Search
Search results
Erika (17788 KP) rated Penny Dreadful - Season 1 in TV
Oct 24, 2017
Eve Green is everything in this show. She and Josh Hartnett are the saving graces. Out of all the penny dreadful/gothic horror, etc stories they could have pulled from, they chose.. Frankenstein, Dracula, and Dorian Grey? It could have been so much better. The season finale didn't make me feel like I wanted to watch seasons two or three.
Jake Gyllenhaal recommended The Goonies (1985) in Movies (curated)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Frank Miller's Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (2014) in Movies
Jan 17, 2021
I think that I actually prefer A Dame to Kill For over the first Sin City...
Once again, it's a visual feast, and once again, has a damn fine cast.
Two of the stories here are (unless I'm mistaken) written for this film, rather than being adapted. One of them concentrates on Johnny (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and his incredible luck at gambling. This story serves as nothing more than to further highlight just how much of an asshole Senator Rourke (Powers Boothe) is, once again, acting as the films main big bad. It's effective enough and does what it sets out to do. The other story concentrates on Nancy (Jessica Alba) torn up and struggling with alcohol after what Rourke did to Hartigan (Bruce Willis) in the first movie, before enlisting the help of Marv (Mickey Rourke) to exact revenge. This one is a little more high stakes. By this point, you really want Rourke to face some really unfriendly justice, and it's fitting that Nancy be the one to dish it out.
However, the titular story is what holds everything together.
A Dame to Kill For, which is indeed adapted from the comics is fantastic. It takes up the majority of runtime, and follows pre Clive Owen looking Dwight (Josh Brolin) going toe to toe with the seductively powerful and dangerous Ava (Eva Green). Here is where we're in full blown prequel territory, learning how Dwight comes to look how he does in the original, his connections the the girls of Old Town, and how Manute (Dennis Haysbert) ends up with his fetching golden eyeball. The best character interactions happen here. Green and Brolin are both great, and easily steal the show. It also boasts some great action when Gail (Rosario Dawson) and Miho (Jamie Chung) return to fuck shit up, and is just an all round enjoyable segment that easily dwarfs the other two stories.
The cast also includes Ray Liota, Christopher Meloni, Jaime King, Jeremy Piven, Christopher Lloyd, Juno Temple, Julia Garner, and Lady Gaga, so yeah, pretty solid ensemble all in all!
Its a damn shame that ADTKF took as long as it did to materialise. The Sin City hype train had gone a bit quiet by the time it released, and it didn't get the credit it deserves, and is frequently discarded as an inferior film to it's predecessor when personally, I think there's a lot to love.
Once again, it's a visual feast, and once again, has a damn fine cast.
Two of the stories here are (unless I'm mistaken) written for this film, rather than being adapted. One of them concentrates on Johnny (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and his incredible luck at gambling. This story serves as nothing more than to further highlight just how much of an asshole Senator Rourke (Powers Boothe) is, once again, acting as the films main big bad. It's effective enough and does what it sets out to do. The other story concentrates on Nancy (Jessica Alba) torn up and struggling with alcohol after what Rourke did to Hartigan (Bruce Willis) in the first movie, before enlisting the help of Marv (Mickey Rourke) to exact revenge. This one is a little more high stakes. By this point, you really want Rourke to face some really unfriendly justice, and it's fitting that Nancy be the one to dish it out.
However, the titular story is what holds everything together.
A Dame to Kill For, which is indeed adapted from the comics is fantastic. It takes up the majority of runtime, and follows pre Clive Owen looking Dwight (Josh Brolin) going toe to toe with the seductively powerful and dangerous Ava (Eva Green). Here is where we're in full blown prequel territory, learning how Dwight comes to look how he does in the original, his connections the the girls of Old Town, and how Manute (Dennis Haysbert) ends up with his fetching golden eyeball. The best character interactions happen here. Green and Brolin are both great, and easily steal the show. It also boasts some great action when Gail (Rosario Dawson) and Miho (Jamie Chung) return to fuck shit up, and is just an all round enjoyable segment that easily dwarfs the other two stories.
The cast also includes Ray Liota, Christopher Meloni, Jaime King, Jeremy Piven, Christopher Lloyd, Juno Temple, Julia Garner, and Lady Gaga, so yeah, pretty solid ensemble all in all!
Its a damn shame that ADTKF took as long as it did to materialise. The Sin City hype train had gone a bit quiet by the time it released, and it didn't get the credit it deserves, and is frequently discarded as an inferior film to it's predecessor when personally, I think there's a lot to love.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) in Movies
Mar 26, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Zack Snynder's Justice League is the original cut of the Justice League film that was released in 2017 which was started by by Snyder and re written / cut by Josh Whedon, cutting the film from Snyders 4 hour, R/15 rated vison to a 1.30 pg/12 rated version. The film was meant to be the big connecting point for the DC equivalent version of the MCU after following on from 'Man of Steel' and Batman vs Superman' but the Whedon cut was met with a lot of criticism as fans felt that it didn't give what was promised and so the DCCU seemed to stall, or go in a different direction with 'Birds of Prey'. We don't know if, with the release of the Snyder, the DCCU will be restarted.
Zack Snyder's Justice League follows the same basic story of the Whedon cut, after the events of 'Batman vs Superman', Batman begins to form a super hero team to be ready for the invasion Lex Luthor warned of.
The film is of a similar dark tone as the two previous films, with some humour added by Ezra Miller's Flash, and adds more back story to both the flash and Cyborg as well as more information about the villains, Steppenwolf and Darkseid.
The biggest problems of the Snyder cut is the 4 hour run time and I wonder if that would have been cut if; 1) it had been originally released without Josh Whedon's input and 2) if marvel hadn't already released the 3 hour long Avengers end game.
Any other problem I have with Justice League are minor, I'm still not sure if DC have handled the resurrection of Superman right but that's based off what they did in the comics and Snyder did... well I'll get to that in a bit.
The inclusion of Martian Manhunter was good but his first appearance in the film was a bit odd.
The last main problem I had were Stepenwolf's eye's, part way through the film his eyes seem to get too big for his face, almost giving him a cute, Anime girl look. At least until they go blue.
Zack Snyder's Justice league did a lot of things right, the inclusion on Darkseid is the big one as it makes Steppenwolf's motivation more believable and adds to the history of the DCU earth, not to mention introducing the Green Lanterns (with out CGI costumes).
Now back to Superman, I've already said that DC may have missed a trick with his resurrection but Snyder left him in his black outfit (I'm sure you se him back in his original outfit, in the present in the Whedon cut ) and anyone familiar with the 'Reign of the Superman' Comics/animated film know that the Black costumed superman is in fact the Eradicator so, depending on what DC have/had planned in Superman's future they could be planning something else, especially now the Green lanterns have been introduced .
Because of the longer runtime the new characters did seem more filled out which helped with the overall motivation and flow of the film.
Like the previous two films (I'm not counting suicide squad because it's only linked by the end scene) Justice league is quite slow paced and dark, taking time to build up to the action but the narrative does fit the pace and doesn't let it feel rushed or leave any loose ends. In fact the only part that almost felt like something was missing was when Flash repapered after breaking the speed of light however that may be because I've read a few comics and know that something normally happens when he does that.
I do hope that DCCU does continue from Zack Snyder's Justice league, if only to find out what they are planning with the whole 'nightmare future/Lois is the key' storyline they started in 'Batman vs Superman' and continued here.
Even if you have seen the Whedon cut and if you can find the time I would recommend watching the Snyder cut as there is a lot more to the film even though there are a few scenes from the Whedon cut missing and the Snyder cut does pull on a lot more law from the comics that was only hinted at in the shorter version. (I still find hard to believe they left Darkseid out of the Whedon cut considering the story they were trying to tell.)
Zack Snyder's Justice League follows the same basic story of the Whedon cut, after the events of 'Batman vs Superman', Batman begins to form a super hero team to be ready for the invasion Lex Luthor warned of.
The film is of a similar dark tone as the two previous films, with some humour added by Ezra Miller's Flash, and adds more back story to both the flash and Cyborg as well as more information about the villains, Steppenwolf and Darkseid.
The biggest problems of the Snyder cut is the 4 hour run time and I wonder if that would have been cut if; 1) it had been originally released without Josh Whedon's input and 2) if marvel hadn't already released the 3 hour long Avengers end game.
Any other problem I have with Justice League are minor, I'm still not sure if DC have handled the resurrection of Superman right but that's based off what they did in the comics and Snyder did... well I'll get to that in a bit.
The inclusion of Martian Manhunter was good but his first appearance in the film was a bit odd.
The last main problem I had were Stepenwolf's eye's, part way through the film his eyes seem to get too big for his face, almost giving him a cute, Anime girl look. At least until they go blue.
Zack Snyder's Justice league did a lot of things right, the inclusion on Darkseid is the big one as it makes Steppenwolf's motivation more believable and adds to the history of the DCU earth, not to mention introducing the Green Lanterns (with out CGI costumes).
Now back to Superman, I've already said that DC may have missed a trick with his resurrection but Snyder left him in his black outfit (I'm sure you se him back in his original outfit, in the present in the Whedon cut ) and anyone familiar with the 'Reign of the Superman' Comics/animated film know that the Black costumed superman is in fact the Eradicator so, depending on what DC have/had planned in Superman's future they could be planning something else, especially now the Green lanterns have been introduced .
Because of the longer runtime the new characters did seem more filled out which helped with the overall motivation and flow of the film.
Like the previous two films (I'm not counting suicide squad because it's only linked by the end scene) Justice league is quite slow paced and dark, taking time to build up to the action but the narrative does fit the pace and doesn't let it feel rushed or leave any loose ends. In fact the only part that almost felt like something was missing was when Flash repapered after breaking the speed of light however that may be because I've read a few comics and know that something normally happens when he does that.
I do hope that DCCU does continue from Zack Snyder's Justice league, if only to find out what they are planning with the whole 'nightmare future/Lois is the key' storyline they started in 'Batman vs Superman' and continued here.
Even if you have seen the Whedon cut and if you can find the time I would recommend watching the Snyder cut as there is a lot more to the film even though there are a few scenes from the Whedon cut missing and the Snyder cut does pull on a lot more law from the comics that was only hinted at in the shorter version. (I still find hard to believe they left Darkseid out of the Whedon cut considering the story they were trying to tell.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Fantastic Four (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
If you hold the film rights to an iconic and beloved comic book series, one would think you would do everything possible to see that it flourishes under you watch. For 29th Century Fox, The Fantastic Four is an asset that should be a gem of their studio as the long-running Marvel comic series has had legions of fans for generations.
The previous two films did well enough but still had their detractors amongst the fans. So, Fox opted for a hiatus and then a radical reboot of the series complete with casting choices that were considered very questionable.
The new version features Miles Teller as Reed Richards, a young man obsessed with teleportation to the point that his teachers and other students laugh at him for his odd and obsessive ways.
His only friend is Ben Grimm (Jamie Bell), who despite a lack of scientific knowledge supports Reed in his efforts which eventually allow him to be recruited by Dr. Franklin Storm (Reg E. Cathey), who discloses that he is working on a large scale teleportation device and seeing how Reed pulled it off with a device he made in his garage, is eager to see what he can do at a fully-funded facility.
Reed meets Franklins adopted daughter Sue (Kate Mara), as well as his son Johnny (Michael B. Jordan), while they work with the mercurial Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebbell), to complete the device.
When the team finds success, they are horrified to learn that the government plans to take over control of the project so Ben, Victor, Johnny, and Reed opt to use it themselves to visit the other dimension in order to leave their mark in history.
Things at first go well but when a mysterious force envelops them, odd things start to happen when they return home. Reed is capable of stretching himself, Johnny is a living fire, Ben is covered in rocks, and Sue is phasing in and out.
Flashing forward the group is under the watch of the government and Reed has fled not wanting to be a part of whatever is going on. Ben is used for special operations and blames Reed for abandoning them as Sue and Johnny are prepped for the field.
Now one would think a setup like this has some potential at the very least for some action and great FX. Sadly the film lurches ahead fairly light on action. The threat to the film appears, and within 10 minutes has moved to a fairly underwhelming final conflict that is so obviously done in front of a Green Screen that it loses much of the intended impact.
The best I can say for the film is that it is a forgettable and flawed film that tries to launch a new franchise in a new way. But the casting choices in the film are so wrong, that it undermines it at every step. Setting aside the debate over an African American Johnny Storm, Miles Teller is so bland; he just does not scream leading man or driving force behind the team.
The same can be said for pretty much the entire cast. The backstories hint at various things but their actions conflict several aspects of the film which to be honest are fairly forgettable.
The entire movie is like watching a Jr. College Fan Film where the cast has a Green Screen and studio funding, but not a clue on how to carry out a story, modern action sequences of character development.
Fox needs to take a serious page from Sony and work with Marvel if they are going to continue this franchise, or return the rights to Marvel so fans can finally get a film that does justice to the source material.
I am glad that Director Josh Trank is no longer associated with the pending Star Wars film as this movie is a train wreck that spits all over the history and legacy of the source material.
http://sknr.net/2015/08/07/the-fantastic-four/
The previous two films did well enough but still had their detractors amongst the fans. So, Fox opted for a hiatus and then a radical reboot of the series complete with casting choices that were considered very questionable.
The new version features Miles Teller as Reed Richards, a young man obsessed with teleportation to the point that his teachers and other students laugh at him for his odd and obsessive ways.
His only friend is Ben Grimm (Jamie Bell), who despite a lack of scientific knowledge supports Reed in his efforts which eventually allow him to be recruited by Dr. Franklin Storm (Reg E. Cathey), who discloses that he is working on a large scale teleportation device and seeing how Reed pulled it off with a device he made in his garage, is eager to see what he can do at a fully-funded facility.
Reed meets Franklins adopted daughter Sue (Kate Mara), as well as his son Johnny (Michael B. Jordan), while they work with the mercurial Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebbell), to complete the device.
When the team finds success, they are horrified to learn that the government plans to take over control of the project so Ben, Victor, Johnny, and Reed opt to use it themselves to visit the other dimension in order to leave their mark in history.
Things at first go well but when a mysterious force envelops them, odd things start to happen when they return home. Reed is capable of stretching himself, Johnny is a living fire, Ben is covered in rocks, and Sue is phasing in and out.
Flashing forward the group is under the watch of the government and Reed has fled not wanting to be a part of whatever is going on. Ben is used for special operations and blames Reed for abandoning them as Sue and Johnny are prepped for the field.
Now one would think a setup like this has some potential at the very least for some action and great FX. Sadly the film lurches ahead fairly light on action. The threat to the film appears, and within 10 minutes has moved to a fairly underwhelming final conflict that is so obviously done in front of a Green Screen that it loses much of the intended impact.
The best I can say for the film is that it is a forgettable and flawed film that tries to launch a new franchise in a new way. But the casting choices in the film are so wrong, that it undermines it at every step. Setting aside the debate over an African American Johnny Storm, Miles Teller is so bland; he just does not scream leading man or driving force behind the team.
The same can be said for pretty much the entire cast. The backstories hint at various things but their actions conflict several aspects of the film which to be honest are fairly forgettable.
The entire movie is like watching a Jr. College Fan Film where the cast has a Green Screen and studio funding, but not a clue on how to carry out a story, modern action sequences of character development.
Fox needs to take a serious page from Sony and work with Marvel if they are going to continue this franchise, or return the rights to Marvel so fans can finally get a film that does justice to the source material.
I am glad that Director Josh Trank is no longer associated with the pending Star Wars film as this movie is a train wreck that spits all over the history and legacy of the source material.
http://sknr.net/2015/08/07/the-fantastic-four/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You’ll never guess who dunnit…
There’s a big problem with Kenneth Branagh’s 2017 filming of the Hercule Poirot-based murder mystery…. and that’s the 1974 Sidney Lumet classic featuring Albert Finney in the starring role. For that film was so memorable – at least, the “who” of the “whodunnit” (no spoilers here) was so memorable – that any remake is likely to be tarnished by that knowledge. If you go into this film blissfully unaware of the plot, you are a lucky man/woman. For this is a classic Agatha Christie yarn.
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tail as old as Kline.
With the Disney marketing machine in full swing, its hard to separate the hype from the movie reality in this latest live-action remake of one of their classic animated features from 1991. If you are lucky enough to have children you will know that each child tends to have “their” Disney feature: for my second daughter (then 4) that film would be “Beauty and the Beast”. With a VHS video tape worn down to the substrate, this is a film I know every line of dialogue to (“I’m especially good at expectorating”). So seeing this movie was always going to be a wander down Nostalgia Avenue and a left turn into Emotion Crescent, regardless of how good a film it was. And so it proved.
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Fantasy Ranch in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019 (Updated Jun 12, 2019)
Little known fact: my family used to be involved with local harness racing and horse training. Not much actually rubbed off on me, personally, but I do remember going to the stables to visit with the horses, and I was even allowed to ride the stable goat since I wasn’t yet big enough to get on the horses. Ahh, memories. So when I heard that a game existed with a horse ranching theme, I just HAD to get it to the table. Is it a good game though? Let’s find out! (spoilers: IT’S EXCELLENT!)
DISCLAIMER: The game comes with three modes of difficulty AND an included children’s game that also can be played on three modes of difficulty. For this review we are concentrating only on adult mode two. We felt mode one was too introductory, but we did not want to go all in right away on mode three. -T
As with most board games, you are trying to amass trophies (VP) and the winner at the end of five rounds is the rancher with the most trophies. On your turn you can take one Limited (standard) Action and as many Free Actions as you would like. Limited Actions include: buy a horse, buy a location on your ranch board, or farm your ranch for goods. Free Actions include: sell a horse, move horses to/from your home area to/from a different area on your ranch board, or trade goods at a 2:1 ratio. Once every player has taken their turn, you enter a show using the horses you have collected.
Buying a horse requires different amounts of food (in carrots) that you gain from different actions (farming your ranch, selling a horse). Luckily, spending food is a one-time action and you don’t have to feed your horses every turn. A great improvement over other “feed your villagers” games, in my opinion – yeah, I said it. Buying a location on your ranch board/playmat requires “tack,” which is symbolized by boot tokens (as seen below). You can always get more food and tack by farming your ranch, and you receive six goods of any combination, but that’s a Limited Action and prevents you from doing the other actions.
Selling a horse is easy, yet the separation anxiety is real, as you simply discard the horse for the amount of food it costs to purchase. Moving horses is easy too – your Home area of your ranch/playmat can only hold so many horses, so you will need to move horses of certain types to unlocked (purchased) matching areas on your ranch. This is important, as you cannot keep buying red horses or you will certainly run out of room for them, even if you unlock the red area on your ranch board. Plus unlocking sections of your ranch provides you with trophies at game end. The last free action is trading goods, which you do at a 2:1 ratio. So trade in two food for a tack or vice versa.
At shows you use horses for their specific specialty skills plus a die roll. Each horse has specialty in one area, and some skill in other areas. The number associated with a skill icon indicates the starting skill “strength” that you will add to your die roll. You roll all three dice of your color, take the highest result from the roll, and add the skill strength of the horse skill. That’s your score for the show. The highest number is awarded 1st place and the rewards printed, and so on and so forth for the other placing horses. This could result in more food or tack, or even your choice of horses for free from the sales barn.
On the very last turn of the game you will compete in three shows (instead of the normal two shows at the end of each turn) and can only use World Class horses, or buy your way into the show with food. The show process is the same, but it is the final push to earn as many trophies as possible before game end. And that’s it!
Components: This game is FULL of components. It’s a pretty stocked and heavy box, but still only the size of a Ticket to Ride box. The playmats, game boards, and cardboard chits are all of really great quality. The cards are great quality as well with photos of real existing horses (as well as the photos of real existing ranches on the giant ranch cards that are essentially beautiful player reference cards and resource holders). The best components of the game are the super cute little horeeples (oh no, that can’t possibly be correct). Horse-meeples. They come in different colors to match the areas on your ranch that you need to unlock and move them into so you don’t overcrowd your Home area. Even though my copy came with a green horse who lost his front legs, we know that he competes hard and lives his best life. The art is really really great and, though busy on the board at times, the game looks really good on the table. No qualms with the components on this one at all.
Here’s what I really like about this one. It’s a euro through and through, but it’s a euro that is actually exciting, with a unique theme, and one that I genuinely cannot wait to play again. I want to try mode three as soon as I can, and I really want to introduce my son to the game as soon as he is able to handle it. I am finding it really really hard to think of a game that comes ready to play three ways for adults, has components included to play the game three ways with children, and is actually super fun. I can’t think of any. This game is truly in a class by itself.
I love that no matter how tactical you play or how strategic you want to make it, sometimes the dice love/hate you and it could make all the difference. As you can see in the scores, we all love it (with the exception of my cousin Tony who rated it a three because of the dice – WHICH is odd because it is his father that was the harness racing jockey of the family). This review would have been live a week ago, but immediately after playing last weekend Josh said he would like to bring it home to play with his family. His wife is from Kentucky, and they kinda like horses and horse racing there. Well, his wife and son also rated this game out of 6. His wife gave Fantasy Ranch a 15 and his son rated it a 16. As that completely throws off my rating scale I did not add them, but as you can see we at Purple Phoenix Games give this one a very boot-kickin’ 19 / 24. If only we hadn’t invited Tony over to destroy the scores… We highly recommend you check this winner out. Seriously, it’s great.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/06/04/fantasy-ranch-review/
DISCLAIMER: The game comes with three modes of difficulty AND an included children’s game that also can be played on three modes of difficulty. For this review we are concentrating only on adult mode two. We felt mode one was too introductory, but we did not want to go all in right away on mode three. -T
As with most board games, you are trying to amass trophies (VP) and the winner at the end of five rounds is the rancher with the most trophies. On your turn you can take one Limited (standard) Action and as many Free Actions as you would like. Limited Actions include: buy a horse, buy a location on your ranch board, or farm your ranch for goods. Free Actions include: sell a horse, move horses to/from your home area to/from a different area on your ranch board, or trade goods at a 2:1 ratio. Once every player has taken their turn, you enter a show using the horses you have collected.
Buying a horse requires different amounts of food (in carrots) that you gain from different actions (farming your ranch, selling a horse). Luckily, spending food is a one-time action and you don’t have to feed your horses every turn. A great improvement over other “feed your villagers” games, in my opinion – yeah, I said it. Buying a location on your ranch board/playmat requires “tack,” which is symbolized by boot tokens (as seen below). You can always get more food and tack by farming your ranch, and you receive six goods of any combination, but that’s a Limited Action and prevents you from doing the other actions.
Selling a horse is easy, yet the separation anxiety is real, as you simply discard the horse for the amount of food it costs to purchase. Moving horses is easy too – your Home area of your ranch/playmat can only hold so many horses, so you will need to move horses of certain types to unlocked (purchased) matching areas on your ranch. This is important, as you cannot keep buying red horses or you will certainly run out of room for them, even if you unlock the red area on your ranch board. Plus unlocking sections of your ranch provides you with trophies at game end. The last free action is trading goods, which you do at a 2:1 ratio. So trade in two food for a tack or vice versa.
At shows you use horses for their specific specialty skills plus a die roll. Each horse has specialty in one area, and some skill in other areas. The number associated with a skill icon indicates the starting skill “strength” that you will add to your die roll. You roll all three dice of your color, take the highest result from the roll, and add the skill strength of the horse skill. That’s your score for the show. The highest number is awarded 1st place and the rewards printed, and so on and so forth for the other placing horses. This could result in more food or tack, or even your choice of horses for free from the sales barn.
On the very last turn of the game you will compete in three shows (instead of the normal two shows at the end of each turn) and can only use World Class horses, or buy your way into the show with food. The show process is the same, but it is the final push to earn as many trophies as possible before game end. And that’s it!
Components: This game is FULL of components. It’s a pretty stocked and heavy box, but still only the size of a Ticket to Ride box. The playmats, game boards, and cardboard chits are all of really great quality. The cards are great quality as well with photos of real existing horses (as well as the photos of real existing ranches on the giant ranch cards that are essentially beautiful player reference cards and resource holders). The best components of the game are the super cute little horeeples (oh no, that can’t possibly be correct). Horse-meeples. They come in different colors to match the areas on your ranch that you need to unlock and move them into so you don’t overcrowd your Home area. Even though my copy came with a green horse who lost his front legs, we know that he competes hard and lives his best life. The art is really really great and, though busy on the board at times, the game looks really good on the table. No qualms with the components on this one at all.
Here’s what I really like about this one. It’s a euro through and through, but it’s a euro that is actually exciting, with a unique theme, and one that I genuinely cannot wait to play again. I want to try mode three as soon as I can, and I really want to introduce my son to the game as soon as he is able to handle it. I am finding it really really hard to think of a game that comes ready to play three ways for adults, has components included to play the game three ways with children, and is actually super fun. I can’t think of any. This game is truly in a class by itself.
I love that no matter how tactical you play or how strategic you want to make it, sometimes the dice love/hate you and it could make all the difference. As you can see in the scores, we all love it (with the exception of my cousin Tony who rated it a three because of the dice – WHICH is odd because it is his father that was the harness racing jockey of the family). This review would have been live a week ago, but immediately after playing last weekend Josh said he would like to bring it home to play with his family. His wife is from Kentucky, and they kinda like horses and horse racing there. Well, his wife and son also rated this game out of 6. His wife gave Fantasy Ranch a 15 and his son rated it a 16. As that completely throws off my rating scale I did not add them, but as you can see we at Purple Phoenix Games give this one a very boot-kickin’ 19 / 24. If only we hadn’t invited Tony over to destroy the scores… We highly recommend you check this winner out. Seriously, it’s great.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/06/04/fantasy-ranch-review/
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.
