Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated King Kong (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Following up the box office and Oscar success of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is an undertaking that is sure to have its dangers. Expectations of the fans notwithstanding, the ability to recapture the magic of the trilogy could be akin to capturing lightning in a bottle. When it was announced that Peter Jackson would follow his Oscar success by doing yet another adaptation of King Kong, there were plenty of questions amidst the excitement.
When an earlier remake was a critical and commercial bomb, “Would Jackson be able to do justice to one of the all time classics?” was one of the biggest questions. When it was announced that comedian Jack Black would be in the film, people began to wonder what Jackson had brewing. Black, as well as Academy Award winner Adrian Brody were seen as offbeat choices. As the release date for the film neared, so did speculation over the look of the film, the running time, and its decision to follow the screenplay of the original rather than adapt to a modern setting.
The film follows a filmmaker named Carl Denham (Jack Black), who in an act of desperation flees New York for a mysterious and uncharted island in an attempt to finish his latest movie before the studio can shut him down. Amidst the backdrop of the Great Depression, it is clear that Denham knows that failure now could be the end of his livelihood and his long term future. As he embarks on his fly by night production, Denham encounters Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), a recently unemployed Vaudeville performer who is enticed into the film in the hopes of meeting its writer Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody). It seems that Ann has long coveted a part in Driscoll’s plays and hopes that by meeting him, she will obtain her long sought after audition.
With the cops and studio hot on their heels, the cast and crew board a tramp steamer named “The Venture” as they set off for the mysterious island that is known only to Denham via a mysterious map he obtained through methods unknown.
As the voyage unwinds, not only does Denham get the chance to film segments of the film, but Ann and a stranded Jack find themselves becoming an item. Jack is inspired by Ann, and he works like a man inspired turning out page after page of material for various projects which he hopes Ann will star.
Eventually the ship finds its way to the mysterious Skull Island surrounded in fog, and the crew venture ashore to take in the bizarre and exotic land that has previously been unexplored. Upon finding a fortified wall and settlement the crew has a run in with some dangerous natives which in turn leads to Ann being kidnapped and offered up sacrificial style to a gigantic creature the Islanders refer to as Kong. Undaunted, Jack and the crew set off to rescue Ann while Denham shoots footage along the way, as the island offers visuals the likes of which have never been seen by mankind.
Along the way, the crew encounters deadly creatures and obstacles at every turn, as does Ann who plays a dangerous game of cat and mouse with Kong as she comes to grips with her situation. Kong is taken with the lovely Ann and protects her against numerous dangers including a pack of Tyrannosauruses in one of the film’s best action sequences.
Of course few will be surprised at the final act of the film so I will leave it to say that the fish out of water nature of the previous versions remains intact as Kong finds himself dealing with an urban jungle which leads to a spectacular finale atop the Empire State Building.
In many ways Jackson’s film is three separate films. The first hour of the film is an interesting and, at times witty, character piece where the lead characters assemble. The look of the city is amazing, making it very clear that enormous amounts of effort went into crafting the look of Depression Era New York, and to remind the audience that Prohibition was also in effect. The interplay between the characters is decent.Black does standout work as the slick Denham, as does Watts as the wholesome and lovable Ann.
The second hour of the film is the special effects showcase where the mysteries of Skull Island and Kong are shown complete with all manner of CGI creatures and action sequences. While most of them are well staged, I could not help but note that on more than one occasion the CGI backdrops did not match up well with their live action counterparts. There is one scene of a stampede where it looked like the actors had been drawn in and that they were running in place as they clearly did not mesh with the spectacle behind them.
Throughout the film this occurrence happened more and more which really had me wondering if the effects house was overtaxed. A film with a budget reportedly over 100 million should not have these technical issues. Thankfully Kong himself is a wonder, with everything from his expressive eyes and facial features, captured in a remarkable way. It is just a shame that the other effects did not get the same treatment as the films namesake, as he truly is a site to behold. Andy Serkis who did the character mannerisms for the animators program did a phenomenal job. The movements of Kong progress with a strength and agility that bellies a simian rather than a skilled performer.
I do not want it to sound as if I did not enjoy the film, as much of the film worked very well, technical issues aside. What my biggest issue with the film was that at over 3 Hours, it was far too long for the material to support. We get numerous scenes of Ann and Kong flirting, bonding, fighting, running, and more. What is cute the first couple of times becomes dull the more it is repeated. It is obvious that they have a bond; we do not need to see it over and over ad nauseum to get the message. Also, the character development and interplay between the characters that was so effective in the first part of the film all but vanishes amidst the effects.
The finale of the film is a rousing success as the daring visuals and camera angles are very inventive and thrilling. This segment with its fury of motion and sound will have viewers on the edge of their seat as it certainly delivers the goods. The biggest issue again is having to sit through three hours to get to it. Anyone who has seen either version of Kong knows exactly where the film is heading, and after two hours of screen time I found myself wishing they would just hurry up and get to it.
Jackson has crafted a very entertaining and lavish film that packs its share of thrills. What the film needed is someone to reign in Jackson and his boundless enthusiasm for the project to remind him that sometimes less is more. Jackson has said that he had over 4 hours worth of material filmed but trimmed it down to its current running time. When the film is almost twice the running time of the original, I found myself thinking that minus 45 minutes the same story could have been told.
Despite the flaws and the hype, King Kong is a solid film that for me was more satisfying in many ways than any of the “Rings” films. While not quite a masterpiece, this Kong is worthy of the name and pedigree of the timeless original that inspired it.
When an earlier remake was a critical and commercial bomb, “Would Jackson be able to do justice to one of the all time classics?” was one of the biggest questions. When it was announced that comedian Jack Black would be in the film, people began to wonder what Jackson had brewing. Black, as well as Academy Award winner Adrian Brody were seen as offbeat choices. As the release date for the film neared, so did speculation over the look of the film, the running time, and its decision to follow the screenplay of the original rather than adapt to a modern setting.
The film follows a filmmaker named Carl Denham (Jack Black), who in an act of desperation flees New York for a mysterious and uncharted island in an attempt to finish his latest movie before the studio can shut him down. Amidst the backdrop of the Great Depression, it is clear that Denham knows that failure now could be the end of his livelihood and his long term future. As he embarks on his fly by night production, Denham encounters Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), a recently unemployed Vaudeville performer who is enticed into the film in the hopes of meeting its writer Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody). It seems that Ann has long coveted a part in Driscoll’s plays and hopes that by meeting him, she will obtain her long sought after audition.
With the cops and studio hot on their heels, the cast and crew board a tramp steamer named “The Venture” as they set off for the mysterious island that is known only to Denham via a mysterious map he obtained through methods unknown.
As the voyage unwinds, not only does Denham get the chance to film segments of the film, but Ann and a stranded Jack find themselves becoming an item. Jack is inspired by Ann, and he works like a man inspired turning out page after page of material for various projects which he hopes Ann will star.
Eventually the ship finds its way to the mysterious Skull Island surrounded in fog, and the crew venture ashore to take in the bizarre and exotic land that has previously been unexplored. Upon finding a fortified wall and settlement the crew has a run in with some dangerous natives which in turn leads to Ann being kidnapped and offered up sacrificial style to a gigantic creature the Islanders refer to as Kong. Undaunted, Jack and the crew set off to rescue Ann while Denham shoots footage along the way, as the island offers visuals the likes of which have never been seen by mankind.
Along the way, the crew encounters deadly creatures and obstacles at every turn, as does Ann who plays a dangerous game of cat and mouse with Kong as she comes to grips with her situation. Kong is taken with the lovely Ann and protects her against numerous dangers including a pack of Tyrannosauruses in one of the film’s best action sequences.
Of course few will be surprised at the final act of the film so I will leave it to say that the fish out of water nature of the previous versions remains intact as Kong finds himself dealing with an urban jungle which leads to a spectacular finale atop the Empire State Building.
In many ways Jackson’s film is three separate films. The first hour of the film is an interesting and, at times witty, character piece where the lead characters assemble. The look of the city is amazing, making it very clear that enormous amounts of effort went into crafting the look of Depression Era New York, and to remind the audience that Prohibition was also in effect. The interplay between the characters is decent.Black does standout work as the slick Denham, as does Watts as the wholesome and lovable Ann.
The second hour of the film is the special effects showcase where the mysteries of Skull Island and Kong are shown complete with all manner of CGI creatures and action sequences. While most of them are well staged, I could not help but note that on more than one occasion the CGI backdrops did not match up well with their live action counterparts. There is one scene of a stampede where it looked like the actors had been drawn in and that they were running in place as they clearly did not mesh with the spectacle behind them.
Throughout the film this occurrence happened more and more which really had me wondering if the effects house was overtaxed. A film with a budget reportedly over 100 million should not have these technical issues. Thankfully Kong himself is a wonder, with everything from his expressive eyes and facial features, captured in a remarkable way. It is just a shame that the other effects did not get the same treatment as the films namesake, as he truly is a site to behold. Andy Serkis who did the character mannerisms for the animators program did a phenomenal job. The movements of Kong progress with a strength and agility that bellies a simian rather than a skilled performer.
I do not want it to sound as if I did not enjoy the film, as much of the film worked very well, technical issues aside. What my biggest issue with the film was that at over 3 Hours, it was far too long for the material to support. We get numerous scenes of Ann and Kong flirting, bonding, fighting, running, and more. What is cute the first couple of times becomes dull the more it is repeated. It is obvious that they have a bond; we do not need to see it over and over ad nauseum to get the message. Also, the character development and interplay between the characters that was so effective in the first part of the film all but vanishes amidst the effects.
The finale of the film is a rousing success as the daring visuals and camera angles are very inventive and thrilling. This segment with its fury of motion and sound will have viewers on the edge of their seat as it certainly delivers the goods. The biggest issue again is having to sit through three hours to get to it. Anyone who has seen either version of Kong knows exactly where the film is heading, and after two hours of screen time I found myself wishing they would just hurry up and get to it.
Jackson has crafted a very entertaining and lavish film that packs its share of thrills. What the film needed is someone to reign in Jackson and his boundless enthusiasm for the project to remind him that sometimes less is more. Jackson has said that he had over 4 hours worth of material filmed but trimmed it down to its current running time. When the film is almost twice the running time of the original, I found myself thinking that minus 45 minutes the same story could have been told.
Despite the flaws and the hype, King Kong is a solid film that for me was more satisfying in many ways than any of the “Rings” films. While not quite a masterpiece, this Kong is worthy of the name and pedigree of the timeless original that inspired it.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Fire in the Library in Tabletop Games
Feb 11, 2020
My main job currently is working in an academic library. I have lots of different responsibilities to handle. So when I heard about a game with a title, “Fire in the Library,” I knew we HAD to play it. What employee wouldn’t want to play a game where the game ends once your workplace inevitably burns down? Imagine my giddiness as I learned this game and set it up for the first time.
Fire in the Library is a push-your-luck card game that rewards players for pushing their luck well beyond their comfort zones… but as with all push-your-luck games, defeat is also imminent.
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, each player will choose a player color, place their Libreeple (I think it’s Libreeple anyway) near the scoring track, and take the corresponding Player Reference Card. The Library will next be built from sequential Library Cards. The Library is a group of individual decks of cards arranged in a 2×2 pattern, and the card fronts create a lovely picture of the Library. Add all cubes of five different colors to the Library Bag (keeping aside 10 red “fire” cubes). Shuffle the Tool Cards deck, deal each player two Tool Cards, place the top three Tool Cards face-up next to its deck to form the Tool Card Market. Shuffle the Turn Order Cards per the player count rules in the rulebook, deal one to each player, and the game can begin!
Phase One of the game is Choosing Turn Order. Once the turn order has been established (just for the first round – after that, the player who is in last place will choose which Turn Order Card they would like to use for the round) the 1st Player will move onto Phase Two. Yes, Choosing Turn Order is an entire phase by itself. This becomes more important once I explain Tool Cards a little later.
Phase Two is the meat of the game. It is split into two sections, but they flow so nicely into each other. The active player consults their Turn Order Card to understand how many book cubes they would like to pull from the bag, thus “saving” them from the impending fire. The Turn Order Cards will have blank square spaces for “safe” areas, and spaces with fire icons in “risky” spaces. More points can be scored by placing cubes into the risky spaces, but also is more dangerous. You see, a player can pull out a red fire cube from the bag and still choose to continue to pull cubes, assuming the red cube is placed on a safe space on their card. But pull a second fire cube and their turn is immediately over. However, pulling just one red cube and having to place it in a risky space ends the turn immediately. A player can choose to stop pulling cubes at any time and earn the rewards on the Turn Order Card printed directly below the last cube placed as well as the points for each book saved, which are the large numbers printed on the Library Cards (the 2×2 grid with the picture of the Library). These rewards from the Turn Order Card could be merely a Tool Card (under safe spaces), or it could result in points on the scoreboard (under risky spaces). Even if a player busts with the red cubes, they will be able to take a Tool Card as consolation. If the active player did not bust and voluntarily stopped pulling cubes, they add their points for the turn and adjust their Libreeple accordingly. On the other hand, if a player had to end their turn due to pulling red fire cubes, then the fire spreads!
When the Fire Spreads all the books that the active player had thought they saved are burned (returned to the bag). These lost books will also cause the fire to burn down portions of the Library that match the colors of the cubes pulled. Remove the top cards for each of these cubes from the Library. Sometimes this will reveal a printed fire icon on the revealed Library cards. Every time a fire icon is revealed in this way, one of the red cubes that was set aside at setup will be added to the Library Bag – thus increasing the ratio of fire to safe books in the bag.
Phase Three is called “After Scoring.” Every Tool Card in the deck will have an icon printed to show when it can be played during a turn (check the Reference Card). The Tool Cards can be played during Choosing Turn Order, Saving Books, Fire Spreading, and After Scoring.
Once all players have had their turn for the round, a portion of the Library will burn. Remove the appropriate card (according to the rulebook). All players will have a chance to discard one of their Tool Cards and replace it with a Tool Card from the top of the deck. When complete, a new round begins. Play continues in this fashion until a section of the Library is revealed with an icon signifying the end of the game. Players will have one last round to earn as many points as— I mean, save as many books as they can.
Components. There’s a lot going on in this game, and the components are really really good. First, the game box is one of those awesome magnetic boxes (like Biblios) that unfolds and reveals the score tracker. The Libreeples are normal meeple fare, the cubes are normal cube fare, and the Library Bag is one that is loved by Guy Fieri (probably). The cards are great quality and feature really amazing artwork by Katie Khau and Beth Sobel. Overall, the components are wonderful and we really enjoyed playing with them.
As you can tell from our score, we genuinely enjoyed this game. The push-your-luck mechanic is so central to the game and the Tool Cards help to mitigate frustrating pulls, or help to manipulate other areas of the game, and we love both of those aspects. All in all, Fire in the Library is a truly enjoyable experience, and one that I find myself thinking about outside of game night. I cannot wait to play again, and hopefully save more books. I would suggest adding this to my workplace library’s board game collection, but I don’t want any students getting any great ideas… Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a hot hot hot 15 / 18. Check it out for a different take on push-your-luck, where you actually care about what you’re doing. Oh, and of course I won – I work in a college library.
Fire in the Library is a push-your-luck card game that rewards players for pushing their luck well beyond their comfort zones… but as with all push-your-luck games, defeat is also imminent.
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, each player will choose a player color, place their Libreeple (I think it’s Libreeple anyway) near the scoring track, and take the corresponding Player Reference Card. The Library will next be built from sequential Library Cards. The Library is a group of individual decks of cards arranged in a 2×2 pattern, and the card fronts create a lovely picture of the Library. Add all cubes of five different colors to the Library Bag (keeping aside 10 red “fire” cubes). Shuffle the Tool Cards deck, deal each player two Tool Cards, place the top three Tool Cards face-up next to its deck to form the Tool Card Market. Shuffle the Turn Order Cards per the player count rules in the rulebook, deal one to each player, and the game can begin!
Phase One of the game is Choosing Turn Order. Once the turn order has been established (just for the first round – after that, the player who is in last place will choose which Turn Order Card they would like to use for the round) the 1st Player will move onto Phase Two. Yes, Choosing Turn Order is an entire phase by itself. This becomes more important once I explain Tool Cards a little later.
Phase Two is the meat of the game. It is split into two sections, but they flow so nicely into each other. The active player consults their Turn Order Card to understand how many book cubes they would like to pull from the bag, thus “saving” them from the impending fire. The Turn Order Cards will have blank square spaces for “safe” areas, and spaces with fire icons in “risky” spaces. More points can be scored by placing cubes into the risky spaces, but also is more dangerous. You see, a player can pull out a red fire cube from the bag and still choose to continue to pull cubes, assuming the red cube is placed on a safe space on their card. But pull a second fire cube and their turn is immediately over. However, pulling just one red cube and having to place it in a risky space ends the turn immediately. A player can choose to stop pulling cubes at any time and earn the rewards on the Turn Order Card printed directly below the last cube placed as well as the points for each book saved, which are the large numbers printed on the Library Cards (the 2×2 grid with the picture of the Library). These rewards from the Turn Order Card could be merely a Tool Card (under safe spaces), or it could result in points on the scoreboard (under risky spaces). Even if a player busts with the red cubes, they will be able to take a Tool Card as consolation. If the active player did not bust and voluntarily stopped pulling cubes, they add their points for the turn and adjust their Libreeple accordingly. On the other hand, if a player had to end their turn due to pulling red fire cubes, then the fire spreads!
When the Fire Spreads all the books that the active player had thought they saved are burned (returned to the bag). These lost books will also cause the fire to burn down portions of the Library that match the colors of the cubes pulled. Remove the top cards for each of these cubes from the Library. Sometimes this will reveal a printed fire icon on the revealed Library cards. Every time a fire icon is revealed in this way, one of the red cubes that was set aside at setup will be added to the Library Bag – thus increasing the ratio of fire to safe books in the bag.
Phase Three is called “After Scoring.” Every Tool Card in the deck will have an icon printed to show when it can be played during a turn (check the Reference Card). The Tool Cards can be played during Choosing Turn Order, Saving Books, Fire Spreading, and After Scoring.
Once all players have had their turn for the round, a portion of the Library will burn. Remove the appropriate card (according to the rulebook). All players will have a chance to discard one of their Tool Cards and replace it with a Tool Card from the top of the deck. When complete, a new round begins. Play continues in this fashion until a section of the Library is revealed with an icon signifying the end of the game. Players will have one last round to earn as many points as— I mean, save as many books as they can.
Components. There’s a lot going on in this game, and the components are really really good. First, the game box is one of those awesome magnetic boxes (like Biblios) that unfolds and reveals the score tracker. The Libreeples are normal meeple fare, the cubes are normal cube fare, and the Library Bag is one that is loved by Guy Fieri (probably). The cards are great quality and feature really amazing artwork by Katie Khau and Beth Sobel. Overall, the components are wonderful and we really enjoyed playing with them.
As you can tell from our score, we genuinely enjoyed this game. The push-your-luck mechanic is so central to the game and the Tool Cards help to mitigate frustrating pulls, or help to manipulate other areas of the game, and we love both of those aspects. All in all, Fire in the Library is a truly enjoyable experience, and one that I find myself thinking about outside of game night. I cannot wait to play again, and hopefully save more books. I would suggest adding this to my workplace library’s board game collection, but I don’t want any students getting any great ideas… Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a hot hot hot 15 / 18. Check it out for a different take on push-your-luck, where you actually care about what you’re doing. Oh, and of course I won – I work in a college library.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
How many times have you seen this premise played out in film or other forms of entertainment: The world is going to end and there’s one last ditch plan or effort to save it (It inevitably succeeds, of course!); alternatively, the world has ended already and we’re left with post-apocalyptic society picking up the pieces. The premise is everywhere; the fascination with the end of days has been evident throughout our popular culture for decades. Yet, the thing about these two premises is that it avoids a (quite large) important question about the nature of the situation. What if our last ditch effort doesn’t succeed? What if there is no post-apocalyptic setting giving us hope for a re-built future. “Seeking a Friend for the End of the World”, a brand new film directed and written by Lorene Scafaria (“Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist”) attempts to focus on that gap often glossed over by apocalyptic fiction. It assumes there is no hope, there is a conclusion, and how do we deal with that?
It’s a comedy drama that pokes fun of the absurdity of a monotonous society coping with the conclusion of all civilization, while interweaving a touching romance between two people with broken pasts and deep regrets. Yet, it is a movie with some notable flaws, mainly in how it focuses its attention.
The premise is fairly simple, and rightly so. There is a large asteroid named “Matilda” barreling towards Earth and its impact will wipe out all life on our beloved planet. The film starts with the announcement that the last chance for Earth’s survival, a space mission to destroy the asteroid, has failed due to a fire on board the vessel. With only three weeks left to live, insurance salesman Dodge Peterson (Steve Carell) must decide how to spend the rest of his life. He decides to chase down an old highschool sweetheart and is accompanied by his neighbor, Penny (Keira Knightley) who wishes to return home to see her family one last time. They meet several characters in their roadtrip journey through pre-apocalyptica, including characters played by Rob Corddry and Martin Sheen.
The simple premise seems familiar due to its subject matter (C’mon, it’s 2012. I’m surprised there hasn’t been even more apocalypse movies flooding the theaters). Yet, strangely it feels fresh simply in how it handles itself. As said, most movies focus on the last daring mission to save mankind from certain destruction, or assumes that certain destruction really isn’t the end. People like to see hope, they don’t want to be confined by fate. This movie takes a different approach. Right off the bat it basically tells you there is zero hope, zero chance of getting out of this mess. Now what do you do? This particular premise lets comedy shine for the first two acts of the movie. There are subtle jokes, like the absurdity of naming a rock about to destroy all of mankind “Matilda”.
There are more traditional joke set-ups, favoring quick joke-punchline material that is mostly laugh-out-loud funny. And there is a fair amount of dark humor, simple funniness in the absurdity of how people treat the end of days. People mowing their lawns, still cleaning houses, even cops who continue to pull people over all poke fun of how people cannot let go of even the most monotonous of tasks that define their lift – regardless of how pointless they are due to the situation. Or the people who just let go and want to spend their last days without care, throwing themselves into orgies, drugs or riots. However, the tone of the drama limits the humor of the movie, favoring those kinds of moderate laughs over hysterical or hilarious moments. That’s the underlying issue of the film: that it feels like the humor is constrained due to fear of it undermining its drama.
Those who expect a comedy movie will only get two-thirds of one. And those who expect a drama movie will get mostly one. By no means does it fail at comedy or drama, but it just does not strike that delicate balance to be both in the same setting. The last act of the movie almost completely drops the comedy in favor of a dramatic and romantic conclusion. It’s not a huge fault, because the writing, and well-paced relationship development between the two main protagonists (Dodge and Penny), means that their inevitable romance seems natural, honest, and believable. The comedy is really only around in the first two thirds of the movie to try and keep your attention away from the obvious conclusion to their story – the fact that they end up together (and, perhaps, another conclusion entirely). So, when it does eventually happen, even though it was obvious from the start that it would, it does feel very endearing. The natural chemistry between Steve Carell and Keira Knightley is quite good, so buying their romance is not difficult in the slightest.
Yet, even still, that underlying issue keeps coming back. The fact that the comedy feels like a tool to facilitate a good dramatic ending ,instead of natural focus of the movie, undermines the experience for those who want to get some laughs. If there was a more natural balance between the romantic elements and comedy elements throughout the whole movie and not just the first two thirds, it could bring forth much more powerful comedy and/or drama. That way those who desire comedy or romance would be delighted to get a good deal of both intertwined.
I commend the film for how it handles the subject matter of inevitability. Even though it pokes fun at absurdity and really garners good laughs, it always has this underlying sense of regret, sadness and dread. You’re always reminded in the back of your mind that the world is going to end, but it does a good enough job pulling you into the characters’ last struggle to piece together their lives after decades of failure and regret that you end up really wanting to see them pull through somehow. Its last act is especially poignant, and definitely emotionally strong. Even though the themes of throwing away your past in favor of a happier future (despite it being such a short future) are not well concealed, they still end up being particularly strong. A film that can really make you appreciate what you have outside the film and the limited time you have left to enjoy it has to be commended for making you think.
“Seeking a Friend for the End of the World” is a fairly powerful romance drama that focuses on how people deal with loss, regret and the prospect of inevitable fate. More importantly, though, is that it focuses on how people can build something profoundly beautiful even in the last moments of their lives – regardless of their pasts or (lack) of future prospects. It has comedy in the movie, but it never really shines nor intertwines with the drama. They almost feel like two separate elements that struggle to mix together. Yet, the comedy is mostly laugh-out-loud funny and the drama is quite poignant and endearing. It definitely had the potential to make us laugh to tears or even bring us to tears through drama, but instead it settles for simply making us laugh and reflect.
It’s a comedy drama that pokes fun of the absurdity of a monotonous society coping with the conclusion of all civilization, while interweaving a touching romance between two people with broken pasts and deep regrets. Yet, it is a movie with some notable flaws, mainly in how it focuses its attention.
The premise is fairly simple, and rightly so. There is a large asteroid named “Matilda” barreling towards Earth and its impact will wipe out all life on our beloved planet. The film starts with the announcement that the last chance for Earth’s survival, a space mission to destroy the asteroid, has failed due to a fire on board the vessel. With only three weeks left to live, insurance salesman Dodge Peterson (Steve Carell) must decide how to spend the rest of his life. He decides to chase down an old highschool sweetheart and is accompanied by his neighbor, Penny (Keira Knightley) who wishes to return home to see her family one last time. They meet several characters in their roadtrip journey through pre-apocalyptica, including characters played by Rob Corddry and Martin Sheen.
The simple premise seems familiar due to its subject matter (C’mon, it’s 2012. I’m surprised there hasn’t been even more apocalypse movies flooding the theaters). Yet, strangely it feels fresh simply in how it handles itself. As said, most movies focus on the last daring mission to save mankind from certain destruction, or assumes that certain destruction really isn’t the end. People like to see hope, they don’t want to be confined by fate. This movie takes a different approach. Right off the bat it basically tells you there is zero hope, zero chance of getting out of this mess. Now what do you do? This particular premise lets comedy shine for the first two acts of the movie. There are subtle jokes, like the absurdity of naming a rock about to destroy all of mankind “Matilda”.
There are more traditional joke set-ups, favoring quick joke-punchline material that is mostly laugh-out-loud funny. And there is a fair amount of dark humor, simple funniness in the absurdity of how people treat the end of days. People mowing their lawns, still cleaning houses, even cops who continue to pull people over all poke fun of how people cannot let go of even the most monotonous of tasks that define their lift – regardless of how pointless they are due to the situation. Or the people who just let go and want to spend their last days without care, throwing themselves into orgies, drugs or riots. However, the tone of the drama limits the humor of the movie, favoring those kinds of moderate laughs over hysterical or hilarious moments. That’s the underlying issue of the film: that it feels like the humor is constrained due to fear of it undermining its drama.
Those who expect a comedy movie will only get two-thirds of one. And those who expect a drama movie will get mostly one. By no means does it fail at comedy or drama, but it just does not strike that delicate balance to be both in the same setting. The last act of the movie almost completely drops the comedy in favor of a dramatic and romantic conclusion. It’s not a huge fault, because the writing, and well-paced relationship development between the two main protagonists (Dodge and Penny), means that their inevitable romance seems natural, honest, and believable. The comedy is really only around in the first two thirds of the movie to try and keep your attention away from the obvious conclusion to their story – the fact that they end up together (and, perhaps, another conclusion entirely). So, when it does eventually happen, even though it was obvious from the start that it would, it does feel very endearing. The natural chemistry between Steve Carell and Keira Knightley is quite good, so buying their romance is not difficult in the slightest.
Yet, even still, that underlying issue keeps coming back. The fact that the comedy feels like a tool to facilitate a good dramatic ending ,instead of natural focus of the movie, undermines the experience for those who want to get some laughs. If there was a more natural balance between the romantic elements and comedy elements throughout the whole movie and not just the first two thirds, it could bring forth much more powerful comedy and/or drama. That way those who desire comedy or romance would be delighted to get a good deal of both intertwined.
I commend the film for how it handles the subject matter of inevitability. Even though it pokes fun at absurdity and really garners good laughs, it always has this underlying sense of regret, sadness and dread. You’re always reminded in the back of your mind that the world is going to end, but it does a good enough job pulling you into the characters’ last struggle to piece together their lives after decades of failure and regret that you end up really wanting to see them pull through somehow. Its last act is especially poignant, and definitely emotionally strong. Even though the themes of throwing away your past in favor of a happier future (despite it being such a short future) are not well concealed, they still end up being particularly strong. A film that can really make you appreciate what you have outside the film and the limited time you have left to enjoy it has to be commended for making you think.
“Seeking a Friend for the End of the World” is a fairly powerful romance drama that focuses on how people deal with loss, regret and the prospect of inevitable fate. More importantly, though, is that it focuses on how people can build something profoundly beautiful even in the last moments of their lives – regardless of their pasts or (lack) of future prospects. It has comedy in the movie, but it never really shines nor intertwines with the drama. They almost feel like two separate elements that struggle to mix together. Yet, the comedy is mostly laugh-out-loud funny and the drama is quite poignant and endearing. It definitely had the potential to make us laugh to tears or even bring us to tears through drama, but instead it settles for simply making us laugh and reflect.
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.