Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated World War Z (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Inspired by the book of the same name, “World War Z” starring Brad Pitt has made it to theaters after several delays including seven weeks of additional shooting that was ordered by the studio after principal photography had ended. While the book covers survivor interviews in the wake of the zombie pandemic, the film covers the early days the outbreak and casts Pitt as Gerry Lane, a former U.N. troubleshooter who is left his life in the field for the ability to be a stay-at-home husband and dad to his wife and daughters. When an unexpected outbreak starts to lay waste to several cities, Gerry and his family are evacuated by his old U.N. Allies to a secure location aboard a naval flotilla and he is told that his family will remain in security providing he agrees to spearhead an investigation to determine the source of the outbreak.
With very few options Gerry leads a team to Korea in an attempt to get to the source of the outbreak and find a cure, or at the very least, a course of treatment to battle an outbreak that’s quickly is decimating the world’s population and threatening to destroy life as we know it in a very short time. The dangers are numerous and Gerry soon learns that there is a much larger puzzle to be solved which sets them on a journey around the world in a race against time to save humanity. Along the way he encounters signs of the world gone mad and utter devastation from locales ranging from Jerusalem to Cardiff as it becomes obvious that the infection has spared no region of the globe. With time running out, Gerry must find a way to turn the tide and save humanity before it is too late. With his resources dwindling he embarks on a desperate mission to test a theory and save the world.
The film does have its share of tense moments however the PG-13 rating does severely limit the amount of gore and horror that can be displayed. One key scene implied that a weapon had become imbedded in an infected enemy and that Gerry was struggling to extract it in order to use it to defend himself. Due to the limitations of the rating this had to be implied rather than shown and Pitt came across as more comical than tense and desperate.
The movie also suffers from converted 3-D which does absolutely nothing to enhance the film as there were very few moments that benefited from the 3-D technique. Perhaps if the film had been shot in 3-D the quality it would’ve been better but it was clear that several of the scenes in the film were not set up nor shot with 3-D in mind.
There are some very good effects; especially the ones were hordes of infected throw themselves recklessly like swarming insects upon barricaded survivors which really helped underscore just how hopeless and desperate the situation for the survivors was. No matter how much firepower you have, a wall of infected coming at you in endless waves is eventually going to outlast your supply of ammunition.
There had been some reported tensions on the set between Pitt and Director Marc Forster, but to me the biggest red flag was the seven additional weeks of shooting that were done after principal photography had been completed. While re-shoots are not uncommon, re-shoots of this length are, especially when it led to the film being delayed from its original planned release to the summer.
In the end what you have is an uneven effort. The film has a very good concept, good cast, and potential to be a fantastic series but suffers from a real lack of scares. It’s a sanitized look at a zombie invasion that greatly undermines the subject and the source material. The studio has hopes of doing a trilogy of films and I would definitely like to see future releases in the series provided they improve upon the original, offer films that are more in keeping with the book and are more respectful to zombie genre. As it stands now, Pitt does the best he can with the material but is let down by a script that is big on clichés and offers very little in the way of scares and originality.
http://sknr.net/2013/06/21/world-war-z/
With very few options Gerry leads a team to Korea in an attempt to get to the source of the outbreak and find a cure, or at the very least, a course of treatment to battle an outbreak that’s quickly is decimating the world’s population and threatening to destroy life as we know it in a very short time. The dangers are numerous and Gerry soon learns that there is a much larger puzzle to be solved which sets them on a journey around the world in a race against time to save humanity. Along the way he encounters signs of the world gone mad and utter devastation from locales ranging from Jerusalem to Cardiff as it becomes obvious that the infection has spared no region of the globe. With time running out, Gerry must find a way to turn the tide and save humanity before it is too late. With his resources dwindling he embarks on a desperate mission to test a theory and save the world.
The film does have its share of tense moments however the PG-13 rating does severely limit the amount of gore and horror that can be displayed. One key scene implied that a weapon had become imbedded in an infected enemy and that Gerry was struggling to extract it in order to use it to defend himself. Due to the limitations of the rating this had to be implied rather than shown and Pitt came across as more comical than tense and desperate.
The movie also suffers from converted 3-D which does absolutely nothing to enhance the film as there were very few moments that benefited from the 3-D technique. Perhaps if the film had been shot in 3-D the quality it would’ve been better but it was clear that several of the scenes in the film were not set up nor shot with 3-D in mind.
There are some very good effects; especially the ones were hordes of infected throw themselves recklessly like swarming insects upon barricaded survivors which really helped underscore just how hopeless and desperate the situation for the survivors was. No matter how much firepower you have, a wall of infected coming at you in endless waves is eventually going to outlast your supply of ammunition.
There had been some reported tensions on the set between Pitt and Director Marc Forster, but to me the biggest red flag was the seven additional weeks of shooting that were done after principal photography had been completed. While re-shoots are not uncommon, re-shoots of this length are, especially when it led to the film being delayed from its original planned release to the summer.
In the end what you have is an uneven effort. The film has a very good concept, good cast, and potential to be a fantastic series but suffers from a real lack of scares. It’s a sanitized look at a zombie invasion that greatly undermines the subject and the source material. The studio has hopes of doing a trilogy of films and I would definitely like to see future releases in the series provided they improve upon the original, offer films that are more in keeping with the book and are more respectful to zombie genre. As it stands now, Pitt does the best he can with the material but is let down by a script that is big on clichés and offers very little in the way of scares and originality.
http://sknr.net/2013/06/21/world-war-z/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Carriers (2009) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Brian and Danny grew up as two brothers who were relatively close to one another. They cherish the memories they have of Turtle Beach, a beach their family vacationed to every summer. The abandoned motel in Turtle Beach may be their best bet of surviving the highly contagious disease that now plagues the entire country and possibly the world. Not much is known about the virus other than the victims coughing up blood and bleeding from the ears as their condition worsens. Brian actually came up with a few rules that will hopefully get him, his girlfriend Bobby, his brother Danny, and Danny's friend Kate through this disease ridden world to Turtle Beach clean. The rules include avoiding the infected at all costs, disinfecting anything they've touched in the past 24 hours, and that the infected are already dead as there is no cure. You may survive if you stick to the rules, but actually abiding by them is an entirely different story.
Right off the bat, people are probably going to compare Carriers to Zombieland because of the rules. Carriers was released a full month before Zombieland, but Paramount Vantage folded upon its initial release causing its wide release to be an extremely limited one at the last minute (I think it wound up playing at only two theaters in the country). Expectations rise unintentionally in situations such as this. "This is that horror film that was practically shelved earlier this year and is finally being released." The result is a horror film that is well worth watching, but may not be entirely what you're expecting.
Carriers is more about establishing an atmosphere than anything else. Everything is abandoned and rightfully so as most people were picked off handfuls at a time by this pandemic. The entire film is more like the first half hour of 28 Days Later where Jim wakes up in an abandoned hospital and realizes how empty the streets of London are. There aren't masses of the infected running around lusting for brains or wanting to tear humans apart in Carriers. The story follows these four friends as they journey across the country to this supposed sanctuary where they hope to tough it out until this disease runs its course. Carriers is more of a slow burn as things turn from bad to worse very slowly and snowball as the film goes on.
Chris Pine is really the drawing factor of the film. His role as Brian is kind of like a more intense version of his role as Kirk in Star Trek from earlier this year. Brian comes off as an inconsiderate prick the first half of the film and seems to only do things that benefit himself. The second half is where his character gets interesting though. The speech he gives Danny about their parents and telling Danny that he only told him what he wanted to hear is the turning point for Brian. Chris Pine shines as things begin to roll downhill for Brian as his emotions take center stage and his true demeanor is revealed.
Everything else in the film pretty much feels like routine manuevers when it comes to films revolving around viral outbreaks as some main characters contract the disease, they resort to drastic measures to survive, and begin to question their humanity along the way. The most disappointing part of the film is the ending as things just seem to kind of stop without much of a resolution. It seems like films like this either end this way or have a really depressing ending and that's its biggest flaw. Movie buffs who have seen films concerning pandemics already have a rough idea of how the film is going to end and it's about time to mix that up a bit. There's got to be a decent way to end the film that offers something a bit different that could wrap everything up until that point, but also leave enough room open for a sequel if need be.
Carriers may be a bit slow at first and doesn't really offer anything you probably haven't seen before in a film like this, but is still worth seeing for Chris Pine's performance. It's kind of a more serious take on Zombieland without actual zombies running or stumbling around with an atmosphere similar to the one established in Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later. If you're a fan of films involving a virus that has wiped out most of the human population, then this is still worth a watch.
Right off the bat, people are probably going to compare Carriers to Zombieland because of the rules. Carriers was released a full month before Zombieland, but Paramount Vantage folded upon its initial release causing its wide release to be an extremely limited one at the last minute (I think it wound up playing at only two theaters in the country). Expectations rise unintentionally in situations such as this. "This is that horror film that was practically shelved earlier this year and is finally being released." The result is a horror film that is well worth watching, but may not be entirely what you're expecting.
Carriers is more about establishing an atmosphere than anything else. Everything is abandoned and rightfully so as most people were picked off handfuls at a time by this pandemic. The entire film is more like the first half hour of 28 Days Later where Jim wakes up in an abandoned hospital and realizes how empty the streets of London are. There aren't masses of the infected running around lusting for brains or wanting to tear humans apart in Carriers. The story follows these four friends as they journey across the country to this supposed sanctuary where they hope to tough it out until this disease runs its course. Carriers is more of a slow burn as things turn from bad to worse very slowly and snowball as the film goes on.
Chris Pine is really the drawing factor of the film. His role as Brian is kind of like a more intense version of his role as Kirk in Star Trek from earlier this year. Brian comes off as an inconsiderate prick the first half of the film and seems to only do things that benefit himself. The second half is where his character gets interesting though. The speech he gives Danny about their parents and telling Danny that he only told him what he wanted to hear is the turning point for Brian. Chris Pine shines as things begin to roll downhill for Brian as his emotions take center stage and his true demeanor is revealed.
Everything else in the film pretty much feels like routine manuevers when it comes to films revolving around viral outbreaks as some main characters contract the disease, they resort to drastic measures to survive, and begin to question their humanity along the way. The most disappointing part of the film is the ending as things just seem to kind of stop without much of a resolution. It seems like films like this either end this way or have a really depressing ending and that's its biggest flaw. Movie buffs who have seen films concerning pandemics already have a rough idea of how the film is going to end and it's about time to mix that up a bit. There's got to be a decent way to end the film that offers something a bit different that could wrap everything up until that point, but also leave enough room open for a sequel if need be.
Carriers may be a bit slow at first and doesn't really offer anything you probably haven't seen before in a film like this, but is still worth seeing for Chris Pine's performance. It's kind of a more serious take on Zombieland without actual zombies running or stumbling around with an atmosphere similar to the one established in Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later. If you're a fan of films involving a virus that has wiped out most of the human population, then this is still worth a watch.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Dec 23, 2020
Gal Gadot returns as Diana Prince in “Wonder Woman 1984” which has seen its release date shift a few times due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The film has started to open overseas and will arrive in the U.S. on Christmas day with a limited debut on HBO Max as well.
The story sees Diana now living in Washington D.C. in 1984. Diana is popular but has refused male companionship as she still longs for her late love Steve Trevor (Chris Pine).
Diana works in the Smithsonian Institute in antiquities and keeps her secret identity under wraps even when a daring mall heist forces her to leap into action.
A shy and passive employee named Barbara (Kirsten Wiig); who is afraid of her own shadow and largely ignored by her peers is befriended by Diana and they discover one item from the heist is inscribed with the ability to grant a wish. Unknowingly Diana wishes for Steve to return and Barbara wishes to be more like Diana which sets a chain of events into motion.
A shady business man named Maxwell Lord (Perdro Pascal) has his site on obtaining the relic as he believes having the ability to grant wishes will allow him to save his failing business and give him the power he craves.
With such a promising setup; the film ultimately does not deliver on its premise and becomes bogged down in drawn out sequences with surprisingly little action and gaps in logic that defy even standards for a comic book film.
The first 90 minutes of the film has roughly 10-15 minutes of action tops and we are instead given lengthy scenes of Steve trying to find an 80s fashion look; flying over fireworks, and Maxwell trashing from one locale to another without much needed continuity.
An action scene involving a convoy chase through the desert seems very inspired by “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and ultimately does not deliver especially with such a long gape between the action sequences.
The final act does attempt to redeem the film as seeing Barbara transform into her new persona is interesting and Wiig does a very solid job with the role. This sadly is undermined with a single line of dialogue which takes away a big part of the transformation that audiences deserved to see.
There was also a sequence where Diana races down the streets and takes to flight with her Lasso and then discovers she can fly like Superman. Not only is this not in keeping with the character; but we see this extended fast moving sequence where she is clearly heading away from D.C. at great speed only to arrive at a destination with an item which had been established to be back at her home in D.C. It is this sort of sloppiness that really detracts from the film. There is also the fact that Steve has to fly her around on a jet that even as a pilot he should not know how to fly as he has never flown a jet aircraft in his life.
When the big confrontation comes it is a letdown as it is not overly epic and the CGI really does not seem to mesh. What is an even bigger disappointment is that a certain character stands emoting for several minutes while Diana gives such a bland and extended speech that even my wife had to ask “who wrote these lines”.
The film was not a total disaster as the characters were interesting and worked well with one another making the film entertaining in parts despite being really disappointed with it.
The film strikes me as a product of the talented Patty Jenkins being able to do whatever she wanted after the success of the first film. Jenkins not only Directed but did the screenplay for it. Considering the amazing job she did writing “Monster” I had high expectations for the film but to me it seemed like it could have used a bit more attention to several aspects.
My summary would be the following… good cast, entertaining in parts, not much action over two hours, takes huge liberties with Diana and her abilities, massive gaps in logic even for a comic movie. It aims to be epic and comes up lacking. At least the mid. credit scene was worth it.
3 stars out of 5
The story sees Diana now living in Washington D.C. in 1984. Diana is popular but has refused male companionship as she still longs for her late love Steve Trevor (Chris Pine).
Diana works in the Smithsonian Institute in antiquities and keeps her secret identity under wraps even when a daring mall heist forces her to leap into action.
A shy and passive employee named Barbara (Kirsten Wiig); who is afraid of her own shadow and largely ignored by her peers is befriended by Diana and they discover one item from the heist is inscribed with the ability to grant a wish. Unknowingly Diana wishes for Steve to return and Barbara wishes to be more like Diana which sets a chain of events into motion.
A shady business man named Maxwell Lord (Perdro Pascal) has his site on obtaining the relic as he believes having the ability to grant wishes will allow him to save his failing business and give him the power he craves.
With such a promising setup; the film ultimately does not deliver on its premise and becomes bogged down in drawn out sequences with surprisingly little action and gaps in logic that defy even standards for a comic book film.
The first 90 minutes of the film has roughly 10-15 minutes of action tops and we are instead given lengthy scenes of Steve trying to find an 80s fashion look; flying over fireworks, and Maxwell trashing from one locale to another without much needed continuity.
An action scene involving a convoy chase through the desert seems very inspired by “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and ultimately does not deliver especially with such a long gape between the action sequences.
The final act does attempt to redeem the film as seeing Barbara transform into her new persona is interesting and Wiig does a very solid job with the role. This sadly is undermined with a single line of dialogue which takes away a big part of the transformation that audiences deserved to see.
There was also a sequence where Diana races down the streets and takes to flight with her Lasso and then discovers she can fly like Superman. Not only is this not in keeping with the character; but we see this extended fast moving sequence where she is clearly heading away from D.C. at great speed only to arrive at a destination with an item which had been established to be back at her home in D.C. It is this sort of sloppiness that really detracts from the film. There is also the fact that Steve has to fly her around on a jet that even as a pilot he should not know how to fly as he has never flown a jet aircraft in his life.
When the big confrontation comes it is a letdown as it is not overly epic and the CGI really does not seem to mesh. What is an even bigger disappointment is that a certain character stands emoting for several minutes while Diana gives such a bland and extended speech that even my wife had to ask “who wrote these lines”.
The film was not a total disaster as the characters were interesting and worked well with one another making the film entertaining in parts despite being really disappointed with it.
The film strikes me as a product of the talented Patty Jenkins being able to do whatever she wanted after the success of the first film. Jenkins not only Directed but did the screenplay for it. Considering the amazing job she did writing “Monster” I had high expectations for the film but to me it seemed like it could have used a bit more attention to several aspects.
My summary would be the following… good cast, entertaining in parts, not much action over two hours, takes huge liberties with Diana and her abilities, massive gaps in logic even for a comic movie. It aims to be epic and comes up lacking. At least the mid. credit scene was worth it.
3 stars out of 5
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Hotel Transylvania 4 (2021) in Movies
Jan 22, 2022
The transformation sequences. (1 more)
The 2D animated end credits
Genndy Tartakovsky not directing (2 more)
Humor exchanged for annoying behavior
Feels almost like a soft reboot for a final film.
A Monstrous Monstrosity
Hotel Transylvania: Tranformania is the final film in the Hotel Transylvania franchise. With Genndy Tartakavsky no longer directing (he co-writes and executive produces this time around) and Adam Sandler and Kevin James not returning (Brian Hull and Brad Abrell now voice Dracula and Frankenstein), Transformania takes an awkward step back from the previous three films.
Despite some character designs (Bela in the second film, the Kraken in the third) and some tremendous end credit animations that are done in a very recognizable Tartakavsky style (think Dexter’s Lab or Powerpuff Girls), the films are mediocre at best and yet became a billion dollar franchise.
Hull and Abrell do a decent job matching their voices to the Drac and Frank characters. You may not have noticed the characters were voiced by someone else if you hadn’t known beforehand. However, the animation looks noticeably different. Maybe new directors Jennifer Kluska and Derek Drymon are to credit for that. Kluska was a storyboard artist on Hotel Transylvania 2 and 3 while Drymon was an executive producer of Adventure Time and was a storyboard artist on The Spongebob Squarepants Movie.
The film was also moved around several times thanks to COVID and the pandemic. Sony Pictures Releasing eventually nixed the film’s theatrical run and sold distribution rights to Amazon Studios. This is the only Hotel Transylvania film to be released directly to a streaming platform.
Considering that this is the fourth film, Transformania basically rewrites several characters to an extent that it ignores key details from other films. Johnny is now akin to Homer Simpson since he is dumber than he has ever been here. He had a stoner or frat boy with a heart of gold kind of vibe about him originally. He was very mellow by nature, but had seen a good chunk of the world and knew more than his behavior let on. He had stories even though he was young and he was likeable. Transformania turns him into a dumb and unfunny dork that is borderline offensive due to how annoying he is.
Dracula has lost whatever made him somewhat charming in the previous three films, as well. In Transformania, he’s looking to settle down with Ericka and retire from running the hotel. The intention is to give the hotel to Mavis and Johnny, but all of a sudden Dracula hates Johnny. The first three films are built around how close Johnny and Dracula become. Now Dracula just finds Johnny unbearable.
After establishing in the second film that Dennis is part vampire and has powers, that concept is totally erased in Transformania. Dracula hypnotizes Dennis in the beginning of the film and he remains that way for the bulk of the film without ever utilizing any sort of power or doing anything remotely relevant.
Instead of downright telling Johnny that he can’t stand him, Dracula lies and says that he can’t leave the hotel in the hands of a human; it can only be inherited by monsters. Johnny then discusses the matter with Abraham Van Helsing who uses his Monsterfication Ray to turn Johnny into a giant lizard-like monster. But the ray can also turn monsters into humans. Once Dracula discovers what Johnny has done, he attempts to turn Johnny back before Mavis finds out. The plan backfires and Dracula gets hit with the ray and is turned human. His friends Wayne, Griffin, Murray, and Frankenstein are also turned human. If a cure isn’t found, the results may be permanent.
The highlight of the film is the transformation sequences since they are noticeably inspired by the horror film genre; specifically An American Werewolf in London. The end credits sequence is also done in a similar style to the first three films, so that sequence is fairly entertaining as well.
Transformania otherwise feels like a downgrade all around and the bar wasn’t all the high to begin with. As expected, there is a dancing sequence that may or may not be something you look forward to. None of the gags come off as humorous as every character mostly seems to be aiming to be more obnoxious than the other. The “fun” lies within seeing the monster characters as humans. The most notable is Griffin who has been totally invisible until now.
Hotel Transylvania: Transformania had a lot of obstacles relating to its release and after viewing the film you can understand why. It’s a lukewarm sendoff that mostly feels like a lethargic attempt to recapture its former glory. It’s built around an entertaining concept that it doesn’t fully capitalize on. It ultimately obliterates character traits for trite gags and cliché punch lines.
Despite some character designs (Bela in the second film, the Kraken in the third) and some tremendous end credit animations that are done in a very recognizable Tartakavsky style (think Dexter’s Lab or Powerpuff Girls), the films are mediocre at best and yet became a billion dollar franchise.
Hull and Abrell do a decent job matching their voices to the Drac and Frank characters. You may not have noticed the characters were voiced by someone else if you hadn’t known beforehand. However, the animation looks noticeably different. Maybe new directors Jennifer Kluska and Derek Drymon are to credit for that. Kluska was a storyboard artist on Hotel Transylvania 2 and 3 while Drymon was an executive producer of Adventure Time and was a storyboard artist on The Spongebob Squarepants Movie.
The film was also moved around several times thanks to COVID and the pandemic. Sony Pictures Releasing eventually nixed the film’s theatrical run and sold distribution rights to Amazon Studios. This is the only Hotel Transylvania film to be released directly to a streaming platform.
Considering that this is the fourth film, Transformania basically rewrites several characters to an extent that it ignores key details from other films. Johnny is now akin to Homer Simpson since he is dumber than he has ever been here. He had a stoner or frat boy with a heart of gold kind of vibe about him originally. He was very mellow by nature, but had seen a good chunk of the world and knew more than his behavior let on. He had stories even though he was young and he was likeable. Transformania turns him into a dumb and unfunny dork that is borderline offensive due to how annoying he is.
Dracula has lost whatever made him somewhat charming in the previous three films, as well. In Transformania, he’s looking to settle down with Ericka and retire from running the hotel. The intention is to give the hotel to Mavis and Johnny, but all of a sudden Dracula hates Johnny. The first three films are built around how close Johnny and Dracula become. Now Dracula just finds Johnny unbearable.
After establishing in the second film that Dennis is part vampire and has powers, that concept is totally erased in Transformania. Dracula hypnotizes Dennis in the beginning of the film and he remains that way for the bulk of the film without ever utilizing any sort of power or doing anything remotely relevant.
Instead of downright telling Johnny that he can’t stand him, Dracula lies and says that he can’t leave the hotel in the hands of a human; it can only be inherited by monsters. Johnny then discusses the matter with Abraham Van Helsing who uses his Monsterfication Ray to turn Johnny into a giant lizard-like monster. But the ray can also turn monsters into humans. Once Dracula discovers what Johnny has done, he attempts to turn Johnny back before Mavis finds out. The plan backfires and Dracula gets hit with the ray and is turned human. His friends Wayne, Griffin, Murray, and Frankenstein are also turned human. If a cure isn’t found, the results may be permanent.
The highlight of the film is the transformation sequences since they are noticeably inspired by the horror film genre; specifically An American Werewolf in London. The end credits sequence is also done in a similar style to the first three films, so that sequence is fairly entertaining as well.
Transformania otherwise feels like a downgrade all around and the bar wasn’t all the high to begin with. As expected, there is a dancing sequence that may or may not be something you look forward to. None of the gags come off as humorous as every character mostly seems to be aiming to be more obnoxious than the other. The “fun” lies within seeing the monster characters as humans. The most notable is Griffin who has been totally invisible until now.
Hotel Transylvania: Transformania had a lot of obstacles relating to its release and after viewing the film you can understand why. It’s a lukewarm sendoff that mostly feels like a lethargic attempt to recapture its former glory. It’s built around an entertaining concept that it doesn’t fully capitalize on. It ultimately obliterates character traits for trite gags and cliché punch lines.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Terrible Candidates in Tabletop Games
Aug 28, 2020
2020 is a year that will definitely go down in the history books for many reasons. Amidst a global pandemic, a growing civil rights movement, and a hurricane-like storm that ravaged the state of Iowa on August 10th, we ALSO find ourselves in an election year. As if things couldn’t get any crazier, right? Get in the campaigning mood by checking out Terrible Candidates, and remember to get out and vote on November 3rd, America!
Disclaimer: We were provided a copy of Terrible Candidates for the purposes of this review. The components pictured are finalized and are what come in a production copy of the game. I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook, but rather provide an overview of the rules and general gameplay. -L
Terrible Candidates is a party game in which all players, candidates vying for the Presidency, participate in a series of public debates. At the end of the game, the player who has won the most debates is declared the new President! Setup is simple: Deal 5 Policy cards to each player, place the remaining Policy and Topic cards in the center of the table, place the Dumpster Fire of Democracy card within reach of all players to indicate the discard pile, and keep the President card off to the side.
The gameplay itself is just as simple! Select a pair of neighboring players to be the first debate Candidates. A Topic card is revealed, and the 2 Candidates select a Policy card from their hand to play in this debate. Once the Policy cards are selected, each Candidate gets 30 seconds to explain/debate their selected response to the Topic, providing as many talking points, facts (true or alternative) and other general jargon or nonsense to convince the Media (the non-Candidates for this turn) to vote for them. When both Candidates have made their debates, each member of the Media is allowed to ask one question, providing an extra chance for political shenanigans or hilarity. Once all questions have been asked, the Media votes on which Candidate they believe was the best of the pair, and that winning Candidate keeps the Topic card as their point. The game moves on to the next debate, rotating one person around the group to get a new pair of Candidates – one Candidate from the previous debate, and a new competitor. Play progresses in this manner until all players have participated in 2 debates, thus ending the round. Any players who have no Topic cards (meaning they didn’t win either of their debates in the round) is knocked out of the game, and the next round commences with the remaining players. The second round follows the steps of the first, and when all players have debated twice, the game ends. The player with the most Topic cards is declared the winner and becomes President!
I know that this game might seem like a lot, but it’s honestly not complicated. Each round works as follows: Debate, Question, Vote, and repeat until all players have done 2 debates. If there is one thing that is a must for a party game, it’s a simple set of rules and gameplay to maximize playing time, and Terrible Candidates has adhered to that policy (See what I did there?). The overall atmosphere of the game is reminiscent of CAH, but with a twist. In CAH, all players submit a card and one player is the ultimate judge for the turn, thus allowing players to cater to the personality/sense of humor of that one person. Terrible Candidates is a group effort, meaning that you have to get a majority of the votes in your favor to win the debate. Instead of focusing on one person, you have to be quick-witted and clever enough to find ways to influence all other players. That makes it feel like a more engaging game overall, since all players are involved in every step of the turn.
Obviously, this game has some political implications, but the gameplay can be whatever your group wants it to be. Playing with a group of highly political friends? Maybe it will turn into some intelligent debates and conversations throughout the night. Playing with the fam at a reunion or get-together? Go crazy, make up hilarious stories, and just have a good time. It all depends on your gaming group, and it can be whatever kind of game you want it to be – serious or silly. A caveat with this, as with CAH-esque games, is knowing your group and the kind of humor that is acceptable. Just make sure that however you decide to play, everyone involved is comfortable and having fun!
All in all, I think that Terrible Candidates is a fun and funny little game for everyone involved. As a Candidate, you put your improv skills to the test as you make ridiculous claims or present decent ideas in your 30-second time limit. As a member of the Media, you also get in on a little improv, coming up with a question to ask the Candidates, and then casting your vote for the most convincing side. This game can be so unpredictable, and that’s what helps keep it fresh, entertaining, and funny. Whether you are politically active or not, this game can result in some great times and good conversations among the group. If you’re up for it, take a chance and cast your vote for Terrible Candidates!
Disclaimer: We were provided a copy of Terrible Candidates for the purposes of this review. The components pictured are finalized and are what come in a production copy of the game. I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook, but rather provide an overview of the rules and general gameplay. -L
Terrible Candidates is a party game in which all players, candidates vying for the Presidency, participate in a series of public debates. At the end of the game, the player who has won the most debates is declared the new President! Setup is simple: Deal 5 Policy cards to each player, place the remaining Policy and Topic cards in the center of the table, place the Dumpster Fire of Democracy card within reach of all players to indicate the discard pile, and keep the President card off to the side.
The gameplay itself is just as simple! Select a pair of neighboring players to be the first debate Candidates. A Topic card is revealed, and the 2 Candidates select a Policy card from their hand to play in this debate. Once the Policy cards are selected, each Candidate gets 30 seconds to explain/debate their selected response to the Topic, providing as many talking points, facts (true or alternative) and other general jargon or nonsense to convince the Media (the non-Candidates for this turn) to vote for them. When both Candidates have made their debates, each member of the Media is allowed to ask one question, providing an extra chance for political shenanigans or hilarity. Once all questions have been asked, the Media votes on which Candidate they believe was the best of the pair, and that winning Candidate keeps the Topic card as their point. The game moves on to the next debate, rotating one person around the group to get a new pair of Candidates – one Candidate from the previous debate, and a new competitor. Play progresses in this manner until all players have participated in 2 debates, thus ending the round. Any players who have no Topic cards (meaning they didn’t win either of their debates in the round) is knocked out of the game, and the next round commences with the remaining players. The second round follows the steps of the first, and when all players have debated twice, the game ends. The player with the most Topic cards is declared the winner and becomes President!
I know that this game might seem like a lot, but it’s honestly not complicated. Each round works as follows: Debate, Question, Vote, and repeat until all players have done 2 debates. If there is one thing that is a must for a party game, it’s a simple set of rules and gameplay to maximize playing time, and Terrible Candidates has adhered to that policy (See what I did there?). The overall atmosphere of the game is reminiscent of CAH, but with a twist. In CAH, all players submit a card and one player is the ultimate judge for the turn, thus allowing players to cater to the personality/sense of humor of that one person. Terrible Candidates is a group effort, meaning that you have to get a majority of the votes in your favor to win the debate. Instead of focusing on one person, you have to be quick-witted and clever enough to find ways to influence all other players. That makes it feel like a more engaging game overall, since all players are involved in every step of the turn.
Obviously, this game has some political implications, but the gameplay can be whatever your group wants it to be. Playing with a group of highly political friends? Maybe it will turn into some intelligent debates and conversations throughout the night. Playing with the fam at a reunion or get-together? Go crazy, make up hilarious stories, and just have a good time. It all depends on your gaming group, and it can be whatever kind of game you want it to be – serious or silly. A caveat with this, as with CAH-esque games, is knowing your group and the kind of humor that is acceptable. Just make sure that however you decide to play, everyone involved is comfortable and having fun!
All in all, I think that Terrible Candidates is a fun and funny little game for everyone involved. As a Candidate, you put your improv skills to the test as you make ridiculous claims or present decent ideas in your 30-second time limit. As a member of the Media, you also get in on a little improv, coming up with a question to ask the Candidates, and then casting your vote for the most convincing side. This game can be so unpredictable, and that’s what helps keep it fresh, entertaining, and funny. Whether you are politically active or not, this game can result in some great times and good conversations among the group. If you’re up for it, take a chance and cast your vote for Terrible Candidates!
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Food Chain Island in Tabletop Games
Jul 1, 2020
With the current pandemic (not the game) going on in the world, and the necessity for people to distance themselves from each other, game nights everywhere have been put on hold. That doesn’t mean that gaming must stop! Whether you’re a seasoned solo gamer, or new to the solo genre, ButtonShy has done it again with a fantastic new little wallet game in their Simply Solo series – check it out!
You find yourself on a small, isolated island teeming with wildlife – but there is no set hierarchy! It’s a world of ‘eat or be eaten’ and you’ve got to survive. Manipulate the wildlife and organize the food chain in such a way that leaves you on top. Are you able to strategize the best meals, or will the island be left in chaos?
Disclaimer: We were provided a PnP version of Food Chain Island for the purposes of this preview. Please excuse my lack of a color printer, but rest assured that the artwork of the final product is eye-catching, colorful, and easy to read! Check out the Kickstarter (Live now through June 6th) for a look at the finished production copy. -L
Food Chain Island is a solo card game of network building and chaining in which players are trying to end with the fewest remaining cards possible. The game, like its other ButtonShy siblings, contains only 18 cards, divided into Land animals (16 cards) and Water animals (2 cards). All animals have a special power associated with it, and all of the Land animal cards are numbered from 0-15. To setup the game, set the 2 Water animals off to the side (you’ll use those later), shuffle all of the Land animals, and create a 4×4 face-up grid of Land animal cards. Now you can start the game!
Every turn you will move one animal card to ‘eat’ another. Select an animal, and move it one space in one of the four cardinal directions so that it is placed over top of another animal. The card that is now covered up is considered ‘eaten.’ Each animal may only eat certain other animals, however, so this is where the card number comes into play. An animal can only ‘eat’ any animal card that is 1-3 numbers lower than its value. For example, the ‘4’ animal can only eat cards 3, 2, or 1. Simple, right? Not so fast. Each animal also has a special ability on it, and you must activate the ability of that card once it has eaten another animal. This step is mandatory, and can really help or hinder your strategy – so make sure you are thinking about those abilities and not just the card numbers. At any time during the game, you may choose to discard one of the 2 Water animals from the side to perform its special ability in addition to, or instead of, the ability you just triggered. The game ends when you have only 1-3 animals remaining, the number remaining signifying varying degrees of success. If you have 4 or more animals remaining but are unable to make any more legal moves, the game is over and you have lost.
For being a game with such simple rules and gameplay, it is way more strategic than meets the eye. Each card can only eat specific cards, so you’re trying to position them in a way that fulfills those requirements numerically. You also have to be thinking ahead to each card power, because that step is mandatory. You cannot choose to ignore a card ability just because it may be detrimental to you – that’s what keeps your strategy changing at all times! You’re playing a long game here, and must be looking ahead several turns in advance so as to not accidentally strand yourself with no legal moves left. Every move should be thought through and carefully calculated to see if you can truly win the game. Along with that, every game will have a different starting grid which ensures that you won’t play the same game twice. The rules even suggest alternate beginning grid layouts to provide further challenge to players.
The other thing I love about Food Chain Island is that it is so fast to play, and it has a small footprint. If I only had 5 minutes to spare and was dying to play a game, Food Chain Island is what I would pull out. The speed of gameplay doesn’t take away from the engagement and thought needed to be successful, and that keeps me coming back for more. I rarely just play one game at a time – I will play 4-5 in a row because it is so addicting! Although it’s not officially a Tiny Epic game, it is designed by the one and only Scott Almes who hits it out of the park with this one as well. Coupled with the quick play time, the small footprint of the game makes it easy to play at any place or time you want.
With every new wallet game, ButtonShy continues to surprise me with quality gameplay and design using only 18 cards. Food Chain Island is no exception, and is a perfect first installation in their new Simply Solo line of wallet games. I know that this is a game I will be backing to get the final production copy in lieu of my PnP copy. I encourage everyone to check this game out – whether you’ve played solo games or not, this is a great little filler or introductory game to the genre. Visit the Kickstarter before it’s too late!
You find yourself on a small, isolated island teeming with wildlife – but there is no set hierarchy! It’s a world of ‘eat or be eaten’ and you’ve got to survive. Manipulate the wildlife and organize the food chain in such a way that leaves you on top. Are you able to strategize the best meals, or will the island be left in chaos?
Disclaimer: We were provided a PnP version of Food Chain Island for the purposes of this preview. Please excuse my lack of a color printer, but rest assured that the artwork of the final product is eye-catching, colorful, and easy to read! Check out the Kickstarter (Live now through June 6th) for a look at the finished production copy. -L
Food Chain Island is a solo card game of network building and chaining in which players are trying to end with the fewest remaining cards possible. The game, like its other ButtonShy siblings, contains only 18 cards, divided into Land animals (16 cards) and Water animals (2 cards). All animals have a special power associated with it, and all of the Land animal cards are numbered from 0-15. To setup the game, set the 2 Water animals off to the side (you’ll use those later), shuffle all of the Land animals, and create a 4×4 face-up grid of Land animal cards. Now you can start the game!
Every turn you will move one animal card to ‘eat’ another. Select an animal, and move it one space in one of the four cardinal directions so that it is placed over top of another animal. The card that is now covered up is considered ‘eaten.’ Each animal may only eat certain other animals, however, so this is where the card number comes into play. An animal can only ‘eat’ any animal card that is 1-3 numbers lower than its value. For example, the ‘4’ animal can only eat cards 3, 2, or 1. Simple, right? Not so fast. Each animal also has a special ability on it, and you must activate the ability of that card once it has eaten another animal. This step is mandatory, and can really help or hinder your strategy – so make sure you are thinking about those abilities and not just the card numbers. At any time during the game, you may choose to discard one of the 2 Water animals from the side to perform its special ability in addition to, or instead of, the ability you just triggered. The game ends when you have only 1-3 animals remaining, the number remaining signifying varying degrees of success. If you have 4 or more animals remaining but are unable to make any more legal moves, the game is over and you have lost.
For being a game with such simple rules and gameplay, it is way more strategic than meets the eye. Each card can only eat specific cards, so you’re trying to position them in a way that fulfills those requirements numerically. You also have to be thinking ahead to each card power, because that step is mandatory. You cannot choose to ignore a card ability just because it may be detrimental to you – that’s what keeps your strategy changing at all times! You’re playing a long game here, and must be looking ahead several turns in advance so as to not accidentally strand yourself with no legal moves left. Every move should be thought through and carefully calculated to see if you can truly win the game. Along with that, every game will have a different starting grid which ensures that you won’t play the same game twice. The rules even suggest alternate beginning grid layouts to provide further challenge to players.
The other thing I love about Food Chain Island is that it is so fast to play, and it has a small footprint. If I only had 5 minutes to spare and was dying to play a game, Food Chain Island is what I would pull out. The speed of gameplay doesn’t take away from the engagement and thought needed to be successful, and that keeps me coming back for more. I rarely just play one game at a time – I will play 4-5 in a row because it is so addicting! Although it’s not officially a Tiny Epic game, it is designed by the one and only Scott Almes who hits it out of the park with this one as well. Coupled with the quick play time, the small footprint of the game makes it easy to play at any place or time you want.
With every new wallet game, ButtonShy continues to surprise me with quality gameplay and design using only 18 cards. Food Chain Island is no exception, and is a perfect first installation in their new Simply Solo line of wallet games. I know that this is a game I will be backing to get the final production copy in lieu of my PnP copy. I encourage everyone to check this game out – whether you’ve played solo games or not, this is a great little filler or introductory game to the genre. Visit the Kickstarter before it’s too late!
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022) in Movies
Feb 19, 2022 (Updated Feb 19, 2022)
Wasted backstories that go nowhere. (3 more)
Rehashes and recreates the original film while not offering much of its own material.
New characters fall flat.
Feels like a half-cocked attempt at a new "film. "
Tearing the Face Off of a Horror Franchise
Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a direct sequel to the original 1974 film nearly 50 years later. Directed by David Blue Garcia with a screenplay by Chris Thomas Devlin and a story by Fede Alvarez (co-writer and director of the 2013 Evil Dead remake) and Rodo Sayagues (Don’t Breathe 1 & 2), Texas Chainsaw Massacre follows a group of young 20-somethings as they venture from Austin to Harlow, TX; a seven hour drive.
Dante (Jacob Latimore, Detroit) and Melody (Sarah Yarkin, Happy Death Day 2U) are business partners with somewhat of an impressive internet following. Dante is a chef who is looking to expand and Harlow is just the type of remote town to do it in. Melody’s teenage sister Lila (Elsie Fisher, Eighth Grade) and Dante’s fiancé Ruth (Nell Hudson) have tagged along mostly for emotional support.
With bank investors on the way to scout the location, the young foursome discovers a dilapidated orphanage with an old woman (Alice Krige, Gretel & Hansel) still living inside along with the last of what she refers to as, “her boys.” Dante and his friends awaken the mostly dormant monster known as Leatherface. Sally Hardesty (Olwen Fouéré) has been searching for Leatherface since he killed her friends all those years ago and now she can finally have the vengeful closure that she deserves.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is mostly trash. Leatherface has gotten the manure treatment outside of the original film, the 2003 remake, and maybe the 1986 sequel. The timeline is as messy and inconsistent as Halloween as whatever takes place behind the scenes between sequels, remakes, and reboots all seems to result in lackluster or sometimes atrocious outings for one of the most recognizable horror movie icons.
This new film can’t seem to decide what it wants to be. Sally is brought back for a half-hearted cameo as she does nothing but wear a cowboy hat, stare at a picture, cock a shotgun, and gut a pig. She’s meant to be the connection between this film and the original and it just doesn’t work. Texas Chainsaw Massacre also just seems to lift aspects from the original film as well as other non-genre films without ever offering its audience anything original or actually worthwhile.
The ending is basically lifted directly from the original as is the aspect of a group of young people running into trouble on a road trip far away from home. It’s young, city outsiders versus born-and-bred country veterans. The film also has a weird amount of homage to Terminator 2 (Melody’s leg wound and the shotgun blasts to Leatherface by the water being similar to Sarah Connor’s showdown with the T-1000 near the end of T2). It also feels like it’s trying to capitalize on the success Halloween has had since it follows a similar format (making a direct sequel to the original film decades later).
On the bright side, the kills and the gore are mostly satisfying. The wrist breaking scene followed by being stabbed in the neck with the broken bone is gnarly. There’s a brutal head smashing scene with a hammer and the bus sequence is essentially horror movie fan heaven even if the setup and dialogue in said sequence is awful. The swinging door kill feels like it could have been better than it was since it covers up more than it reveals. You can either leave the brutality to the audience’s imagination or show everything in its nasty and gruesome glory; trying to do both in the same sequence just results in disappointment.
You can make the argument that you watch a film like this for the gore and not the story anyway, but that isn’t the point. When there’s this much of a wait between new entries fans deserve better. The frustrating aspect is that Fede Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues are capable of providing a worthwhile story along with the blood and guts because they gave it to us with Evil Dead. There’s nothing here worth the nine year gap between this and the last Texas Chainsaw film (Texas Chainsaw 3D) or the five year gap between this and Leatherface. When it’s not recycling gags from the original film or borrowing from other franchises, it’s just young people being dumb for the sake of a cheap scare or kill.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre isn’t as unwatchable as some reviews are making it out to be, but it’s not a good film by any stretch of the imagination. It’s barely 80-minutes long, so it has a relatively quick pace and the kills are solid. But the story is seriously lacking as there are elements that literally go nowhere; Lila’s backstory about why she’s so quiet doesn’t add much of anything other than a reason for her to never leave a padded cell when and if a sequel to this is ever made.
The problem now is that the successful film formula revolves around nostalgia, rehashing familiar sequences and storylines, and bringing back survivors for one final confrontation. This has all proven to crush the box office, especially during the pandemic. This results in there being no originality or creativity anymore; it’s just a repetition of what we’ve already seen. Until Leatherface can get a fresh face to wear, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is doomed to run in circles with a sputtering chainsaw on a mostly deserted road no one wants to travel down.
Dante (Jacob Latimore, Detroit) and Melody (Sarah Yarkin, Happy Death Day 2U) are business partners with somewhat of an impressive internet following. Dante is a chef who is looking to expand and Harlow is just the type of remote town to do it in. Melody’s teenage sister Lila (Elsie Fisher, Eighth Grade) and Dante’s fiancé Ruth (Nell Hudson) have tagged along mostly for emotional support.
With bank investors on the way to scout the location, the young foursome discovers a dilapidated orphanage with an old woman (Alice Krige, Gretel & Hansel) still living inside along with the last of what she refers to as, “her boys.” Dante and his friends awaken the mostly dormant monster known as Leatherface. Sally Hardesty (Olwen Fouéré) has been searching for Leatherface since he killed her friends all those years ago and now she can finally have the vengeful closure that she deserves.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is mostly trash. Leatherface has gotten the manure treatment outside of the original film, the 2003 remake, and maybe the 1986 sequel. The timeline is as messy and inconsistent as Halloween as whatever takes place behind the scenes between sequels, remakes, and reboots all seems to result in lackluster or sometimes atrocious outings for one of the most recognizable horror movie icons.
This new film can’t seem to decide what it wants to be. Sally is brought back for a half-hearted cameo as she does nothing but wear a cowboy hat, stare at a picture, cock a shotgun, and gut a pig. She’s meant to be the connection between this film and the original and it just doesn’t work. Texas Chainsaw Massacre also just seems to lift aspects from the original film as well as other non-genre films without ever offering its audience anything original or actually worthwhile.
The ending is basically lifted directly from the original as is the aspect of a group of young people running into trouble on a road trip far away from home. It’s young, city outsiders versus born-and-bred country veterans. The film also has a weird amount of homage to Terminator 2 (Melody’s leg wound and the shotgun blasts to Leatherface by the water being similar to Sarah Connor’s showdown with the T-1000 near the end of T2). It also feels like it’s trying to capitalize on the success Halloween has had since it follows a similar format (making a direct sequel to the original film decades later).
On the bright side, the kills and the gore are mostly satisfying. The wrist breaking scene followed by being stabbed in the neck with the broken bone is gnarly. There’s a brutal head smashing scene with a hammer and the bus sequence is essentially horror movie fan heaven even if the setup and dialogue in said sequence is awful. The swinging door kill feels like it could have been better than it was since it covers up more than it reveals. You can either leave the brutality to the audience’s imagination or show everything in its nasty and gruesome glory; trying to do both in the same sequence just results in disappointment.
You can make the argument that you watch a film like this for the gore and not the story anyway, but that isn’t the point. When there’s this much of a wait between new entries fans deserve better. The frustrating aspect is that Fede Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues are capable of providing a worthwhile story along with the blood and guts because they gave it to us with Evil Dead. There’s nothing here worth the nine year gap between this and the last Texas Chainsaw film (Texas Chainsaw 3D) or the five year gap between this and Leatherface. When it’s not recycling gags from the original film or borrowing from other franchises, it’s just young people being dumb for the sake of a cheap scare or kill.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre isn’t as unwatchable as some reviews are making it out to be, but it’s not a good film by any stretch of the imagination. It’s barely 80-minutes long, so it has a relatively quick pace and the kills are solid. But the story is seriously lacking as there are elements that literally go nowhere; Lila’s backstory about why she’s so quiet doesn’t add much of anything other than a reason for her to never leave a padded cell when and if a sequel to this is ever made.
The problem now is that the successful film formula revolves around nostalgia, rehashing familiar sequences and storylines, and bringing back survivors for one final confrontation. This has all proven to crush the box office, especially during the pandemic. This results in there being no originality or creativity anymore; it’s just a repetition of what we’ve already seen. Until Leatherface can get a fresh face to wear, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is doomed to run in circles with a sputtering chainsaw on a mostly deserted road no one wants to travel down.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Free Guy (2021) in Movies
Dec 14, 2021 (Updated Dec 14, 2021)
Taika Waititi. (2 more)
The cameos.
Impressive special effects.
Not as funny as it could have been. (2 more)
Love being the "hokey" solution.
Mouser.
Artificial Excellence
Filmed in 2019 and finally seeing release after five separate delays from its original July 2020 premiere date, Free Guy is a sci-fi action comedy directed by Shawn Levy (Real Steal, the Night at the Museum trilogy) and written by Matt Lieberman (Scoob!) and Zak Penn (Ready Player One), which follows the life of Guy (Ryan Reynolds), an NPC that and lives and works as a bank teller in Free City.
Completely content with every day being exactly the same as the day before, Guy’s life is changed forever following a chance encounter with a ‘Sunglasses Person’ (the film’s term for player characters) named Molotov Girl (Jodie Comer).
An homage to Grand Theft Auto’s Vice City, with some elements from Fortnite sprinkled in for good measure, Free City is located within a video game of the same name, and boasts a population of various NPCs (non-player characters) as they go through their daily routines completely unaware that they’re stuck within the confines of a video game.
These NPCs cater to the whim of the Sunglasses People, who are seen as unapproachable heroes, but in actuality are just players from the real world who want to loot, steal, and cause chaos in order to achieve virtual richness in free city.
Ryan Reynolds’ real-life demeanor and sense of humor are so similar to his portrayal of Deadpool that almost anything Reynolds has done since 2016 has undoubtedly reminded you of The Merc With A Mouth.
To that end, in Free Guy, Reynolds’ narration of his own story, combined with the film’s explosive action, will definitely have filmgoers reminiscing about Marvel’s pair of R-rated X-men spin-offs – an inevitable circumstance of being a successful actor and allowing oneself to be typecast into roles similar to their most popular one.
While there are some laugh out loud moments in Free Guy, the “Oh, he found the button,” scene being the most notable, the film simply isn’t as funny as you think it’s going to be.
There’s no arguing that Free Guy is amusing to a certain extent, but its repeated gags and attempts at humor, more often than not, fall flat. Taika Waititi’s Antwan character, the man calling the shots when it comes to Free City’s game development, is a highlight of the film.
However, the promotional clip of Waititi’s outtakes released to hype the film, whose content supposedly made it into the film (spoiler alert: they didn’t), is better than any of Antwan’s actual lines of dialogue in the theatrical cut.
The cameos in Free Guy are some of the best surprises to stumble onto while seeing the film. They won’t be spoiled here, though some of them have been spoiled on the internet already, but there are a couple of really fun ones that are so much more entertaining if you go in not expecting them.
In fact, one of the lengthier such cameos, which extends across multiple scenes and features in several minutes of screen time, is a major source for hilarity in Free Guy.
The premise of Free Guy a A background character in a video game becomes sentient – is its most promising aspect. Guy, motivated by a desire to get more out of life than the daily routine he’s accustomed to, essentially betters himself simply because he wants to. In a way, it’s an I, Robot kind of concept burrito’d within a world that would fit within the walls of Ready Player One.
Surprisingly, given its filming before the outbreak of the pandemic, the film is also extremely relatable to how our reality is still under the thumb of an unpredictable coronavirus. Guy being trapped within the walls of Free City and wanting more out of life is an awfully similar sentiment to wanting everything back to normal after being stuck in months-long lockdowns.
Yet, Free Guy’s solid special effects, absurd humor, and surprisingly effective cameos are nearly derailed by how much time it devotes to the its love story.
Guy’s big awakening all comes down to finding the girl of his dreams, which then branches off into a different sort of relationship in the real world that was right under two character’s noses from the start. It feels like it was meant to be this sort of revelation in the film, but comes off as this, “Duh,” moment anyone besides the writers could have predicted.
Speaking of the film’s writing, the character of Mouser (Utkarsh Ambudkar) is so poorly written that it’s unbearable and exhausting.
A developer working alongside Antwan and Keys (Joe Kerry), Mouser comes off a rival to the later, acting like he can do Keys’ job better than Keys can and constantly breaking his balls from the moment he is introduced. Throughout the film, Mouser wants to do nothing more than whatever Antwan says, even if it’s morally reprehensible.
But, predictably, in the film’s final moments, Mouser is suddenly Keys’ best friend, wanting to do what’s right all for the sake of a happy ending.
Ultimately, while Free Guy has an amazing concept, it’s trapped within a massively underwhelming execution.
Admittedly, the film looks like it was an absolute blast to make, but also incredibly expensive. This tall budget, combined with public hesitancy to return to theaters and the Delta variant of COVID seemingly on the verge of backtracking all the progress we’ve made since the vaccine became readily available to the public, it makes you wonder if Free Guy has any sort of chance of making a respectable amount of money at the box office or even just breaking even.
Note: This was originally written when the film opened in theaters. Free Guy would go on to make $331.5 million on a $100-$125 million budget. A sequel is currently in the works.
Completely content with every day being exactly the same as the day before, Guy’s life is changed forever following a chance encounter with a ‘Sunglasses Person’ (the film’s term for player characters) named Molotov Girl (Jodie Comer).
An homage to Grand Theft Auto’s Vice City, with some elements from Fortnite sprinkled in for good measure, Free City is located within a video game of the same name, and boasts a population of various NPCs (non-player characters) as they go through their daily routines completely unaware that they’re stuck within the confines of a video game.
These NPCs cater to the whim of the Sunglasses People, who are seen as unapproachable heroes, but in actuality are just players from the real world who want to loot, steal, and cause chaos in order to achieve virtual richness in free city.
Ryan Reynolds’ real-life demeanor and sense of humor are so similar to his portrayal of Deadpool that almost anything Reynolds has done since 2016 has undoubtedly reminded you of The Merc With A Mouth.
To that end, in Free Guy, Reynolds’ narration of his own story, combined with the film’s explosive action, will definitely have filmgoers reminiscing about Marvel’s pair of R-rated X-men spin-offs – an inevitable circumstance of being a successful actor and allowing oneself to be typecast into roles similar to their most popular one.
While there are some laugh out loud moments in Free Guy, the “Oh, he found the button,” scene being the most notable, the film simply isn’t as funny as you think it’s going to be.
There’s no arguing that Free Guy is amusing to a certain extent, but its repeated gags and attempts at humor, more often than not, fall flat. Taika Waititi’s Antwan character, the man calling the shots when it comes to Free City’s game development, is a highlight of the film.
However, the promotional clip of Waititi’s outtakes released to hype the film, whose content supposedly made it into the film (spoiler alert: they didn’t), is better than any of Antwan’s actual lines of dialogue in the theatrical cut.
The cameos in Free Guy are some of the best surprises to stumble onto while seeing the film. They won’t be spoiled here, though some of them have been spoiled on the internet already, but there are a couple of really fun ones that are so much more entertaining if you go in not expecting them.
In fact, one of the lengthier such cameos, which extends across multiple scenes and features in several minutes of screen time, is a major source for hilarity in Free Guy.
The premise of Free Guy a A background character in a video game becomes sentient – is its most promising aspect. Guy, motivated by a desire to get more out of life than the daily routine he’s accustomed to, essentially betters himself simply because he wants to. In a way, it’s an I, Robot kind of concept burrito’d within a world that would fit within the walls of Ready Player One.
Surprisingly, given its filming before the outbreak of the pandemic, the film is also extremely relatable to how our reality is still under the thumb of an unpredictable coronavirus. Guy being trapped within the walls of Free City and wanting more out of life is an awfully similar sentiment to wanting everything back to normal after being stuck in months-long lockdowns.
Yet, Free Guy’s solid special effects, absurd humor, and surprisingly effective cameos are nearly derailed by how much time it devotes to the its love story.
Guy’s big awakening all comes down to finding the girl of his dreams, which then branches off into a different sort of relationship in the real world that was right under two character’s noses from the start. It feels like it was meant to be this sort of revelation in the film, but comes off as this, “Duh,” moment anyone besides the writers could have predicted.
Speaking of the film’s writing, the character of Mouser (Utkarsh Ambudkar) is so poorly written that it’s unbearable and exhausting.
A developer working alongside Antwan and Keys (Joe Kerry), Mouser comes off a rival to the later, acting like he can do Keys’ job better than Keys can and constantly breaking his balls from the moment he is introduced. Throughout the film, Mouser wants to do nothing more than whatever Antwan says, even if it’s morally reprehensible.
But, predictably, in the film’s final moments, Mouser is suddenly Keys’ best friend, wanting to do what’s right all for the sake of a happy ending.
Ultimately, while Free Guy has an amazing concept, it’s trapped within a massively underwhelming execution.
Admittedly, the film looks like it was an absolute blast to make, but also incredibly expensive. This tall budget, combined with public hesitancy to return to theaters and the Delta variant of COVID seemingly on the verge of backtracking all the progress we’ve made since the vaccine became readily available to the public, it makes you wonder if Free Guy has any sort of chance of making a respectable amount of money at the box office or even just breaking even.
Note: This was originally written when the film opened in theaters. Free Guy would go on to make $331.5 million on a $100-$125 million budget. A sequel is currently in the works.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated You're Pulling My Leg! in Tabletop Games
Aug 3, 2020
At the time I am writing this preview, the world is in the midst of a pandemic. That being said, the need for social distancing and quarantining has really affected the board gaming world. Without being able to have normal game nights, gamers must be creative in figuring out how to continue to play together, while still maintaining safe and healthy distances from one another. And one game that offers a solution is You’re Pulling My Leg!
Disclaimer: We were provided a copy of this book for the purposes of this preview. The pictures below show the final production copy you can expect to receive when ordering this game. Check out the publisher’s website to get your hands on this unique party game! -L
You’re Pulling My Leg! is a party game of bluffing and storytelling in which players are trying to be the first to earn 21 points. The rules are simple, the gameplay is straightforward, and it can even be played remotely!
To setup the game, every player needs a coin and a way to keep track of their score (paper/pencil, notes on a phone, etc.). Every player begins the game with 7 points. To start the game, choose a player to be the first Storyteller. The Storyteller selects a card from the book, reads the three questions on their chosen card, and chooses 1 to answer. The Storyteller then flips their coin – if HEADS, the answer must be a true story, but if TAILS, the answer must be false and untrue in essence. Only the Storyteller knows the result of the coin flip. The Storyteller proceeds to answer the question, telling a story dictated by their coin flip result.
After the Storyteller has told their response to the chosen question, the remaining players will vote (with points) on whether they believe the story was true or false. Players can vote with up to 3 points, and votes are revealed simultaneously. If you believe the story is TRUE, you vote with 1, 2, or 3 fingers pointing UP, and if you believe the story is FALSE, you vote with 1, 2, or 3 fingers pointing DOWN. After everyone has voted, the Storyteller reveals whether the story was true or false, and points are added/deducted accordingly. If a player voted correctly, they add the number of points with which they voted to their score. If they voted incorrectly, subtract the voted points from their score. The Storyteller can earn 1 point for each other player they have fooled, up to a maximum of 3 points per story. After tallying points, choose a new Storyteller and begin again – each player should have a chance to be the Storyteller once before repeating Storytellers. Play continues in this fashion until one player has scored 21 points, and is declared the winner!
At this point in my life, the thing I love about You’re Pulling My Leg! the most is that it can be played remotely. Everybody does not need to have an individual copy of the book to play via video chat or conference call. As long as one person has the book, your group can play! Instead of having each player read their own cards then, the owner of the book reads the cards aloud and the Storyteller chooses their question that way. The only supplies needed, apart from 1 copy of the book, are a coin and a way to track your score. Easy as pie. Another aspect of this game that I really enjoy is that it is pretty light-hearted in nature. Yes, there is an element of deception and bluffing, but it is all done in a light and quirky way. I especially enjoy this because I am a notoriously bad liar, and most bluffing games stress me out. But the ability to choose my question, and then weave a (hopefully) convincing story for my opponents takes some of that pressure off and allows me to really be creative and have fun.
That being said, one tricky thing about this game is that when coming up with a false story, if must be false in essence. You cannot tell a mostly true story with a few trivial details changed. People who have trouble with storytelling or improv-type scenarios might have some difficulty in coming up with an appropriate story for the different questions. Just something to be aware of – you have to be able to come up with a story on the fly, with no hints or help whatsoever. Another tricky, yet usually fun, aspect of this game is that some cards have a Wild feature which can immediately affect someone’s score. For example, one Wild feature might say “Player with the longest hair gains 3 points.” That goes into effect immediately once the card is selected, and can put a fun twist and some good-natured take-that into this storytelling game. The process of voting with points adds an element of strategy as well. How confident are you that someone’s story is TRUE? Are you willing to bet 3 points on it? It’s a balance of risk and reward, and that adds excitement to the game table.
Let me touch on components for a minute. This game is a book, where each page contains 3 cards. You can start at card #1 or select a random page and pick a card there, but there are 225 cards from which to choose! On every other page there is also a blank page titled “Game Highlights,” and this space is for you to write down any particularly hilarious or creative responses someone may have come up with in response to a card. It’s not a game requirement, but just an element of fun for future reminiscence. The quality of the book is pretty good, and I know it is sturdy enough to withstand lots of travel and play.
So all-in-all, I think that You’re Pulling My Leg is a great and light little game to get your creative juices flowing. If you need an ice-breaker for a game night, this would definitely be a great one to get to know your gaming comrades. Is it a game I will pull out at every game night? No. But it is a fun and light-hearted game that I can see myself pulling out with different gaming groups on several occasions. Whether a family reunion, office party, or friend Zoom call, this game is one that will entertain all involved. If you’re looking for something unique, fun, and relatively simple overall, give You’re Pulling My Leg! a shot. It might just open the door to storytelling based games for you!
Disclaimer: We were provided a copy of this book for the purposes of this preview. The pictures below show the final production copy you can expect to receive when ordering this game. Check out the publisher’s website to get your hands on this unique party game! -L
You’re Pulling My Leg! is a party game of bluffing and storytelling in which players are trying to be the first to earn 21 points. The rules are simple, the gameplay is straightforward, and it can even be played remotely!
To setup the game, every player needs a coin and a way to keep track of their score (paper/pencil, notes on a phone, etc.). Every player begins the game with 7 points. To start the game, choose a player to be the first Storyteller. The Storyteller selects a card from the book, reads the three questions on their chosen card, and chooses 1 to answer. The Storyteller then flips their coin – if HEADS, the answer must be a true story, but if TAILS, the answer must be false and untrue in essence. Only the Storyteller knows the result of the coin flip. The Storyteller proceeds to answer the question, telling a story dictated by their coin flip result.
After the Storyteller has told their response to the chosen question, the remaining players will vote (with points) on whether they believe the story was true or false. Players can vote with up to 3 points, and votes are revealed simultaneously. If you believe the story is TRUE, you vote with 1, 2, or 3 fingers pointing UP, and if you believe the story is FALSE, you vote with 1, 2, or 3 fingers pointing DOWN. After everyone has voted, the Storyteller reveals whether the story was true or false, and points are added/deducted accordingly. If a player voted correctly, they add the number of points with which they voted to their score. If they voted incorrectly, subtract the voted points from their score. The Storyteller can earn 1 point for each other player they have fooled, up to a maximum of 3 points per story. After tallying points, choose a new Storyteller and begin again – each player should have a chance to be the Storyteller once before repeating Storytellers. Play continues in this fashion until one player has scored 21 points, and is declared the winner!
At this point in my life, the thing I love about You’re Pulling My Leg! the most is that it can be played remotely. Everybody does not need to have an individual copy of the book to play via video chat or conference call. As long as one person has the book, your group can play! Instead of having each player read their own cards then, the owner of the book reads the cards aloud and the Storyteller chooses their question that way. The only supplies needed, apart from 1 copy of the book, are a coin and a way to track your score. Easy as pie. Another aspect of this game that I really enjoy is that it is pretty light-hearted in nature. Yes, there is an element of deception and bluffing, but it is all done in a light and quirky way. I especially enjoy this because I am a notoriously bad liar, and most bluffing games stress me out. But the ability to choose my question, and then weave a (hopefully) convincing story for my opponents takes some of that pressure off and allows me to really be creative and have fun.
That being said, one tricky thing about this game is that when coming up with a false story, if must be false in essence. You cannot tell a mostly true story with a few trivial details changed. People who have trouble with storytelling or improv-type scenarios might have some difficulty in coming up with an appropriate story for the different questions. Just something to be aware of – you have to be able to come up with a story on the fly, with no hints or help whatsoever. Another tricky, yet usually fun, aspect of this game is that some cards have a Wild feature which can immediately affect someone’s score. For example, one Wild feature might say “Player with the longest hair gains 3 points.” That goes into effect immediately once the card is selected, and can put a fun twist and some good-natured take-that into this storytelling game. The process of voting with points adds an element of strategy as well. How confident are you that someone’s story is TRUE? Are you willing to bet 3 points on it? It’s a balance of risk and reward, and that adds excitement to the game table.
Let me touch on components for a minute. This game is a book, where each page contains 3 cards. You can start at card #1 or select a random page and pick a card there, but there are 225 cards from which to choose! On every other page there is also a blank page titled “Game Highlights,” and this space is for you to write down any particularly hilarious or creative responses someone may have come up with in response to a card. It’s not a game requirement, but just an element of fun for future reminiscence. The quality of the book is pretty good, and I know it is sturdy enough to withstand lots of travel and play.
So all-in-all, I think that You’re Pulling My Leg is a great and light little game to get your creative juices flowing. If you need an ice-breaker for a game night, this would definitely be a great one to get to know your gaming comrades. Is it a game I will pull out at every game night? No. But it is a fun and light-hearted game that I can see myself pulling out with different gaming groups on several occasions. Whether a family reunion, office party, or friend Zoom call, this game is one that will entertain all involved. If you’re looking for something unique, fun, and relatively simple overall, give You’re Pulling My Leg! a shot. It might just open the door to storytelling based games for you!
