Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated The Heartbreak Kid (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
It has been almost ten years since Ben Stiller teamed with the Farrelly brothers for the comedy classic “There’s Something About Mary”, which launched a series of highly successful films for Stiller who has championed the likeable loser role to the delight of audiences worldwide.
In the new film “The Heartbreak Kid”, Stiller is Eddie Cantrow, a successful owner of a San Francisco sporting goods, store who is at a crossroads in his life. At 40, Eddie is unmarried, not dating anyone, and about to attend the wedding of his former fiancé.
As if Eddie did not have enough to on his mind as he prepares for the wedding, his father (Jerry Stiller), constantly grills him on the need for him to sleep with more women and settle down. His best friend Mac (Rob Coddry) always touts the virtues of marriage and the need to do what the woman tells him to.
Shortly after the wedding, Eddie sees a lady being mugged and attempts to help her out. While things do not go as planned, he does form a connection with her and learns that her name is Lila (Malin Akerman), and despite his inability to muster the courage to ask for her number, she eventually shows up at his store looking for him.
The two begin to date and it looks like Eddie has finally found the perfect girl for him. She even shows old fashioned values by not wanting to have sex until later in their relationship, as she does not want to mess up a good thing.
The couple’s plans take an unexpected detour when Lila informs Eddie that her job plans to move her overseas for two years. When Eddie learns that her company will not transfer a married person, he musters up the courage and marries Lila after only 6 weeks of data.
The smitten couple plan to take three weeks to drive down to Cabo and stay at a resort, and enjoy their first weeks as husband and wife. Along the way, Eddie starts to see some annoying behavior arise in Lila, such as actively singing and acting along to every song on the radio, and some very acrobatic, dominate, and painful tendencies when they consummate their marriage.
As the honeymoon unfolds, Eddie becomes trapped in a nightmare, as it seems that Lila has become a crazy freak, and is not the person he though he married. Unsure what to do next, Eddie meets a lady named Miranda (Michelle Monaghan), while Lila is recovering from severe sunburn.
Intrigued by Miranda, Eddie starts to spend time with her, and soon falls for her which forces Eddie to figure out how to break the news of his marriage to Miranda, and how to get away from Lila.
In true Farrelly brother’s style, a series of outrageous and over the top events follows punctuated by some very crude and at times funny jokes and situations that push Eddie to the limits to find true love.
The film is a remake of the 1972 Neil Simon film of the same name, and while updated with more off color humor, the basic premise of the film has remained unchanged. There are some funny moments in the film and Stiller once again gets the job done as the likeable Eddie.
The problem is that for me, the film was two long, as many times there were gaps of almost twenty minutes between some of the good jokes, and I was left watching fairly dull stuff waiting for the next funny moment to arrive.
The performances in the film were eager, and the brothers did a workmanlike job of direction, as none of the cast was really challenged by the material. Even fine supporting work by Carlos Mencia as Uncle Tito did not get the chance to reach the potential his character showed. In the end, the film just had too many moments that did not work, as the jokes were too few and far between to truly be effective.
In the new film “The Heartbreak Kid”, Stiller is Eddie Cantrow, a successful owner of a San Francisco sporting goods, store who is at a crossroads in his life. At 40, Eddie is unmarried, not dating anyone, and about to attend the wedding of his former fiancé.
As if Eddie did not have enough to on his mind as he prepares for the wedding, his father (Jerry Stiller), constantly grills him on the need for him to sleep with more women and settle down. His best friend Mac (Rob Coddry) always touts the virtues of marriage and the need to do what the woman tells him to.
Shortly after the wedding, Eddie sees a lady being mugged and attempts to help her out. While things do not go as planned, he does form a connection with her and learns that her name is Lila (Malin Akerman), and despite his inability to muster the courage to ask for her number, she eventually shows up at his store looking for him.
The two begin to date and it looks like Eddie has finally found the perfect girl for him. She even shows old fashioned values by not wanting to have sex until later in their relationship, as she does not want to mess up a good thing.
The couple’s plans take an unexpected detour when Lila informs Eddie that her job plans to move her overseas for two years. When Eddie learns that her company will not transfer a married person, he musters up the courage and marries Lila after only 6 weeks of data.
The smitten couple plan to take three weeks to drive down to Cabo and stay at a resort, and enjoy their first weeks as husband and wife. Along the way, Eddie starts to see some annoying behavior arise in Lila, such as actively singing and acting along to every song on the radio, and some very acrobatic, dominate, and painful tendencies when they consummate their marriage.
As the honeymoon unfolds, Eddie becomes trapped in a nightmare, as it seems that Lila has become a crazy freak, and is not the person he though he married. Unsure what to do next, Eddie meets a lady named Miranda (Michelle Monaghan), while Lila is recovering from severe sunburn.
Intrigued by Miranda, Eddie starts to spend time with her, and soon falls for her which forces Eddie to figure out how to break the news of his marriage to Miranda, and how to get away from Lila.
In true Farrelly brother’s style, a series of outrageous and over the top events follows punctuated by some very crude and at times funny jokes and situations that push Eddie to the limits to find true love.
The film is a remake of the 1972 Neil Simon film of the same name, and while updated with more off color humor, the basic premise of the film has remained unchanged. There are some funny moments in the film and Stiller once again gets the job done as the likeable Eddie.
The problem is that for me, the film was two long, as many times there were gaps of almost twenty minutes between some of the good jokes, and I was left watching fairly dull stuff waiting for the next funny moment to arrive.
The performances in the film were eager, and the brothers did a workmanlike job of direction, as none of the cast was really challenged by the material. Even fine supporting work by Carlos Mencia as Uncle Tito did not get the chance to reach the potential his character showed. In the end, the film just had too many moments that did not work, as the jokes were too few and far between to truly be effective.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Fright Night (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Twenty-six years ago, “Fright Night” premiered in theaters and went on to become a fondly remembered title amongst horror fans. The movie cleverly combined horror and humor to create a fresh take on the vampire and teen horror genres which had started to grow stale. While the movie spawned a largely forgettable direct to video sequel, the original film has remained popular over the years. So, when I first heard that they were planning on remaking the film I was skeptical as I felt it would be very difficult to match the original film.
Boasting an impressive cast which includes Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, David Tennant, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and Toni Collette, the remake does not try to reinvent the wheel, but instead takes the formula of the original and creates an entirely new entry into the saga.
For those unfamiliar with the series, Yelchin stars as Charlie Brewster, a young man who is trying to balance watching over his single mother, and his growing relationship with a girl way out of his league named Amy (Imogen Poots). He is also wrestling with becoming part of a cooler crowd at the cost of alienating his geeky former best friend, Ed, played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse.
Colin Farrell plays the handsome and suave new next door neighbor who easily charms Charlie’s mom, played by Toni Colette. Unbeknownst to his neighbors, the charming and charismatic Jerry, played by Colin Ferrell, is actually a vampire who’s come to their Las Vegas suburb to continue his nighttime hunts. Ed has become suspicious of the recent disappearances in their community and confides to Charlie that he’s had Jerry under surveillance and knows that he is a vampire.
Needless to say this does not sit well with Charlie, who distances himself further from Ed. But when Ed goes missing, Charlie decides to do some investigating of his own. Charlie turns to a local Vegas performance artist named Peter Vincent (David Tennant), whose vampire-themed show portrays him as an expert in fighting the undead. While at first skeptical over Charlie’s claims, a few devastating confrontations with Jerry and his minions forces Vincent to rethink his role. The two unlikely allies soon find themselves in a deadly race against time to defeat Jerry and save their loved ones before it’s too late.
The film cleverly combines horror and comedy and does a good job of providing some suspenseful moments in between the blood and gore, managing to squeeze in more than a few laughs along the way. While not overly scary, the visual effects work is solid and aside from the converted 3-D is a really enjoyable to watch. The film would’ve been much better had it been shot in 3-D or simply left as a 2-D film as the conversion really didn’t offer anything of value as is often the case in these lab converted efforts.
The cast works very well with one another and Farrell cheekily introduces a few new wrinkles to the vampire lore. I really enjoyed David Tennant’s performance and should they do a sequel I certainly hope that they bring him back. Anton Yelchin gives a reliable performance but I was surprised that Christopher Mintz-Plasse did not have a bigger role but he does have some memorable moments in the film. What really impressed me was that the film did not attempt to do a shot-by-shot remake of the original but instead took the premise of the original and offered a fresh take that easily could have been issued as the third chapter in the series rather than a reboot. While there were nods to the original, outside of the premise it was very much its own film.
The film is not going to set any high marks for new standards in horror nor is the plot fresh and original. It simply knows what its target audience and source material are and sets a course right down the middle without attempting to deviate too much one way or another. “Fright Night” just might be perfect for those looking for a dose of nostalgia and some highly suspenseful, fun entertainment.
Boasting an impressive cast which includes Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, David Tennant, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and Toni Collette, the remake does not try to reinvent the wheel, but instead takes the formula of the original and creates an entirely new entry into the saga.
For those unfamiliar with the series, Yelchin stars as Charlie Brewster, a young man who is trying to balance watching over his single mother, and his growing relationship with a girl way out of his league named Amy (Imogen Poots). He is also wrestling with becoming part of a cooler crowd at the cost of alienating his geeky former best friend, Ed, played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse.
Colin Farrell plays the handsome and suave new next door neighbor who easily charms Charlie’s mom, played by Toni Colette. Unbeknownst to his neighbors, the charming and charismatic Jerry, played by Colin Ferrell, is actually a vampire who’s come to their Las Vegas suburb to continue his nighttime hunts. Ed has become suspicious of the recent disappearances in their community and confides to Charlie that he’s had Jerry under surveillance and knows that he is a vampire.
Needless to say this does not sit well with Charlie, who distances himself further from Ed. But when Ed goes missing, Charlie decides to do some investigating of his own. Charlie turns to a local Vegas performance artist named Peter Vincent (David Tennant), whose vampire-themed show portrays him as an expert in fighting the undead. While at first skeptical over Charlie’s claims, a few devastating confrontations with Jerry and his minions forces Vincent to rethink his role. The two unlikely allies soon find themselves in a deadly race against time to defeat Jerry and save their loved ones before it’s too late.
The film cleverly combines horror and comedy and does a good job of providing some suspenseful moments in between the blood and gore, managing to squeeze in more than a few laughs along the way. While not overly scary, the visual effects work is solid and aside from the converted 3-D is a really enjoyable to watch. The film would’ve been much better had it been shot in 3-D or simply left as a 2-D film as the conversion really didn’t offer anything of value as is often the case in these lab converted efforts.
The cast works very well with one another and Farrell cheekily introduces a few new wrinkles to the vampire lore. I really enjoyed David Tennant’s performance and should they do a sequel I certainly hope that they bring him back. Anton Yelchin gives a reliable performance but I was surprised that Christopher Mintz-Plasse did not have a bigger role but he does have some memorable moments in the film. What really impressed me was that the film did not attempt to do a shot-by-shot remake of the original but instead took the premise of the original and offered a fresh take that easily could have been issued as the third chapter in the series rather than a reboot. While there were nods to the original, outside of the premise it was very much its own film.
The film is not going to set any high marks for new standards in horror nor is the plot fresh and original. It simply knows what its target audience and source material are and sets a course right down the middle without attempting to deviate too much one way or another. “Fright Night” just might be perfect for those looking for a dose of nostalgia and some highly suspenseful, fun entertainment.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) created a post
May 18, 2018 (Updated Jun 12, 2018)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Bandada in Tabletop Games
Jan 19, 2021
Though I may not look it, I am indeed half Mexican. That said, the word, “Bandada,” means, “Flock.” I don’t really get to flex my Spanish skills often, and it shows. I definitely looked up the word Bandada before reading the rules this time. In any case, as gamers we all belong to the same nerdy flock of people who just like to have a great time with friends, family, and some colorful cardboard and plastic. Birds and other flying creatures have been all the rage recently, but will I be adding this one to my flock of gems?
In Bandada players are attempting to catch and return birds that have escaped from the local zoo. These birds are attracted to different food morsels (namely black, blue, and yellow dice) and by manipulating the food source players may be able to catch all the right birdies and score tons of points.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, 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, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
Disclaimer the second: I am previewing this using the Solo Adventure Variant, which uses many of the same rules as the main multiplayer rules with a few twists.
To setup the solo player will roll all 12 dice and sort them by color. Shuffle the bird cards and reveal three cards face-up in a market row. Grab a scoring cube for the score card, and choose which location card to play. Select (randomly or not) a bonus scoring card and the game may begin!
There are other optional variant rules that can be added to the adventure, but I will not be detailing those here.
Turns are divided into two phases: the Drafting phase and the Cleanup phase. During the Drafting phase the player will choose one of the face-up bird cards to be added to their personal bandada, perform the action described on the top of the card, and then add it to their bandada (personal tableau).
After drafting and bandada-ing the player will perform the Cleanup phase by scoring points based on the bird card abilities printed on the bottom, discarding the remaining face-up cards, and then adding three new birds cards to that market row. This phase differs from the multiplayer rules in that birds are scored once added to the bandada in multiplayer and then again during the Cleanup phase. In the solo mode they are scored only once at the end of the Cleanup phase.
The bird cards all have actions printed at the top that will manipulate the food dice in some way. Actions could simply give the birds a specific number of colored dice and adjust the value up or down. Some abilities will have the player flipping the dice to the opposite side, or adjusting multiple dice by splitting a positive or negative value. Of note in this game is that dice values wrap around the die. For example to increase the value of a 6 die it then wraps around to become a value 1. Manipulation of these food dice will make or break the game success, as I found in all my plays.
The game continues in this fashion until after the fourth full round. The player then totals their score on the score card, adds the points from the bonus card chosen at the beginning, and checks for the victory condition on the location card (the rules suggest starting in Africa). If the player has met the victory condition, the trip was a success! If, like me, the player fails to make 35 points in Africa every time, they must play again!
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, but I have to say that this is a beautiful minimalistic game. It consists of primarily dice and cards. The dice are translucent and good quality, though translucent yellow with white pips can be hard to read at times. The cards are good quality as well and feature breathtaking avian art. It really does look great on the table and doesn’t take up a ton of room, so I have very few negatives here.
Gameplay is super speedy and agonizing for a solo player. Maximizing points on every turn and having to consider specific win conditions makes for a crunchy little card game that takes about 10 minutes to play. It is definitely something I will be reaching for whenever I have a spare 15 minutes. With setup and teardown I am looking at a fulfilling, if not frustrating, card game experience that can be both anxiety-triggering and also quite calming. I was not sure what to expect when I opened the box, but boy am I glad I have this little gem.
If you are in the market for a great little solo game that can also play multiplayer, looks amazing, and is quick to complete, then look no further. If you are an avian aficionado and need your board and card game collection to reflect this, check out Bandada. I need you all to also promise to write me back once you figure out how to succeed in Africa, as I just plum can’t do it. But I am going to keep trying. As I always say, a game that makes you want to play it more is a mark of a great game, and I think a great game comes in this little box.
In Bandada players are attempting to catch and return birds that have escaped from the local zoo. These birds are attracted to different food morsels (namely black, blue, and yellow dice) and by manipulating the food source players may be able to catch all the right birdies and score tons of points.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, 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, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
Disclaimer the second: I am previewing this using the Solo Adventure Variant, which uses many of the same rules as the main multiplayer rules with a few twists.
To setup the solo player will roll all 12 dice and sort them by color. Shuffle the bird cards and reveal three cards face-up in a market row. Grab a scoring cube for the score card, and choose which location card to play. Select (randomly or not) a bonus scoring card and the game may begin!
There are other optional variant rules that can be added to the adventure, but I will not be detailing those here.
Turns are divided into two phases: the Drafting phase and the Cleanup phase. During the Drafting phase the player will choose one of the face-up bird cards to be added to their personal bandada, perform the action described on the top of the card, and then add it to their bandada (personal tableau).
After drafting and bandada-ing the player will perform the Cleanup phase by scoring points based on the bird card abilities printed on the bottom, discarding the remaining face-up cards, and then adding three new birds cards to that market row. This phase differs from the multiplayer rules in that birds are scored once added to the bandada in multiplayer and then again during the Cleanup phase. In the solo mode they are scored only once at the end of the Cleanup phase.
The bird cards all have actions printed at the top that will manipulate the food dice in some way. Actions could simply give the birds a specific number of colored dice and adjust the value up or down. Some abilities will have the player flipping the dice to the opposite side, or adjusting multiple dice by splitting a positive or negative value. Of note in this game is that dice values wrap around the die. For example to increase the value of a 6 die it then wraps around to become a value 1. Manipulation of these food dice will make or break the game success, as I found in all my plays.
The game continues in this fashion until after the fourth full round. The player then totals their score on the score card, adds the points from the bonus card chosen at the beginning, and checks for the victory condition on the location card (the rules suggest starting in Africa). If the player has met the victory condition, the trip was a success! If, like me, the player fails to make 35 points in Africa every time, they must play again!
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, but I have to say that this is a beautiful minimalistic game. It consists of primarily dice and cards. The dice are translucent and good quality, though translucent yellow with white pips can be hard to read at times. The cards are good quality as well and feature breathtaking avian art. It really does look great on the table and doesn’t take up a ton of room, so I have very few negatives here.
Gameplay is super speedy and agonizing for a solo player. Maximizing points on every turn and having to consider specific win conditions makes for a crunchy little card game that takes about 10 minutes to play. It is definitely something I will be reaching for whenever I have a spare 15 minutes. With setup and teardown I am looking at a fulfilling, if not frustrating, card game experience that can be both anxiety-triggering and also quite calming. I was not sure what to expect when I opened the box, but boy am I glad I have this little gem.
If you are in the market for a great little solo game that can also play multiplayer, looks amazing, and is quick to complete, then look no further. If you are an avian aficionado and need your board and card game collection to reflect this, check out Bandada. I need you all to also promise to write me back once you figure out how to succeed in Africa, as I just plum can’t do it. But I am going to keep trying. As I always say, a game that makes you want to play it more is a mark of a great game, and I think a great game comes in this little box.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Citadels in Tabletop Games
Aug 13, 2021
It has been documented several times that I, Travis Lopez, would be a horrible city planner. So why do I keep playing these games that require me to build city buildings and components and why do I enjoy them so much? Well, truth be told, this is a game that I had traded for years ago, got rid of, missed terribly, and repurchased. However, this is the newer version that includes a lot more in the box. Does it mean that the game is better? More stuff means better game, right?
In Citadels players will be donning the mantle of potential Master Builders and will need to build the greatest buildings within the city and manipulate the powers of special people within its walls. The game ends when a player has built their seventh district building. The player with the most VP at this time will be crowned Master Builder and winner of Citadels!
To setup, decide which eight characters will be used in the game, gather their cards and tokens, and place their tokens in ascending order on the table. This is to remind all players which characters (and their rank) is in play. Assemble the district (building) cards per the rules and shuffle the deck. Deal each player four of these district cards along with two gold coins. The eldest player will begin the game as the current First Player (complete with crown mini) and will begin the first phase of the first round.
Citadels is played over several rounds, each with two phases played within. The first phase is the Selection Phase, where the current First Player takes the character cards, shuffles them, adds zero to two cards (dependent upon number of players) face-up on the table and one card face-down. They then choose from the cards remaining in hand which character’s powers they would like to enact for the turn. The cards are passed to the next player in line who will do the same, and so on around the table.
Once all players have chosen their character card, the Turn Phase can begin. The current First Player (the one with the crown) will announce the characters in rank order, with the lowest character going first. In a typical game using only original base characters, this is “1: Assassin.” Whomever chose the Assassin card will flip over their character card, perform its special power, and then continue with their turn. In this case, the Assassin’s special power is to announce the name of a CHARACTER to assassinate. NOTE: This does NOT mean the name of the PLAYER. So the Assassin could choose to assassinate the King character, not the Travis player. After the character has used their power, the player can continue with the rest of their turn, though some character powers may be used at any time during the player’s turn.
After the character power is used, the player will gather resources in the form of two gold coins from the bank or by drawing two district cards from the deck and choosing one to keep in hand. After this choice, the player may then build one district in their play area if they wish and if they can afford to do so. Once complete, the crowned First Player will call out the next character rank (2: Thief in our example) who will continue their turn in the same way. The game continues in this fashion until a player has built their seventh district. The round continues until all players have had an equal amount of turns. Players then count VP on district cards and bonuses per the rulebook. The player with the most VP at the end of the game is crowned the Master Builder and winner of Citadels!
Components. I have to say that I enjoyed the components in the older version of Citadels I used to have just fine. I had sleeved all my cards, and the gold coins were nice back in the day. This version, however, includes many more components and each one is higher quality than the previous version’s. The art on the cards has been updated and is much much nicer now as well. The addition of the crown mini, the character tokens, and other components not mentioned here merely increases my love for Citadels. Windrider has knocked it out of the park with this version. And that’s saying nothing about all the additional characters now included in the game! Oh boy, so much variability!
Along with that variability is the customization of the game. You can play with one of the six pre-constructed provided suggestions in the rulebook or create your own combination of different characters. With three versions of each rank, many possibilities are… possible.
I do love Citadels, and with the right group can be a show-stopper all on its own. Some players may get a little offended or sassy because there is a fair amount of Take That in Citadels with the character interactions, so if playing with people who don’t understand the difference between a game and real life, I would prep them appropriately. I love being able to outwit my opponents by drafting certain characters they didn’t think I would want. Keeping them all on their toes during the game is sneaky fun.
So for me, with the amount of replayability, high quality and excellent components, and cutthroat gameplay I simply adore Citadels. I can pull it out with different groups and have different play experiences and try to tailor the character offering to the strengths of my players, or simply use one listed in the back of the rulebook. Purple Phoenix Games gives Citadels an underhanded, yet scholarly 21 / 24. It’s a stunning, magical, wonderful game and one of Bruno Faidutti’s best ever! Surely this is already in your collection, right? If not, make it so.
In Citadels players will be donning the mantle of potential Master Builders and will need to build the greatest buildings within the city and manipulate the powers of special people within its walls. The game ends when a player has built their seventh district building. The player with the most VP at this time will be crowned Master Builder and winner of Citadels!
To setup, decide which eight characters will be used in the game, gather their cards and tokens, and place their tokens in ascending order on the table. This is to remind all players which characters (and their rank) is in play. Assemble the district (building) cards per the rules and shuffle the deck. Deal each player four of these district cards along with two gold coins. The eldest player will begin the game as the current First Player (complete with crown mini) and will begin the first phase of the first round.
Citadels is played over several rounds, each with two phases played within. The first phase is the Selection Phase, where the current First Player takes the character cards, shuffles them, adds zero to two cards (dependent upon number of players) face-up on the table and one card face-down. They then choose from the cards remaining in hand which character’s powers they would like to enact for the turn. The cards are passed to the next player in line who will do the same, and so on around the table.
Once all players have chosen their character card, the Turn Phase can begin. The current First Player (the one with the crown) will announce the characters in rank order, with the lowest character going first. In a typical game using only original base characters, this is “1: Assassin.” Whomever chose the Assassin card will flip over their character card, perform its special power, and then continue with their turn. In this case, the Assassin’s special power is to announce the name of a CHARACTER to assassinate. NOTE: This does NOT mean the name of the PLAYER. So the Assassin could choose to assassinate the King character, not the Travis player. After the character has used their power, the player can continue with the rest of their turn, though some character powers may be used at any time during the player’s turn.
After the character power is used, the player will gather resources in the form of two gold coins from the bank or by drawing two district cards from the deck and choosing one to keep in hand. After this choice, the player may then build one district in their play area if they wish and if they can afford to do so. Once complete, the crowned First Player will call out the next character rank (2: Thief in our example) who will continue their turn in the same way. The game continues in this fashion until a player has built their seventh district. The round continues until all players have had an equal amount of turns. Players then count VP on district cards and bonuses per the rulebook. The player with the most VP at the end of the game is crowned the Master Builder and winner of Citadels!
Components. I have to say that I enjoyed the components in the older version of Citadels I used to have just fine. I had sleeved all my cards, and the gold coins were nice back in the day. This version, however, includes many more components and each one is higher quality than the previous version’s. The art on the cards has been updated and is much much nicer now as well. The addition of the crown mini, the character tokens, and other components not mentioned here merely increases my love for Citadels. Windrider has knocked it out of the park with this version. And that’s saying nothing about all the additional characters now included in the game! Oh boy, so much variability!
Along with that variability is the customization of the game. You can play with one of the six pre-constructed provided suggestions in the rulebook or create your own combination of different characters. With three versions of each rank, many possibilities are… possible.
I do love Citadels, and with the right group can be a show-stopper all on its own. Some players may get a little offended or sassy because there is a fair amount of Take That in Citadels with the character interactions, so if playing with people who don’t understand the difference between a game and real life, I would prep them appropriately. I love being able to outwit my opponents by drafting certain characters they didn’t think I would want. Keeping them all on their toes during the game is sneaky fun.
So for me, with the amount of replayability, high quality and excellent components, and cutthroat gameplay I simply adore Citadels. I can pull it out with different groups and have different play experiences and try to tailor the character offering to the strengths of my players, or simply use one listed in the back of the rulebook. Purple Phoenix Games gives Citadels an underhanded, yet scholarly 21 / 24. It’s a stunning, magical, wonderful game and one of Bruno Faidutti’s best ever! Surely this is already in your collection, right? If not, make it so.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Network (1976) in Movies
Feb 9, 2018
All time classic
"I'M MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!"
One of the most famous lines in film history is as impactful today as it was when it was first uttered by fictitious news anchor Howard Beale in Paddy Chayefsky's (seemingly) parody of where TV and TV news is heading, 1976's NETWORK.
The astonishing thing about this terrific motion picture is how prescient it is. News is now entertainment. Appeal to the disaffected masses. Drive our message to the viewers. Be provocative. The 6:00 news had "less than 1 minute of hard news, the rest was sex, scandal, brutal crime sports, children with incurable diseases and lost puppies."
Sound familiar? This isn't from today, it came from this movie that was made 42 years ago as a cautionary tale of what might happen.
Besides the social ramifications, how does this film hold up? Quite well, indeed. A rare 10 star BankofMarquis film. Starting with the great Paddy Chayefsky's Oscar winning Screenplay. This was the capper on a brilliant career from Chayefsky - who also won Oscar's for his screenplay for 1972's THE HOSPITAL (I'll have to check that one out) and 1956's MARTY.
What does a terrific screenplay do? It attracts top-level talent clamoring to be in this - and they all deliver. Start with Faye Dunaway who won the Lead Actress Oscar for her role as Entertainment Head Diane Christensen - a driven, work hard, play hard individual who has the idea to make news "entertainment". Lost in the fog of time (and MOMMIE DEAREST) is the fact that in the mid-1970's, Dunaway was, perhaps, the greatest leading actress of the day and her skills are in sharp display in this film.
Joining Dunaway in terrific supporting turns are Robert Duvall, following his turns as Tom Hagen in GODFATHER I and II, as network head, Frank Hackett, Ned Beatty as Ned Jennings, President of the company that owns the network - he has a speech towards the tail end of this film that is as good - both in performance and in the way that it is shot - as anything put upon the screen - it was masterful. Speaking of masterful, Beatrice Straight won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in one of the shortest performances to ever win. She is in this film for about 6 minutes in total - but she won her Oscar for a 5 minute scene that is, most definately Oscar-worthy.
And then there are the leading men. William Holden gives one of the last great performances of his extraordinary career as the "voice of reason in this film". He is our everyman caught up in the bizarre, absurd circumstances that evolve around him. It is his effort to try to make sense of this insanity that jumps off the screen. Holden was, deservedly, nominated for a Best Actor in a Leading Role Oscar, but lost (rightfully so) to Peter Finch's turn as crazed newsman turned prophet, Howard Beale. His maniacal (but not over the top) turn is one for the ages. If you do nothing else, see this film for his performance (but there is so, so much more to love here). Unfortunately, Finch passed away from a heart attack in between his Oscar nomination and win, and was the first posthumous winner in an acting role (sadly, Heath Ledger would join this "club" years later).
Finally, enough cannot be said about Sidney Lumet's direction. A movie like this would not succeed without a sure, steady and seasoned hand at the helm - and this is how I would describe Lumet's direction. He lets the camera roll and lets the actors and the screenplay take center stage, not drawing attention away, but adding to the themes of the film throughout - especially in Beatty's speech at the end.
NETWORK was nominated for (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Film of 1976. Did it lose out to other nominees ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN or TAXI DRIVER? Nope, it lost to ROCKY.
Let that sink in.
If you get a chance to watch (or rewatch) this film, I highly recommend you do so. For me, it was GREAT to watch this on the big screen with an audience, one of the reasons I love - and will continue to attend - the SECRET CINEMA series of films.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
One of the most famous lines in film history is as impactful today as it was when it was first uttered by fictitious news anchor Howard Beale in Paddy Chayefsky's (seemingly) parody of where TV and TV news is heading, 1976's NETWORK.
The astonishing thing about this terrific motion picture is how prescient it is. News is now entertainment. Appeal to the disaffected masses. Drive our message to the viewers. Be provocative. The 6:00 news had "less than 1 minute of hard news, the rest was sex, scandal, brutal crime sports, children with incurable diseases and lost puppies."
Sound familiar? This isn't from today, it came from this movie that was made 42 years ago as a cautionary tale of what might happen.
Besides the social ramifications, how does this film hold up? Quite well, indeed. A rare 10 star BankofMarquis film. Starting with the great Paddy Chayefsky's Oscar winning Screenplay. This was the capper on a brilliant career from Chayefsky - who also won Oscar's for his screenplay for 1972's THE HOSPITAL (I'll have to check that one out) and 1956's MARTY.
What does a terrific screenplay do? It attracts top-level talent clamoring to be in this - and they all deliver. Start with Faye Dunaway who won the Lead Actress Oscar for her role as Entertainment Head Diane Christensen - a driven, work hard, play hard individual who has the idea to make news "entertainment". Lost in the fog of time (and MOMMIE DEAREST) is the fact that in the mid-1970's, Dunaway was, perhaps, the greatest leading actress of the day and her skills are in sharp display in this film.
Joining Dunaway in terrific supporting turns are Robert Duvall, following his turns as Tom Hagen in GODFATHER I and II, as network head, Frank Hackett, Ned Beatty as Ned Jennings, President of the company that owns the network - he has a speech towards the tail end of this film that is as good - both in performance and in the way that it is shot - as anything put upon the screen - it was masterful. Speaking of masterful, Beatrice Straight won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in one of the shortest performances to ever win. She is in this film for about 6 minutes in total - but she won her Oscar for a 5 minute scene that is, most definately Oscar-worthy.
And then there are the leading men. William Holden gives one of the last great performances of his extraordinary career as the "voice of reason in this film". He is our everyman caught up in the bizarre, absurd circumstances that evolve around him. It is his effort to try to make sense of this insanity that jumps off the screen. Holden was, deservedly, nominated for a Best Actor in a Leading Role Oscar, but lost (rightfully so) to Peter Finch's turn as crazed newsman turned prophet, Howard Beale. His maniacal (but not over the top) turn is one for the ages. If you do nothing else, see this film for his performance (but there is so, so much more to love here). Unfortunately, Finch passed away from a heart attack in between his Oscar nomination and win, and was the first posthumous winner in an acting role (sadly, Heath Ledger would join this "club" years later).
Finally, enough cannot be said about Sidney Lumet's direction. A movie like this would not succeed without a sure, steady and seasoned hand at the helm - and this is how I would describe Lumet's direction. He lets the camera roll and lets the actors and the screenplay take center stage, not drawing attention away, but adding to the themes of the film throughout - especially in Beatty's speech at the end.
NETWORK was nominated for (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Film of 1976. Did it lose out to other nominees ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN or TAXI DRIVER? Nope, it lost to ROCKY.
Let that sink in.
If you get a chance to watch (or rewatch) this film, I highly recommend you do so. For me, it was GREAT to watch this on the big screen with an audience, one of the reasons I love - and will continue to attend - the SECRET CINEMA series of films.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Farewell (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Simply brilliant. Go see it!
The Long Goodbye.
With “Downton Abbey” and now “The Farewell”, the excesses of the summer blockbusters are fading away. (Though I’m sure Rambo might have something to say about that!)
The Plot.
Billi (Awkwafina) is a young Chinese New Yorker struggling to make her way in the world. She has a place of her own to distance herself from her parents – Haiyan (“Arrival“‘s Tzi Ma) and Lu Jian (Diana Lin) – but is struggling to fund it. But despite a typically spiky teenage relationship with her parents, family is important to her.
There’s a big shock then when her beloved “Nai Nai” (Shuzhen Zhao) is diagnosed back in China with terminal cancer. The slight complication is that no-one has told her. Her younger sister (Hong Lu) has taken the decision to keep the news from her. This is in line with the Chinese saying “When people get Cancer they die”. (Based on the rationale that it is not necessarily the disease that kills you, but the fear that destroys your useful life).
The whole extended family sign up – reluctantly – to the decision. They stage a final get together back in China around the pretence of a trumped-up wedding. This is between the comically reluctant grandson Hao Hao (Han Chen) and his new Japanese girlfriend Aiko (Aoi Mizuhara).
Faced with seeing Nai Nai face-to-face, and being forced to “celebrate” together, can the family – and the emotionally attached Billi in particular – hold it together and keep the secret?
A laff a minute then?
You might naturally assume that given the subject matter that this was going to be SERIOUSLY heavy going. And in many ways you would be right. Most of us over 50 will have lost an elderly relative. And, unless it was a sudden event, you have probably been through the mental pain of having to drive away from a nursing home certain that that will be the final time you will see your loved one alive. If you are therefore not affected by this film, you are not human.
So I was frankly bracing myself.
However, the film is so beautifully put together, and the comedy – albeit some of it very dark – so brilliantly inserted that the film is an UTTER DELIGHT from start to end. There are truly insightful scenes that get under the skin of the well-developed social approach in China to family. (Like the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man, they love big family dinners around a round-table!) Although there is always the teen – Bau (Jinhang Liu) in this case – with his face permanently in his phone!
There are also scenes familiar to anyone who’s visited China. The gaggle of “helpful” taxi drivers outside the airport made me laugh out loud.
Also (unintentionally) funny are the multiple company logos at the start of the film. This is reminiscent of the classic “Family Guy” scene (I think “The Simpsons” also did a similar spoof).
Cinematic.
For such a ‘small’ film, the scale is sometimes truly cinematic. Director and writer, Lulu Wang, achieves some gloriously memorable movie moments. A stony-faced, determined march of the key players towards the camera – which could be subtitled “The Magnificent Eight” – is slo-mo’d for about 30 seconds and is utterly mesmeric.
And a scene at a cemetery is a comic masterpiece of Chinese tradition. Bau of course still has his face in his phone throughout!
This is only Lulu Wang‘s second feature, but it makes me now want to check out her first film (“Posthumous”).
Not afraid to offend either country.
What I found particularly interesting is that the film is truly multi-cultural. It’s not an American film with some local content crudely inserted to cater for the Far East markets. The film is an almost equal blend of American language and Mandarin language with subtitles.
Lulu Wang is also not afraid to upset officials in either country. Which is better: US or China? The question keeps getting posed to Billi and discussed among the family. And – as you might expect – there are positives and negatives on each side. The film doesn’t really take sides. It’s a really balanced position to take.
A quirky soundtrack.
The music is by Alex Weston, and its one of the stars of the film. It’s truly quirky with everything as diverse as a vocalised version of Beethoven’s Sonata No. 8 “Pathetique”; a karaoke version of “Killing Me Softly”; and a hugely entertaining Chinese version of Niilson’s “Without You” over the end titles.
A brilliant ensemble cast.
It’s a great ensemble cast (SAG awards, are you listening?), and everyone pulls their weight. Even the minor members of the cast are superb: Aoi Mizuhara in particular displays acute awkwardness brilliantly!
But leading the charge is Awkwafina. She was in the disappointing “Ocean’s 8” but much more memorable in “Crazy Rich Asians” as Rachel’s wacky Singapore friend. Here it’s a bravado performance that is genuinely moving. She IS the slightly sulky but emotionally crushed teen.
Sub-titles? I don’t do sub-titles.
Get a grip! Yes, this is a film that has sub-titles. But it uses them when required (unless you happen to be fluent in Mandarin that is!). There is also a large percentage of the film that is in English. It’s all eminently watchable, even for “sub-title-phobes”.
This is a feelgood film about a tough subject. The ending of the film pulls off the trick of being both devastating and uplifting at the same time.
So get yourself to the cinema and see this film! Without question, it gets my “highly recommended” tag. It’s also firmly placed itself very high up in my “Films of the Year” list.
And it’s all “based on a true lie”!
With “Downton Abbey” and now “The Farewell”, the excesses of the summer blockbusters are fading away. (Though I’m sure Rambo might have something to say about that!)
The Plot.
Billi (Awkwafina) is a young Chinese New Yorker struggling to make her way in the world. She has a place of her own to distance herself from her parents – Haiyan (“Arrival“‘s Tzi Ma) and Lu Jian (Diana Lin) – but is struggling to fund it. But despite a typically spiky teenage relationship with her parents, family is important to her.
There’s a big shock then when her beloved “Nai Nai” (Shuzhen Zhao) is diagnosed back in China with terminal cancer. The slight complication is that no-one has told her. Her younger sister (Hong Lu) has taken the decision to keep the news from her. This is in line with the Chinese saying “When people get Cancer they die”. (Based on the rationale that it is not necessarily the disease that kills you, but the fear that destroys your useful life).
The whole extended family sign up – reluctantly – to the decision. They stage a final get together back in China around the pretence of a trumped-up wedding. This is between the comically reluctant grandson Hao Hao (Han Chen) and his new Japanese girlfriend Aiko (Aoi Mizuhara).
Faced with seeing Nai Nai face-to-face, and being forced to “celebrate” together, can the family – and the emotionally attached Billi in particular – hold it together and keep the secret?
A laff a minute then?
You might naturally assume that given the subject matter that this was going to be SERIOUSLY heavy going. And in many ways you would be right. Most of us over 50 will have lost an elderly relative. And, unless it was a sudden event, you have probably been through the mental pain of having to drive away from a nursing home certain that that will be the final time you will see your loved one alive. If you are therefore not affected by this film, you are not human.
So I was frankly bracing myself.
However, the film is so beautifully put together, and the comedy – albeit some of it very dark – so brilliantly inserted that the film is an UTTER DELIGHT from start to end. There are truly insightful scenes that get under the skin of the well-developed social approach in China to family. (Like the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man, they love big family dinners around a round-table!) Although there is always the teen – Bau (Jinhang Liu) in this case – with his face permanently in his phone!
There are also scenes familiar to anyone who’s visited China. The gaggle of “helpful” taxi drivers outside the airport made me laugh out loud.
Also (unintentionally) funny are the multiple company logos at the start of the film. This is reminiscent of the classic “Family Guy” scene (I think “The Simpsons” also did a similar spoof).
Cinematic.
For such a ‘small’ film, the scale is sometimes truly cinematic. Director and writer, Lulu Wang, achieves some gloriously memorable movie moments. A stony-faced, determined march of the key players towards the camera – which could be subtitled “The Magnificent Eight” – is slo-mo’d for about 30 seconds and is utterly mesmeric.
And a scene at a cemetery is a comic masterpiece of Chinese tradition. Bau of course still has his face in his phone throughout!
This is only Lulu Wang‘s second feature, but it makes me now want to check out her first film (“Posthumous”).
Not afraid to offend either country.
What I found particularly interesting is that the film is truly multi-cultural. It’s not an American film with some local content crudely inserted to cater for the Far East markets. The film is an almost equal blend of American language and Mandarin language with subtitles.
Lulu Wang is also not afraid to upset officials in either country. Which is better: US or China? The question keeps getting posed to Billi and discussed among the family. And – as you might expect – there are positives and negatives on each side. The film doesn’t really take sides. It’s a really balanced position to take.
A quirky soundtrack.
The music is by Alex Weston, and its one of the stars of the film. It’s truly quirky with everything as diverse as a vocalised version of Beethoven’s Sonata No. 8 “Pathetique”; a karaoke version of “Killing Me Softly”; and a hugely entertaining Chinese version of Niilson’s “Without You” over the end titles.
A brilliant ensemble cast.
It’s a great ensemble cast (SAG awards, are you listening?), and everyone pulls their weight. Even the minor members of the cast are superb: Aoi Mizuhara in particular displays acute awkwardness brilliantly!
But leading the charge is Awkwafina. She was in the disappointing “Ocean’s 8” but much more memorable in “Crazy Rich Asians” as Rachel’s wacky Singapore friend. Here it’s a bravado performance that is genuinely moving. She IS the slightly sulky but emotionally crushed teen.
Sub-titles? I don’t do sub-titles.
Get a grip! Yes, this is a film that has sub-titles. But it uses them when required (unless you happen to be fluent in Mandarin that is!). There is also a large percentage of the film that is in English. It’s all eminently watchable, even for “sub-title-phobes”.
This is a feelgood film about a tough subject. The ending of the film pulls off the trick of being both devastating and uplifting at the same time.
So get yourself to the cinema and see this film! Without question, it gets my “highly recommended” tag. It’s also firmly placed itself very high up in my “Films of the Year” list.
And it’s all “based on a true lie”!
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Tutankhamun in Tabletop Games
Jul 9, 2021
Tutankhamun (per dictionary.com, the pronunciation is as such: [ toot-ahng-kah-muhn ]) is regularly shortened and often referred to as “King Tut.” My real question is that if the first syllable is “toot,” why do we not call him King Toot? I have a 5 year old boy and a 2 year old girl at the time of this writing, so I can tell you EXACTLY why we don’t call him King Toot, but that’s for another discussion. Never having played the original version, will I enjoy this new version of the game by world-renowned designer Dr. Reiner Knizia?
In Tutankhamun, players take on the roles of Egyptian priests attempting to cleanse their souls by gifting the sarcophagus with relics found along the Nile River. The priest who can cleanse their soul quickest will be proclaimed the next High Priest and winner of the game!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, place the King Tut sarcophagus on the table somewhere inside the box bottom. From this starting place (or you could place these components last I suppose), begin the laborious job of creating the Nile from the trapezoidal Relic TIles. This part took me a good several minutes each game. Place out the Underworld Mat near the start of the Nile, and place upon it the two Guardian Statue standees. From there give every player a reference card, have them choose a player color, place their boats at the start of the Nile, and Canopic Jar scoring markers on the appropriate space along the box bottom score track. The game may now begin!
Tutankhamun is played in turns starting with the starting player and proceeding clockwise. The starting player will choose ANY Relic Tile to collect and move their boat to that location. Once collected, the player will check to make sure there are still matching Relics along the Nile. If so, then play continues to the next player. If the active player had collected the last Relic of that type still active in the game, then the Relic type is scored.
Each Relic Tile features art of a Relic, a God, or a Scarab Ring. Relics come in sets, and when the final Relic of its type is collected, scoring immediately follows. Whichever player possesses the most Relic Tiles of the one being scored will earn points (or rather, negative points, as the priests are trying to cleanse their souls down to the winning score of zero) equal to the number printed on the tile. That number stands for the score earned as well as the number of Relics of that type in the game. The player with the second most Relics of the scored type will score half the number printed on the tile. All others do not score.
God Tiles feature art of one of five ancient Egyptian Gods: Osiris, Isis, Ra, Thoth, and Horus. Each of these Gods provide the collecting player with special powers to be used during the turn, and are always positive for the player.
Finally, Scarab Ring tiles are special in that they feature no number upon them. There are 10 tiles in the game, and as soon as a player collects one they immediately score one point (or one negative point). These tiles are not thrown into the box bottom, as the other scoring tiles are once scored, but are kept with the players to be scored at the end of the game. The player holding the most Scarab Tiles scores five negative points.
Any tile along the Nile that has been passed by all players is deposited onto the Underworld Mat and not added to the box bottom with the King Tut sarcophagus. Tiles may still be collected from the Underworld by permission of the Gods being collected in-game. Whichever priest is able to dwindle down their points and cleanse their soul first will win the game and become the next High Priest of Egypt!
Components. I am more and more becoming a fan of everything 25th Century Games is putting out. This is certainly no exception. I have seen photos of the original versions of this game, entitled Tutankhamen (with an E at the end instead of a U) and this game was certainly begging for a renovation. All the components have updated art, more vibrant colors, and the game even includes luxurious (and completely unnecessary) components. These are the very cool, but very unnecessary King Tut sarcophagus, and the Guardian Statue standees that add nothing to the gameplay but definitely help set the mood and theme. That all said, this version looks amazing on the table and has nearly infinite setup configurations!
What I like most about the game is the fact that on a player’s turn they can literally move forward to ANYWHERE along the Nile to gather whatever Relic they wish. They can pass up a tile or twelve along the way to snatch exactly what they want. However, the quicker a player reaches the sarcophagus does not automatically make them the winner. No, they still need to reduce their soul spirit score to zero in order to win (or be closest by the time all players reach the final spot). Conversely, dilly-dallying along the River just picking up every available tile also will not guarantee a victory. Specializing in a select few items may be the ticket to a victory, or setting oneself to win a couple types and win runner-up on the remainder may be a great path to victory.
Unlike many other games with this lazy race mechanic, the player furthest back does NOT get to keep taking turns to catch up (I’m looking at you, Tokaido), but rather just means that player has many more options ahead of themselves than the other players have. This is very interesting to me, and definitely something worth exploring more. It makes for tough turns when players have to really crunch which options are best for them: take the tile right ahead of them, diversify vs bolster the collection, or hate block another player by taking what you know they need. Ahh, so beautiful are the choices given!
At the end of the day (and this review), Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an Obama-meme-where-he-is-drinking-a-beer-and-giving-a-thumbs-up 5 / 6. I would certainly not have purchased this game in its original form had I seen it in a game store. However, with the changes made to make it more pretty, I would have given it a chance. I am so very glad I have the opportunity to play this a lot, as I can see this getting to the table allllllll the time. It is right up my alley, and I place it high among other Knizia games. Long live King Toot!!
In Tutankhamun, players take on the roles of Egyptian priests attempting to cleanse their souls by gifting the sarcophagus with relics found along the Nile River. The priest who can cleanse their soul quickest will be proclaimed the next High Priest and winner of the game!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, place the King Tut sarcophagus on the table somewhere inside the box bottom. From this starting place (or you could place these components last I suppose), begin the laborious job of creating the Nile from the trapezoidal Relic TIles. This part took me a good several minutes each game. Place out the Underworld Mat near the start of the Nile, and place upon it the two Guardian Statue standees. From there give every player a reference card, have them choose a player color, place their boats at the start of the Nile, and Canopic Jar scoring markers on the appropriate space along the box bottom score track. The game may now begin!
Tutankhamun is played in turns starting with the starting player and proceeding clockwise. The starting player will choose ANY Relic Tile to collect and move their boat to that location. Once collected, the player will check to make sure there are still matching Relics along the Nile. If so, then play continues to the next player. If the active player had collected the last Relic of that type still active in the game, then the Relic type is scored.
Each Relic Tile features art of a Relic, a God, or a Scarab Ring. Relics come in sets, and when the final Relic of its type is collected, scoring immediately follows. Whichever player possesses the most Relic Tiles of the one being scored will earn points (or rather, negative points, as the priests are trying to cleanse their souls down to the winning score of zero) equal to the number printed on the tile. That number stands for the score earned as well as the number of Relics of that type in the game. The player with the second most Relics of the scored type will score half the number printed on the tile. All others do not score.
God Tiles feature art of one of five ancient Egyptian Gods: Osiris, Isis, Ra, Thoth, and Horus. Each of these Gods provide the collecting player with special powers to be used during the turn, and are always positive for the player.
Finally, Scarab Ring tiles are special in that they feature no number upon them. There are 10 tiles in the game, and as soon as a player collects one they immediately score one point (or one negative point). These tiles are not thrown into the box bottom, as the other scoring tiles are once scored, but are kept with the players to be scored at the end of the game. The player holding the most Scarab Tiles scores five negative points.
Any tile along the Nile that has been passed by all players is deposited onto the Underworld Mat and not added to the box bottom with the King Tut sarcophagus. Tiles may still be collected from the Underworld by permission of the Gods being collected in-game. Whichever priest is able to dwindle down their points and cleanse their soul first will win the game and become the next High Priest of Egypt!
Components. I am more and more becoming a fan of everything 25th Century Games is putting out. This is certainly no exception. I have seen photos of the original versions of this game, entitled Tutankhamen (with an E at the end instead of a U) and this game was certainly begging for a renovation. All the components have updated art, more vibrant colors, and the game even includes luxurious (and completely unnecessary) components. These are the very cool, but very unnecessary King Tut sarcophagus, and the Guardian Statue standees that add nothing to the gameplay but definitely help set the mood and theme. That all said, this version looks amazing on the table and has nearly infinite setup configurations!
What I like most about the game is the fact that on a player’s turn they can literally move forward to ANYWHERE along the Nile to gather whatever Relic they wish. They can pass up a tile or twelve along the way to snatch exactly what they want. However, the quicker a player reaches the sarcophagus does not automatically make them the winner. No, they still need to reduce their soul spirit score to zero in order to win (or be closest by the time all players reach the final spot). Conversely, dilly-dallying along the River just picking up every available tile also will not guarantee a victory. Specializing in a select few items may be the ticket to a victory, or setting oneself to win a couple types and win runner-up on the remainder may be a great path to victory.
Unlike many other games with this lazy race mechanic, the player furthest back does NOT get to keep taking turns to catch up (I’m looking at you, Tokaido), but rather just means that player has many more options ahead of themselves than the other players have. This is very interesting to me, and definitely something worth exploring more. It makes for tough turns when players have to really crunch which options are best for them: take the tile right ahead of them, diversify vs bolster the collection, or hate block another player by taking what you know they need. Ahh, so beautiful are the choices given!
At the end of the day (and this review), Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an Obama-meme-where-he-is-drinking-a-beer-and-giving-a-thumbs-up 5 / 6. I would certainly not have purchased this game in its original form had I seen it in a game store. However, with the changes made to make it more pretty, I would have given it a chance. I am so very glad I have the opportunity to play this a lot, as I can see this getting to the table allllllll the time. It is right up my alley, and I place it high among other Knizia games. Long live King Toot!!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Zoltar Rides Again!
All work and no play makes Bob the Movie Man a dull reviewer. Due to work commitments, this is the first film I’ve been able to see at the cinema for over a month. There’s a whole slew of films I wanted to see that have already come and gone. Big sigh. So I might be about the last of the crowd to review this, but I’m glad I caught it before it shuffled off its silver screen coil.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Tomorrowland (2015) in Movies
Jun 29, 2019
With Tomorrowland's lifeless fantasy world, bland characters, second-rate special effects, forced dialogue, and uninspired story, your future will undoubtedly be better off if it doesn't involve watching this movie.
Disney’s Tomorrowland implores us to imagine a world without limitation. One where nothing is impossible, and all of our wildest dreams can come true. (Sounds very trademark Disney, doesn’t it?) In the movie, that world exists in the form of a secret utopian society that has been built by only the brightest of minds. It is a place that exists free of politics and corruption, where people can push the boundaries of possibility as far as their imaginations will take them. Tomorrowland is a world meant to inspire, to evoke wonder, and to nurture creativity. It’s a stunning shame then, that all I ever felt while watching the movie was sheer boredom. For all of its endless opportunity, Tomorrowland ends up being almost completely uninteresting. With Tomorrowland‘s lifeless fantasy world, bland characters, second-rate special effects, forced dialogue, and uninspired story, your own future will undoubtedly be better off if it doesn’t involve ever watching this movie.
With the star talent of George Clooney, the directorial skill of Brad Bird, and the film’s promising trailers, I must admit that I was caught off guard by Tomorrowland‘s lackluster execution. The greatest compliment I can give the film is that it’s blandly passable, but in no area is it particularly good, engaging, or thought-provoking. For being a film that is about celebrating creativity, it sure is lacking in that regard. Tomorrowland itself feels like a poorly-realized pipe dream. It’s supposed to be this wonderfully ingenious world of innovation, but nothing about it struck me as notably exciting or exceptional. From the surface, it looks like your typical futuristic metropolis, complete with jetpacks and flying cars. Beyond that, I couldn’t really tell you what makes Tomorrowland so special, and I believe that’s largely because we’re given so little access to it. The movie treats us as outsiders to this place, and we spend the majority of the film tagging alongside the two main characters as they try to get in, but we’re never given any sort of rewarding payoff once we get there. The world of Tomorrowland is practically nothing more than a shallow, fantasy world facade.
The movie starts off with an uncomfortably awkward recruitment video recorded by Tomorrowland’s two main characters, Frank Walker (George Clooney) and Casey Newton (Britt Robertson), in which they argue over how they should tell their story. It’s a poor attempt at humor with banter that feels entirely forced. If anything, this overly long introduction should have served as an early indicator that I was about to embark on a two-hour snooze-fest. From there we transition to each of their character’s respective origin stories, and their separate journeys that led them to Tomorrowland.
Frank’s story takes us to the 1964 World’s Fair at Disneyland where as a young boy he’s trying to enter with his faulty jetpack creation. His invention is rejected, but he still manages to catch the attention of a girl named Athena, who gives him a special pin with the Tomorrowland logo. Young Frank is ordered to secretly follow her in the theme park, leading to the “It’s A Small World” ride, where he’s magically transported to Tomorrowland. Here we’re given our first glimpse of this futuristic world, but the entire sequence isn’t nearly as fun or awe-inspiring as it should be. Frank takes to the skies in his newly-repaired jetpack and yet this significant moment somehow winds up feeling surprisingly empty. The movie fails to capture that youthful element of whimsy and excitement that comes from discovery.
Next we learn the much more recent story of Casey, an enthusiastic high school student with a passion for making the world a better place. She’s the daughter of a struggling inventor who gets herself in trouble with the law after trying to sabotage the government’s planned demolition of a NASA launch pad. Once bailed out of jail, Casey finds a mysterious Tomorrowland token among her belongings, and upon touching it, she is magically transported to a wheat field with the distinguished metropolis of Tomorrowland in the distance. However, when trying to reach this futuristic city, she finds that boundaries in the real world inhibit her in this golden future world, even though she cannot see them while holding the token. It’s a novel idea, and one of the movie’s better moments, but if you’ve seen the film’s trailers then you’ve already seen most of how it plays out.
The trailers also spoiled Tomorrowland‘s best, and arguably only good action sequence, in which androids invade Frank’s house in an attempt to capture Casey, who possesses that coveted Tomorrowland token. It’s a well-crafted and exciting moment that demonstrates Brad Bird’s talent, but it’s also an unfortunately rare instance of entertainment in what is otherwise a dull film. As for the aforementioned androids, they’re unbelievably cheesy and lame. These robot villains are sourced from the pinnacle of technological advancement, and yet they’re remarkably derivative and hokey. The most original thing about them is that they blink their eyelids alternatively. That’s some real cutting edge creativity right there! To top it off, Tomorrowland even throws in an android-to-human love story for good measure, because why not? Robots need love too, you guys!
You know what the most troubling thing about Tomorrowland is for me? The fact that Brad Bird was the very first choice to direct Star Wars: Episode 7 and he turned it down to make this movie instead. That is almost incomprehensible to me. Even more so when you consider that Tomorrowland features a comic book store scene that is literally brimming with Star Wars props. It’s a decision that may come back to haunt him, but given how poor this movie is, I’m now actually thanking my lucky Death Stars that he’s not the one making the upcoming Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
In the end, Tomorrowland is a movie that I don’t feel any connection to. I wasn’t captivated by the characters or the performances (not even George Clooney could save this one). The plot was a total bore. The sci-fi elements missed the mark. The visuals were mostly just decent, and tended to look more fake than impressive. The underlying message of hope was weak, and please, don’t even get me started on that cliché “two wolves” story that was needlessly tacked in. Nothing about the movie ever reminded me of the actual Tomorrowland from Disneyland Park, nor did it share its level of creativity. The longer the movie went on, the more I wanted it to end. I can honestly tell you that I have had more enjoyment standing in line for two hours for a ride in Disneyland’s Tomorrowland than I ever had while watching this movie. If this is how dull our ideal future is going to be, then sign me up for a front row ticket to the apocalypse where the future belongs to the mad!
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.26.15.)
With the star talent of George Clooney, the directorial skill of Brad Bird, and the film’s promising trailers, I must admit that I was caught off guard by Tomorrowland‘s lackluster execution. The greatest compliment I can give the film is that it’s blandly passable, but in no area is it particularly good, engaging, or thought-provoking. For being a film that is about celebrating creativity, it sure is lacking in that regard. Tomorrowland itself feels like a poorly-realized pipe dream. It’s supposed to be this wonderfully ingenious world of innovation, but nothing about it struck me as notably exciting or exceptional. From the surface, it looks like your typical futuristic metropolis, complete with jetpacks and flying cars. Beyond that, I couldn’t really tell you what makes Tomorrowland so special, and I believe that’s largely because we’re given so little access to it. The movie treats us as outsiders to this place, and we spend the majority of the film tagging alongside the two main characters as they try to get in, but we’re never given any sort of rewarding payoff once we get there. The world of Tomorrowland is practically nothing more than a shallow, fantasy world facade.
The movie starts off with an uncomfortably awkward recruitment video recorded by Tomorrowland’s two main characters, Frank Walker (George Clooney) and Casey Newton (Britt Robertson), in which they argue over how they should tell their story. It’s a poor attempt at humor with banter that feels entirely forced. If anything, this overly long introduction should have served as an early indicator that I was about to embark on a two-hour snooze-fest. From there we transition to each of their character’s respective origin stories, and their separate journeys that led them to Tomorrowland.
Frank’s story takes us to the 1964 World’s Fair at Disneyland where as a young boy he’s trying to enter with his faulty jetpack creation. His invention is rejected, but he still manages to catch the attention of a girl named Athena, who gives him a special pin with the Tomorrowland logo. Young Frank is ordered to secretly follow her in the theme park, leading to the “It’s A Small World” ride, where he’s magically transported to Tomorrowland. Here we’re given our first glimpse of this futuristic world, but the entire sequence isn’t nearly as fun or awe-inspiring as it should be. Frank takes to the skies in his newly-repaired jetpack and yet this significant moment somehow winds up feeling surprisingly empty. The movie fails to capture that youthful element of whimsy and excitement that comes from discovery.
Next we learn the much more recent story of Casey, an enthusiastic high school student with a passion for making the world a better place. She’s the daughter of a struggling inventor who gets herself in trouble with the law after trying to sabotage the government’s planned demolition of a NASA launch pad. Once bailed out of jail, Casey finds a mysterious Tomorrowland token among her belongings, and upon touching it, she is magically transported to a wheat field with the distinguished metropolis of Tomorrowland in the distance. However, when trying to reach this futuristic city, she finds that boundaries in the real world inhibit her in this golden future world, even though she cannot see them while holding the token. It’s a novel idea, and one of the movie’s better moments, but if you’ve seen the film’s trailers then you’ve already seen most of how it plays out.
The trailers also spoiled Tomorrowland‘s best, and arguably only good action sequence, in which androids invade Frank’s house in an attempt to capture Casey, who possesses that coveted Tomorrowland token. It’s a well-crafted and exciting moment that demonstrates Brad Bird’s talent, but it’s also an unfortunately rare instance of entertainment in what is otherwise a dull film. As for the aforementioned androids, they’re unbelievably cheesy and lame. These robot villains are sourced from the pinnacle of technological advancement, and yet they’re remarkably derivative and hokey. The most original thing about them is that they blink their eyelids alternatively. That’s some real cutting edge creativity right there! To top it off, Tomorrowland even throws in an android-to-human love story for good measure, because why not? Robots need love too, you guys!
You know what the most troubling thing about Tomorrowland is for me? The fact that Brad Bird was the very first choice to direct Star Wars: Episode 7 and he turned it down to make this movie instead. That is almost incomprehensible to me. Even more so when you consider that Tomorrowland features a comic book store scene that is literally brimming with Star Wars props. It’s a decision that may come back to haunt him, but given how poor this movie is, I’m now actually thanking my lucky Death Stars that he’s not the one making the upcoming Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
In the end, Tomorrowland is a movie that I don’t feel any connection to. I wasn’t captivated by the characters or the performances (not even George Clooney could save this one). The plot was a total bore. The sci-fi elements missed the mark. The visuals were mostly just decent, and tended to look more fake than impressive. The underlying message of hope was weak, and please, don’t even get me started on that cliché “two wolves” story that was needlessly tacked in. Nothing about the movie ever reminded me of the actual Tomorrowland from Disneyland Park, nor did it share its level of creativity. The longer the movie went on, the more I wanted it to end. I can honestly tell you that I have had more enjoyment standing in line for two hours for a ride in Disneyland’s Tomorrowland than I ever had while watching this movie. If this is how dull our ideal future is going to be, then sign me up for a front row ticket to the apocalypse where the future belongs to the mad!
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.26.15.)