Last week, Roger Ebert posted a journal entry discussing his own use of the four-star rating system and contrasted it with the San Francisco Chronicle's "Little Man." The post makes for interesting reading. Go read it and come back...
Did you notice the something interesting about Ebert's methodology? Here's the quote, "I consider 2.5 stars to be thumbs down; they consider 62.5 to be favorable." For Ebert 2.5 Stars is "thumbs down." I find this quite odd, and you should too for a few reasons. First, it is lunacy to use a system that provides a median value and have anything at or above that median value be "thumbs down." Second, it is counter-intuitive to American audiences, particularly those in the GPA obsessed era, to think of a 2.5 (mid-point between a C+ at 2.3 and a B- at 2.7) as a failing grade. Third, Ebert admits that he once "considered 2.5 stars to be a perfectly acceptable rating for a film I rather liked in certain aspects." This is an admission that demonstrates an inconsistency in his rating system. Some might argue growth, but I'd argue inconsistency since one reading his older reviews might misinterpret the meaning if they are familiar with his current use of 2.5 stars. The internets, and Lexis/Nexis, allow us to do such things without buying books collecting his reviews -- books which can be "retconned" easily.
For my part, I can't understand why any critic using the 4 point system wouldn't automatically convert any such ratings into a grade point scale. I know I do it -- almost subconsciously. A four star rating is an A, a 3 star is a B, 2 stars C, 1 star D, and no stars is an F. I'll avoid most D movies, but if there's no grade inflation a C should be "average."
And essentially this gets to the core of what I'm trying to say, which is to say that Ebert -- as he alludes in the title to his entry -- does indeed rate too highly. He's a grade-inflator. If he likes a movie, it's automatically a B or better. From a less skilled critic, I would blame it on a lack of subtlety of thought or to an exaggeration of the critic's Primal Screen. In this case, I'll write it off as another case of grade inflation...something we certainly need less of in our teachers, and apparently our reviewers.
If you haven't guessed, this is why I use a 5 point scale. That way a 2.5 might be a film that has some small elements I enjoy, but it is still a film that shouldn't be recommended. But then MetaCritic, Rotten Tomatoes, and I get into a disagreement. I think that a median rated film should be viewed as a median film, neither good nor bad. I don't like binary systems. Certainly, there are some films I would recommend to everyone and there are some films I would warn everyone to avoid. But there are also some films that I would recommend for some people and not others and that doesn't necessarily mean they are bad films, just that they aren't universal.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
Quick Cuts: Friends of Cinerati Speak Up
In this entry in newly renamed "Quick Cuts," the friends of the Cinerati blog answer the following question:
"Was there a particular book (or television show, or film) that you read (or watched) as a child that inspired you into your current career?"
How about you Cinerati readers out there? What do you have to say?
"Was there a particular book (or television show, or film) that you read (or watched) as a child that inspired you into your current career?"
David Chute
I sometimes think the key issue is at which stage one's development gets arrested. I liked monsters (and Famous Monsters) as a kid but was never into the classic "guy movies," the war films and Westerns that were basically about groups of boys playing in the backyard, with no gurls allowed. For me the light bulb went on watching Ann-Margret in "Bye Bye Birdie." "Viva Las Vegas" and "Dr. No" were not far behind, and Claudia, Romy and Barbara (Bouchet) were strong favorites. But that opening back-projected image of A-M being massaged by a wind machine was the real thunderbolt. My interest in movies ever since has been as much about sex as anything else. Make of this what you will.
David Chute is a film critic who has written for LA Weekly, Premiere Magazine (both print and online), The Los Angeles Times, Film Comment, and Vanity Fair. In addition to his work as a critic, David has also written press kits for films like THE SHADOW, HARD TARGET, JACKIE BROWN, and IRON MONKEY.
Matt Forbeck
The blue book version of Dungeons & Dragons launched me into the world of games, fantasy, and adventure and swept me through my middle-school and teenage years, right through into adulthood. I don't know if you can call the many varied things I do a career in the traditional sense, but if it hadn't been for that thin, little booklet my friend's mom picked up for Christmas on a blue-light special, I'd have probably wound up in engineering or law instead!
Matt Forbeck has worked full-time on games and fiction since 1989. Projects Matt has worked on have been nominated for 23 Origins Awards and won 12. This includes the Best Roleplaying Game for Deadlands and The Lord of the Rings Roleplaying Game, Best Miniatures Rules for Warzone and The Great Rail Wars, Best Roleplaying Adventure for Independence Day, Best Fantasy Board Game for Genestealer, and Best Short Story for “Prometheus Unwound” from The Book of All Flesh.
Dale Launer
Woody Allen's Take the Money and Run. It really wasn't very funny, or coherent, no plot and it looked cheap. It was inspirational because I thought "Shit, I could do that!"
Dale Launer is writer and director of motion pictures. His movie-biz break came after the producing team of Lancaster/Wagner optioned his screenplay of RUTHLESS PEOPLE. It was produced and released in 1986. This was followed by BLIND DATE, for which Launer neither takes blame nor credit since it was heavily re-written. Launer followed this effort by optioning the rights to the film BEDTIME STORY, which was re-written and re-titled to DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS (which he also produced). He also wrote and directed LOVE POTION #9, which was followed by MY COUSIN VINNY, which he wrote and produced.
He is currently finishing up TOM'S NU HEAVEN, a movie he made very, very independently.
Richard Scott Nokes
I think I was more influenced by people and events then by a single book, mostly because I was such a bookworm it would have taken a lot for one book to influence me over all the others.
Even though it's a cliche, The Lord of the Rings was probably the most influential book. As a child I really identified strongly with Sam, and liked to imagine when I grew older I would construct an underground hobbit hole and live in it. Even though I've grown up to have a career as more than of wizard than a hobbit, that book created my initial interest in the medieval.
Richard Scott Nokes is a professor of medieval literature at Troy University. Dr. Nokes enjoys reading, film, and all things medieval. He is interested in looking at representations of the medieval in modern culture, a phenomenon he calls Popular Medievalism.
Susan Palwick
Star Trek. (The original one; my third crush was on Spock. My first crush was on a parrot keeper in Florida, and my second crush was on Don Rickles. Yeah, I'm weird. That's why I write science fiction.)
Susan Palwick is a Science Fiction and Fantasy author who holds a doctoral degree from Yale. She currently teaches as an associate professor of English at the University of Nevada, Reno. She is the author of three novels (FLYING IN PLACE, THE NECESSARY BEGGAR, and SHELTER) and a collection of short stories entitled (THE FATE OF MICE). She is currently working on her fourth novel, DRIVING TO NOVEMBER, which is historical fantasy set in central Nevada. Her fiction often centers on concepts of identity, belonging, and sense of place.
How about you Cinerati readers out there? What do you have to say?
Play Like A Pirate Day: Cinerati's Replacement for Talk Like A Pirate Day
Nothing is more irritating than hearing your co-workers say, "Aaaargh, Avast, Ye Mateys." Potentially worse is the evergreen, "Dead Men Tell No Tales...Yar." For years, we have be scourged with International Talk Like A Pirate Day. It is time for that phenomenon to die.
That doesn't mean that we should no longer have a day celebrating piracy and the outlaw attitude, or as the founder of Talk Like A Pirate Day called it "Piratitude." Pirates are still awesome, it's just talking like a pirate that is lame. So we hear at Cinerati have decided to reclaim the holiday by creating "International Play Like A Pirate Day."
From now on September 19th will be a day when families and friends get together and enjoy some form of Piratical Recreation. Such recreation can include celebrating by talking like pirates, certainly role play (in the traditional sense) is play. Our celebration is inclusive, not exclusive. But families and friends will no longer be limited to listening to the "yars" and "aaarghs" of everyone around them. Some might choose more formal ludographic participation -- that's game play.
We here at Cinerati have some recommended Play Like A Pirate Day activities. These include:
If you don't own a copy of Broadsides, try one of these two excellent pirate games from GMT Games.
Or your can sing "For I am a Pirate King!"
That doesn't mean that we should no longer have a day celebrating piracy and the outlaw attitude, or as the founder of Talk Like A Pirate Day called it "Piratitude." Pirates are still awesome, it's just talking like a pirate that is lame. So we hear at Cinerati have decided to reclaim the holiday by creating "International Play Like A Pirate Day."
From now on September 19th will be a day when families and friends get together and enjoy some form of Piratical Recreation. Such recreation can include celebrating by talking like pirates, certainly role play (in the traditional sense) is play. Our celebration is inclusive, not exclusive. But families and friends will no longer be limited to listening to the "yars" and "aaarghs" of everyone around them. Some might choose more formal ludographic participation -- that's game play.
We here at Cinerati have some recommended Play Like A Pirate Day activities. These include:
1) Play a pirate themed roleplaying game. In particular, we recommend Pinnacle Entertainment Group's excellent PIRATES OF THE SPANISH MAIN. This is highly recommended for those who want to talk like a pirate. It encourages such behavior in an appropriate venue. Besides, by role playing (in the game sense) participants can act far more Piratical than is allowed under modern mores and laws.
If you want a more heroic bent with mystical aspects, you can always play Pinnacle's 50 Fathoms instead.
2)If you own a copy -- and not many do -- play an exciting session of the classic Broadsides and Boarding Parties
If you don't own a copy of Broadsides, try one of these two excellent pirate games from GMT Games.
3) Blackbeard: The Golden Age of Piracy. The game is a redesign of Avalon Hill's classic game of the same name. The new version is suitable for 1 to 5 players and has less "down time" for players who aren't in their current turn.
4) Winds of Plunder is a quick and fun game that is more in the style of the "Eurogame" than Blackbeard or Broadsides.
5) You can play the previously reviewed Sword and Skull.
6) Lastly, we recommend watching one of your favorite pirate films. We've included some of our favorites in the carousel below.
Or your can sing "For I am a Pirate King!"
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Shatner on Shatner at LA Times
Geoff Boucher has a post covering a recent conversation he had with William Shatner over at the LA Times' HERO COMPLEX blog. Naturally, the subject of Shatner's disappointment in being excluded from the JJ Abrams movie is discussed. Shatner wishes he had been Bobby Ewing'ed into the movie, as does -- secretly for some -- everyone else.
Everyone, dammit!
Including JJ!
Some random blog carried a story, based on what a best friend said he heard from his cousin, that she read on Ain't It Cool news that stated that JJ had a screenplay where Kirk comes back as his virile young self, seduces a couple of women, and then rapidly ages. Then he realized he couldn't use it because he'd already done that narrative in FOREVER YOUNG. -- If you believe this regarding the screenplay, some huckster wants to talk about a real estate venture with you.
One finds it difficult to imagine STAR TREK without Shatner. For some, like the editors at GEEK MONTHLY, Shatner is the franchise.
Here at Cinerati, we're Shatner fans first -- STAR TREK fans second. KINGDOM OF THE SPIDERS is more palatable than ST: GILLIGAN'S ISLAND (aka ST: VOYAGER). Denny Crane is pure genius.
But we know that Shatner is a controversial figure. It's fun reading through the comments section, fake former cast member posts and all. They are really amusing and indicative of how first impressions with actors in public places can shape one's opinions regarding the merit of an individual.
For the record, I have two Shatner autographs. One attained through his assistant and one signed in person while Shatner was suffering from a massive flu that failed to prevent him from signing autographs at GenCon SoCal. Shatner's dedication to his fans, and to exposure certainly, was admirable. Far more admirable than Walter Koenig's "reading" from his as yet unpublished (if it will ever be published) novel. Koenig's act of reading the book, which contained an annoying ad nauseum "itsy bitsy spider" refrain, before adoring fans seemed more selfish than any act that Shatner has been accused of perpetrating.
The most credible description, in my opinion, of Shatner behind the camera is the book CAPTAIN QUIRK which shows him as odd, at odds with the non-leads, friendly with the guest stars, and friends with the extras and stunt men. QUIRK presents a version of Shatner that isn't fawning, but allowed me to keep my own hero worship, it also matched my personal experience.
For a quote that best personifies what we here at Cinerat love about the Shatner, let me quote Cory from the HERO COMPLEX comments section:
As Stan Lee would put it, "'Nuff Said."
Everyone, dammit!
Including JJ!
Some random blog carried a story, based on what a best friend said he heard from his cousin, that she read on Ain't It Cool news that stated that JJ had a screenplay where Kirk comes back as his virile young self, seduces a couple of women, and then rapidly ages. Then he realized he couldn't use it because he'd already done that narrative in FOREVER YOUNG. -- If you believe this regarding the screenplay, some huckster wants to talk about a real estate venture with you.
One finds it difficult to imagine STAR TREK without Shatner. For some, like the editors at GEEK MONTHLY, Shatner is the franchise.
Here at Cinerati, we're Shatner fans first -- STAR TREK fans second. KINGDOM OF THE SPIDERS is more palatable than ST: GILLIGAN'S ISLAND (aka ST: VOYAGER). Denny Crane is pure genius.
But we know that Shatner is a controversial figure. It's fun reading through the comments section, fake former cast member posts and all. They are really amusing and indicative of how first impressions with actors in public places can shape one's opinions regarding the merit of an individual.
For the record, I have two Shatner autographs. One attained through his assistant and one signed in person while Shatner was suffering from a massive flu that failed to prevent him from signing autographs at GenCon SoCal. Shatner's dedication to his fans, and to exposure certainly, was admirable. Far more admirable than Walter Koenig's "reading" from his as yet unpublished (if it will ever be published) novel. Koenig's act of reading the book, which contained an annoying ad nauseum "itsy bitsy spider" refrain, before adoring fans seemed more selfish than any act that Shatner has been accused of perpetrating.
The most credible description, in my opinion, of Shatner behind the camera is the book CAPTAIN QUIRK which shows him as odd, at odds with the non-leads, friendly with the guest stars, and friends with the extras and stunt men. QUIRK presents a version of Shatner that isn't fawning, but allowed me to keep my own hero worship, it also matched my personal experience.
For a quote that best personifies what we here at Cinerat love about the Shatner, let me quote Cory from the HERO COMPLEX comments section:
William Shatner is made of pure awesome. Even awesome thinks Bill is awesome.
Cheers to you for years of entertainment, laughs and all-round awesomeness.
As Stan Lee would put it, "'Nuff Said."
Bangkok Dangerous (2008): Thai Action Not as "Hot" as Hong Kong
The early 1990s marked the heyday for the Hong Kong action film and its infiltration into the zeitgeist of the American film industry. Critics were enamored of the post-Peckinpah stylization of violence as depicted in the films of directors like John Woo, Tsui Hark, Jackie Chan, and Ronnie Yu. Hong Kong's action industry featured directors, and stars, who were conversant with the "history of film."
John Woo's films had scenes inspired by movie musicals and films from the French New Wave. Tsui Hark introduced Western style special effects to martial arts epics. Jackie Chan's martial arts films were direct descendants of the films of Harold Lloyd, Buster Keaton, and Laurel and Hardy. Ronnie Yu's use of color and isolation of training sequences as dance numbers hinted at the work of Stanley Donen. These were directors who were using inspirations from outside the action genre to feed new life into what had become a stale genre. In all ways, the Hong Kong directors seemed obsessed with pushing the boundary of what action films could offer. And critics and cinephiles were eating it up buffet style.
But like the American action film, the Hong Kong action film was doomed to eventually become a parody of itself. The HK action film industry, and its disciples, was doomed by its very inspiration. By creating an industry dedicated to pushing the limits of action, and what defines action, they set the stage for a tragic fall.
Before we come back to the HK film, lets look at where American actioners where in the early 90s. It is often forgotten that a film like DIE HARD had inserted new life into the American action film. Forgotten because the 90s were filled with derivative, routine, and stale films that provided the formula of action and little genuine action. American offerings in the 90s included HARD TO KILL, which had some freshness with regard to the presentation of martial arts, but soon spiraled into a series of Steven Seagal "Three Word Title" films of little or no merit.
1990 saw the release of weak, and routine, actioners like NAVY SEALS, ANOTHER 48 HOURS and YOUNG GUNS II, even while continuing the wave of fresh films following in the footsteps of DIE HARD. The year is filled with films like KINDERGARTEN COP, TOTAL RECALL, DIE HARD II and PREDATOR II. It should be noted that two of the good actioners of 1990 star Arnold Schwartzenegger, who will play a role in the decline of the action film, and that two are sequels. And we all know how much film franchises benefit from sequelitis.
1991 featured the release of LIONHEART, a film signaling the decline of an action star's cache, OUT FOR JUSTICE -- a "Three Word Title" Seagal film -- HARLEY DAVIDSON AND THE MARLBORO MAN, and POINT BREAK. There are places where one can find critics who are POINT BREAK apologists, the Cinerati website is one of those places, but one doesn't have to look hard at 1991 to see that the American action film industry was desperately in need of a blood transfusion. The Hong Kong action film was there to provide the service.
And what a service it was. Critics and fans loved the films. Eventually, partially due to the end of independent Hong Kong, the industry as it was known died out. Films like Tsui Hark's KNOCKOFF, an American film starring a faded American star, attempted to pack all of the virtues of an entire industry into one film, ending up with a farce of what the industry once was.
Since that decline, fans and critics have been looking for the "next Hong Kong." Which foreign market will inspire and influence the next wave of American film making. Will it be Korea, Bollywood, Turkey, or an "old world" infusion? No one knows for sure. It could be any one of the above, it could be all of the above. We have already seen considerable influence from all of the above.
There is one cinema that we can be relatively sure won't be the major influence, at least in the near future, for the next great wave of action films. That cinema is the cinema of Thailand. Certainly their films, like those of Tony Jaa, often feature unrelenting action. They are certainly, as was the case for the 1999 Pang Brothers film BANGKOK DANGEROUS, inspired by the Hong Kong industry. But they seemed to lack something that their HK predecessors had in spades -- seriousness. The Thai films sometimes seem to be pushing the limit merely to push the limit, or attempt to be an exaggeration of the operatic tragedy of an HK mobster film.
No place can one see the lack of connection these Thai films are having with American critics, and audiences, than with this month's American remake of BANGKOK DANGEROUS. The film was directed by the directors of the original and it stars a marquee level action actor. Given the proper climate, BANGKOK DANGEROUS would be a successful film if it had the proper combination of desired narrative elements, but it appears that American audiences aren't ready for Thai action.
The box office for the film was miserable, and the film rated only 8% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. The reasons for the negative critical response are varied. Some critics have genuine criticisms that we should take into consideration, others seem to be merely riding the wave of negativity for the sake of being cool and writing an amusing scathing assault in the hopes of being quoted later -- possibly at the Razzies. I'd like to take a look at some of the "creme of the crop" responses to the new BANGKOK DANGEROUS, but first I'd like to offer my thoughts.
What is BANGKOK DANGEROUS? What is it not? And is it any good?
To answer the first question, BANGKOK DANGEROUS is an attempt at a "serious action drama." It is the Pang Brothers' remake of their fairly successful Thai action film from 1999. The 2008 version contains a prototypical, to the point of being cliche, Hong Kong assassin narrative. In these narratives an assassin seeks to leave the world of killing (echoes of the leaving Jiang Hu trope that is central in most Wuxia films) and seeks to live a normal life -- usually to fail in this pursuit. The failure is usually tied to a redemption of the assassin's moral character, the assassin moves from nihilist to hero over the course of the narrative. BANGKOK DANGEROUS follows this narrative to an almost farcical degree. Where the blinding of a character, and the newfound love between the blind girl and the assassin, is a central component of John Woo's THE KILLER, the use of a deaf girl as a redeemer in BANGKOK DANGEROUS is an almost cardboard imitation. It almost falls into parody. Almost. The performance of Cage and the young woman manage to salvage the dynamic, but never manage to make it visceral. The same is true for the majority of the other performances, they are serviceable but lack the depth necessary to bring the film out of the mediocre.
Most of BANGKOK DANGEROUS is well shot and presents a beautiful neon version of the city. The cinematography is almost brilliant in this regard, but an over-commitment to shadows and an overarching blue palette make the film seem murky at times. The overarching blue palette is a trademark of many HK films which often have a misty blue atmosphere. The use of the blue atmospherics once again demonstrate how BANGKOK DANGEROUS is an attempt at imitating the HK magic, but imitation is not art. Like the cinematography, the score seems influenced by prior art and lacks any real originality or power.
What BANGKOK DANGEROUS isn't is the wild romp of never ending action that the trailer hinted the film would be. It's not even close. Yes, there is action, but the action builds naturally and is sharply focused. This part of the narrative is the film at its best, when the trailer makes it look like this is the most farcical portion of the vehicle.
Finally, is the film any good? As you might have guessed from the above comments, BANGKOK DANGEROUS is a film that could have been excellent. It could have been the kind of action film American audiences were looking for, but it seems to lack some quality. It seems to lack spirit or heart. In the end, audiences are given a passable, and predictable, film that is better than an 8% Tomato Meter would lead one to believe. It reminds us that to be "rotten" a film need only be 2 1/2 stars out of five and that's actually not that bad.
Most of the creme of the crop critics seem to agree that the film falls within the 2 1/2 star range, with a few exceptions.
One thing is certain, the film isn't what one might expect from either the 8% Tomato Meter, nor from the film's advertising campaign.
If Danny and Oxide Pang lived within the fictional world of BANGKOK DANGEROUS, the recently released remake of the 1999, an underground business associate might recommend that they hire Kong two groups of people.
As his first assignment, Kong would be asked to make it seem as if Bryan Tyler had died of natural causes. Tyler's score accomplishes two undesirable ends. It manages to suck the life out of any action scene while simultaneously making the personal conflict scenes of the film seem unbearably slow paced. As was the case with his core for BUBBA HO-TEP, Tyler's BANGKOK DANGEROUS score exaggerates the weaknesses of the film it accompanies, rather than helping to overcome them by pulling the proper audio heartstrings. Tyler has done good work on previous films like THE GREATEST GAME EVER PLAYED and CONSTANTINE, so he doesn't deserve a brutal and public death for others to see "as an example."
The company who edited the film previews for BANGKOK DANGEROUS, on the other hand, deserve brutal and public executions that will serve as a lesson to those who make misleading trailers. The trailer made it appear as if BANGKOK DANGEROUS would be the most ridiculous action film since SHOOT 'EM UP, and that is not a connection any filmmaker would desire. SHOOT 'EM UP is 90 minutes of unrelenting violence and is arguably the worst action film ever made, while BANGKOK DANGEROUS is a moderately paced East Asian style neo-noir film that contains moments of action. The majority of the potential audience for what the film actually presented likely wrote the film off upon seeing the trailer.
RATING: 3 out of 5 Stars
John Woo's films had scenes inspired by movie musicals and films from the French New Wave. Tsui Hark introduced Western style special effects to martial arts epics. Jackie Chan's martial arts films were direct descendants of the films of Harold Lloyd, Buster Keaton, and Laurel and Hardy. Ronnie Yu's use of color and isolation of training sequences as dance numbers hinted at the work of Stanley Donen. These were directors who were using inspirations from outside the action genre to feed new life into what had become a stale genre. In all ways, the Hong Kong directors seemed obsessed with pushing the boundary of what action films could offer. And critics and cinephiles were eating it up buffet style.
But like the American action film, the Hong Kong action film was doomed to eventually become a parody of itself. The HK action film industry, and its disciples, was doomed by its very inspiration. By creating an industry dedicated to pushing the limits of action, and what defines action, they set the stage for a tragic fall.
Before we come back to the HK film, lets look at where American actioners where in the early 90s. It is often forgotten that a film like DIE HARD had inserted new life into the American action film. Forgotten because the 90s were filled with derivative, routine, and stale films that provided the formula of action and little genuine action. American offerings in the 90s included HARD TO KILL, which had some freshness with regard to the presentation of martial arts, but soon spiraled into a series of Steven Seagal "Three Word Title" films of little or no merit.
1990 saw the release of weak, and routine, actioners like NAVY SEALS, ANOTHER 48 HOURS and YOUNG GUNS II, even while continuing the wave of fresh films following in the footsteps of DIE HARD. The year is filled with films like KINDERGARTEN COP, TOTAL RECALL, DIE HARD II and PREDATOR II. It should be noted that two of the good actioners of 1990 star Arnold Schwartzenegger, who will play a role in the decline of the action film, and that two are sequels. And we all know how much film franchises benefit from sequelitis.
1991 featured the release of LIONHEART, a film signaling the decline of an action star's cache, OUT FOR JUSTICE -- a "Three Word Title" Seagal film -- HARLEY DAVIDSON AND THE MARLBORO MAN, and POINT BREAK. There are places where one can find critics who are POINT BREAK apologists, the Cinerati website is one of those places, but one doesn't have to look hard at 1991 to see that the American action film industry was desperately in need of a blood transfusion. The Hong Kong action film was there to provide the service.
And what a service it was. Critics and fans loved the films. Eventually, partially due to the end of independent Hong Kong, the industry as it was known died out. Films like Tsui Hark's KNOCKOFF, an American film starring a faded American star, attempted to pack all of the virtues of an entire industry into one film, ending up with a farce of what the industry once was.
Since that decline, fans and critics have been looking for the "next Hong Kong." Which foreign market will inspire and influence the next wave of American film making. Will it be Korea, Bollywood, Turkey, or an "old world" infusion? No one knows for sure. It could be any one of the above, it could be all of the above. We have already seen considerable influence from all of the above.
There is one cinema that we can be relatively sure won't be the major influence, at least in the near future, for the next great wave of action films. That cinema is the cinema of Thailand. Certainly their films, like those of Tony Jaa, often feature unrelenting action. They are certainly, as was the case for the 1999 Pang Brothers film BANGKOK DANGEROUS, inspired by the Hong Kong industry. But they seemed to lack something that their HK predecessors had in spades -- seriousness. The Thai films sometimes seem to be pushing the limit merely to push the limit, or attempt to be an exaggeration of the operatic tragedy of an HK mobster film.
No place can one see the lack of connection these Thai films are having with American critics, and audiences, than with this month's American remake of BANGKOK DANGEROUS. The film was directed by the directors of the original and it stars a marquee level action actor. Given the proper climate, BANGKOK DANGEROUS would be a successful film if it had the proper combination of desired narrative elements, but it appears that American audiences aren't ready for Thai action.
The box office for the film was miserable, and the film rated only 8% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. The reasons for the negative critical response are varied. Some critics have genuine criticisms that we should take into consideration, others seem to be merely riding the wave of negativity for the sake of being cool and writing an amusing scathing assault in the hopes of being quoted later -- possibly at the Razzies. I'd like to take a look at some of the "creme of the crop" responses to the new BANGKOK DANGEROUS, but first I'd like to offer my thoughts.
What is BANGKOK DANGEROUS? What is it not? And is it any good?
To answer the first question, BANGKOK DANGEROUS is an attempt at a "serious action drama." It is the Pang Brothers' remake of their fairly successful Thai action film from 1999. The 2008 version contains a prototypical, to the point of being cliche, Hong Kong assassin narrative. In these narratives an assassin seeks to leave the world of killing (echoes of the leaving Jiang Hu trope that is central in most Wuxia films) and seeks to live a normal life -- usually to fail in this pursuit. The failure is usually tied to a redemption of the assassin's moral character, the assassin moves from nihilist to hero over the course of the narrative. BANGKOK DANGEROUS follows this narrative to an almost farcical degree. Where the blinding of a character, and the newfound love between the blind girl and the assassin, is a central component of John Woo's THE KILLER, the use of a deaf girl as a redeemer in BANGKOK DANGEROUS is an almost cardboard imitation. It almost falls into parody. Almost. The performance of Cage and the young woman manage to salvage the dynamic, but never manage to make it visceral. The same is true for the majority of the other performances, they are serviceable but lack the depth necessary to bring the film out of the mediocre.
Most of BANGKOK DANGEROUS is well shot and presents a beautiful neon version of the city. The cinematography is almost brilliant in this regard, but an over-commitment to shadows and an overarching blue palette make the film seem murky at times. The overarching blue palette is a trademark of many HK films which often have a misty blue atmosphere. The use of the blue atmospherics once again demonstrate how BANGKOK DANGEROUS is an attempt at imitating the HK magic, but imitation is not art. Like the cinematography, the score seems influenced by prior art and lacks any real originality or power.
What BANGKOK DANGEROUS isn't is the wild romp of never ending action that the trailer hinted the film would be. It's not even close. Yes, there is action, but the action builds naturally and is sharply focused. This part of the narrative is the film at its best, when the trailer makes it look like this is the most farcical portion of the vehicle.
Finally, is the film any good? As you might have guessed from the above comments, BANGKOK DANGEROUS is a film that could have been excellent. It could have been the kind of action film American audiences were looking for, but it seems to lack some quality. It seems to lack spirit or heart. In the end, audiences are given a passable, and predictable, film that is better than an 8% Tomato Meter would lead one to believe. It reminds us that to be "rotten" a film need only be 2 1/2 stars out of five and that's actually not that bad.
Most of the creme of the crop critics seem to agree that the film falls within the 2 1/2 star range, with a few exceptions.
One thing is certain, the film isn't what one might expect from either the 8% Tomato Meter, nor from the film's advertising campaign.
If Danny and Oxide Pang lived within the fictional world of BANGKOK DANGEROUS, the recently released remake of the 1999, an underground business associate might recommend that they hire Kong two groups of people.
As his first assignment, Kong would be asked to make it seem as if Bryan Tyler had died of natural causes. Tyler's score accomplishes two undesirable ends. It manages to suck the life out of any action scene while simultaneously making the personal conflict scenes of the film seem unbearably slow paced. As was the case with his core for BUBBA HO-TEP, Tyler's BANGKOK DANGEROUS score exaggerates the weaknesses of the film it accompanies, rather than helping to overcome them by pulling the proper audio heartstrings. Tyler has done good work on previous films like THE GREATEST GAME EVER PLAYED and CONSTANTINE, so he doesn't deserve a brutal and public death for others to see "as an example."
The company who edited the film previews for BANGKOK DANGEROUS, on the other hand, deserve brutal and public executions that will serve as a lesson to those who make misleading trailers. The trailer made it appear as if BANGKOK DANGEROUS would be the most ridiculous action film since SHOOT 'EM UP, and that is not a connection any filmmaker would desire. SHOOT 'EM UP is 90 minutes of unrelenting violence and is arguably the worst action film ever made, while BANGKOK DANGEROUS is a moderately paced East Asian style neo-noir film that contains moments of action. The majority of the potential audience for what the film actually presented likely wrote the film off upon seeing the trailer.
RATING: 3 out of 5 Stars
Friday, September 12, 2008
Biographia Cinerati-philos: Opinions of the "Friends of Cinerati"
SF Signal has an excellent regular feature, entitled Mind Meld, where they ask Science Fiction and Fantasy authors to write their thoughts regarding some subject related to the SF/F industry. The answers give great insight into the minds of some of the leading authors, and upcoming authors, to their fans.
Beginning with this first Biographia Cinerati-philos (to borrow a page from Coleridge who I am certain is rolling over in his grave), or the Life and Opinions of the Friends of Cinerati, we have asked friends of the site to answer a question recently asked on the SF Signal website. Future entries will include additional authors covering a range of subject areas from film and literature to games. There will be no consistent theme which forms the pool of questions, save the interests of the site. The questions will have something to do with popular culture, as will the respondents themselves.
The responses to the question are listed below.
Beginning with this first Biographia Cinerati-philos (to borrow a page from Coleridge who I am certain is rolling over in his grave), or the Life and Opinions of the Friends of Cinerati, we have asked friends of the site to answer a question recently asked on the SF Signal website. Future entries will include additional authors covering a range of subject areas from film and literature to games. There will be no consistent theme which forms the pool of questions, save the interests of the site. The questions will have something to do with popular culture, as will the respondents themselves.
The responses to the question are listed below.
Q: How do you think media tie-in novels affect the genre of sf/f?
Aaron Rosenberg
Media tie-in novels are good for the SF/Fantasy genre for two reasons.
First, they bring in new readers. People who’ve never read SF/F will pick up a Transformers novel or a WarCraft novel because they loved the TV show and the movie or play the game. Then they’ll discover they enjoy reading the genre—they’ll look at similar tie-in novels and may also branch out into original SF/F fiction.
Second, media tie-in novels give the writers a chance to develop worlds, characters, and events more fully. For example, when I wrote the WarCraft book Tides of Darkness I was essentially novelizing the first WarCraft game. But I got to connect events, to offer character insights, and to generally flesh out the storyline from the game, transforming it into a full novel. This is not only great fun to do—and hopefully fun to read—but excellent practice. By doing work like this I get better at developing stories and characters, which translates to my original work as well as to any other tie-in writing I might do. That means that tie-in writers get stronger as writers in general, and help raise the bar for the genre overall. This encourages stronger, sharper, more insightful SF/F novels from everyone, so everyone—especially the reader—benefits.
Aaron Rosenberg has written novels for Star Trek, StarCraft, WarCraft, Warhammer, and Exalted. He also writes roleplaying games, children’s books, and educational books. He lives and works in New York City.
Susan Palwick
In general, anything that limits the number of new ideas in a field -- that decreases inventiveness rather than increasing it -- makes me sad. Of course, some media tie-ins are excellent work in their own right, and they can provide useful steady money for writers. But I'd be happier if creative artists of all sorts (and this is even truer in film, where everything these days seems to be prequels, sequels and remakes, rather than original work) were taking risks and giving us new ideas rather than rehashed old ones. SF/F arguably allows more inventiveness than any other genre, but too much of the material out there is formula of one kind or another.
Susan Palwick is an American science fiction and fantasy writer who began her career by publishing "The Woman Who Saved the World" for Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine in 1985.
Susan Palwick is a Science Fiction and Fantasy author who holds a doctoral degree from Yale. She currently teaches as an associate professor of English at the University of Nevada, Reno. She is the author of three novels (FLYING IN PLACE, THE NECESSARY BEGGAR, and SHELTER) and a collection of short stories entitled (THE FATE OF MICE). She is currently working on her fourth novel, DRIVING TO NOVEMBER, which is historical fantasy set in central Nevada. Her fiction often centers on concepts of identity, belonging, and sense of place.
Matt Forbeck
Tie-in novels lure people who might not otherwise read genre fiction into the science fiction and fantasy aisles of their friendly local bookstores or their favorite internet shop. They expand upon familiar settings (and sometimes plots and characters too) to give readers a new way to experience something—whatever the novel is tied to—that they already love. They encourage reading, and I never see anything wrong with that.
Matt Forbeck has worked full-time on games and fiction since 1989. Projects Matt has worked on have been nominated for 23 Origins Awards and won 12. This includes the Best Roleplaying Game for Deadlands and The Lord of the Rings Roleplaying Game, Best Miniatures Rules for Warzone and The Great Rail Wars, Best Roleplaying Adventure for Independence Day, Best Fantasy Board Game for Genestealer, and Best Short Story for “Prometheus Unwound” from The Book of All Flesh.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Board Game Review: ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK
1982 may well be the "Best Geek Movie Year Ever," but 1981 was certainly the year I truly fell in love with movies. In fact, it may deserve consideration as the "Best Geek Movie Year Ever," and further consideration along those lines will have to be forthcoming. The central question of any such analysis is the following, "Is STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN sufficiently great as a geek movie to displace the following: SCANNERS, THE HOWLING, NIGHTHAWKS, THE HAND, OUTLAND, DRAGONSLAYER, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, CLASH OF THE TITANS, HEAVY METAL, AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON, ENTER THE NINJA, HALLOWEEN II, TIME BANDITS, GHOST STORY, the American release of INGLORIOUS BASTARDS, and not least of all ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK?" That's a pretty significant list to overcome, and it doesn't include the fact that THE EVIL DEAD was premiered in Detroit on October 15th of 1981 (it wasn't officially released until 1983). Nor does it include the fact that 1981 is also the year a number of my other favorite films were released, including: EXCALIBUR, FORT APACHE THE BRONX, THE DOGS OF WAR, THIEF, NIGHTHAWKS, STRIPES, SOUTHERN COMFORT, GALLIPOLI, THE FOX AND THE HOUND, and TAPS.
Most of these movies will pull the strings of anyone who is willing to give into their Primal Screen, and quite a few stand the test of time as "plain old" excellent movies or have like THE FOX AND THE HOUND been the fertile soil that many talented film makers grew from. 1981 was a great year to fall in love with movie theaters, and a cheap $1.00 theater in Sparks, NV that didn't care when a 10 year-old was buying a ticket to see EXCALIBUR was a great place for a life time love affair to begin. It was also a great year to become a John Carpenter fan, while 1996 was a good year to ask oneself "Why do I like John Carpenter again?." Those moments of doubt, which usually come after watching ESCAPE FROM L.A., are usually best cured by ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK. Both feature similar casts and similar stories, but ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK presents its subject matter as an actual possibility while ESCAPE FROM L.A. treats its subject as a joke.
ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK cost around $6 million to make, and raked in approximately $25.2 million in the box office. But in a year where the average movie ticket price was $2.78 (compared to today's $7.08), that's the equivalent of about $65 million today for a $14.5 million cost. Given the film's relative popularity, especially among "geek" audiences, it is no surprise that TSR (at that time a growing gaming company in the United States and the creators of Dungeons and Dragons) would take the plunge and acquire a license to produce a board game based on the film. TSR eventually manufactured a roleplaying game based on the INDIANA JONES franchise.
Gamers have had a long history of railing against licensed games, particularly games based upon a film property. From E.T. for the Atari 2600 to the poorly implemented DR. WHO roleplaying game by FASA, every gamer has his nightmare licensed game story. While it is true that gamers have been the victims of many a bad licensed product, they have also been blessed with some excellent games based on licenses. From West End Games' STAR WARS roleplaying game to the various CONAN based table top roleplaying games, gamers haven't always suffered when a license was involved.
So where does THE ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK board game fall in the spectrum of license based games?
The first thing that strikes a potential player of the game is the sub-par graphic on the box cover (above). One appreciates that TSR did more than simply reuse imagery from the press kit when designing the cover, but the cover doesn't really do much to invite game play. The palette of colors selected is uninspiring and the accuracy of the anatomy of the characters portrayed on the cover leaves something to be desired. If one where to merely judge a game by its cover, the verdict would no be a friendly one to the ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK board game. That said, production values of most games were often low at the time, especially when the game wasn't being produced by one of the major board game manufacturers like Milton Bradley or Parker Brothers.
Looking inside the rulebook one finds the graphics of the product increasing with Erol Otis presenting his version of the Crazies. Otis' work is always a little weird, but his stylings work well for these horrific sewer dwellers -- adding a layer of the almost supernatural.
Complementing the bizarre is a workmanlike illustration by Bill Willingham. Willingham, like Otis, is a fan favorite artist for those D&D players who cut their teeth on the legendary "red box" edition of the game, but Willingham's work here is merely serviceable. It provides a semblance of the tone the game should hope to convey in it's play, and its representation of perspective doesn't push the viewer out of the illustration, but one sees little of Willingham's sizable talent in this piece. One can witness the development of his talent in his 1984 series THE ELEMENTALS.
Graphic presentation is an important component of game presentation, but it is only one factor of game design and often has little to no influence over game play. One receives few if any hints as to actual game play from the art on a box cover or within the rule book. The same cannot be said of the game board itself. While the art on a game board may, or may not, influence the actual mechanics of game play, staring at an image for an hour or so can affect whether you are willing to reopen a game and revisit the content. Good rules, and play, can overcome a bad board, but game board design should be a central consideration for board game design. The board doesn't have to be anything flashy, but it should be presentable. When it comes to illustration, presentable is what ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK offers, but it is the game design elements that begin to hint that this game might be bringing more to the table than the merely passable graphics would have hinted. Notice that there are areas of different colors on the game map. The isle of Manhattan has been divided into areas of different colors. Sometimes such differences are only for show, but in the case of ESCAPE these elements signify how the areas affect gameplay.
ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK falls into the category of "Adventure Board Game." More specifically, it falls into the category of "Early Adventure Board Game." These are games that fall somewhere between traditional track movement board games like CHUTES AND LADDERS and more complex table top gaming like Avalon Hill's BLITZKRIEG. Adventure board games combine traditional board gaming elements with wargame concepts and overlay an additional role playing component. The first of these games is, arguably, TSR's DUNGEON board game. Like a track movement game, adventure board games tend to use some form of randomization for movement on a map. Like traditional wargames, players can specifically target the opponents pieces and attack them. Unlike either of the above, adventure board games players also have encounters with non-player obstacles which must be individually overcome as distinct narrative elements. In other words, the game attacks the player's pieces, or provides narrative moments, which the players must overcome and interact with in order to complete the game. Additionally, players of an adventure board game take on the "role" of the character their piece represents. In the case of DUNGEON, the players take on the roles of fighters, wizards, and elves exploring a dungeon in the quest for gold. In the case of ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK, the players all take on the role of Snake Plisskin -- with only one player representing the "real Snake." That player being the one who finishes the game.
The goal of each player in the game is the same as Snake's mission in the movie. The players are all attempting to find the President and get him off of the criminal infested prison island of Manhattan. Failing that, they are to bring the tape the President was carrying. Failing that...you die, they die, everybody dies.
To find either the President or the Tape, the players must acquire clue cards which contain information as to the possible location of one or the other. They do this my moving around the isle of Manhattan to the various orange colored locations -- places like the Lincoln Center. Movement is determined by two factors. First, the role of two die determines how many "movement points" the player has this turn. Second, each space costs a different number of movement points to pass through. Red spaces, which likely signify dangerous areas where one must move slowly, cost 3 points of movement. Orange spaces, which signify places where one can find clues and/or the President/Tape, cost two spaces of movement. Green and White spaces, which are relatively safe areas, cost only one space of movement to pass through.
If the player ends their turn in an orange location, they find a clue. If they find enough clues, they can find the President or Tape at a location. Regardless of the color of location the character lands upon, and before any clues can be discovered, the player must draw an encounter card, like the Romero card below.
Encounter cards contain information about the areas where the encounter must be engaged. Romero must be engaged no matter which location you are on, but the Cabbie card is only encountered in Orange, White, and Green locations. If you are not on a space where the encounter can happen, you do not encounter that card and can move on about your business of finding the President or Tape. Sometimes it's good to miss encounters, and sometimes it's not so good.
Players don't tend to want to encounter Romero, but they do tend to desire a chat with Cabbie. This brings us to the next component of game play. Once a player has determined that he must engage with an encounter, that player has three options (listed on both the Romero and Cabbie cards). The player can try to avoid the encounter, befriend the encounter, or enter combat with the encounter. If the player succeeds at avoiding the encounter, nothing more happens. If they befriend the encounter, they get to keep the card and use any benefits conferred. If they fail at either of these tasks, they must fight the card but the fight will be more difficult than if they merely chose to fight in the first place. All of these tasks are resolved by rolling a single die and adding any modifiers for weapons and allies. If you lose a combat, you loose a card in your hand. If you have no cards in your hand...you're dead.
Gameplay is simple and fast paced. Figuring out how and where to move is the most complex task of gameplay and adds some interesting strategic decisions. Do you know where the President is, but want to mislead the other players before you grab him and make a run for it? Okay, but you might meet up with Romero or The Duke who are very difficult encounters. Do you risk red areas after you have the President in order to take a more direct route out of New York? Did you roll enough movement points to enter an orange space, and thus be able to attain a clue?
I was surprised at how deep the game play was on this simple adventure board game. More recent games in the genre are more complex and have better graphic representation, but this game is surprisingly fun. It maintains the tone and feel of the subject it is based on, while still being a playable game. It's rare enough that one finds that to be true in licensed games, that one should treasure the moments when one finds a game that accomplishes that small task.
RATING: B- Playable and fun, but not a spectacular addition to a game collection. If you like the movie, and can find the game for under $15.00, snap it up.
Most of these movies will pull the strings of anyone who is willing to give into their Primal Screen, and quite a few stand the test of time as "plain old" excellent movies or have like THE FOX AND THE HOUND been the fertile soil that many talented film makers grew from. 1981 was a great year to fall in love with movie theaters, and a cheap $1.00 theater in Sparks, NV that didn't care when a 10 year-old was buying a ticket to see EXCALIBUR was a great place for a life time love affair to begin. It was also a great year to become a John Carpenter fan, while 1996 was a good year to ask oneself "Why do I like John Carpenter again?." Those moments of doubt, which usually come after watching ESCAPE FROM L.A., are usually best cured by ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK. Both feature similar casts and similar stories, but ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK presents its subject matter as an actual possibility while ESCAPE FROM L.A. treats its subject as a joke.
ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK cost around $6 million to make, and raked in approximately $25.2 million in the box office. But in a year where the average movie ticket price was $2.78 (compared to today's $7.08), that's the equivalent of about $65 million today for a $14.5 million cost. Given the film's relative popularity, especially among "geek" audiences, it is no surprise that TSR (at that time a growing gaming company in the United States and the creators of Dungeons and Dragons) would take the plunge and acquire a license to produce a board game based on the film. TSR eventually manufactured a roleplaying game based on the INDIANA JONES franchise.
Gamers have had a long history of railing against licensed games, particularly games based upon a film property. From E.T. for the Atari 2600 to the poorly implemented DR. WHO roleplaying game by FASA, every gamer has his nightmare licensed game story. While it is true that gamers have been the victims of many a bad licensed product, they have also been blessed with some excellent games based on licenses. From West End Games' STAR WARS roleplaying game to the various CONAN based table top roleplaying games, gamers haven't always suffered when a license was involved.
So where does THE ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK board game fall in the spectrum of license based games?
The first thing that strikes a potential player of the game is the sub-par graphic on the box cover (above). One appreciates that TSR did more than simply reuse imagery from the press kit when designing the cover, but the cover doesn't really do much to invite game play. The palette of colors selected is uninspiring and the accuracy of the anatomy of the characters portrayed on the cover leaves something to be desired. If one where to merely judge a game by its cover, the verdict would no be a friendly one to the ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK board game. That said, production values of most games were often low at the time, especially when the game wasn't being produced by one of the major board game manufacturers like Milton Bradley or Parker Brothers.
Looking inside the rulebook one finds the graphics of the product increasing with Erol Otis presenting his version of the Crazies. Otis' work is always a little weird, but his stylings work well for these horrific sewer dwellers -- adding a layer of the almost supernatural.
Complementing the bizarre is a workmanlike illustration by Bill Willingham. Willingham, like Otis, is a fan favorite artist for those D&D players who cut their teeth on the legendary "red box" edition of the game, but Willingham's work here is merely serviceable. It provides a semblance of the tone the game should hope to convey in it's play, and its representation of perspective doesn't push the viewer out of the illustration, but one sees little of Willingham's sizable talent in this piece. One can witness the development of his talent in his 1984 series THE ELEMENTALS.
Graphic presentation is an important component of game presentation, but it is only one factor of game design and often has little to no influence over game play. One receives few if any hints as to actual game play from the art on a box cover or within the rule book. The same cannot be said of the game board itself. While the art on a game board may, or may not, influence the actual mechanics of game play, staring at an image for an hour or so can affect whether you are willing to reopen a game and revisit the content. Good rules, and play, can overcome a bad board, but game board design should be a central consideration for board game design. The board doesn't have to be anything flashy, but it should be presentable. When it comes to illustration, presentable is what ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK offers, but it is the game design elements that begin to hint that this game might be bringing more to the table than the merely passable graphics would have hinted. Notice that there are areas of different colors on the game map. The isle of Manhattan has been divided into areas of different colors. Sometimes such differences are only for show, but in the case of ESCAPE these elements signify how the areas affect gameplay.
Map of New York City
ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK falls into the category of "Adventure Board Game." More specifically, it falls into the category of "Early Adventure Board Game." These are games that fall somewhere between traditional track movement board games like CHUTES AND LADDERS and more complex table top gaming like Avalon Hill's BLITZKRIEG. Adventure board games combine traditional board gaming elements with wargame concepts and overlay an additional role playing component. The first of these games is, arguably, TSR's DUNGEON board game. Like a track movement game, adventure board games tend to use some form of randomization for movement on a map. Like traditional wargames, players can specifically target the opponents pieces and attack them. Unlike either of the above, adventure board games players also have encounters with non-player obstacles which must be individually overcome as distinct narrative elements. In other words, the game attacks the player's pieces, or provides narrative moments, which the players must overcome and interact with in order to complete the game. Additionally, players of an adventure board game take on the "role" of the character their piece represents. In the case of DUNGEON, the players take on the roles of fighters, wizards, and elves exploring a dungeon in the quest for gold. In the case of ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK, the players all take on the role of Snake Plisskin -- with only one player representing the "real Snake." That player being the one who finishes the game.
The goal of each player in the game is the same as Snake's mission in the movie. The players are all attempting to find the President and get him off of the criminal infested prison island of Manhattan. Failing that, they are to bring the tape the President was carrying. Failing that...you die, they die, everybody dies.
To find either the President or the Tape, the players must acquire clue cards which contain information as to the possible location of one or the other. They do this my moving around the isle of Manhattan to the various orange colored locations -- places like the Lincoln Center. Movement is determined by two factors. First, the role of two die determines how many "movement points" the player has this turn. Second, each space costs a different number of movement points to pass through. Red spaces, which likely signify dangerous areas where one must move slowly, cost 3 points of movement. Orange spaces, which signify places where one can find clues and/or the President/Tape, cost two spaces of movement. Green and White spaces, which are relatively safe areas, cost only one space of movement to pass through.
If the player ends their turn in an orange location, they find a clue. If they find enough clues, they can find the President or Tape at a location. Regardless of the color of location the character lands upon, and before any clues can be discovered, the player must draw an encounter card, like the Romero card below.
Encounter cards contain information about the areas where the encounter must be engaged. Romero must be engaged no matter which location you are on, but the Cabbie card is only encountered in Orange, White, and Green locations. If you are not on a space where the encounter can happen, you do not encounter that card and can move on about your business of finding the President or Tape. Sometimes it's good to miss encounters, and sometimes it's not so good.
Players don't tend to want to encounter Romero, but they do tend to desire a chat with Cabbie. This brings us to the next component of game play. Once a player has determined that he must engage with an encounter, that player has three options (listed on both the Romero and Cabbie cards). The player can try to avoid the encounter, befriend the encounter, or enter combat with the encounter. If the player succeeds at avoiding the encounter, nothing more happens. If they befriend the encounter, they get to keep the card and use any benefits conferred. If they fail at either of these tasks, they must fight the card but the fight will be more difficult than if they merely chose to fight in the first place. All of these tasks are resolved by rolling a single die and adding any modifiers for weapons and allies. If you lose a combat, you loose a card in your hand. If you have no cards in your hand...you're dead.
Gameplay is simple and fast paced. Figuring out how and where to move is the most complex task of gameplay and adds some interesting strategic decisions. Do you know where the President is, but want to mislead the other players before you grab him and make a run for it? Okay, but you might meet up with Romero or The Duke who are very difficult encounters. Do you risk red areas after you have the President in order to take a more direct route out of New York? Did you roll enough movement points to enter an orange space, and thus be able to attain a clue?
I was surprised at how deep the game play was on this simple adventure board game. More recent games in the genre are more complex and have better graphic representation, but this game is surprisingly fun. It maintains the tone and feel of the subject it is based on, while still being a playable game. It's rare enough that one finds that to be true in licensed games, that one should treasure the moments when one finds a game that accomplishes that small task.
RATING: B- Playable and fun, but not a spectacular addition to a game collection. If you like the movie, and can find the game for under $15.00, snap it up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)