Search
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Don't let us down Guy Ritchie
Along with Beauty & The Beast and The Lion King, Aladdin is one of Disney’s most-loved animated films. With Disney’s penchant for remaking their classic cartoons over the last few years, it was always going to be the case that Aladdin was going to be on the cards.
Director Bill Condon’s Beauty & The Beast was an enchanting ride that just fell short of living up to its predecessor and The Jungle Book director Jon Favreau has been tasked with bringing The Lion King back to life in live-action. We’ll find out how he gets on in July.
After Dumbo’s less than stellar performance with both critics and audiences in March, dark clouds were circling around the House of Mouse’s live-action arm. Hoping to inject a shot of hope to this ambitious release schedule was Guy Ritchie’s remake of Aladdin. Things didn’t look good from the marketing with poor CGI and seemingly wooden acting, so what does the finished film end up like?
Young Aladdin (Mena Massoud) embarks on a magical adventure after finding a lamp that releases a wisecracking genie (Will Smith). In his efforts to impress the wonderful Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott), Aladdin embarks on a battle between good and evil against the wicked Jafar (Marwan Kenzari).
To look at, this live-action remake is absolutely packed full of colour and excitement, helped in part by Guy Ritchie’s frenetic filming style. Like Tim Burton before him, I was concerned about Ritchie’s appointment as director of this universally adored film, but unlike Burton, Ritchie gets it absolutely spot on. There are some absolutely stunning shot choices dotted throughout and the action is filmed with typical aplomb by a film-maker who has proven himself to be adept in this area.
The music, with original songs and updates of old classics is superb. Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good and will have you wanting to dance around the aisles, while A Whole New World really takes flight in this new, CGI-enhanced environment. Brand-new song, Speechless, written by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and sang by Naomi Scott is Let It Go levels of awesome with Scott singing it exquisitely.
Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good
The special effects are on the whole very good and not as jarring as those in Dumbo. It’s unfortunate then that there are instances in which the green-screen is all too obvious and the CGI all too artificial. This is a shame, as the rest of the picture is extraordinarily well-filmed and feels, for want of a better word, incredibly opulent, dripping in gold hues. Again, Disney tests the limits of CGI and these limits are becoming more and more obvious as film-makers pursue more extravagant sequences.
Elsewhere, the cast is both a highlight and a hindrance. Mena Massoud plays the titular character with a cocky charm that makes this Aladdin very likeable indeed, while Naomi Scott is so much better than the trailers made her look. The film however belongs to Will Smith. He’s a brave man taking on a role that has become synonymous with Robin Williams but he brings depth, charisma and some of that old-fashioned Will Smith charm to the role – it’s the best we’ve seen him in years, even if he is doused in blue CGI for the majority of the film’s runtime.
Unfortunately, this modern reimagining hasn’t got everything right. Marwan Kenzari is severely miscast as Jafar. Bringing absolutely no menace to the role whatsoever, he proves to be a disappointing antagonist and the film’s only major black mark. The clunky CGI can be forgiven but this unfortunate characterisation can’t. Jafar is one of Disney’s best villains and for him to fall flat here is unacceptable.
Nevertheless, poor marketing aside, Aladdin is an absolute blast from start to finish. Well-paced, nicely acted (for the most part) and packed full of stunning music, this live-action remake has proven that Dumbo may have just been a disappointing sidestep in Disney’s ambitious live-action schedule.
That’s two out of the three. Don’t let us down Jon Favreau!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/22/aladdin-review-dont-let-us-down-guy-ritchie/
Director Bill Condon’s Beauty & The Beast was an enchanting ride that just fell short of living up to its predecessor and The Jungle Book director Jon Favreau has been tasked with bringing The Lion King back to life in live-action. We’ll find out how he gets on in July.
After Dumbo’s less than stellar performance with both critics and audiences in March, dark clouds were circling around the House of Mouse’s live-action arm. Hoping to inject a shot of hope to this ambitious release schedule was Guy Ritchie’s remake of Aladdin. Things didn’t look good from the marketing with poor CGI and seemingly wooden acting, so what does the finished film end up like?
Young Aladdin (Mena Massoud) embarks on a magical adventure after finding a lamp that releases a wisecracking genie (Will Smith). In his efforts to impress the wonderful Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott), Aladdin embarks on a battle between good and evil against the wicked Jafar (Marwan Kenzari).
To look at, this live-action remake is absolutely packed full of colour and excitement, helped in part by Guy Ritchie’s frenetic filming style. Like Tim Burton before him, I was concerned about Ritchie’s appointment as director of this universally adored film, but unlike Burton, Ritchie gets it absolutely spot on. There are some absolutely stunning shot choices dotted throughout and the action is filmed with typical aplomb by a film-maker who has proven himself to be adept in this area.
The music, with original songs and updates of old classics is superb. Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good and will have you wanting to dance around the aisles, while A Whole New World really takes flight in this new, CGI-enhanced environment. Brand-new song, Speechless, written by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and sang by Naomi Scott is Let It Go levels of awesome with Scott singing it exquisitely.
Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good
The special effects are on the whole very good and not as jarring as those in Dumbo. It’s unfortunate then that there are instances in which the green-screen is all too obvious and the CGI all too artificial. This is a shame, as the rest of the picture is extraordinarily well-filmed and feels, for want of a better word, incredibly opulent, dripping in gold hues. Again, Disney tests the limits of CGI and these limits are becoming more and more obvious as film-makers pursue more extravagant sequences.
Elsewhere, the cast is both a highlight and a hindrance. Mena Massoud plays the titular character with a cocky charm that makes this Aladdin very likeable indeed, while Naomi Scott is so much better than the trailers made her look. The film however belongs to Will Smith. He’s a brave man taking on a role that has become synonymous with Robin Williams but he brings depth, charisma and some of that old-fashioned Will Smith charm to the role – it’s the best we’ve seen him in years, even if he is doused in blue CGI for the majority of the film’s runtime.
Unfortunately, this modern reimagining hasn’t got everything right. Marwan Kenzari is severely miscast as Jafar. Bringing absolutely no menace to the role whatsoever, he proves to be a disappointing antagonist and the film’s only major black mark. The clunky CGI can be forgiven but this unfortunate characterisation can’t. Jafar is one of Disney’s best villains and for him to fall flat here is unacceptable.
Nevertheless, poor marketing aside, Aladdin is an absolute blast from start to finish. Well-paced, nicely acted (for the most part) and packed full of stunning music, this live-action remake has proven that Dumbo may have just been a disappointing sidestep in Disney’s ambitious live-action schedule.
That’s two out of the three. Don’t let us down Jon Favreau!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/22/aladdin-review-dont-let-us-down-guy-ritchie/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Zombieland: Double Tap (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Ten years is a long time in Hollywood. Ten years ago, to this day Avatar was yet to be released to the unsuspecting masses, with Titanic still reigning supreme over the global box-office and debutant director Ruben Fleischer surprised the cinema-going public with Zombieland.
Made on a tiny budget of just over $20million, it went on to gross over $100million globally and received unanimous praise. A sequel was widely expected in the years that followed but never materialised. That’s probably down to a few things; one being Emma Stone’s meteoric rise to fame, Jesse Eisenberg starring in some of the biggest and most celebrated films of the decade that followed and Woody Harrelson, well, being Woody Harrelson (that’s not a dig, we love you Woody).
Fleischer meanwhile went on to direct 30 Minutes or Less, Gangster Squad and Venom among a couple of other projects. The time for a Zombieland sequel came and went with the film’s core fanbase hoping that one day they’d get what they desired.
That day is now here with the release of Zombieland: Double Tap. With a cast of returning characters and the original director at the helm, things certainly look promising from a technical point of view, but has the ship sailed on getting this franchise off the ground?
Zombie slayers Tallahassee (Harrelson), Columbus (Eisenberg), Wichita (Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) square off against a newly evolved strain of the undead as well as combatting their own personal demons in an effort to survive the ongoing zombie apocalypse.
Despite the popularity of the film’s actors since its predecessor, it’s nice to see all of the lead cast slot back into their roles seamlessly. Granted they’re a little older than we last remember them, and a little wiser too, but these characters still retain the charm and humour that made the last movie such a success.
Harrelson remains the standout and that’s mainly down to a nicely written script, penned by Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick and Dave Callaham. Between them they’ve worked on films like Gareth Edwards’ Godzilla, Ant-Man, Deadpool and its sequel and Life. That’s a pretty impressive roster of films it has to be said.
Eisenberg and Stone are also nicely written with a good character arc that means we get to see opposing sides to their roles. Unfortunately, Breslin is underused throughout, reduced to a part that feels much more like a support role. Of the new characters introduced, Rosario Dawson and Zoey Deutch are thinly written but reasonably entertaining.
The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them
Thankfully, the script remains a real highlight over the brisk 99-minute run-time with some genuine hilarity. The screenplay’s attempts at emotion work reasonably well but fall flat on a couple of occasions – the basis of the previous film was its humour and no surprises, this is where the sequel excels.
It’s a nice film to look at too. While some of the landscapes look a little too artificial, the sweeping shots of desolate buildings and roads add a sense of scale that was sometimes lacking last time around. The opening sequence inside the White House is great to watch and sets up the rest of the film well.
Zombieland: Double Tap works best when our band of characters is bouncing off each other and it’s a good job as the zombie action is fleeting. Some action pieces are well choregraphed but for a film about the world being overrun by the undead, there’s a distinct lack of them. The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them until the final act and that’s a bit of a shame.
Nevertheless, Zombieland: Double Tap remains easy-to-watch and likeable throughout with a cracking cast of characters. Unfortunately, the world has moved on from 2009 and zombie films, TV shows and books are ten-a-penny nowadays (something nicely referenced at the beginning of the film) and while Zombieland 2 does an awful lot right, in the end it’s a decent sequel to a great film, and nothing more than that.
Stick around for a post-credits sequence that follows on from the predecessors “greatest cameo ever”.
Made on a tiny budget of just over $20million, it went on to gross over $100million globally and received unanimous praise. A sequel was widely expected in the years that followed but never materialised. That’s probably down to a few things; one being Emma Stone’s meteoric rise to fame, Jesse Eisenberg starring in some of the biggest and most celebrated films of the decade that followed and Woody Harrelson, well, being Woody Harrelson (that’s not a dig, we love you Woody).
Fleischer meanwhile went on to direct 30 Minutes or Less, Gangster Squad and Venom among a couple of other projects. The time for a Zombieland sequel came and went with the film’s core fanbase hoping that one day they’d get what they desired.
That day is now here with the release of Zombieland: Double Tap. With a cast of returning characters and the original director at the helm, things certainly look promising from a technical point of view, but has the ship sailed on getting this franchise off the ground?
Zombie slayers Tallahassee (Harrelson), Columbus (Eisenberg), Wichita (Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) square off against a newly evolved strain of the undead as well as combatting their own personal demons in an effort to survive the ongoing zombie apocalypse.
Despite the popularity of the film’s actors since its predecessor, it’s nice to see all of the lead cast slot back into their roles seamlessly. Granted they’re a little older than we last remember them, and a little wiser too, but these characters still retain the charm and humour that made the last movie such a success.
Harrelson remains the standout and that’s mainly down to a nicely written script, penned by Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick and Dave Callaham. Between them they’ve worked on films like Gareth Edwards’ Godzilla, Ant-Man, Deadpool and its sequel and Life. That’s a pretty impressive roster of films it has to be said.
Eisenberg and Stone are also nicely written with a good character arc that means we get to see opposing sides to their roles. Unfortunately, Breslin is underused throughout, reduced to a part that feels much more like a support role. Of the new characters introduced, Rosario Dawson and Zoey Deutch are thinly written but reasonably entertaining.
The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them
Thankfully, the script remains a real highlight over the brisk 99-minute run-time with some genuine hilarity. The screenplay’s attempts at emotion work reasonably well but fall flat on a couple of occasions – the basis of the previous film was its humour and no surprises, this is where the sequel excels.
It’s a nice film to look at too. While some of the landscapes look a little too artificial, the sweeping shots of desolate buildings and roads add a sense of scale that was sometimes lacking last time around. The opening sequence inside the White House is great to watch and sets up the rest of the film well.
Zombieland: Double Tap works best when our band of characters is bouncing off each other and it’s a good job as the zombie action is fleeting. Some action pieces are well choregraphed but for a film about the world being overrun by the undead, there’s a distinct lack of them. The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them until the final act and that’s a bit of a shame.
Nevertheless, Zombieland: Double Tap remains easy-to-watch and likeable throughout with a cracking cast of characters. Unfortunately, the world has moved on from 2009 and zombie films, TV shows and books are ten-a-penny nowadays (something nicely referenced at the beginning of the film) and while Zombieland 2 does an awful lot right, in the end it’s a decent sequel to a great film, and nothing more than that.
Stick around for a post-credits sequence that follows on from the predecessors “greatest cameo ever”.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Losing Francesca in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>.
How interesting does this book sound!?! The blurb definitely caught my attention, and I'm glad it did because I loved this book!!
I think the title suits this book. It's about the main character losing who she thought she was, so I think it suits the book just fine.
I'm usually not a big fan of just sticking a girl on the cover of a book, but with Losing Francesca, it works. I think if it had much more than Francesca on the cover, it'd be too cluttered.
I found the world building to written quite well for the most part! It was easy to slip into Francesca's shoes and feel exactly what she was feeling. The only part I didn't like was the insta-love between Francesca and Brody. It just didn't feel that believable. Also, I felt as if Francesca accepted her new life too quickly. She didn't act nervous or scared enough, I felt. However, saying that, I've never been in that situation, so I can't pass judgement too much.
The pacing is absolutely fantastic in this book! I usually only read ebooks at night while I'm laying down, but with Losing Francesca, I was reading this book at all times. I couldn't wait to read about what would happen next. This book definitely held my attention.
I really enjoyed the whole plot. I found it to be original and interesting. I like the idea of a girl that was kidnapped being recognized as the child who went missing years ago. I wanted to see what it'd be like. There aren't really any plot twists in this book, but that doesn't take away from how good it is.
I didn't really like the character of Francesca until towards the end. She came across as being a snobby rich girl. Even when she was with Brody and had stopped with the whole rich girl act, she still seemed like she was bragging about how rich her family is. To me, she was too spoiled and too much of a show-off. However, I did start liking her towards the end. I did like Brody. I loved his determination and his never give up attitude. Although he used to be a bit of a bad boy, he came across as a gentleman.
The thing that annoyed me with the dialogue is that the swearing seemed too over the top. Brody swears a lot, and most of the time, the swearing seems forced and fake. It doesn't come across as natural because Brody does it too much. And it wasn't just Brody. Some of the other teenagers swore as well, and it didn't come across as natural. Other than the unnatural swearing, the dialogue was quite enjoyable. We get point of views from Francesca and Brody which was quite enjoyable to read. I enjoyed reading Francesca's point of view the best.
Overall, Losing Francesca by J.A. Huss was a super good read! There were a few problems, but those were easy to overlook with how great the book was!
I'd recommend this book to those aged 17+ who are after an interesting and sweet read. I'm only recommending it from age 17+ due to the language (which there is a lot of swearing). Otherwise, this would've been a 14+.
I'd give Losing Francesca by J.A. Huss a 4.5 out of 5.
(I received a free ecopy of this title from the tour host in exchange for a fair and honest review).
How interesting does this book sound!?! The blurb definitely caught my attention, and I'm glad it did because I loved this book!!
I think the title suits this book. It's about the main character losing who she thought she was, so I think it suits the book just fine.
I'm usually not a big fan of just sticking a girl on the cover of a book, but with Losing Francesca, it works. I think if it had much more than Francesca on the cover, it'd be too cluttered.
I found the world building to written quite well for the most part! It was easy to slip into Francesca's shoes and feel exactly what she was feeling. The only part I didn't like was the insta-love between Francesca and Brody. It just didn't feel that believable. Also, I felt as if Francesca accepted her new life too quickly. She didn't act nervous or scared enough, I felt. However, saying that, I've never been in that situation, so I can't pass judgement too much.
The pacing is absolutely fantastic in this book! I usually only read ebooks at night while I'm laying down, but with Losing Francesca, I was reading this book at all times. I couldn't wait to read about what would happen next. This book definitely held my attention.
I really enjoyed the whole plot. I found it to be original and interesting. I like the idea of a girl that was kidnapped being recognized as the child who went missing years ago. I wanted to see what it'd be like. There aren't really any plot twists in this book, but that doesn't take away from how good it is.
I didn't really like the character of Francesca until towards the end. She came across as being a snobby rich girl. Even when she was with Brody and had stopped with the whole rich girl act, she still seemed like she was bragging about how rich her family is. To me, she was too spoiled and too much of a show-off. However, I did start liking her towards the end. I did like Brody. I loved his determination and his never give up attitude. Although he used to be a bit of a bad boy, he came across as a gentleman.
The thing that annoyed me with the dialogue is that the swearing seemed too over the top. Brody swears a lot, and most of the time, the swearing seems forced and fake. It doesn't come across as natural because Brody does it too much. And it wasn't just Brody. Some of the other teenagers swore as well, and it didn't come across as natural. Other than the unnatural swearing, the dialogue was quite enjoyable. We get point of views from Francesca and Brody which was quite enjoyable to read. I enjoyed reading Francesca's point of view the best.
Overall, Losing Francesca by J.A. Huss was a super good read! There were a few problems, but those were easy to overlook with how great the book was!
I'd recommend this book to those aged 17+ who are after an interesting and sweet read. I'm only recommending it from age 17+ due to the language (which there is a lot of swearing). Otherwise, this would've been a 14+.
I'd give Losing Francesca by J.A. Huss a 4.5 out of 5.
(I received a free ecopy of this title from the tour host in exchange for a fair and honest review).
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Baywatch (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Mitch Buchannon (Dwayne Johnson) is the head of the elite lifeguards of Baywatch. With over 500 confirmed saves he is a local legend. He and his team keep the beach safe by saving drowning victims and going after the people who threaten the safety of the bay they patrol. His team consists of; Stephanie Holden (Ilfenesh Hadera) the one person who might know the bay as well as Mitch and his second in command, C.J. Parker (Kelly Rohrbach) another veteran lifeguard, recruits Ronnie Greenbaum (Jon Bass) and Summer Quinn (Alexandra Daddario) both out to prove themselves, and the final member is cocky recruit Matt Brody (Zac Efron). When drugs start to wash up on the shores of the bay Mitch and company decide to investigate local business woman Victoria Leeds (Priyanka Chopra). They notice that some odd things seem to be happening around a high end resort she owns. The drugs are wash up right in front of the resort and an unknown fish company begins delivering mysterious blue barrels to the resort. But when a local councilman dies under suspicious circumstances, while wearing the same expensive watch worn by Victoria’s body guards, they decide they must infiltrate Victoria’s club, yacht . They have to come together and get to the bottom of where the drugs are coming from and who is responsible to save they bay they are sworn to protect.
If there was a film that took to the phase “don’t take yourself too seriously” Baywatch would be that film. This Seth Gordon (Horrible Bosses, Identity Thief) directed film embraces the cheesiness of the original Baywatch television series in a big way. The cast pokes fun at every aspect of the television series as well as the personas of the real life actors, specifically Johnson and Efron. Johnson’s character is constantly poking fun at Efron’s character by calling him boy band names, in reference to Efron’s status as a teen heartthrob. Another way the movie makes fun of itself is by calling out the fact the Baywatch team not only have the duties of lifeguards on the beach but also doing criminal investigates, going under cover and chasing criminals. There is an ongoing gag throughout the movie where a local police officer, Sgt. Ellerbee (yahya Abdul-Mateen II), reminds Mitch that he is not a police officer, which does not stop him from survelling suspects and looking at coroner reports. Another aspect that I think was done well was that it does not try to reimagine the universe of Baywatch. Rather it takes all the corny one liners and over the top plots and adds some raunchiness to make it new and fresh.
It maybe went a little too far on the cheesy lines and over-acting at times but I think that was the intent of the film. Many of times I found myself shaking my head at how absurd the story was but in the end it was all done in a fun way and again not taking itself too seriously. The action scenes are good not great. The acting fits the style of the movie, it’s bad but presumably on purpose. The CGI in the movie is hit and miss, most notable the underwater scenes are not the best. The movie is also way raunchier that I expected. Some scenes definitely caught me off guard at how far they went. I wouldn’t go into it expecting any amazing acting or plausible plot lines, because you are likely to be let down. This is not for anyone looking for a witty comedy or is not a fan of excessive foul language and some nudity. If you were a fan of the TV series you will probably enjoy the film, notably the cameos by Pamela Anderson (as Casey Jean Parker) and David Hasselhoff (as the mentor).
If there was a film that took to the phase “don’t take yourself too seriously” Baywatch would be that film. This Seth Gordon (Horrible Bosses, Identity Thief) directed film embraces the cheesiness of the original Baywatch television series in a big way. The cast pokes fun at every aspect of the television series as well as the personas of the real life actors, specifically Johnson and Efron. Johnson’s character is constantly poking fun at Efron’s character by calling him boy band names, in reference to Efron’s status as a teen heartthrob. Another way the movie makes fun of itself is by calling out the fact the Baywatch team not only have the duties of lifeguards on the beach but also doing criminal investigates, going under cover and chasing criminals. There is an ongoing gag throughout the movie where a local police officer, Sgt. Ellerbee (yahya Abdul-Mateen II), reminds Mitch that he is not a police officer, which does not stop him from survelling suspects and looking at coroner reports. Another aspect that I think was done well was that it does not try to reimagine the universe of Baywatch. Rather it takes all the corny one liners and over the top plots and adds some raunchiness to make it new and fresh.
It maybe went a little too far on the cheesy lines and over-acting at times but I think that was the intent of the film. Many of times I found myself shaking my head at how absurd the story was but in the end it was all done in a fun way and again not taking itself too seriously. The action scenes are good not great. The acting fits the style of the movie, it’s bad but presumably on purpose. The CGI in the movie is hit and miss, most notable the underwater scenes are not the best. The movie is also way raunchier that I expected. Some scenes definitely caught me off guard at how far they went. I wouldn’t go into it expecting any amazing acting or plausible plot lines, because you are likely to be let down. This is not for anyone looking for a witty comedy or is not a fan of excessive foul language and some nudity. If you were a fan of the TV series you will probably enjoy the film, notably the cameos by Pamela Anderson (as Casey Jean Parker) and David Hasselhoff (as the mentor).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) in Movies
Oct 28, 2021
Lots of hens… but turkeys would be more appropriate.
I was not a great fan of the original Venom, although I did find aspects of it to like. Unfortunately, for me, the sequel – “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” – delivered even less. And I found aspects of it positively distasteful.
Plot Summary:
Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is living uncomfortably in San Francisco with his symbiotic friend Venom. Anne (Michelle Williams), his ex-girlfriend, and her new fiancee Dan (Reid Scott) are keeping his secret.
With Venom’s help, Eddie gets the evidence needed to send the psychopathic mass murderer Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson) to the electric chair. But with a lost love, Frances (Naomie Harris), to rescue and a burning desire for revenge against Brock and Detective Mulligan (Stephen Graham) who captured him, Kasady is not going to go quietly into the night.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams, Woody Harrelson, Naomie Harris, Reid Scott, Stephen Graham.
Directed by: Andy Serkis.
Written by: Kelly Marcel and Tom Hardy.
“Venom: Let There Be Carnage” Review: Positives:
While most of the cast seem to be doing sequel-paint-by-numbers, I thought Naomie Harris was superb as the shrieking ‘X-woman-style’ villain. (I’m embarrassed to say that it took me until the end titles to realise she WAS Naomie Harris!)
Some of the comedy lines between Brock and Venom made me chuckle.
Negatives:
My main beef was with the script and that came down to two primary issues:
Firstly, virtually nothing happens. It’s not too much of an understatement to say that the whole plot can be summarized as a) a villain is introduced; b) the villain teams with another villain and c) Venom defeats them. It’s just all so bland and linear, without any sort of discernable story arc.
For a movie pitched more at the comedy end of the Marvel spectrum, the script is unpleasantly violent. (And, yes, before Marvel fan-boys attack me with comments, I know that this Sony/Marvel offering is NOT part of the official universe). There are numerous points at which I thought “Ugh!” and a nasty taste entered my mouth: the butchering of a ‘Family man’ prison guard, pleading for his life; the brains of a very polite young grocery store boy being senselessly smashed in; and the massacre of a priest in his own cathedral. (Actually, I have no idea what happened with the priest during the “power-up” scene – – a cut by the censors perhaps?) My issue is that, tonally speaking, there is a horrible mismatch between these unnecessarily violent scenes and the lighthearted and flippant nature of the rest. It’s like putting a vicious gang-bang rape in the middle of “Ant Man“.
Sorry. I know he has a lot of fans, but I’m not a great fan of Tom Hardy’s acting style here. “Legend” proved what class he could deliver. But this performance seems to be streets away from that. An acting colleague last week commented that he was looking forward to the interactions between Hardy and Harrelson. But I found both to be underwhelming.
I found the visual effects for the emerged Venom to be utterly unconvincing. There were times when it looked like nothing more than a puppet on strings.
I’m normally a fan of Marco Beltrami‘s scores. But I found the music in here to be intrusive and distracting. And that’s before some (to my ears) pretty awful rap-based tracks over the closing titles.
Summary Thoughts on “Venom: Let There Be Carnage”
You’ll already judge from my balance of comments that this one just didn’t work for me. Even as a “park your brain at the door” action movie, I thought it felt lazy and lacklustre.
My advice? Save your money and go and watch “The Last Duel” instead.
Plot Summary:
Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is living uncomfortably in San Francisco with his symbiotic friend Venom. Anne (Michelle Williams), his ex-girlfriend, and her new fiancee Dan (Reid Scott) are keeping his secret.
With Venom’s help, Eddie gets the evidence needed to send the psychopathic mass murderer Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson) to the electric chair. But with a lost love, Frances (Naomie Harris), to rescue and a burning desire for revenge against Brock and Detective Mulligan (Stephen Graham) who captured him, Kasady is not going to go quietly into the night.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams, Woody Harrelson, Naomie Harris, Reid Scott, Stephen Graham.
Directed by: Andy Serkis.
Written by: Kelly Marcel and Tom Hardy.
“Venom: Let There Be Carnage” Review: Positives:
While most of the cast seem to be doing sequel-paint-by-numbers, I thought Naomie Harris was superb as the shrieking ‘X-woman-style’ villain. (I’m embarrassed to say that it took me until the end titles to realise she WAS Naomie Harris!)
Some of the comedy lines between Brock and Venom made me chuckle.
Negatives:
My main beef was with the script and that came down to two primary issues:
Firstly, virtually nothing happens. It’s not too much of an understatement to say that the whole plot can be summarized as a) a villain is introduced; b) the villain teams with another villain and c) Venom defeats them. It’s just all so bland and linear, without any sort of discernable story arc.
For a movie pitched more at the comedy end of the Marvel spectrum, the script is unpleasantly violent. (And, yes, before Marvel fan-boys attack me with comments, I know that this Sony/Marvel offering is NOT part of the official universe). There are numerous points at which I thought “Ugh!” and a nasty taste entered my mouth: the butchering of a ‘Family man’ prison guard, pleading for his life; the brains of a very polite young grocery store boy being senselessly smashed in; and the massacre of a priest in his own cathedral. (Actually, I have no idea what happened with the priest during the “power-up” scene – – a cut by the censors perhaps?) My issue is that, tonally speaking, there is a horrible mismatch between these unnecessarily violent scenes and the lighthearted and flippant nature of the rest. It’s like putting a vicious gang-bang rape in the middle of “Ant Man“.
Sorry. I know he has a lot of fans, but I’m not a great fan of Tom Hardy’s acting style here. “Legend” proved what class he could deliver. But this performance seems to be streets away from that. An acting colleague last week commented that he was looking forward to the interactions between Hardy and Harrelson. But I found both to be underwhelming.
I found the visual effects for the emerged Venom to be utterly unconvincing. There were times when it looked like nothing more than a puppet on strings.
I’m normally a fan of Marco Beltrami‘s scores. But I found the music in here to be intrusive and distracting. And that’s before some (to my ears) pretty awful rap-based tracks over the closing titles.
Summary Thoughts on “Venom: Let There Be Carnage”
You’ll already judge from my balance of comments that this one just didn’t work for me. Even as a “park your brain at the door” action movie, I thought it felt lazy and lacklustre.
My advice? Save your money and go and watch “The Last Duel” instead.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
In the early 1980s, author Alvin Schwartz created a book of short horror stories titled Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark that would go on to terrorize a whole generation of curious young readers. Combined with its morbid and ghastly illustrations by artist Stephen Gammell, the book would serve as an introduction to horror for many. Over the next ten years, Schwartz wrote two more books in the Scary Stories series, and now, nearly forty years later, it has finally been adapted into a major motion picture. Produced by Academy Award-winning director Guillermo Del Toro and directed by André Øvredal, the Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark film constructs a new narrative around several of the iconic short stories from the book series, and brings them to life to haunt the movie’s teenage characters.
In Mill Valley, Pennsylvania in 1968, a group of teenage friends fleeing from a band of bullies hide out in an abandoned haunted house on Halloween night. They know the story of this house well, whose folklore is rooted in the origins of their own small town. It was once owned by the wealthy Bellows Family, who according to urban legend, locked away their own daughter, Sarah Bellows, inside the cellar of their home. Sarah had been accused of killing the town’s children, and so her family kept her hidden away and attempted to erase her from existence, even removing her from their own family portraits. According to legend, Sarah wrote a book of horror stories and would read them aloud through the walls of her room to frighten the local townspeople.
While inside this haunted house, our group of protagonists; Stella (Zoe Colletti), Ramón (Michael Garza), Auggie (Gabriel Rush), and Chuck (Austin Zajur), discover the room Sarah had spent her life trapped in. Stella, an amateur horror writer herself, finds the rumored book that was written by Sarah. Upon opening it she sees that a new page is somehow being written in blood right before her very eyes, and it happens to be about the bully that chased them into the house. The next day, they realize that it seems as though the story actually came true, and that the book itself may be haunted. This establishes the basic premise of the film, in which new stories are being written in the book and they appear to be targeting Stella and everyone else that entered the Bellows’ house that night.
It’s an interesting set-up that cleverly mixes horror with mystery, as the characters are not only trying to survive these stories as they come to life, but are also trying to figure out how to stop them from happening. The film features five different stories from the series, most of which come from the third and final book, and a sixth story centered around Stella and Sarah Bellows that is at least in part inspired by one of the original tales. To give an example without giving too much away, one story for instance, involves a haunted scarecrow, whereas another is about a walking corpse in search of its severed big toe. The stories themselves are much more dark and grotesque than I had anticipated. I was expecting something more along the lines of Goosebumps, which was a series of children’s horror books that I personally loved and grew up with as a child, but these are much more disturbing than that. While I only found the first story of the film, “Harold”, to actually be scary, I do imagine this movie might be a little too frightening for some teenagers.
I should clarify that I’m not familiar with the original written source material of Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, and I had truthfully never even heard of the books prior to the movie’s announcement. I don’t have any personal stake in these stories, but I do admire the thoughtfulness and creativity that went into building the film around them. I thought the film started out really strong with a likable cast of characters, and with most of its best moments featured early on. I loved the introduction to the haunted house and the legend of the Bellows Family. I enjoyed the playful nature of our group of young protagonists, who in the beginning felt reminiscent of the fun and crazy kids you might find in an 80s movie like The Goonies. Additionally, I liked the mystery of Sarah Bellows that the kids were trying to uncover, all the while struggling to survive the dangers of her haunting stories that had come to life.
Unfortunately, as the movie went on, I found myself less and less invested in it with each passing story, all of which I would argue are weaker than the previous one before it. The Pale Lady storyline was particularly dull and underwhelming. The final act itself, although smartly designed with its use of parallels, wound up feeling poorly executed and unsatisfying overall.
Similarly, in regards to the acting, I liked the performances even less by the end as well. Early on I had been impressed with Zoe Colletti as Stella, but I found her to be annoying in the later parts of the movie. The same goes for Austin Zajur as Chuck. The cast for the most part was decent, but everything about the movie began to drop in quality as it dragged on, which is especially unfortunate given how well it starts out.
The special effects are mostly quite good and adequately disturbing, but on the same token, I wish they were more clearly visible at times. A lot of the horror settings take place in dark rooms, so at times it can be hard to see the monsters with much clarity. Still, I love the design of Harold the Scarecrow, as well as The Jangly Man, who is played by contortionist Troy James whose extreme flexibility allows the character to move in unnatural and disturbing looking ways.
To conclude, I’m left with some mixed feelings on Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. For me, it almost hits the mark, but unfortunately it isn’t a movie that I think I’d bother to watch again. It made a solid first impression with its rich atmosphere and creepy first act, but it failed to maintain its momentum and level of quality. In the end, my favorite thing about the whole movie is actually the excellent cover song of “Season of the Witch” by Lana Del Rey that plays during the credits. However that’s not in any way to say the movie is so bad that the credits were my favorite part. It’s just a great song by an artist I very much enjoy. If you grew up with the Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark series, then by all means, I recommend that you at least check it out. If you like horror and have any troublesome teenaged kids, this may be a perfect opportunity to have some fun scaring the heck out of them.
In Mill Valley, Pennsylvania in 1968, a group of teenage friends fleeing from a band of bullies hide out in an abandoned haunted house on Halloween night. They know the story of this house well, whose folklore is rooted in the origins of their own small town. It was once owned by the wealthy Bellows Family, who according to urban legend, locked away their own daughter, Sarah Bellows, inside the cellar of their home. Sarah had been accused of killing the town’s children, and so her family kept her hidden away and attempted to erase her from existence, even removing her from their own family portraits. According to legend, Sarah wrote a book of horror stories and would read them aloud through the walls of her room to frighten the local townspeople.
While inside this haunted house, our group of protagonists; Stella (Zoe Colletti), Ramón (Michael Garza), Auggie (Gabriel Rush), and Chuck (Austin Zajur), discover the room Sarah had spent her life trapped in. Stella, an amateur horror writer herself, finds the rumored book that was written by Sarah. Upon opening it she sees that a new page is somehow being written in blood right before her very eyes, and it happens to be about the bully that chased them into the house. The next day, they realize that it seems as though the story actually came true, and that the book itself may be haunted. This establishes the basic premise of the film, in which new stories are being written in the book and they appear to be targeting Stella and everyone else that entered the Bellows’ house that night.
It’s an interesting set-up that cleverly mixes horror with mystery, as the characters are not only trying to survive these stories as they come to life, but are also trying to figure out how to stop them from happening. The film features five different stories from the series, most of which come from the third and final book, and a sixth story centered around Stella and Sarah Bellows that is at least in part inspired by one of the original tales. To give an example without giving too much away, one story for instance, involves a haunted scarecrow, whereas another is about a walking corpse in search of its severed big toe. The stories themselves are much more dark and grotesque than I had anticipated. I was expecting something more along the lines of Goosebumps, which was a series of children’s horror books that I personally loved and grew up with as a child, but these are much more disturbing than that. While I only found the first story of the film, “Harold”, to actually be scary, I do imagine this movie might be a little too frightening for some teenagers.
I should clarify that I’m not familiar with the original written source material of Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, and I had truthfully never even heard of the books prior to the movie’s announcement. I don’t have any personal stake in these stories, but I do admire the thoughtfulness and creativity that went into building the film around them. I thought the film started out really strong with a likable cast of characters, and with most of its best moments featured early on. I loved the introduction to the haunted house and the legend of the Bellows Family. I enjoyed the playful nature of our group of young protagonists, who in the beginning felt reminiscent of the fun and crazy kids you might find in an 80s movie like The Goonies. Additionally, I liked the mystery of Sarah Bellows that the kids were trying to uncover, all the while struggling to survive the dangers of her haunting stories that had come to life.
Unfortunately, as the movie went on, I found myself less and less invested in it with each passing story, all of which I would argue are weaker than the previous one before it. The Pale Lady storyline was particularly dull and underwhelming. The final act itself, although smartly designed with its use of parallels, wound up feeling poorly executed and unsatisfying overall.
Similarly, in regards to the acting, I liked the performances even less by the end as well. Early on I had been impressed with Zoe Colletti as Stella, but I found her to be annoying in the later parts of the movie. The same goes for Austin Zajur as Chuck. The cast for the most part was decent, but everything about the movie began to drop in quality as it dragged on, which is especially unfortunate given how well it starts out.
The special effects are mostly quite good and adequately disturbing, but on the same token, I wish they were more clearly visible at times. A lot of the horror settings take place in dark rooms, so at times it can be hard to see the monsters with much clarity. Still, I love the design of Harold the Scarecrow, as well as The Jangly Man, who is played by contortionist Troy James whose extreme flexibility allows the character to move in unnatural and disturbing looking ways.
To conclude, I’m left with some mixed feelings on Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. For me, it almost hits the mark, but unfortunately it isn’t a movie that I think I’d bother to watch again. It made a solid first impression with its rich atmosphere and creepy first act, but it failed to maintain its momentum and level of quality. In the end, my favorite thing about the whole movie is actually the excellent cover song of “Season of the Witch” by Lana Del Rey that plays during the credits. However that’s not in any way to say the movie is so bad that the credits were my favorite part. It’s just a great song by an artist I very much enjoy. If you grew up with the Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark series, then by all means, I recommend that you at least check it out. If you like horror and have any troublesome teenaged kids, this may be a perfect opportunity to have some fun scaring the heck out of them.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated the PC version of The Bureau: XCOM Declassified in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
Following a path to release that contained delays, revisions, and fan concerns, The Bureau: XCom Declassified has arrived.
As a fan of the first two games in the series which were icons of the 386 and 486 CPU age, I had been horrified about how badly the series had eroded with subsequent released which moved away from the turned based strategy play in favor of all things, flight simulations and run and gun shooters.
When I heard that 2K was taking over the franchise I was excited but to be honest the first look I had at the game during the 2012 E3 Expo had me wondering if I would ever see a return of the classic game series as the new version seemed to be more of a tactical team based game.
Many fans shared this concern and others and XCom: Enemy Unknown appeased many of the fans concerns by giving fans the updated turn based game that they had hoped for.
The Bureau is set in 1962 and is a nice mix of noire meets the X-Files as it explains the early days of the XCom organization in a solid prequel to the events of the subsequent games.
In 1962 Agent William Carter is tasked with delivering a case to his superiors. Ambushed en route and left for dead, Carter awakens to an alien assault and must battle for his life as he attempts to escape the carnage around him.
Armed with his pistol and in time a rifle, Carter meets up with other survivors and is able to escape and soon finds himself recruited in the new and secret organization known as XCom. The new organization is tasked with stopping the alien threat by any means necessary and despite Carter’s past difficulties, his superior Faulke, is convinced that he is the right man for the job.
Carter is able to command three man teams and prior to each mission selects which agents as well as their equipment will accompany him on his missions. Players will also be able to assign power ups along the way and assign them to various agents. The new abilities are vast and range from calling in support drones and air strikes to levitation, cloaking, and numerous other abilities and attacks based on alien technology.
As with prior XCom games players will have the option to select several side missions or they can focus on the main missions to propel the story, Interacting with other characters not only fills in the story but allows players to get a bigger picture thanks to the dialogue options which allows Carter to ask as many or as few questions as he wants.
In combat, Carter and his team work in a third person perspective and travel through towns, countryside, and other locales to meet the alien threat head on. In combat, players can enter a tactical mode to give move and combat commands to other members of their team as well as provide reviving and healing when needed.
Enemies can be tricky but with proper strategy and some well placed shots or grenades they can be taken down. There is a nice variety of enemies and they get harder as the game moves forward. Players can obtain alien weapons at a later state in the game and being able to use energy weapons is a nice touch as is the ability to wander your base in between missions.
The game does offer some branching storylines as actions taken or not taken will give players one of the games various endings.
I enjoyed the graphics and sound of the game as being able to take cover behind a vintage car and then unleash a barrage on a swarm of enemies from a 60s restaurant or radio station was great fun. I also liked seeing various nods to the classic XCom throughout.
While at times it did play as linear I was happy that there was not as much micro-management as I feared there would be and the game is a lot of fun to play. The enemies did seem to become a bit repetitive as the game went along as while the early missions had some challenge, some of the later ones can be frustratingly difficult.
The voice acting in the game is solid and the banter would be worthy for any classic science fiction or hardcore detective film or novel of the time.
I wish that the game offered a multiplay option as being able to co-op missions would have been great fun but for what it is, the game is a satisfying experience.
In the end, it will not be a classic along the lines of the original but it is a very worthy entry into the series and well worth your time to play especially if you’re a fan of the series.
http://sknr.net/2013/10/03/the-bureau-xcom-declassified/
As a fan of the first two games in the series which were icons of the 386 and 486 CPU age, I had been horrified about how badly the series had eroded with subsequent released which moved away from the turned based strategy play in favor of all things, flight simulations and run and gun shooters.
When I heard that 2K was taking over the franchise I was excited but to be honest the first look I had at the game during the 2012 E3 Expo had me wondering if I would ever see a return of the classic game series as the new version seemed to be more of a tactical team based game.
Many fans shared this concern and others and XCom: Enemy Unknown appeased many of the fans concerns by giving fans the updated turn based game that they had hoped for.
The Bureau is set in 1962 and is a nice mix of noire meets the X-Files as it explains the early days of the XCom organization in a solid prequel to the events of the subsequent games.
In 1962 Agent William Carter is tasked with delivering a case to his superiors. Ambushed en route and left for dead, Carter awakens to an alien assault and must battle for his life as he attempts to escape the carnage around him.
Armed with his pistol and in time a rifle, Carter meets up with other survivors and is able to escape and soon finds himself recruited in the new and secret organization known as XCom. The new organization is tasked with stopping the alien threat by any means necessary and despite Carter’s past difficulties, his superior Faulke, is convinced that he is the right man for the job.
Carter is able to command three man teams and prior to each mission selects which agents as well as their equipment will accompany him on his missions. Players will also be able to assign power ups along the way and assign them to various agents. The new abilities are vast and range from calling in support drones and air strikes to levitation, cloaking, and numerous other abilities and attacks based on alien technology.
As with prior XCom games players will have the option to select several side missions or they can focus on the main missions to propel the story, Interacting with other characters not only fills in the story but allows players to get a bigger picture thanks to the dialogue options which allows Carter to ask as many or as few questions as he wants.
In combat, Carter and his team work in a third person perspective and travel through towns, countryside, and other locales to meet the alien threat head on. In combat, players can enter a tactical mode to give move and combat commands to other members of their team as well as provide reviving and healing when needed.
Enemies can be tricky but with proper strategy and some well placed shots or grenades they can be taken down. There is a nice variety of enemies and they get harder as the game moves forward. Players can obtain alien weapons at a later state in the game and being able to use energy weapons is a nice touch as is the ability to wander your base in between missions.
The game does offer some branching storylines as actions taken or not taken will give players one of the games various endings.
I enjoyed the graphics and sound of the game as being able to take cover behind a vintage car and then unleash a barrage on a swarm of enemies from a 60s restaurant or radio station was great fun. I also liked seeing various nods to the classic XCom throughout.
While at times it did play as linear I was happy that there was not as much micro-management as I feared there would be and the game is a lot of fun to play. The enemies did seem to become a bit repetitive as the game went along as while the early missions had some challenge, some of the later ones can be frustratingly difficult.
The voice acting in the game is solid and the banter would be worthy for any classic science fiction or hardcore detective film or novel of the time.
I wish that the game offered a multiplay option as being able to co-op missions would have been great fun but for what it is, the game is a satisfying experience.
In the end, it will not be a classic along the lines of the original but it is a very worthy entry into the series and well worth your time to play especially if you’re a fan of the series.
http://sknr.net/2013/10/03/the-bureau-xcom-declassified/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Tutankhamun in Tabletop Games
Jul 9, 2021
Tutankhamun (per dictionary.com, the pronunciation is as such: [ toot-ahng-kah-muhn ]) is regularly shortened and often referred to as “King Tut.” My real question is that if the first syllable is “toot,” why do we not call him King Toot? I have a 5 year old boy and a 2 year old girl at the time of this writing, so I can tell you EXACTLY why we don’t call him King Toot, but that’s for another discussion. Never having played the original version, will I enjoy this new version of the game by world-renowned designer Dr. Reiner Knizia?
In Tutankhamun, players take on the roles of Egyptian priests attempting to cleanse their souls by gifting the sarcophagus with relics found along the Nile River. The priest who can cleanse their soul quickest will be proclaimed the next High Priest and winner of the game!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, place the King Tut sarcophagus on the table somewhere inside the box bottom. From this starting place (or you could place these components last I suppose), begin the laborious job of creating the Nile from the trapezoidal Relic TIles. This part took me a good several minutes each game. Place out the Underworld Mat near the start of the Nile, and place upon it the two Guardian Statue standees. From there give every player a reference card, have them choose a player color, place their boats at the start of the Nile, and Canopic Jar scoring markers on the appropriate space along the box bottom score track. The game may now begin!
Tutankhamun is played in turns starting with the starting player and proceeding clockwise. The starting player will choose ANY Relic Tile to collect and move their boat to that location. Once collected, the player will check to make sure there are still matching Relics along the Nile. If so, then play continues to the next player. If the active player had collected the last Relic of that type still active in the game, then the Relic type is scored.
Each Relic Tile features art of a Relic, a God, or a Scarab Ring. Relics come in sets, and when the final Relic of its type is collected, scoring immediately follows. Whichever player possesses the most Relic Tiles of the one being scored will earn points (or rather, negative points, as the priests are trying to cleanse their souls down to the winning score of zero) equal to the number printed on the tile. That number stands for the score earned as well as the number of Relics of that type in the game. The player with the second most Relics of the scored type will score half the number printed on the tile. All others do not score.
God Tiles feature art of one of five ancient Egyptian Gods: Osiris, Isis, Ra, Thoth, and Horus. Each of these Gods provide the collecting player with special powers to be used during the turn, and are always positive for the player.
Finally, Scarab Ring tiles are special in that they feature no number upon them. There are 10 tiles in the game, and as soon as a player collects one they immediately score one point (or one negative point). These tiles are not thrown into the box bottom, as the other scoring tiles are once scored, but are kept with the players to be scored at the end of the game. The player holding the most Scarab Tiles scores five negative points.
Any tile along the Nile that has been passed by all players is deposited onto the Underworld Mat and not added to the box bottom with the King Tut sarcophagus. Tiles may still be collected from the Underworld by permission of the Gods being collected in-game. Whichever priest is able to dwindle down their points and cleanse their soul first will win the game and become the next High Priest of Egypt!
Components. I am more and more becoming a fan of everything 25th Century Games is putting out. This is certainly no exception. I have seen photos of the original versions of this game, entitled Tutankhamen (with an E at the end instead of a U) and this game was certainly begging for a renovation. All the components have updated art, more vibrant colors, and the game even includes luxurious (and completely unnecessary) components. These are the very cool, but very unnecessary King Tut sarcophagus, and the Guardian Statue standees that add nothing to the gameplay but definitely help set the mood and theme. That all said, this version looks amazing on the table and has nearly infinite setup configurations!
What I like most about the game is the fact that on a player’s turn they can literally move forward to ANYWHERE along the Nile to gather whatever Relic they wish. They can pass up a tile or twelve along the way to snatch exactly what they want. However, the quicker a player reaches the sarcophagus does not automatically make them the winner. No, they still need to reduce their soul spirit score to zero in order to win (or be closest by the time all players reach the final spot). Conversely, dilly-dallying along the River just picking up every available tile also will not guarantee a victory. Specializing in a select few items may be the ticket to a victory, or setting oneself to win a couple types and win runner-up on the remainder may be a great path to victory.
Unlike many other games with this lazy race mechanic, the player furthest back does NOT get to keep taking turns to catch up (I’m looking at you, Tokaido), but rather just means that player has many more options ahead of themselves than the other players have. This is very interesting to me, and definitely something worth exploring more. It makes for tough turns when players have to really crunch which options are best for them: take the tile right ahead of them, diversify vs bolster the collection, or hate block another player by taking what you know they need. Ahh, so beautiful are the choices given!
At the end of the day (and this review), Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an Obama-meme-where-he-is-drinking-a-beer-and-giving-a-thumbs-up 5 / 6. I would certainly not have purchased this game in its original form had I seen it in a game store. However, with the changes made to make it more pretty, I would have given it a chance. I am so very glad I have the opportunity to play this a lot, as I can see this getting to the table allllllll the time. It is right up my alley, and I place it high among other Knizia games. Long live King Toot!!
In Tutankhamun, players take on the roles of Egyptian priests attempting to cleanse their souls by gifting the sarcophagus with relics found along the Nile River. The priest who can cleanse their soul quickest will be proclaimed the next High Priest and winner of the game!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, place the King Tut sarcophagus on the table somewhere inside the box bottom. From this starting place (or you could place these components last I suppose), begin the laborious job of creating the Nile from the trapezoidal Relic TIles. This part took me a good several minutes each game. Place out the Underworld Mat near the start of the Nile, and place upon it the two Guardian Statue standees. From there give every player a reference card, have them choose a player color, place their boats at the start of the Nile, and Canopic Jar scoring markers on the appropriate space along the box bottom score track. The game may now begin!
Tutankhamun is played in turns starting with the starting player and proceeding clockwise. The starting player will choose ANY Relic Tile to collect and move their boat to that location. Once collected, the player will check to make sure there are still matching Relics along the Nile. If so, then play continues to the next player. If the active player had collected the last Relic of that type still active in the game, then the Relic type is scored.
Each Relic Tile features art of a Relic, a God, or a Scarab Ring. Relics come in sets, and when the final Relic of its type is collected, scoring immediately follows. Whichever player possesses the most Relic Tiles of the one being scored will earn points (or rather, negative points, as the priests are trying to cleanse their souls down to the winning score of zero) equal to the number printed on the tile. That number stands for the score earned as well as the number of Relics of that type in the game. The player with the second most Relics of the scored type will score half the number printed on the tile. All others do not score.
God Tiles feature art of one of five ancient Egyptian Gods: Osiris, Isis, Ra, Thoth, and Horus. Each of these Gods provide the collecting player with special powers to be used during the turn, and are always positive for the player.
Finally, Scarab Ring tiles are special in that they feature no number upon them. There are 10 tiles in the game, and as soon as a player collects one they immediately score one point (or one negative point). These tiles are not thrown into the box bottom, as the other scoring tiles are once scored, but are kept with the players to be scored at the end of the game. The player holding the most Scarab Tiles scores five negative points.
Any tile along the Nile that has been passed by all players is deposited onto the Underworld Mat and not added to the box bottom with the King Tut sarcophagus. Tiles may still be collected from the Underworld by permission of the Gods being collected in-game. Whichever priest is able to dwindle down their points and cleanse their soul first will win the game and become the next High Priest of Egypt!
Components. I am more and more becoming a fan of everything 25th Century Games is putting out. This is certainly no exception. I have seen photos of the original versions of this game, entitled Tutankhamen (with an E at the end instead of a U) and this game was certainly begging for a renovation. All the components have updated art, more vibrant colors, and the game even includes luxurious (and completely unnecessary) components. These are the very cool, but very unnecessary King Tut sarcophagus, and the Guardian Statue standees that add nothing to the gameplay but definitely help set the mood and theme. That all said, this version looks amazing on the table and has nearly infinite setup configurations!
What I like most about the game is the fact that on a player’s turn they can literally move forward to ANYWHERE along the Nile to gather whatever Relic they wish. They can pass up a tile or twelve along the way to snatch exactly what they want. However, the quicker a player reaches the sarcophagus does not automatically make them the winner. No, they still need to reduce their soul spirit score to zero in order to win (or be closest by the time all players reach the final spot). Conversely, dilly-dallying along the River just picking up every available tile also will not guarantee a victory. Specializing in a select few items may be the ticket to a victory, or setting oneself to win a couple types and win runner-up on the remainder may be a great path to victory.
Unlike many other games with this lazy race mechanic, the player furthest back does NOT get to keep taking turns to catch up (I’m looking at you, Tokaido), but rather just means that player has many more options ahead of themselves than the other players have. This is very interesting to me, and definitely something worth exploring more. It makes for tough turns when players have to really crunch which options are best for them: take the tile right ahead of them, diversify vs bolster the collection, or hate block another player by taking what you know they need. Ahh, so beautiful are the choices given!
At the end of the day (and this review), Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an Obama-meme-where-he-is-drinking-a-beer-and-giving-a-thumbs-up 5 / 6. I would certainly not have purchased this game in its original form had I seen it in a game store. However, with the changes made to make it more pretty, I would have given it a chance. I am so very glad I have the opportunity to play this a lot, as I can see this getting to the table allllllll the time. It is right up my alley, and I place it high among other Knizia games. Long live King Toot!!
From the Source - Japan
Book
Lonely Planet presents Japan's most authentic dishes - direct from the kitchens where they were...
Atlas of the Great Irish Famine
John Crowley, William J. Smyth and Mike Murphy
Book
The Great Famine is possibly the most pivotal event/experience in modern Irish history. Its global...