Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Superman Returns (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
It has been nearly twenty years since Superman graced the silver screen. This fact is outstanding when you consider that numerous attempts to revive the franchise and two successful television series have occurred in the nearly two decades since 1987’s “Superman IV: The Quest for Peace”.
Amidst much speculation and rumors of a soaring budget that is reported to be over $250 Million, Superman Returns has arrived.
Under the direction of Bryan Singer, who successfully launched the first two films in the “X-Men” series, Brandon Routh dons the tights and capes of the late Christopher Reeve, as the man of steel and his mild mannered alter ego Clark Kent.
As the films opens, it is explained that Superman has been gone five years as he has traveled to what astronomers believe are the remains of his home planet Krypton which was destroyed when he was an infant.
Soon after his return, Clark visits his adopted mother in his hometown of Smallville before returning to Metropolis and his job at the Daily Planet. His happy homecoming is short-lived when Clark realizes that his beloved Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) is now a single mom with a fiancée named Richard (James Marsden).
As if this is not enough, Superman is shortly thereafter called into action to save Lois and the passengers of a plane and space shuttle encounter a deadly situation when a press conference goes awry.
In a spectacle of action and visual brilliance Superman not only saves the day, but makes a highly visible and triumphant return that signals to the world that he is back.
As happy as the majority of the world is to have their champion back, Lois is very conflicted about his return. She believes he abandoned humanity and left her without even saying goodbye. Such is the extent of Lois’s anger toward Superman; she has written a story entitled “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman” for which she was awarded a Pulitzer Prize.
As upset as Lois is about the return of Superman, there is one individual who is seething mad over his return and that is Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) who plans to use his recently acquired wealth to hatch his latest plot and end the threat of Superman once and for all.
Lex plans to use the crystals and knowledge he has pilfered from Superman’s arctic Fortress of Solitude to craft a new landmass, where he will rule supreme. The fact that billions of innocents will be killed in the process is of no consequence to the power mad Luthor, setting the stage for several high tech action sequences and daring adventures as Superman sets out to save the day.
Despite numerous concerns I had over the film, I am happy to say that the series is in great hands, and the combination of Spacey, Bosworth, Routh, and Singer have not only produced the best film of Summer 2006, but have paved the way for what looks to be a series of films that, while true to the source materials, is not afraid to push the envelope to modernize Superman.
Routh was solid, not only looked the part perfectly, but handled the dual roles of Clark and Superman with and easygoing charm and manner that is highly effective. His ability to portray Superman as a being with deep emotions as well as power is key to the film as the audience is given a chance to see more than just the man with the muscles. Bosworth is also to be commended for her portrayal of a strong and capable Lois who is anything but the stock damsel in distress. The chemistry between Routh and Bosworth is good which is vital, as this is much more than effects and action.
The humanity and compassion that drives the film is an unexpected bonus. Despite the amazing action sequences, this is a story with deep emotional and psychological themes that are rarely seen in films of this nature.
If I had to find fault in the film, it would be that Spacey was not allowed to really let Lex be truly evil. Sure he talks a good fight, and in a few sequences is not above getting his hands dirty. But, for a film as grand as this, the diabolic plot Luthor is trying to hatch just does not seem diabolic enough.
One could also say that at a running time of nearly two hours and forty minutes that perhaps 20 minutes or so could have been trimmed towards the end to help the pacing of the final segments of the film.
That being said, the impressive mix of action, humor, romance, and cast gives Superman Returns a highly winning formula.
Amidst much speculation and rumors of a soaring budget that is reported to be over $250 Million, Superman Returns has arrived.
Under the direction of Bryan Singer, who successfully launched the first two films in the “X-Men” series, Brandon Routh dons the tights and capes of the late Christopher Reeve, as the man of steel and his mild mannered alter ego Clark Kent.
As the films opens, it is explained that Superman has been gone five years as he has traveled to what astronomers believe are the remains of his home planet Krypton which was destroyed when he was an infant.
Soon after his return, Clark visits his adopted mother in his hometown of Smallville before returning to Metropolis and his job at the Daily Planet. His happy homecoming is short-lived when Clark realizes that his beloved Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) is now a single mom with a fiancée named Richard (James Marsden).
As if this is not enough, Superman is shortly thereafter called into action to save Lois and the passengers of a plane and space shuttle encounter a deadly situation when a press conference goes awry.
In a spectacle of action and visual brilliance Superman not only saves the day, but makes a highly visible and triumphant return that signals to the world that he is back.
As happy as the majority of the world is to have their champion back, Lois is very conflicted about his return. She believes he abandoned humanity and left her without even saying goodbye. Such is the extent of Lois’s anger toward Superman; she has written a story entitled “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman” for which she was awarded a Pulitzer Prize.
As upset as Lois is about the return of Superman, there is one individual who is seething mad over his return and that is Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) who plans to use his recently acquired wealth to hatch his latest plot and end the threat of Superman once and for all.
Lex plans to use the crystals and knowledge he has pilfered from Superman’s arctic Fortress of Solitude to craft a new landmass, where he will rule supreme. The fact that billions of innocents will be killed in the process is of no consequence to the power mad Luthor, setting the stage for several high tech action sequences and daring adventures as Superman sets out to save the day.
Despite numerous concerns I had over the film, I am happy to say that the series is in great hands, and the combination of Spacey, Bosworth, Routh, and Singer have not only produced the best film of Summer 2006, but have paved the way for what looks to be a series of films that, while true to the source materials, is not afraid to push the envelope to modernize Superman.
Routh was solid, not only looked the part perfectly, but handled the dual roles of Clark and Superman with and easygoing charm and manner that is highly effective. His ability to portray Superman as a being with deep emotions as well as power is key to the film as the audience is given a chance to see more than just the man with the muscles. Bosworth is also to be commended for her portrayal of a strong and capable Lois who is anything but the stock damsel in distress. The chemistry between Routh and Bosworth is good which is vital, as this is much more than effects and action.
The humanity and compassion that drives the film is an unexpected bonus. Despite the amazing action sequences, this is a story with deep emotional and psychological themes that are rarely seen in films of this nature.
If I had to find fault in the film, it would be that Spacey was not allowed to really let Lex be truly evil. Sure he talks a good fight, and in a few sequences is not above getting his hands dirty. But, for a film as grand as this, the diabolic plot Luthor is trying to hatch just does not seem diabolic enough.
One could also say that at a running time of nearly two hours and forty minutes that perhaps 20 minutes or so could have been trimmed towards the end to help the pacing of the final segments of the film.
That being said, the impressive mix of action, humor, romance, and cast gives Superman Returns a highly winning formula.
Tyler Fletcher (8 KP) rated Artemis Fowl (2020) in Movies
Jun 14, 2020
Character development (1 more)
Forgettable story
Another Live-Action Disney Adaption Bomb
Contains spoilers, click to show
What is it about fantasy novels that makes them so difficult to translate effectively to the silver screen? It’s not impossible – J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series and Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings adaptations are proof that it can be done. More often than not, however, the result is as limp and truncated as Kenneth Branagh’s Artemis Fowl – a few standout moments set adrift in a sea of underdeveloped characters, incomplete backstory elements, and abbreviated world building. Although the problem lies primarily in the difficulties associated with condensing an epic tale into a short-ish movie, the lack of elegance with which that is accomplished makes Artemis Fowl a failure for anyone hoping for the next great fantasy film.
The treatment accorded to Artemis Fowl (the movie condenses elements from the first two volumes of an eight-novel cycle into a single film) recalls a Disney misfire from more than three decades ago. Although The Black Cauldron was animated, it suffered from many of the same problems evident in Artemis Fowl: an oversimplification of the backstory, a rushed narrative with poorly realized characters, and a overall lack of faithfulness to the source material. The Black Cauldron worked better because it at least had a clean ending. Artemis Fowl suffers by trying to both provide a credible stopping point (in case there are no additional films) and offering a lead-in to additional adventures (in case there are additional films).
In the books, 12-year old Artemis (played by Ferdia Shaw, the grandson of Robert Shaw) is presented as an anti-hero (although, over the course of the saga, his villainous attributes fade to be replaced by heroic ones). Here, he’s more of a misunderstood boy-genius whose role as the protagonist is never in question. All of his edges have been smoothed out. The story focuses on Artemis’ efforts to locate and rescue his father, Artemis Fowl Sr. (Colin Farrell), an infamous art thief who has been kidnapped by the twisted evil fairy Opal Koboi. Her ransom for releasing him is that Artemis must locate and obtain a powerful McGuffin. He is joined in his efforts by Lower Elements Police (LEP) fairy police officer Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), giant dwarf Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), and strongman Domovoi Butler (Nonso Anozie).
Artemis Fowl diverges considerably from the two books that form its basis, Artemis Fowl and Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. Although author Eoin Colfer reportedly “approved” the changes, they push the film into an alternate universe from the one occupied by the novels. Even with the pruning of subplots and condensation of the narrative, 100 minutes is too short to tell the story effectively. None of the characters are well-developed, including Artemis. The boy’s relationship with Holly Short evolves with whiplash-inducing rapidity – one moment, they’re enemies (actually, she’s his prisoner), the next they’re friends. The film’s frenetic pace might work for ADD viewers and preteens but there’s no time for world-building or anything more than the most basic exposition. As a result, Artemis Fowl feels rushed to the point of being exhausting and strangely confusing despite the relatively straightforward storyline.
Kenneth Branagh was undoubtedly selected to direct the film based on his success with two earlier Disney properties: the live-action Cinderella and Marvel’s Thor. Perhaps because Branagh had no input into the screenplay (which was completed before he came on board), the movie lacks the complex psychological qualities he normally brings to his films. Visually, Artemis Fowl is impressive. However, although the fairy world of Haven is beautifully rendered, it appears all-too-briefly. The film’s most impressive sequence, a throwdown with a seemingly invincible troll, is a standout by any definition, but it represents only about five minutes of screen time and there’s nothing else that comes close – not even the muted climax.
As is often the case, Branagh’s presence at the top results in some impressive names in the cast. The young leads are newcomers – this is Ferdia Shaw’s first movie (and it shows – his performance is occasionally wooden) and Lara McDonnell’s third (she’s better, evidencing an indomitable pluckiness) – but the rest of the cast is populated with veterans. Josh Gad, another Disney regular, has the most openly comedic role of the film as Mulch Diggums. Colin Farrell is called on for limited duty as Artemis’ mostly-absent father. Nonso Anozie, who has a history with Branagh, plays Artemis’ protector and advisor. Finally, Judi Dench adds a dose of class as Holly’s no-nonsense boss.
It has taken Artemis Fowl nearly 20 years to traverse the route from page to screen and one senses that neither fans nor newcomers will be especially pleased with the end result. Recognizing that the film faced rough seas, Disney postponed the movie’s originally planned August 2019 release to May 2020 then, when the coronavirus made that impossible, the studio elected to shift the film to its Disney+ platform. Although partially a face-saving gesture (Artemis Fowl would likely have had a similar box office reception to Disney’s underwhelming 2018 release, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms), it at least allows the film to find a large audience in a low-pressure situation.
The bottom line seems to be that, while Disney has shown an aptitude for making many different kinds of movies, fantasy epics aren’t among them. This is one genre the Magic Kingdom should perhaps avoid, leaving such properties to studios that have shown better success (such as Warner Brothers). Artemis Fowl could have been the beginning of a movie franchise but, based on the first installment, it’s more likely a one-and-done outing. Disney can't quite get away from the John Carters can they?
THIS FILM IS AN EXCEPTIONAL BOMB
The treatment accorded to Artemis Fowl (the movie condenses elements from the first two volumes of an eight-novel cycle into a single film) recalls a Disney misfire from more than three decades ago. Although The Black Cauldron was animated, it suffered from many of the same problems evident in Artemis Fowl: an oversimplification of the backstory, a rushed narrative with poorly realized characters, and a overall lack of faithfulness to the source material. The Black Cauldron worked better because it at least had a clean ending. Artemis Fowl suffers by trying to both provide a credible stopping point (in case there are no additional films) and offering a lead-in to additional adventures (in case there are additional films).
In the books, 12-year old Artemis (played by Ferdia Shaw, the grandson of Robert Shaw) is presented as an anti-hero (although, over the course of the saga, his villainous attributes fade to be replaced by heroic ones). Here, he’s more of a misunderstood boy-genius whose role as the protagonist is never in question. All of his edges have been smoothed out. The story focuses on Artemis’ efforts to locate and rescue his father, Artemis Fowl Sr. (Colin Farrell), an infamous art thief who has been kidnapped by the twisted evil fairy Opal Koboi. Her ransom for releasing him is that Artemis must locate and obtain a powerful McGuffin. He is joined in his efforts by Lower Elements Police (LEP) fairy police officer Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), giant dwarf Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), and strongman Domovoi Butler (Nonso Anozie).
Artemis Fowl diverges considerably from the two books that form its basis, Artemis Fowl and Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. Although author Eoin Colfer reportedly “approved” the changes, they push the film into an alternate universe from the one occupied by the novels. Even with the pruning of subplots and condensation of the narrative, 100 minutes is too short to tell the story effectively. None of the characters are well-developed, including Artemis. The boy’s relationship with Holly Short evolves with whiplash-inducing rapidity – one moment, they’re enemies (actually, she’s his prisoner), the next they’re friends. The film’s frenetic pace might work for ADD viewers and preteens but there’s no time for world-building or anything more than the most basic exposition. As a result, Artemis Fowl feels rushed to the point of being exhausting and strangely confusing despite the relatively straightforward storyline.
Kenneth Branagh was undoubtedly selected to direct the film based on his success with two earlier Disney properties: the live-action Cinderella and Marvel’s Thor. Perhaps because Branagh had no input into the screenplay (which was completed before he came on board), the movie lacks the complex psychological qualities he normally brings to his films. Visually, Artemis Fowl is impressive. However, although the fairy world of Haven is beautifully rendered, it appears all-too-briefly. The film’s most impressive sequence, a throwdown with a seemingly invincible troll, is a standout by any definition, but it represents only about five minutes of screen time and there’s nothing else that comes close – not even the muted climax.
As is often the case, Branagh’s presence at the top results in some impressive names in the cast. The young leads are newcomers – this is Ferdia Shaw’s first movie (and it shows – his performance is occasionally wooden) and Lara McDonnell’s third (she’s better, evidencing an indomitable pluckiness) – but the rest of the cast is populated with veterans. Josh Gad, another Disney regular, has the most openly comedic role of the film as Mulch Diggums. Colin Farrell is called on for limited duty as Artemis’ mostly-absent father. Nonso Anozie, who has a history with Branagh, plays Artemis’ protector and advisor. Finally, Judi Dench adds a dose of class as Holly’s no-nonsense boss.
It has taken Artemis Fowl nearly 20 years to traverse the route from page to screen and one senses that neither fans nor newcomers will be especially pleased with the end result. Recognizing that the film faced rough seas, Disney postponed the movie’s originally planned August 2019 release to May 2020 then, when the coronavirus made that impossible, the studio elected to shift the film to its Disney+ platform. Although partially a face-saving gesture (Artemis Fowl would likely have had a similar box office reception to Disney’s underwhelming 2018 release, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms), it at least allows the film to find a large audience in a low-pressure situation.
The bottom line seems to be that, while Disney has shown an aptitude for making many different kinds of movies, fantasy epics aren’t among them. This is one genre the Magic Kingdom should perhaps avoid, leaving such properties to studios that have shown better success (such as Warner Brothers). Artemis Fowl could have been the beginning of a movie franchise but, based on the first installment, it’s more likely a one-and-done outing. Disney can't quite get away from the John Carters can they?
THIS FILM IS AN EXCEPTIONAL BOMB
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated New In Town (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
When asked my impression of “New in Town” the first thing I could come up with was, “It was cute.” That meant I felt positive about the movie, right? Right. It just wasn’t exactly a ringing endorsement. However, anything less than “cute” would’ve been unfair, but anything more would’ve been effusive.
Now that I’ve had time to mull over my response, I can’t help but remember the time I overheard a coworker compliment another coworker with, “You look cute.” To which the complimented coworker replied, “Thank you, but cute is for puppies. I was hoping for great.” Her inability to accept compliments graciously aside, I suppose, when you’re in your mid-40s, as this coworker was, cute just doesn’t cut it anymore. There does come a time, with maturity, one would rather hear they made a more indelible impression.
So what made this movie simply cute and not great? Maybe because I can’t answer the following questions with “Great!” But I could certainly answer them with “Cute.”
How was Renee Zellwegger, who plays Lucy Hill, a determined and driven Miami executive presented with the opportunty to restructure a manufacturing plant in New Ulm, Minnesota? Cute. Okay, I can say she’s extremely fit. Dresses impeccably in tailored power suits and works designer stilletos something fierce. But the whole package, complete with a pretty, but oddly stiff, face that winces more than it smiles, is just…cute.
How was Harry Connick, Jr., who plays Ted Mitchell, the union rep Renee’s character must negotiate with to facilitate the reorganization. Cute. Real cute with that beard. But that’s as enthusiastic as I can get and I love love love Harry Connick, Jr. His role is lowkey and what charm it allows him to cast toward Lucy is from afar. Personally, I think he would’ve been great with a piano and some singing. But that’s HCJ the singer. Alas, HCJ the actor only had a truck, birdshot and malfunctioning factory equipment. Thus, he remained just darn cute.
How was the supporting cast, headed by Siobhan Fallon, who plays Lucy’s quirky secretary, Blanche, and J. K. Simmons as the dour factory foreman, Stu? Cute. The only thing not cute about the townfolk were the sweaters and wallpaper. Ghastly would work better there. Their Minnesotan accents were spot-on (well, as far as I know, considering the only other Minnesotans I’ve ever heard were in other movies). Apparently we’re to believe New Ulm is full of either scrapbooking, Christian do-gooders bearing food or joyless, implacable factory workers who would rather drink beer, ice-fish or shoot crow.
How was the storyline? Cute. Predictable. An unoriginal romantic comedy that attempts to have message. An ambitious up-and-comer has her eye on the CEO title and thinks playing the hardnose in a cost-cutting, streamlining reorganization project will impress the boss. Hardnose in high heels comes up against a tight-knit community in flannel that’s not impressed with her wardrobe, her multi-syllabic vocaulary or her city girl naivete at all. Despite the arctic attitudes and scenery, there’s thawing on both sides as Lucy is drawn into the fold by Blanche and her scrapbooking matchmakers. She and Ted take turns rescuing each other and eventually Lucy discovers there’s a time to be all-business and there’s a time to be human, and her success comes when she finds the balance between both.
So, while I was hoping I could tell you this movie was great, I can’t. Maybe with more story development, more tangible chemistry between Ted & Lucy, it would have made a more indelible impression. For this lighthearted rom-com, cute will just have to do.
Now that I’ve had time to mull over my response, I can’t help but remember the time I overheard a coworker compliment another coworker with, “You look cute.” To which the complimented coworker replied, “Thank you, but cute is for puppies. I was hoping for great.” Her inability to accept compliments graciously aside, I suppose, when you’re in your mid-40s, as this coworker was, cute just doesn’t cut it anymore. There does come a time, with maturity, one would rather hear they made a more indelible impression.
So what made this movie simply cute and not great? Maybe because I can’t answer the following questions with “Great!” But I could certainly answer them with “Cute.”
How was Renee Zellwegger, who plays Lucy Hill, a determined and driven Miami executive presented with the opportunty to restructure a manufacturing plant in New Ulm, Minnesota? Cute. Okay, I can say she’s extremely fit. Dresses impeccably in tailored power suits and works designer stilletos something fierce. But the whole package, complete with a pretty, but oddly stiff, face that winces more than it smiles, is just…cute.
How was Harry Connick, Jr., who plays Ted Mitchell, the union rep Renee’s character must negotiate with to facilitate the reorganization. Cute. Real cute with that beard. But that’s as enthusiastic as I can get and I love love love Harry Connick, Jr. His role is lowkey and what charm it allows him to cast toward Lucy is from afar. Personally, I think he would’ve been great with a piano and some singing. But that’s HCJ the singer. Alas, HCJ the actor only had a truck, birdshot and malfunctioning factory equipment. Thus, he remained just darn cute.
How was the supporting cast, headed by Siobhan Fallon, who plays Lucy’s quirky secretary, Blanche, and J. K. Simmons as the dour factory foreman, Stu? Cute. The only thing not cute about the townfolk were the sweaters and wallpaper. Ghastly would work better there. Their Minnesotan accents were spot-on (well, as far as I know, considering the only other Minnesotans I’ve ever heard were in other movies). Apparently we’re to believe New Ulm is full of either scrapbooking, Christian do-gooders bearing food or joyless, implacable factory workers who would rather drink beer, ice-fish or shoot crow.
How was the storyline? Cute. Predictable. An unoriginal romantic comedy that attempts to have message. An ambitious up-and-comer has her eye on the CEO title and thinks playing the hardnose in a cost-cutting, streamlining reorganization project will impress the boss. Hardnose in high heels comes up against a tight-knit community in flannel that’s not impressed with her wardrobe, her multi-syllabic vocaulary or her city girl naivete at all. Despite the arctic attitudes and scenery, there’s thawing on both sides as Lucy is drawn into the fold by Blanche and her scrapbooking matchmakers. She and Ted take turns rescuing each other and eventually Lucy discovers there’s a time to be all-business and there’s a time to be human, and her success comes when she finds the balance between both.
So, while I was hoping I could tell you this movie was great, I can’t. Maybe with more story development, more tangible chemistry between Ted & Lucy, it would have made a more indelible impression. For this lighthearted rom-com, cute will just have to do.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Exit: The Game – The Polar Station in Tabletop Games
Mar 11, 2022
One thing that has grown in popularity over the recent years are Escape Rooms. You know, where you’re physically trapped inside a room and have to solve various puzzles, crack codes, and beat the clock in an effort to get out before it’s game over. It should come as no surprise that this premise has made its way into the world of board gaming. Yeah, you’re not physically trapped somewhere, but you still have tons of puzzles to sort out in the fastest time you can. So how does this EXIT game hold up when compared with a real-life escape room? Keep reading to find out!
Disclaimer: In order to avoid spoilers, I will not be going too in depth with this review, but rather provide a general overview of the type of gameplay involved. Also, this review covers one specific EXIT game, but the general mechanics and gameplay are the same across the entire EXIT family.
In EXIT: The Game – The Polar Station (simply referred to as just EXIT from hereon out), you are a member of a research team stationed in the Arctic. One morning, the evacuation alarm goes off unexpectedly, and everyone makes a break for the helicopters. Just one problem for your crew – your exit door is already locked and sealed! You make your way to another section of the lab to look for an alternate escape route. What you find is a room full of locked drawers/doors. You must quickly crack these codes, in hopes that the materials contained within will aid you in your attempts to escape before the final rescue helicopter takes off.
To setup for a game, sort the cards into their appropriate decks – Riddle cards, Answer cards, and Help cards. Place the Decoder disk and the Book in the center of the table. Leave the other items in the game box, to be introduced later in the gameplay. You will also most likely need a pen/pencil and paper to help you as you solve the riddles. And bam! You’re ready to start. You may then open the Book and begin the game. The game ends if or when players are able to successfully solve all of the riddles/puzzles and make their escape from the polar station.
Without spoilers, that’s basically as much detail as I can provide. Over the course of the gameplay, players will be using the pages of the Book to find clues, solve puzzles, or even identify secret symbols. Riddle cards will be drawn and used as ciphers, puzzles, or clues to help crack a code. When you think you have the correct 3-digit code for a specific Riddle Card, enter the code onto the Decoder disk. The disk will then provide the number of an Answer card, which you will draw and check to see if you were correct or incorrect. If your answer is incorrect, you simply keep trying to solve the Riddle card. If your answer is correct, you will then be instructed to draw other Riddle Cards, or the other items from the game box, and will continue with these new puzzles. If at any point in time you feel stuck, you may draw a Help card for the corresponding puzzle. The first and second Help cards will give you hints, and the final Help card will tell you the solution to the puzzle. Draw these sparingly if you can, as they affect your end-game score!
When all puzzles/riddles/codes have been completed and cracked, the game is over. Players will then check the rulebook to see how many Stars were earned, out of 10. The number of Help cards you use, as well as how much time you took to complete the game, will affect the overall score.
All in all, I think that EXIT is a unique game. The games of the series have varying difficulty levels, and this particular EXIT is rated a 3 out of 5. So this one isn’t the most difficult game in the bunch, but it wasn’t easy either! All of the puzzles require creative solutions, and the answers are rarely ever as straight-forward as they appear. Some puzzles are more logical than others, while some require you to physically manipulate components to be used in creative ways. I guess that’s as good a segue as any to get into components. This game consists of a deck of cards, a Decoder disk, a Book, and a couple of special ‘items.’ All decent quality overall. But here’s the thing – you will have to bend/cut/manipulate/destroy many of the components to help you in your mission to solve the riddles. So this game is literally a one-and-done. It cannot be played again.
Did I enjoy my play of this EXIT game? Yes. It was uniquely challenging, while forcing me to think creatively when addressing the different riddles. The method used to solve one riddle is not necessarily the same to solve the next, so you have be able to adjust on the fly. And often times you will have several riddles in play at once, so you have to decide which to address and when, when do you have the right information, which riddle it goes with, etc.
The biggest drawback for me is that it cannot be played again, The fact that you have to alter the components to a point of destroying the original card is something that was personally hard for me to get used to. I try to keep all my games so nice and pristine, that having to cut a card apart was tough! I got over it though. Having played a couple of the EXIT games, as well as a few of the Unlock! games, I would have to say I prefer the Unlock! system. The puzzles are just as challenging and creative, but you do not need to alter components to complete the game. That way, I can pass along an Unlock! game to a friend, as opposed to just tossing this EXIT game right in the recycling bin. I might pick up another EXIT game if I had a specific group/game night in mind, but in general I don’t think I’ll be grabbing any more of these, for the lack of replayability alone. The gameplay itself is pretty great, but the fact that I can’t play it again is a con I can’t ignore. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a chilling 4 / 6.
Disclaimer: In order to avoid spoilers, I will not be going too in depth with this review, but rather provide a general overview of the type of gameplay involved. Also, this review covers one specific EXIT game, but the general mechanics and gameplay are the same across the entire EXIT family.
In EXIT: The Game – The Polar Station (simply referred to as just EXIT from hereon out), you are a member of a research team stationed in the Arctic. One morning, the evacuation alarm goes off unexpectedly, and everyone makes a break for the helicopters. Just one problem for your crew – your exit door is already locked and sealed! You make your way to another section of the lab to look for an alternate escape route. What you find is a room full of locked drawers/doors. You must quickly crack these codes, in hopes that the materials contained within will aid you in your attempts to escape before the final rescue helicopter takes off.
To setup for a game, sort the cards into their appropriate decks – Riddle cards, Answer cards, and Help cards. Place the Decoder disk and the Book in the center of the table. Leave the other items in the game box, to be introduced later in the gameplay. You will also most likely need a pen/pencil and paper to help you as you solve the riddles. And bam! You’re ready to start. You may then open the Book and begin the game. The game ends if or when players are able to successfully solve all of the riddles/puzzles and make their escape from the polar station.
Without spoilers, that’s basically as much detail as I can provide. Over the course of the gameplay, players will be using the pages of the Book to find clues, solve puzzles, or even identify secret symbols. Riddle cards will be drawn and used as ciphers, puzzles, or clues to help crack a code. When you think you have the correct 3-digit code for a specific Riddle Card, enter the code onto the Decoder disk. The disk will then provide the number of an Answer card, which you will draw and check to see if you were correct or incorrect. If your answer is incorrect, you simply keep trying to solve the Riddle card. If your answer is correct, you will then be instructed to draw other Riddle Cards, or the other items from the game box, and will continue with these new puzzles. If at any point in time you feel stuck, you may draw a Help card for the corresponding puzzle. The first and second Help cards will give you hints, and the final Help card will tell you the solution to the puzzle. Draw these sparingly if you can, as they affect your end-game score!
When all puzzles/riddles/codes have been completed and cracked, the game is over. Players will then check the rulebook to see how many Stars were earned, out of 10. The number of Help cards you use, as well as how much time you took to complete the game, will affect the overall score.
All in all, I think that EXIT is a unique game. The games of the series have varying difficulty levels, and this particular EXIT is rated a 3 out of 5. So this one isn’t the most difficult game in the bunch, but it wasn’t easy either! All of the puzzles require creative solutions, and the answers are rarely ever as straight-forward as they appear. Some puzzles are more logical than others, while some require you to physically manipulate components to be used in creative ways. I guess that’s as good a segue as any to get into components. This game consists of a deck of cards, a Decoder disk, a Book, and a couple of special ‘items.’ All decent quality overall. But here’s the thing – you will have to bend/cut/manipulate/destroy many of the components to help you in your mission to solve the riddles. So this game is literally a one-and-done. It cannot be played again.
Did I enjoy my play of this EXIT game? Yes. It was uniquely challenging, while forcing me to think creatively when addressing the different riddles. The method used to solve one riddle is not necessarily the same to solve the next, so you have be able to adjust on the fly. And often times you will have several riddles in play at once, so you have to decide which to address and when, when do you have the right information, which riddle it goes with, etc.
The biggest drawback for me is that it cannot be played again, The fact that you have to alter the components to a point of destroying the original card is something that was personally hard for me to get used to. I try to keep all my games so nice and pristine, that having to cut a card apart was tough! I got over it though. Having played a couple of the EXIT games, as well as a few of the Unlock! games, I would have to say I prefer the Unlock! system. The puzzles are just as challenging and creative, but you do not need to alter components to complete the game. That way, I can pass along an Unlock! game to a friend, as opposed to just tossing this EXIT game right in the recycling bin. I might pick up another EXIT game if I had a specific group/game night in mind, but in general I don’t think I’ll be grabbing any more of these, for the lack of replayability alone. The gameplay itself is pretty great, but the fact that I can’t play it again is a con I can’t ignore. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a chilling 4 / 6.
James Bagshaw recommended track Femme d'argent, La (with Air France) by Air in Moon Safari by Air in Music (curated)
8.7
Album
Favorite