back for another ride. The four avatar leads (Dwayne Johnson, Karen Gillan, Jack Black and Kevin Hart) all return, together with the young teens (Alex Wolff, Morgan Turner, Ser'Darius Blain and Madison Iseman). Nick Jonas and his older real-life player Colin Hanks are back. Even Nigel "Welcome to Jumanji" Billingsley (Rhys Darby) returns, this time swapping his jeep for a plane.
The newcomers to the cast are also welcome. Glover and DeVito are at their cranky best, and introduce a genuinely touching moment into the film. And a new avatar - Ming Fleetfoot - is fabulous in the form of Awkwafina, so brilliant in this year's "The Farewell".
There's not much more to say on this. If you liked the original, you'll enjoy this one too. Many of the same jokes are trotted out again. The villain (here Rory McCann) is as forgettable as in the first film. It's not breaking any records in terms of originality, but the producers won't mind about that as long as it drags the crowds in again. At the time of writing it has made $320K on its $125K budget, so that seems to be working.
Jake Kasdan is again at the helm. But I really hope enough is enough, and they leave it at this. The mid-credits scene might suggest though that greed is going to dictate a Jumanji 4 (or 5 in some people's books). The returns, I fear, from the franchise will be ever diminishing from this point forwards.
(For the full graphical review go here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/27/one-manns-movies-film-review-jumanji-the-next-level-2019/ .)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Jumanji: The Next Level (2019) in Movies
Dec 15, 2019
I said this when I reviewed Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, but Jumanji was one of my favorite movies going up. I was extremely reluctant to see the 2017 film. However, I walked out of the theater happy as can be. The movie wasn’t perfect, but it was charming and entertaining, and I felt it was a good modernization of the Jumanji experience.
Then they announced the sequel, and all that fear and panic (not much, but you know… melodrama) kicked back in. Given the state of some sequels these days, I couldn’t imagine how they would be able to do this, and do this well. But I had hopes considering how good the previous entry in the franchise was. Could it be just as good?
The Jumanji: The Next Level releases 2 years after Welcome to the Jungle, and just as much time has passed for our four heroes: Spencer (Alex Wolff), Fridge (Ser’Darius Blain), Bethany (Madison Iseman), and Martha (Morgan Turner). We see the four friends leading their different lives and getting excited to reunite over the holidays.
Everyone, except for Spencer that is. Spencer missed the feeling he had as Doctor Smolder Bravestone (Dwayne Johnson) in Jumanji, so he decides to try and fix the game and re-enter to recapture that feeling. The game was smashed to pieces in the last movie, but Spencer retrieved it and it’s been sitting his basement ever since.
The next day, when the four adventurers are supposed to be meeting for brunch, the remaining three get worried when Spencer doesn’t show. So they head over to Spencer’s place to find Spencer’s Grandfather, Eddie (Danny Devito), and an old friend, Milo (Danny Glover), who also don’t know where he is. Soon they discover the broken remnants of the game and that they’ve been fixed (sorta) and eventually they realize that Spencer has gone into the game again.
They decide to head back in, but somethings a little different this time around, as both Eddie and Milo get pulled into the game as well. All our game characters return: Bravestone, Professor Sheldon “Shelly” Oberon (Jack Black), Franklin “Mouse” Finbar (Kevin Hart), and Ruby Roundhouse (Karen Gillan). But will our young adventurers be controlling the same characters, and what of Eddie and Milo? I can’t say without spoiling so much more.
Now that we have the description out of the way, I will say that I loved this film. Not quite as much as the previous entry, though. I didn’t have high hopes for The Next Level as the trailers and commercials just seemed to be overselling certain aspects of the film, but the film was great.
A good follow up story, excellent acting from our four mains, and enough changeup to allow it to not be essentially the same movie as the first. The acting is great. The plot, while a little predictable, was good as well. The music and score really set the tone and pace of the new Jumanji movies, and in such a good way.
One of the only real criticism I had was that Johnson became a little annoying with his characterization for most of the movie in this film, but that could be intended. A good pallet cleanser, though, was Kevin Hart as he literally played the polar opposite and it was a good balance. The other issue I had was that the finale of the third act seemed a little cheated. It was so rushed, relied heavily on the video game trope and never explained why what happened did happen.
Overall, though, this film is a worthy successor to Welcome to the Jungle and you should definitely check it out. Good for the family, just like the first. I personally cannot wait to see what happens in the next film. There is an obvious set up for third in the reboot, or it could be just left as is. Such is the way of Jumanji.
4 out of 5 stars.
Then they announced the sequel, and all that fear and panic (not much, but you know… melodrama) kicked back in. Given the state of some sequels these days, I couldn’t imagine how they would be able to do this, and do this well. But I had hopes considering how good the previous entry in the franchise was. Could it be just as good?
The Jumanji: The Next Level releases 2 years after Welcome to the Jungle, and just as much time has passed for our four heroes: Spencer (Alex Wolff), Fridge (Ser’Darius Blain), Bethany (Madison Iseman), and Martha (Morgan Turner). We see the four friends leading their different lives and getting excited to reunite over the holidays.
Everyone, except for Spencer that is. Spencer missed the feeling he had as Doctor Smolder Bravestone (Dwayne Johnson) in Jumanji, so he decides to try and fix the game and re-enter to recapture that feeling. The game was smashed to pieces in the last movie, but Spencer retrieved it and it’s been sitting his basement ever since.
The next day, when the four adventurers are supposed to be meeting for brunch, the remaining three get worried when Spencer doesn’t show. So they head over to Spencer’s place to find Spencer’s Grandfather, Eddie (Danny Devito), and an old friend, Milo (Danny Glover), who also don’t know where he is. Soon they discover the broken remnants of the game and that they’ve been fixed (sorta) and eventually they realize that Spencer has gone into the game again.
They decide to head back in, but somethings a little different this time around, as both Eddie and Milo get pulled into the game as well. All our game characters return: Bravestone, Professor Sheldon “Shelly” Oberon (Jack Black), Franklin “Mouse” Finbar (Kevin Hart), and Ruby Roundhouse (Karen Gillan). But will our young adventurers be controlling the same characters, and what of Eddie and Milo? I can’t say without spoiling so much more.
Now that we have the description out of the way, I will say that I loved this film. Not quite as much as the previous entry, though. I didn’t have high hopes for The Next Level as the trailers and commercials just seemed to be overselling certain aspects of the film, but the film was great.
A good follow up story, excellent acting from our four mains, and enough changeup to allow it to not be essentially the same movie as the first. The acting is great. The plot, while a little predictable, was good as well. The music and score really set the tone and pace of the new Jumanji movies, and in such a good way.
One of the only real criticism I had was that Johnson became a little annoying with his characterization for most of the movie in this film, but that could be intended. A good pallet cleanser, though, was Kevin Hart as he literally played the polar opposite and it was a good balance. The other issue I had was that the finale of the third act seemed a little cheated. It was so rushed, relied heavily on the video game trope and never explained why what happened did happen.
Overall, though, this film is a worthy successor to Welcome to the Jungle and you should definitely check it out. Good for the family, just like the first. I personally cannot wait to see what happens in the next film. There is an obvious set up for third in the reboot, or it could be just left as is. Such is the way of Jumanji.
4 out of 5 stars.
Mr Green Mobile Casino
Games and Entertainment
App
Voted ‘Online Gaming Operator of the Year’, Mr Green’s casino App is a must-download if you...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Sleepless (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A potentially good ‘B’ movie undone.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 came up with the oft used quote that “there is nothing new under the sun”. “Sleepless” proves that in spades.
Bent copper drama? Check.
Dodgy casino owner? Check.
Nasty “Black Rain” style hoodlum? Check.
Kidnapped teen (“I WILL find you”)? Check.
Misunderstood family man? Check.
All of these standard tropes are lobbed into the movie blender and pulsed well.
Holding it all together are solid performances from Jamie Foxx (“Django Unchained”) as Vincent Downs, the cop with a dodgy background, and Michelle Monaghan (“Source Code”, “Patriot’s Day”) as the internal affairs cop doggedly on his trail.
In terms of the storyline it’s best to go into the film (as I did) with limited knowledge of the plot (on which more below). As the film opens, and playing out a strong anti-hero role, Downs with his equally dodgy partner are involved in a shootout at a drug deal in the streets of Las Vegas. This allows them to get their hands on a significant quantity of heroine. Naturally they pocket this, but unbeknownst to them the deal was between casino boss Rubino (Dermot Mulrooney, “The Grey”) and the vicious mafia son of the local Novak family, Rob (Scoot McNairy, “Argo”). For Downs the pressure is on when his teenage son Thomas ( Octavius J. Johnson) is kidnapped as a trade for the drugs.
The film delivers some good fight scenes and action, but nothing we haven’t seen before in countless other movies like Bourne. What drags the film down though is the scripting and direction. There are such a range of implausibilities on show here that it makes you wonder why anyone involved in the film didn’t just stop and say “WAIT A MINUTE HERE GUYS” and demand a rewrite.
For example, Foxx suffers a severe knife wound early in the film, but repeatedly bounces from ‘full action hero fighting machine’ mode to ‘staggering and holding his side’ mode without pause. The wound adds nothing but implausibility to the action, so why include it at all??
And a scene in an underground car park involving copious quantities of tear gas brought tears of embarrassment to my eyes: an affliction that didn’t seem to affect any of the protagonists in the film!
This is a great shame, and writer Andrea Berloff (“Straight Outta Compton”) and Swiss-born director Baran bo Odar should have more respect for their audience’s intelligence (that’s the third movie in recent weeks I’ve made that comment on… it must be the time of year!).
It’s also extremely irritating that one of the key twists in the movie (although you may guess it) is so blatantly spoiled: both by an audio line in the trailer (commented on below) and – more appallingly – by one of the two straplines on the posters (I haven’t used that one to head my post). Thankfully I never noticed this before I saw the film.
Fox and Monaghan are too good for the material but have screen chemistry that keeps the film watchable. I also thought Scoot McNairy was great as the cold-eyed crazy hoodlum and it’s also interesting to see Dermot Mulrooney, so memorable as the male lead in 1997’s “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, back in a mainstream role.
By the way, I have no idea why the film is called “Sleepless”, other than it being based on a 2011 French film called “Nuit Blanche” which was perhaps written in a way where it made more sense. Vincent is no Jack Bauer and he gets more than a small opportunity to catnap during the running time!
In summary, the movie is perfectly watchable for its action moments. In fact, as I *think* my wife, who is a great fan of “Die Hard, “Taken”, et al would like it I’ve added a half-Fad to my initial rating. And it’s done with some style such that it has the *potential* to be a good film – – which is frustrating. But in my view it’s not worth the ticket price at the cinema: wait instead for it to arrive on Amazon/Netflix.
The end of the film suggests a set-up for a sequel. I doubt this is a sequel that will ever get made.
Bent copper drama? Check.
Dodgy casino owner? Check.
Nasty “Black Rain” style hoodlum? Check.
Kidnapped teen (“I WILL find you”)? Check.
Misunderstood family man? Check.
All of these standard tropes are lobbed into the movie blender and pulsed well.
Holding it all together are solid performances from Jamie Foxx (“Django Unchained”) as Vincent Downs, the cop with a dodgy background, and Michelle Monaghan (“Source Code”, “Patriot’s Day”) as the internal affairs cop doggedly on his trail.
In terms of the storyline it’s best to go into the film (as I did) with limited knowledge of the plot (on which more below). As the film opens, and playing out a strong anti-hero role, Downs with his equally dodgy partner are involved in a shootout at a drug deal in the streets of Las Vegas. This allows them to get their hands on a significant quantity of heroine. Naturally they pocket this, but unbeknownst to them the deal was between casino boss Rubino (Dermot Mulrooney, “The Grey”) and the vicious mafia son of the local Novak family, Rob (Scoot McNairy, “Argo”). For Downs the pressure is on when his teenage son Thomas ( Octavius J. Johnson) is kidnapped as a trade for the drugs.
The film delivers some good fight scenes and action, but nothing we haven’t seen before in countless other movies like Bourne. What drags the film down though is the scripting and direction. There are such a range of implausibilities on show here that it makes you wonder why anyone involved in the film didn’t just stop and say “WAIT A MINUTE HERE GUYS” and demand a rewrite.
For example, Foxx suffers a severe knife wound early in the film, but repeatedly bounces from ‘full action hero fighting machine’ mode to ‘staggering and holding his side’ mode without pause. The wound adds nothing but implausibility to the action, so why include it at all??
And a scene in an underground car park involving copious quantities of tear gas brought tears of embarrassment to my eyes: an affliction that didn’t seem to affect any of the protagonists in the film!
This is a great shame, and writer Andrea Berloff (“Straight Outta Compton”) and Swiss-born director Baran bo Odar should have more respect for their audience’s intelligence (that’s the third movie in recent weeks I’ve made that comment on… it must be the time of year!).
It’s also extremely irritating that one of the key twists in the movie (although you may guess it) is so blatantly spoiled: both by an audio line in the trailer (commented on below) and – more appallingly – by one of the two straplines on the posters (I haven’t used that one to head my post). Thankfully I never noticed this before I saw the film.
Fox and Monaghan are too good for the material but have screen chemistry that keeps the film watchable. I also thought Scoot McNairy was great as the cold-eyed crazy hoodlum and it’s also interesting to see Dermot Mulrooney, so memorable as the male lead in 1997’s “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, back in a mainstream role.
By the way, I have no idea why the film is called “Sleepless”, other than it being based on a 2011 French film called “Nuit Blanche” which was perhaps written in a way where it made more sense. Vincent is no Jack Bauer and he gets more than a small opportunity to catnap during the running time!
In summary, the movie is perfectly watchable for its action moments. In fact, as I *think* my wife, who is a great fan of “Die Hard, “Taken”, et al would like it I’ve added a half-Fad to my initial rating. And it’s done with some style such that it has the *potential* to be a good film – – which is frustrating. But in my view it’s not worth the ticket price at the cinema: wait instead for it to arrive on Amazon/Netflix.
The end of the film suggests a set-up for a sequel. I doubt this is a sequel that will ever get made.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Dirt Dog in Tabletop Games
Oct 22, 2020
My family is a dog family. Growing up I was lucky to live with a Lhasa Apso named Sasha, and a Jack Russell Terrier named Casey. They were both great dogs to grow up with, and since being with my wife we have added a Yorkshire Terrier named Millie and a Powderpuff Chinese Crested named Mojo (who now lives with Laura). So when I saw a game named Dirt Dog that had cute art and was looking for previews, I knew I had to check it out. I mean, my dogs were ALWAYS dirty, so this should be a cinch, right?
Dirt Dogs is a two or four player game where each side will be building an obstacle course through which the other side will run down a quarry animal. The obstacle course is a series of cards with icons needed to satisfy in order to pass, and each dog runner will have stats that correspond to these challenges that can also be manipulated with additional card play.
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 different from these shown. You are invited to back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or purchase through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, set aside the Entrance and Quarry cards from the large deck of brown-backed Burrow cards. Shuffle the Burrow cards to form a draw deck, and shuffle the gold-backed Obedience cards into their own pile. Each player (or team, but for this preview I will be reviewing from a two-player game perspective) will choose a dog breed card to use and place it in front of themselves. The icon on the bottom right hand side of the dog card signifies Moxie and an amount of Moxie tokens (bones) will be collected for use by the player. Reveal and place in an offer 12 Obedience cards to be drafted by the players. During the first round of play one player will be the builder and the other will be the first runner. Each player will draw five Burrow cards to begin and the game may now commence!
Dirt Dog will last three or more rounds (depending on what the players decide) and each round will have the roles of first builder and runner reversed. The builder will assemble an obstacle course of Burrow cards from their hand along with an Entrance to get in and a Quarry at the end. The cards are multipurpose in that the right side of the card lists obstacle tests the dogs will need to meet or surpass in order to clear it, and the left side includes icons that can be used by the runner player to assist their dog in a successful run. Similarly, Obedience cards may be played during the run to help overcome a particularly difficult obstacle, but then it will be unavailable for use to build the subsequent Burrow course.
Once a course has been decided and placed before the runner, they will analyze the tests on each card encountered and use their dog stats in addition to any cards they would like to play from hand. Should a runner successfully complete a course and capture the Quarry at the end they will collect the Quarry card and immediately add Dachshund tokens (weineeples?) to increase their stats per the card for the rest of the game.
Players then switch roles and whichever player ends the round with the most remaining Moxie will win the round and collect the Round Winner token (black animeeple because I can’t make out which breed it might be) notating such. The winner is the player who collected the most Round Winner tokens at the end of the three (or more) rounds!
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, and as such the components will not be exactly as shown in these photos. That said, for a prototype copy, the components are pretty decent! The cards are all nice, and the art on them is suuuuper cute. The layout of the cards is ok, and the iconography is easy to understand. The tokens and different -eeples are wonderful, though those may be different in the final version. It all depends on Kickstarter success though, folks, so you know the drill with backing games.
Dirt Dog reminds me of a couple games I have played, or at least certain mechanics. The building of the burrow runs reminds me of Boss Monster dungeon building as you are trying to foil the runner’s progress, but they can also use cards from hand to help overcome the obstacles. Also, many games now are including multi-use cards in the design, and I absolutely love it. Having to really determine the best use for a card – now during my run, or later to build a run for my opponent – is a wonderful layer that I enjoy. Of course building up a character’s stats is a mechanic I wish more games used. I mean, what’s the best part about playing RPGs? It’s level-up day!
This one is very cute to play and is quite light. I may have found a winning dog to use every time, but I will not spoil that for you. If it seems to become a problem in your plays, I suggest just removing that dog from those available to help overcome that. Remember – the winner of the round is the dog that ends the round with the most Moxie. That said, I still very much enjoy Dirt Dog. The art is great, features at least one of my previous breeds, and leaves itself open for expansions of new breeds and obstacles to be added later.
If you are looking for a cute dog-themed game with light rules and pretty good replayability, I suggest you check out Dirt Dog. It’s a fun and quick little card game that you can even play with AP-prone gamers as the choices are not necessarily do-or-die. Plus, enjoy the art along the way. It’s very nice. You are invited to back the game on Kickstarter that launches soon! Tell them Purple Phoenix Games sent you or I’ll sick a Jack Russell on your yard to dig dig dig until they wear themselves out. At least, that’s what MY JRT used to do…
Dirt Dogs is a two or four player game where each side will be building an obstacle course through which the other side will run down a quarry animal. The obstacle course is a series of cards with icons needed to satisfy in order to pass, and each dog runner will have stats that correspond to these challenges that can also be manipulated with additional card play.
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 different from these shown. You are invited to back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or purchase through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, set aside the Entrance and Quarry cards from the large deck of brown-backed Burrow cards. Shuffle the Burrow cards to form a draw deck, and shuffle the gold-backed Obedience cards into their own pile. Each player (or team, but for this preview I will be reviewing from a two-player game perspective) will choose a dog breed card to use and place it in front of themselves. The icon on the bottom right hand side of the dog card signifies Moxie and an amount of Moxie tokens (bones) will be collected for use by the player. Reveal and place in an offer 12 Obedience cards to be drafted by the players. During the first round of play one player will be the builder and the other will be the first runner. Each player will draw five Burrow cards to begin and the game may now commence!
Dirt Dog will last three or more rounds (depending on what the players decide) and each round will have the roles of first builder and runner reversed. The builder will assemble an obstacle course of Burrow cards from their hand along with an Entrance to get in and a Quarry at the end. The cards are multipurpose in that the right side of the card lists obstacle tests the dogs will need to meet or surpass in order to clear it, and the left side includes icons that can be used by the runner player to assist their dog in a successful run. Similarly, Obedience cards may be played during the run to help overcome a particularly difficult obstacle, but then it will be unavailable for use to build the subsequent Burrow course.
Once a course has been decided and placed before the runner, they will analyze the tests on each card encountered and use their dog stats in addition to any cards they would like to play from hand. Should a runner successfully complete a course and capture the Quarry at the end they will collect the Quarry card and immediately add Dachshund tokens (weineeples?) to increase their stats per the card for the rest of the game.
Players then switch roles and whichever player ends the round with the most remaining Moxie will win the round and collect the Round Winner token (black animeeple because I can’t make out which breed it might be) notating such. The winner is the player who collected the most Round Winner tokens at the end of the three (or more) rounds!
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, and as such the components will not be exactly as shown in these photos. That said, for a prototype copy, the components are pretty decent! The cards are all nice, and the art on them is suuuuper cute. The layout of the cards is ok, and the iconography is easy to understand. The tokens and different -eeples are wonderful, though those may be different in the final version. It all depends on Kickstarter success though, folks, so you know the drill with backing games.
Dirt Dog reminds me of a couple games I have played, or at least certain mechanics. The building of the burrow runs reminds me of Boss Monster dungeon building as you are trying to foil the runner’s progress, but they can also use cards from hand to help overcome the obstacles. Also, many games now are including multi-use cards in the design, and I absolutely love it. Having to really determine the best use for a card – now during my run, or later to build a run for my opponent – is a wonderful layer that I enjoy. Of course building up a character’s stats is a mechanic I wish more games used. I mean, what’s the best part about playing RPGs? It’s level-up day!
This one is very cute to play and is quite light. I may have found a winning dog to use every time, but I will not spoil that for you. If it seems to become a problem in your plays, I suggest just removing that dog from those available to help overcome that. Remember – the winner of the round is the dog that ends the round with the most Moxie. That said, I still very much enjoy Dirt Dog. The art is great, features at least one of my previous breeds, and leaves itself open for expansions of new breeds and obstacles to be added later.
If you are looking for a cute dog-themed game with light rules and pretty good replayability, I suggest you check out Dirt Dog. It’s a fun and quick little card game that you can even play with AP-prone gamers as the choices are not necessarily do-or-die. Plus, enjoy the art along the way. It’s very nice. You are invited to back the game on Kickstarter that launches soon! Tell them Purple Phoenix Games sent you or I’ll sick a Jack Russell on your yard to dig dig dig until they wear themselves out. At least, that’s what MY JRT used to do…
