Search
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The Disaster Artist (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
“Ha ha ha! What a film, Mark!”
I was first introduced to The Room during a college Film Studies lecture as a perfect example of how not to make a film. Everything about it was atrocious, but I also found it weirdly compelling. Since then, I’ve made a real effort to follow everything relating to Tommy Wiseau and this bizarre film of his. It’s become a cult classic in recent years, drawing a crowd of dedicated fans to the Prince Charles Cinema in Leicester Square for monthly screenings, and Q&A’s with cast members. When I found out that James Franco was creating a film adaptation of Greg Sestero’s novel The Disaster Artist: My Life Inside The Room, the Greatest Bad Movie Ever Made, I was so excited!
I was lucky enough to see the film during its opening weekend at the Prince Charles Cinema, which actually made my experience even better. Being around a crowd of The Room fans who knew the film like the back of their hand was hilarious, because they recited familiar quotes along with James Franco, and it was clear the entire audience was having a blast from start to finish. I honestly can’t remember the last time I laughed this much at a film. Everyone involved made a real effort to recreate the scenes that we know and love, whilst giving us a glimpse into what life on that film set was really like. It’s possible to forget that you’re watching The Disaster Artist and not The Room at times, because the performances are so spot on.
Once again, James Franco’s ability to take a real life person and bring them to life on a screen shone through. I always refer to his performance as Aron Ralston in 127 Hours as one of his best, but his portrayal of Tommy Wiseau certainly comes a close second. He nails the mannerisms, the accent, and that weird laugh that Wiseau has become well known for. You can tell he has dedicated a lot of time and effort to the project, and it’s paid off. Praise must also be given to the rest of the cast for perfectly emulating the characters. Josh Hutcherson as Denny was amazing; even when he was just sitting there that ridiculous wig was enough to make the audience cry with laughter, and Seth Rogen’s script supervisor character delivers these amazing one liners that show his frustration at Tommy’s ridiculous ideas.
Whilst clearly hilarious, this film is not without its fair share of tragedy, mainly around Dave Franco’s character Greg Sestero. His friendship with Tommy required him to make huge, unimaginable sacrifices both professionally and personally, ultimately causing a rift between the two. Greg is a classic example of a man chasing the allure of fame, and failing miserably. You can’t help but sympathise with him as he tries his best to keep those around him happy whilst trying to attain life changing career goals. The film also shows a darker side to Tommy Wiseau, as he treats the cast and crew around him very badly. He’s so wrapped up in bringing The Room, his “real Hollywood movie”, to life that he neglects the needs of those around him. There are some highly charged emotional moments in this film, which are perfectly balanced with the comedic moments. Without these serious scenes, the film just wouldn’t have been the same.
The Disaster Artist is a must-watch for fans of The Room, and those who want to learn more about the utter chaos that happened on set. It’s funny, intense, emotional and a one of a kind experience from start to finish. Make sure you sit tight until after the credits too, as there’s an extra scene that you don’t want to miss!
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2017/12/04/ha-ha-ha-what-a-film-mark-a-review-of-the-disaster-artist/
I was lucky enough to see the film during its opening weekend at the Prince Charles Cinema, which actually made my experience even better. Being around a crowd of The Room fans who knew the film like the back of their hand was hilarious, because they recited familiar quotes along with James Franco, and it was clear the entire audience was having a blast from start to finish. I honestly can’t remember the last time I laughed this much at a film. Everyone involved made a real effort to recreate the scenes that we know and love, whilst giving us a glimpse into what life on that film set was really like. It’s possible to forget that you’re watching The Disaster Artist and not The Room at times, because the performances are so spot on.
Once again, James Franco’s ability to take a real life person and bring them to life on a screen shone through. I always refer to his performance as Aron Ralston in 127 Hours as one of his best, but his portrayal of Tommy Wiseau certainly comes a close second. He nails the mannerisms, the accent, and that weird laugh that Wiseau has become well known for. You can tell he has dedicated a lot of time and effort to the project, and it’s paid off. Praise must also be given to the rest of the cast for perfectly emulating the characters. Josh Hutcherson as Denny was amazing; even when he was just sitting there that ridiculous wig was enough to make the audience cry with laughter, and Seth Rogen’s script supervisor character delivers these amazing one liners that show his frustration at Tommy’s ridiculous ideas.
Whilst clearly hilarious, this film is not without its fair share of tragedy, mainly around Dave Franco’s character Greg Sestero. His friendship with Tommy required him to make huge, unimaginable sacrifices both professionally and personally, ultimately causing a rift between the two. Greg is a classic example of a man chasing the allure of fame, and failing miserably. You can’t help but sympathise with him as he tries his best to keep those around him happy whilst trying to attain life changing career goals. The film also shows a darker side to Tommy Wiseau, as he treats the cast and crew around him very badly. He’s so wrapped up in bringing The Room, his “real Hollywood movie”, to life that he neglects the needs of those around him. There are some highly charged emotional moments in this film, which are perfectly balanced with the comedic moments. Without these serious scenes, the film just wouldn’t have been the same.
The Disaster Artist is a must-watch for fans of The Room, and those who want to learn more about the utter chaos that happened on set. It’s funny, intense, emotional and a one of a kind experience from start to finish. Make sure you sit tight until after the credits too, as there’s an extra scene that you don’t want to miss!
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2017/12/04/ha-ha-ha-what-a-film-mark-a-review-of-the-disaster-artist/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020
Power-house female lead roles, times 3. (1 more)
John Lithgow (who should have got a supporting actor nom)
Sleazy old Fox.
This is a curious one. I wonder whether the audience reaction to this one will polarize along gender lines as it did for my wife and I? For I thought this one was "good, but nothing special"... but the illustrious Mrs Movie Man thought it was excellent and would be "memorable".
The movie is based on the true story of the first "Me Too" case against a prominent man in power. Before Harvey Weinstein (allegedly!) there was Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), CEO of the Fox Network. Under the shadowy gaze of the Murdoch brothers (Ben Lawson and Josh Lawson), Ailes rules Fox with a rod of iron. Unfortunately, it's Ailes' - ahem - 'rod of iron' that is part of the problem.
Three women are at the centre of the drama. Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) is a leading anchorwoman, fighting her own battles in a man's world. She is currently in trouble with 50% of the US population for taking a firm stand on-screen against Trump's treatment of women; Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is a broadcaster approaching her 50's and being shunted progressively towards the door, via afternoon shows, in favour of 'younger models'; Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) is a keen new-starter, ambitious and keen as mustard to impress her bosses, including Ailes.
The three women seldom interact (a scene in a lift is a study in awkwardness) but are all on different stages of the same journey.
I clearly saw a review which referenced the movie as being "Adam McKay-like" since I went in assuming that McKay ("Vice", "The Big Short") was the director of this one. For that reason, I was puzzled. Yes, there were occasions where the actors broke the 4th wall; and there were little visual tricks (a burned in Fox logo for example) that entertained. But it wasn't the close-to-the-edge roller-coaster of innovation that I have come to expect from a McKay film.
When the titles rolled, it was an "Aha" moment! Actually, the director is the Austin Powers director Jay Roach. Not that he hasn't done drama as well: he did the Bryan Cranston vehicle "Trumbo" a few years back. And another MacKay link is the writer: the screenplay is by Charles Randolph, the writer of "The Big Short".
The leading ladies in this really are leading, with Charlize Theron picking up a well-deserved Best Actress Oscar nomination and Margot Robbie getting the Best Supporting nom. Theron is brilliant in everything she does, and here she is chameleon-like in disappearing into her character. I wasn't as sure about Robbie early in the film, but an excruciating "twirl" for Ailes is brilliantly done and an emotional scene during a date is Oscar-reel worthy.
Great supporting turns come from "The West Wing's" Allison Janney and from Kate McKinnon. McKinnon was the most annoying thing in "Yesterday", as the brash US agent, but here she is effective as the lesbian friend of Kayla.
Holding up the male end (as it were) is a fantastic performance from John Lithgow (surprisingly overlooked during the awards season) and Malcolm McDowell delivering an uncanny Rupert Murdoch.
Overall, the "Me Too" movement has created an earthquake in popular culture. Many more movies featuring strong female leads have appeared in the last few years, and that's great. This is a reminder of the time before that, when men openly used their power to force unwanted sex on employees. And its horrifying and disconcerting to watch.
And it was a good movie. But it just wasn't a "wow" movie for me. A female audience will by definition have more experience of this than a male one. Perhaps there is a sense of 'collective guilt' that we blokes need to work through. And perhaps that's a subconscious reason why I didn't 100% engage with the film. (Though I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I don't have any skeletons in that particular closet!)
(For the graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-bombshell-2020/).
The movie is based on the true story of the first "Me Too" case against a prominent man in power. Before Harvey Weinstein (allegedly!) there was Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), CEO of the Fox Network. Under the shadowy gaze of the Murdoch brothers (Ben Lawson and Josh Lawson), Ailes rules Fox with a rod of iron. Unfortunately, it's Ailes' - ahem - 'rod of iron' that is part of the problem.
Three women are at the centre of the drama. Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) is a leading anchorwoman, fighting her own battles in a man's world. She is currently in trouble with 50% of the US population for taking a firm stand on-screen against Trump's treatment of women; Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is a broadcaster approaching her 50's and being shunted progressively towards the door, via afternoon shows, in favour of 'younger models'; Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) is a keen new-starter, ambitious and keen as mustard to impress her bosses, including Ailes.
The three women seldom interact (a scene in a lift is a study in awkwardness) but are all on different stages of the same journey.
I clearly saw a review which referenced the movie as being "Adam McKay-like" since I went in assuming that McKay ("Vice", "The Big Short") was the director of this one. For that reason, I was puzzled. Yes, there were occasions where the actors broke the 4th wall; and there were little visual tricks (a burned in Fox logo for example) that entertained. But it wasn't the close-to-the-edge roller-coaster of innovation that I have come to expect from a McKay film.
When the titles rolled, it was an "Aha" moment! Actually, the director is the Austin Powers director Jay Roach. Not that he hasn't done drama as well: he did the Bryan Cranston vehicle "Trumbo" a few years back. And another MacKay link is the writer: the screenplay is by Charles Randolph, the writer of "The Big Short".
The leading ladies in this really are leading, with Charlize Theron picking up a well-deserved Best Actress Oscar nomination and Margot Robbie getting the Best Supporting nom. Theron is brilliant in everything she does, and here she is chameleon-like in disappearing into her character. I wasn't as sure about Robbie early in the film, but an excruciating "twirl" for Ailes is brilliantly done and an emotional scene during a date is Oscar-reel worthy.
Great supporting turns come from "The West Wing's" Allison Janney and from Kate McKinnon. McKinnon was the most annoying thing in "Yesterday", as the brash US agent, but here she is effective as the lesbian friend of Kayla.
Holding up the male end (as it were) is a fantastic performance from John Lithgow (surprisingly overlooked during the awards season) and Malcolm McDowell delivering an uncanny Rupert Murdoch.
Overall, the "Me Too" movement has created an earthquake in popular culture. Many more movies featuring strong female leads have appeared in the last few years, and that's great. This is a reminder of the time before that, when men openly used their power to force unwanted sex on employees. And its horrifying and disconcerting to watch.
And it was a good movie. But it just wasn't a "wow" movie for me. A female audience will by definition have more experience of this than a male one. Perhaps there is a sense of 'collective guilt' that we blokes need to work through. And perhaps that's a subconscious reason why I didn't 100% engage with the film. (Though I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I don't have any skeletons in that particular closet!)
(For the graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-bombshell-2020/).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dune (2021) in Movies
Oct 28, 2021
“He’s Not The Messiah – He’s a Very Naughty Boy!”
Certain works of fiction have been labelled with the tag of “unfilmable”, and Frank Herbert’s 1965 novel “Dune” is one of those. It’s full of exposition done as internal monologues – which screams “movie voiceover”. And regular readers will know my hatred of those!
Amazingly, Denis Villeneuve manages to pull off the impossible with his version of Dune (part 1), which I saw last night as part of a Cineworld Unlimited preview event. It’s close to being a movie masterpiece.
Plot Summary:
The desert planet of Arrakis is home to the Freman tribe but is a political battleground since it is the only known source of ‘Spice’: a substance that enables interplanetary travel.
Paul (Timothée Chalamet) is the heir to the throne of the House of Atreides, headed by his father Duke Leto Atreides (Oscar Isaac). His mother (Rebecca Ferguson) is Leto’s concubine and possessed with hereditary gifts: mystical powers that make her part of a sect of galactic ‘witches’ with mystical powers. But the House of Atreides is gaining in power, and the Emperor throws a political spanner into the works by evicting the vicious House of Harkonnen from Arrakis and giving it to Atreides. This puts both Houses on the path of war.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Timothée Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Zendaya, Jason Momoa, Stellan Skarsgård, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Dave Bautista, Charlotte Rampling.
Directed by: Denis Villeneuve.
Written by: Jon Spaihts, Denis Villeneuve and Eric Roth. (Based on the novel by Frank Herbert).
“Dune” Review: Positives:
My 5*’s for this one goes for the overall vision, which is grandiose with scenes that stick in the brain. As he demonstrated in “Arrival“, Villeneuve likes to go for huge spacecraft that hang “in the sky in much the same way that bricks don’t”*. And the ships in this vision are just HUGE.
The ensemble cast does a great job, with Chalamet, Isaac and Ferguson being particularly impressive. Stellan Skarsgård (looking like he is about to tell “a very amusing story about a goat”, if you get that movie reference!) looks to have the most gruelling acting job, having to emerge from, and descend into, a bath of black goo!
Much like Villeneuve’s “Blade Runner 2049“, this movie has cinematography that is worthy of framing and sticking on your wall. (Greig Fraser is the man behind the camera here).
Hans Zimmer‘s music is phenomenal. I’m not sure it’s a good ‘sit down and listen to’ sort of soundtrack, but it fits the movie beautifully.
* I used this Douglas Adams quote for my “Arrival” review, and then Mark Kermode used the same quote: I like to think he read my review!
Negatives:
It wasn’t a problem for me, but I expect some will consider the movie to be too much mood and not enough action. I’ve seen some comment that the film was “emotionally empty”: but I really didn’t feel that, and am well-invested in the story ready for “Part 2”.
This is probably faithful to the books, but given all of the advanced spacecraft technology on show, and laser/blaster technology, it seems bonkers that when we get to hand-to-hand combat between the armies that we get into “swords and sandals” territory.
Observation:
There’s nothing new under the Tatooine suns. And so much of this film has you linking the concepts back to “Star Wars”:
“The Force” is now “The Way”
The Jedi are the ‘Ben and Jerry Set’. (Well, that’s what it sounded like to me… and I don’t even like Ice Cream!)
Both films centre on a Messiah-like “chosen one”, foretold by legend
“Spice” also features in “Star Wars” with “spice runners” (as in the Millenium Falcon doing the ‘Kessel Run’)
There’s even a ‘pit of sarlaac’ moment in “Dune”.
Of course, since Frank Herbert wrote “Dune” in 1965, there’s a significant question as to who is plagiarising who here!
Summary Thoughts on “Dune”
At 2 hours 35 minutes, it’s YET ANOTHER long movie: cementing October 2021 as the month of long movies. (I just did a quick tally, and of the six films I’ve seen this month they average 139 minutes in length: and that’s with “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” dragging the average down!)
But this is a movie that MUST be seen on the big screen. It’s a memorable movie experience and highly recommended.
I can’t wait for Villeneuve’s “Part 2”, currently in pre-production.
Amazingly, Denis Villeneuve manages to pull off the impossible with his version of Dune (part 1), which I saw last night as part of a Cineworld Unlimited preview event. It’s close to being a movie masterpiece.
Plot Summary:
The desert planet of Arrakis is home to the Freman tribe but is a political battleground since it is the only known source of ‘Spice’: a substance that enables interplanetary travel.
Paul (Timothée Chalamet) is the heir to the throne of the House of Atreides, headed by his father Duke Leto Atreides (Oscar Isaac). His mother (Rebecca Ferguson) is Leto’s concubine and possessed with hereditary gifts: mystical powers that make her part of a sect of galactic ‘witches’ with mystical powers. But the House of Atreides is gaining in power, and the Emperor throws a political spanner into the works by evicting the vicious House of Harkonnen from Arrakis and giving it to Atreides. This puts both Houses on the path of war.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Timothée Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Zendaya, Jason Momoa, Stellan Skarsgård, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Dave Bautista, Charlotte Rampling.
Directed by: Denis Villeneuve.
Written by: Jon Spaihts, Denis Villeneuve and Eric Roth. (Based on the novel by Frank Herbert).
“Dune” Review: Positives:
My 5*’s for this one goes for the overall vision, which is grandiose with scenes that stick in the brain. As he demonstrated in “Arrival“, Villeneuve likes to go for huge spacecraft that hang “in the sky in much the same way that bricks don’t”*. And the ships in this vision are just HUGE.
The ensemble cast does a great job, with Chalamet, Isaac and Ferguson being particularly impressive. Stellan Skarsgård (looking like he is about to tell “a very amusing story about a goat”, if you get that movie reference!) looks to have the most gruelling acting job, having to emerge from, and descend into, a bath of black goo!
Much like Villeneuve’s “Blade Runner 2049“, this movie has cinematography that is worthy of framing and sticking on your wall. (Greig Fraser is the man behind the camera here).
Hans Zimmer‘s music is phenomenal. I’m not sure it’s a good ‘sit down and listen to’ sort of soundtrack, but it fits the movie beautifully.
* I used this Douglas Adams quote for my “Arrival” review, and then Mark Kermode used the same quote: I like to think he read my review!
Negatives:
It wasn’t a problem for me, but I expect some will consider the movie to be too much mood and not enough action. I’ve seen some comment that the film was “emotionally empty”: but I really didn’t feel that, and am well-invested in the story ready for “Part 2”.
This is probably faithful to the books, but given all of the advanced spacecraft technology on show, and laser/blaster technology, it seems bonkers that when we get to hand-to-hand combat between the armies that we get into “swords and sandals” territory.
Observation:
There’s nothing new under the Tatooine suns. And so much of this film has you linking the concepts back to “Star Wars”:
“The Force” is now “The Way”
The Jedi are the ‘Ben and Jerry Set’. (Well, that’s what it sounded like to me… and I don’t even like Ice Cream!)
Both films centre on a Messiah-like “chosen one”, foretold by legend
“Spice” also features in “Star Wars” with “spice runners” (as in the Millenium Falcon doing the ‘Kessel Run’)
There’s even a ‘pit of sarlaac’ moment in “Dune”.
Of course, since Frank Herbert wrote “Dune” in 1965, there’s a significant question as to who is plagiarising who here!
Summary Thoughts on “Dune”
At 2 hours 35 minutes, it’s YET ANOTHER long movie: cementing October 2021 as the month of long movies. (I just did a quick tally, and of the six films I’ve seen this month they average 139 minutes in length: and that’s with “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” dragging the average down!)
But this is a movie that MUST be seen on the big screen. It’s a memorable movie experience and highly recommended.
I can’t wait for Villeneuve’s “Part 2”, currently in pre-production.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Zoltar Rides Again!
All work and no play makes Bob the Movie Man a dull reviewer. Due to work commitments, this is the first film I’ve been able to see at the cinema for over a month. There’s a whole slew of films I wanted to see that have already come and gone. Big sigh. So I might be about the last of the crowd to review this, but I’m glad I caught it before it shuffled off its silver screen coil.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Ending The Game
Contains spoilers, click to show
Avengers: Endgame - the concluding installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's 'Infinity Saga', has made box office history, breaking a number of records on its' journey (thus far) of becoming the second highest grossing movie ever in a short period of time. Bringing together the story threads of 21 films before it 'Endgame' had a number of hurdles to overcome - not only did the Russo Brothers have to find a satisfying way to reverse the effects of 'The Decimation' (if you have to ask then you're probably reading the wrong review!) but they had to do so in a way that did not lessen the impact of 'Infinity War', whilst bringing to a close a number of character arcs for many well respected and founding members of Marvel's flagship superhero team and setting the course and direction for whatever comes next.
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Deep Blue in Tabletop Games
Mar 17, 2022
A couple of months ago, Travis was in town, so he and I went over to Josh’s place to get a day of gaming in. It was an awesome time to play together, and to get to experience some new games for each of us. While we were there, we got to talking about some of the games in Josh’s collection, and he pulled out Deep Blue. He’d had it for a while, but had since gotten another game that he felt did the same things but better. So he asked if either of us wanted to take it off his hands. I said sure, as I’d never played the game before. Now that it’s a part of my collection, is it going to stay there? Or will my feelings mirror Josh’s with regards to the gameplay?
Deep Blue is a nautical game for 2-5 players of deck building, hand management, and a bit of push your luck. In it, players take on the roles ship Captains who are racing to collect treasures from undersea wrecks. Players will be hiring Crew members, sailing across the sea, and sending divers down to wrecks to salvage any valuables. The race is on, though, because you are not the only Captain on this treasure hunt… Throughout the game, players will stumble across 4 Wrecks that make up a Sunken City. Once all 4 areas of the Sunken City have been discovered and searched, the game ends. The player who earns the most VP from their collected treasures by the end of the game is declared the winner!
To setup for a game, follow the instructions in the rulebook – there are simply too many to detail here. The basic gist of setup is to create a market of Crew cards, shuffle and randomly distribute Wreck tiles across the board, and create a Gem pool. Each player will receive a player mat and starting cards in their chosen color, as well as 2 ships to be placed on the starting space of the board. Players will also get a treasure chest, in which they will keep their VP throughout the game. Set the Dive Site board, Gem bag, and VP tokens off to the side. Select a starting player, deal out starting tokens accordingly, and the game is ready to begin! Pictured below is the setup for a 3-player game.
On your turn, you will take one of four possible actions: Recruit a Crew Member, Sail, Rest, or Dive. Throughout the game you will be building your personal deck by Recruiting Crew Members. These new Crew offer unique abilities and scoring powers to be used during Dives. In order to recruit a Crew Member, you must pay the corresponding cost listed by its location in the market. To do so, you will play cards from your hand with $ symbols that equal the required cost. Once you play a card from your hand, it goes facedown onto the Rest area of your player mat. Take the Crew Member you just hired directly into your hand, and move the Market cards down to fill in the empty space, drawing a new card for the final slot. If you choose to Sail, you will play a number of cards from your hand with the Propeller icon. The number of icons dictates how many spaces you may sail. You can use all of your movement on one of your ships, or you can break movement across both ships. If you end a move on a face-up Wreck tile, you will ‘anchor’ your boat to one of the open scouting spots. These scouting spots offer special scoring benefits during the Dive on this tile. If you end movement on a face-down Wreck tile, first you will flip it face-up, and then anchor your boat. When landing on a buoy or an empty dive site, nothing happens.
On any turn, you may instead choose to Rest. To perform this action, you will shuffle all cards that reside on the Rest area of your player mat, and then draw only the 3 topmost cards into your hand. This is the action that allows you to refresh your hand, as you play more cards and your hand starts to dwindle. The final action choice is to Dive. This action is the crux of the game. When you have a boat on a Wreck tile, you may choose to start a Dive. The first step is to declare your Dive – decide which Wreck to Dive if your boats are on different Wreck tiles. Before the Dive begins, any opponents who have boats on adjacent Wreck tiles may move their boats to your Wreck in hopes of also profiting from the Dive. When all eligible boats have been moved to the Wreck, you will then officially begin the Dive. Take the Gem bag and Dive Site board. You will then draw Gems out of the bag, one-by-one, resolving them as necessary. Red, Gold, Silver, Green, and Purple gems are treasures, and can earn you VP. Blue and Black gems are Hazards that must be defended against in order to continue the Dive.
After a Gem is drawn and placed on the Dive Site board, players may choose to play a Crew Member to increase their VP earned. For example, one card allows you to earn 8 VP for a Green gem, instead of 0. To defend against hazards, players may play Crew from their hands who have the ability to negate the hazard, or may use the special ability of their scouting spot on the Wreck tile. If you are unable to defend against a hazard, you are forced to resurface and leave the Dive. The Dive continues in this fashion, until either the active player decides to end the Dive, or when they no longer have the ability to defend against hazards. Any players who still have boats at the Dive Site will collect VP from Crew cards they played, as well as a base amount of VP for the different Gems that were drawn. Once a Dive has been performed at a Wreck, that tile is removed from the game, leaving an empty dive site behind. If players have performed a Dive at one of the 4 Sunken City tiles, it is removed from the board, but placed on its corresponding space in the corner of the board. After all 4 Sunken City tiles have been moved to the corner of the board, the game immediately ends. Players will count up all the VP collected throughout the game, and the player with the highest score is declared the winner!
So how do I feel about Deep Blue overall? I would have to say that it’s fine. Just fine. There are some elements that I really enjoy, but others that kind of frustrate me. What I enjoy – the bits of strategy involved, and the awesome components. What I don’t enjoy – the pacing of the game and the imbalance of actions. To touch on the pros first, this game does require some strategy. You have to decide where to Sail, which Crew to recruit, which Crew to play and when to play them, etc. VP are earned by participating in Dives, so you want to make sure you can be at as many Dives as possible. That means keeping ships close to opponents to profit from any dives they may choose to initiate. Another interesting strategic element is the Rest action. You shuffle your discard pile, but then only draw the 3 topmost cards into your hand. You might not always draw what you were wanting, but you are always allowed to take a Rest action, regardless of how many cards are in your discard. There is no hand limit in this game, so do you rest every other turn to ensure you have almost all cards in your hand? Or do you dwindle your hand down in order to perform other actions instead? It’s all about your strategy, and you never quite know what your opponents are trying to do.
Now for the cons. The pacing of the gameplay feels really slow to me. You are only allowed to perform 1 action per turn, so it seems like the game takes a while to really get going. At first, everyone is going to be wanting to Sail, as all players start in the same starting area of the board. You want to get your ships out there ASAP. But then you run out of cards, so you have to take a turn to Rest and get those cards back. You’re taking a bunch of little turns to accomplish any one bigger thing, and that bogs down the gameplay for me. If you were able to perform 2 actions per turn, that would probably alleviate some of this frustration, as it would allow you to progress more quickly than by taking only a single action. Another aspect I mentioned is the imbalance of actions. The Recruit, Sail, and Rest actions all feel to me like they are on the same level, but the Dive action is different. Which in and of itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But the process of the Dive action is vastly different than any of the other actions, to the point that it kind of feels like a different game to me. For half of the game, you’re playing this game of strategy, deck building, and optimizing placement across the board. But for the other half, it turns into a push-your-luck frenzy that seems disjointed from the rest of the game to me. No matter how strategic and careful you are with your actions, it ultimately comes down to the luck of the draw.
To touch on components for a minute – the production quality of this game is awesome. The board, Dive Site board, and VP tokens are nice chunky cardboard. The cards are colorful, have cool artwork, and are sturdy. And the treasure chests are awesome little plastic chests that definitely are holding up well. The Wreck tiles are big and thick, the Gems are cute, and the ships are fun to play with. So overall, this game is made very well.
You can probably tell by now that I have mixed feelings about Deep Blue. There are aspects that I like, but other aspects that negate some of those positive attributes. I was psyched for a cool nautical deck builder where I could really flex my strategy, but got more push-your-luck than I was anticipating. Deep Blue will probably stick around in my collection for the time being. But, like Josh, I will probably find something that gives me the same vibes but done better. It’s a game that I’ll pull out from time to time, but definitely not one that’s going to break into my Top 10. With that said, Purple Phoenix Games gives it a sunken 4 / 6.
Deep Blue is a nautical game for 2-5 players of deck building, hand management, and a bit of push your luck. In it, players take on the roles ship Captains who are racing to collect treasures from undersea wrecks. Players will be hiring Crew members, sailing across the sea, and sending divers down to wrecks to salvage any valuables. The race is on, though, because you are not the only Captain on this treasure hunt… Throughout the game, players will stumble across 4 Wrecks that make up a Sunken City. Once all 4 areas of the Sunken City have been discovered and searched, the game ends. The player who earns the most VP from their collected treasures by the end of the game is declared the winner!
To setup for a game, follow the instructions in the rulebook – there are simply too many to detail here. The basic gist of setup is to create a market of Crew cards, shuffle and randomly distribute Wreck tiles across the board, and create a Gem pool. Each player will receive a player mat and starting cards in their chosen color, as well as 2 ships to be placed on the starting space of the board. Players will also get a treasure chest, in which they will keep their VP throughout the game. Set the Dive Site board, Gem bag, and VP tokens off to the side. Select a starting player, deal out starting tokens accordingly, and the game is ready to begin! Pictured below is the setup for a 3-player game.
On your turn, you will take one of four possible actions: Recruit a Crew Member, Sail, Rest, or Dive. Throughout the game you will be building your personal deck by Recruiting Crew Members. These new Crew offer unique abilities and scoring powers to be used during Dives. In order to recruit a Crew Member, you must pay the corresponding cost listed by its location in the market. To do so, you will play cards from your hand with $ symbols that equal the required cost. Once you play a card from your hand, it goes facedown onto the Rest area of your player mat. Take the Crew Member you just hired directly into your hand, and move the Market cards down to fill in the empty space, drawing a new card for the final slot. If you choose to Sail, you will play a number of cards from your hand with the Propeller icon. The number of icons dictates how many spaces you may sail. You can use all of your movement on one of your ships, or you can break movement across both ships. If you end a move on a face-up Wreck tile, you will ‘anchor’ your boat to one of the open scouting spots. These scouting spots offer special scoring benefits during the Dive on this tile. If you end movement on a face-down Wreck tile, first you will flip it face-up, and then anchor your boat. When landing on a buoy or an empty dive site, nothing happens.
On any turn, you may instead choose to Rest. To perform this action, you will shuffle all cards that reside on the Rest area of your player mat, and then draw only the 3 topmost cards into your hand. This is the action that allows you to refresh your hand, as you play more cards and your hand starts to dwindle. The final action choice is to Dive. This action is the crux of the game. When you have a boat on a Wreck tile, you may choose to start a Dive. The first step is to declare your Dive – decide which Wreck to Dive if your boats are on different Wreck tiles. Before the Dive begins, any opponents who have boats on adjacent Wreck tiles may move their boats to your Wreck in hopes of also profiting from the Dive. When all eligible boats have been moved to the Wreck, you will then officially begin the Dive. Take the Gem bag and Dive Site board. You will then draw Gems out of the bag, one-by-one, resolving them as necessary. Red, Gold, Silver, Green, and Purple gems are treasures, and can earn you VP. Blue and Black gems are Hazards that must be defended against in order to continue the Dive.
After a Gem is drawn and placed on the Dive Site board, players may choose to play a Crew Member to increase their VP earned. For example, one card allows you to earn 8 VP for a Green gem, instead of 0. To defend against hazards, players may play Crew from their hands who have the ability to negate the hazard, or may use the special ability of their scouting spot on the Wreck tile. If you are unable to defend against a hazard, you are forced to resurface and leave the Dive. The Dive continues in this fashion, until either the active player decides to end the Dive, or when they no longer have the ability to defend against hazards. Any players who still have boats at the Dive Site will collect VP from Crew cards they played, as well as a base amount of VP for the different Gems that were drawn. Once a Dive has been performed at a Wreck, that tile is removed from the game, leaving an empty dive site behind. If players have performed a Dive at one of the 4 Sunken City tiles, it is removed from the board, but placed on its corresponding space in the corner of the board. After all 4 Sunken City tiles have been moved to the corner of the board, the game immediately ends. Players will count up all the VP collected throughout the game, and the player with the highest score is declared the winner!
So how do I feel about Deep Blue overall? I would have to say that it’s fine. Just fine. There are some elements that I really enjoy, but others that kind of frustrate me. What I enjoy – the bits of strategy involved, and the awesome components. What I don’t enjoy – the pacing of the game and the imbalance of actions. To touch on the pros first, this game does require some strategy. You have to decide where to Sail, which Crew to recruit, which Crew to play and when to play them, etc. VP are earned by participating in Dives, so you want to make sure you can be at as many Dives as possible. That means keeping ships close to opponents to profit from any dives they may choose to initiate. Another interesting strategic element is the Rest action. You shuffle your discard pile, but then only draw the 3 topmost cards into your hand. You might not always draw what you were wanting, but you are always allowed to take a Rest action, regardless of how many cards are in your discard. There is no hand limit in this game, so do you rest every other turn to ensure you have almost all cards in your hand? Or do you dwindle your hand down in order to perform other actions instead? It’s all about your strategy, and you never quite know what your opponents are trying to do.
Now for the cons. The pacing of the gameplay feels really slow to me. You are only allowed to perform 1 action per turn, so it seems like the game takes a while to really get going. At first, everyone is going to be wanting to Sail, as all players start in the same starting area of the board. You want to get your ships out there ASAP. But then you run out of cards, so you have to take a turn to Rest and get those cards back. You’re taking a bunch of little turns to accomplish any one bigger thing, and that bogs down the gameplay for me. If you were able to perform 2 actions per turn, that would probably alleviate some of this frustration, as it would allow you to progress more quickly than by taking only a single action. Another aspect I mentioned is the imbalance of actions. The Recruit, Sail, and Rest actions all feel to me like they are on the same level, but the Dive action is different. Which in and of itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But the process of the Dive action is vastly different than any of the other actions, to the point that it kind of feels like a different game to me. For half of the game, you’re playing this game of strategy, deck building, and optimizing placement across the board. But for the other half, it turns into a push-your-luck frenzy that seems disjointed from the rest of the game to me. No matter how strategic and careful you are with your actions, it ultimately comes down to the luck of the draw.
To touch on components for a minute – the production quality of this game is awesome. The board, Dive Site board, and VP tokens are nice chunky cardboard. The cards are colorful, have cool artwork, and are sturdy. And the treasure chests are awesome little plastic chests that definitely are holding up well. The Wreck tiles are big and thick, the Gems are cute, and the ships are fun to play with. So overall, this game is made very well.
You can probably tell by now that I have mixed feelings about Deep Blue. There are aspects that I like, but other aspects that negate some of those positive attributes. I was psyched for a cool nautical deck builder where I could really flex my strategy, but got more push-your-luck than I was anticipating. Deep Blue will probably stick around in my collection for the time being. But, like Josh, I will probably find something that gives me the same vibes but done better. It’s a game that I’ll pull out from time to time, but definitely not one that’s going to break into my Top 10. With that said, Purple Phoenix Games gives it a sunken 4 / 6.
