by Parker Brothers, for 3-8 players (10 in some editions)
If the title means nothing to you now, it should. Pit should be as well-stocked as Scrabble.
Up to eight players participate in this game of rapid trading. For each player, there's one "suit" of a commodity, such as rice, coffee or corn. Each suit contains nine cards. Also joining the mix are a Bull card and a Bear card. The deck is dealt as evenly as possible (two players will always have 10 cards instead of 9). When the dealer says so, the market opens. Each player is trying to trade cards away so they can corner the market with all 9 of a particular commodity.
How do you do it? Suppose you have four of one commodity in your hand, and only pairs of the others. You shout out "two!" repeatedly, indicating you have a pair to trade away. You'll hear the shouts of another player with the same number, lock eyes with them, and hastily switch cards in secret. You continue like this until one player excitedly ends trading, having collected all nine of their desired suit. That player collects the point value on the card. The Bull is a wild card. As such, if you have 8 matching cards, plus the Bull, you win. The Bear subtracts from your score no matter what. But you can trade it with any like set of cards. So three corn and the bear can be traded with a shout of "four! four!" Whoever reaches a pre-determined point total is the winner.
Just think of an entire Thanksgiving dinner party shouting numbers at each other after the food's clear. It's a riot. Pit is virtually the definition of pick-up-and-play. And I heartily recommend the "deluxe version" which comes with the tap bell seen on service counters. Couple spirited yelling with the clanging of the bell, and you have a recipe that will make anyone not playing take notice. Any age can play. Any intoxication can play. I've found six players to be the right amount of chaos. With eight, it's hard to trade beyond the players nearest to you.
*****
I know I once made a derisive remark about games where you trade wheat. I wasn't coming close to talking about a game like this. Pit is raucous, easy to learn, and unlike fluffy getting-to-know-you games that practically TELL you the scorekeeping is for naught, Pit is fun whether you score five points or five million. Try it once, and you'll want to play it again.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Apples to Apples (1999)
by Out of the Box, for at least 4 players
Apples to Apples is a popular non-game party game that's been around for over a decade, providing its followers with hundreds of expansion cards to satiate their wordplay appetites.
The rules are rather simple. Each player (the number of participants is virtually limitless) is dealt a hand of 7 nouns on red cards. These can range from Jesse Ventura to whipped cream to HMOs. One player assumes the rotating role of judge, and draws a green description card. Printed on it is a word, like "gorgeous" or "unusual." Each player throws down a noun. Unaware of the cards' owners, the judge decides which they like best, and that noun's owner keeps the green card. Whoever collects the pre-determined number first is the winner.
The supposed fun of playing Apples to Apples is in the judging. Hey look, the card says beautiful and you said pond scum! Ha ha ha ha ha. The description was gargantuan and the judge picked miniskirt! Ha ha ha ha ha. The people who suggest playing Apples to Apples refer back to all these times when the game was hilarious. They tell us about their "instant win" cards - the nouns so wacky, they'll always pick them as a winner.
Apples is given credit as a social activity - a game for people normally afraid of playing games. It's also cited as a great icebreaker, and I've been part of its use as such. I think you shut yourself off from learning about other people in playing this game. There's an almost total lack of creativity. You have a better shot to breed discussion and learn about people in the rather staid proceedings of Scattergories. If the players are less than verbal, there's nothing about Apples to Apples to coax them out of their shell. Apples to Apples might be the cheap beer of party games. Sure we're all loosening up, but what's this awful taste in our mouths?
The official rules say the last person to lay down their noun is automatically disqualified. This encourages speed, and contributes to the random "fun" of the game. Like what happens with a lot of popular games, most people who own Apples to Apples don't even know the rule exists. Those who do generally toss it out, because they want to keep the warm & fuzzy feeling in the air, and remove any pressure. Between the "aw shucks"-type fun, and a lack of meaningful scorekeeping, Apples to Apples sounds like it belongs in a therapy circle.
I've tried to give this game a fair shake, playing it in crowds of varying sizes and sense of humor. To make things any sort of fun, you have to wring this towel with both hands. Played in earnest, Apples to Apples is a DULL activity. Played carefree, people get enamored with judging in off-the-wall ways. In that atmosphere, you're better off playing a random card right away, hoping the game will end soon.
*¼
I've tried to see the light, but it just isn't there for me. If you have any say in the matter, try to avoid this "game." There are plenty of things to do at a party that provide more abject fun without the comedic heavy lifting Apples seems to require. As it stands, I've come up with more interesting things to do with the cards provided on my own. It's not freeform enough on its own to be really wacky.
For a true pick up and play experience, and a much greater batting average on fun, look no further than my next review.
Apples to Apples is a popular non-game party game that's been around for over a decade, providing its followers with hundreds of expansion cards to satiate their wordplay appetites.
The rules are rather simple. Each player (the number of participants is virtually limitless) is dealt a hand of 7 nouns on red cards. These can range from Jesse Ventura to whipped cream to HMOs. One player assumes the rotating role of judge, and draws a green description card. Printed on it is a word, like "gorgeous" or "unusual." Each player throws down a noun. Unaware of the cards' owners, the judge decides which they like best, and that noun's owner keeps the green card. Whoever collects the pre-determined number first is the winner.
The supposed fun of playing Apples to Apples is in the judging. Hey look, the card says beautiful and you said pond scum! Ha ha ha ha ha. The description was gargantuan and the judge picked miniskirt! Ha ha ha ha ha. The people who suggest playing Apples to Apples refer back to all these times when the game was hilarious. They tell us about their "instant win" cards - the nouns so wacky, they'll always pick them as a winner.
Apples is given credit as a social activity - a game for people normally afraid of playing games. It's also cited as a great icebreaker, and I've been part of its use as such. I think you shut yourself off from learning about other people in playing this game. There's an almost total lack of creativity. You have a better shot to breed discussion and learn about people in the rather staid proceedings of Scattergories. If the players are less than verbal, there's nothing about Apples to Apples to coax them out of their shell. Apples to Apples might be the cheap beer of party games. Sure we're all loosening up, but what's this awful taste in our mouths?
The official rules say the last person to lay down their noun is automatically disqualified. This encourages speed, and contributes to the random "fun" of the game. Like what happens with a lot of popular games, most people who own Apples to Apples don't even know the rule exists. Those who do generally toss it out, because they want to keep the warm & fuzzy feeling in the air, and remove any pressure. Between the "aw shucks"-type fun, and a lack of meaningful scorekeeping, Apples to Apples sounds like it belongs in a therapy circle.
I've tried to give this game a fair shake, playing it in crowds of varying sizes and sense of humor. To make things any sort of fun, you have to wring this towel with both hands. Played in earnest, Apples to Apples is a DULL activity. Played carefree, people get enamored with judging in off-the-wall ways. In that atmosphere, you're better off playing a random card right away, hoping the game will end soon.
*¼
I've tried to see the light, but it just isn't there for me. If you have any say in the matter, try to avoid this "game." There are plenty of things to do at a party that provide more abject fun without the comedic heavy lifting Apples seems to require. As it stands, I've come up with more interesting things to do with the cards provided on my own. It's not freeform enough on its own to be really wacky.
For a true pick up and play experience, and a much greater batting average on fun, look no further than my next review.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Capsule Review Cavalcade: A & P
Let's head back to board games, and check out selections that recently hit the game table around these parts, but missed hitting the review table here:
Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? (2007)
An at-home adaptation of the Jeff Foxworthy FOX game show. The amount of cards gave me the same feeling I have with any trivia game - it looks like I'm being ripped off. But you later realize you'll never see half of what they say in your lifetime. Played at home, your opponents take the role of "the fifth graders" whose proverbial test you can copy off of. To entice them not to sandbag, the game awards each success in that field $1,000. Given the game's $1,000,000 top prize, these awards are basically tiebreakers should two people reach the same plateau. That aside (it hasn't made the game less fun at home), the materials are nice enough, and the idea of the game is one many people get involved in. There's just a built-in enticement to the game's title question. ***¼ The material is a lot more straightforward, and easier, than its TV counterpart, which means a good number of players can march right up the money ladder.
Pop Smarts (1999)
Endless Games presents Pop Smarts, a test of knowledge in various aspects of pop culture. You spin the spinner to help choose a category - either TV, music, movies, books, or the game's wild card category, "pop-pourri." A series of clues are read which are either characters from the same TV show, songs from the same artist, etc. Being first to shout out the answer earns you points - up to 4 if you get it on the first clue. To win, you must answer a question in each of the five topics, and earn at least 25 points.
The category where you name the movie common to the actors listed takes a wild guess to earn top points on. The rules allow only one guess per question, so the first clue is basically useless, unless someone's desperate for points. A game like this lives and dies on the material, and for my money, it isn't very strong. The inclusion of books is curious, because the public's general knowledge of literature tends to be low. The times we played, books were mostly a dead end. The question cards are wider than letter-size paper, and handle awkwardly. Score is kept on dry erase cardboard. The rules page is meant to be conversational and fun, but ends up muddying things. Pop Smarts has minor potential, but really doesn't work if your players have uneven knowledge of pop culture. The method of winning leaves something to be desired as well. **
A to Z (1997)
In a nutshell, A to Z is Scattergories: Speed Edition. Each player is equipped with a plastic board showing each letter of the alphabet. X and Y share a space. On their turn, players shout out answers over a 15 or 30 second period that fit a category from the ubiquitous deck of cards. Every time you're right, you cover the first letter of the answer with a chip. The first player to terminate their entire board wins. Along the way, players can earn a free chip, which helps with the more odd letters. Some rounds have you take chips away from an opponent, rather than add them to your own board. That part made the game drag for us at times, extending the session beyond what felt appropriate. But overall, A to Z is a hit. A very accessible game that hits the same note we love from Outburst and other party games, with superlative materials. ***¾
Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? (2007)
An at-home adaptation of the Jeff Foxworthy FOX game show. The amount of cards gave me the same feeling I have with any trivia game - it looks like I'm being ripped off. But you later realize you'll never see half of what they say in your lifetime. Played at home, your opponents take the role of "the fifth graders" whose proverbial test you can copy off of. To entice them not to sandbag, the game awards each success in that field $1,000. Given the game's $1,000,000 top prize, these awards are basically tiebreakers should two people reach the same plateau. That aside (it hasn't made the game less fun at home), the materials are nice enough, and the idea of the game is one many people get involved in. There's just a built-in enticement to the game's title question. ***¼ The material is a lot more straightforward, and easier, than its TV counterpart, which means a good number of players can march right up the money ladder.
Pop Smarts (1999)
Endless Games presents Pop Smarts, a test of knowledge in various aspects of pop culture. You spin the spinner to help choose a category - either TV, music, movies, books, or the game's wild card category, "pop-pourri." A series of clues are read which are either characters from the same TV show, songs from the same artist, etc. Being first to shout out the answer earns you points - up to 4 if you get it on the first clue. To win, you must answer a question in each of the five topics, and earn at least 25 points.
The category where you name the movie common to the actors listed takes a wild guess to earn top points on. The rules allow only one guess per question, so the first clue is basically useless, unless someone's desperate for points. A game like this lives and dies on the material, and for my money, it isn't very strong. The inclusion of books is curious, because the public's general knowledge of literature tends to be low. The times we played, books were mostly a dead end. The question cards are wider than letter-size paper, and handle awkwardly. Score is kept on dry erase cardboard. The rules page is meant to be conversational and fun, but ends up muddying things. Pop Smarts has minor potential, but really doesn't work if your players have uneven knowledge of pop culture. The method of winning leaves something to be desired as well. **
A to Z (1997)
In a nutshell, A to Z is Scattergories: Speed Edition. Each player is equipped with a plastic board showing each letter of the alphabet. X and Y share a space. On their turn, players shout out answers over a 15 or 30 second period that fit a category from the ubiquitous deck of cards. Every time you're right, you cover the first letter of the answer with a chip. The first player to terminate their entire board wins. Along the way, players can earn a free chip, which helps with the more odd letters. Some rounds have you take chips away from an opponent, rather than add them to your own board. That part made the game drag for us at times, extending the session beyond what felt appropriate. But overall, A to Z is a hit. A very accessible game that hits the same note we love from Outburst and other party games, with superlative materials. ***¾
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Buckner & Garcia - Pac-Man Fever (1982)
I was about to start work on a review of the Donkey Kong Country series. Searching for a title to the article, my brain stumbled upon "Do the Donkey Kong," a song by Buckner & Garcia. Famous for their 1982 top-ten hit "Pac-Man Fever," the duo were signed to cut an album full of video game-related songs, one of which was the aforementioned Donkey Kong track. As the story goes, the guys wanted to release their hit with a more varied selection of pop tunes, but the record company wanted the arcade stuff.
Before listening to this record, and doing the research, I assumed Buckner & Garcia were video game fans desperately looking for another single. I assumed the other seven tracks would be embarrassing attempts to recapture the Pac glory. Once I finally listened to them, I saw there was real songwriting talent behind all the allusions to joysticks.
Track listing:
1 - Pac-Man Fever (3:48)
2 - Froggy's Lament (3:18)
3 - Ode to a Centipede (5:37)
4 - Do the Donkey Kong (4:24)
5 - Hyperspace (4:07)
6 - The Defender (4:02)
7 - Mousetrap (4:00)
8 - Goin' Bezerk (4:17)
The opening track remains a home run, integrating real sound effects from the game into a more-than-capable pop song. Despite being labeled a novelty hit, "Pac-Man Fever" never feels exceptionally goofy. The musicianship is on point, with smooth backing vocals and a hummable melody. My main trepidation with listening to an entire album of these songs was because "Pac-Man Fever" was such a good overall tribute to the arcade era. If every song had such specific reverence to its corresponding video game, this would be a painful half hour.
So on to track two, "Froggy's Lament," which you can probably guess is inspired by the classic cross-the-road game Frogger. The gravelly narration reminds me of the song "Hot Rod Lincoln." It has the makings of a good B-side* to the title track because it's quick and catchy in its own right. The song isn't heavy-handed in referring to the game. No one's talking about quarters or high scores.
"Ode to a Centipede" is next, which switches things up from bouncy pop to a moodier vein. The dueling keyboard and driving piano are reminiscent of many 80s hits in a good way. Spoiling this atmosphere is the bizarre delivery of our singer on cheesy speaking parts. Among other things, he asks the titular centipede if he has Nikes for all of his feet. If "Centipede" took a page from the track before it, and dropped the overt game references, it could have been really cool. At over 5 minutes, it goes on a verse or few too long.
"Do the Donkey Kong" shares too many thematic elements with the title track for my tastes. It's not a bad song, but feels lazy in such close proximity to "Pac-Man Fever." Track five is called "Hyperspace," inspired by the game Asteroids. It too seems to suffer from being another fun and peppy song with well-executed rapid-fire lyrics near so many like it.
"The Defender" made me smile because it sounded like an 80s TV theme song through and through. I can just picture actors turning to the camera with cheeky acknowledgment as their credit appears. It bears repeating, though, that the sequence on this album is a detriment. Played in a row, these songs change just enough to sound fun when enjoyed in the background. Listened to with any attention, they run together. I guess I shouldn't be surprised given the genesis of this album. Their website reported it was turned out in a mere few weeks. But there was promise shown in the early tracks. The songs work better individually than in a collection.
"Mousetrap" keeps the hit coming, unfortunately. "Goin' Bezerk" takes us back to some kind of innovation. It would not sound out of place - stripped of video game lyrics and sound effects of course - among other midtempo 80s love songs. From where I sit, we end the album on a thumbs up.
***
What we basically have are two talented pop writers cornered by a concept. To draw a tortured analogy: none of the songs are gutter balls, but half of them just seem to be after getting to the end of the alley. It's a curious piece of nostalgia with songs other than the hit worth trying.
Little caveat emptor, however: the album was re-released and re-recorded for CD in 1999. That version sounds like one of those karaoke CDs, with the original game samples often replaced, and the music and vocals noticeably different from the slick production of the original "Pac-Man Fever" single.
* For the record, Pac-Man Fever's proper B-side in the 80s was simply an instrumental version.
Before listening to this record, and doing the research, I assumed Buckner & Garcia were video game fans desperately looking for another single. I assumed the other seven tracks would be embarrassing attempts to recapture the Pac glory. Once I finally listened to them, I saw there was real songwriting talent behind all the allusions to joysticks.
Track listing:
1 - Pac-Man Fever (3:48)
2 - Froggy's Lament (3:18)
3 - Ode to a Centipede (5:37)
4 - Do the Donkey Kong (4:24)
5 - Hyperspace (4:07)
6 - The Defender (4:02)
7 - Mousetrap (4:00)
8 - Goin' Bezerk (4:17)
The opening track remains a home run, integrating real sound effects from the game into a more-than-capable pop song. Despite being labeled a novelty hit, "Pac-Man Fever" never feels exceptionally goofy. The musicianship is on point, with smooth backing vocals and a hummable melody. My main trepidation with listening to an entire album of these songs was because "Pac-Man Fever" was such a good overall tribute to the arcade era. If every song had such specific reverence to its corresponding video game, this would be a painful half hour.
So on to track two, "Froggy's Lament," which you can probably guess is inspired by the classic cross-the-road game Frogger. The gravelly narration reminds me of the song "Hot Rod Lincoln." It has the makings of a good B-side* to the title track because it's quick and catchy in its own right. The song isn't heavy-handed in referring to the game. No one's talking about quarters or high scores.
"Ode to a Centipede" is next, which switches things up from bouncy pop to a moodier vein. The dueling keyboard and driving piano are reminiscent of many 80s hits in a good way. Spoiling this atmosphere is the bizarre delivery of our singer on cheesy speaking parts. Among other things, he asks the titular centipede if he has Nikes for all of his feet. If "Centipede" took a page from the track before it, and dropped the overt game references, it could have been really cool. At over 5 minutes, it goes on a verse or few too long.
"Do the Donkey Kong" shares too many thematic elements with the title track for my tastes. It's not a bad song, but feels lazy in such close proximity to "Pac-Man Fever." Track five is called "Hyperspace," inspired by the game Asteroids. It too seems to suffer from being another fun and peppy song with well-executed rapid-fire lyrics near so many like it.
"The Defender" made me smile because it sounded like an 80s TV theme song through and through. I can just picture actors turning to the camera with cheeky acknowledgment as their credit appears. It bears repeating, though, that the sequence on this album is a detriment. Played in a row, these songs change just enough to sound fun when enjoyed in the background. Listened to with any attention, they run together. I guess I shouldn't be surprised given the genesis of this album. Their website reported it was turned out in a mere few weeks. But there was promise shown in the early tracks. The songs work better individually than in a collection.
"Mousetrap" keeps the hit coming, unfortunately. "Goin' Bezerk" takes us back to some kind of innovation. It would not sound out of place - stripped of video game lyrics and sound effects of course - among other midtempo 80s love songs. From where I sit, we end the album on a thumbs up.
***
What we basically have are two talented pop writers cornered by a concept. To draw a tortured analogy: none of the songs are gutter balls, but half of them just seem to be after getting to the end of the alley. It's a curious piece of nostalgia with songs other than the hit worth trying.
Little caveat emptor, however: the album was re-released and re-recorded for CD in 1999. That version sounds like one of those karaoke CDs, with the original game samples often replaced, and the music and vocals noticeably different from the slick production of the original "Pac-Man Fever" single.
* For the record, Pac-Man Fever's proper B-side in the 80s was simply an instrumental version.
Monday, March 7, 2011
The King's Speech (2010)
Starring Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, et al
Rated R, 118 minutes
This is the film that bested "Inception," "True Grit," "Black Swan," "The Social Network" and others for Best Picture.
"The King's Speech" tells us about Prince Albert, Duke of York (Firth), and his crippling speech problems. The public witnessed Berty stammer and pause through an awful speech at Wembley Stadium in 1925. After numerous attempts to correct the problem, he's all but given up. An icy meeting with a therapist named Lionel Logue (Rush) eventually reveals to Berty that there could be a cure. His speech improves, along with his trust for Logue, who tries and tries to discover the psychological issues behind the prince's stammer.
While the Duke deals with diction, his father King George V is dying, and frictions with Hitler and the rest of the world are growing. With his brother out of the picture and marrying his mistress, Berty will ascend to the throne as King Stammerer if he doesn't work quickly.
I've heard "Social Network" described as a movie with trendy modern subject matter that ends up boiling down to classic human elements. The same is true here, albeit flipped chronologically. The locale and time period act more as a backdrop to an enjoyable story about a royal and commoner developing a friendship. Our hero overcomes his demons and makes the world proud. The focus and enjoyment here were such that you forgot some characters even existed as the movie progressed. The comedy elements were welcome, and done well, but mixed oddly for me with the sleepier and more solemn tone other scenes had. The R rating is frankly silly, earned only through scenes where Berty comically swears to get over his stuttering.
I know it's perhaps paint-by-numbers to keep big picture stories simmering and form a more complete film universe. But I don't claim to be a genius of history, and it could have helped here. The office of Britain's prime minister changed "off camera." Having the threat of war overshadowed by Berty's personal struggle makes sense, but didn't make it any less jarring for me in the theater.
There were other story issues I had. In their first session, Logue blasts music in Berty's ears so he's not preoccupied with his stammering while he reads. It's patently obvious this will work, sure; but the camera remains trained on their faces, revealing immediately how well he can speak. Berty storms off with a "souvenir" recording of his voice, and a few scenes later - *gasp* - he plays it back, causing him to recant and embrace the open arms of the doc.
There were two better options from where I sat. They could have shot the two from the back if they insisted on being so slow with the reveal. Alternately, it could have been edited more comedicly, with Berty storming off in one shot, and back on the couch negotiating appointments in the next. I had similar "what if" wonders about how much (or little) we see the Duke actually speak before a crowd.
The shot framing during Logue & Berty's early meetings was screaming to be included in a film textbook. I'm sure the Academy predictably ate it up, even if I was rolling my eyes at it. Other techniques in the film screamed out to me with the same volume; a feeling I'm not used to. Maybe I was biased towards any air of pretension because the movie was set in England, and won Best Picture.
***½
"The King's Speech" was far from a waste of time, lest my words suggest otherwise. I just don't see reason to go back to it any time soon. It was charming. It was pleasant. Was it a big deal?
Rated R, 118 minutes
This is the film that bested "Inception," "True Grit," "Black Swan," "The Social Network" and others for Best Picture.
"The King's Speech" tells us about Prince Albert, Duke of York (Firth), and his crippling speech problems. The public witnessed Berty stammer and pause through an awful speech at Wembley Stadium in 1925. After numerous attempts to correct the problem, he's all but given up. An icy meeting with a therapist named Lionel Logue (Rush) eventually reveals to Berty that there could be a cure. His speech improves, along with his trust for Logue, who tries and tries to discover the psychological issues behind the prince's stammer.
While the Duke deals with diction, his father King George V is dying, and frictions with Hitler and the rest of the world are growing. With his brother out of the picture and marrying his mistress, Berty will ascend to the throne as King Stammerer if he doesn't work quickly.
I've heard "Social Network" described as a movie with trendy modern subject matter that ends up boiling down to classic human elements. The same is true here, albeit flipped chronologically. The locale and time period act more as a backdrop to an enjoyable story about a royal and commoner developing a friendship. Our hero overcomes his demons and makes the world proud. The focus and enjoyment here were such that you forgot some characters even existed as the movie progressed. The comedy elements were welcome, and done well, but mixed oddly for me with the sleepier and more solemn tone other scenes had. The R rating is frankly silly, earned only through scenes where Berty comically swears to get over his stuttering.
I know it's perhaps paint-by-numbers to keep big picture stories simmering and form a more complete film universe. But I don't claim to be a genius of history, and it could have helped here. The office of Britain's prime minister changed "off camera." Having the threat of war overshadowed by Berty's personal struggle makes sense, but didn't make it any less jarring for me in the theater.
There were other story issues I had. In their first session, Logue blasts music in Berty's ears so he's not preoccupied with his stammering while he reads. It's patently obvious this will work, sure; but the camera remains trained on their faces, revealing immediately how well he can speak. Berty storms off with a "souvenir" recording of his voice, and a few scenes later - *gasp* - he plays it back, causing him to recant and embrace the open arms of the doc.
There were two better options from where I sat. They could have shot the two from the back if they insisted on being so slow with the reveal. Alternately, it could have been edited more comedicly, with Berty storming off in one shot, and back on the couch negotiating appointments in the next. I had similar "what if" wonders about how much (or little) we see the Duke actually speak before a crowd.
The shot framing during Logue & Berty's early meetings was screaming to be included in a film textbook. I'm sure the Academy predictably ate it up, even if I was rolling my eyes at it. Other techniques in the film screamed out to me with the same volume; a feeling I'm not used to. Maybe I was biased towards any air of pretension because the movie was set in England, and won Best Picture.
***½
"The King's Speech" was far from a waste of time, lest my words suggest otherwise. I just don't see reason to go back to it any time soon. It was charming. It was pleasant. Was it a big deal?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
