Search
Search results
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Jurassic Parts in Tabletop Games
May 31, 2021
Is it just me or are we experiencing a surge in dinosaur-themed board games lately? I certainly am NOT complaining, as I was one of those dinosaur-obsessed kids growing up (shout out to the dino sheet set I rocked as a kid in the 80s). We have had dino theme parks, and digging for dinos, but we haven’t really gotten this particular spin on paleontology. Yeah, you can find individual bones and dig them up, but what if you found a gigantic slab of rock that encased many different species’ bones? How would you split it up? And what happens when you aren’t the only team to make the discovery?
Jurassic Parts is an interesting mix and spins of area control, enclosure, and set collection for two to five players. In it, players are all paleontologists bent on claiming the biggest and best bones from a giant slab of rock containing dozens of dino species. The catch? Each paleontologist is trying to claim the bones for themselves. Sharp wit, good luck, and a bevvy of sharpened chisels spells success and fame for the paleontologist who wins at collecting Jurassic Parts.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, set aside one of the Pile of Bones (a wild card, of which there are several in the game) and shuffle the rest of the tiles. Split them into two stacks, flip one stack face-down, and build a slab around the Pile of Bones set aside earlier. This creates the slab of rock the players will be splitting. Each player receives their choice of paleontologist character sheet, chisels in their chosen color, and any pre-start resources per the rulebook. The slab is now ready for splitting!
On a turn, the active player will have several options. Firstly, however, the player must sharpen three chisels by moving them from the Dull Chisels are on the right of their sheet to the Sharp Chisels area on the left. Now the player may place their chisels anywhere on the slab, as long as it is on the gap between two tiles. The purpose of this is to create a wonky line of chisels that will break off sections of the slab from the larger chunk. Players will need to beware of rock piles on either side of their preferred placement, as each rock icon on either side of the placement will require an extra chisel to be dulled and discarded. If a chisel placement would cause a line to be completed, a hunk of the slab is separated from the master slab. Players consult with the line of chisels (as shown below) to determine which player has contributed more to the split than the others. This will rank out all contributing players. The player with the most chisels contributed will be able to claim their choice of HALF of the tiles split off, rounded UP (so a player would receive five tiles from a nine-tile split). The next player in contribution order will then have their choice of HALF of the remaining tiles, rounded UP (so the second player would receive two tiles from the previous example, as there would be four left). Subsequent players would then receive HALF of what is left until all tiles have been claimed, or there remains just one tile. This final tile is then given to the Field Leader for his collection.
In addition to this splitting and claiming on a turn, the active player may also make transactions with the Field Leader at any point during their turn. Actions that can be taken while transacting with the Field Leader are selling one tile to him in exchange for an Amber piece, spending Amber to: ignore rocks on the subsequent two chisel placements, sharpen two additional chisels this turn, take any of the leftover fossil tiles from the Field Leader, or take any fossil tile from the slab (as long as it doesn’t create a split). The first action from the Field Leader will cost the player one Amber. Should they wish to enact another action, its cost is two Amber. Subsequent actions on the same turn cost three Amber each.
As you will notice, fossil tiles from the slab will show plant fossils, Pile of Bones (wild), or actual bones belonging to specific dinosaurs. These specific bones will show an alphabetic letter pair icon to denote to which dinosaur it belongs. If, at the end of the game, players are able to assemble the correct type of fossil tiles belonging to specific dinosaurs, they will score many more points than if the dino skeleton were incomplete. For example, at the end of the game, each fossil tile is worth 1VP if from an incomplete skeleton. However, should a player have completed a Velociraptor skeleton, they will receive 4VP for those two tiles. A completed Triceratops scores 7VP, a T-Rex scores 10VP, a Brachiosaurus scores 15VP, and a tiny Pterodactyl scores 1VP for a complete skeleton because it spans only one tile. The Pile of Bones tiles in the game can be used in place of any other fossil tile to complete a skeleton, and Plant tiles score increasingly more points for a larger collection of them.
Play continues in this fashion of sharpening and placing chisels, breaking off sections of the slab and claiming fossil tiles, and utilizing actions at the Field Leader until all slab tiles have been assigned. The player with the most points from complete and incomplete skeletons and plants will be crowned the winner and the greatest paleontologist in the land… until the next playthrough.
Components. You know how you come to expect certain things from publishers, and can just imagine the quality of the game you are about to receive before seeing it? Such is the case with 25th Century Games. I KNOW that I will be receiving a quality product every time, and this certainly is no exception. The fossil tiles are great and sturdy. The chisels are neatly-designed and multifaceted (which I appreciate, as it would be easy to include tubular chisels and have them rolling around the table everywhere). The amber bits are the typical gemstones you find in Century: Golem Edition, but are the absolute PERFECT color and usage for this game. And did you see that first player marker? It’s a mosquito inside a polished amber stone. I mean, COME ON! How perfect is that? I’m excited just TALKING about the components. I haven’t even touched on art yet, and this is longer than most of my components paragraphs. The art is fabulous. It fits the game and the theme so perfectly – I could not have chosen a better fit myself. Has 25th Century Games set the bar too high for themselves, or will they continue to offer high quality games from here on out? I cannot wait to find out!
So sure, it looks great, but what about the gameplay? Do the art and components merely shield a mediocre game? No. Not at all. Being able to place chisels anywhere you like on the board offers players a freedom that is refreshing, but weighing that against the pressure to contribute to an existing or emerging line of chisels so that you are included in the split is just wonderful. Contemplating turns to sell off fossil tiles in order to earn enough amber to gain more chisels, or bypass rocks, or simply take the perfect tile for your collection offers just enough tacticization (why isn’t that a word…) to warm up the brain without indulging the AP in some players.
This is not at all a heavy game, and it certainly doesn’t need to be. It is just a fun time with friends and family that utilizes interesting twists of mechanics that I enjoy. It feels reminiscent of several games (hints of Through the Desert and a twist on I Split You Choose), but it entirely its own design. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one very rewarding 10 / 12. I generally enjoy most dinosaur-themed games, I understand, but this one sits among the best I have played. If you are looking for something that feels both familiar and fresh, with incredible art and components, you need to grab a copy of Jurassic Parts. There are just so many interesting choices to be made and strategies to attempt. I think I will setup a game right now. Want to come play?
Jurassic Parts is an interesting mix and spins of area control, enclosure, and set collection for two to five players. In it, players are all paleontologists bent on claiming the biggest and best bones from a giant slab of rock containing dozens of dino species. The catch? Each paleontologist is trying to claim the bones for themselves. Sharp wit, good luck, and a bevvy of sharpened chisels spells success and fame for the paleontologist who wins at collecting Jurassic Parts.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, set aside one of the Pile of Bones (a wild card, of which there are several in the game) and shuffle the rest of the tiles. Split them into two stacks, flip one stack face-down, and build a slab around the Pile of Bones set aside earlier. This creates the slab of rock the players will be splitting. Each player receives their choice of paleontologist character sheet, chisels in their chosen color, and any pre-start resources per the rulebook. The slab is now ready for splitting!
On a turn, the active player will have several options. Firstly, however, the player must sharpen three chisels by moving them from the Dull Chisels are on the right of their sheet to the Sharp Chisels area on the left. Now the player may place their chisels anywhere on the slab, as long as it is on the gap between two tiles. The purpose of this is to create a wonky line of chisels that will break off sections of the slab from the larger chunk. Players will need to beware of rock piles on either side of their preferred placement, as each rock icon on either side of the placement will require an extra chisel to be dulled and discarded. If a chisel placement would cause a line to be completed, a hunk of the slab is separated from the master slab. Players consult with the line of chisels (as shown below) to determine which player has contributed more to the split than the others. This will rank out all contributing players. The player with the most chisels contributed will be able to claim their choice of HALF of the tiles split off, rounded UP (so a player would receive five tiles from a nine-tile split). The next player in contribution order will then have their choice of HALF of the remaining tiles, rounded UP (so the second player would receive two tiles from the previous example, as there would be four left). Subsequent players would then receive HALF of what is left until all tiles have been claimed, or there remains just one tile. This final tile is then given to the Field Leader for his collection.
In addition to this splitting and claiming on a turn, the active player may also make transactions with the Field Leader at any point during their turn. Actions that can be taken while transacting with the Field Leader are selling one tile to him in exchange for an Amber piece, spending Amber to: ignore rocks on the subsequent two chisel placements, sharpen two additional chisels this turn, take any of the leftover fossil tiles from the Field Leader, or take any fossil tile from the slab (as long as it doesn’t create a split). The first action from the Field Leader will cost the player one Amber. Should they wish to enact another action, its cost is two Amber. Subsequent actions on the same turn cost three Amber each.
As you will notice, fossil tiles from the slab will show plant fossils, Pile of Bones (wild), or actual bones belonging to specific dinosaurs. These specific bones will show an alphabetic letter pair icon to denote to which dinosaur it belongs. If, at the end of the game, players are able to assemble the correct type of fossil tiles belonging to specific dinosaurs, they will score many more points than if the dino skeleton were incomplete. For example, at the end of the game, each fossil tile is worth 1VP if from an incomplete skeleton. However, should a player have completed a Velociraptor skeleton, they will receive 4VP for those two tiles. A completed Triceratops scores 7VP, a T-Rex scores 10VP, a Brachiosaurus scores 15VP, and a tiny Pterodactyl scores 1VP for a complete skeleton because it spans only one tile. The Pile of Bones tiles in the game can be used in place of any other fossil tile to complete a skeleton, and Plant tiles score increasingly more points for a larger collection of them.
Play continues in this fashion of sharpening and placing chisels, breaking off sections of the slab and claiming fossil tiles, and utilizing actions at the Field Leader until all slab tiles have been assigned. The player with the most points from complete and incomplete skeletons and plants will be crowned the winner and the greatest paleontologist in the land… until the next playthrough.
Components. You know how you come to expect certain things from publishers, and can just imagine the quality of the game you are about to receive before seeing it? Such is the case with 25th Century Games. I KNOW that I will be receiving a quality product every time, and this certainly is no exception. The fossil tiles are great and sturdy. The chisels are neatly-designed and multifaceted (which I appreciate, as it would be easy to include tubular chisels and have them rolling around the table everywhere). The amber bits are the typical gemstones you find in Century: Golem Edition, but are the absolute PERFECT color and usage for this game. And did you see that first player marker? It’s a mosquito inside a polished amber stone. I mean, COME ON! How perfect is that? I’m excited just TALKING about the components. I haven’t even touched on art yet, and this is longer than most of my components paragraphs. The art is fabulous. It fits the game and the theme so perfectly – I could not have chosen a better fit myself. Has 25th Century Games set the bar too high for themselves, or will they continue to offer high quality games from here on out? I cannot wait to find out!
So sure, it looks great, but what about the gameplay? Do the art and components merely shield a mediocre game? No. Not at all. Being able to place chisels anywhere you like on the board offers players a freedom that is refreshing, but weighing that against the pressure to contribute to an existing or emerging line of chisels so that you are included in the split is just wonderful. Contemplating turns to sell off fossil tiles in order to earn enough amber to gain more chisels, or bypass rocks, or simply take the perfect tile for your collection offers just enough tacticization (why isn’t that a word…) to warm up the brain without indulging the AP in some players.
This is not at all a heavy game, and it certainly doesn’t need to be. It is just a fun time with friends and family that utilizes interesting twists of mechanics that I enjoy. It feels reminiscent of several games (hints of Through the Desert and a twist on I Split You Choose), but it entirely its own design. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one very rewarding 10 / 12. I generally enjoy most dinosaur-themed games, I understand, but this one sits among the best I have played. If you are looking for something that feels both familiar and fresh, with incredible art and components, you need to grab a copy of Jurassic Parts. There are just so many interesting choices to be made and strategies to attempt. I think I will setup a game right now. Want to come play?
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Small Islands in Tabletop Games
Oct 13, 2021
I have often wished to have been born in a different era of time. For me, I would have loved to have seen the birth of jazz in the US early 20th century. Or to witness the Renaissance first-hand. Another wish of mine was always to somehow discover something amazing. Like an island, or an unknown mountain range, or a new species of animal. That is so exciting to me, and I would have really loved to have just been around during these times. So along comes Small Islands, and my dreams have been woven into a board game about discovering new islands. That means the game is good, right?
Small Islands is a tile placement exploration game for one to four players. In it, players are explorers tasked with discovering resource-rich new islands upon which their clans may either exploit or inhabit. However, it’s each clan for themselves, and the players all need those precious resources. In the solo game, the player’s AI opponent is Alexis Allard, designer of the game. He has goal cards to be used and finishing point totals that the solo player will be attempting to beat during the course 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, the player claims their player color and assigns Alexis with his color. They take all the components for each player and places them on the table. The starting tiles (that feature flying seagulls) are placed on the table in any orientation that is legal for play: islands need to connect, and seas need to flow from one tile to the next, as seen below. The Landscape tiles are to be shuffled and placed within reach. The four ship tiles are displayed, with all ships on their gray side, save for the solo player’s chosen color. The Navigation tile is placed below the ship tiles, and the beginning three Landscape tiles are placed in a row beside it. The small stack of Objective cards are shuffled and placed nearby, with the player drawing one to begin. They also draw two Landscape to start. For solo play, one Alexis difficulty card is chosen, and his deck of Explore and Land cards is built accordingly. The Prestige (VP) tokens are (apparently when I play) just thrown on the table and gathered in a loose pile. The game may now begin!
Small Islands is played over four rounds, with several turns being played per round. The solo player begins each round with their turn. A turn is divided into three phases: Preparation, Exploration, Reward. The Preparation phase has the player populating the Navigation Tile with six Landscape tiles face-down as a draw stack. The player then draws two Objective cards to add to their one they are currently holding. From these three cards the player will choose one to become their current objective for the round, one to be saved for a future round, and one to be discarded back to the stack. These Objective cards provide a strategy to guide the player through the current round, and also setup future rounds for scoring purposes. Upon them are icons that will award the player with points for scoring islands containing specific combinations of resources.
During the Exploration phase in the solo game, the player takes their turn first, and then Alexis will take his. A typical Exploration phase has a player deciding if they will Explore a tile or Land a ship. To Explore a tile, the player chooses one of the face-up Landscape tiles from the market/offer row and, along with their two held tiles, choose one to add to the play area. These tiles may be rotated in any fashion, as long as they can be legally placed: island edges are to be extended, sea spaces connected, et al. It is also at this time the player may place one of their Bonus Tokens upon any tile on the play area. These Bonus Tokens are resource icons that cover up existing icons on a tile, or directly over another Bonus Token. A player would do this in order to affect the balance of icons on a given island for scoring purposes.
Should the Navigation tile be empty of Landscape tiles and the player wish, they may instead Land a ship, thus ending the Exploration phase. The player chooses any of the ship tiles, and places it legally on the play area (in a sea space, as shown below). Once the player ends the phase, the game progresses to the Reward phase.
After the player takes their turn during the Exploration phase, Alexis takes his turn. This is done by drawing an Expedition card from his stack and following its instructions. The Expedition card will show whether Alexis would like to Explore or Land, which Landscape tile he would like to draw, and where he would like to place it – in relation to where the last player tile was placed.
During the Reward phase, the player will place any of their clan houseeples they wish on any island upon which they have not placed a houseeple previously. Then, consulting their Objective card, score points for successfully satisfying the card’s requirements. For Alexis, the player will draw a new Expedition card from Alexis’s stack, note the icons present on the Mission area of the card, and place Alexis houseeples upon islands that satisfy its requirements.
The game continues in this fashion until the fourth round is complete. The player totals their Prestige points (VP) and if they score more than Alexis, they win! The player must then take a picture of their archipelago they built and send it to the designer directly and gloat to them about their massive victory. Or simply rest in the satisfaction of having played the game well. Whichever.
Components. This game has a lot of components, and they are mostly cardboard and houseeples. The cardstock and board are good quality, as I have come to expect from Lucky Duck Games, and the houseeples are all different shapes for each clan color. I find that a nice and unnecessary, but very cool, touch. The art in this one is simply amazing. I mean, look at these photos! Everything from the color scheme to the art style all mesh well and give a well-considered polish to a great theme.
Okay, I won’t even hide it – I LOOOOOOVE this game. I never really liked Carcassonne very much, but Small Islands gives a similar feel, but executes everything so much better. Even with the solo rules. There are so many options available at any one time, and having a random Alexis game each time you play is just so satisfying. I feel like I could keep this game forever and not play the same game twice. Ever. And I think that I would WANT to play this one forever. Yes, I think this is a solid fit for my collection indeed, and I can see it working for so many different gamer types.
Having Alexis constantly applying the pressure to maximize and strategize every turn is delicious, and having almost zero conflict with him as we both explore is welcome. You know when you start the game how many points Alexis will score at the end of the game, so having that knowledge really makes you consider all the options available. It just works on so many levels.
If you are looking for a light-hearted, but with some great decisions to be made, then I strongly urge you to check out Small Islands. I knew immediately that this was a game for me. It’s on the lighter side without being too simple, I get to build a thing and admire it at the end of the game, and I have an opponent who just wants to see me win because he designed the game! I’m in and out in less than an hour and feel content that I was able to have a great experience with a well-designed game. I cannot wait to introduce this to all my friends and family gamers so they can fall in love with it as well.
Small Islands is a tile placement exploration game for one to four players. In it, players are explorers tasked with discovering resource-rich new islands upon which their clans may either exploit or inhabit. However, it’s each clan for themselves, and the players all need those precious resources. In the solo game, the player’s AI opponent is Alexis Allard, designer of the game. He has goal cards to be used and finishing point totals that the solo player will be attempting to beat during the course 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, the player claims their player color and assigns Alexis with his color. They take all the components for each player and places them on the table. The starting tiles (that feature flying seagulls) are placed on the table in any orientation that is legal for play: islands need to connect, and seas need to flow from one tile to the next, as seen below. The Landscape tiles are to be shuffled and placed within reach. The four ship tiles are displayed, with all ships on their gray side, save for the solo player’s chosen color. The Navigation tile is placed below the ship tiles, and the beginning three Landscape tiles are placed in a row beside it. The small stack of Objective cards are shuffled and placed nearby, with the player drawing one to begin. They also draw two Landscape to start. For solo play, one Alexis difficulty card is chosen, and his deck of Explore and Land cards is built accordingly. The Prestige (VP) tokens are (apparently when I play) just thrown on the table and gathered in a loose pile. The game may now begin!
Small Islands is played over four rounds, with several turns being played per round. The solo player begins each round with their turn. A turn is divided into three phases: Preparation, Exploration, Reward. The Preparation phase has the player populating the Navigation Tile with six Landscape tiles face-down as a draw stack. The player then draws two Objective cards to add to their one they are currently holding. From these three cards the player will choose one to become their current objective for the round, one to be saved for a future round, and one to be discarded back to the stack. These Objective cards provide a strategy to guide the player through the current round, and also setup future rounds for scoring purposes. Upon them are icons that will award the player with points for scoring islands containing specific combinations of resources.
During the Exploration phase in the solo game, the player takes their turn first, and then Alexis will take his. A typical Exploration phase has a player deciding if they will Explore a tile or Land a ship. To Explore a tile, the player chooses one of the face-up Landscape tiles from the market/offer row and, along with their two held tiles, choose one to add to the play area. These tiles may be rotated in any fashion, as long as they can be legally placed: island edges are to be extended, sea spaces connected, et al. It is also at this time the player may place one of their Bonus Tokens upon any tile on the play area. These Bonus Tokens are resource icons that cover up existing icons on a tile, or directly over another Bonus Token. A player would do this in order to affect the balance of icons on a given island for scoring purposes.
Should the Navigation tile be empty of Landscape tiles and the player wish, they may instead Land a ship, thus ending the Exploration phase. The player chooses any of the ship tiles, and places it legally on the play area (in a sea space, as shown below). Once the player ends the phase, the game progresses to the Reward phase.
After the player takes their turn during the Exploration phase, Alexis takes his turn. This is done by drawing an Expedition card from his stack and following its instructions. The Expedition card will show whether Alexis would like to Explore or Land, which Landscape tile he would like to draw, and where he would like to place it – in relation to where the last player tile was placed.
During the Reward phase, the player will place any of their clan houseeples they wish on any island upon which they have not placed a houseeple previously. Then, consulting their Objective card, score points for successfully satisfying the card’s requirements. For Alexis, the player will draw a new Expedition card from Alexis’s stack, note the icons present on the Mission area of the card, and place Alexis houseeples upon islands that satisfy its requirements.
The game continues in this fashion until the fourth round is complete. The player totals their Prestige points (VP) and if they score more than Alexis, they win! The player must then take a picture of their archipelago they built and send it to the designer directly and gloat to them about their massive victory. Or simply rest in the satisfaction of having played the game well. Whichever.
Components. This game has a lot of components, and they are mostly cardboard and houseeples. The cardstock and board are good quality, as I have come to expect from Lucky Duck Games, and the houseeples are all different shapes for each clan color. I find that a nice and unnecessary, but very cool, touch. The art in this one is simply amazing. I mean, look at these photos! Everything from the color scheme to the art style all mesh well and give a well-considered polish to a great theme.
Okay, I won’t even hide it – I LOOOOOOVE this game. I never really liked Carcassonne very much, but Small Islands gives a similar feel, but executes everything so much better. Even with the solo rules. There are so many options available at any one time, and having a random Alexis game each time you play is just so satisfying. I feel like I could keep this game forever and not play the same game twice. Ever. And I think that I would WANT to play this one forever. Yes, I think this is a solid fit for my collection indeed, and I can see it working for so many different gamer types.
Having Alexis constantly applying the pressure to maximize and strategize every turn is delicious, and having almost zero conflict with him as we both explore is welcome. You know when you start the game how many points Alexis will score at the end of the game, so having that knowledge really makes you consider all the options available. It just works on so many levels.
If you are looking for a light-hearted, but with some great decisions to be made, then I strongly urge you to check out Small Islands. I knew immediately that this was a game for me. It’s on the lighter side without being too simple, I get to build a thing and admire it at the end of the game, and I have an opponent who just wants to see me win because he designed the game! I’m in and out in less than an hour and feel content that I was able to have a great experience with a well-designed game. I cannot wait to introduce this to all my friends and family gamers so they can fall in love with it as well.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Sheriff of Nottingham in Tabletop Games
Nov 16, 2021
One neat thing about the board gaming hobby is how many new games are designed/created daily. So much innovation, creativity, and hype surrounds new releases and helps keep us gamers hooked! That being said, what happens to older games as time goes on? Can they still hold their own over the years? Do they still feel new and novel to first-time players who are getting to them late? The latter describes me with Sheriff of Nottingham. I only received it for Christmas two years ago, and it has sadly been sitting on my Shelf of Shame until recently. So now that I’ve finally gotten it to the table, how does it hold up? Keep reading to find out!
Disclaimer: I have the first edition of this game, so the pictures below do not reflect the art/component changes brought in the recently released second edition. -L
Sheriff of Nottingham is a party game of bluffing, negotiation, and set collection in which players are trying to earn the most money by bringing their goods (Legal or Contraband!) to market. However, before those goods can get to your merchant stand, they must be cleared to pass by the Sheriff of Nottingham. Are you honest in your declarations, or are you trying to sneak something past the town authority? Bluff, bribe, or negotiate your way to victory and collect the most gold!
To setup for a game of Sheriff of Nottingham, each player receives a merchant stand board and bag in their chosen color, 20 starting gold, and 6 Goods cards. The remaining Goods cards are placed in a draw pile, with 2 adjacent discard piles. Turn over 5 cards to each discard pile, select a starting Sheriff, and the game is ready to begin! Sheriff of Nottingham is played over a series of rounds, and each round is broken down into 5 phases: Market, Load Merchant Bag, Declaration, Inspection, and End of Round. Important note – the player acting as Sheriff for the round will only act in the Inspection phase of a round. During the Market phase, players have the opportunity to discard unwanted Goods from their hand in order to draw cards from the draw pile or either discard pile. New cards are drawn one at a time, and you will draw as many cards as you have chosen to discard. The cards you discard will be placed in either discard pile, in whatever order you choose.
The next phase, Load Merchant Bag, is pretty self-explanatory. All merchant players will select up to 5 cards from their hand to place in their merchant bag. Snap it closed, and place it in front of you for the next phase, Declaration. In this phase, players will take turns declaring what good they are bringing to market. You must say exactly how many cards you are bringing, and you may only declare 1 type of Legal good! Even if your bag has multiple types of goods, you must declare only 1 type. Here is where your bluffing skills come into play! Once all players have made their declarations, the game moves to the Inspection phase, and it is now time for the Sheriff to act! In this phase, the Sheriff will get to decide if they wish to inspect any of the merchant bags, and merchants will have the opportunity to negotiate or bribe the Sheriff to not inspect their bag, or to inspect an opponent’s bag instead. If you make a deal with the Sheriff, you must hold up your end of the agreement!
Once the Sheriff has made their decision, they will either inspect bags or allow them to pass. If you are allowed to pass, you will take back your bag, open it, and add all goods to your merchant stand in their corresponding locations. Legal goods are known to all players, but Contraband goods are kept face-down. If the Sheriff chose to inspect your bag, they will open it and reveal the cards inside. If you were in fact telling the truth, and the cards inside are exactly what you declared, you add them to your merchant stand and the Sheriff will pay you a penalty for each Good card in your bag. If you were lying, a few things happen. First, any goods that were truthfully declared will go to your merchant stand as normal. Any goods that you lied about are confiscated by the Sheriff, and placed onto either discard pile. You then will pay the Sheriff a penalty fee for each confiscated good! The final phase, End of Round, has all players draw back up to 6 cards in hand, and the Sheriff title passes to the next player. The game continues in this fashion until all players have been the Sheriff twice (or three times in a 3-player game). Points are counted up – from your goods in your merchant stand, any gold coins you possess, and any bonus points for majority of Legal goods compared to opponents. Once all points have been tallied, the player with the highest score wins!
I know that I have said before that I generally don’t like bluffing games, but I think that Sheriff of Nottingham might be an exception. Yes, in some cases you will have to bluff about the contents of your merchant bag, but the ability to bribe/negotiate with the Sheriff takes some focus off the actual bluffing part. Can you convince the Sheriff to inspect another player’s bag just because you are trying to hinder that player? Or do you try to get the Sheriff to inspect your own bag, because then they will have to pay you a penalty fee for your honesty (this round, at least). It feels like there is more strategic gameplay here than simple bluffing, and I like the opportunity to strategize instead of relying solely on my (admittedly horrendous) poker-face.
Another thing that I really like about Sheriff of Nottingham is that it can technically be categorized as a party game, but it doesn’t feel like a typical party game to me. It takes strategy to play, and doesn’t just rely on crude/adult humor for laughs. This game really engages all players at all times, as you’re constantly watching your opponents, keeping track of what goods they seem to be collecting, and trying to catch them in a lie. The gameplay itself is pretty streamlined and straightforward, and that just helps to make it flow naturally and logically. The playing time is listed as 60 minutes, but it doesn’t feel like a long game to me at all. It’s just a light, fun, and entertaining game for really any type of game night.
Let’s talk components for a minute. Again, I have the first edition of the game, so I cannot speak as to any component changes in the second edition. But overall, the quality of the first edition is pretty nice! The merchant stand boards are nice, thick cardboard, and are colorful and clear. Perhaps my favorite part of the boards is they each have a turn order reference on them. Not that the gameplay is that complicated, but it’s nice to just have that quick guide. The Goods cards are good quality and feel nice in hand. The artwork is mostly pretty simple, but I like that, since the crux of the gameplay is in the player interactions. The cardboard coins are chunky, and the insert doubles as a draw/discard pile organizer – which to me is a lifesaver! Nothing bothers me more than unruly stacks of cards. The merchant bags are nice and mostly functional. My biggest issue with them is that sometimes the snaps are a little hard to open, and it feels like you might tear the bag if you pull on them too hard. To alleviate that, I just don’t have players actually close the snap, instead just folding over the flap, and that works just as well! Great production quality in my opinion.
So if I seem to like this game, why did I only give it a 4 out of 6? The simple answer to that is that I do like the game, but I don’t love it. It’s fun and serves its purpose well, but it’s not a game that I am dying to pull out every game night. It’s one that will stay in my collection for sure, because there are some occasions that are just perfect for it. But it’s not one that will ever make its way to my Top 10. All in all, it holds up well for being an ‘older’ game, but it doesn’t exactly have me jumping up and down to play. That’s why Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an 11 / 18.
Disclaimer: I have the first edition of this game, so the pictures below do not reflect the art/component changes brought in the recently released second edition. -L
Sheriff of Nottingham is a party game of bluffing, negotiation, and set collection in which players are trying to earn the most money by bringing their goods (Legal or Contraband!) to market. However, before those goods can get to your merchant stand, they must be cleared to pass by the Sheriff of Nottingham. Are you honest in your declarations, or are you trying to sneak something past the town authority? Bluff, bribe, or negotiate your way to victory and collect the most gold!
To setup for a game of Sheriff of Nottingham, each player receives a merchant stand board and bag in their chosen color, 20 starting gold, and 6 Goods cards. The remaining Goods cards are placed in a draw pile, with 2 adjacent discard piles. Turn over 5 cards to each discard pile, select a starting Sheriff, and the game is ready to begin! Sheriff of Nottingham is played over a series of rounds, and each round is broken down into 5 phases: Market, Load Merchant Bag, Declaration, Inspection, and End of Round. Important note – the player acting as Sheriff for the round will only act in the Inspection phase of a round. During the Market phase, players have the opportunity to discard unwanted Goods from their hand in order to draw cards from the draw pile or either discard pile. New cards are drawn one at a time, and you will draw as many cards as you have chosen to discard. The cards you discard will be placed in either discard pile, in whatever order you choose.
The next phase, Load Merchant Bag, is pretty self-explanatory. All merchant players will select up to 5 cards from their hand to place in their merchant bag. Snap it closed, and place it in front of you for the next phase, Declaration. In this phase, players will take turns declaring what good they are bringing to market. You must say exactly how many cards you are bringing, and you may only declare 1 type of Legal good! Even if your bag has multiple types of goods, you must declare only 1 type. Here is where your bluffing skills come into play! Once all players have made their declarations, the game moves to the Inspection phase, and it is now time for the Sheriff to act! In this phase, the Sheriff will get to decide if they wish to inspect any of the merchant bags, and merchants will have the opportunity to negotiate or bribe the Sheriff to not inspect their bag, or to inspect an opponent’s bag instead. If you make a deal with the Sheriff, you must hold up your end of the agreement!
Once the Sheriff has made their decision, they will either inspect bags or allow them to pass. If you are allowed to pass, you will take back your bag, open it, and add all goods to your merchant stand in their corresponding locations. Legal goods are known to all players, but Contraband goods are kept face-down. If the Sheriff chose to inspect your bag, they will open it and reveal the cards inside. If you were in fact telling the truth, and the cards inside are exactly what you declared, you add them to your merchant stand and the Sheriff will pay you a penalty for each Good card in your bag. If you were lying, a few things happen. First, any goods that were truthfully declared will go to your merchant stand as normal. Any goods that you lied about are confiscated by the Sheriff, and placed onto either discard pile. You then will pay the Sheriff a penalty fee for each confiscated good! The final phase, End of Round, has all players draw back up to 6 cards in hand, and the Sheriff title passes to the next player. The game continues in this fashion until all players have been the Sheriff twice (or three times in a 3-player game). Points are counted up – from your goods in your merchant stand, any gold coins you possess, and any bonus points for majority of Legal goods compared to opponents. Once all points have been tallied, the player with the highest score wins!
I know that I have said before that I generally don’t like bluffing games, but I think that Sheriff of Nottingham might be an exception. Yes, in some cases you will have to bluff about the contents of your merchant bag, but the ability to bribe/negotiate with the Sheriff takes some focus off the actual bluffing part. Can you convince the Sheriff to inspect another player’s bag just because you are trying to hinder that player? Or do you try to get the Sheriff to inspect your own bag, because then they will have to pay you a penalty fee for your honesty (this round, at least). It feels like there is more strategic gameplay here than simple bluffing, and I like the opportunity to strategize instead of relying solely on my (admittedly horrendous) poker-face.
Another thing that I really like about Sheriff of Nottingham is that it can technically be categorized as a party game, but it doesn’t feel like a typical party game to me. It takes strategy to play, and doesn’t just rely on crude/adult humor for laughs. This game really engages all players at all times, as you’re constantly watching your opponents, keeping track of what goods they seem to be collecting, and trying to catch them in a lie. The gameplay itself is pretty streamlined and straightforward, and that just helps to make it flow naturally and logically. The playing time is listed as 60 minutes, but it doesn’t feel like a long game to me at all. It’s just a light, fun, and entertaining game for really any type of game night.
Let’s talk components for a minute. Again, I have the first edition of the game, so I cannot speak as to any component changes in the second edition. But overall, the quality of the first edition is pretty nice! The merchant stand boards are nice, thick cardboard, and are colorful and clear. Perhaps my favorite part of the boards is they each have a turn order reference on them. Not that the gameplay is that complicated, but it’s nice to just have that quick guide. The Goods cards are good quality and feel nice in hand. The artwork is mostly pretty simple, but I like that, since the crux of the gameplay is in the player interactions. The cardboard coins are chunky, and the insert doubles as a draw/discard pile organizer – which to me is a lifesaver! Nothing bothers me more than unruly stacks of cards. The merchant bags are nice and mostly functional. My biggest issue with them is that sometimes the snaps are a little hard to open, and it feels like you might tear the bag if you pull on them too hard. To alleviate that, I just don’t have players actually close the snap, instead just folding over the flap, and that works just as well! Great production quality in my opinion.
So if I seem to like this game, why did I only give it a 4 out of 6? The simple answer to that is that I do like the game, but I don’t love it. It’s fun and serves its purpose well, but it’s not a game that I am dying to pull out every game night. It’s one that will stay in my collection for sure, because there are some occasions that are just perfect for it. But it’s not one that will ever make its way to my Top 10. All in all, it holds up well for being an ‘older’ game, but it doesn’t exactly have me jumping up and down to play. That’s why Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an 11 / 18.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Who thought it was a good idea to remake Ben-Hur? Well, on paper, it would seem to be a possibility. Ben-Hur has been hitting our cinema screens since 1907, with three other theatrical versions before this one; a short silent effort in 1907, the 1925 silent epic and the blockbusting MGM epic from 1959.
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Commuter (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Liam Neeson's special set of skills return
The Movie Metropolis Alternative Oscars have received over 650 votes so far and it’s proving to be the closest run awards ever. Make sure you cast your vote for the best films and performances from 2017 before March 6th.
Liam Neeson is this generation’s formidable action hero. From protecting his family in Taken and protecting his family in Run All Night, to protecting his family in Taken 2, and you know, protecting his family in Taken 3, Neeson is a family man if ever I’ve seen one.
Teaming up with director Jaume Collet-Serra for the fourth time, the rather excellent Non-Stop being their best work together, Neeson takes the action and moves it on-board, you guessed it, a commuter train. But does The Commuter work? Or are we starting to get derailed by these constant action roles?
Insurance salesman Michael (Neeson) is on his daily commute home, which quickly becomes anything but routine. After being contacted by a mysterious stranger (Vera Farmiga), Michael is forced to uncover the identity of a hidden passenger on the train before the last stop. As he works against the clock to solve the puzzle, he realizes a deadly plan is unfolding, and he is unwittingly caught up in a criminal conspiracy that carries life and death stakes for everyone on the train.
The premise is a borderline carbon copy of what we saw in Non-Stop, but with Neeson battling a series of bad guys on a train instead of in the air, and while it is at times, ridiculous, it’s directed with the usual Collet-Serra sense of style that would make even a dog food commercial look intriguing.
Where last year’s Murder on the Orient Express opted for opulence and fairly static camerawork, here The Commuter utilises every part of the train to its advantage. From underneath the carriages, to through the windows and even cleverly framed through a ticket stub, Collet-Serra’s direction is unique, if a little over-stylised at times.
Casting wise, Neeson is the perfect choice to play the world-weary protagonist with a very special set of skills, after all, it’s a role he has been playing for many years now. Some might say typecast, I prefer to think of it as knowing what he wants. Elsewhere, Vera Farmiga is a disappointingly underused presence and it would have been nice to see her a little more throughout the fairly taut 105-minute running time. It’s also nice to see Sam Neill back on the big screen and he remains dependable company.
It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG
The action is choreographed well considering the limitations of the set and while it’s clear that the carriages have been manipulated during some of the fight scenes, it’s still impressive to think of all the camera equipment being squeezed into a fairly small space. There’s always been something oddly satisfying at seeing 65-year-old Neeson taking down a group of ruffians half his age and that shows no sign of dissipating any time soon.
Unfortunately, it appears that the limitations of the set also manifested themselves in limits to the script. There are numerous scenes of Neeson pacing up and down the carriages with very little dialogue and while this worked reasonably well in Non-Stop, the result is less successful here, probably due to a less engaging supporting cast.
And while the cinematography is very clever indeed, the low budget, less than $20million in fact, means some of the CGI and special effects leave a lot to be desired, especially towards the film’s climax. It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG.
Overall, The Commuter is another thrilling slice of popcorn entertainment from Jaume Collet-Serra and Liam Neeson. At 65-years-old, you’d think everyone’s favourite Irish actor would want to be settling down into cosier rom-com territory and who could blame him? I’m just thankful he’s not. The Commuter may be utterly preposterous and completely unoriginal, but you’ll have a blast watching it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/20/the-commuter-review-liam-neesons-special-set-of-skills-return/
Liam Neeson is this generation’s formidable action hero. From protecting his family in Taken and protecting his family in Run All Night, to protecting his family in Taken 2, and you know, protecting his family in Taken 3, Neeson is a family man if ever I’ve seen one.
Teaming up with director Jaume Collet-Serra for the fourth time, the rather excellent Non-Stop being their best work together, Neeson takes the action and moves it on-board, you guessed it, a commuter train. But does The Commuter work? Or are we starting to get derailed by these constant action roles?
Insurance salesman Michael (Neeson) is on his daily commute home, which quickly becomes anything but routine. After being contacted by a mysterious stranger (Vera Farmiga), Michael is forced to uncover the identity of a hidden passenger on the train before the last stop. As he works against the clock to solve the puzzle, he realizes a deadly plan is unfolding, and he is unwittingly caught up in a criminal conspiracy that carries life and death stakes for everyone on the train.
The premise is a borderline carbon copy of what we saw in Non-Stop, but with Neeson battling a series of bad guys on a train instead of in the air, and while it is at times, ridiculous, it’s directed with the usual Collet-Serra sense of style that would make even a dog food commercial look intriguing.
Where last year’s Murder on the Orient Express opted for opulence and fairly static camerawork, here The Commuter utilises every part of the train to its advantage. From underneath the carriages, to through the windows and even cleverly framed through a ticket stub, Collet-Serra’s direction is unique, if a little over-stylised at times.
Casting wise, Neeson is the perfect choice to play the world-weary protagonist with a very special set of skills, after all, it’s a role he has been playing for many years now. Some might say typecast, I prefer to think of it as knowing what he wants. Elsewhere, Vera Farmiga is a disappointingly underused presence and it would have been nice to see her a little more throughout the fairly taut 105-minute running time. It’s also nice to see Sam Neill back on the big screen and he remains dependable company.
It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG
The action is choreographed well considering the limitations of the set and while it’s clear that the carriages have been manipulated during some of the fight scenes, it’s still impressive to think of all the camera equipment being squeezed into a fairly small space. There’s always been something oddly satisfying at seeing 65-year-old Neeson taking down a group of ruffians half his age and that shows no sign of dissipating any time soon.
Unfortunately, it appears that the limitations of the set also manifested themselves in limits to the script. There are numerous scenes of Neeson pacing up and down the carriages with very little dialogue and while this worked reasonably well in Non-Stop, the result is less successful here, probably due to a less engaging supporting cast.
And while the cinematography is very clever indeed, the low budget, less than $20million in fact, means some of the CGI and special effects leave a lot to be desired, especially towards the film’s climax. It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG.
Overall, The Commuter is another thrilling slice of popcorn entertainment from Jaume Collet-Serra and Liam Neeson. At 65-years-old, you’d think everyone’s favourite Irish actor would want to be settling down into cosier rom-com territory and who could blame him? I’m just thankful he’s not. The Commuter may be utterly preposterous and completely unoriginal, but you’ll have a blast watching it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/20/the-commuter-review-liam-neesons-special-set-of-skills-return/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Hoorah, it's not a total dud
The entire production of Justice League has been enveloped in the tragedy surrounding director Zack Snyder’s sudden departure from the project in March this year.
After losing his daughter, Autumn, to suicide, the DC regular decided to hand over the reins of his passion project to Avengers director Joss Whedon so that he could spend time with his family. Whedon came on board and decided to undertake costly reshoots in order to get the film finished on time.
In that respect, it’s a miracle we’ve even got a Justice League movie in the first place. What’s even more of a miracle is that it turns out to be not rubbish – unfortunately that’s probably the biggest compliment I can give this frequently entertaining but messy outing for our favourite selection of DC Comic superheroes.
Fuelled by his restored faith in humanity and inspired by Superman’s (Henry Cavill) act of selflessness, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) enlists newfound ally Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) to face an even greater threat. Together, Batman and Wonder Woman work quickly to recruit a team to stand against their newly awakened enemy, Steppenwolf. Despite the formation of an unprecedented league of heroes — Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and the Flash (Ezra Miller) – it may be too late to save the planet from an assault of catastrophic proportions.
This year’s Wonder Woman proved that the DC Universe can be at least a passable alternative to the might of Marvel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was an entertaining, if entirely forgettable mash up of the two titular heroes. Justice League sits somewhere in between – it’s not as much of an ordeal as BvS, but it’s also not as interesting as Wonder Woman. The less said about Suicide Squad, the better.
Acting wise, it’s a good start for the League. Ben Affleck is a cracking Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is lacking the gritty humanity of Christian Bale’s turn as the caped crusader. Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa and Ray Fisher all perform well with the former in particular being a highlight, but their rushed introductions do them no favours. However, the standout once again is the wonderful Gal Gadot. Her selfless Diana Prince really is magnificent and her increased screen-time in Justice League when compared to Batman v Superman is more than welcome.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film.
The main villain, Steppenwolf, voiced well by Ciarán Hinds is less successful. Masked behind walls of at-times poor CGI, his threat never feels truly realised and poor Hinds is wasted in a role reminiscent of the dreadful work 20th Century Fox did on Oscar Issac in X-Men: Apocalypse. He gets some good lines however, and makes for a decent, if unremarkable antagonist.
Amy Adams and Diane Lane are once again side-lined in their roles as Lois Lane and Martha Kent respectively. These incredible actresses really are wasted in roles that have little-to-no outcome to the plot. And this is a problem that has blighted the DCEU from the get-go. The calibre of actors used in these films is frankly, astounding and each one of them deserves better than the overly expositional and cringe worthy dialogue they continue to be lumped with.
The final act, like so many films before it, is a mess of ugly CGI that spoils a very decent middle section that has some truly poignant moments. The return of Superman (that isn’t a spoiler if you’ve been following the marketing for Justice League) is handled well and the moment he is reunited with his mother is touching and well-acted.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film. It’s also painfully obvious where Snyder’s very ‘operatic’ filming style is replaced with Joss Whedon’s trademark wit and this doesn’t sit well all of the time. It’s clear that a turbulent production has created a film that’s biggest merit is that it even managed to exist in the first place, and that’s a real shame. Entertaining? Yes. But entertainment can’t mask a film that reeks of mediocrity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/19/justice-league-review/
After losing his daughter, Autumn, to suicide, the DC regular decided to hand over the reins of his passion project to Avengers director Joss Whedon so that he could spend time with his family. Whedon came on board and decided to undertake costly reshoots in order to get the film finished on time.
In that respect, it’s a miracle we’ve even got a Justice League movie in the first place. What’s even more of a miracle is that it turns out to be not rubbish – unfortunately that’s probably the biggest compliment I can give this frequently entertaining but messy outing for our favourite selection of DC Comic superheroes.
Fuelled by his restored faith in humanity and inspired by Superman’s (Henry Cavill) act of selflessness, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) enlists newfound ally Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) to face an even greater threat. Together, Batman and Wonder Woman work quickly to recruit a team to stand against their newly awakened enemy, Steppenwolf. Despite the formation of an unprecedented league of heroes — Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and the Flash (Ezra Miller) – it may be too late to save the planet from an assault of catastrophic proportions.
This year’s Wonder Woman proved that the DC Universe can be at least a passable alternative to the might of Marvel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was an entertaining, if entirely forgettable mash up of the two titular heroes. Justice League sits somewhere in between – it’s not as much of an ordeal as BvS, but it’s also not as interesting as Wonder Woman. The less said about Suicide Squad, the better.
Acting wise, it’s a good start for the League. Ben Affleck is a cracking Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is lacking the gritty humanity of Christian Bale’s turn as the caped crusader. Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa and Ray Fisher all perform well with the former in particular being a highlight, but their rushed introductions do them no favours. However, the standout once again is the wonderful Gal Gadot. Her selfless Diana Prince really is magnificent and her increased screen-time in Justice League when compared to Batman v Superman is more than welcome.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film.
The main villain, Steppenwolf, voiced well by Ciarán Hinds is less successful. Masked behind walls of at-times poor CGI, his threat never feels truly realised and poor Hinds is wasted in a role reminiscent of the dreadful work 20th Century Fox did on Oscar Issac in X-Men: Apocalypse. He gets some good lines however, and makes for a decent, if unremarkable antagonist.
Amy Adams and Diane Lane are once again side-lined in their roles as Lois Lane and Martha Kent respectively. These incredible actresses really are wasted in roles that have little-to-no outcome to the plot. And this is a problem that has blighted the DCEU from the get-go. The calibre of actors used in these films is frankly, astounding and each one of them deserves better than the overly expositional and cringe worthy dialogue they continue to be lumped with.
The final act, like so many films before it, is a mess of ugly CGI that spoils a very decent middle section that has some truly poignant moments. The return of Superman (that isn’t a spoiler if you’ve been following the marketing for Justice League) is handled well and the moment he is reunited with his mother is touching and well-acted.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film. It’s also painfully obvious where Snyder’s very ‘operatic’ filming style is replaced with Joss Whedon’s trademark wit and this doesn’t sit well all of the time. It’s clear that a turbulent production has created a film that’s biggest merit is that it even managed to exist in the first place, and that’s a real shame. Entertaining? Yes. But entertainment can’t mask a film that reeks of mediocrity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/19/justice-league-review/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Sagrada in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
One of the best parts of the board gaming experience is finding a fun group of people with whom to play! Sometimes, though, coordinating a game night is easier said than done. We all must occasionally forego the group experience and face the world as the Lonely Only. But fear not! The world of solo-play is a vast and exciting realm! What follows is a chronicle of my journey into the solo-playing world – notes on gameplay, mechanics, rules, difficulty, and overall experience with solo variations of commonly multiplayer games! I hope this will provide some insight as you continue to grow your collection, or explore your already owned games!
In Sagrada, you are an artist who has been tasked with creating a beautiful stained glass window. Working piece by piece, you build a masterpiece – the likes of which have never before been witnessed. Finding the perfect pieces can be tricky, but through careful use of your tools and with your artistic vision, you can create the best window in the town! The game is played over 10 rounds in which players draft dice and place them in their windows, following certain placement restrictions. A set number of tools are available for use, and can aid you in manipulating the dice to your benefit. Points are scored based on successful completion of private and public objectives, and the player with the highest score at the end of 10 drafting rounds is the winner!
My favorite part about playing Sagrada solo is that the game is essentially played the same way, regardless of player count. The only difference is how you win! In both group and solo play, each player will draft two dice every round. In group play, any leftover dice are discarded, while in solo play, the remaining two dice will be added towards the Target Score – the score you are trying to beat at the end of the game! To find the Target Score, you add all of the die values of your unused dice from each round. If, at the end of the 10 rounds, you have earned more points than the Target Score, you win! But if the Target Score is higher than your final score, you lose.
The game play differences are simple enough, but actually winning the game solo is a different story. I have played Sagrada solo quite a bit, and have won maybe 25% of the time. Depending on which window card and objectives are in play, and because of placement restrictions, I often have to sacrifice high-valued dice to the Target Score. And since there are no placement restrictions for the Target Score, and two dice are added to it each round, it is very easy for that score to sky-rocket. I either barely pull off a win, or I lose by a huge margin. Playing in a group is nicer in this regard because the other players have the same placement restrictions that I have – nobody is just getting points for free. Without the Target Score, there really is no way to play Sagrada solo, but it makes the game feel a little imbalanced to me.
Just because it is difficult to win solo does not mean that I do not like the game. It requires quite a bit of strategy, and that keeps me engaged for the entire game. There are dice placement restrictions based on color AND value, so there are two different ways in which you have to constantly be strategizing. You can’t just focus on either value or color – your strategy must always be changing based on which color dice are drawn and what values are subsequently rolled. Even with the amount of strategy required, Sagrada actually plays pretty quickly as a solo game, and I really like that. I like the challenge of this game, and often try to play until I can win. Since I can finish an entire solo game in probably 10-15 minutes, I am able to get multiple plays in a row!
Sagrada is a challenging game to play solo, but not in a way that feels futile. I don’t win a lot, but the strategic implications and the pretty dice colors are what keep me coming back to this game! If you haven’t tried Sagrada solo yet, I’d encourage you to give it a shot. But be warned – you might not always win.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/02/26/solo-chronicles-sagrada/
In Sagrada, you are an artist who has been tasked with creating a beautiful stained glass window. Working piece by piece, you build a masterpiece – the likes of which have never before been witnessed. Finding the perfect pieces can be tricky, but through careful use of your tools and with your artistic vision, you can create the best window in the town! The game is played over 10 rounds in which players draft dice and place them in their windows, following certain placement restrictions. A set number of tools are available for use, and can aid you in manipulating the dice to your benefit. Points are scored based on successful completion of private and public objectives, and the player with the highest score at the end of 10 drafting rounds is the winner!
My favorite part about playing Sagrada solo is that the game is essentially played the same way, regardless of player count. The only difference is how you win! In both group and solo play, each player will draft two dice every round. In group play, any leftover dice are discarded, while in solo play, the remaining two dice will be added towards the Target Score – the score you are trying to beat at the end of the game! To find the Target Score, you add all of the die values of your unused dice from each round. If, at the end of the 10 rounds, you have earned more points than the Target Score, you win! But if the Target Score is higher than your final score, you lose.
The game play differences are simple enough, but actually winning the game solo is a different story. I have played Sagrada solo quite a bit, and have won maybe 25% of the time. Depending on which window card and objectives are in play, and because of placement restrictions, I often have to sacrifice high-valued dice to the Target Score. And since there are no placement restrictions for the Target Score, and two dice are added to it each round, it is very easy for that score to sky-rocket. I either barely pull off a win, or I lose by a huge margin. Playing in a group is nicer in this regard because the other players have the same placement restrictions that I have – nobody is just getting points for free. Without the Target Score, there really is no way to play Sagrada solo, but it makes the game feel a little imbalanced to me.
Just because it is difficult to win solo does not mean that I do not like the game. It requires quite a bit of strategy, and that keeps me engaged for the entire game. There are dice placement restrictions based on color AND value, so there are two different ways in which you have to constantly be strategizing. You can’t just focus on either value or color – your strategy must always be changing based on which color dice are drawn and what values are subsequently rolled. Even with the amount of strategy required, Sagrada actually plays pretty quickly as a solo game, and I really like that. I like the challenge of this game, and often try to play until I can win. Since I can finish an entire solo game in probably 10-15 minutes, I am able to get multiple plays in a row!
Sagrada is a challenging game to play solo, but not in a way that feels futile. I don’t win a lot, but the strategic implications and the pretty dice colors are what keep me coming back to this game! If you haven’t tried Sagrada solo yet, I’d encourage you to give it a shot. But be warned – you might not always win.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/02/26/solo-chronicles-sagrada/
What can I say about <i>Revenger</i>?
It was my first ever Space Opera and it has opened my eyes to a whole new genre.
It was my first ever Space Opera and it has primed my taste-buds for more.
It was my first ever Alastair Reynolds and now I want more.
Revenger itself was amazingly well written. As mentioned above this was my first book from Alastair Reynolds and it was just the kind of book I could get into again and again; the writing style flowed with a shocking ease and the plot line was very Firefly-esque with a hint more action and a smidge more ‘oh-shit’ factor.
Revenger follows the story of Adrana and Arafura Ness – two sisters from Mazarile whose sick father had made some very poor choices in business – as they embark on a journey into space to end all journeys.
It begins with Adrana convincing her younger sister Arafura to escape into Neural Alley for a reading by Madam Granity. There’s aliens, robots and weird looking men with bad attitudes and then there’s Captain Rackamore. Pol Rackamore is the captain of the Monetta’s Mourn – a sunjammer spaceship – and he’s in need of a new Boney on his ship as his current one is getting too old to ‘read the bones’ and I mean that in the literal sense of the word.
Adrana convinces Cap’n Rack to take both her and Arafura on board the Monetta in the position of new Bone Readers (with the aide of Cazaray the current Boney) and that is where the story really begins. We’re introduced to the rest of the crew and the Monetta sails off into the Empty in search of baubles. As they sail towards their first bauble Arafura becomes a lot closer to the rest of the crew while I feel that Adrana is doing her best to stay away from them all even though she’s front and center.
Story progresses and little hints are dropped about Bosa Sennen and Cap’n Rack’s long lost daughter. There’s several shocking deaths, a mad woman, a kidnapping or two and a young girl bent on revenge.
Around the mid way mark Arafura changes, subtly at first and then a lot more drastic and she becomes Just Fura. This is where the story becomes a lot darker and a lot less like Firefly and a lot more like the Firefly from hell; the second half of this book is based around Fura getting Revenger on Bosa Sennen for what she did and the things that Fura puts herself through to get where she needs to be? She started off as a little timid and shy but after the 50% mark she changed completely and became hard and unyielding.
You know how they say that the future is bright? That brightness is swallowed by the Empty and the future is dark and full of terrors (oh yeah I went there) there’s a doctor with a God complex, a father with a total lack of regard for his daughters, a totally bad ass soldier robot with logic barricades and all sorts of other people.
I think I loved the world building the most about Revenger it was such a smooth transition from place to place and from time to time that it was almost seamless; my second favourite thing was the characters – hands down they were some of the best characters I’ve ever read and I’d love to see if AR takes this book any further as it was seemingly left open for another book but we shall see.
The book gave off a distinctly pirate feeling but with the space element it felt more like Firefly than it did Pirates of the Caribbean which as a fan of both was saying something. Pirates sailing the high skies rather than the high seas! Some of the characters left much to be desired – Bosa, Adrana and Dr Moonface I’m looking at y’all – but the likes of Rack, Prozor and Paladin more than made up for them.
The dialogue was great and the story wasn’t overly scientific which sometimes can be an issue for me, I like my books to be a little less science fact and a bit more science fiction but with Revenger, I felt like AR was giving us regular folk an explanation without going overboard on the description.
It was my first ever Space Opera and it has opened my eyes to a whole new genre.
It was my first ever Space Opera and it has primed my taste-buds for more.
It was my first ever Alastair Reynolds and now I want more.
Revenger itself was amazingly well written. As mentioned above this was my first book from Alastair Reynolds and it was just the kind of book I could get into again and again; the writing style flowed with a shocking ease and the plot line was very Firefly-esque with a hint more action and a smidge more ‘oh-shit’ factor.
Revenger follows the story of Adrana and Arafura Ness – two sisters from Mazarile whose sick father had made some very poor choices in business – as they embark on a journey into space to end all journeys.
It begins with Adrana convincing her younger sister Arafura to escape into Neural Alley for a reading by Madam Granity. There’s aliens, robots and weird looking men with bad attitudes and then there’s Captain Rackamore. Pol Rackamore is the captain of the Monetta’s Mourn – a sunjammer spaceship – and he’s in need of a new Boney on his ship as his current one is getting too old to ‘read the bones’ and I mean that in the literal sense of the word.
Adrana convinces Cap’n Rack to take both her and Arafura on board the Monetta in the position of new Bone Readers (with the aide of Cazaray the current Boney) and that is where the story really begins. We’re introduced to the rest of the crew and the Monetta sails off into the Empty in search of baubles. As they sail towards their first bauble Arafura becomes a lot closer to the rest of the crew while I feel that Adrana is doing her best to stay away from them all even though she’s front and center.
Story progresses and little hints are dropped about Bosa Sennen and Cap’n Rack’s long lost daughter. There’s several shocking deaths, a mad woman, a kidnapping or two and a young girl bent on revenge.
Around the mid way mark Arafura changes, subtly at first and then a lot more drastic and she becomes Just Fura. This is where the story becomes a lot darker and a lot less like Firefly and a lot more like the Firefly from hell; the second half of this book is based around Fura getting Revenger on Bosa Sennen for what she did and the things that Fura puts herself through to get where she needs to be? She started off as a little timid and shy but after the 50% mark she changed completely and became hard and unyielding.
You know how they say that the future is bright? That brightness is swallowed by the Empty and the future is dark and full of terrors (oh yeah I went there) there’s a doctor with a God complex, a father with a total lack of regard for his daughters, a totally bad ass soldier robot with logic barricades and all sorts of other people.
I think I loved the world building the most about Revenger it was such a smooth transition from place to place and from time to time that it was almost seamless; my second favourite thing was the characters – hands down they were some of the best characters I’ve ever read and I’d love to see if AR takes this book any further as it was seemingly left open for another book but we shall see.
The book gave off a distinctly pirate feeling but with the space element it felt more like Firefly than it did Pirates of the Caribbean which as a fan of both was saying something. Pirates sailing the high skies rather than the high seas! Some of the characters left much to be desired – Bosa, Adrana and Dr Moonface I’m looking at y’all – but the likes of Rack, Prozor and Paladin more than made up for them.
The dialogue was great and the story wasn’t overly scientific which sometimes can be an issue for me, I like my books to be a little less science fact and a bit more science fiction but with Revenger, I felt like AR was giving us regular folk an explanation without going overboard on the description.
Ross (3284 KP) rated Perfect Death in Books
Sep 28, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have debated with myself over a rating for this, the third in the "DI Luc Callanach" series of Edinburgh police procedurals. While the overall story is definitely a 4 star, verging on 5, certain aspects of the dialogue in this one were a little jarring at times, and the plot hinged on a couple of very out of character decisions on the part of the murderer.
As with the previous two books, we join the story at the start of two independent investigations, which inevitably expand and take up the whole team's efforts (it's almost as if there was no crime in the city before these came along as no other cases seem to be mentioned or worked on!). We have the apparent death by misadventure of a young girl on the hills around Arthur's Seat, and the apparent suicide of former DCI Begbie.
Both cases are interesting and very different, the former being a more typical murder investigation, the latter being more focused on police corruption and the Glasgow gangland (I do enjoy the fact that any nasty gangsters in these Edinburgh-based stories have to be based in Glasgow, almost like they are sponsored by the Edinburgh tourist board, or someone with an anti-East Coast agenda).
While the murder investigation is decent, a number of clangers really spoiled it for me. We have a young man who appears to be poisoning people after having ingratiated themselves into their lives and the lives of their loved ones under different false names. However, as is so often the case in these stories, the killer is made too clever to be caught (at least too clever to be caught in under 300 pages!), and so the slightest mistake or piece of luck is what the investigation hinges on. Here it transpires that, while the killer has used false names in every interaction, in one of them he seems to have for some reason used the name of someone who leads the police directly to his backstory and hence uncovering his real identity. This piece of Batman vs Superman ("Your Mom was called Martha?!") level plot pivot was just so jarring and so out of character for this supposedly clever murderer. And yet without it there was pretty much no way of the murderer being found. For a secret poisoner to then start waving a gun around was also a bit hard to accept.
And also, all characters seem to be very well spoken. We have a young man who grew up in care homes from the age of 5, a Glasgow gangster and his henchmen and numerous bad sorts along the way and all are very well spoken, to the point that none of them have a voice and are just ... there. And, of course everyone refers to the police in the same way as the police refer to themselves - I cannot imagine anyone referring to a policeman as "DI something" or ""your DCI said this". It just totally jars and again comes across as the author simply inserting their voice into the mouths of characters that they could not be bothered to properly consider.
This brings me on to the dialogue gripe. I have always struggled to accept the formality in the way fictional detectives speak to members of the public. I get that interviews etc have to be carried out in a certain way, but at one point DCI Turner is speaking to a 17 year old boy about the death of his mother and she says "I cannot leave someone who might be a danger to themselves without establishing first-hand contact". This just struck me as the author inserting a piece of research into dialogue rather than considering how that point would be addressed in a human conversation. Similarly, at one point a DC refers to one of the victims as "she" and Callanach snapped at her "We use victims' names not pronouns", which just struck me as an odd thing to say, and at several times throughout the book he himself refers to victims with pronouns.
And finally, while there was never a great deal of swearing in the first two books, it was believable swearing. Here we have the occasional use of "frigging" instead of the other "f" word, which I cannot think I have ever heard a Scottish person say, unless singing along to the Sex Pistols sea shanty.
Overall, I give this book 4 stars for the plot, 3 stars for the writing, then averaged out and rounded down for the annoying little things.
A definite step down from the second book, and a more slapdash feel to it.
As with the previous two books, we join the story at the start of two independent investigations, which inevitably expand and take up the whole team's efforts (it's almost as if there was no crime in the city before these came along as no other cases seem to be mentioned or worked on!). We have the apparent death by misadventure of a young girl on the hills around Arthur's Seat, and the apparent suicide of former DCI Begbie.
Both cases are interesting and very different, the former being a more typical murder investigation, the latter being more focused on police corruption and the Glasgow gangland (I do enjoy the fact that any nasty gangsters in these Edinburgh-based stories have to be based in Glasgow, almost like they are sponsored by the Edinburgh tourist board, or someone with an anti-East Coast agenda).
While the murder investigation is decent, a number of clangers really spoiled it for me. We have a young man who appears to be poisoning people after having ingratiated themselves into their lives and the lives of their loved ones under different false names. However, as is so often the case in these stories, the killer is made too clever to be caught (at least too clever to be caught in under 300 pages!), and so the slightest mistake or piece of luck is what the investigation hinges on. Here it transpires that, while the killer has used false names in every interaction, in one of them he seems to have for some reason used the name of someone who leads the police directly to his backstory and hence uncovering his real identity. This piece of Batman vs Superman ("Your Mom was called Martha?!") level plot pivot was just so jarring and so out of character for this supposedly clever murderer. And yet without it there was pretty much no way of the murderer being found. For a secret poisoner to then start waving a gun around was also a bit hard to accept.
And also, all characters seem to be very well spoken. We have a young man who grew up in care homes from the age of 5, a Glasgow gangster and his henchmen and numerous bad sorts along the way and all are very well spoken, to the point that none of them have a voice and are just ... there. And, of course everyone refers to the police in the same way as the police refer to themselves - I cannot imagine anyone referring to a policeman as "DI something" or ""your DCI said this". It just totally jars and again comes across as the author simply inserting their voice into the mouths of characters that they could not be bothered to properly consider.
This brings me on to the dialogue gripe. I have always struggled to accept the formality in the way fictional detectives speak to members of the public. I get that interviews etc have to be carried out in a certain way, but at one point DCI Turner is speaking to a 17 year old boy about the death of his mother and she says "I cannot leave someone who might be a danger to themselves without establishing first-hand contact". This just struck me as the author inserting a piece of research into dialogue rather than considering how that point would be addressed in a human conversation. Similarly, at one point a DC refers to one of the victims as "she" and Callanach snapped at her "We use victims' names not pronouns", which just struck me as an odd thing to say, and at several times throughout the book he himself refers to victims with pronouns.
And finally, while there was never a great deal of swearing in the first two books, it was believable swearing. Here we have the occasional use of "frigging" instead of the other "f" word, which I cannot think I have ever heard a Scottish person say, unless singing along to the Sex Pistols sea shanty.
Overall, I give this book 4 stars for the plot, 3 stars for the writing, then averaged out and rounded down for the annoying little things.
A definite step down from the second book, and a more slapdash feel to it.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Exorcist (1973) in Movies
Oct 17, 2019
Its a scream
This is a guest review for the stage show of The Exorcist not for the movie written by my good friend jappyscraps (on instagram) which I'm very thankful for.
The Exorcist on stage – Alexandra Theatre, Birmingham, 16/10/19
It’s my number one film of all-time so naturally I approached this production with some caution. Any stage adaptations of films have to be stripped down for obvious reasons and with The Exorcist having some key technical moments I was eager to see how they achieved them or even included them at all.
There’s a very clever build-up to the show with a steady drone of religious chanting and indecipherable voices, whispers and moans which stay with you before a massive crack rips through the sound system and the theatre is plunged into total darkness. It’s quite unsettling and there were a lot of nervous giggles and squeaks in the audience. A light appears at the top of the stage set and Father Merrin (played by Paul Nicholas, yes him of 80’s sitcom ‘Just Good Friends’ fame and one-time pop star) appears, speaks a few lines which we couldn’t hear at all and then promptly disappears and the stage lights reveal the MacNeil household below where Chris MacNeil and her daughter Regan. They obviously have a close bond and the next few minutes is spent establishing this and introducing the character of Burke, a film director and friend of actress Chris, who provides some occasional comedy touches. There are scenes of Regan playing with a Ouija board which she discovers in the attic. This is the first introduction of the demon that Regan refers to as Captain Howdy. Unlike the film, we hear the demon speaking in the early stages of Regan’s possession. The demon’s voice is provided by (a pre-recorded) Sir Ian McKellen and his performance is brilliant despite it sounding nothing like Mercedes McCambridge in the original.
At this stage we have lost one of the key characters and if you know the story well you will know who this is. As Reagan’s behaviour deteriorates, we are introduced to various doctors and psychiatrists before a priest friend of Chris suggests she talks to Father Karras, a key character in The Exorcist. When Karras first meets Regan she is in her bed, restrained by straps and speaking in the demon’s voice. Susannah Edgeley as Regan does a magnificent job lip-synching to McKellen’s voice, she does not miss a beat and her performance overall steals the show.
Father Karras is not convinced that an exorcism is the answer but, as we know, events take a turn for the worse and a frail Father Merrin is summoned for a showdown with the demon, which is the show’s dramatic (and loud) finale.
If you are wondering if all of The Exorcist’s key moments are included in the stage show I can confirm that most of them are, even if they don’t appear in the same scenes in the film. So, the crucifix scene is present and correct, though not so bloody and graphic. Regan’s head spin is there, achieved by what you might describe as a Penn & Teller trick but it is surprisingly effective. Regan does vomit during the exorcism but the classic scene of her projectile vomiting over Karras isn’t there, probably a step too far for a stage show. There is no levitation in the exorcism but there is a clever effect where Regan is catapulted forward on the bed, as if pushed forward by the demon. It’s all very impressive stuff.
The Exorcist on stage is very good, fans of the film will enjoy picking up on the original dialogue and dissecting the new lines and plotline. Some characters from the film don’t appear at all, the key one being Lieutenant Kinderman (played by Lee J. Cobb in the film) which I was a little disappointed about. My main issues were with the sound on occasions, particularly not hearing the actors deliver their lines clearly but it was a minor niggle. The character of Burke Dennings is renamed Burke Dennis in the stage show and I have no idea why – I was frankly irritated by it. The performances of Susannah Edgeley and McKellen’s demon more than make up for it though. The stage set is excellent and the lights and sound effects were top notch. I’d recommend it without hesitation, just don’t expect a scene for scene reboot of the film or you will be very disappointed.
The Exorcist on stage – Alexandra Theatre, Birmingham, 16/10/19
It’s my number one film of all-time so naturally I approached this production with some caution. Any stage adaptations of films have to be stripped down for obvious reasons and with The Exorcist having some key technical moments I was eager to see how they achieved them or even included them at all.
There’s a very clever build-up to the show with a steady drone of religious chanting and indecipherable voices, whispers and moans which stay with you before a massive crack rips through the sound system and the theatre is plunged into total darkness. It’s quite unsettling and there were a lot of nervous giggles and squeaks in the audience. A light appears at the top of the stage set and Father Merrin (played by Paul Nicholas, yes him of 80’s sitcom ‘Just Good Friends’ fame and one-time pop star) appears, speaks a few lines which we couldn’t hear at all and then promptly disappears and the stage lights reveal the MacNeil household below where Chris MacNeil and her daughter Regan. They obviously have a close bond and the next few minutes is spent establishing this and introducing the character of Burke, a film director and friend of actress Chris, who provides some occasional comedy touches. There are scenes of Regan playing with a Ouija board which she discovers in the attic. This is the first introduction of the demon that Regan refers to as Captain Howdy. Unlike the film, we hear the demon speaking in the early stages of Regan’s possession. The demon’s voice is provided by (a pre-recorded) Sir Ian McKellen and his performance is brilliant despite it sounding nothing like Mercedes McCambridge in the original.
At this stage we have lost one of the key characters and if you know the story well you will know who this is. As Reagan’s behaviour deteriorates, we are introduced to various doctors and psychiatrists before a priest friend of Chris suggests she talks to Father Karras, a key character in The Exorcist. When Karras first meets Regan she is in her bed, restrained by straps and speaking in the demon’s voice. Susannah Edgeley as Regan does a magnificent job lip-synching to McKellen’s voice, she does not miss a beat and her performance overall steals the show.
Father Karras is not convinced that an exorcism is the answer but, as we know, events take a turn for the worse and a frail Father Merrin is summoned for a showdown with the demon, which is the show’s dramatic (and loud) finale.
If you are wondering if all of The Exorcist’s key moments are included in the stage show I can confirm that most of them are, even if they don’t appear in the same scenes in the film. So, the crucifix scene is present and correct, though not so bloody and graphic. Regan’s head spin is there, achieved by what you might describe as a Penn & Teller trick but it is surprisingly effective. Regan does vomit during the exorcism but the classic scene of her projectile vomiting over Karras isn’t there, probably a step too far for a stage show. There is no levitation in the exorcism but there is a clever effect where Regan is catapulted forward on the bed, as if pushed forward by the demon. It’s all very impressive stuff.
The Exorcist on stage is very good, fans of the film will enjoy picking up on the original dialogue and dissecting the new lines and plotline. Some characters from the film don’t appear at all, the key one being Lieutenant Kinderman (played by Lee J. Cobb in the film) which I was a little disappointed about. My main issues were with the sound on occasions, particularly not hearing the actors deliver their lines clearly but it was a minor niggle. The character of Burke Dennings is renamed Burke Dennis in the stage show and I have no idea why – I was frankly irritated by it. The performances of Susannah Edgeley and McKellen’s demon more than make up for it though. The stage set is excellent and the lights and sound effects were top notch. I’d recommend it without hesitation, just don’t expect a scene for scene reboot of the film or you will be very disappointed.
