Search
Search results
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Barnyard Roundup in Tabletop Games
Apr 12, 2021
I live in Illinois. I can see cornfields from my house. I do not live on a farm, but have visited farms in the past. There is more to Illinois than Chicago and corn. That all said, farming games tickle me so much and I just enjoy playing them. So imagine my interest level when you combine a publisher known for excellent productions, the designer from said publisher, a member of an art studio in my top three favorite board game artists (Kwanchai and The Mico for the others), and a theme that I already enjoy. This is going to be great! Right?
Barnyard Roundup is a silly game of bluffing and hand management set on a farm. In it players are farmhands trying to help Farmer Brown sell the most animals at market. They do this by bluffing their hands in trade deals with other farmhands, thus making no friends in the process. The player with the most points at the end of the game, when all cards from the draw deck have been drawn, will be the winner!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup place the five Animal Bonus cards in a line with the Set Bonus cards nearby. Shuffle the large deck of animal cards and deal out cards according to the rulebook per the number of players in the game. The Burglar and Excuse Me tokens are sorted and dealt out with the remainders face-down near the other cards. Remove eight cards from the draw deck and decide who will be the start player. The game may now begin!
Barnyard Roundup turns are quite simple: take two or three actions and end the turn. The first action is mandatory and it is Passing Cards to another player. Choose anywhere from one to six cards, place them face-down on the table in front of the player with whom to be traded, and announce the number and type of cards to be traded. For example, a player may say, “This is four chickens.” The targeted player now must decide whether that group actually IS a group of four chickens or if they believe the trader (not traitor) is bluffing. If so the targeted player may say, “That is NOT four chickens.” Once the agree/disagree statement has been made the cards are flipped over to see which player will be adding the cards to their pens. If the targeted player guessed correctly then they will received all the animal cards that were passed to them. That is, unless the cards were actually CROWS. Crows are worth -5 VP at the end of the game (see the photo below) and will be taken into the pen of the defeated player in the trade. In addition to crows (bad) the game includes Copy Cats (good) which can be wild cards to be placed with other animals and they copy the animal in their group. When the trade is resolved the active player may choose to perform the next step, but it is not mandatory.
Players must note that any time a player gains crows that would extend their collection of crows to any multiple of 3 that player must then draw another Action Token (Burglar, Excuse Me, Scarecrow) from the supply. If a Scarecrow is drawn it is immediately revealed and three crows are discarded from that player’s collection. The Excuse Me token may be used during a trade, but before cards are revealed, by a player not involved in the trade. When they announce, “Excuse Me,” they immediately take the place of the targeted player and will decide whether the trade is correct as announced or is a bluff.
Should they wish, the active player may now Play a Burglar Token from their collection in order to target another player and ask for all of their animals of a specific type – “I wish to procure all of your cows” That player must then immediately hand over all their cows, or else may tell the active player to Go Fish. Okay, that last part isn’t in the rules, but I started doing it and it stuck for me.
The third and final step of a turn is simply to Draw Cards and End Your Turn. Draw cards back up to the hand limit of 5 or 6 and end the turn. Play then passes to the next player.
Play continues in this fashion until the last card has been drawn. The game ends immediately and players tally their points per the rulebook to arrive at an ultimate winner!
Components. This game is a bunch of cards and some tokens in a double-wide+ tuckbox. I love the art, and that makes sense as it is illustrated by Lina Cossette, half of Mr. Cuddington. If you don’t know about Mr. Cuddington, please check out their website. The cards are good quality, as are the tokens. But that box. Now, it LOOKS great, and is a fine size. But a tuckbox? I would have preferred a lidded box, or even one of those with the magnetic fold-out lids. But it’s a tuckbox and the opening flap dented upon its first opening. Oy. I could give a chef’s kiss to everything else though.
Now, there’s a reason why I rated this game a 4 and my wife a 6: she beats me every single time we play and I just cannot find the strategy to take her down. Am I just horrible at bluffing games? Does she just dominate me at ALL games? I’m not sure, but this one certainly highlights the fact that she’s just better than me. I can still hear her haunting and taunting me with, “OH MY GOSH I LOVE THIS GAME! I’M SOOOOO GOOD AT IT!” Meanwhile I am sitting pretty with a whole flock of crows laughing at me like I am the Scarecrow from Wizard of Oz. Perhaps I am truly brainless as well.
That said, the game is enjoyable. I do like to play bluffing games, but I’m the poor soul who would rather play straight than do ANY sort of bluffing at all. Except when I have lulled my prey into trusting my every declaration. Then pull out the big guns and laugh my way to the bank. Well, I tried that several times and no dice. But I do enjoy playing, and I do keep coming back for more torture. And if that isn’t a sign of a good game, then what is?
All in all the game is quick, light on rules, and features wonderful art style. This is the game I will probably use to introduce my children (or new gamers) to bluffing games as the theme is easily digestible and when you get stuck with the negative points you don’t feel super bad about it. It is easy to pronounce that Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a squawkin’-good 10 / 12. If you are looking for a light introductory game to teach bluffing or to hit that sweet-spot, then I recommend you check out Barnyard Roundup from Druid City Games. I ain’t a-bluffin’ ya.
Barnyard Roundup is a silly game of bluffing and hand management set on a farm. In it players are farmhands trying to help Farmer Brown sell the most animals at market. They do this by bluffing their hands in trade deals with other farmhands, thus making no friends in the process. The player with the most points at the end of the game, when all cards from the draw deck have been drawn, will be the winner!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup place the five Animal Bonus cards in a line with the Set Bonus cards nearby. Shuffle the large deck of animal cards and deal out cards according to the rulebook per the number of players in the game. The Burglar and Excuse Me tokens are sorted and dealt out with the remainders face-down near the other cards. Remove eight cards from the draw deck and decide who will be the start player. The game may now begin!
Barnyard Roundup turns are quite simple: take two or three actions and end the turn. The first action is mandatory and it is Passing Cards to another player. Choose anywhere from one to six cards, place them face-down on the table in front of the player with whom to be traded, and announce the number and type of cards to be traded. For example, a player may say, “This is four chickens.” The targeted player now must decide whether that group actually IS a group of four chickens or if they believe the trader (not traitor) is bluffing. If so the targeted player may say, “That is NOT four chickens.” Once the agree/disagree statement has been made the cards are flipped over to see which player will be adding the cards to their pens. If the targeted player guessed correctly then they will received all the animal cards that were passed to them. That is, unless the cards were actually CROWS. Crows are worth -5 VP at the end of the game (see the photo below) and will be taken into the pen of the defeated player in the trade. In addition to crows (bad) the game includes Copy Cats (good) which can be wild cards to be placed with other animals and they copy the animal in their group. When the trade is resolved the active player may choose to perform the next step, but it is not mandatory.
Players must note that any time a player gains crows that would extend their collection of crows to any multiple of 3 that player must then draw another Action Token (Burglar, Excuse Me, Scarecrow) from the supply. If a Scarecrow is drawn it is immediately revealed and three crows are discarded from that player’s collection. The Excuse Me token may be used during a trade, but before cards are revealed, by a player not involved in the trade. When they announce, “Excuse Me,” they immediately take the place of the targeted player and will decide whether the trade is correct as announced or is a bluff.
Should they wish, the active player may now Play a Burglar Token from their collection in order to target another player and ask for all of their animals of a specific type – “I wish to procure all of your cows” That player must then immediately hand over all their cows, or else may tell the active player to Go Fish. Okay, that last part isn’t in the rules, but I started doing it and it stuck for me.
The third and final step of a turn is simply to Draw Cards and End Your Turn. Draw cards back up to the hand limit of 5 or 6 and end the turn. Play then passes to the next player.
Play continues in this fashion until the last card has been drawn. The game ends immediately and players tally their points per the rulebook to arrive at an ultimate winner!
Components. This game is a bunch of cards and some tokens in a double-wide+ tuckbox. I love the art, and that makes sense as it is illustrated by Lina Cossette, half of Mr. Cuddington. If you don’t know about Mr. Cuddington, please check out their website. The cards are good quality, as are the tokens. But that box. Now, it LOOKS great, and is a fine size. But a tuckbox? I would have preferred a lidded box, or even one of those with the magnetic fold-out lids. But it’s a tuckbox and the opening flap dented upon its first opening. Oy. I could give a chef’s kiss to everything else though.
Now, there’s a reason why I rated this game a 4 and my wife a 6: she beats me every single time we play and I just cannot find the strategy to take her down. Am I just horrible at bluffing games? Does she just dominate me at ALL games? I’m not sure, but this one certainly highlights the fact that she’s just better than me. I can still hear her haunting and taunting me with, “OH MY GOSH I LOVE THIS GAME! I’M SOOOOO GOOD AT IT!” Meanwhile I am sitting pretty with a whole flock of crows laughing at me like I am the Scarecrow from Wizard of Oz. Perhaps I am truly brainless as well.
That said, the game is enjoyable. I do like to play bluffing games, but I’m the poor soul who would rather play straight than do ANY sort of bluffing at all. Except when I have lulled my prey into trusting my every declaration. Then pull out the big guns and laugh my way to the bank. Well, I tried that several times and no dice. But I do enjoy playing, and I do keep coming back for more torture. And if that isn’t a sign of a good game, then what is?
All in all the game is quick, light on rules, and features wonderful art style. This is the game I will probably use to introduce my children (or new gamers) to bluffing games as the theme is easily digestible and when you get stuck with the negative points you don’t feel super bad about it. It is easy to pronounce that Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a squawkin’-good 10 / 12. If you are looking for a light introductory game to teach bluffing or to hit that sweet-spot, then I recommend you check out Barnyard Roundup from Druid City Games. I ain’t a-bluffin’ ya.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated The Imposter Kings in Tabletop Games
May 1, 2021
If there is one thing that I love about board gaming, it’s strategy. Planning out and executing a long-term plan, only to have your opponents throw a wrench in it, thus forcing you to re-strategize on the spot? That’s my JAM. So when I heard about The Imposter Kings, I knew it was right up my alley. After getting to play it, did it live up to my expectations? Or is it an imposter that doesn’t hold up? Keep reading to find out!
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. -L
The Imposter Kings is a card game for 2-4 players in which players are attempting to gain and maintain control of the throne, accumulating a total of 7 points to win the game. There are some slight rules variations between 2-, 3-, and 4-player games, but the overall gameplay is the same. This review will focus on the 2-player rules. To setup for the game, assemble the deck as described in the rules for your chosen player count. In a 2-player game, the deck is comprised of 18 cards. Each player is given a King card, and one player’s will be the True King. The True King merely determines the first player for the round. Shuffle the deck and deal 8 cards to each player. There will be 2 cards leftover, and those will go into the center of the play area, one face-up and one face-down. This lets the players know which card is not in either players hand, as well as a random unknown card in neither players’ hand. Each player will select a card from their hand to be their Successor, and will place it face-down next to their King, and they will also select one card from their hand to discard face-down. The game is now ready to begin!
On your turn, you will play any card from your hand to the Court (play area) that is of an equal or higher value than the card played previously. The last-played card to the Court is considered to be on the Throne. All cards in Imposter Kings are numbered 1-9, and each card has an associated special ability. Once you play a card to the Court, you may/must use the ability (if optional/mandatory). These special abilities can alter the Court and gameplay by Disgracing cards (flipping them face-down to ‘reset’ the number line), swapping cards with other players, playing a lower-numbered card on top of a higher number etc. The round continues in this fashion, with players alternating, until one player is no longer able to play a card to the Court. That player loses the round, and the winning player receives a number of points, depending on certain aspects. The deck is reshuffled, the True King is passed to the loser of the round, and a new round commences. The first player to reach 7 points is the ultimate winner!
That details the basics of the gameplay, but there are a few special things to keep in mind. Certain cards will force players to play a card to their Antechamber – face-up in front of them. If ever you have a card in your Antechamber at the beginning of a turn, you must play it to the Court, regardless of its value. This can be a good strategic way to trap your opponent into playing a specific card on their next turn! Sometimes a card will need to be Condemned – it is then placed face-down in front of you, and then removed from play on your next turn. Another good way to eat up an opponent’s turn! If you ever get to a point in the round when you are unable to play a card to the Court, you may choose to use your King power – it allows you to flip your King over to Disgrace the card currently on the Throne, and take your Successor into your hand (hopefully giving you a chance to keep playing in the round!). However, there is an Assassin card in the game!! If you have the Assassin, you can reveal it when your opponent decides to use their King – thus assassinating them and immediately winning the round. Lots of tricksy ways to make sure you end up on the Throne!
So all in all, how does The Imposter Kings hold up? Fairly well, actually. For being a simple and relatively fast card game, there is a lot of strategy required for success. You have to decide which cards/powers to use when, while also trying to deduce what your opponent has in their hand. Can you trap them and force the round to end? Or have they kept a dark horse in hand for just this situation? There is a lot more to The Imposter Kings than meets the eye, and that makes it a fun challenge. The first time I played this game, it reminded me of a similar game by ButtonShy titled Hierarchy. The concept and gameplay are similar, but the biggest difference is that The Imposter Kings can be played with 3 and 4 players. That adds another element of strategy/chaos to the game, as there are more cards to deduce, more opportunities for the Court to change between your turns, and just more strategy in general. Hierarchy is strictly a 2-player game, but The Imposter Kings allows you to play with more people. With higher player counts, new and unique cards are added to the starting deck, offering even more abilities and strategic options for play. The gameplay scales with player count, and that keeps it engaging.
Let me touch on components for a minute. This is a retail version of the game, and the production quality is very nice! The game comes in a nice small box, and the deck of cards is sturdy in hand. The artwork is interesting, the text is clear, and the cards are color-coded based on their value. The coloring really helps with quick visual identification of what cards are in play. The game also comes with some reference cards for the various abilities, and those were much appreciated. The rulebook had a couple of areas of ambiguity, but watching the videos on the BGG page for The Imposter Kings helped answer any questions I might have had. All in all, good production quality!
So as you can probably tell from this review, I generally like The Imposter Kings. The gameplay is strategic, engaging, and its 3-4 player variants offer some unique twists that the 2-player just cannot handle. This is a game that I can see myself bringing out when I have newer gamers at my table. The gameplay is simple, yet strategic, and it is not overwhelming to learn or play. It definitely makes players think, and even now I’m thinking about what strategy I might try next game. If you are looking for something relatively simple, yet surprisingly strategic, consider checking out The Imposter Kings. Purple Phoenix Games gives it a royal 8 / 12.
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. -L
The Imposter Kings is a card game for 2-4 players in which players are attempting to gain and maintain control of the throne, accumulating a total of 7 points to win the game. There are some slight rules variations between 2-, 3-, and 4-player games, but the overall gameplay is the same. This review will focus on the 2-player rules. To setup for the game, assemble the deck as described in the rules for your chosen player count. In a 2-player game, the deck is comprised of 18 cards. Each player is given a King card, and one player’s will be the True King. The True King merely determines the first player for the round. Shuffle the deck and deal 8 cards to each player. There will be 2 cards leftover, and those will go into the center of the play area, one face-up and one face-down. This lets the players know which card is not in either players hand, as well as a random unknown card in neither players’ hand. Each player will select a card from their hand to be their Successor, and will place it face-down next to their King, and they will also select one card from their hand to discard face-down. The game is now ready to begin!
On your turn, you will play any card from your hand to the Court (play area) that is of an equal or higher value than the card played previously. The last-played card to the Court is considered to be on the Throne. All cards in Imposter Kings are numbered 1-9, and each card has an associated special ability. Once you play a card to the Court, you may/must use the ability (if optional/mandatory). These special abilities can alter the Court and gameplay by Disgracing cards (flipping them face-down to ‘reset’ the number line), swapping cards with other players, playing a lower-numbered card on top of a higher number etc. The round continues in this fashion, with players alternating, until one player is no longer able to play a card to the Court. That player loses the round, and the winning player receives a number of points, depending on certain aspects. The deck is reshuffled, the True King is passed to the loser of the round, and a new round commences. The first player to reach 7 points is the ultimate winner!
That details the basics of the gameplay, but there are a few special things to keep in mind. Certain cards will force players to play a card to their Antechamber – face-up in front of them. If ever you have a card in your Antechamber at the beginning of a turn, you must play it to the Court, regardless of its value. This can be a good strategic way to trap your opponent into playing a specific card on their next turn! Sometimes a card will need to be Condemned – it is then placed face-down in front of you, and then removed from play on your next turn. Another good way to eat up an opponent’s turn! If you ever get to a point in the round when you are unable to play a card to the Court, you may choose to use your King power – it allows you to flip your King over to Disgrace the card currently on the Throne, and take your Successor into your hand (hopefully giving you a chance to keep playing in the round!). However, there is an Assassin card in the game!! If you have the Assassin, you can reveal it when your opponent decides to use their King – thus assassinating them and immediately winning the round. Lots of tricksy ways to make sure you end up on the Throne!
So all in all, how does The Imposter Kings hold up? Fairly well, actually. For being a simple and relatively fast card game, there is a lot of strategy required for success. You have to decide which cards/powers to use when, while also trying to deduce what your opponent has in their hand. Can you trap them and force the round to end? Or have they kept a dark horse in hand for just this situation? There is a lot more to The Imposter Kings than meets the eye, and that makes it a fun challenge. The first time I played this game, it reminded me of a similar game by ButtonShy titled Hierarchy. The concept and gameplay are similar, but the biggest difference is that The Imposter Kings can be played with 3 and 4 players. That adds another element of strategy/chaos to the game, as there are more cards to deduce, more opportunities for the Court to change between your turns, and just more strategy in general. Hierarchy is strictly a 2-player game, but The Imposter Kings allows you to play with more people. With higher player counts, new and unique cards are added to the starting deck, offering even more abilities and strategic options for play. The gameplay scales with player count, and that keeps it engaging.
Let me touch on components for a minute. This is a retail version of the game, and the production quality is very nice! The game comes in a nice small box, and the deck of cards is sturdy in hand. The artwork is interesting, the text is clear, and the cards are color-coded based on their value. The coloring really helps with quick visual identification of what cards are in play. The game also comes with some reference cards for the various abilities, and those were much appreciated. The rulebook had a couple of areas of ambiguity, but watching the videos on the BGG page for The Imposter Kings helped answer any questions I might have had. All in all, good production quality!
So as you can probably tell from this review, I generally like The Imposter Kings. The gameplay is strategic, engaging, and its 3-4 player variants offer some unique twists that the 2-player just cannot handle. This is a game that I can see myself bringing out when I have newer gamers at my table. The gameplay is simple, yet strategic, and it is not overwhelming to learn or play. It definitely makes players think, and even now I’m thinking about what strategy I might try next game. If you are looking for something relatively simple, yet surprisingly strategic, consider checking out The Imposter Kings. Purple Phoenix Games gives it a royal 8 / 12.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Murder mystery films tend to be more fun in theory and anticipation than they are to watch. It’s a genre that I very much enjoy and have indulged in over the years. Yet, if I look back in detail at it, I find that it is the books, especially those of Agatha Christie, that I like much more than anything lasting a couple of hours on the screen. There’s something about the mystery being rushed and squeezed into the cinema artform that is usually anti-climactic or even a full on let down.
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Ghoulash: The Game of Card Calamity in Tabletop Games
Sep 3, 2019
Ghoulash! I cannot say that word without using a Dracula-esque accent nor without my tummy grumbling (goulash is a yummy traditional Hungarian dish). Anyway, lunch time hangriness aside, Ghoulash is not a new game. In fact, the original version of Ghoulash was released in 2001 under Ghoulash Games. It is a pen-and-paper dungeon crawler for 2 players that we are reviewing as well. This game we are reviewing here is a card version prototype. So how does it play?
In Ghoulash: The Game of Card Calamity (which I will shorten to Ghoulash for the purpose of this review – even though there is the OG Ghoulash as well, I think you know what I’m talking about) players are Ghoul hunters. Ghouls are monstrous green blobsters that are coming for you. You fight them by shooting Ghoo, a purply substance, at them to exploit their weak spots and vanquish them. The first Ghoul hunter to reach 10 Victory Points (VPs) will be crowned the winner!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. As this is a preview copy of the game, I do not know if the final rules or components will be similar or different to what we were provided. -T
To setup the game, shuffle the deck and place a 6×3 grid of cards in the middle of the table. This is the “floor” and will be the game board for the duration of the game. When the floor is out of cards (I will explain), set out a new 6×3 grid floor and continue play. Deal each hunter a hand of seven cards and you are ready to play!
Each of the face down cards that comprise the floor are opportunities for encounters. You, as a Ghoul hunter, will enter the floor from any border card. On your turn you may fill your hand up to your current hand limit – which changes based on whether you have taken wounds or not. Next you must move orthogonally onto a space that contains a card or an empty space, but you must move – or take your Action first, THEN move. If you move to a space with a card, you encounter the card. Depending on what type of card is flipped face up you will be taking cards into your hand, following Command instructions, or fighting Ghouls. When you have finished your turn it is the next hunter’s turn.
Should your flipped card reveal an Action or Special card, you simply collect the card into your hand. If the flipped card is an Battle card (which has Ghoo splats – like the ones pictured above on the far right), you must follow the Command instructions at the bottom of the card before collecting to your hand. And if it’s a Ghoul you will begin battle!
Battling Ghouls is mechanically simple, but the overall battle may not be. When you face a Ghoul its card will tell you what the strength of the monster is (the white number). It could have four, five, or six hit points (HPs). To vanquish the Ghoul you will need to play cards whose Ghoo value (splats) is equal to or greater than the Ghoul’s HP amount. From this point the other hunters can intervene in the battle by playing cards whose battle Ghoo tips the scales toward the Ghoul thus making it more difficult to defeat (a la the ganging up mechanic in Munchkin). As only one hunter may affect the battle in this way, it is the player’s cards whose strength is greater that wins the challenge. Now the original combatant must spend more Ghoo cards to overcome the super-buffed Ghoul. Should the hunter prevail they will collect the Ghoul card and display it in front of them to show the table how many VPs they have earned. If the hunter is unsuccessful in the battle, they suffer wounds in the amount of VPs that would have been awarded with a successful battle (the green dots at the bottom of the card). Wounds are reflected by cards in hand, so if a hunter suffers two wounds, their hand limit is now five instead of the original seven. Play continues in this fashion until a hunter has accumulated 10 VPs and earned victory!
Components. Per my disclaimer, the game that was sent to us is a prototype version of the completed game, so components may (and probably will) change or be improved as a result of further development, and/or a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, I can comment only on the components that were provided to us. The game is a deck of cards in a deck box. The cards themselves are of fine quality. The art upon them is okay. Nothing too stellar, but it gets the job done. I think the art is one thing that can be improved with development. Don’t get me wrong, the art is not at all bad. Perhaps it’s the card layout or graphic design. Something with a bit more punch would be appreciated.
Our thoughts on this one are that it needs some sprucing up a bit. Yes, it is in prototype format currently, and we know that. The card design needs to be updated a bit, but the game itself was also lacking a bit. One of the major concerns we had when playing through it was the card grid of the floor. We did not use any sort of player marker, token, meeple, or anything to mark our locations, and I really think that may have helped. We just had a hard time visualizing where our hunter was in relation to the face-down cards and how many turns it would take us to travel to them. There were several times where we just guessed as to who was actually closer and they were able to encounter the card. I am unsure how to fix that without supplying a grid or some sort of tracker. We should have maybe just played with meeples or dice for position markers. Oh heck I just thought of this: we could have also placed out dice or whatever on an x and y axis to denote where floor cards should be. Ugh. Battles were run somewhat smoothly, even though there were times where I was down to one card because I had suffered so many wounds and I could not get a First-Aid Kit to save my life (literally). The battle challenges did not work with us and we were trying to find a good way to make them happen, but our minds must not have been at their peak. We weren’t quite sure if, like in Munchkin, you could just add one card to your challenge total, or if you had to commit the entire bunch of cards you wish to play. It is not clear in the rules, so we went with our guts.
Overall, this could be a good dungeon crawler type card game. The theme is good, but for us it didn’t quite click…yet. If it sounds like something you would like to have in your collection, check Kickstarter for the campaign (if Ghoulash Games decides to crowd-fund this), contact the publisher directly, or (depending on date you read this) purchase from your FLGS. Oh, and keep the Ghoo Gone away – this time Ghoo is good for your health!
In Ghoulash: The Game of Card Calamity (which I will shorten to Ghoulash for the purpose of this review – even though there is the OG Ghoulash as well, I think you know what I’m talking about) players are Ghoul hunters. Ghouls are monstrous green blobsters that are coming for you. You fight them by shooting Ghoo, a purply substance, at them to exploit their weak spots and vanquish them. The first Ghoul hunter to reach 10 Victory Points (VPs) will be crowned the winner!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. As this is a preview copy of the game, I do not know if the final rules or components will be similar or different to what we were provided. -T
To setup the game, shuffle the deck and place a 6×3 grid of cards in the middle of the table. This is the “floor” and will be the game board for the duration of the game. When the floor is out of cards (I will explain), set out a new 6×3 grid floor and continue play. Deal each hunter a hand of seven cards and you are ready to play!
Each of the face down cards that comprise the floor are opportunities for encounters. You, as a Ghoul hunter, will enter the floor from any border card. On your turn you may fill your hand up to your current hand limit – which changes based on whether you have taken wounds or not. Next you must move orthogonally onto a space that contains a card or an empty space, but you must move – or take your Action first, THEN move. If you move to a space with a card, you encounter the card. Depending on what type of card is flipped face up you will be taking cards into your hand, following Command instructions, or fighting Ghouls. When you have finished your turn it is the next hunter’s turn.
Should your flipped card reveal an Action or Special card, you simply collect the card into your hand. If the flipped card is an Battle card (which has Ghoo splats – like the ones pictured above on the far right), you must follow the Command instructions at the bottom of the card before collecting to your hand. And if it’s a Ghoul you will begin battle!
Battling Ghouls is mechanically simple, but the overall battle may not be. When you face a Ghoul its card will tell you what the strength of the monster is (the white number). It could have four, five, or six hit points (HPs). To vanquish the Ghoul you will need to play cards whose Ghoo value (splats) is equal to or greater than the Ghoul’s HP amount. From this point the other hunters can intervene in the battle by playing cards whose battle Ghoo tips the scales toward the Ghoul thus making it more difficult to defeat (a la the ganging up mechanic in Munchkin). As only one hunter may affect the battle in this way, it is the player’s cards whose strength is greater that wins the challenge. Now the original combatant must spend more Ghoo cards to overcome the super-buffed Ghoul. Should the hunter prevail they will collect the Ghoul card and display it in front of them to show the table how many VPs they have earned. If the hunter is unsuccessful in the battle, they suffer wounds in the amount of VPs that would have been awarded with a successful battle (the green dots at the bottom of the card). Wounds are reflected by cards in hand, so if a hunter suffers two wounds, their hand limit is now five instead of the original seven. Play continues in this fashion until a hunter has accumulated 10 VPs and earned victory!
Components. Per my disclaimer, the game that was sent to us is a prototype version of the completed game, so components may (and probably will) change or be improved as a result of further development, and/or a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, I can comment only on the components that were provided to us. The game is a deck of cards in a deck box. The cards themselves are of fine quality. The art upon them is okay. Nothing too stellar, but it gets the job done. I think the art is one thing that can be improved with development. Don’t get me wrong, the art is not at all bad. Perhaps it’s the card layout or graphic design. Something with a bit more punch would be appreciated.
Our thoughts on this one are that it needs some sprucing up a bit. Yes, it is in prototype format currently, and we know that. The card design needs to be updated a bit, but the game itself was also lacking a bit. One of the major concerns we had when playing through it was the card grid of the floor. We did not use any sort of player marker, token, meeple, or anything to mark our locations, and I really think that may have helped. We just had a hard time visualizing where our hunter was in relation to the face-down cards and how many turns it would take us to travel to them. There were several times where we just guessed as to who was actually closer and they were able to encounter the card. I am unsure how to fix that without supplying a grid or some sort of tracker. We should have maybe just played with meeples or dice for position markers. Oh heck I just thought of this: we could have also placed out dice or whatever on an x and y axis to denote where floor cards should be. Ugh. Battles were run somewhat smoothly, even though there were times where I was down to one card because I had suffered so many wounds and I could not get a First-Aid Kit to save my life (literally). The battle challenges did not work with us and we were trying to find a good way to make them happen, but our minds must not have been at their peak. We weren’t quite sure if, like in Munchkin, you could just add one card to your challenge total, or if you had to commit the entire bunch of cards you wish to play. It is not clear in the rules, so we went with our guts.
Overall, this could be a good dungeon crawler type card game. The theme is good, but for us it didn’t quite click…yet. If it sounds like something you would like to have in your collection, check Kickstarter for the campaign (if Ghoulash Games decides to crowd-fund this), contact the publisher directly, or (depending on date you read this) purchase from your FLGS. Oh, and keep the Ghoo Gone away – this time Ghoo is good for your health!
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Evolution in Tabletop Games
Sep 12, 2019
I very much have a science-based mind. I like facts, figures, data, charts, timelines, etc. Yes, I can be a dreamer, too, but at the end of the day, I need verification to really believe in something. That’s why I’ve always been on Team Evolution vs. Team Creationism. It fascinates me how these huge beings like dinosaurs (oh yeah, I love dinosaurs a lot, too) could be preserved in time well past their deaths. But it leads to questions like, “What happened to them? Why couldn’t they make it in the end?” And the game Evolution by North Star Games attempts to answer those.
Disclaimer: There are several expansions to this game, but we are not reviewing them at this time. Should we review them in the future we will either update this review or post a link to the new material here. Furthermore, I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, 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 from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. – B
You start the game in control of one species of animal. One non-descript, traitless species that you will slowly (or maybe quickly) build up to be something bigger and better. You evolve it. (Huh.) You’ll start each round by contributing plant food to the watering hole. Each card in your hand is worth a certain amount of plant food. Once that food is in the watering hole, it’s fair game for anyone to eat. Depending on your strategy, you may want a lot of food in that watering hole, or you may want to starve your opponents out (some cards are even worth negative food!). Once all the food is in the watering hole, it’s time to evolve your critters. The cards in your hand have unique traits on them. To imbue your species with that trait, simply place the card next to your species’ gameboard and voila! You now have horns, or intelligence, or the ability to forage, or many other possibilities. You may also take this opportunity to evolve your creature into a carnivore (more on that later). At this point in the game, you may also discard cards in order to increase the population of your species, or to increase the body size of your cute little guys. This will be important later. You can also discard a card to create a whole new species. There’s no limit to how many species you can have, but there is a limit to the available food, so be wise with the number of species you create.
After everyone has evolved, it’s time to feed! You’ll take turns taking plant food from the watering hole. Yummy! You want to eat enough food to sustain your whole population size (1 piece of food per population). If not, your population size will decrease, meaning your species is dying. If you are unable to sustain the last remaining member of your species, that species will become extinct for eternity. Sad face. But don’t worry. You’ll get a new species for free at the beginning of your next turn. Once everyone is fed and happy, the round is over and you start a new round. The winner of the game goes to whoever has eaten the most food because, just like in real life, the success of your population is based on its ability to sustain itself, which, in this case, means eating the proper amount of food.
It SOUNDS simple, but I haven’t told you about all the curveballs yet. As stated before, you may choose to make your species a carnivore, which means that you will no longer take plant food from the watering hole. In order to eat, you have to attack another species! You can only attack other species who have smaller body sizes than you (I told you body size would be important. It’s your first means of defense against predators!). But some of those smaller species might have evolved some defensive traits, like a hard shell or the ability to burrow underground or to climb trees and taunt their predators from on high. This is the beauty of the game. How well can you evolve your herbivore creature in order to keep it well-fed and also free from predators? If you’re a carnivore, how well can you adapt to your surroundings and your ever-evolving prey before you can no longer feed on them? (I should also mention that you may find yourself in the truly depressing situation where all of your opponents have out-evolved your carnivores and the only other option left to feed them is to attack one of YOUR other species. The rules clearly state that every species MUST feed if able to, so you may have to sacrifice your other friends. VERY sad face.)
Components: Evolution comes in a standard cardboard box containing lots of high-quality trait cards, plant and meat food tokens and a large watering hole token (on which you put the plant food tokens). It also comes with cardboard food screens so you can conceal how much food your little (or maybe not so little) critters have eaten. You’ll get a stack of thick, double-sided species boards for you to keep track of your body size and population. I love that they’re double-sided because it gives you the flexibility to change their orientation (portrait or landscape) to save on table space. Body size and population are tracked using little brown and green cubes, which fit nicely in little holes on your species board. And to top it all off, the first player token is a a very large dinosaur-shaped meeple. Adorbs. The cards do tell you how to use them, but the rulebook has extra clarification for each card in case you need it. The cards are even color-coded so you’ll know if the trait is used for defense or eating, or maybe only usable by carnivores. Everything is very top-notch quality and the artwork is quite beautiful, creating new creatures and using bright, vivid colors. The artwork alone drew me to the box in the first place.
I really love this game. The theme is very on-brand for me, but I also really like that it’ll take a bit of luck (by hopefully drawing usable cards) and a ton of strategy to try to outwit your opponents. It’ll never be played the same way twice. Evolution is so spot-on, in fact, that it’s actually been used in the evolutionary biology department of the University of Oxford, so come on. It’s fun AND educational. I’ve also downloaded and quickly become obsessed with the mobile version, which is available on Google Play, in the App Store and on Steam. As of this writing, there are two expansions available: Flight and Climate, but there’s also a Climate stand-alone game, and an Evolution: The Beginning game, which is suitable for our younger friends. I own the Flight expansion but have yet to play it and I can’t wait to change that! Give this game a go. You’ll be happy you did. In the words of esteemed Dr. Ian Malcolm, “Life, uh, finds a way.” Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a (r)evolutionary 13 / 18.
Disclaimer: There are several expansions to this game, but we are not reviewing them at this time. Should we review them in the future we will either update this review or post a link to the new material here. Furthermore, I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, 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 from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. – B
You start the game in control of one species of animal. One non-descript, traitless species that you will slowly (or maybe quickly) build up to be something bigger and better. You evolve it. (Huh.) You’ll start each round by contributing plant food to the watering hole. Each card in your hand is worth a certain amount of plant food. Once that food is in the watering hole, it’s fair game for anyone to eat. Depending on your strategy, you may want a lot of food in that watering hole, or you may want to starve your opponents out (some cards are even worth negative food!). Once all the food is in the watering hole, it’s time to evolve your critters. The cards in your hand have unique traits on them. To imbue your species with that trait, simply place the card next to your species’ gameboard and voila! You now have horns, or intelligence, or the ability to forage, or many other possibilities. You may also take this opportunity to evolve your creature into a carnivore (more on that later). At this point in the game, you may also discard cards in order to increase the population of your species, or to increase the body size of your cute little guys. This will be important later. You can also discard a card to create a whole new species. There’s no limit to how many species you can have, but there is a limit to the available food, so be wise with the number of species you create.
After everyone has evolved, it’s time to feed! You’ll take turns taking plant food from the watering hole. Yummy! You want to eat enough food to sustain your whole population size (1 piece of food per population). If not, your population size will decrease, meaning your species is dying. If you are unable to sustain the last remaining member of your species, that species will become extinct for eternity. Sad face. But don’t worry. You’ll get a new species for free at the beginning of your next turn. Once everyone is fed and happy, the round is over and you start a new round. The winner of the game goes to whoever has eaten the most food because, just like in real life, the success of your population is based on its ability to sustain itself, which, in this case, means eating the proper amount of food.
It SOUNDS simple, but I haven’t told you about all the curveballs yet. As stated before, you may choose to make your species a carnivore, which means that you will no longer take plant food from the watering hole. In order to eat, you have to attack another species! You can only attack other species who have smaller body sizes than you (I told you body size would be important. It’s your first means of defense against predators!). But some of those smaller species might have evolved some defensive traits, like a hard shell or the ability to burrow underground or to climb trees and taunt their predators from on high. This is the beauty of the game. How well can you evolve your herbivore creature in order to keep it well-fed and also free from predators? If you’re a carnivore, how well can you adapt to your surroundings and your ever-evolving prey before you can no longer feed on them? (I should also mention that you may find yourself in the truly depressing situation where all of your opponents have out-evolved your carnivores and the only other option left to feed them is to attack one of YOUR other species. The rules clearly state that every species MUST feed if able to, so you may have to sacrifice your other friends. VERY sad face.)
Components: Evolution comes in a standard cardboard box containing lots of high-quality trait cards, plant and meat food tokens and a large watering hole token (on which you put the plant food tokens). It also comes with cardboard food screens so you can conceal how much food your little (or maybe not so little) critters have eaten. You’ll get a stack of thick, double-sided species boards for you to keep track of your body size and population. I love that they’re double-sided because it gives you the flexibility to change their orientation (portrait or landscape) to save on table space. Body size and population are tracked using little brown and green cubes, which fit nicely in little holes on your species board. And to top it all off, the first player token is a a very large dinosaur-shaped meeple. Adorbs. The cards do tell you how to use them, but the rulebook has extra clarification for each card in case you need it. The cards are even color-coded so you’ll know if the trait is used for defense or eating, or maybe only usable by carnivores. Everything is very top-notch quality and the artwork is quite beautiful, creating new creatures and using bright, vivid colors. The artwork alone drew me to the box in the first place.
I really love this game. The theme is very on-brand for me, but I also really like that it’ll take a bit of luck (by hopefully drawing usable cards) and a ton of strategy to try to outwit your opponents. It’ll never be played the same way twice. Evolution is so spot-on, in fact, that it’s actually been used in the evolutionary biology department of the University of Oxford, so come on. It’s fun AND educational. I’ve also downloaded and quickly become obsessed with the mobile version, which is available on Google Play, in the App Store and on Steam. As of this writing, there are two expansions available: Flight and Climate, but there’s also a Climate stand-alone game, and an Evolution: The Beginning game, which is suitable for our younger friends. I own the Flight expansion but have yet to play it and I can’t wait to change that! Give this game a go. You’ll be happy you did. In the words of esteemed Dr. Ian Malcolm, “Life, uh, finds a way.” Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a (r)evolutionary 13 / 18.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Zoltar Rides Again!
All work and no play makes Bob the Movie Man a dull reviewer. Due to work commitments, this is the first film I’ve been able to see at the cinema for over a month. There’s a whole slew of films I wanted to see that have already come and gone. Big sigh. So I might be about the last of the crowd to review this, but I’m glad I caught it before it shuffled off its silver screen coil.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
This IS the Greatest Show!
I sometimes wonder how “proper” UK film critics view films early for review. Is there a ‘special screening’ which all the film critics attend in London? The point I’m getting at is whether the collective critical opinion of a movie can be swayed by a critic leaping to their feet and wildly applauding a film like “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” or, alternatively, snorting in derision at a film like “The Greatest Showman”. For sometimes the critics seem to get it massively wrong across the board, panning a film that the general public will adore. Unfortunately, this has the effect of putting the general public off seeing it, especially in the lethargic post-Christmas period. I think here is a case in point. It’s not the best little film in the world, but as a musical crowd-pleaser it delivers in spades.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Tiger Stripes in Tabletop Games
Nov 25, 2021
So it was one of those days when I was checking my email and noticed something odd. I had a random tracking number sitting in my inbox for a game arriving soon. I didn’t recall requesting this game, so why was I having one shipped? A mystery still to this day. However, I recognized the designer’s last name, but could she be related to the designer in mind that I particularly enjoy? And would this game be any good? I was cautiously hopeful.
Tiger Stripes is a set collection, hand management, drafting game for two to four players. In it, players are young tiger cubs just earning their stripes (a fact I did not know prior to playing: that tiger cubs aren’t born with stripes). Each cub will earn their stripes by drafting the best available cards and utilizing them to the fullest in order to collect sets of prey.
Oh fact check: tigers are born with stripes already, so this game is not based fully on facts.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game (I think), so what you see in these photos is probably 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, each player will choose their tiger avatar cards and also receive seven Stripe tokens. The card deck is shuffled, and each player is dealt two cards for the starting hand. The remainder of the deck is placed on the table as a draw deck, but five cards are dealt to the table as an offer row. The youngest player goes first, and the stripes are ready to be earned, like Boy Scout badges… but for ferocious tiger cubs.
Turns are taken in three steps. The player must make a choice of one action for the first step of their turn: Draw a card, Take a tiger card, or Capture Prey. A player may choose to blindly draw a card from the top of the deck and add it to their hand as their action. Alternately, the player may instead choose to take a tiger card from the offer row and add it to their hand. Both of these are self-explanatory.
The third action that can be taken is to Capture Prey. A tiger may capture prey from the offer row by discarding cards from their hand with matching symbols to their target cards they wish to capture. Each card in Tiger Stripes has one or more symbols printed in the upper left hand corner. By discarding cards from hand to the discard pile, a player may use all the symbols provided by these cards to match with cards’ symbols from the offer row. For example, a player may discard two tiger cards and a snake card, noting the symbols now provided. By using the purchasing power of these symbols, the player may then draft cards from the offer row by paying their cost in symbols. It is entirely possible for a player to be able to draft cards from hand in order to purchase all available cards in the offer row to be added to their hand. An explanation of the significance of this is coming.
The second step of a turn is mandatory only if the prerequisites are met: every set of three like cards in hand are discarded in return for Stripe Tokens. So, for every set of three matching monkey, snake, deer, and boar, the player will receive one, two, three, or four Stripe Tokens to be added to their avatar card, respectively, with any tiger cards discarded to be treated as wild cards to complete a set. Therefore, a player may wish to purchase all cards from the offer row in an attempt to score multiple sets during this second step to earn as many stripes as possible.
Finally, the third step of the turn is to Replenish the Jungle (the offer row). For any cards drafted in the turn, the player will replace with cards from the draw deck to setup the next player’s turn.
Play continues in this fashion of grabbing cards, discarding cards, and scoring sets for stripes until one player has earned their seventh stripe and won the game!
Components. This game is a deck of cards and a bunch of Stripe Tokens. The cards are all nice quality, with linen finish, but are a bit on the thinner side as far as flimsiness is concerned. I think if players are all somewhat careful this will not pose problems. If so, consider sleeving your copy. The Stripe Tokens are oblong octagons with stripey art. Speaking of the art, throughout the game the art is very cute and cuddly… except for the boar. He is crotchety. I do enjoy finding the stalking tiger somewhat hidden on each card’s art. A great nod to the noble tiger’s hunting ability.
Now, as I was typing the rules breakdown I felt like I was typing quite a lot for as light as the game actually is. In fact, though it says on the box that it is intended for ages 7+ I just couldn’t leave out my little 5-year-old gamer son. He grasped the rules really well, and though he hasn’t developed the best strategy-focused brain skills yet, he is still able to play and enjoy Tiger Stripes. In actuality, he and I had a blast playing through this several times. Yes, it is a resource optimization card drafting game, but to him, it was more like procuring a veritable zoo of cute animals that then offered his tiger the stripes needed to win. And win he did. Several times. This certainly isn’t a game of high strategy and multiple-minute turns, but rather a quick and easy card game with a great little theme.
Is the designer, Isabel duBarry, a relative of the great Philip duBarry? Perhaps. And that is a great thing, because one of our favorite games across the board is Revolution! Perchance game design just runs in the family. I am not sure, so maybe someone can chime in on this here.
When my son adds a game to his rotation, that is a sign of a great little game for us. He has added Tiger Stripes to this rotation and we will be playing the mess out of it here over the next several weeks/months. While this is by no means a gamer’s game, it is absolutely perfect for a game day with kids. My child loves it, and I quite enjoy playing as a tiny tiger out on the prowl for their stripes. If you have littles at home, parents who haven’t quite converted fully into game partners, or newbies you are inviting into the hobby, Tiger Stripes is a good little game to get the party started. It’s quick, easy, features great art and theme, and introduces simple mechanics to hook people on gaming. Go grab a copy and just keep it in your back pocket for those times you need something like this for that one special group in front of you.
Tiger Stripes is a set collection, hand management, drafting game for two to four players. In it, players are young tiger cubs just earning their stripes (a fact I did not know prior to playing: that tiger cubs aren’t born with stripes). Each cub will earn their stripes by drafting the best available cards and utilizing them to the fullest in order to collect sets of prey.
Oh fact check: tigers are born with stripes already, so this game is not based fully on facts.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game (I think), so what you see in these photos is probably 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, each player will choose their tiger avatar cards and also receive seven Stripe tokens. The card deck is shuffled, and each player is dealt two cards for the starting hand. The remainder of the deck is placed on the table as a draw deck, but five cards are dealt to the table as an offer row. The youngest player goes first, and the stripes are ready to be earned, like Boy Scout badges… but for ferocious tiger cubs.
Turns are taken in three steps. The player must make a choice of one action for the first step of their turn: Draw a card, Take a tiger card, or Capture Prey. A player may choose to blindly draw a card from the top of the deck and add it to their hand as their action. Alternately, the player may instead choose to take a tiger card from the offer row and add it to their hand. Both of these are self-explanatory.
The third action that can be taken is to Capture Prey. A tiger may capture prey from the offer row by discarding cards from their hand with matching symbols to their target cards they wish to capture. Each card in Tiger Stripes has one or more symbols printed in the upper left hand corner. By discarding cards from hand to the discard pile, a player may use all the symbols provided by these cards to match with cards’ symbols from the offer row. For example, a player may discard two tiger cards and a snake card, noting the symbols now provided. By using the purchasing power of these symbols, the player may then draft cards from the offer row by paying their cost in symbols. It is entirely possible for a player to be able to draft cards from hand in order to purchase all available cards in the offer row to be added to their hand. An explanation of the significance of this is coming.
The second step of a turn is mandatory only if the prerequisites are met: every set of three like cards in hand are discarded in return for Stripe Tokens. So, for every set of three matching monkey, snake, deer, and boar, the player will receive one, two, three, or four Stripe Tokens to be added to their avatar card, respectively, with any tiger cards discarded to be treated as wild cards to complete a set. Therefore, a player may wish to purchase all cards from the offer row in an attempt to score multiple sets during this second step to earn as many stripes as possible.
Finally, the third step of the turn is to Replenish the Jungle (the offer row). For any cards drafted in the turn, the player will replace with cards from the draw deck to setup the next player’s turn.
Play continues in this fashion of grabbing cards, discarding cards, and scoring sets for stripes until one player has earned their seventh stripe and won the game!
Components. This game is a deck of cards and a bunch of Stripe Tokens. The cards are all nice quality, with linen finish, but are a bit on the thinner side as far as flimsiness is concerned. I think if players are all somewhat careful this will not pose problems. If so, consider sleeving your copy. The Stripe Tokens are oblong octagons with stripey art. Speaking of the art, throughout the game the art is very cute and cuddly… except for the boar. He is crotchety. I do enjoy finding the stalking tiger somewhat hidden on each card’s art. A great nod to the noble tiger’s hunting ability.
Now, as I was typing the rules breakdown I felt like I was typing quite a lot for as light as the game actually is. In fact, though it says on the box that it is intended for ages 7+ I just couldn’t leave out my little 5-year-old gamer son. He grasped the rules really well, and though he hasn’t developed the best strategy-focused brain skills yet, he is still able to play and enjoy Tiger Stripes. In actuality, he and I had a blast playing through this several times. Yes, it is a resource optimization card drafting game, but to him, it was more like procuring a veritable zoo of cute animals that then offered his tiger the stripes needed to win. And win he did. Several times. This certainly isn’t a game of high strategy and multiple-minute turns, but rather a quick and easy card game with a great little theme.
Is the designer, Isabel duBarry, a relative of the great Philip duBarry? Perhaps. And that is a great thing, because one of our favorite games across the board is Revolution! Perchance game design just runs in the family. I am not sure, so maybe someone can chime in on this here.
When my son adds a game to his rotation, that is a sign of a great little game for us. He has added Tiger Stripes to this rotation and we will be playing the mess out of it here over the next several weeks/months. While this is by no means a gamer’s game, it is absolutely perfect for a game day with kids. My child loves it, and I quite enjoy playing as a tiny tiger out on the prowl for their stripes. If you have littles at home, parents who haven’t quite converted fully into game partners, or newbies you are inviting into the hobby, Tiger Stripes is a good little game to get the party started. It’s quick, easy, features great art and theme, and introduces simple mechanics to hook people on gaming. Go grab a copy and just keep it in your back pocket for those times you need something like this for that one special group in front of you.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Hunters of the Lost Creatures in Tabletop Games
May 8, 2022
If you are reading this, then we can agree on a few things: board games are cool and interesting, silly themes are usually fun, and we are all kids at heart. I appreciate other gamers so much because we all share a common bond of experiencing good and bad games, good and bad rules, as well as good and bad explanations of these rules. I would spoil it up top here if I let on which of these categories our featured game falls into, right? So keep reading.
Hunters of the Lost Creatures is a silly set collection card game for three to four players. In it, players assume the roles of zoological park curators charged with collecting unique creatures for their parks. They do this by bidding on and drafting creature cards, playing take-that style cards on their opponents, and blocking their cards from being manipulated by others.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, players choose one hunter card from each of the four hunting zones: Sea, Forest, Plains, and Air, as well as three “Park Closed” cards. The creature cards are to be split by zone and shuffled, with one special card (Turnado and Cat-a-Pult) added. These shuffled decks are then placed on the table and the top card revealed from each deck. Players decide turn order and the game may begin!
Hands are mostly played simultaneously, with players choosing either a hunter or special card from their hand and placing it face-down in front of themselves. All cards are revealed simultaneously and the card effects are applied. If a player has revealed a hunter, and no other players have the same-colored background/terrain type, that player receives the matching card from those on offer and places it in their park (tableau), or ANY OTHER PLAYER’S park. If ALL players have chosen the same terrain type hunters, the card on offer is removed from the game entirely. However, if not all hunters match, but at least one matches, the matching hunters’ players receive no cards.
Should a player choose to play a special card, their effects are triggered once per game. These include Turnado (switch any two creatures in any two parks), Cat-a-Pult (discards any creature from any player’s park), Thieves (steal any one terrain-matching creature and places it in the Thieves player’s park) and Closed Park (protects the player from the effects of aforementioned special cards). Again, these special cards may only be played once per game, so special consideration is needed as part of their strategy.
The game continues in this fashion of players throwing cards, messing with each other using special cards, and protecting themselves from said special cards until only one stack of creature cards remains. The game ends and points are tallied per the scoring table in the rulebook. The winner is promoted to Head Creature Park Guy and is carried around by the other players. Okay, that’s not at all true. They just win the game.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of Hunters of the Lost Creatures, so all components shown here are subject to change at any time. That said, I received a huge deck of cards in a cute black cloth bag. The cards are all decent quality, and not super glossy, which I appreciate. The art on these cards are all whimsical and silly, which match the silly and punny titles for each. Some of these punny titles can be seen in our photos, with my favorites being the Dandylion (a well-“dressed” weed with a cane and lion face) and the Cougar (which is subtle, but portrays an adult apex big cat with a smaller and younger cat hanging on it). If you enjoy these somewhat intellectual, and sometimes visual, puns you will enjoy these cards.
What I have found in playing through this several times is that it is best when all players are taught the game backwards…ly. I mean to say that players need to know the premise, but most importantly, the scoring system before even the setup. Points are scored for having a run of 1-2-3, a straight of 0-1-2-3-10, at least one card from each terrain type, and for the printed value on the cards. It is more than simply collecting all the favorite cards or even highest value 10 cards. So there is strategy in collecting the best assortment of creatures for scoring purposes, which is great because otherwise this game is not really a game at all.
As players play their hunters to draft creatures, I have found that many players choose to chase the same cards over and over. It becomes obvious that most players will be vying for the value 10 cards, so the players who figure this out and grab the second best card is usually happier with the hand. Of course, more strategy is employed once the special cards are played, as they each mess with opponents in different ways. So even though I may not have acquired that 10 of Forest, I might grab the Turnado and switch out a value 0 or -10 card for that sparkling value 10. Wait, negative 10? Yep. Sometimes life just smacks you around and you get stuck with a -10 card to really punish your great play. Not that it ever happened to me, and not that I would be bitter about it.
The real game hinges on the usage of the special cards. When do you play them? Whom do you target? Turnabout is fair play, after all, and no alliances can be formed whilst playing Hunters of the Lost Creatures. Now, it is hinted at in the rulebook that preview copies ship with entry-level rules, which mean (to me) that more advanced rules may be coming in the final game, or at least some variants to spice up the gameplay. If true, then this game becomes much more interesting to me. Don’t get me wrong. I have enjoyed almost all of my plays, but be warned that playing with spiteful gamers may end poorly for a fun-filled game night.
All in all, I am excited to see how the campaign for Hunters of the Lost Creatures fares, as I believe many gamers and non-gamers alike will enjoy it. I would be super jazzed to grab a final copy if it does in fact ship with alternate or advanced rules, or if the creatures of the same value had unique names and art. That would really satisfy. Keep the bag or go traditional cardboard box, it matters not to me. Just beef up the card quality, add even more uniqueness and fanciful art and you’ve got a fan in me. Grab your copy during the Kickstarter campaign launching May 10, 2022!
Hunters of the Lost Creatures is a silly set collection card game for three to four players. In it, players assume the roles of zoological park curators charged with collecting unique creatures for their parks. They do this by bidding on and drafting creature cards, playing take-that style cards on their opponents, and blocking their cards from being manipulated by others.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, players choose one hunter card from each of the four hunting zones: Sea, Forest, Plains, and Air, as well as three “Park Closed” cards. The creature cards are to be split by zone and shuffled, with one special card (Turnado and Cat-a-Pult) added. These shuffled decks are then placed on the table and the top card revealed from each deck. Players decide turn order and the game may begin!
Hands are mostly played simultaneously, with players choosing either a hunter or special card from their hand and placing it face-down in front of themselves. All cards are revealed simultaneously and the card effects are applied. If a player has revealed a hunter, and no other players have the same-colored background/terrain type, that player receives the matching card from those on offer and places it in their park (tableau), or ANY OTHER PLAYER’S park. If ALL players have chosen the same terrain type hunters, the card on offer is removed from the game entirely. However, if not all hunters match, but at least one matches, the matching hunters’ players receive no cards.
Should a player choose to play a special card, their effects are triggered once per game. These include Turnado (switch any two creatures in any two parks), Cat-a-Pult (discards any creature from any player’s park), Thieves (steal any one terrain-matching creature and places it in the Thieves player’s park) and Closed Park (protects the player from the effects of aforementioned special cards). Again, these special cards may only be played once per game, so special consideration is needed as part of their strategy.
The game continues in this fashion of players throwing cards, messing with each other using special cards, and protecting themselves from said special cards until only one stack of creature cards remains. The game ends and points are tallied per the scoring table in the rulebook. The winner is promoted to Head Creature Park Guy and is carried around by the other players. Okay, that’s not at all true. They just win the game.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of Hunters of the Lost Creatures, so all components shown here are subject to change at any time. That said, I received a huge deck of cards in a cute black cloth bag. The cards are all decent quality, and not super glossy, which I appreciate. The art on these cards are all whimsical and silly, which match the silly and punny titles for each. Some of these punny titles can be seen in our photos, with my favorites being the Dandylion (a well-“dressed” weed with a cane and lion face) and the Cougar (which is subtle, but portrays an adult apex big cat with a smaller and younger cat hanging on it). If you enjoy these somewhat intellectual, and sometimes visual, puns you will enjoy these cards.
What I have found in playing through this several times is that it is best when all players are taught the game backwards…ly. I mean to say that players need to know the premise, but most importantly, the scoring system before even the setup. Points are scored for having a run of 1-2-3, a straight of 0-1-2-3-10, at least one card from each terrain type, and for the printed value on the cards. It is more than simply collecting all the favorite cards or even highest value 10 cards. So there is strategy in collecting the best assortment of creatures for scoring purposes, which is great because otherwise this game is not really a game at all.
As players play their hunters to draft creatures, I have found that many players choose to chase the same cards over and over. It becomes obvious that most players will be vying for the value 10 cards, so the players who figure this out and grab the second best card is usually happier with the hand. Of course, more strategy is employed once the special cards are played, as they each mess with opponents in different ways. So even though I may not have acquired that 10 of Forest, I might grab the Turnado and switch out a value 0 or -10 card for that sparkling value 10. Wait, negative 10? Yep. Sometimes life just smacks you around and you get stuck with a -10 card to really punish your great play. Not that it ever happened to me, and not that I would be bitter about it.
The real game hinges on the usage of the special cards. When do you play them? Whom do you target? Turnabout is fair play, after all, and no alliances can be formed whilst playing Hunters of the Lost Creatures. Now, it is hinted at in the rulebook that preview copies ship with entry-level rules, which mean (to me) that more advanced rules may be coming in the final game, or at least some variants to spice up the gameplay. If true, then this game becomes much more interesting to me. Don’t get me wrong. I have enjoyed almost all of my plays, but be warned that playing with spiteful gamers may end poorly for a fun-filled game night.
All in all, I am excited to see how the campaign for Hunters of the Lost Creatures fares, as I believe many gamers and non-gamers alike will enjoy it. I would be super jazzed to grab a final copy if it does in fact ship with alternate or advanced rules, or if the creatures of the same value had unique names and art. That would really satisfy. Keep the bag or go traditional cardboard box, it matters not to me. Just beef up the card quality, add even more uniqueness and fanciful art and you’ve got a fan in me. Grab your copy during the Kickstarter campaign launching May 10, 2022!
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Jul 24, 2017
Batfleck (1 more)
It's every comic fan's childhood dream
Sloppy editing (2 more)
Bad performances
Poor script
A Whole Mess Of Awesome
Contains spoilers, click to show
Okay, if you are reading this I assume you have at least read a few other reviews of the movie, as it is all that anyone is talking about online at the minute, so what is left to say I hear you ask? Well first off I’ll give you some context, for the last three years I have been reading and collecting comics to an obsessive level and it is due to this movie. I have always been a superhero fan (especially Batman,) and I had read some comics in the past, but when this movie was announced at San Diego Comic-Con in 2013, (3 years ago!!) I was so hyped and I decided that I had to read the comic that this film was taking inspiration from. So I went to my local A1 Comics and bought The Dark Knight Returns, which underwhelmed me but that’s another story. Since then I have become a huge comic book fan and that is thanks to this movie. Seriously what was not to like here, it would have been so difficult to get this wrong, it’s Batman fighting Superman, how amazing is it that this actually happened? And yet they still managed to fuck it up…
Do you read? You will. And then realise how superior the comic that this is based on is to the actual movie itself, (and I’m not even a massive fan of the comic.)
I saw 10 Cloverfield Lane last week and while that movie wasn’t perfect, what made that a great movie is exactly what makes BvS a subpar movie. 10CL had a small team of people working on a restrictive budget, so every aspect of the movie was scrutinised and perfected to make up the end product and that attention to detail really paid off. BvS had a huge budget and a massive team of people working on it and I think that is what gives the movie it’s unfocused and sloppy feel. The script is a mess, there are clearly scenes cut, the editing is jarring, not all of the performances were up to scratch and while the imagery and visuals are incredible, the best way to describe this movie is all style and no substance. I like Zack Snyder, I love his Watchmen movie, I like 300 and I enjoyed Man of Steel, but I can’t help but feel that this is his fault. His decision to make years of comic book stories into one two and a half hour movie honestly baffles me. The events of this movie should have taken place over at least three movies, which I will discuss more in the spoiler section of this review, so stick around for that if you have seen the movie already. This movie really is all over the place and the pace and tone are random at best and if you have seen the trailers then you have essentially seen the movie. Let’s talk about the best part of the movie, which is quite easily Ben Affleck’s Batman and Jeremy Irons’ Alfred. Seeing the two characters and their chemistry are worth the ticket price of the film alone. This is probably the most faithful to the source material Batman that we have had on the big screen to date, except for one pretty major change. Batman in DoJ is pretty much Punisher in a cowl. During the Batmobile chase (which was really fucking awesome by the way,) he questionably kills some goons. I mean, some of them could have survived like, if they had Wolverine’s healing powers I guess? But then there is that badass warehouse scene that we see in the trailers and during that he near enough shoots some guys himself. If you can get over this and see this as an alternate version of Batman you should be able to appreciate Affleck’s performance though, which by the way is amazing, he knocks it out of the park. I would have liked some kind of reference to it, even a scene where he discusses breaking his code with Alfred, just a few lines would have made me get on board with this version of the character a lot quicker. Critics have been calling Henry Cavil’s Superman performance wooden, but I think that is too harsh, he is perfectly serviceable but he isn’t going to be praised for his memorable performance either. Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman is badass, my only complaint is that she isn’t in the movie enough as Wonder Woman. Jesse Eisenberg is the stand out worst performance in the movie. It isn’t necessarily a bad performance, it just does not fit that character at all. He was truly miscast here, if they had cast him as Riddler in the Batman solo movie and he put in this performance I would be praising him like mad. Lex Luthor shouldn’t be crazy on a surface level, he should be a respectable businessman and an intellectual force to be reckoned with and he will go out of his way to ensure that this is what everyone sees him as, it is only ever the people closest to him that that he allows to see him crack. He certainly shouldn’t be making strange noises and gestures like someone with OCD or a mental issue. Also Doomsday is silly and is just shoehorned in at the end for the sake of giving the trinity and enemy to battle against.
Do you pee? You will. After sitting though near three hours of this garbage.
So to give my overall opinion before I get into spoilers, I will say that I enjoyed this movie better than Man of Steel, but only slightly and I dislike it for a lot of the same reasons. Just like Man of Steel there are parts of this movie that I adored and parts that I hated. Mixed emotions is an understatement. In my mind any movie above a 7 is a great movie and unfortunately I can’t call this a great movie. I fully believe that everyone should see this movie and form their own opinion, especially since reactions have been so mixed, but I felt that it simply didn’t live up to the hype that it set for itself and I feel like Zack Snyder may be doing more harm than good setting up the DCU. 6.5/10.
Do you see? You will. Or at least you better have seen it by now because I am about to spoil the shit out of the whole movie.
Like I said earlier, the events of the movie really should have been split across several movies and explored more rather than rushed through at a breakneck speed. We should have had a whole movie on Batman V Superman, the conflict ideals between them and the discussion of whether or not this world needs a Superman. Then we should have had a movie just based on the dawn of the justice league, with Batman and Superman eventually understanding each other and becoming friends and with way more scenes with Wonder Woman and a proper introduction to the other characters rather than the literal plot device USB stick we got in BvS. Then we should have had a few Justice League movies and once Superman was an established character within the universe, they should have killed him off then and did the Death and Return of Superman story, not in this one where Batman and Wonder Woman hardly know him and the public still don’t know whether he is good or bad. Also if Batman kills now, what reason is there for the Joker to still be alive? The whole point of their relationship is that Batman won’t kill Joker because of his code and Joker won’t kill Batman because he loves fighting him, but if Batman has no code and he has been Batman for years then he really should have killed Joker a long time ago. I did enjoy Batfleck and I am very much looking forward to his solo Batman movie, but BvS is rushed and sloppy. So I’ve said my piece, now let the fanboy hate commence.
Do you read? You will. And then realise how superior the comic that this is based on is to the actual movie itself, (and I’m not even a massive fan of the comic.)
I saw 10 Cloverfield Lane last week and while that movie wasn’t perfect, what made that a great movie is exactly what makes BvS a subpar movie. 10CL had a small team of people working on a restrictive budget, so every aspect of the movie was scrutinised and perfected to make up the end product and that attention to detail really paid off. BvS had a huge budget and a massive team of people working on it and I think that is what gives the movie it’s unfocused and sloppy feel. The script is a mess, there are clearly scenes cut, the editing is jarring, not all of the performances were up to scratch and while the imagery and visuals are incredible, the best way to describe this movie is all style and no substance. I like Zack Snyder, I love his Watchmen movie, I like 300 and I enjoyed Man of Steel, but I can’t help but feel that this is his fault. His decision to make years of comic book stories into one two and a half hour movie honestly baffles me. The events of this movie should have taken place over at least three movies, which I will discuss more in the spoiler section of this review, so stick around for that if you have seen the movie already. This movie really is all over the place and the pace and tone are random at best and if you have seen the trailers then you have essentially seen the movie. Let’s talk about the best part of the movie, which is quite easily Ben Affleck’s Batman and Jeremy Irons’ Alfred. Seeing the two characters and their chemistry are worth the ticket price of the film alone. This is probably the most faithful to the source material Batman that we have had on the big screen to date, except for one pretty major change. Batman in DoJ is pretty much Punisher in a cowl. During the Batmobile chase (which was really fucking awesome by the way,) he questionably kills some goons. I mean, some of them could have survived like, if they had Wolverine’s healing powers I guess? But then there is that badass warehouse scene that we see in the trailers and during that he near enough shoots some guys himself. If you can get over this and see this as an alternate version of Batman you should be able to appreciate Affleck’s performance though, which by the way is amazing, he knocks it out of the park. I would have liked some kind of reference to it, even a scene where he discusses breaking his code with Alfred, just a few lines would have made me get on board with this version of the character a lot quicker. Critics have been calling Henry Cavil’s Superman performance wooden, but I think that is too harsh, he is perfectly serviceable but he isn’t going to be praised for his memorable performance either. Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman is badass, my only complaint is that she isn’t in the movie enough as Wonder Woman. Jesse Eisenberg is the stand out worst performance in the movie. It isn’t necessarily a bad performance, it just does not fit that character at all. He was truly miscast here, if they had cast him as Riddler in the Batman solo movie and he put in this performance I would be praising him like mad. Lex Luthor shouldn’t be crazy on a surface level, he should be a respectable businessman and an intellectual force to be reckoned with and he will go out of his way to ensure that this is what everyone sees him as, it is only ever the people closest to him that that he allows to see him crack. He certainly shouldn’t be making strange noises and gestures like someone with OCD or a mental issue. Also Doomsday is silly and is just shoehorned in at the end for the sake of giving the trinity and enemy to battle against.
Do you pee? You will. After sitting though near three hours of this garbage.
So to give my overall opinion before I get into spoilers, I will say that I enjoyed this movie better than Man of Steel, but only slightly and I dislike it for a lot of the same reasons. Just like Man of Steel there are parts of this movie that I adored and parts that I hated. Mixed emotions is an understatement. In my mind any movie above a 7 is a great movie and unfortunately I can’t call this a great movie. I fully believe that everyone should see this movie and form their own opinion, especially since reactions have been so mixed, but I felt that it simply didn’t live up to the hype that it set for itself and I feel like Zack Snyder may be doing more harm than good setting up the DCU. 6.5/10.
Do you see? You will. Or at least you better have seen it by now because I am about to spoil the shit out of the whole movie.
Like I said earlier, the events of the movie really should have been split across several movies and explored more rather than rushed through at a breakneck speed. We should have had a whole movie on Batman V Superman, the conflict ideals between them and the discussion of whether or not this world needs a Superman. Then we should have had a movie just based on the dawn of the justice league, with Batman and Superman eventually understanding each other and becoming friends and with way more scenes with Wonder Woman and a proper introduction to the other characters rather than the literal plot device USB stick we got in BvS. Then we should have had a few Justice League movies and once Superman was an established character within the universe, they should have killed him off then and did the Death and Return of Superman story, not in this one where Batman and Wonder Woman hardly know him and the public still don’t know whether he is good or bad. Also if Batman kills now, what reason is there for the Joker to still be alive? The whole point of their relationship is that Batman won’t kill Joker because of his code and Joker won’t kill Batman because he loves fighting him, but if Batman has no code and he has been Batman for years then he really should have killed Joker a long time ago. I did enjoy Batfleck and I am very much looking forward to his solo Batman movie, but BvS is rushed and sloppy. So I’ve said my piece, now let the fanboy hate commence.