Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Simple Favor (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A Dangerous Liaison.
Wow, this one starts spectacularly well! Who’s not to love some “Thomas Crown” style titles over a French language version of “Music to watch girls by”? Brilliant!
We are then introduced to the hyper-annoying single mum Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick): someone so perky and goodie-two-shoes as a school helper that every other parent loathes her. What she does seem to have a talent for is filming cheesy “mom’s hints and tips” videos in her kitchen that she posts to her video blog.
Enter the polar opposite of Stephanie: the stylish, sophisticated, amoral and highly intimidating she-wolf called Emily (Blake Lively). On the excuse of play-dates between their sons, she seduces Stephanie with her swanky 5* lifestyle that she lives with her husband Sean (Henry Golding), a struggling writer. Given the oddness of the couple, there are more than a few hints – in line with the title of my review – that this is some kind of subtle grooming. But to what end?
How can someone so beautiful be so camera-shy? Anna Kendrick going for a cheeky snap of Blake Lively (and failing). (Source: GEM Entertainment).
When Emily suddenly goes missing without explanation, Sergeant Malloy (Andrew Moodie) has no shortage of suspects to investigate as Stephanie finds that she actually knew very little about the ghost-like Emily.
There is a surfeit of glossy style in Paul Feig‘s film. I’ve already enthused about the opening titles. But the stylish french-language music – coordinated by Theodore Shapiro – continues throughout, reaching a peak with Serge Gainsbourg’s sublime “Laisse Tomber Les Filles” over the equally entertaining end-titles.
Sharing confessions. A “BF” moment (and no… not “Best Friends”!). (Source: GEM Entertainment
But as a comedy thriller ther….
“HANG ON A MINUTE DR BOB! WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? COMEDY THRILLER? I watched the trailer for this one, and it’s “Gone Girl” remade isn’t it? It wasn’t comedy! Even IMDB describe it as “Crime, Drama, Mystery”!”
Yes, quite, and therein lies the problem with this film. I found the trailers (the full trailer as well as the teaser trailer attached below) to be highly misleading about the “feel” of the film. The comedy is distributed throughout with some great comic put-downs (“Prudes are people too” coos Emily to Stephanie) and generally laugh-out-loud dialogue. So yes, it IS a “Gone Girl” or “The Girl on the Train” wannabe… but it’s with added ‘laffs’. Now this revelation might make the film appeal to you much more than the trailer did. But in my book, ‘thriller’ and ‘comedy’ are not genres to comfortably share a bed and for me the film became increasingly inconsistent. This inconsistency built to a finale where all semblance of plot and reality seemed to go right out of the window… it could have been an improv episode or “Who’s Line Is It Anyway?”.
The writer is Jessica Sharzer (who did the screenplay for “Nerve” which I very much liked). But I suspect the issue lies more with Paul Feig‘s background in comedies (“Bridesmaids”, “The Heat”, “Spy”) and he couldn’t resist spicing up the thriller with some out-of-place comedy. Which was a shame, since I really liked the overall thriller plot, and the dynamic built up between Kendrick and Lively.
Coming clean…ing. Anna Kendrick as an undercover mopper. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Blake Lively (Mrs Deadpool of course) is actually staggeringly good as the unfathomable and slightly deranged Emily, and even Kendrick – who seems to have had a run of very so-so movies recently – is entertainingly quirky in this one.
I also enjoyed the performance of Rupert Friend (probably best known as Peter Quinn in “Homeland”) playing a vain and ego-centric fashion designer Dennis Nylon. Great fun.
Never trust a redhead. Emily being a-muse-ing. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Was I entertained? Yes I was, so I am tempted to recommend you seeing this rather than not. But I was also irritated in equal measure…. I really felt from the opening scenes that this one had legs to make my Top 10 for the year. But no.
Please comment and let me know which side of the fence you sit on!
We are then introduced to the hyper-annoying single mum Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick): someone so perky and goodie-two-shoes as a school helper that every other parent loathes her. What she does seem to have a talent for is filming cheesy “mom’s hints and tips” videos in her kitchen that she posts to her video blog.
Enter the polar opposite of Stephanie: the stylish, sophisticated, amoral and highly intimidating she-wolf called Emily (Blake Lively). On the excuse of play-dates between their sons, she seduces Stephanie with her swanky 5* lifestyle that she lives with her husband Sean (Henry Golding), a struggling writer. Given the oddness of the couple, there are more than a few hints – in line with the title of my review – that this is some kind of subtle grooming. But to what end?
How can someone so beautiful be so camera-shy? Anna Kendrick going for a cheeky snap of Blake Lively (and failing). (Source: GEM Entertainment).
When Emily suddenly goes missing without explanation, Sergeant Malloy (Andrew Moodie) has no shortage of suspects to investigate as Stephanie finds that she actually knew very little about the ghost-like Emily.
There is a surfeit of glossy style in Paul Feig‘s film. I’ve already enthused about the opening titles. But the stylish french-language music – coordinated by Theodore Shapiro – continues throughout, reaching a peak with Serge Gainsbourg’s sublime “Laisse Tomber Les Filles” over the equally entertaining end-titles.
Sharing confessions. A “BF” moment (and no… not “Best Friends”!). (Source: GEM Entertainment
But as a comedy thriller ther….
“HANG ON A MINUTE DR BOB! WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? COMEDY THRILLER? I watched the trailer for this one, and it’s “Gone Girl” remade isn’t it? It wasn’t comedy! Even IMDB describe it as “Crime, Drama, Mystery”!”
Yes, quite, and therein lies the problem with this film. I found the trailers (the full trailer as well as the teaser trailer attached below) to be highly misleading about the “feel” of the film. The comedy is distributed throughout with some great comic put-downs (“Prudes are people too” coos Emily to Stephanie) and generally laugh-out-loud dialogue. So yes, it IS a “Gone Girl” or “The Girl on the Train” wannabe… but it’s with added ‘laffs’. Now this revelation might make the film appeal to you much more than the trailer did. But in my book, ‘thriller’ and ‘comedy’ are not genres to comfortably share a bed and for me the film became increasingly inconsistent. This inconsistency built to a finale where all semblance of plot and reality seemed to go right out of the window… it could have been an improv episode or “Who’s Line Is It Anyway?”.
The writer is Jessica Sharzer (who did the screenplay for “Nerve” which I very much liked). But I suspect the issue lies more with Paul Feig‘s background in comedies (“Bridesmaids”, “The Heat”, “Spy”) and he couldn’t resist spicing up the thriller with some out-of-place comedy. Which was a shame, since I really liked the overall thriller plot, and the dynamic built up between Kendrick and Lively.
Coming clean…ing. Anna Kendrick as an undercover mopper. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Blake Lively (Mrs Deadpool of course) is actually staggeringly good as the unfathomable and slightly deranged Emily, and even Kendrick – who seems to have had a run of very so-so movies recently – is entertainingly quirky in this one.
I also enjoyed the performance of Rupert Friend (probably best known as Peter Quinn in “Homeland”) playing a vain and ego-centric fashion designer Dennis Nylon. Great fun.
Never trust a redhead. Emily being a-muse-ing. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Was I entertained? Yes I was, so I am tempted to recommend you seeing this rather than not. But I was also irritated in equal measure…. I really felt from the opening scenes that this one had legs to make my Top 10 for the year. But no.
Please comment and let me know which side of the fence you sit on!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated On Chesil Beach (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Flawed but moving tale of a bygone sexual era.
As you might notice from my lack of recent posts, the day job is getting in a way a bit at the moment. But one film I wanted to catch was this adaptation of Ian McEwan’s novel. What’s both an advantage and a disadvantage of catching a film late is that you can’t help avoid absorbing some of the reviews of others: Kevin Maher of the Times gave this a rather sniffy two stars; Amy from “Oh That Film Blog” was much more measured (an excellent review: man, that girl can write!). Last night, I actually ended up enjoying the film much more than I was expecting to.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Crushingly Mediocre
I’d read the bad reviews, but thought “Hey, it’s Tom Cruise – how bad could it be?” The answer is, “Pretty bad”.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Fate of the Furious (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Blood is thicker than Diesel.
All work and no play makes bob-the-movie-man a tardy reviewer. Still, what better way to break the fast than with “Fast and Furious 8” (aka “The Fate of the Furious”)?
Well, quite a lot of things actually!
Now, I have a confession to make (and I know for some this will be the equivalent of an appalling statement like “I’ve never seen Star Wars”). I have actually never ever seen Fast and Furious 1 through 7! (If it’s any mitigation to this cinematic crime, I did see the F-and-F wannabe “Need for Speed“).
So I was going to be completely lost with the “plot” right? Well actually, no. It was pretty easy to jump in and follow as a piece of popcorn nonsense.
The M25 water main burst was a real bitch for the Monday morning rush-hour.
For nonsense it is (hence the “rabbit ears” round the word “plot” above). The story isn’t just a bit far-fetched. It’s bat-shit crazy where the bat in question has downed a questionable vindaloo two hours earlier!
Dom (Vin Diesel) has turned on his “family”, including his squeeze, the lovely Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), and Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson, “San Andreas“), to team with the above-the-law (and above the clouds) cyber-super-terrorist Cipher (Charlize Theron, “Mad Max: Fury Road“). They have teamed up, apparently, for no other reason than to allow Cipher to ‘kick some global ass’ with a nuclear threat. But given his caring and sharing side, why the sudden betrayal of his nearest and dearest by Dom?
Ice Queen Metallica fan Theron, showing off her hardware.
Where do you begin with the nonsensical story? Jumping from Cuba (with some admittedly fun scenes, but shamelessly objectifying scantily-clad women) via Berlin and New York to the icy wastes of Siberia, it’s just an excuse to show fast cars doing ludicrously unlikely things. There is zero logic within any of the script. Here are just a handful of examples:
the team know (through enormous jumps of speculation) to be present at a particular location in the world and at exactly the time that Dom is there (arrive, look through binoculars, “Oh, there he is”!);
all cars can be automatically hijacked and remotely driven (who knew), but NOT those of the team (obviously);
fast cars/tanks/etc can be magicked from New York to Siberia (wot, no Hertz Siberia available?);
Russian nuclear codes are stolen, so obviously they can’t be changed?
a nuclear submarine is out of the water on wooden blocks, but spin the propeller really REALLY fast and it can suddenly be sailing away.
Muscle for muscle it never looked like being a fair fight.
I appreciate I am being enormously po-faced about this, and this is designed as pure escapism. But is there REALLY any need for this to be such mindless escapism? The director (Gary Gray, “The Italian Job”) and writer (Chris Morgan, responsible for parts 6 and 7) should credit their audience with rather more in the way of intelligence.
Diesel and Johnson are never going to set the acting ablaze, but Rodriquez (“Lost”) is as watchable as ever. Theron has fun with her villainy and the supporting turns by Tyrese Gibson and Ludacris are enjoyable. Nathalie Emmanuel though as Ramsey seems as uncomfortable with her “sexy English” stereotype as she should be.
A long way from Brookside. Nathalie Emmanuel uncomfortable as “the sexy one”.
Luke Evans (“The Hobbit“), Kurt Russell (“Deepwater Horizon“) and Helen Mirren (“Eye in the Sky“) turn up in entertaining but underused cameos, but it is Jason Statham as Deckard that has the most fun in the whole film, and his scenes – done largely for comic effect – are the best part of the movie. (But “math” Jason? “MATH”?? I hope your old maths teacher back in London doesn’t get to see this film).
Parking enforcement by the City Council was getting more and more stringent.
If you’re willing to park your brain at the door for two hours then it has some fun moments. But I felt the damage to my IQ might not have been worth the risk, and this really didn’t fill my cinematic tank.
Well, quite a lot of things actually!
Now, I have a confession to make (and I know for some this will be the equivalent of an appalling statement like “I’ve never seen Star Wars”). I have actually never ever seen Fast and Furious 1 through 7! (If it’s any mitigation to this cinematic crime, I did see the F-and-F wannabe “Need for Speed“).
So I was going to be completely lost with the “plot” right? Well actually, no. It was pretty easy to jump in and follow as a piece of popcorn nonsense.
The M25 water main burst was a real bitch for the Monday morning rush-hour.
For nonsense it is (hence the “rabbit ears” round the word “plot” above). The story isn’t just a bit far-fetched. It’s bat-shit crazy where the bat in question has downed a questionable vindaloo two hours earlier!
Dom (Vin Diesel) has turned on his “family”, including his squeeze, the lovely Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), and Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson, “San Andreas“), to team with the above-the-law (and above the clouds) cyber-super-terrorist Cipher (Charlize Theron, “Mad Max: Fury Road“). They have teamed up, apparently, for no other reason than to allow Cipher to ‘kick some global ass’ with a nuclear threat. But given his caring and sharing side, why the sudden betrayal of his nearest and dearest by Dom?
Ice Queen Metallica fan Theron, showing off her hardware.
Where do you begin with the nonsensical story? Jumping from Cuba (with some admittedly fun scenes, but shamelessly objectifying scantily-clad women) via Berlin and New York to the icy wastes of Siberia, it’s just an excuse to show fast cars doing ludicrously unlikely things. There is zero logic within any of the script. Here are just a handful of examples:
the team know (through enormous jumps of speculation) to be present at a particular location in the world and at exactly the time that Dom is there (arrive, look through binoculars, “Oh, there he is”!);
all cars can be automatically hijacked and remotely driven (who knew), but NOT those of the team (obviously);
fast cars/tanks/etc can be magicked from New York to Siberia (wot, no Hertz Siberia available?);
Russian nuclear codes are stolen, so obviously they can’t be changed?
a nuclear submarine is out of the water on wooden blocks, but spin the propeller really REALLY fast and it can suddenly be sailing away.
Muscle for muscle it never looked like being a fair fight.
I appreciate I am being enormously po-faced about this, and this is designed as pure escapism. But is there REALLY any need for this to be such mindless escapism? The director (Gary Gray, “The Italian Job”) and writer (Chris Morgan, responsible for parts 6 and 7) should credit their audience with rather more in the way of intelligence.
Diesel and Johnson are never going to set the acting ablaze, but Rodriquez (“Lost”) is as watchable as ever. Theron has fun with her villainy and the supporting turns by Tyrese Gibson and Ludacris are enjoyable. Nathalie Emmanuel though as Ramsey seems as uncomfortable with her “sexy English” stereotype as she should be.
A long way from Brookside. Nathalie Emmanuel uncomfortable as “the sexy one”.
Luke Evans (“The Hobbit“), Kurt Russell (“Deepwater Horizon“) and Helen Mirren (“Eye in the Sky“) turn up in entertaining but underused cameos, but it is Jason Statham as Deckard that has the most fun in the whole film, and his scenes – done largely for comic effect – are the best part of the movie. (But “math” Jason? “MATH”?? I hope your old maths teacher back in London doesn’t get to see this film).
Parking enforcement by the City Council was getting more and more stringent.
If you’re willing to park your brain at the door for two hours then it has some fun moments. But I felt the damage to my IQ might not have been worth the risk, and this really didn’t fill my cinematic tank.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Hell or High Water (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Sometimes a blind pig finds a truffle”.
One of the joys (and stresses) of the run up to the Oscar weekend is to try to catch all the major award films before the big event. As I bitched about in my BAFTA write-up, UK release dates do NOT make this an easy task, with some films like Paul Verhoeven’s “Elle”, featuring Best Actress nominee Isabelle Huppert, not released until mid March.
This week I have had the chance to catch up on two of the films with award potential that I missed at the cinema, and this is the write up of the first of those: “Hell or High Water”, was first released in September 2016, and what an excellent film it is.
Bank robberies have been featured in many hundreds of films since the early days of cinema: The Great Train Robbery for example dates back to 1903! More recent heist classics such as “Oceans 11”, “Die Hard”, “Run Lola Run” and “The Dark Knight Rises” tend towards the stylised end of the act. Where this film delivers interest is in aligning the protagonists’ drivers with the banking and mortgage ‘crimes’ featured in last year’s “The Big Short”. Add in to the movie Nutribullet a soupçon of the West Texan setting from Arthur Penn’s 1967 “Bonnie and Clyde”, turn it on and you have “Hell or High Water”.
Chris Pine (“Star Trek”) and Ben Foster (“Inferno“, “The Program“) play brothers Toby and Tanner Howard trying to rescue their deceased mother’s ranch from being foreclosed on by Texas Midlands bank. Rather than taking one of the “get out of debt” offers advertised on billboards – cleverly and insistently introduced in long panning highway shots – the brothers have their own financial plan: a scheme that involves early morning raids of the cash drawers of small-town Texas Midlands branches. But the meticulous planning of Toby, as the calm and intelligent one, are constantly at risk of upset by the unpredictable and violent actions of the loose-cannon Tanner.
Since the amounts of cash stolen are in the thousands rather than the millions, the FBI aren’t interested and the case is handed instead by aged and grumpy Texas Ranger Marcus Hamilton (Jeff Bridges, “True Grit”) and his partner Alberto (Gil Birmingham). The pair have a respectful relationship but one built around racial banter, with Hamilton constantly referring to Alberto’s Mexican/Comanche heritage. A cat and mouse game ensues with the lawmen staking out the most likely next hits. The sonorous cello strings of the soundtrack portend a dramatic finale, and we as viewers are not disappointed.
The performances of the main leads are all excellent, with Chris Pine given the chance to show more acting chops than he has had chance to with his previous Kirk/Jack Ryan characters. His chemistry with Ben Foster is just sublime. Similarly, Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham make for a formidable double act. It is Jeff Bridges though who has the standout performance and one that is Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actor. (In fact with Michael Shannon also getting nominated in the same category for “Nocturnal Animals”, we can add ‘West Texan lawman’ to ‘Holocaust movies’ (a Winslet “Extras” reference there!) as the prime bait for Oscar nomination glory!)
The real winner here though is the whip-smart screenplay by Taylor Sheridan (“Sicario“) which sizzles with great lines: lines that make you grin inanely at the screen regularly through the running time.”In your last days in the nursing home, you’ll think of me and giggle” schmoozes Tanner to the pretty hotel check-in girl: a come-on clearly worth remembering as it delivers the goods, as it were.
The trick here is in building up a degree of empathy and sympathy for the characters on both sides. The ‘bad guys’ here are successfully portrayed as the banks. At the moment you can get 25/1 odds on this winning the Best Original Screenplay Oscar – but I would personally rate it right up there with “Manchester by the Sea“.
Deftly directed by Scot David Mackenzie (“Starred Up”) this is a film (the first of two!) that might well have elbowed it’s way into my Top 10 of 2016 if I’d seen it during its cinema release. Well worth catching on the small screen.
This week I have had the chance to catch up on two of the films with award potential that I missed at the cinema, and this is the write up of the first of those: “Hell or High Water”, was first released in September 2016, and what an excellent film it is.
Bank robberies have been featured in many hundreds of films since the early days of cinema: The Great Train Robbery for example dates back to 1903! More recent heist classics such as “Oceans 11”, “Die Hard”, “Run Lola Run” and “The Dark Knight Rises” tend towards the stylised end of the act. Where this film delivers interest is in aligning the protagonists’ drivers with the banking and mortgage ‘crimes’ featured in last year’s “The Big Short”. Add in to the movie Nutribullet a soupçon of the West Texan setting from Arthur Penn’s 1967 “Bonnie and Clyde”, turn it on and you have “Hell or High Water”.
Chris Pine (“Star Trek”) and Ben Foster (“Inferno“, “The Program“) play brothers Toby and Tanner Howard trying to rescue their deceased mother’s ranch from being foreclosed on by Texas Midlands bank. Rather than taking one of the “get out of debt” offers advertised on billboards – cleverly and insistently introduced in long panning highway shots – the brothers have their own financial plan: a scheme that involves early morning raids of the cash drawers of small-town Texas Midlands branches. But the meticulous planning of Toby, as the calm and intelligent one, are constantly at risk of upset by the unpredictable and violent actions of the loose-cannon Tanner.
Since the amounts of cash stolen are in the thousands rather than the millions, the FBI aren’t interested and the case is handed instead by aged and grumpy Texas Ranger Marcus Hamilton (Jeff Bridges, “True Grit”) and his partner Alberto (Gil Birmingham). The pair have a respectful relationship but one built around racial banter, with Hamilton constantly referring to Alberto’s Mexican/Comanche heritage. A cat and mouse game ensues with the lawmen staking out the most likely next hits. The sonorous cello strings of the soundtrack portend a dramatic finale, and we as viewers are not disappointed.
The performances of the main leads are all excellent, with Chris Pine given the chance to show more acting chops than he has had chance to with his previous Kirk/Jack Ryan characters. His chemistry with Ben Foster is just sublime. Similarly, Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham make for a formidable double act. It is Jeff Bridges though who has the standout performance and one that is Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actor. (In fact with Michael Shannon also getting nominated in the same category for “Nocturnal Animals”, we can add ‘West Texan lawman’ to ‘Holocaust movies’ (a Winslet “Extras” reference there!) as the prime bait for Oscar nomination glory!)
The real winner here though is the whip-smart screenplay by Taylor Sheridan (“Sicario“) which sizzles with great lines: lines that make you grin inanely at the screen regularly through the running time.”In your last days in the nursing home, you’ll think of me and giggle” schmoozes Tanner to the pretty hotel check-in girl: a come-on clearly worth remembering as it delivers the goods, as it were.
The trick here is in building up a degree of empathy and sympathy for the characters on both sides. The ‘bad guys’ here are successfully portrayed as the banks. At the moment you can get 25/1 odds on this winning the Best Original Screenplay Oscar – but I would personally rate it right up there with “Manchester by the Sea“.
Deftly directed by Scot David Mackenzie (“Starred Up”) this is a film (the first of two!) that might well have elbowed it’s way into my Top 10 of 2016 if I’d seen it during its cinema release. Well worth catching on the small screen.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Exodus: An Interstellar Pathways Adventure in Tabletop Games
Jan 10, 2022
We ALL loved those “Adventure Books That Let You Choose Your Own Path” when growing up. At least I THINK we all loved them. But what would happen if the same premise was applied to a card game and set in the same universe as another game from the same designer and publisher? Well let me introduce you to Exodus.
Exodus is a “choose thine own pathway” card game for one to five players. In it, players will be reading sections of a story that unfolds across several oversized cards in the hopes of settling down on some other planet not being torn apart by galactic war. Sound familiar?
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components (I think), and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook or purchase the game from the publisher directly. -T
Setup is super simple with this one. Yank out the cards from the box (and make sure they are numerically ordered), place them in a stack on the table, and also place out the stack of Inventory cards. The main Exodus cards are numbered 1-121 and there are 12 Inventory cards. Determine the first reader and the game may begin!
There really are not any “rules,” aside from reading the new card/scenario and choosing the card to jump to in order to continue the story. Or die, as I happen to do quite often. DARN YOU, CARD 13!! Players may decide to follow one path, or players may even split up and follow their own stories. The rules state that stories may have players rejoining each other on future cards, but I have yet to experience that before death.
The game continues with players reading cards, collecting Inventory items that are necessary for certain future choices, and attempting to tell a great story. Exodus could take five minutes, or even up to 60 minutes if the players make good choices. Players decide when to finish, and are even allowed to respawn after death or even retrace their steps in order to choose alternate endings to their stories.
Components. Again, we were provided with a prototype copy of the game. That said, Exodus is a box full of big tarot cards depicting excellent artwork and lots of text to be read. This certainly is not a game for budding readers (like my 5-year-old), but for players who enjoy a nice night reading an interesting sci-fi story.
I have a hard time deciding if I consider this a game or not. There are definitely choices to be made, akin to those made in the inspiration sourcebooks. However, I really feel this is more an activity that is set in the Xenohunters universe that may setup lore and be a jump-off to other games in the family. This is not at all a knock on the game, as having fleshed out lore for a game universe is necessary for a series containing several titles. You know, a game or not a game, I enjoyed playing through this one and discovering little secrets about the lore of the Xenohunters universe.
Though this isn’t a complex game at all, the choices made are sometimes quite difficult and could result in game-end conditions. I have definitely had games last five minutes before I died, but I have also had a couple that have lasted a lot longer as I try to find optimal choices and even backtracked a choice or two. I think I would suggest gamers play through this one a few times before attempting the Xenohunters game, if just for the backstories and lore alone. Want to grab a copy for yourself? Check out the Half-Monster Games store listing for Exodus. I also recommend grabbing both Xenohunters and Trust Me, I’m A Superhero. They are both great!
Exodus is a “choose thine own pathway” card game for one to five players. In it, players will be reading sections of a story that unfolds across several oversized cards in the hopes of settling down on some other planet not being torn apart by galactic war. Sound familiar?
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components (I think), and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook or purchase the game from the publisher directly. -T
Setup is super simple with this one. Yank out the cards from the box (and make sure they are numerically ordered), place them in a stack on the table, and also place out the stack of Inventory cards. The main Exodus cards are numbered 1-121 and there are 12 Inventory cards. Determine the first reader and the game may begin!
There really are not any “rules,” aside from reading the new card/scenario and choosing the card to jump to in order to continue the story. Or die, as I happen to do quite often. DARN YOU, CARD 13!! Players may decide to follow one path, or players may even split up and follow their own stories. The rules state that stories may have players rejoining each other on future cards, but I have yet to experience that before death.
The game continues with players reading cards, collecting Inventory items that are necessary for certain future choices, and attempting to tell a great story. Exodus could take five minutes, or even up to 60 minutes if the players make good choices. Players decide when to finish, and are even allowed to respawn after death or even retrace their steps in order to choose alternate endings to their stories.
Components. Again, we were provided with a prototype copy of the game. That said, Exodus is a box full of big tarot cards depicting excellent artwork and lots of text to be read. This certainly is not a game for budding readers (like my 5-year-old), but for players who enjoy a nice night reading an interesting sci-fi story.
I have a hard time deciding if I consider this a game or not. There are definitely choices to be made, akin to those made in the inspiration sourcebooks. However, I really feel this is more an activity that is set in the Xenohunters universe that may setup lore and be a jump-off to other games in the family. This is not at all a knock on the game, as having fleshed out lore for a game universe is necessary for a series containing several titles. You know, a game or not a game, I enjoyed playing through this one and discovering little secrets about the lore of the Xenohunters universe.
Though this isn’t a complex game at all, the choices made are sometimes quite difficult and could result in game-end conditions. I have definitely had games last five minutes before I died, but I have also had a couple that have lasted a lot longer as I try to find optimal choices and even backtracked a choice or two. I think I would suggest gamers play through this one a few times before attempting the Xenohunters game, if just for the backstories and lore alone. Want to grab a copy for yourself? Check out the Half-Monster Games store listing for Exodus. I also recommend grabbing both Xenohunters and Trust Me, I’m A Superhero. They are both great!
Paul Chesworth (3 KP) created a post
Feb 20, 2018
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Jurassic Parts in Tabletop Games
May 31, 2021
Is it just me or are we experiencing a surge in dinosaur-themed board games lately? I certainly am NOT complaining, as I was one of those dinosaur-obsessed kids growing up (shout out to the dino sheet set I rocked as a kid in the 80s). We have had dino theme parks, and digging for dinos, but we haven’t really gotten this particular spin on paleontology. Yeah, you can find individual bones and dig them up, but what if you found a gigantic slab of rock that encased many different species’ bones? How would you split it up? And what happens when you aren’t the only team to make the discovery?
Jurassic Parts is an interesting mix and spins of area control, enclosure, and set collection for two to five players. In it, players are all paleontologists bent on claiming the biggest and best bones from a giant slab of rock containing dozens of dino species. The catch? Each paleontologist is trying to claim the bones for themselves. Sharp wit, good luck, and a bevvy of sharpened chisels spells success and fame for the paleontologist who wins at collecting Jurassic Parts.
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, set aside one of the Pile of Bones (a wild card, of which there are several in the game) and shuffle the rest of the tiles. Split them into two stacks, flip one stack face-down, and build a slab around the Pile of Bones set aside earlier. This creates the slab of rock the players will be splitting. Each player receives their choice of paleontologist character sheet, chisels in their chosen color, and any pre-start resources per the rulebook. The slab is now ready for splitting!
On a turn, the active player will have several options. Firstly, however, the player must sharpen three chisels by moving them from the Dull Chisels are on the right of their sheet to the Sharp Chisels area on the left. Now the player may place their chisels anywhere on the slab, as long as it is on the gap between two tiles. The purpose of this is to create a wonky line of chisels that will break off sections of the slab from the larger chunk. Players will need to beware of rock piles on either side of their preferred placement, as each rock icon on either side of the placement will require an extra chisel to be dulled and discarded. If a chisel placement would cause a line to be completed, a hunk of the slab is separated from the master slab. Players consult with the line of chisels (as shown below) to determine which player has contributed more to the split than the others. This will rank out all contributing players. The player with the most chisels contributed will be able to claim their choice of HALF of the tiles split off, rounded UP (so a player would receive five tiles from a nine-tile split). The next player in contribution order will then have their choice of HALF of the remaining tiles, rounded UP (so the second player would receive two tiles from the previous example, as there would be four left). Subsequent players would then receive HALF of what is left until all tiles have been claimed, or there remains just one tile. This final tile is then given to the Field Leader for his collection.
In addition to this splitting and claiming on a turn, the active player may also make transactions with the Field Leader at any point during their turn. Actions that can be taken while transacting with the Field Leader are selling one tile to him in exchange for an Amber piece, spending Amber to: ignore rocks on the subsequent two chisel placements, sharpen two additional chisels this turn, take any of the leftover fossil tiles from the Field Leader, or take any fossil tile from the slab (as long as it doesn’t create a split). The first action from the Field Leader will cost the player one Amber. Should they wish to enact another action, its cost is two Amber. Subsequent actions on the same turn cost three Amber each.
As you will notice, fossil tiles from the slab will show plant fossils, Pile of Bones (wild), or actual bones belonging to specific dinosaurs. These specific bones will show an alphabetic letter pair icon to denote to which dinosaur it belongs. If, at the end of the game, players are able to assemble the correct type of fossil tiles belonging to specific dinosaurs, they will score many more points than if the dino skeleton were incomplete. For example, at the end of the game, each fossil tile is worth 1VP if from an incomplete skeleton. However, should a player have completed a Velociraptor skeleton, they will receive 4VP for those two tiles. A completed Triceratops scores 7VP, a T-Rex scores 10VP, a Brachiosaurus scores 15VP, and a tiny Pterodactyl scores 1VP for a complete skeleton because it spans only one tile. The Pile of Bones tiles in the game can be used in place of any other fossil tile to complete a skeleton, and Plant tiles score increasingly more points for a larger collection of them.
Play continues in this fashion of sharpening and placing chisels, breaking off sections of the slab and claiming fossil tiles, and utilizing actions at the Field Leader until all slab tiles have been assigned. The player with the most points from complete and incomplete skeletons and plants will be crowned the winner and the greatest paleontologist in the land… until the next playthrough.
Components. You know how you come to expect certain things from publishers, and can just imagine the quality of the game you are about to receive before seeing it? Such is the case with 25th Century Games. I KNOW that I will be receiving a quality product every time, and this certainly is no exception. The fossil tiles are great and sturdy. The chisels are neatly-designed and multifaceted (which I appreciate, as it would be easy to include tubular chisels and have them rolling around the table everywhere). The amber bits are the typical gemstones you find in Century: Golem Edition, but are the absolute PERFECT color and usage for this game. And did you see that first player marker? It’s a mosquito inside a polished amber stone. I mean, COME ON! How perfect is that? I’m excited just TALKING about the components. I haven’t even touched on art yet, and this is longer than most of my components paragraphs. The art is fabulous. It fits the game and the theme so perfectly – I could not have chosen a better fit myself. Has 25th Century Games set the bar too high for themselves, or will they continue to offer high quality games from here on out? I cannot wait to find out!
So sure, it looks great, but what about the gameplay? Do the art and components merely shield a mediocre game? No. Not at all. Being able to place chisels anywhere you like on the board offers players a freedom that is refreshing, but weighing that against the pressure to contribute to an existing or emerging line of chisels so that you are included in the split is just wonderful. Contemplating turns to sell off fossil tiles in order to earn enough amber to gain more chisels, or bypass rocks, or simply take the perfect tile for your collection offers just enough tacticization (why isn’t that a word…) to warm up the brain without indulging the AP in some players.
This is not at all a heavy game, and it certainly doesn’t need to be. It is just a fun time with friends and family that utilizes interesting twists of mechanics that I enjoy. It feels reminiscent of several games (hints of Through the Desert and a twist on I Split You Choose), but it entirely its own design. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one very rewarding 10 / 12. I generally enjoy most dinosaur-themed games, I understand, but this one sits among the best I have played. If you are looking for something that feels both familiar and fresh, with incredible art and components, you need to grab a copy of Jurassic Parts. There are just so many interesting choices to be made and strategies to attempt. I think I will setup a game right now. Want to come play?
Jurassic Parts is an interesting mix and spins of area control, enclosure, and set collection for two to five players. In it, players are all paleontologists bent on claiming the biggest and best bones from a giant slab of rock containing dozens of dino species. The catch? Each paleontologist is trying to claim the bones for themselves. Sharp wit, good luck, and a bevvy of sharpened chisels spells success and fame for the paleontologist who wins at collecting Jurassic Parts.
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, set aside one of the Pile of Bones (a wild card, of which there are several in the game) and shuffle the rest of the tiles. Split them into two stacks, flip one stack face-down, and build a slab around the Pile of Bones set aside earlier. This creates the slab of rock the players will be splitting. Each player receives their choice of paleontologist character sheet, chisels in their chosen color, and any pre-start resources per the rulebook. The slab is now ready for splitting!
On a turn, the active player will have several options. Firstly, however, the player must sharpen three chisels by moving them from the Dull Chisels are on the right of their sheet to the Sharp Chisels area on the left. Now the player may place their chisels anywhere on the slab, as long as it is on the gap between two tiles. The purpose of this is to create a wonky line of chisels that will break off sections of the slab from the larger chunk. Players will need to beware of rock piles on either side of their preferred placement, as each rock icon on either side of the placement will require an extra chisel to be dulled and discarded. If a chisel placement would cause a line to be completed, a hunk of the slab is separated from the master slab. Players consult with the line of chisels (as shown below) to determine which player has contributed more to the split than the others. This will rank out all contributing players. The player with the most chisels contributed will be able to claim their choice of HALF of the tiles split off, rounded UP (so a player would receive five tiles from a nine-tile split). The next player in contribution order will then have their choice of HALF of the remaining tiles, rounded UP (so the second player would receive two tiles from the previous example, as there would be four left). Subsequent players would then receive HALF of what is left until all tiles have been claimed, or there remains just one tile. This final tile is then given to the Field Leader for his collection.
In addition to this splitting and claiming on a turn, the active player may also make transactions with the Field Leader at any point during their turn. Actions that can be taken while transacting with the Field Leader are selling one tile to him in exchange for an Amber piece, spending Amber to: ignore rocks on the subsequent two chisel placements, sharpen two additional chisels this turn, take any of the leftover fossil tiles from the Field Leader, or take any fossil tile from the slab (as long as it doesn’t create a split). The first action from the Field Leader will cost the player one Amber. Should they wish to enact another action, its cost is two Amber. Subsequent actions on the same turn cost three Amber each.
As you will notice, fossil tiles from the slab will show plant fossils, Pile of Bones (wild), or actual bones belonging to specific dinosaurs. These specific bones will show an alphabetic letter pair icon to denote to which dinosaur it belongs. If, at the end of the game, players are able to assemble the correct type of fossil tiles belonging to specific dinosaurs, they will score many more points than if the dino skeleton were incomplete. For example, at the end of the game, each fossil tile is worth 1VP if from an incomplete skeleton. However, should a player have completed a Velociraptor skeleton, they will receive 4VP for those two tiles. A completed Triceratops scores 7VP, a T-Rex scores 10VP, a Brachiosaurus scores 15VP, and a tiny Pterodactyl scores 1VP for a complete skeleton because it spans only one tile. The Pile of Bones tiles in the game can be used in place of any other fossil tile to complete a skeleton, and Plant tiles score increasingly more points for a larger collection of them.
Play continues in this fashion of sharpening and placing chisels, breaking off sections of the slab and claiming fossil tiles, and utilizing actions at the Field Leader until all slab tiles have been assigned. The player with the most points from complete and incomplete skeletons and plants will be crowned the winner and the greatest paleontologist in the land… until the next playthrough.
Components. You know how you come to expect certain things from publishers, and can just imagine the quality of the game you are about to receive before seeing it? Such is the case with 25th Century Games. I KNOW that I will be receiving a quality product every time, and this certainly is no exception. The fossil tiles are great and sturdy. The chisels are neatly-designed and multifaceted (which I appreciate, as it would be easy to include tubular chisels and have them rolling around the table everywhere). The amber bits are the typical gemstones you find in Century: Golem Edition, but are the absolute PERFECT color and usage for this game. And did you see that first player marker? It’s a mosquito inside a polished amber stone. I mean, COME ON! How perfect is that? I’m excited just TALKING about the components. I haven’t even touched on art yet, and this is longer than most of my components paragraphs. The art is fabulous. It fits the game and the theme so perfectly – I could not have chosen a better fit myself. Has 25th Century Games set the bar too high for themselves, or will they continue to offer high quality games from here on out? I cannot wait to find out!
So sure, it looks great, but what about the gameplay? Do the art and components merely shield a mediocre game? No. Not at all. Being able to place chisels anywhere you like on the board offers players a freedom that is refreshing, but weighing that against the pressure to contribute to an existing or emerging line of chisels so that you are included in the split is just wonderful. Contemplating turns to sell off fossil tiles in order to earn enough amber to gain more chisels, or bypass rocks, or simply take the perfect tile for your collection offers just enough tacticization (why isn’t that a word…) to warm up the brain without indulging the AP in some players.
This is not at all a heavy game, and it certainly doesn’t need to be. It is just a fun time with friends and family that utilizes interesting twists of mechanics that I enjoy. It feels reminiscent of several games (hints of Through the Desert and a twist on I Split You Choose), but it entirely its own design. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one very rewarding 10 / 12. I generally enjoy most dinosaur-themed games, I understand, but this one sits among the best I have played. If you are looking for something that feels both familiar and fresh, with incredible art and components, you need to grab a copy of Jurassic Parts. There are just so many interesting choices to be made and strategies to attempt. I think I will setup a game right now. Want to come play?
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated On the Rocks in Tabletop Games
Sep 7, 2021
I have to come clean right at the top of this one. I have not really tried a whole lot of different cocktails in my life. I have been mostly a beer kind of guy. Not that I am opposed to cocktails at all – in fact, I have really enjoyed most of the drinks I have tried. That said, I wish I was more hip so I would know all the drink lingo and really know why someone would want their concoction shaken and not stirred. So, I went into this one thinking I would learn the secret finally. But I didn’t. I did have a good time playing it though.
“On the Rocks is a marble drafting, cocktail recipe fulfillment game for 1-4 players. It is NOT a drinking game.” – straight from the game’s BGG page. So what does that mean? Well, this one is a variation of the “I cut, you choose” style game, but HEAVILY themed around bartending and enhanced with additional fun mechanics. The winner is the player who amasses the most amount of money by the end of their shift.
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, consult the rulebook, as there are many steps. However, once setup, the game should look similar to the photo below. Choose the starting player and the mixology competition can begin!
On the Rocks is played over several rounds with each player completing specific steps. The first step is optional, and is Tip Cards. Players will accumulate Tip Cards throughout the game, and each one features a special ability that may be used at this time. The next step may also be optional, depending on if the active player had received a Complaint card previously. Complaints must be completed on this step and is pretty much a wrench thrown in the plans by competitors.
Once these (possibly) optional steps have been completed the active player then takes the 2d6 and Rolls them. This number determines how many ingredient marbles are to be pulled from the bag and added into play. For the cost of one ingredient marble, the active player may manipulate the rolled dice by flipping it to its opposite face. Next, the player will Draft the number of marbles from the bag they rolled in the previous step. From these drafted marbles the player will Mix them into the blue Jigger Bowls in the middle of the table one at a time, a la Mancala (oh that’s fun to say: A LA MANCALA!). Then the player will Select & Place a jigger of marbles from the table onto their player board. Placing the corresponding marbles onto the drinks is how recipes can be completed. If any ingredients were selected from the jigger but not placed, the player must then place the ingredients into the Extra Ingredients shot glasses on the top portion of the player board, to Save for later use.
When the ingredient marbles have been placed and saved, the player must then complete the Resolve step. Several ingredient marbles are “Premium” or “Spill” marbles. Premium marbles (golden) allow the player to select ANY two ingredients from the draw bag and the Premium marble is then discarded to the coaster in the middle of the table. The black Spill marble forces the active player to draw a Spill card from the deck and complete its action. It also during the Resolve step that the player may complete a recipe card by discarding the drink’s ingredients to the bag and flipping its recipe card face-down. If the entire order (all of the face-up recipe cards) is completed, the active player’s round ends and they notate this by placing one of the three lemon tokens on their player board. Some round end cleanup is performed, like drawing another set of 3 or 4 drink recipes for an order, and the player’s turn is over.
Once a player has completed their third order of drinks, they must indicate “Last Call” to the other players at the table. This informs the other players that they have one last turn to earn any extra money before the game ends. When the game has been finished, final scoring is performed and the winner is they who earned the most money throughout the night. The other players must immediately fix the winner a drink, or buy the winner a shot. Okay, those aren’t in the rulebook, but merely suggestions for the revised second edition…
Components. For those that follow our reviews, you know I am a sucker for games with great components, and this one definitely delivers for me. The aesthetics and art style are just perfect, the double-layer boards are always lovely, and the rubber jiggers are excellent. I cannot see anything that can be improved in terms of components, and I completely expected that because this was published by Pentree Games and 25th Century Games (one of my favorite publishers in the business). The game looks and feels deluxe, which is VERY satisfying.
I think that the Pittre duo of Michael and Christina really knocked it out of the park with this one. Wait, this is their first game design?? And it’s incredible? Okay okay, I’ll be keeping my eye on you two. On the Rocks is a light game with excellent table presence and some difficult choices presented. Now, the choices may be TOOOOOO difficult for some gamers, especially our AP-prone players. Carefully planning out each ingredient’s distribution into the jigger bowls can send them into a frenzy, so I have advised to choose one or two bowls they wish to buff and concentrate on hitting those with the marbles they want, and just randomly place the other ingredients. I know that is a big ask, but this game is supposed to take 45-90 minutes, not 45-90 hours. My other gripe about the game is the color-dependence of the ingredient marbles. I am sorry to all my colorblind friends out there, but I am unable to see how you might keep a possible 12 different marbles straight in your heads while simultaneously remembering the state of marbles in each jigger bowl. I hope I am completely wrong, as I do not suffer from colorblindness, and please do let me know if this is still playable for those gamers.
These gripes aside, everything else about the game is fabulous. I love being able to manipulate my dice rolls (yes, with a cost) to have ultimate control of the number of marbles pulled from the bag. That bag, however, takes control away immediately unless I draft a bunch of clear (wild) or golden marbles to affect my final placements. I also adore struggling to choose which recipes to concentrate on first, and weighing the possibilities of completing the higher value recipes, or blitzing the smaller ones first.
Oh, and the Spills cards? They can be real pains in the booty. These effectively give the active player the ability to completely botch another players’ plans by discarding their ingredient marbles from their player board. Not enough player interaction? How about negative Tip cards, which are earned by completing a recipe, that impede a competitor’s progress by making them complete the Tip card before being able to move on with their plans, or by limiting their marble selection to two instead of the entire bowl? Yeah, this has player interaction for sure.
Again, I like a good drink now and then, just as much as the next person. However, I have never been a bartender, and I do not plan on ever becoming one. I could not ever imagine having to compete with other bartenders for tip money either, especially if it is as brutally cutthroat as On the Rocks portrays it to be. I will, however, play a game where all that “fun” is diluted to dice, cards, and marbles. I was looking through my collection recently and noticed have embarrassingly few games with an adult beverage theme. If you are like me and require more games depicting fun with alcohol, then I strongly urge you to check out On the Rocks. I feel like I can finally graduate from Fuzzy Navels and Stone Sours just by playing this game and really upping my liquor acumen. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a delicious 5 / 6. It seems readily available for consumption, but please do not try to go drink for drink with this game. It’s not designed to be a drinking game… or is it?
“On the Rocks is a marble drafting, cocktail recipe fulfillment game for 1-4 players. It is NOT a drinking game.” – straight from the game’s BGG page. So what does that mean? Well, this one is a variation of the “I cut, you choose” style game, but HEAVILY themed around bartending and enhanced with additional fun mechanics. The winner is the player who amasses the most amount of money by the end of their shift.
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, consult the rulebook, as there are many steps. However, once setup, the game should look similar to the photo below. Choose the starting player and the mixology competition can begin!
On the Rocks is played over several rounds with each player completing specific steps. The first step is optional, and is Tip Cards. Players will accumulate Tip Cards throughout the game, and each one features a special ability that may be used at this time. The next step may also be optional, depending on if the active player had received a Complaint card previously. Complaints must be completed on this step and is pretty much a wrench thrown in the plans by competitors.
Once these (possibly) optional steps have been completed the active player then takes the 2d6 and Rolls them. This number determines how many ingredient marbles are to be pulled from the bag and added into play. For the cost of one ingredient marble, the active player may manipulate the rolled dice by flipping it to its opposite face. Next, the player will Draft the number of marbles from the bag they rolled in the previous step. From these drafted marbles the player will Mix them into the blue Jigger Bowls in the middle of the table one at a time, a la Mancala (oh that’s fun to say: A LA MANCALA!). Then the player will Select & Place a jigger of marbles from the table onto their player board. Placing the corresponding marbles onto the drinks is how recipes can be completed. If any ingredients were selected from the jigger but not placed, the player must then place the ingredients into the Extra Ingredients shot glasses on the top portion of the player board, to Save for later use.
When the ingredient marbles have been placed and saved, the player must then complete the Resolve step. Several ingredient marbles are “Premium” or “Spill” marbles. Premium marbles (golden) allow the player to select ANY two ingredients from the draw bag and the Premium marble is then discarded to the coaster in the middle of the table. The black Spill marble forces the active player to draw a Spill card from the deck and complete its action. It also during the Resolve step that the player may complete a recipe card by discarding the drink’s ingredients to the bag and flipping its recipe card face-down. If the entire order (all of the face-up recipe cards) is completed, the active player’s round ends and they notate this by placing one of the three lemon tokens on their player board. Some round end cleanup is performed, like drawing another set of 3 or 4 drink recipes for an order, and the player’s turn is over.
Once a player has completed their third order of drinks, they must indicate “Last Call” to the other players at the table. This informs the other players that they have one last turn to earn any extra money before the game ends. When the game has been finished, final scoring is performed and the winner is they who earned the most money throughout the night. The other players must immediately fix the winner a drink, or buy the winner a shot. Okay, those aren’t in the rulebook, but merely suggestions for the revised second edition…
Components. For those that follow our reviews, you know I am a sucker for games with great components, and this one definitely delivers for me. The aesthetics and art style are just perfect, the double-layer boards are always lovely, and the rubber jiggers are excellent. I cannot see anything that can be improved in terms of components, and I completely expected that because this was published by Pentree Games and 25th Century Games (one of my favorite publishers in the business). The game looks and feels deluxe, which is VERY satisfying.
I think that the Pittre duo of Michael and Christina really knocked it out of the park with this one. Wait, this is their first game design?? And it’s incredible? Okay okay, I’ll be keeping my eye on you two. On the Rocks is a light game with excellent table presence and some difficult choices presented. Now, the choices may be TOOOOOO difficult for some gamers, especially our AP-prone players. Carefully planning out each ingredient’s distribution into the jigger bowls can send them into a frenzy, so I have advised to choose one or two bowls they wish to buff and concentrate on hitting those with the marbles they want, and just randomly place the other ingredients. I know that is a big ask, but this game is supposed to take 45-90 minutes, not 45-90 hours. My other gripe about the game is the color-dependence of the ingredient marbles. I am sorry to all my colorblind friends out there, but I am unable to see how you might keep a possible 12 different marbles straight in your heads while simultaneously remembering the state of marbles in each jigger bowl. I hope I am completely wrong, as I do not suffer from colorblindness, and please do let me know if this is still playable for those gamers.
These gripes aside, everything else about the game is fabulous. I love being able to manipulate my dice rolls (yes, with a cost) to have ultimate control of the number of marbles pulled from the bag. That bag, however, takes control away immediately unless I draft a bunch of clear (wild) or golden marbles to affect my final placements. I also adore struggling to choose which recipes to concentrate on first, and weighing the possibilities of completing the higher value recipes, or blitzing the smaller ones first.
Oh, and the Spills cards? They can be real pains in the booty. These effectively give the active player the ability to completely botch another players’ plans by discarding their ingredient marbles from their player board. Not enough player interaction? How about negative Tip cards, which are earned by completing a recipe, that impede a competitor’s progress by making them complete the Tip card before being able to move on with their plans, or by limiting their marble selection to two instead of the entire bowl? Yeah, this has player interaction for sure.
Again, I like a good drink now and then, just as much as the next person. However, I have never been a bartender, and I do not plan on ever becoming one. I could not ever imagine having to compete with other bartenders for tip money either, especially if it is as brutally cutthroat as On the Rocks portrays it to be. I will, however, play a game where all that “fun” is diluted to dice, cards, and marbles. I was looking through my collection recently and noticed have embarrassingly few games with an adult beverage theme. If you are like me and require more games depicting fun with alcohol, then I strongly urge you to check out On the Rocks. I feel like I can finally graduate from Fuzzy Navels and Stone Sours just by playing this game and really upping my liquor acumen. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a delicious 5 / 6. It seems readily available for consumption, but please do not try to go drink for drink with this game. It’s not designed to be a drinking game… or is it?
