Search
Search results
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated A Walk Among the Tombstones (2014) in Movies
Jun 28, 2019 (Updated Jun 28, 2019)
Liam Neeson puts in a commanding performance and is a natural as a detective. (2 more)
The film has great visual flair and creates an effectively dark and moody atmosphere.
The solid supporting cast strengthen an otherwise dull and derivative film.
The heavy graphic content of rape, mutilation, and murder is extremely off-putting. (1 more)
There's not a single likeable character to be found in the whole movie.
A Walk Among the Tombstones is unsettling but never really all that compelling. It's a decent detective movie, but your enjoyment of it may depend on how well you can handle its grimy setting and extreme violence.
After watching A Walk Among the Tombstones, I literally felt like I was going to puke. This mystery-thriller, based on Lawrence Block’s popular novel, is a gross and grisly foray into the criminal underworld in search of sadistic kidnappers. Director Scott Frank paints a portrait of a dark and twisted 1990s New York City where women are disappearing, only to later show up chopped into pieces. The film is grim without remorse or reason, and if you’re anything like me, you’ll be eager for it to end so you can wash your hands of it entirely. It stars Liam Neeson as an unlicensed private detective named Matthew Scudder who leads an investigation to find the people responsible for these horrific murders. While it may appear from the trailers to be another entry in Neeson’s growing lineup of ass-kicking action-thrillers, it’s actually far from it. A Walk Among the Tombstones plays out more like a brooding, slow-paced horror film. If you’re expecting Taken, then you’re walking right into the wrong movie.
Neeson’s character Matt Scudder is a former alcoholic and an ex-cop turned personal private investigator who works in exchange for favors. Since he’s no longer affiliated with the police, he’s an appealing person to turn to for those who need help but want to keep the cops out of the picture. When a drug dealer’s wife is kidnapped and savagely murdered, he seeks out Scudder for help. What follows is in an investigation into the murder that links up to the murder of another drug dealer’s wife. With the killers still at large, Scudder is determined to catch them before they can strike again.
Being that Scudder is working with criminals to find even worse criminals, the characters in A Walk Among the Tombstones are quite despicable. In fact, I would argue there’s not a single likeable character in the whole film. Even our protagonist Scudder is a shady person with a corrupt past. It’s hard to care about anyone here except for the poor abducted women, and yet we never get to know any of them. They’re reduced to the point where it’s hard to see them as anything more than the killers’ unlucky victims who have no chance of surviving. We follow Scudder through this twisted investigation not because we care about him, but for their sake of these women, with the hope that our detective hero can put an end to these killers’ unspeakable crimes. The film’s dreadful cast of characters give an incredibly bleak and hopeless outlook on people as a whole.
Liam Neeson gives a suitable performance as Scudder, fitting into the role of a detective quite naturally. As usual, he has a great presence and commands your attention any time he’s on screen. In A Walk Among the Tombstones, he’s not nearly the unstoppable action-hero he has been in his other recent films, but he’s still an intimidating guy you’d be wise not to mess with. He does actually have a couple tense conversations with the killers over the phone that are reminiscent of the famous scene in Taken, but certainly not as memorable.
The killers in the movie happen to be far more appalling than interesting. We don’t ever get to know much about them or their motives. They’re sick, demented people that aren’t given much more depth than being bad for the sake of being bad. However, there’s no question that they’re believably haunting and deranged. Despite their limited screen time and lack of complexity, their actors put in truly unnerving performances.
The film is well-acted throughout, with a few especially notable performances from supporting characters. Olafur Darri Olafsson is terrific as the creepy cemetery groundskeeper, and Eric Nelsen does a commendable job as the drug addict younger brother of the drug dealer who sought Scudder’s help. There’s also Brian “Astro” Bradley as a homeless teenager named TJ that Scudder befriends, who volunteers himself to be his crime-solving partner. Astro at times lightens up the moody film with his charm, and while he’s truly the only character that offers any sense of hope in the film’s gritty world, I think his character largely feels out of place as an unnecessary inclusion.
Scott Frank effectively creates a dark and sullen atmosphere in his movie that is also visually striking. He turns New York’s underbelly into a stylishly gloomy city where its seedy citizens can run rampant. He demonstrates proficiency behind the camera, building eeriness and suspense. However, he goes too far with the film’s graphic sexual content, which includes rape, torture, and mutilation. While he never gives you a very clear look at these heinous acts, he puts you right there in the moment and lets the camera linger. It’s sadistic, cruel, and very disturbing to watch. In a bizarre directorial decision, he has the 12 steps to recovery from Alcoholics Anonymous narrated over the climax of the film. Considering Scudder regularly attends AA meetings to celebrate his sobriety, I can understand why it was included, but it just doesn’t work and ends up detracting from the film’s most heightened sequences. He also disappointingly finishes the movie on a bad note with a conclusion that is drawn out far too long and which contains a weak, conventional ending that is completely forgettable.
A Walk Among the Tombstones raises more questions than it answers, but in a movie this morbid, maybe it’s best not to know. While the movie excels at being unsettling, it’s never really all that compelling. Filled with plenty of bad dialogue and characters that are hard to relate to and care about, I was yearning for this one to end so I wouldn’t have to endure any more of its vileness. Even with all the disturbing content aside, I would argue that the film is still only average at best. While I’m sure there are plenty of people with a penchant for the macabre that will enjoy the film, I am certainly not one of them and I left the theater feeling completely disturbed by what I had just watched. A Walk Among the Tombstones is a decent detective movie, but your enjoyment of the film may depend on how well you can handle its grimy setting and extreme violence. One thing that I can assure you is that I personally don’t have the stomach for it.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.20.14.)
Neeson’s character Matt Scudder is a former alcoholic and an ex-cop turned personal private investigator who works in exchange for favors. Since he’s no longer affiliated with the police, he’s an appealing person to turn to for those who need help but want to keep the cops out of the picture. When a drug dealer’s wife is kidnapped and savagely murdered, he seeks out Scudder for help. What follows is in an investigation into the murder that links up to the murder of another drug dealer’s wife. With the killers still at large, Scudder is determined to catch them before they can strike again.
Being that Scudder is working with criminals to find even worse criminals, the characters in A Walk Among the Tombstones are quite despicable. In fact, I would argue there’s not a single likeable character in the whole film. Even our protagonist Scudder is a shady person with a corrupt past. It’s hard to care about anyone here except for the poor abducted women, and yet we never get to know any of them. They’re reduced to the point where it’s hard to see them as anything more than the killers’ unlucky victims who have no chance of surviving. We follow Scudder through this twisted investigation not because we care about him, but for their sake of these women, with the hope that our detective hero can put an end to these killers’ unspeakable crimes. The film’s dreadful cast of characters give an incredibly bleak and hopeless outlook on people as a whole.
Liam Neeson gives a suitable performance as Scudder, fitting into the role of a detective quite naturally. As usual, he has a great presence and commands your attention any time he’s on screen. In A Walk Among the Tombstones, he’s not nearly the unstoppable action-hero he has been in his other recent films, but he’s still an intimidating guy you’d be wise not to mess with. He does actually have a couple tense conversations with the killers over the phone that are reminiscent of the famous scene in Taken, but certainly not as memorable.
The killers in the movie happen to be far more appalling than interesting. We don’t ever get to know much about them or their motives. They’re sick, demented people that aren’t given much more depth than being bad for the sake of being bad. However, there’s no question that they’re believably haunting and deranged. Despite their limited screen time and lack of complexity, their actors put in truly unnerving performances.
The film is well-acted throughout, with a few especially notable performances from supporting characters. Olafur Darri Olafsson is terrific as the creepy cemetery groundskeeper, and Eric Nelsen does a commendable job as the drug addict younger brother of the drug dealer who sought Scudder’s help. There’s also Brian “Astro” Bradley as a homeless teenager named TJ that Scudder befriends, who volunteers himself to be his crime-solving partner. Astro at times lightens up the moody film with his charm, and while he’s truly the only character that offers any sense of hope in the film’s gritty world, I think his character largely feels out of place as an unnecessary inclusion.
Scott Frank effectively creates a dark and sullen atmosphere in his movie that is also visually striking. He turns New York’s underbelly into a stylishly gloomy city where its seedy citizens can run rampant. He demonstrates proficiency behind the camera, building eeriness and suspense. However, he goes too far with the film’s graphic sexual content, which includes rape, torture, and mutilation. While he never gives you a very clear look at these heinous acts, he puts you right there in the moment and lets the camera linger. It’s sadistic, cruel, and very disturbing to watch. In a bizarre directorial decision, he has the 12 steps to recovery from Alcoholics Anonymous narrated over the climax of the film. Considering Scudder regularly attends AA meetings to celebrate his sobriety, I can understand why it was included, but it just doesn’t work and ends up detracting from the film’s most heightened sequences. He also disappointingly finishes the movie on a bad note with a conclusion that is drawn out far too long and which contains a weak, conventional ending that is completely forgettable.
A Walk Among the Tombstones raises more questions than it answers, but in a movie this morbid, maybe it’s best not to know. While the movie excels at being unsettling, it’s never really all that compelling. Filled with plenty of bad dialogue and characters that are hard to relate to and care about, I was yearning for this one to end so I wouldn’t have to endure any more of its vileness. Even with all the disturbing content aside, I would argue that the film is still only average at best. While I’m sure there are plenty of people with a penchant for the macabre that will enjoy the film, I am certainly not one of them and I left the theater feeling completely disturbed by what I had just watched. A Walk Among the Tombstones is a decent detective movie, but your enjoyment of the film may depend on how well you can handle its grimy setting and extreme violence. One thing that I can assure you is that I personally don’t have the stomach for it.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.20.14.)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Mob Sitters in Tabletop Games
Sep 17, 2019
I feel like everyone at some point in their lives has been a babysitter. Either for younger (or maybe even older?) siblings, or for the entire neighborhood – it kind of seems like a rite of passage. I definitely had my share of babysitting gigs growing up, but none as exciting and high-energy as the one presented in Mob Sitters!
Disclaimer: This preview is based upon a preview copy of the game. The final components, rules, and gameplay may differ from those described in this review! -L
In Mob Sitters, you take on the role of a babysitter working for the mob. Just because crime pays the bills doesn’t mean these mobsters don’t have families! You’re no ordinary babysitter though, otherwise you wouldn’t be mixed up with the mob. You’ve got plans of your own – whether it’s stealing from your boss, ratting out your rivals to the cops, or actually just some innocent babysitting, there’s money to be made here!
Mob Sitters is played over six rounds in which you take turns playing cards (some hidden and some not), targeting or reacting to your opponents, and collecting that sweet sweet money. Let’s break it down. To start the game, each player receives a player mat and deck of cards for their chosen character. There will be 8 characters in the final game, but only 6 are present in the preview copy. The different characters do not have any special powers or abilities, they just have different artwork on their cards! Shuffle your decks, draw a hand of 6 cards, determine a starting player, and you’re ready to go.
Each player’s turn consists of 6 steps (Steps 1-3 are not applicable in round 1, and Steps 4-6 are not applicable in the final round). Step 1 is to earn money – any cards with a monetary value that are in your play area are moved to your Safe and will count towards end-game scoring. It is important to note that cards that earn you money (Steal and Job cards) must be played face-up into your play area. Step 2 is to reveal and resolve any Accusation cards in your play area that you want to. Accusation cards allow you to target an opponent’s Job/Steal card currently in play, in an attempt to discard it to their Cops/Boss piles, respectively, to count against that player in end-game scoring. The targeted player does not have to sit idly by and watch their money go down the drain, however. If the targeted player has a Reaction card face-down in their play area, they may reveal it to deflect the blame to yet another player! If you successfully deflect the blame, that money will not count against you, but will instead count against the next player blamed who is unable to react to and shift blame to someone else. To play a Reaction card, it must already be in your play area – you cannot play one directly from your hand! The next step, Step 3, is to discard any remaining face down cards in your play area. In Step 4, you choose 3 cards from your hand and play them into your play area. Job/Steal cards must be played face-up, but Accusation and Reaction cards can be played face-down. During Step 5, you resolve any face-up accusation cards you may have played in Step 4. The final step, Step 6, of your turn is to draw 3 cards, bringing your hand back up to 6 cards. Play then moves on to the next player, who then will perform their 6 steps, and so on. After 6 rounds, the game ends. Scoring varies depending on how many players there are, but ultimately the winner is the player with the most money in their safe!
I know that sounds like quite a lot going on, but believe me when I say the game plays pretty well (and pretty quickly) once you’ve gotten the hang of the turns. On paper, the sheer number of steps per turn seems excessive and like it would bog down the gameplay, but in actuality, the actions performed in each step are simple and fast. Perhaps if the number of steps were condensed from 6 down to maybe 3-4, the gameplay would seem a little less daunting. There is some slight ambiguity between the types of cards and into which stacks they go – the rules call cards Job and Steal cards, but the player mat refers to Boss and Cop cards. Fortunately the cards have symbols that correspond to the different stacks, so when in doubt, check the corner of the card!
Let’s talk components. This is first and foremost a card game, and the cards I received are of good quality! They shuffle well, and feel sturdy enough to withstand many plays. The art on the cards is pretty cute, the colors really pop, and there are some fun puns to be found on several Steal/Job cards. As for the player mats, this is only a preview copy of the game so I just printed them out (apologies for my lack of access to a color printer!), but their text is clear and helpful for remembering turn steps. The components may change throughout the Kickstarter campaign, but so far they’re off to a good start!
So how does it play? For the most part, Mob Sitters plays pretty quickly and is engaging for all players. There’s a good amount of strategy involved, as well as some luck and a whole lotta take that. All players receive identical decks of cards, which are then shuffled, so although you know what cards are available to your opponents, you never know what they currently have in their hand. You’ve got to be watchful of which cards your opponents play, to see if you can deduce which cards they have remaining. Are they taking the offensive approach and accusing everyone? Or are they being more subtle and taking a defensive stance, deflecting all accusations onto others? You have to decide when is the right time to play your cards to ensure that you aren’t targeted by too many opponents. Your strategy is ever-changing to adapt to the cards currently in your hand, and that’s what takes Mob Sitters to the next level for me.
Mob Sitters is a quick, easy, and fun game for any sized group. Hilarity ensues when accusations result in all players pointing fingers and trying to deflect blame. Although it can be played with 3, I think this game is better suited for 4+ players. With a smaller group, some of the aspects of ‘take that’ can feel personal and lead to tension between players. But a larger group can eliminate some of the animosity caused by always being targeted by the same person the entire game. Overall though, I enjoyed getting to play Mob Sitters! It has a unique theme and simple, yet strategic, gameplay that will keep all players on their toes. In my communications with the designer, I have learned that the retail version of the game will include “Hidden Agenda” cards to provide each player with a secret objective. There is also an expansion already in the works – The Heavy Mob Deck – that will add more cards and more complexity for experienced gamers!
If you enjoy games of hidden information, take that, and a little bit of bluffing, definitely check Mob Sitters out! It’s more than the standard party game, but still fits the categories of light, fast, and easy to learn games for all players. I look forward to following this upcoming campaign, and I definitely will be playing my copy again!
Disclaimer: This preview is based upon a preview copy of the game. The final components, rules, and gameplay may differ from those described in this review! -L
In Mob Sitters, you take on the role of a babysitter working for the mob. Just because crime pays the bills doesn’t mean these mobsters don’t have families! You’re no ordinary babysitter though, otherwise you wouldn’t be mixed up with the mob. You’ve got plans of your own – whether it’s stealing from your boss, ratting out your rivals to the cops, or actually just some innocent babysitting, there’s money to be made here!
Mob Sitters is played over six rounds in which you take turns playing cards (some hidden and some not), targeting or reacting to your opponents, and collecting that sweet sweet money. Let’s break it down. To start the game, each player receives a player mat and deck of cards for their chosen character. There will be 8 characters in the final game, but only 6 are present in the preview copy. The different characters do not have any special powers or abilities, they just have different artwork on their cards! Shuffle your decks, draw a hand of 6 cards, determine a starting player, and you’re ready to go.
Each player’s turn consists of 6 steps (Steps 1-3 are not applicable in round 1, and Steps 4-6 are not applicable in the final round). Step 1 is to earn money – any cards with a monetary value that are in your play area are moved to your Safe and will count towards end-game scoring. It is important to note that cards that earn you money (Steal and Job cards) must be played face-up into your play area. Step 2 is to reveal and resolve any Accusation cards in your play area that you want to. Accusation cards allow you to target an opponent’s Job/Steal card currently in play, in an attempt to discard it to their Cops/Boss piles, respectively, to count against that player in end-game scoring. The targeted player does not have to sit idly by and watch their money go down the drain, however. If the targeted player has a Reaction card face-down in their play area, they may reveal it to deflect the blame to yet another player! If you successfully deflect the blame, that money will not count against you, but will instead count against the next player blamed who is unable to react to and shift blame to someone else. To play a Reaction card, it must already be in your play area – you cannot play one directly from your hand! The next step, Step 3, is to discard any remaining face down cards in your play area. In Step 4, you choose 3 cards from your hand and play them into your play area. Job/Steal cards must be played face-up, but Accusation and Reaction cards can be played face-down. During Step 5, you resolve any face-up accusation cards you may have played in Step 4. The final step, Step 6, of your turn is to draw 3 cards, bringing your hand back up to 6 cards. Play then moves on to the next player, who then will perform their 6 steps, and so on. After 6 rounds, the game ends. Scoring varies depending on how many players there are, but ultimately the winner is the player with the most money in their safe!
I know that sounds like quite a lot going on, but believe me when I say the game plays pretty well (and pretty quickly) once you’ve gotten the hang of the turns. On paper, the sheer number of steps per turn seems excessive and like it would bog down the gameplay, but in actuality, the actions performed in each step are simple and fast. Perhaps if the number of steps were condensed from 6 down to maybe 3-4, the gameplay would seem a little less daunting. There is some slight ambiguity between the types of cards and into which stacks they go – the rules call cards Job and Steal cards, but the player mat refers to Boss and Cop cards. Fortunately the cards have symbols that correspond to the different stacks, so when in doubt, check the corner of the card!
Let’s talk components. This is first and foremost a card game, and the cards I received are of good quality! They shuffle well, and feel sturdy enough to withstand many plays. The art on the cards is pretty cute, the colors really pop, and there are some fun puns to be found on several Steal/Job cards. As for the player mats, this is only a preview copy of the game so I just printed them out (apologies for my lack of access to a color printer!), but their text is clear and helpful for remembering turn steps. The components may change throughout the Kickstarter campaign, but so far they’re off to a good start!
So how does it play? For the most part, Mob Sitters plays pretty quickly and is engaging for all players. There’s a good amount of strategy involved, as well as some luck and a whole lotta take that. All players receive identical decks of cards, which are then shuffled, so although you know what cards are available to your opponents, you never know what they currently have in their hand. You’ve got to be watchful of which cards your opponents play, to see if you can deduce which cards they have remaining. Are they taking the offensive approach and accusing everyone? Or are they being more subtle and taking a defensive stance, deflecting all accusations onto others? You have to decide when is the right time to play your cards to ensure that you aren’t targeted by too many opponents. Your strategy is ever-changing to adapt to the cards currently in your hand, and that’s what takes Mob Sitters to the next level for me.
Mob Sitters is a quick, easy, and fun game for any sized group. Hilarity ensues when accusations result in all players pointing fingers and trying to deflect blame. Although it can be played with 3, I think this game is better suited for 4+ players. With a smaller group, some of the aspects of ‘take that’ can feel personal and lead to tension between players. But a larger group can eliminate some of the animosity caused by always being targeted by the same person the entire game. Overall though, I enjoyed getting to play Mob Sitters! It has a unique theme and simple, yet strategic, gameplay that will keep all players on their toes. In my communications with the designer, I have learned that the retail version of the game will include “Hidden Agenda” cards to provide each player with a secret objective. There is also an expansion already in the works – The Heavy Mob Deck – that will add more cards and more complexity for experienced gamers!
If you enjoy games of hidden information, take that, and a little bit of bluffing, definitely check Mob Sitters out! It’s more than the standard party game, but still fits the categories of light, fast, and easy to learn games for all players. I look forward to following this upcoming campaign, and I definitely will be playing my copy again!
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Spy Club in Tabletop Games
Aug 12, 2021
You guys have heard of “Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?” The globetrotting super-spy who is hard to pin down? Well imagine what she may have been like as a young person. I bet she had her own spy club. And now we have a game to play to emulate what it may have been like in such a club. **This game has nothing to do with Carmen Sandiego.
Spy Club is a cooperative memory and deduction card game utilizing an action point system and sharing of resources. It is set in any neighborhood where kids can gather in groups and snuff out a mystery. The goal is to whittle the clues down to the correct Motive, Suspect, Location, Crime, and Object of the Crime. Are you intrepid youths up to the task?
To setup, place the main board on the table, and the Escape Marker upon it at the bottom of the track. Shuffle the Movement Deck cards separately by backs, remove one from each differently-backed set, and place them in day – sunset – night order in its space. Each player receives a play board according to the number of players and a spyglass in their favorite color to go upon their play board. The Idea markers can be in a rough pile near everything else. The Clue Deck is to be shuffled and placed face-down (or face-up, whichever you prefer; they are double-sided) and each player is dealt a number of Clues equal to the number of spaces on their play boards. Clues will also be dealt to an “Incoming Clues” area (an offer row or “market”). DO NOT LOOK AT THE BACKS OF THE CARDS. Like, EVER. Unless you use an action to do so. The Suspecteeple will be placed on the right-most Clue Card of the starting player’s board. The game of sleuthing may now begin!
A player’s turn will consist of three main steps with different phases in those steps. Step 1 is Use Actions. Players will be able to use three Actions on their turn. These Actions are: Investigate, Shift Focus, Confirm, and Scout. To Investigate the active player will flip a Clue Card from their collection to its back. They may then continue flipping their cards or stop at any time. To Shift Focus a player will simply move their spyglass to a different Clue and collect Ideas equal to the number of Clues whose aspects match the newly-focused one (two Ideas if moving to a Location and a player has two Location Clues). Skipping Confirm, to Scout simply means purchasing a card from the Incoming Clues area to a player’s board, with a discard of an existing card already there.
Confirming is where the main action in Spy Club lies. Players will be attempting to Confirm five Clues of matching aspect (Location, Motive, etc) in order to hone in on the correct aspect. To Confirm, a player can submit a Clue from their collection (hand) to the main board. The cost, in Ideas, depends on where the spyglass lies. If the spyglass is directly under the Clue to be submitted the cost is nothing. However, if a player wishes to complete three Confirm actions and they have matching Clues on either side of their spyglass, they would need to spend two Ideas for each Clue resting one space away from the spyglass.
There are also rules for taking “Teamwork Bonus Actions,” but I will let you discover those on your own.
After these Actions are carried out, Step 2 is Refill. Firstly the active player’s hand will need to be refilled from the Incoming Clues row, and more Incoming Clues come out to fill that row.
Step 3 is Move the Suspect. Drawing from the Movement Deck the active player will match up the Movement cards from the previous round and the current round to find out how many spaces the Suspecteeple will be moving through players’ cards. Depending upon which aspect Clue the Suspecteeple lands a negative action will be levied against the players. In some ways the Suspect could land on cards that trigger no negative action, but I will leave that for you to discover as well. I am a bit… distracted.
Play continues in this fashion of players Using Actions, Refilling the Clue cards, and Moving the Suspect until players win by solving all five aspects of the crime, the Suspect escapes, the players run out of Idea markers, the Suspect escapes due to running out of Movement cards, or there are insufficient Incoming Clues to refill a player’s hand. So there are four ways to lose and one way to win.
Components. I find the components in Spy Club to be good overall. Nothing really stands out as amazing, either in design or quality. The art is very good, though. One thing I will say about the components as a whole is that once the game is setup and in play it looks fascinating on the table. I love the way it looks and certainly assists with full immersion. Always a plus in my book.
There are so many things I love about this game. And there are so many things I didn’t even explain here! Ok I’ll tell you one. Spy Club can be played as a one-shot game night medium-length (60 minutes) game, or can be converted into a campaign game where players will play five connected scenarios using a giant stack of cards that are not in use for the one-shots. That is simply fabulous! I can play one game of this to get people hooked, then reel them in by offering to continue this as a campaign to see what the main story arc is really trying to tell us. Oh man, that’s just special and I love it!
I feel like I have been playing a lot of really great games lately, and Spy Club is certainly a GREAT game. In fact, I told the rest of the team that this one is a contender for my Top 10 Games of All Time list. It has everything I love in a game: it is difficult (my first game I would have lost had it lasted one more turn) without being too heavy, it is inviting me to play more games (especially with the campaign mode active), I just like looking at it on the table, and creates a stunning amount of tension as we race against the game clock to figure out the crime aspects.
I have had this in my collection for too long without it being played, and I am so sorry that it took me so long to get into it. I will certainly be playing this a LOT more, and introducing as many people to it as I can. I think in the gaming world it is flying under the radar, but I will be one of its champions and suggest it as much as possible. If you like certain aspects (hehe) of Clue, 13 Dead End Drive, Carmen Sandiego, and even Jaipur, then take a look at Spy Club. Purple Phoenix Games gives this a super-sleuth 11 / 12. I actually might go play it right now. Yes, at 11:07pm.
Spy Club is a cooperative memory and deduction card game utilizing an action point system and sharing of resources. It is set in any neighborhood where kids can gather in groups and snuff out a mystery. The goal is to whittle the clues down to the correct Motive, Suspect, Location, Crime, and Object of the Crime. Are you intrepid youths up to the task?
To setup, place the main board on the table, and the Escape Marker upon it at the bottom of the track. Shuffle the Movement Deck cards separately by backs, remove one from each differently-backed set, and place them in day – sunset – night order in its space. Each player receives a play board according to the number of players and a spyglass in their favorite color to go upon their play board. The Idea markers can be in a rough pile near everything else. The Clue Deck is to be shuffled and placed face-down (or face-up, whichever you prefer; they are double-sided) and each player is dealt a number of Clues equal to the number of spaces on their play boards. Clues will also be dealt to an “Incoming Clues” area (an offer row or “market”). DO NOT LOOK AT THE BACKS OF THE CARDS. Like, EVER. Unless you use an action to do so. The Suspecteeple will be placed on the right-most Clue Card of the starting player’s board. The game of sleuthing may now begin!
A player’s turn will consist of three main steps with different phases in those steps. Step 1 is Use Actions. Players will be able to use three Actions on their turn. These Actions are: Investigate, Shift Focus, Confirm, and Scout. To Investigate the active player will flip a Clue Card from their collection to its back. They may then continue flipping their cards or stop at any time. To Shift Focus a player will simply move their spyglass to a different Clue and collect Ideas equal to the number of Clues whose aspects match the newly-focused one (two Ideas if moving to a Location and a player has two Location Clues). Skipping Confirm, to Scout simply means purchasing a card from the Incoming Clues area to a player’s board, with a discard of an existing card already there.
Confirming is where the main action in Spy Club lies. Players will be attempting to Confirm five Clues of matching aspect (Location, Motive, etc) in order to hone in on the correct aspect. To Confirm, a player can submit a Clue from their collection (hand) to the main board. The cost, in Ideas, depends on where the spyglass lies. If the spyglass is directly under the Clue to be submitted the cost is nothing. However, if a player wishes to complete three Confirm actions and they have matching Clues on either side of their spyglass, they would need to spend two Ideas for each Clue resting one space away from the spyglass.
There are also rules for taking “Teamwork Bonus Actions,” but I will let you discover those on your own.
After these Actions are carried out, Step 2 is Refill. Firstly the active player’s hand will need to be refilled from the Incoming Clues row, and more Incoming Clues come out to fill that row.
Step 3 is Move the Suspect. Drawing from the Movement Deck the active player will match up the Movement cards from the previous round and the current round to find out how many spaces the Suspecteeple will be moving through players’ cards. Depending upon which aspect Clue the Suspecteeple lands a negative action will be levied against the players. In some ways the Suspect could land on cards that trigger no negative action, but I will leave that for you to discover as well. I am a bit… distracted.
Play continues in this fashion of players Using Actions, Refilling the Clue cards, and Moving the Suspect until players win by solving all five aspects of the crime, the Suspect escapes, the players run out of Idea markers, the Suspect escapes due to running out of Movement cards, or there are insufficient Incoming Clues to refill a player’s hand. So there are four ways to lose and one way to win.
Components. I find the components in Spy Club to be good overall. Nothing really stands out as amazing, either in design or quality. The art is very good, though. One thing I will say about the components as a whole is that once the game is setup and in play it looks fascinating on the table. I love the way it looks and certainly assists with full immersion. Always a plus in my book.
There are so many things I love about this game. And there are so many things I didn’t even explain here! Ok I’ll tell you one. Spy Club can be played as a one-shot game night medium-length (60 minutes) game, or can be converted into a campaign game where players will play five connected scenarios using a giant stack of cards that are not in use for the one-shots. That is simply fabulous! I can play one game of this to get people hooked, then reel them in by offering to continue this as a campaign to see what the main story arc is really trying to tell us. Oh man, that’s just special and I love it!
I feel like I have been playing a lot of really great games lately, and Spy Club is certainly a GREAT game. In fact, I told the rest of the team that this one is a contender for my Top 10 Games of All Time list. It has everything I love in a game: it is difficult (my first game I would have lost had it lasted one more turn) without being too heavy, it is inviting me to play more games (especially with the campaign mode active), I just like looking at it on the table, and creates a stunning amount of tension as we race against the game clock to figure out the crime aspects.
I have had this in my collection for too long without it being played, and I am so sorry that it took me so long to get into it. I will certainly be playing this a LOT more, and introducing as many people to it as I can. I think in the gaming world it is flying under the radar, but I will be one of its champions and suggest it as much as possible. If you like certain aspects (hehe) of Clue, 13 Dead End Drive, Carmen Sandiego, and even Jaipur, then take a look at Spy Club. Purple Phoenix Games gives this a super-sleuth 11 / 12. I actually might go play it right now. Yes, at 11:07pm.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Impressive visuals, but rather disappointing as an overall package.
Like father, like son?
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated If Beale Street Could Talk (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Love and Rage against the machine.
The baby asked,
‘Is there not one righteous among them?”
― James Baldwin, If Beale Street Could Talk
Beale Street refers to the jumpin’ heart of Memphis where Louis Armstrong was born. As explained in text from Baldwin’s source book (requiring a speed read!) it’s used as a metaphor for the birthplace of every black person in America. (“Every black person in America was born on Beale Street“). But the story is set in Harlem, New York, and with this intellectual stretch, before I even get past the title, I am immediately reaching for the “P-word”, of which more later.
The Plot
Tish (KiKi Layne) is 19 and in love with her lifelong friend ‘Fonny’ (Stephan James). So much in love in fact (and so careless) that Tish is now pregnant with his child. Tish must break this news to both families herself, since Fonny is inside awaiting trial for a vicious rape that he claims he didn’t commit. Tish and their joint families are trying to help, but can Fonny be released in time to see the birth of his child? Or are the institutions so set against him that release is impossible and death row might await?
Interwoven with Love and Anger
At its heart, this film portrays a truly beautiful love story. Tish and Fonny (both adorably played by the young leads) are friends becoming more than friends. We see their emerging love through flashback scenes. Some of these, particularly one on a metro train, are exquisitely done; long gazes into eyes, starting as one thing and ending as another.
In another scene, Fonny takes Tish’s virginity, and it’s done with style, taste and finesse. For younger teens this should be compulsory viewing as an antidote to all the horrible porn they are seeing on the internet: THIS is what sex, based on a foundation of true love, is all about. (The film is UK15 rated for “infrequent very strong language, strong sex” – I actually agree with the rating for the language (and actually I think an act of marital violence should also have also been referenced)…. but not for the sex, which should be 12A).
It’s a love story then? Well, yes, but offset against that, it’s a very angry film, seething with rage about how the police force and the justice system is set ‘against the black man’. Director Barry Jenkins (of – eventual – Oscar winner “Moonlight” fame) has a message to impart and he is intent on imparting it.
A great ensemble performance
The film didn’t get a SAG nomination for the ensemble cast, but it almost feels that they missed out here. As well as the two young leads being spectacular, the whole of the rest of the cast really gel well together, particularly the respective parents: Colman Domingo (“Selma“) as Tish’s father Joseph; Regina King as Tish’s mother Sharon; Michael Beach (“Patriots Day“) as Fonny’s father Frank and Aunjanue Ellis as his bible-bashing mother. A dramatic scene where they all collectively hear the news about the pregnancy is both comical and shocking in equal measure.
Poor sound mixing
If this film gets an Oscar nomination for sound, I’ll frankly be cross! There is significant use of sonorous, bass-heavy music and effects (including a lovely cello theme by Nicholas Britell) – all very effective; there is a lot of earnest and quietly spoken dialogue between the characters – also moody and effective. Unfortunately the two are mixed together in some scenes and frankly I couldn’t make out what was being said. Most frustrating.
In addition, there is voiceover narration from Tish (if you follow my blog regularly you KNOW what I think about that!). Actually, this isn’t as overly intrusive as in films like “The Hate U Give“, but it sounds like it was recorded in a dustbin! It’s a bit like that effect you get with headphones where the plug isn’t quite in the socket, and everything sounds way off and tinny. When combined with Layne’s accent the effect, again, made the dialogue difficult to comprehend.
The c-word and the n-word
There’s a degree of bad language in the film, albeit mild in comparison to “The Favourite“! Tish’s sister (Teyonah Parris) uses the c-word in one very funny dissing of Fonny’s ‘up-themselves’ sisters (Ebony Obsidian and Dominique Thorne). But the n-word is used repeatedly during the film, and that I can never get used to. I ‘get it’ (in the sense that I understand the perception) that this is a word that ‘only black people can use between themselves’. But this just feels elitist and wrong to me. At a time when Viggo Mortensen gets crucified for using it once (while being descriptive and in-context) during a press junket for “Green Book“, I just feel that if a word is taboo it should be taboo, period.
The p-word
My p-word here is “pretentious”. Barry Jenkins clearly feels he has something to prove after the success of “Moonlight“, and there are certainly moments of directorial brilliance in the film. As previously mentioned, the sex scene is one of the best I’ve seen in a long while. Also beautifully done are a birthing scene and two confrontational scenes in Puerto Rico. But there are also moments that seem to be staged, artificial and too ‘arty’ for their own good. Any hidden meaning behind them completely passed me by. (Examples are Sharon’s wig scene and a pan around Fonny’s wood sculpture). It all seems to be “trying too hard”.
Hate for the police is also writ large on the film, with every discriminatory police officer in the whole of the US embodied in the wicked sneering face of the police office Bell (Ed Skrein).
A platform that should be used for more than ranting
This is a film written and directed by an American black man (Jenkins) and largely fully cast with American black people. And I’m a white Englishman commenting on it. I’m clearly unqualified to pass judgement on how black America really feels about things! But comment I will from this fug of ignorance.
It feels to me that the “Black Lives Movement” has given, at long last, black film-makers like Jenkins a platform in cinema to present from. This is a great thing. But I’m sensing that at the moment the tone of the output from that platform (such as this film) seems to me heavily tinged with anger: a scream of frustration about the system and racial injustice over the years. It’s the film-makers right to make films about subjects dear to them. And I’m sure this summer we’ll sadly again see atrocities as previously seen in the likes of Ferguson and Dallas, fuelling the fire of hate. But I would personally really like to see someone like Jenkins use his undoubted talents to make a more uplifting film: a film reflecting the more positive strives that are happening in society, allowing for people of all races and all sexual orientations to make their way in business (not drug-running or crime!) and/or life in general. Those good news stories – the positive side of race relations – are out there and my view is that someone like Barry Jenkins should be telling them.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t as much of a fan of “Moonlight” as the Academy, and this film also left me conflicted. The film is well-made and the cast is very engaging. It also has a love story at its heart that is moody but well-done. Overall though the movie felt over-engineered and a little pretentious, and that knocked it down a few pegs for me.
‘Is there not one righteous among them?”
― James Baldwin, If Beale Street Could Talk
Beale Street refers to the jumpin’ heart of Memphis where Louis Armstrong was born. As explained in text from Baldwin’s source book (requiring a speed read!) it’s used as a metaphor for the birthplace of every black person in America. (“Every black person in America was born on Beale Street“). But the story is set in Harlem, New York, and with this intellectual stretch, before I even get past the title, I am immediately reaching for the “P-word”, of which more later.
The Plot
Tish (KiKi Layne) is 19 and in love with her lifelong friend ‘Fonny’ (Stephan James). So much in love in fact (and so careless) that Tish is now pregnant with his child. Tish must break this news to both families herself, since Fonny is inside awaiting trial for a vicious rape that he claims he didn’t commit. Tish and their joint families are trying to help, but can Fonny be released in time to see the birth of his child? Or are the institutions so set against him that release is impossible and death row might await?
Interwoven with Love and Anger
At its heart, this film portrays a truly beautiful love story. Tish and Fonny (both adorably played by the young leads) are friends becoming more than friends. We see their emerging love through flashback scenes. Some of these, particularly one on a metro train, are exquisitely done; long gazes into eyes, starting as one thing and ending as another.
In another scene, Fonny takes Tish’s virginity, and it’s done with style, taste and finesse. For younger teens this should be compulsory viewing as an antidote to all the horrible porn they are seeing on the internet: THIS is what sex, based on a foundation of true love, is all about. (The film is UK15 rated for “infrequent very strong language, strong sex” – I actually agree with the rating for the language (and actually I think an act of marital violence should also have also been referenced)…. but not for the sex, which should be 12A).
It’s a love story then? Well, yes, but offset against that, it’s a very angry film, seething with rage about how the police force and the justice system is set ‘against the black man’. Director Barry Jenkins (of – eventual – Oscar winner “Moonlight” fame) has a message to impart and he is intent on imparting it.
A great ensemble performance
The film didn’t get a SAG nomination for the ensemble cast, but it almost feels that they missed out here. As well as the two young leads being spectacular, the whole of the rest of the cast really gel well together, particularly the respective parents: Colman Domingo (“Selma“) as Tish’s father Joseph; Regina King as Tish’s mother Sharon; Michael Beach (“Patriots Day“) as Fonny’s father Frank and Aunjanue Ellis as his bible-bashing mother. A dramatic scene where they all collectively hear the news about the pregnancy is both comical and shocking in equal measure.
Poor sound mixing
If this film gets an Oscar nomination for sound, I’ll frankly be cross! There is significant use of sonorous, bass-heavy music and effects (including a lovely cello theme by Nicholas Britell) – all very effective; there is a lot of earnest and quietly spoken dialogue between the characters – also moody and effective. Unfortunately the two are mixed together in some scenes and frankly I couldn’t make out what was being said. Most frustrating.
In addition, there is voiceover narration from Tish (if you follow my blog regularly you KNOW what I think about that!). Actually, this isn’t as overly intrusive as in films like “The Hate U Give“, but it sounds like it was recorded in a dustbin! It’s a bit like that effect you get with headphones where the plug isn’t quite in the socket, and everything sounds way off and tinny. When combined with Layne’s accent the effect, again, made the dialogue difficult to comprehend.
The c-word and the n-word
There’s a degree of bad language in the film, albeit mild in comparison to “The Favourite“! Tish’s sister (Teyonah Parris) uses the c-word in one very funny dissing of Fonny’s ‘up-themselves’ sisters (Ebony Obsidian and Dominique Thorne). But the n-word is used repeatedly during the film, and that I can never get used to. I ‘get it’ (in the sense that I understand the perception) that this is a word that ‘only black people can use between themselves’. But this just feels elitist and wrong to me. At a time when Viggo Mortensen gets crucified for using it once (while being descriptive and in-context) during a press junket for “Green Book“, I just feel that if a word is taboo it should be taboo, period.
The p-word
My p-word here is “pretentious”. Barry Jenkins clearly feels he has something to prove after the success of “Moonlight“, and there are certainly moments of directorial brilliance in the film. As previously mentioned, the sex scene is one of the best I’ve seen in a long while. Also beautifully done are a birthing scene and two confrontational scenes in Puerto Rico. But there are also moments that seem to be staged, artificial and too ‘arty’ for their own good. Any hidden meaning behind them completely passed me by. (Examples are Sharon’s wig scene and a pan around Fonny’s wood sculpture). It all seems to be “trying too hard”.
Hate for the police is also writ large on the film, with every discriminatory police officer in the whole of the US embodied in the wicked sneering face of the police office Bell (Ed Skrein).
A platform that should be used for more than ranting
This is a film written and directed by an American black man (Jenkins) and largely fully cast with American black people. And I’m a white Englishman commenting on it. I’m clearly unqualified to pass judgement on how black America really feels about things! But comment I will from this fug of ignorance.
It feels to me that the “Black Lives Movement” has given, at long last, black film-makers like Jenkins a platform in cinema to present from. This is a great thing. But I’m sensing that at the moment the tone of the output from that platform (such as this film) seems to me heavily tinged with anger: a scream of frustration about the system and racial injustice over the years. It’s the film-makers right to make films about subjects dear to them. And I’m sure this summer we’ll sadly again see atrocities as previously seen in the likes of Ferguson and Dallas, fuelling the fire of hate. But I would personally really like to see someone like Jenkins use his undoubted talents to make a more uplifting film: a film reflecting the more positive strives that are happening in society, allowing for people of all races and all sexual orientations to make their way in business (not drug-running or crime!) and/or life in general. Those good news stories – the positive side of race relations – are out there and my view is that someone like Barry Jenkins should be telling them.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t as much of a fan of “Moonlight” as the Academy, and this film also left me conflicted. The film is well-made and the cast is very engaging. It also has a love story at its heart that is moody but well-done. Overall though the movie felt over-engineered and a little pretentious, and that knocked it down a few pegs for me.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Sweet Valley Confidential: Ten Years Later in Books
Feb 15, 2019
<b><i>"What a stupid book."</i></b>
That was my initial thought after turning the final page of <b>Sweet Valley Confidential: Ten Years Later</b>.
As a pre-teen, I was addicted to the <u>Sweet Valley High</u> series, and then later, the <u>Sweet Valley University</u> series as well. Before that even, I had read some of the Twins and Kids series, so when I heard this was coming out last year, I just knew I had to read it. I was excited beyond compare and went into full geek-out mode. Where are the perfect size-six Wakefield twins, and their friends and enemies, now? What are their occupations? Who are they dating or who'd they marry? And my questions kept going on and on. What has inspired this obsession? It's not like these books were high literature, but somehow they became ingrained into my life to this very day and I cannot help but remember SVH fondly.
It is nearly impossible to review the story within the covers without spoilers, but I am going to try my darnedest. Some cursing may or may not be involved.
<b>Short synopsis</b> (snarky comments in parentheses ;P):
Jessica has betrayed Elizabeth. <i>(Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what she did. Anyone who's read the books could make an accurate guess.)</i> The Ultimate Betrayal. <i>(Oooooh!)</i> Elizabeth flees to New York. Elizabeth is a slightly sympathetic bitter victim/martyr who craves revenge throughout the book. Jessica is supposed to be a sympathetic betrayer/victim who's heartsick at destroying her sister. <i>(I don't buy it.)</i> Tons of reminiscing flashbacks ensue throughout the book, sometimes the same ones told by different characters, and take up about half of it, so there's barely any plot. Book ends with a thirteen-page <i>Where Are They Now?</i>-type epilogue that tells old fans what has happened to many major supporting characters from the original high school series. <i>(Apparently no one is allowed to be happy. And anyone you may have originally liked from SVH has turned into a big dick. WTF?)</i>
I expected to enjoy this as the usual over-the-top, soap opera stories I remember, but revamped a bit. Sadly, I was left feeling underwhelmed, disappointed, annoyed, and rather pissed off. For one thing, I could not buy the main betrayal -- <spoiler>Jessica and Todd?! In love!!?? Really? In what surreal dimension does that make any kind of sense? This broke the book for me. How can I believe anything else if this doesn't ring true. A passionate affair, sure. A one-night stand, why not? But actual 'til death do us part nonsense? Bull. Not when it's almost always been the Elizabeth and Todd, "made-for-each-other" type of thing. I actually wouldn't have minded if E & T hadn't ended up together, but for Todd to be with Jessica, that's just madness, plain and simple.</spoiler> -- it was just so unbelievable. And I mean that in a Sweet Valley way, which we all know is not steeped in any form of actual reality, so my standards are quite low and I expect the extraordinary and overwrought. So from this point on, which is within the first two chapters, I struggled, but somehow managed to read on. I admit, I gagged more than few times throughout the book. Who wouldn't when faced with passages such as this one,
<blockquote>"And what faces they were.
Gorgeous. Absolutely amazing. The kind you couldn't stop looking at. Their eyes were shades of aqua that danced in the light like shards of precious stones, oval and fringed with thick, light brown lashes long enough to cast a shadow on their cheeks. Their silky blond hair, the cascading kind, fell just below their shoulders. And to complete the perfection, their rosy lips looked as if they were penciled on. There wasn't a thing wrong with their figures, either. It was if billions of possibilities all fell together perfectly.
Twice."
-page 9/10</blockquote>
I hope you managed to hold onto your last meal. I barely did. I also had to endure "his beloved," "his love," and other similar nauseating descriptions.
This is not the PG-rated books from the past, the word "orgasm" is actually used. So is the F-bomb and other expletives. *gasp* Seriously, it does push the boundaries more than the innocent SVH series, but it's not very shocking by today's standards. Except that it does involve the Wakefield Twins, which was strange at first. Of course, current trends had to pop up, like Twitter and Facebook, Justin Timberlake and Beyonce, which always makes a book better and doesn't date it in the least. (That was heavy sarcasm in case you weren't sure.) The book does refer to some incidents and people from the SVU series, but only certain elements, otherwise it's mainly a continuation of high school and no one from the university days actually appears in the book.
Neither Elizabeth nor Jessica felt true to form, especially Jessica, and in fact, none of the characters, whether seen or just talked about, were right. Sure, some people change and some don't, but not a one was recognizable. Where did these strangers with the same names come from? Why couldn't there have been some semblance of the original shining through? Again, I have a hard time with the basis of the book, so that has severely colored my view of the entire thing, but as it stands, it was a complete waste of a good idea. I'd be willing to bet that any fan of SVH could come up with something a million times better than this dreck. Wasn't there an original ghostwriter available? You know, someone who might actually know the world and characters, and have the skill to develop them both in a believable manner?
The writing is rather clunky and purple-ly, often managing both at the same time. Redundancy abounds, editing mistakes, including wrong names and inconsistencies to previous events in SVH-iverse, and lots of use of the words "like" and "so", more-so in Jessica's narrative than anywhere else, which was really, really, so, like, irritating. Like, really. Ms. Pascal must have had a thesaurus at the ready, because there were big words awkwardly thrown into the narrative. While I appreciate authors utilizing lesser known or used words, some just don't blend well with the rest of the text and they pop-out unflatteringly. The structure needed fine-tuning and tenses were oddly used to differentiate the flashbacks from present day.
To put it succinctly, the writing isn't great and neither is the storyline, what there is of it. This was a bizarre read even by Sweet Valley standards and an insult to fans. Seriously, does Francine Pascal hate this universe and its readers? I think I'll stick to the <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/series/58723-sweet-valley-high">Sweet Valley High</a> series and make up my own stories about what happened afterward.
Slightly spoiler-ish lesson learned from this book:
<spoiler>Betrayal is okay as long as it's "Twu Luv."</spoiler>
Second lesson learned:
Everything always turns up fucking sunshine and roses and unicorns and lollipops for the worst person (or people) in the end.
I'd like to leave you with another winning description,
<blockquote>"There were no tears, but her mouth was twisted in a silent sob."
-page 17</blockquote>
<u>A thought a few hours after having finished this book:</u>
Maybe another "sequel" will eventually come out and it'll begin with Elizabeth waking up from the nightmare that is this book and we'll get the real ten years later story. Ahh, sweet dreams.
<u>Update: April 26, 2011:</u>
Oh yes, always good to blame the fans/readers for not liking their terrible book. By pointing out minor, petty reasons, I might add. <b>Warning:</b> book spoilers in article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/business/media/17sweet.html?_r=1
That was my initial thought after turning the final page of <b>Sweet Valley Confidential: Ten Years Later</b>.
As a pre-teen, I was addicted to the <u>Sweet Valley High</u> series, and then later, the <u>Sweet Valley University</u> series as well. Before that even, I had read some of the Twins and Kids series, so when I heard this was coming out last year, I just knew I had to read it. I was excited beyond compare and went into full geek-out mode. Where are the perfect size-six Wakefield twins, and their friends and enemies, now? What are their occupations? Who are they dating or who'd they marry? And my questions kept going on and on. What has inspired this obsession? It's not like these books were high literature, but somehow they became ingrained into my life to this very day and I cannot help but remember SVH fondly.
It is nearly impossible to review the story within the covers without spoilers, but I am going to try my darnedest. Some cursing may or may not be involved.
<b>Short synopsis</b> (snarky comments in parentheses ;P):
Jessica has betrayed Elizabeth. <i>(Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what she did. Anyone who's read the books could make an accurate guess.)</i> The Ultimate Betrayal. <i>(Oooooh!)</i> Elizabeth flees to New York. Elizabeth is a slightly sympathetic bitter victim/martyr who craves revenge throughout the book. Jessica is supposed to be a sympathetic betrayer/victim who's heartsick at destroying her sister. <i>(I don't buy it.)</i> Tons of reminiscing flashbacks ensue throughout the book, sometimes the same ones told by different characters, and take up about half of it, so there's barely any plot. Book ends with a thirteen-page <i>Where Are They Now?</i>-type epilogue that tells old fans what has happened to many major supporting characters from the original high school series. <i>(Apparently no one is allowed to be happy. And anyone you may have originally liked from SVH has turned into a big dick. WTF?)</i>
I expected to enjoy this as the usual over-the-top, soap opera stories I remember, but revamped a bit. Sadly, I was left feeling underwhelmed, disappointed, annoyed, and rather pissed off. For one thing, I could not buy the main betrayal -- <spoiler>Jessica and Todd?! In love!!?? Really? In what surreal dimension does that make any kind of sense? This broke the book for me. How can I believe anything else if this doesn't ring true. A passionate affair, sure. A one-night stand, why not? But actual 'til death do us part nonsense? Bull. Not when it's almost always been the Elizabeth and Todd, "made-for-each-other" type of thing. I actually wouldn't have minded if E & T hadn't ended up together, but for Todd to be with Jessica, that's just madness, plain and simple.</spoiler> -- it was just so unbelievable. And I mean that in a Sweet Valley way, which we all know is not steeped in any form of actual reality, so my standards are quite low and I expect the extraordinary and overwrought. So from this point on, which is within the first two chapters, I struggled, but somehow managed to read on. I admit, I gagged more than few times throughout the book. Who wouldn't when faced with passages such as this one,
<blockquote>"And what faces they were.
Gorgeous. Absolutely amazing. The kind you couldn't stop looking at. Their eyes were shades of aqua that danced in the light like shards of precious stones, oval and fringed with thick, light brown lashes long enough to cast a shadow on their cheeks. Their silky blond hair, the cascading kind, fell just below their shoulders. And to complete the perfection, their rosy lips looked as if they were penciled on. There wasn't a thing wrong with their figures, either. It was if billions of possibilities all fell together perfectly.
Twice."
-page 9/10</blockquote>
I hope you managed to hold onto your last meal. I barely did. I also had to endure "his beloved," "his love," and other similar nauseating descriptions.
This is not the PG-rated books from the past, the word "orgasm" is actually used. So is the F-bomb and other expletives. *gasp* Seriously, it does push the boundaries more than the innocent SVH series, but it's not very shocking by today's standards. Except that it does involve the Wakefield Twins, which was strange at first. Of course, current trends had to pop up, like Twitter and Facebook, Justin Timberlake and Beyonce, which always makes a book better and doesn't date it in the least. (That was heavy sarcasm in case you weren't sure.) The book does refer to some incidents and people from the SVU series, but only certain elements, otherwise it's mainly a continuation of high school and no one from the university days actually appears in the book.
Neither Elizabeth nor Jessica felt true to form, especially Jessica, and in fact, none of the characters, whether seen or just talked about, were right. Sure, some people change and some don't, but not a one was recognizable. Where did these strangers with the same names come from? Why couldn't there have been some semblance of the original shining through? Again, I have a hard time with the basis of the book, so that has severely colored my view of the entire thing, but as it stands, it was a complete waste of a good idea. I'd be willing to bet that any fan of SVH could come up with something a million times better than this dreck. Wasn't there an original ghostwriter available? You know, someone who might actually know the world and characters, and have the skill to develop them both in a believable manner?
The writing is rather clunky and purple-ly, often managing both at the same time. Redundancy abounds, editing mistakes, including wrong names and inconsistencies to previous events in SVH-iverse, and lots of use of the words "like" and "so", more-so in Jessica's narrative than anywhere else, which was really, really, so, like, irritating. Like, really. Ms. Pascal must have had a thesaurus at the ready, because there were big words awkwardly thrown into the narrative. While I appreciate authors utilizing lesser known or used words, some just don't blend well with the rest of the text and they pop-out unflatteringly. The structure needed fine-tuning and tenses were oddly used to differentiate the flashbacks from present day.
To put it succinctly, the writing isn't great and neither is the storyline, what there is of it. This was a bizarre read even by Sweet Valley standards and an insult to fans. Seriously, does Francine Pascal hate this universe and its readers? I think I'll stick to the <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/series/58723-sweet-valley-high">Sweet Valley High</a> series and make up my own stories about what happened afterward.
Slightly spoiler-ish lesson learned from this book:
<spoiler>Betrayal is okay as long as it's "Twu Luv."</spoiler>
Second lesson learned:
Everything always turns up fucking sunshine and roses and unicorns and lollipops for the worst person (or people) in the end.
I'd like to leave you with another winning description,
<blockquote>"There were no tears, but her mouth was twisted in a silent sob."
-page 17</blockquote>
<u>A thought a few hours after having finished this book:</u>
Maybe another "sequel" will eventually come out and it'll begin with Elizabeth waking up from the nightmare that is this book and we'll get the real ten years later story. Ahh, sweet dreams.
<u>Update: April 26, 2011:</u>
Oh yes, always good to blame the fans/readers for not liking their terrible book. By pointing out minor, petty reasons, I might add. <b>Warning:</b> book spoilers in article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/business/media/17sweet.html?_r=1
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) in Movies
Jun 30, 2019 (Updated Sep 16, 2019)
Mad Max: Fury Road is an intense, action-packed, visually stunning, and wildly entertaining film. It's only when the action slows down that the film starts to show signs of decay.
30 years and a fresh face later, the Mad Max series makes an extravagant and exhilarating return to theaters with Mad Max: Fury Road. Mel Gibson’s iconic wasteland warrior hero Max Rockatansky has been recast with the talented Tom Hardy, who gives us a more visceral and damaged portrayal of the character. Having endured years in the Hellish wasteland, Max now acts on his sole instinct of surviving. He’s ravaged by the horrors of his past and has lost all semblance of hope in this bleak, post-apocalyptic future where water is scarce and mayhem is bountiful. Director and series creator George Miller does a masterful job in creating a remarkable and inventive world of chaos and destruction, with action sequences that are practically unparalleled. Mad Max: Fury Road is a movie that keeps its fat, irradiated foot firmly pressed on the gas pedal throughout almost its entire duration, resulting in a movie that’s intense, action-packed, visually stunning, perfectly bizarre, wonderfully inventive, and wildly entertaining. It’s only when the action slows down that the film starts to show signs of decay.
In Fury Road, we first encounter Max alone in the wasteland in what is about to be a very long and very bad day. He’s quickly spotted and pursued by a pack of deathly-pale skinhead warriors known as Warboys. Outnumbered and easily captured, Max is taken to The Citadel, which serves as the home of the film’s central conflict. The monstrously plagued Immortan Joe rules over The Citadel like a cult leader, promising eternal salvation to his army of Warboys who die fighting for him. The city is a place of great disparity, as Joe teases the peasants with water, while he enjoys the excesses of his precious resources. Even worse is that he’s enslaved healthy, young women, known as his Five Wives, for the sake of producing his children.
This predicament doesn’t sit well with the battle-hardened woman warrior Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron) who serves under Immortan Joe’s command. Tired of Joe’s tyrannous ways, Imperator Furiosa betrays her leader during a routine gas run by venturing her armored war-rig offroad with the Five Wives secretly in tow. When news spreads that Furiosa is trying to escape and has taken the Wives with her, Joe and his army of Warboys feverishly follow in pursuit. This begins an epic, elaborate, and expertly crafted chase sequence that is absolutely outrageous and unmistakably brilliant.
Meanwhile, the enslaved Max ends up being inopportunely thrust into the action at full throttle, chained to the front of a car like a hood ornament. While Max’s name may be in the title, make no mistake about it, this is Furiosa’s story. Max is primarily just along for the ride, and doing whatever he can to survive. That’s not to say that Max is simply an unfortunate onlooker to the events of the film, but he is given little in the way of dialogue and backstory, and is chained up for a substantial portion of Fury Road. Though it should be said that the movie as a whole is rather thin on story and dialogue and it merely glosses over the plot to retain its focus on the action, which is where the film really sets itself apart.
The majority of the Fury Road serves as this long, impressive chase sequence that miraculously continues to escalate as the film goes on, despite appearing to throw the whole kitchen sink at you right at the beginning. It’s explosive, crazy, and jaw-droppingly awesome from the get-go, and yet believe me, it only gets bigger and better. Just wait until later when they start adding monster trucks, mini-guns, pole-vaulters, dirt bike-riding grannies, and a guitar flamethrower. It will leave you giddy with excitement. It’s an amazing, heavy-metal, end-of-the-world spectacle that you just got to see to believe. What makes it all even more incredible is that so much of the action is achieved by practical effects, with real stunts and car crashes and explosions.
Unfortunately, in the rare moments when Fury Road lets its foot off the gas and slows down the action, it sometimes sputters. Take for instance, the film’s climactic turning point when Furiosa’s dreams are spoiled. She dramatically falls to her knees in the sand, reeling in despair, and screams out into the void. This pivotal moment should be the most powerful moment of the film, but for me it fell completely flat. The problem here is that I never felt a strong attachment to the characters. While I respect Furiosa and Max for their strength in this struggle, I also feel like I don’t know much of anything about them, except that they’re adept at surviving and have battled through Hell to get to this point. So while this brief interlude drags a bit, Max thankfully turns things back around and leads us right back into the heart of the action, where Fury Road is at its best.
Charlize Theron gives a commanding performance as Furiosa, easily establishing herself among the ranks of the great female action stars. She makes for an excellent partner to Tom Hardy’s Max (though reportedly not so much on set). Hardy, on the other hand, puts in a solid performance, but I do take some issue with it. Truthfully, he just didn’t quite feel like Mad Max. His take on the character is too rugged. He’s missing the charm and likability that Mel Gibson’s Max had. His character may be cool, but he’s difficult to relate to, and feels remarkably reduced as he grunts throughout half of the movie without uttering a word. I can’t help but feel that perhaps Hardy took Max’s madness and survival instincts a little too far. The film also stars Nicholas Hoult as Nux, the Warboy that led Max into this whole mess, who expresses a much more appealing level of craziness. Whereas Nux is an energetic, lunatic cult follower, Max seems like he’s just a few bolts short of becoming a mentally-deranged hobo, which might not bode so well for future films. Lastly, there’s Immortan Joe, played by Hugh Keays-Byrne, who has an exceptional screen presence by being imposing, frightening, and so over-the-top that he’s kind of funny.
Visually and artistically, Mad Max: Fury Road is a triumphant success. It’s more gorgeous than you would ever think possible for a decrepit, wasteland warzone. Considerable skill and attention to detail are demonstrated to bring beauty out of this decaying environment. It features first-rate cinematography and unbelievable creativity. You’ll wonder how anyone ever thought of this stuff, but you’ll be grateful they did. The characters all look outstanding, unique, and memorable. I particularly loved Furiosa’s appearance with her prosthetic arm and grease-smeared warpaint. More impressive still is the menacing Immortan Joe with his mask and elaborate body armor. Fury Road similarly has beautiful special effects which greatly enhance the atmosphere as well as the film’s many remarkable stunts. In all, this is sure to be one of the best looking films of the year.
Mad Max: Fury Road may not be a perfect film, but it makes for an explosive and unforgettable return to the series. It’s truly a creative tour-de-force, with ingenious action, stellar design, and stunning visuals. It features brilliantly choreographed fights and chases, and some of the coolest movie stunts I’ve ever seen. The movie doesn’t always get the emotional punch it’s aiming for, and it has its share of awkward moments, but it sure makes a lasting impression with its intense, adrenaline-pumping theatrics. It might be a little too strange and twisted for some (though it’s relatively tame for being rated R), however, those who can handle the wasteland are sure to find a film that is deserving of respect and admiration. While I have my gripes with Hardy’s portrayal of Max, I know that I, for one, still can’t wait to see what the future holds for everybody’s favorite road warrior.
(The review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.19.15.)
In Fury Road, we first encounter Max alone in the wasteland in what is about to be a very long and very bad day. He’s quickly spotted and pursued by a pack of deathly-pale skinhead warriors known as Warboys. Outnumbered and easily captured, Max is taken to The Citadel, which serves as the home of the film’s central conflict. The monstrously plagued Immortan Joe rules over The Citadel like a cult leader, promising eternal salvation to his army of Warboys who die fighting for him. The city is a place of great disparity, as Joe teases the peasants with water, while he enjoys the excesses of his precious resources. Even worse is that he’s enslaved healthy, young women, known as his Five Wives, for the sake of producing his children.
This predicament doesn’t sit well with the battle-hardened woman warrior Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron) who serves under Immortan Joe’s command. Tired of Joe’s tyrannous ways, Imperator Furiosa betrays her leader during a routine gas run by venturing her armored war-rig offroad with the Five Wives secretly in tow. When news spreads that Furiosa is trying to escape and has taken the Wives with her, Joe and his army of Warboys feverishly follow in pursuit. This begins an epic, elaborate, and expertly crafted chase sequence that is absolutely outrageous and unmistakably brilliant.
Meanwhile, the enslaved Max ends up being inopportunely thrust into the action at full throttle, chained to the front of a car like a hood ornament. While Max’s name may be in the title, make no mistake about it, this is Furiosa’s story. Max is primarily just along for the ride, and doing whatever he can to survive. That’s not to say that Max is simply an unfortunate onlooker to the events of the film, but he is given little in the way of dialogue and backstory, and is chained up for a substantial portion of Fury Road. Though it should be said that the movie as a whole is rather thin on story and dialogue and it merely glosses over the plot to retain its focus on the action, which is where the film really sets itself apart.
The majority of the Fury Road serves as this long, impressive chase sequence that miraculously continues to escalate as the film goes on, despite appearing to throw the whole kitchen sink at you right at the beginning. It’s explosive, crazy, and jaw-droppingly awesome from the get-go, and yet believe me, it only gets bigger and better. Just wait until later when they start adding monster trucks, mini-guns, pole-vaulters, dirt bike-riding grannies, and a guitar flamethrower. It will leave you giddy with excitement. It’s an amazing, heavy-metal, end-of-the-world spectacle that you just got to see to believe. What makes it all even more incredible is that so much of the action is achieved by practical effects, with real stunts and car crashes and explosions.
Unfortunately, in the rare moments when Fury Road lets its foot off the gas and slows down the action, it sometimes sputters. Take for instance, the film’s climactic turning point when Furiosa’s dreams are spoiled. She dramatically falls to her knees in the sand, reeling in despair, and screams out into the void. This pivotal moment should be the most powerful moment of the film, but for me it fell completely flat. The problem here is that I never felt a strong attachment to the characters. While I respect Furiosa and Max for their strength in this struggle, I also feel like I don’t know much of anything about them, except that they’re adept at surviving and have battled through Hell to get to this point. So while this brief interlude drags a bit, Max thankfully turns things back around and leads us right back into the heart of the action, where Fury Road is at its best.
Charlize Theron gives a commanding performance as Furiosa, easily establishing herself among the ranks of the great female action stars. She makes for an excellent partner to Tom Hardy’s Max (though reportedly not so much on set). Hardy, on the other hand, puts in a solid performance, but I do take some issue with it. Truthfully, he just didn’t quite feel like Mad Max. His take on the character is too rugged. He’s missing the charm and likability that Mel Gibson’s Max had. His character may be cool, but he’s difficult to relate to, and feels remarkably reduced as he grunts throughout half of the movie without uttering a word. I can’t help but feel that perhaps Hardy took Max’s madness and survival instincts a little too far. The film also stars Nicholas Hoult as Nux, the Warboy that led Max into this whole mess, who expresses a much more appealing level of craziness. Whereas Nux is an energetic, lunatic cult follower, Max seems like he’s just a few bolts short of becoming a mentally-deranged hobo, which might not bode so well for future films. Lastly, there’s Immortan Joe, played by Hugh Keays-Byrne, who has an exceptional screen presence by being imposing, frightening, and so over-the-top that he’s kind of funny.
Visually and artistically, Mad Max: Fury Road is a triumphant success. It’s more gorgeous than you would ever think possible for a decrepit, wasteland warzone. Considerable skill and attention to detail are demonstrated to bring beauty out of this decaying environment. It features first-rate cinematography and unbelievable creativity. You’ll wonder how anyone ever thought of this stuff, but you’ll be grateful they did. The characters all look outstanding, unique, and memorable. I particularly loved Furiosa’s appearance with her prosthetic arm and grease-smeared warpaint. More impressive still is the menacing Immortan Joe with his mask and elaborate body armor. Fury Road similarly has beautiful special effects which greatly enhance the atmosphere as well as the film’s many remarkable stunts. In all, this is sure to be one of the best looking films of the year.
Mad Max: Fury Road may not be a perfect film, but it makes for an explosive and unforgettable return to the series. It’s truly a creative tour-de-force, with ingenious action, stellar design, and stunning visuals. It features brilliantly choreographed fights and chases, and some of the coolest movie stunts I’ve ever seen. The movie doesn’t always get the emotional punch it’s aiming for, and it has its share of awkward moments, but it sure makes a lasting impression with its intense, adrenaline-pumping theatrics. It might be a little too strange and twisted for some (though it’s relatively tame for being rated R), however, those who can handle the wasteland are sure to find a film that is deserving of respect and admiration. While I have my gripes with Hardy’s portrayal of Max, I know that I, for one, still can’t wait to see what the future holds for everybody’s favorite road warrior.
(The review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.19.15.)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 26, 2019
Leonardo DiCaprio (1 more)
Brad Pitt
It's 2 hours and 41 minutes and feels long. (2 more)
Story elements don't seem to go together.
Charles Manson stuff feels forced.
With Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood being his ninth feature film as writer and director and a career just shy of the three decade mark, you should probably know what to expect from a Quentin Tarantino film. Amongst all of the usual Tarantino trademarks of memorable performances, long strings of dialogue, a questionable amount of dancing, the inclusion of several shots of barefoot women, interior car sequences, and a relentless tidal wave of vulgarity that drowns the audience in a sea of sharp expletives, Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood lacks the one element that truly makes a Tarantino film worthwhile; coherent storytelling.
Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood should be great based on its cast alone. Leonardo DiCaprio delivers one of his more complex performances as television star turned infrequent movie star Rick Dalton. Dalton made a name for himself in a western TV series called Bounty Law. Rick burned that bridge when he tried to make the jump to movies and failed. Now he only seems to get work as the TV villain. Rick gets an opportunity in Rome to star in Italian spaghetti westerns and reluctantly accepts. Rick is an alcoholic that struggles with a stutter when he speaks. He has low self-esteem and questions every decision he makes. The scene where he flubs his lines followed by his angry outburst in his trailer is extraordinary. He’s also the one person on the planet who seems to hate hippies more than Eric Cartman.
Brad Pitt portrays Rick’s stunt double Cliff Booth. Cliff is a Vietnam War veteran who may or may not have (but probably did) kill his wife without any repercussions. Cliff hardly works as a stunt double anymore and mostly makes his living driving Rick around and doing various odd jobs for him. Cliff is the exact opposite of Rick. Rick lives in the Hollywood Hills in a roomy luxurious house with a pool and an extravagant view. Cliff lives in a trailer by a drive-in theater, eats macaroni and cheese for dinner, and has amazing chemistry with his pitbull Brandy. Cliff seems like a handy and capable guy, but he’s also extremely blunt. His to-the-point demeanor keeps Rick’s wilder antics in check the majority of the time. Cliff doesn’t exactly babysit Rick and allows him to live his own life, but he’s the one to give Rick the “you’re better than that,” kind of pep talk after it’s over.
One of the things mentioned in the film by Kurt Russell (he plays Randy and does the voiceover as the narrator) is that Rick and Cliff share this bond that is practically as deep as a brotherhood yet lacks the commitment of a marriage. Their bond is the backbone of the film and it’s interesting because they both seem like half decent people. Cliff may have killed someone and Rick beats himself up harder than anyone else could, but they’re both hard working individuals who put everything into their work and they have each other’s backs through thick and thin. Their bond is almost wholesome to the minuscule extent Tarantino will allow.
Brad Pitt’s chemistry with Brandy is also quite entertaining. There’s something comical about seeing Cliff rummage through his pantry filled with nothing but cans of dog food only to pull out two specific cans; one rat flavored and one raccoon flavored. He opens the cans with a manual can opener, tips them over in mid-air after removing their lids, and lets gravity guide that slop into whatever is designated as a food bowl that particular evening in a sickening PLOP! And a meaty splash that overflows onto the kitchen floor tiles. Cliff and Brandy seem almost as close as Cliff and Rick. They have this partnership that is easy to detect as soon as they’re on-screen together.
Mike Moh’s Bruce Lee impression isn’t totally flawless, but it is fairly excellent regardless. Moh is Korean and Bruce Lee was Chinese-American, so it’s an intriguing fit that works way better than you expect. The scene Moh has with Pitt as Bruce Lee and Cliff Booth have a physical encounter is an entertaining highlight of the film. The outrageous violence you’ve come to expect in a Tarantino film isn’t present in Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood until the final scene and it is a glorious display of dog biting, face pummeling, and flame throwing mayhem. If Cliff Booth hasn’t already established himself as a certified badass through the first two and a half hours, those last ten minutes certainly allow him to obtain that title with ease.
The unfortunate aspect of Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood is that everything doesn’t really come together in a satisfying way. You’ve got a washed up actor trying to regain the spotlight, a stunt double struggling to find work and make a living despite his troublesome reputation, and the Charles Manson stuff with Roman Polanski (Rafal Zawierucha) and Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) living next door to Rick and Cliff’s time at the Spahn Movie Ranch with the Manson Family. In 1968, Tate and four others were murdered in the home she shared with Polanski by members of the Manson Family while being eight-and-a-half months pregnant. It’s a horrendous statistic that puts a different perspective on the ending if you didn’t know beforehand. The Manson inclusion mostly feels like an afterthought that isn’t ever taken seriously.
So many recognizable names are a part of the cast and everyone outside of Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio are basically a waste. Margot Robbie has a few moments that mostly reside in her reacting to films starring Sharon Tate in a movie theater. Tate seems to represent this pure and positive light in the film while Rick and Cliff experience the uglier aspects of the Tarantino-skewed late 1960s. Robbie downright glows during that movie theater sequence with a bubbly and contagious attitude, but doesn’t do much else over the course of the film.
Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood feels longer than its 141-minute duration. It drags so often in between its enjoyable moments and seems to purposely lag during every dialogue heavy sequence that is just talking without any sort of payoff. Tarantino’s attention to the music of whatever era he’s depicting has always been a staple in his films, but it is on the verge of annoyance here. The dancing in the film feels like an excuse to stretch out the story that much longer for no other reason other than to blatantly rub the audience’s nose in the time period.
There are some masterful elements to Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood that shouldn’t be overlooked. Leonardo DiCaprio’s Rick F’ing Dalton sequence is explosively brilliant and Brad Pitt has this abrasive charm as Cliff Booth. It’s difficult to make the argument that Quentin Tarantino has original stories still worth telling at this point in his career though since this suffers from incoherent progression and a reasonable purpose for why we should care about these characters. At one point in the film, Rick tells Cliff with tears streaming down his face and this unhealthy cough full of cancerous phlegm, “It’s official old buddy. I’m a has-been.” Maybe this is how Tarantino feels about himself now that he’s nearing the end of his filmmaking career. That struggle to find meaning and a welcome audience for something he used to care deeply about but may have lost the passion for in recent years. He had a good run, but as it stands Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood is overstuffed yet bland despite its two zesty leads.
Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood should be great based on its cast alone. Leonardo DiCaprio delivers one of his more complex performances as television star turned infrequent movie star Rick Dalton. Dalton made a name for himself in a western TV series called Bounty Law. Rick burned that bridge when he tried to make the jump to movies and failed. Now he only seems to get work as the TV villain. Rick gets an opportunity in Rome to star in Italian spaghetti westerns and reluctantly accepts. Rick is an alcoholic that struggles with a stutter when he speaks. He has low self-esteem and questions every decision he makes. The scene where he flubs his lines followed by his angry outburst in his trailer is extraordinary. He’s also the one person on the planet who seems to hate hippies more than Eric Cartman.
Brad Pitt portrays Rick’s stunt double Cliff Booth. Cliff is a Vietnam War veteran who may or may not have (but probably did) kill his wife without any repercussions. Cliff hardly works as a stunt double anymore and mostly makes his living driving Rick around and doing various odd jobs for him. Cliff is the exact opposite of Rick. Rick lives in the Hollywood Hills in a roomy luxurious house with a pool and an extravagant view. Cliff lives in a trailer by a drive-in theater, eats macaroni and cheese for dinner, and has amazing chemistry with his pitbull Brandy. Cliff seems like a handy and capable guy, but he’s also extremely blunt. His to-the-point demeanor keeps Rick’s wilder antics in check the majority of the time. Cliff doesn’t exactly babysit Rick and allows him to live his own life, but he’s the one to give Rick the “you’re better than that,” kind of pep talk after it’s over.
One of the things mentioned in the film by Kurt Russell (he plays Randy and does the voiceover as the narrator) is that Rick and Cliff share this bond that is practically as deep as a brotherhood yet lacks the commitment of a marriage. Their bond is the backbone of the film and it’s interesting because they both seem like half decent people. Cliff may have killed someone and Rick beats himself up harder than anyone else could, but they’re both hard working individuals who put everything into their work and they have each other’s backs through thick and thin. Their bond is almost wholesome to the minuscule extent Tarantino will allow.
Brad Pitt’s chemistry with Brandy is also quite entertaining. There’s something comical about seeing Cliff rummage through his pantry filled with nothing but cans of dog food only to pull out two specific cans; one rat flavored and one raccoon flavored. He opens the cans with a manual can opener, tips them over in mid-air after removing their lids, and lets gravity guide that slop into whatever is designated as a food bowl that particular evening in a sickening PLOP! And a meaty splash that overflows onto the kitchen floor tiles. Cliff and Brandy seem almost as close as Cliff and Rick. They have this partnership that is easy to detect as soon as they’re on-screen together.
Mike Moh’s Bruce Lee impression isn’t totally flawless, but it is fairly excellent regardless. Moh is Korean and Bruce Lee was Chinese-American, so it’s an intriguing fit that works way better than you expect. The scene Moh has with Pitt as Bruce Lee and Cliff Booth have a physical encounter is an entertaining highlight of the film. The outrageous violence you’ve come to expect in a Tarantino film isn’t present in Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood until the final scene and it is a glorious display of dog biting, face pummeling, and flame throwing mayhem. If Cliff Booth hasn’t already established himself as a certified badass through the first two and a half hours, those last ten minutes certainly allow him to obtain that title with ease.
The unfortunate aspect of Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood is that everything doesn’t really come together in a satisfying way. You’ve got a washed up actor trying to regain the spotlight, a stunt double struggling to find work and make a living despite his troublesome reputation, and the Charles Manson stuff with Roman Polanski (Rafal Zawierucha) and Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) living next door to Rick and Cliff’s time at the Spahn Movie Ranch with the Manson Family. In 1968, Tate and four others were murdered in the home she shared with Polanski by members of the Manson Family while being eight-and-a-half months pregnant. It’s a horrendous statistic that puts a different perspective on the ending if you didn’t know beforehand. The Manson inclusion mostly feels like an afterthought that isn’t ever taken seriously.
So many recognizable names are a part of the cast and everyone outside of Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio are basically a waste. Margot Robbie has a few moments that mostly reside in her reacting to films starring Sharon Tate in a movie theater. Tate seems to represent this pure and positive light in the film while Rick and Cliff experience the uglier aspects of the Tarantino-skewed late 1960s. Robbie downright glows during that movie theater sequence with a bubbly and contagious attitude, but doesn’t do much else over the course of the film.
Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood feels longer than its 141-minute duration. It drags so often in between its enjoyable moments and seems to purposely lag during every dialogue heavy sequence that is just talking without any sort of payoff. Tarantino’s attention to the music of whatever era he’s depicting has always been a staple in his films, but it is on the verge of annoyance here. The dancing in the film feels like an excuse to stretch out the story that much longer for no other reason other than to blatantly rub the audience’s nose in the time period.
There are some masterful elements to Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood that shouldn’t be overlooked. Leonardo DiCaprio’s Rick F’ing Dalton sequence is explosively brilliant and Brad Pitt has this abrasive charm as Cliff Booth. It’s difficult to make the argument that Quentin Tarantino has original stories still worth telling at this point in his career though since this suffers from incoherent progression and a reasonable purpose for why we should care about these characters. At one point in the film, Rick tells Cliff with tears streaming down his face and this unhealthy cough full of cancerous phlegm, “It’s official old buddy. I’m a has-been.” Maybe this is how Tarantino feels about himself now that he’s nearing the end of his filmmaking career. That struggle to find meaning and a welcome audience for something he used to care deeply about but may have lost the passion for in recent years. He had a good run, but as it stands Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood is overstuffed yet bland despite its two zesty leads.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Rescuing Robin Hood in Tabletop Games
Nov 10, 2020
I have a secret to tell you all. I love the Robin Hood IP, even though my only real knowledge of it comes from the “Robin Hood: Men in Tights” and “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves” movies. I have never read the story, nor have I ever watched the Errol Flynn movie. So why do I love Robin Hood so much? I really can’t tell you for sure, it just seems like such a fun theme with lots of characters and an interesting central plot. So how does this quasi-deck-builder fare? Faire? I think fare. Let’s find out.
Rescuing Robin Hood is a cooperative card drafting and deck building game with multiple value usage on each card and, at least in my very first play, the humbling experience of having over 20 guards protecting the Sheriff of Nottingham. Players will win once Robin Hood is rescued, but may achieve an ultimate victory by defeating the Sheriff and his guard detail.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign launching November 10, 2020, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, follow the setup suggestion in the rulebook. The game should roughly look how it is below in the photo. Roughly. The components include cards for Nottingham Castle, the Sheriff, his guards, Robin Hood, his band of Merry Men, other recruitable villagers, and a Tracker Card. Along with all the cards, inside the box are tracker cubes and ability chips. Once the game is setup, determine the starting player and the game may begin!
A game of Rescuing Robin Hood lasts five rounds (or “days” to rescue the hero from being executed). Each round has players dealing four cards from their draw decks and using these four villagers in conjunction with their chosen Merry Men character card to create values on the Tracker Card for Wit, Stealth, Brawn, and Jolliness. Some villagers or characters will also provide the player with ability chips to be used during the turn. These include Prayer (which can move guards from one group to another, or eliminate a guard entirely – the power of prayer is REAL), Cookery (which can be used to increase the values of Wit, Stealth, or Brawn by +2 for each chip), and Scouting (which allows a player to reveal a face-down guard card in any group).
Once the active player has adjusted all their values they wish, they may now begin attacking guards. Per the setup card for each round a group of guards are holding villagers captive and they must be defeated in order to free the villagers to be recruited to players’ decks. In order to defeat a guard or entire groups of guards, players will be attacking twice using their Wit, Stealth, and/or Brawn values.
To attack with Wit, the active player will determine which group of guards they will attack and target the face-up guard at the end of the group. If defeated, the player will reduce their total Wit by the value of Wit they expended to defeat the first guard. Should they wish to continue attacking guards with Wit, they must state this before flipping the next guard face-up. This adds the push-your-luck element to the game. Should the player wish to stop, the guards are defeated. Should the player bust, the entire collection of guards previously outwitted are added back to the group face-up to be defeated by another player or by the same player using a different attack method.
If the active player wishes to use Stealth to attack guards, they must choose a group of guards and pick them off one by one. Using their total Stealth value and decreasing it with each successful attack, the player will choose one or more (face-up or face-down) guards to attack. Again, should they succeed the guards will be defeated and removed from play. Should the player bust by attempting to pick off too many guards, then all guards are added back to the group face-up.
Using Brawn to attack guards requires the active player to choose a group of guards and attack the ENTIRE group using their Brawn value. Should the player succeed in defeating all guards in the group (no matter the size of the group) then all guards are removed from play. If the player fails, as always, the guards are returned to the group to taunt the next player.
Active players will be able to attack guards twice on a turn but must use two different attack methods. Should the player end their turn with remaining Brawn or Jolliness values, those values will be passed along to the next player in turn order to be used. Additionally, should the next player end their turn with Brawn or Jolliness, they will be passed to the next player and so on.
At the end of each round villagers that were freed of guards during the round will be drafted to players’ decks. At the end of round 2 and 4 players’ decks will be thinned by choosing which villagers stay and which will aid the players in the final round. The final round of Rescuing Robin Hood pits the players against the walls of Nottingham Castle, a Courtyard full of guards, and even Sheriff Nottingham and his personal guards. Again, should the players defeat the Castle walls and Courtyard, they free Robin Hood and win the game. If the players are feeling particularly confident they may also challenge the Sheriff for ultimate victory.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game using prototype components. That said, the components we received are truly excellent. Firstly, the art style throughout the game is crisp and colorful and a lot of fun. Some of the names of the villagers are downright silly and punny and I absolutely love that. The cards are all wonderful, and the cubes are normal game cubes (not Nintendo-related), and hopefully they will be upgraded via a successful Kickstarter campaign. All in all the components are great and the art is quite enjoyable.
So do I like Rescuing Robin Hood? Oh yes, quite a bit! This game exercises my brain so much without having to labor for minutes on end creating strategies and alternate strategies. I enjoy being able to just barrel into a group of guards and take out the entire swath of them using my extreme Brawniness. Need to pump up before a fight? Well obviously I’ll use up my Jolliness to boost my confidence or narrow my concentration. I purposely omitted several rules so as not to bog down my review any further, but there are so many interesting little flecks of mechanics working together to create a cohesive gaming experience and it is simply delicious.
While Rescuing Robin Hood is not incredibly heavy, there are tons of choices to be made and risks to be taken to achieve ultimate victory. I enjoy being able to tailor my deck with powerful villagers, or specialize in two attack values to unload on guards. Having players that use interesting mixes of Merry Men characters also increases the enjoyment as this game is absolutely cooperative and players may assist each other in many ways. Need some extra Wit for your turn coming up? Here, let me pass along my extra Jolliness to you to use. Want some Cookery too? Go ahead, I’ve got plenty to share. Oh, such great feelings at the table being able to share resources like this.
So I urge you, dear reader, to check out the Kickstarter campaign for Rescuing Robin Hood. If you enjoy lighter (but not tooooo light) cooperative, card drafting, deck building games with a great theme, you need to pick up a copy of Rescuing Robin Hood. I didn’t see Blinkin or Ahchoo in the game, but that’s not to say Castillo Games doesn’t have these hiding in stretch goals (I really don’t know if they are in the plans, but they SHOULD be).
Rescuing Robin Hood is a cooperative card drafting and deck building game with multiple value usage on each card and, at least in my very first play, the humbling experience of having over 20 guards protecting the Sheriff of Nottingham. Players will win once Robin Hood is rescued, but may achieve an ultimate victory by defeating the Sheriff and his guard detail.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign launching November 10, 2020, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, follow the setup suggestion in the rulebook. The game should roughly look how it is below in the photo. Roughly. The components include cards for Nottingham Castle, the Sheriff, his guards, Robin Hood, his band of Merry Men, other recruitable villagers, and a Tracker Card. Along with all the cards, inside the box are tracker cubes and ability chips. Once the game is setup, determine the starting player and the game may begin!
A game of Rescuing Robin Hood lasts five rounds (or “days” to rescue the hero from being executed). Each round has players dealing four cards from their draw decks and using these four villagers in conjunction with their chosen Merry Men character card to create values on the Tracker Card for Wit, Stealth, Brawn, and Jolliness. Some villagers or characters will also provide the player with ability chips to be used during the turn. These include Prayer (which can move guards from one group to another, or eliminate a guard entirely – the power of prayer is REAL), Cookery (which can be used to increase the values of Wit, Stealth, or Brawn by +2 for each chip), and Scouting (which allows a player to reveal a face-down guard card in any group).
Once the active player has adjusted all their values they wish, they may now begin attacking guards. Per the setup card for each round a group of guards are holding villagers captive and they must be defeated in order to free the villagers to be recruited to players’ decks. In order to defeat a guard or entire groups of guards, players will be attacking twice using their Wit, Stealth, and/or Brawn values.
To attack with Wit, the active player will determine which group of guards they will attack and target the face-up guard at the end of the group. If defeated, the player will reduce their total Wit by the value of Wit they expended to defeat the first guard. Should they wish to continue attacking guards with Wit, they must state this before flipping the next guard face-up. This adds the push-your-luck element to the game. Should the player wish to stop, the guards are defeated. Should the player bust, the entire collection of guards previously outwitted are added back to the group face-up to be defeated by another player or by the same player using a different attack method.
If the active player wishes to use Stealth to attack guards, they must choose a group of guards and pick them off one by one. Using their total Stealth value and decreasing it with each successful attack, the player will choose one or more (face-up or face-down) guards to attack. Again, should they succeed the guards will be defeated and removed from play. Should the player bust by attempting to pick off too many guards, then all guards are added back to the group face-up.
Using Brawn to attack guards requires the active player to choose a group of guards and attack the ENTIRE group using their Brawn value. Should the player succeed in defeating all guards in the group (no matter the size of the group) then all guards are removed from play. If the player fails, as always, the guards are returned to the group to taunt the next player.
Active players will be able to attack guards twice on a turn but must use two different attack methods. Should the player end their turn with remaining Brawn or Jolliness values, those values will be passed along to the next player in turn order to be used. Additionally, should the next player end their turn with Brawn or Jolliness, they will be passed to the next player and so on.
At the end of each round villagers that were freed of guards during the round will be drafted to players’ decks. At the end of round 2 and 4 players’ decks will be thinned by choosing which villagers stay and which will aid the players in the final round. The final round of Rescuing Robin Hood pits the players against the walls of Nottingham Castle, a Courtyard full of guards, and even Sheriff Nottingham and his personal guards. Again, should the players defeat the Castle walls and Courtyard, they free Robin Hood and win the game. If the players are feeling particularly confident they may also challenge the Sheriff for ultimate victory.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game using prototype components. That said, the components we received are truly excellent. Firstly, the art style throughout the game is crisp and colorful and a lot of fun. Some of the names of the villagers are downright silly and punny and I absolutely love that. The cards are all wonderful, and the cubes are normal game cubes (not Nintendo-related), and hopefully they will be upgraded via a successful Kickstarter campaign. All in all the components are great and the art is quite enjoyable.
So do I like Rescuing Robin Hood? Oh yes, quite a bit! This game exercises my brain so much without having to labor for minutes on end creating strategies and alternate strategies. I enjoy being able to just barrel into a group of guards and take out the entire swath of them using my extreme Brawniness. Need to pump up before a fight? Well obviously I’ll use up my Jolliness to boost my confidence or narrow my concentration. I purposely omitted several rules so as not to bog down my review any further, but there are so many interesting little flecks of mechanics working together to create a cohesive gaming experience and it is simply delicious.
While Rescuing Robin Hood is not incredibly heavy, there are tons of choices to be made and risks to be taken to achieve ultimate victory. I enjoy being able to tailor my deck with powerful villagers, or specialize in two attack values to unload on guards. Having players that use interesting mixes of Merry Men characters also increases the enjoyment as this game is absolutely cooperative and players may assist each other in many ways. Need some extra Wit for your turn coming up? Here, let me pass along my extra Jolliness to you to use. Want some Cookery too? Go ahead, I’ve got plenty to share. Oh, such great feelings at the table being able to share resources like this.
So I urge you, dear reader, to check out the Kickstarter campaign for Rescuing Robin Hood. If you enjoy lighter (but not tooooo light) cooperative, card drafting, deck building games with a great theme, you need to pick up a copy of Rescuing Robin Hood. I didn’t see Blinkin or Ahchoo in the game, but that’s not to say Castillo Games doesn’t have these hiding in stretch goals (I really don’t know if they are in the plans, but they SHOULD be).
The Boy Who Drew Monsters
7.0
Rate It
Book
From the New York Times bestselling author of The Stolen Child comes a hypnotic literary horror...