Wow, live-action role-playing has gotten intense. And so authentic looking! How very kind of Tom Hanks to lend his gravitas and inescapable likability to a bunch of World War II naval reenactors on their weekend-getaway “crossing the north Atlantic in 1942 dodging U-boats” campaign.
Gamemasters Aaron Schneider — responsible for behind-the-scenes organization and the extraordinary additional step of filming the campaign — and Hanks himself — who wrote the campaign (inspired by C.S. Forester’s novel The Good Shepherd) — are extremely dedicated to realism. They went so far as to build a significant percentage of an apparently historically accurate WWII-era US Navy destroyer, where all the action occurs. I’m no expert on LARPing, but as I understand it, LARPers usually have to rely mostly on realistic costumes and personal props to immerse themselves in their fictional milieu — medieval LARPers, for instance, don’t get to play in a real castle! As you might expect, the costumes and props here are on a par with the beautifully replicated setting, so the experience was surely incredibly immersive. It must have been hugely enjoyable and a lot of fun for the participants.

This campaign takes its title, Greyhound, from the codename of the destroyer, which Hanks’s (A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, Toy Story 4) character commands, leading a multinational convoy protecting a multinational merchant fleet ferrying war supplies to Liverpool. Hanks’s officer is inexperienced, but every time U-boats attack, he throws saving rolls. Hooray! (Or, wait: Is that Dungeons & Dragons? How do LARPers determine who wins a confrontation?) It’s all very exciting, I think. The LARPers are often playing at night, and it’s often difficult to see what’s going on, even given the gamemasters’ adherence to realism. Probably the murkiness is part of the realism — I suppose the Nazis wouldn’t have attacked in the daytime, when it would have been easier for the Allies (and us) to see what was going on. But I question slightly the point of letting us peek into the LARPing action if we can’t really tell what’s happening.

Anyway, the gamers do seem deeply engaged in making the reenactment as bona fide as possible, to the point of not mucking up the gameplay with pointless detours into their characters’ motivations, or wasting time talking about anything other than tactics and battle stuff, or worrying about things like “relevance” or “metaphor” that might bog down the campaign. This is basically Hanks — and a couple of other familiar faces: actors Stephen Graham (Rocketman, Hellboy) and Rob Morgan (The Photograph, Just Mercy) showing themselves to be secret LARPers — playing an elaborate game of Battleship, which is thankfully much better than that movie actually inspired by the classic board game.
Elisabeth Shue (Battle of the Sexes, Chasing Mavericks) shows up for about two seconds at the very beginning — in full-blown 1940s regalia, and good on her for that — to wish Hanks well as he goes off on his little battle weekend with the boys. It’s sweet when friends can endorse each other’s hobbies, even when they can get this elaborate and time-consuming.
Dull, eh?
Well, I can already guess which two seconds of this movie I’ll most enjoy watching…
I think this may be the most idiotic movie review I’ve ever read. Really.
I know I know, I wish film reviews were written like Wirecutter articles, so they could mold seamlessly to my consumer oriented lifestyle. I’ll try to translate the review into that superior, easily digestible format:
—–
The Best Mediocre Tom Hanks Movies
If you’ve got a mild hankering for middling Hanks, look no further. After putting in hundreds of hours watching, thinking, and writing our reviewer has got you covered.
Who Should Watch This
If you don’t enjoy character development, conversations that aren’t about military tactics, well lit scenes, or flawed protagonists facing interesting challenges, consider consuming the online entertainment product entitled Greyhound.
Our Favorite Mediocre Hanks Films
Dragnet, Turner and Hooch, Joe Versus. the Volcano, That Thing You Do!, You’ve Got Mail, The Terminal, The Polar Express, The DaVinci Code, Angels and Demons, Inferno, Larry Crowne, The Circle, Greyhound
The Competition
Saving Private Ryan, Captain Phillips, Master and Commander, Das Boot, Dunkirk, Cloud Atlas, Castaway, Sully
How She Picked and Tested
Our reviewer mentally compared the film to others she has watched and asked herself, “Did I enjoy this? Were the characters and conversations interesting and well acted? Was the plot engaging? Did the cinematography, set design, sound and lighting enhance or diminish the immersion?” Then she expressed her findings via a metaphor that communicated her overall impression of the film.
Why You Should Trust Her
She’s worked as an independent film reviewer for over two decades, written hundreds of reviews, and clearly states her biases up front. If you share her general taste in movies, her opinions and perspective will be of great value.
—–
There, so much better. None of that pesky creativity or personality to worry about. If I had time, I’d include graphs comparing the sound design, special effects, hair and make-up, historical accuracy, and action/conversation ratio on a ten point scale to get objective rankings.
Then I’d just compare the average of those scores to my previously calculated MHT (minimum Hanks threshold) and definitively determine whether the film was worth purchasing for 91 standard human lifetime minutes, factoring in the age reduction and Coronavirus multiplier.
It’s such an obviously superior reviewing format and could easily be adapted for literary and music reviews too. I’ve always suspected that Hamlet was 2% worse than Macbeth, but if someone would just write a Wirecutter review, I could finally know for sure.
Neato.
Is attacking another forum really a defense of a hamfisted review?
There is no attack of another forum here.
Do you get pleasure out of being a drive-by jerk?
The review might have been amusing: except all movies, plays and tv shows would fall under the category of LARPing.
So, this review is really not as clever as the snickering author thinks it is.
I must be missing something because I would have thought that the obvious difference between LARPing and movies, plays and TV shows is that the people who perform in the latter actually expect to get paid while the people who perform in the former are usually considered at best talented amateurs. Like Emma Peel. (Okay, not like Emma Peel, but that point is that they’re not normally expected to collect a paycheck.)
But there I go, siding with the snickering author again — which is really strange considering how often she and I disagree on stuff.
The difference isn’t about amateur vs pro. It’s about crafting a story meant to be enjoyed and digested by a viewer, one that hopefully works on multiple layers, vs having some fun that works only for the participants.
Nope. But thanks for playing!