Search
Search results
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Wanna Get Lucky? (Lucky O'Toole #1) in Books
Nov 28, 2019
Lucky O'Toole is head of Customer Relations at the splendidly over-the-top Babylon Hotel and Casino complex in Las Vegas. That means she spends all of her time dealing with the gamblers, drunks and high maintenance high rollers as well as dealing with any potential bad publicity. When a cocktail waitress falls out of one of their helicopters and is headline news it is a complication Lucky doesn't need, but as she starts to deal with this latest problem it soon becomes clear it may not have been an accident. Determined to get to the bottom of what is going on she plunges into the seedy world of Vegas behind the bright lights. As if this isn't enough her long-neglected love life starts adding complications all of its own. With the adult film awards and a convention for swingers about to hit the hotel she certainly has her hands full.
This book has it all. It is very funny (and yes I did laugh out loud several times and insist on reading passages out to my wife) with Lucky's self-deprecating humour and sharp sarcastic streak balanced off against the odd ball events that happen that could only be considered routine in Las Vegas. Coonts has a terrifically light touch with both dialogue and prose. I particularly liked the way lucky didn't just answer her phone but 'pushes to talk'. That always made me smile.
There is also a good thriller plot around the fall from the helicopter and who might be responsible and for what reason. Lucky has good reason to suspect everyone, even those she feels she ought to trust as the plot goes to the heart of the power play behind the big casino resorts. Although most of the pieces are in place and it's pretty clear what has happened by just over half way through, it's still fun seeing Lucky use all her contacts and knowledge to round everything up to a satisfying conclusion.
Romance is also a big theme, with Lucky being thrown into a quandary over her love life and friendships. She struggles with this between trying to sort out the main plot line and as the book goes on it becomes more important both to her and the reader, but again Coonts deals with this well and at no point does the narrative bog down in any kind of over-romantic slush but manages to keep everything light but believable.
There is also some personal background for Lucky to deal with, and also her complicated relationship with her mother (who runs an out of town brothel) thrown into the mix to keep everything lively. This is certainly not a boring read.
Despite some of the obvious themes - Lucky's romantic incidents, her mother running a brothel, the adult movie stars and the swingers convention - there is nothing salacious or titillating. Lucky has essentially seen it all before and is far to smart to do anything other than make sardonic comments.
The characterisation is superb. Lucky is a brilliant character, very capable and with her acerbic wit very much to the fore. The supporting cast are no less well drawn, any of them could have carried a book of their own. Tall Texan security man Paxton Dane, occasionally baffled by the detail of how Las Vegas works is a good foil for Lucky as is her best friend Teddie, a female impersonator who looks better in her clothes than she does. The inexperienced Detective Romeo is gifted the arrest by Lucky but doesn't ever feel like he is just a stooge. There are too many more to mention here but each one - staff, guests or anyone else that appears - you get the impression that you are only seeing the smallest snapshot of their larger life.
There are some coincidences and luck in getting the plots to work out but after all, this is Vegas. There is too much fun to be had reading this book to worry about every detail.
Overall this is a terrific book and one that would appeal to anyone who likes a sassy, sharp and sexy story set in the seedy and seamy world of the Strip.
This book has it all. It is very funny (and yes I did laugh out loud several times and insist on reading passages out to my wife) with Lucky's self-deprecating humour and sharp sarcastic streak balanced off against the odd ball events that happen that could only be considered routine in Las Vegas. Coonts has a terrifically light touch with both dialogue and prose. I particularly liked the way lucky didn't just answer her phone but 'pushes to talk'. That always made me smile.
There is also a good thriller plot around the fall from the helicopter and who might be responsible and for what reason. Lucky has good reason to suspect everyone, even those she feels she ought to trust as the plot goes to the heart of the power play behind the big casino resorts. Although most of the pieces are in place and it's pretty clear what has happened by just over half way through, it's still fun seeing Lucky use all her contacts and knowledge to round everything up to a satisfying conclusion.
Romance is also a big theme, with Lucky being thrown into a quandary over her love life and friendships. She struggles with this between trying to sort out the main plot line and as the book goes on it becomes more important both to her and the reader, but again Coonts deals with this well and at no point does the narrative bog down in any kind of over-romantic slush but manages to keep everything light but believable.
There is also some personal background for Lucky to deal with, and also her complicated relationship with her mother (who runs an out of town brothel) thrown into the mix to keep everything lively. This is certainly not a boring read.
Despite some of the obvious themes - Lucky's romantic incidents, her mother running a brothel, the adult movie stars and the swingers convention - there is nothing salacious or titillating. Lucky has essentially seen it all before and is far to smart to do anything other than make sardonic comments.
The characterisation is superb. Lucky is a brilliant character, very capable and with her acerbic wit very much to the fore. The supporting cast are no less well drawn, any of them could have carried a book of their own. Tall Texan security man Paxton Dane, occasionally baffled by the detail of how Las Vegas works is a good foil for Lucky as is her best friend Teddie, a female impersonator who looks better in her clothes than she does. The inexperienced Detective Romeo is gifted the arrest by Lucky but doesn't ever feel like he is just a stooge. There are too many more to mention here but each one - staff, guests or anyone else that appears - you get the impression that you are only seeing the smallest snapshot of their larger life.
There are some coincidences and luck in getting the plots to work out but after all, this is Vegas. There is too much fun to be had reading this book to worry about every detail.
Overall this is a terrific book and one that would appeal to anyone who likes a sassy, sharp and sexy story set in the seedy and seamy world of the Strip.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020
Power-house female lead roles, times 3. (1 more)
John Lithgow (who should have got a supporting actor nom)
Sleazy old Fox.
This is a curious one. I wonder whether the audience reaction to this one will polarize along gender lines as it did for my wife and I? For I thought this one was "good, but nothing special"... but the illustrious Mrs Movie Man thought it was excellent and would be "memorable".
The movie is based on the true story of the first "Me Too" case against a prominent man in power. Before Harvey Weinstein (allegedly!) there was Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), CEO of the Fox Network. Under the shadowy gaze of the Murdoch brothers (Ben Lawson and Josh Lawson), Ailes rules Fox with a rod of iron. Unfortunately, it's Ailes' - ahem - 'rod of iron' that is part of the problem.
Three women are at the centre of the drama. Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) is a leading anchorwoman, fighting her own battles in a man's world. She is currently in trouble with 50% of the US population for taking a firm stand on-screen against Trump's treatment of women; Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is a broadcaster approaching her 50's and being shunted progressively towards the door, via afternoon shows, in favour of 'younger models'; Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) is a keen new-starter, ambitious and keen as mustard to impress her bosses, including Ailes.
The three women seldom interact (a scene in a lift is a study in awkwardness) but are all on different stages of the same journey.
I clearly saw a review which referenced the movie as being "Adam McKay-like" since I went in assuming that McKay ("Vice", "The Big Short") was the director of this one. For that reason, I was puzzled. Yes, there were occasions where the actors broke the 4th wall; and there were little visual tricks (a burned in Fox logo for example) that entertained. But it wasn't the close-to-the-edge roller-coaster of innovation that I have come to expect from a McKay film.
When the titles rolled, it was an "Aha" moment! Actually, the director is the Austin Powers director Jay Roach. Not that he hasn't done drama as well: he did the Bryan Cranston vehicle "Trumbo" a few years back. And another MacKay link is the writer: the screenplay is by Charles Randolph, the writer of "The Big Short".
The leading ladies in this really are leading, with Charlize Theron picking up a well-deserved Best Actress Oscar nomination and Margot Robbie getting the Best Supporting nom. Theron is brilliant in everything she does, and here she is chameleon-like in disappearing into her character. I wasn't as sure about Robbie early in the film, but an excruciating "twirl" for Ailes is brilliantly done and an emotional scene during a date is Oscar-reel worthy.
Great supporting turns come from "The West Wing's" Allison Janney and from Kate McKinnon. McKinnon was the most annoying thing in "Yesterday", as the brash US agent, but here she is effective as the lesbian friend of Kayla.
Holding up the male end (as it were) is a fantastic performance from John Lithgow (surprisingly overlooked during the awards season) and Malcolm McDowell delivering an uncanny Rupert Murdoch.
Overall, the "Me Too" movement has created an earthquake in popular culture. Many more movies featuring strong female leads have appeared in the last few years, and that's great. This is a reminder of the time before that, when men openly used their power to force unwanted sex on employees. And its horrifying and disconcerting to watch.
And it was a good movie. But it just wasn't a "wow" movie for me. A female audience will by definition have more experience of this than a male one. Perhaps there is a sense of 'collective guilt' that we blokes need to work through. And perhaps that's a subconscious reason why I didn't 100% engage with the film. (Though I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I don't have any skeletons in that particular closet!)
(For the graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-bombshell-2020/).
The movie is based on the true story of the first "Me Too" case against a prominent man in power. Before Harvey Weinstein (allegedly!) there was Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), CEO of the Fox Network. Under the shadowy gaze of the Murdoch brothers (Ben Lawson and Josh Lawson), Ailes rules Fox with a rod of iron. Unfortunately, it's Ailes' - ahem - 'rod of iron' that is part of the problem.
Three women are at the centre of the drama. Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) is a leading anchorwoman, fighting her own battles in a man's world. She is currently in trouble with 50% of the US population for taking a firm stand on-screen against Trump's treatment of women; Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is a broadcaster approaching her 50's and being shunted progressively towards the door, via afternoon shows, in favour of 'younger models'; Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) is a keen new-starter, ambitious and keen as mustard to impress her bosses, including Ailes.
The three women seldom interact (a scene in a lift is a study in awkwardness) but are all on different stages of the same journey.
I clearly saw a review which referenced the movie as being "Adam McKay-like" since I went in assuming that McKay ("Vice", "The Big Short") was the director of this one. For that reason, I was puzzled. Yes, there were occasions where the actors broke the 4th wall; and there were little visual tricks (a burned in Fox logo for example) that entertained. But it wasn't the close-to-the-edge roller-coaster of innovation that I have come to expect from a McKay film.
When the titles rolled, it was an "Aha" moment! Actually, the director is the Austin Powers director Jay Roach. Not that he hasn't done drama as well: he did the Bryan Cranston vehicle "Trumbo" a few years back. And another MacKay link is the writer: the screenplay is by Charles Randolph, the writer of "The Big Short".
The leading ladies in this really are leading, with Charlize Theron picking up a well-deserved Best Actress Oscar nomination and Margot Robbie getting the Best Supporting nom. Theron is brilliant in everything she does, and here she is chameleon-like in disappearing into her character. I wasn't as sure about Robbie early in the film, but an excruciating "twirl" for Ailes is brilliantly done and an emotional scene during a date is Oscar-reel worthy.
Great supporting turns come from "The West Wing's" Allison Janney and from Kate McKinnon. McKinnon was the most annoying thing in "Yesterday", as the brash US agent, but here she is effective as the lesbian friend of Kayla.
Holding up the male end (as it were) is a fantastic performance from John Lithgow (surprisingly overlooked during the awards season) and Malcolm McDowell delivering an uncanny Rupert Murdoch.
Overall, the "Me Too" movement has created an earthquake in popular culture. Many more movies featuring strong female leads have appeared in the last few years, and that's great. This is a reminder of the time before that, when men openly used their power to force unwanted sex on employees. And its horrifying and disconcerting to watch.
And it was a good movie. But it just wasn't a "wow" movie for me. A female audience will by definition have more experience of this than a male one. Perhaps there is a sense of 'collective guilt' that we blokes need to work through. And perhaps that's a subconscious reason why I didn't 100% engage with the film. (Though I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I don't have any skeletons in that particular closet!)
(For the graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-bombshell-2020/).
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Veronica Mars (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The incomparable Rob Thomas has delivered a masterpiece of dramatic film that all Veronica Mars fans will thoroughly enjoy.
(Note: I am a rabid fan of the Veronica Mars TV series. Much of the review will be clearly colored by this.)
10 years after the debut of an exceptional TV show, and eight years after it was unceremoniously pulled from the airwaves, Rob Thomas put up a Kickstarter campaign to fund a movie. It had a goal of $2 million, which would get the movie made — but it wouldn’t get us much.
As it turned out, 91,585 people liked his plan to create a film that would wrap up storylines from the series. They liked it enough that rather than pledging just $2 million, the backers generated over $5.7 million.
In the process of doing so, they achieved a number of amazing Kickstarter awards:
Fastest project to reach $1 million.
Fastest project to reach $2 million.
All-time highest-funded project in the FILM category.
Third-highest-funded project in Kickstarter history.
Most project backers of any project in Kickstarter history.
On to the movie itself.
The movies share its title with the TV show: Veronica Mars. It opens with a quick recap of the show’s two-season run before launching forward to a time 10 years after the series ended (intelligently appropriate, Rob).
Veronica (Kristen Bell) is primed to take the bar exam and become a lawyer. For a reason I can’t explain, she is interviewing with a very prestigious law firm in New York City. It’s a firm which, I have to imagine, doesn’t hire people fresh out of school, especially those who haven’t even passed the bar yet.
In the midst of her interviews, she gets a call from an old high school love interest, Logan Echolls (Jason Dohring). He has been accused of murder (again).
Naturally, Veronica decides to pack up, say goodbye to her boyfriend, Stosh “piz” Piznarski (Chris Lowell), and head back to her sunny home town of Neptune, California.
Logan, an Air Force pilot, is relieved to see his friend. He starts bringing her up to speed, and shortly thereafter, the rest of the familiar faces join in: Gia Goodman (Krysten Ritter), Mac (Cindy Majorino), Dick Casablancas (Ryan Hansen), Weevil (Francis Copa), Keith Mars (Enrico Colantoni), Wallace Fennel (Percy Daggs III), and many more that will delight returning viewers.
As you might imagine, a complex series of issues comes to light, creating a symphony of drama, and, in typical Rob-Thomas fashion, some true laugh-out-loud moments.
While this is a great standalone film, it is peppered with many humorous references and nods to the movie’s predecessor. If you are a fan of the series, you won’t be disappointed. There are many giggle-worthy moments: from the guy on the street singing, “we used to be friends,” to Dax Shepard’s appearance, to the mention of Veronica supposedly going to work for the FBI (referring to a potential third season).
My only real note of contention is, admittedly, somewhat petty. Kristen Bell was just recovering from having her child with husband Dax Shepard. The unfortunate (and expected) weight gain from that wonderful life event left her looking very unlike the character we all fell in love with, and distracted from the film. I’m curious to know why they couldn’t have waited a few more months to start filming, to allow Bell to get back into shape for the movie.
Aside from that one tiny note, the film was fantastic. The script was masterfully written, the acting superb, the humor gut-heaving, and the drama well done.
Cinematography for the film was indistinguishable from other high-quality films, and it’s easy to see that a lot of time, effort, and care went into it. Its creators ensured that the $5.7 million of pledges went into a work of art that does not disappoint.
As one of the 91,000+ backers, I am proud to be a part of this community effort. As a huge fan of Thomas, the series, and the mythos, I am ecstatic to report that this is an excellent film.
(Note: I am a rabid fan of the Veronica Mars TV series. Much of the review will be clearly colored by this.)
10 years after the debut of an exceptional TV show, and eight years after it was unceremoniously pulled from the airwaves, Rob Thomas put up a Kickstarter campaign to fund a movie. It had a goal of $2 million, which would get the movie made — but it wouldn’t get us much.
As it turned out, 91,585 people liked his plan to create a film that would wrap up storylines from the series. They liked it enough that rather than pledging just $2 million, the backers generated over $5.7 million.
In the process of doing so, they achieved a number of amazing Kickstarter awards:
Fastest project to reach $1 million.
Fastest project to reach $2 million.
All-time highest-funded project in the FILM category.
Third-highest-funded project in Kickstarter history.
Most project backers of any project in Kickstarter history.
On to the movie itself.
The movies share its title with the TV show: Veronica Mars. It opens with a quick recap of the show’s two-season run before launching forward to a time 10 years after the series ended (intelligently appropriate, Rob).
Veronica (Kristen Bell) is primed to take the bar exam and become a lawyer. For a reason I can’t explain, she is interviewing with a very prestigious law firm in New York City. It’s a firm which, I have to imagine, doesn’t hire people fresh out of school, especially those who haven’t even passed the bar yet.
In the midst of her interviews, she gets a call from an old high school love interest, Logan Echolls (Jason Dohring). He has been accused of murder (again).
Naturally, Veronica decides to pack up, say goodbye to her boyfriend, Stosh “piz” Piznarski (Chris Lowell), and head back to her sunny home town of Neptune, California.
Logan, an Air Force pilot, is relieved to see his friend. He starts bringing her up to speed, and shortly thereafter, the rest of the familiar faces join in: Gia Goodman (Krysten Ritter), Mac (Cindy Majorino), Dick Casablancas (Ryan Hansen), Weevil (Francis Copa), Keith Mars (Enrico Colantoni), Wallace Fennel (Percy Daggs III), and many more that will delight returning viewers.
As you might imagine, a complex series of issues comes to light, creating a symphony of drama, and, in typical Rob-Thomas fashion, some true laugh-out-loud moments.
While this is a great standalone film, it is peppered with many humorous references and nods to the movie’s predecessor. If you are a fan of the series, you won’t be disappointed. There are many giggle-worthy moments: from the guy on the street singing, “we used to be friends,” to Dax Shepard’s appearance, to the mention of Veronica supposedly going to work for the FBI (referring to a potential third season).
My only real note of contention is, admittedly, somewhat petty. Kristen Bell was just recovering from having her child with husband Dax Shepard. The unfortunate (and expected) weight gain from that wonderful life event left her looking very unlike the character we all fell in love with, and distracted from the film. I’m curious to know why they couldn’t have waited a few more months to start filming, to allow Bell to get back into shape for the movie.
Aside from that one tiny note, the film was fantastic. The script was masterfully written, the acting superb, the humor gut-heaving, and the drama well done.
Cinematography for the film was indistinguishable from other high-quality films, and it’s easy to see that a lot of time, effort, and care went into it. Its creators ensured that the $5.7 million of pledges went into a work of art that does not disappoint.
As one of the 91,000+ backers, I am proud to be a part of this community effort. As a huge fan of Thomas, the series, and the mythos, I am ecstatic to report that this is an excellent film.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm (2020) in Movies
Feb 25, 2021
There was some genuine surprise when I saw this had been made as an Amazon Original. I thought the character of Borat was old news, there certainly couldn’t be anyone left, in America or otherwise, that wasn’t wise to the joke by now, and aware of Sasha Baron Cohen’s desire to satirise the hell out of everything dumb folk may stand for. For it to work people have to believe 100% that he is a real person, this is what made the first film so incredible to watch – the opened mouthed awe at the pure audacity of the performer and the pure stupidity of the “victims”. But, I guess he figured a way around it, and also realised that no one but Borat could better lampoon the very worst aspects of the America the Trump era has created.
The point of difference and main gimmick here is introducing his daughter, played with wonderful awareness by Maria Bakalova, using her as a tentative hook for a story and also a sneaky way to fool those who would recognise Borat himself, but not his offspring. Just witness the most excruciating set piece of the film where ex mayor of New York and avid Trump supporting buffoon Rudy Giuliani all but incriminates himself as a rapist. A scene that matches anything the first film offered for maximum can’t-believe-what-I’m-seeing cringe value.
There are those that say they don’t like Borat or find him funny. I have never been sure that is the point, because everytime we do laugh, we immediately have to ask ourselves what we just laughed at and why we did? It is our own prejudices and preconceptions that are been highlighted – this is the “joke”, and it doesn’t require you to like the character or laugh at the more puerile moments – it is asking you to assess the judgements we all make on the values we live with in the world we have created. Liking it or finding it amusing is only necessary when looking at it as an entertainment, but its best aspects are so much more than that.
Myself, I agree, it often isn’t funny, and relies too often on crass elements such as bodily functions and teenage sexual innuendo. In many ways it is awful, but I also see that all of this is part of the cleverness. As a movie it has no peer to compare it to. Nothing else tries to do what these films attempt, so it is difficult to assess it as a work of entertainment or of… art (is it art?). Did I “enjoy” it? I mean, no not really, did I think it had artistic elements worthy of comment? I mean, no. But is it one of the most intelligent and genius commentaries on life in 2020? God damn right it is! There is so much relevance to worthy topics of social and political conversation here that you could spent 3 times the running time of the film talking about it. And more than being funny, that is the point of satire.
Both Baron Cohen and Bakalova are already doing well into award season with it, and good luck to them! They certainly deserve the triple nods they got from the Golden Globes, which is the biggest awards event to recognise comedy as a separate entity. I agree with some critics I have read that speculate this film is so of now that it won’t age well, and in fact come to make less and less sense as we move on and forget what the Trump era was like to live through. Longevity is something I know I look for when awarding high praise, so for that alone I have to knock it down a few points. In conclusion, I admire this acheivement more than I liked or enjoyed it. But I do recommend you see it as soon as possible if you haven’t already, because it is going to get wrinkly very quickly – just like Rudy G.
The point of difference and main gimmick here is introducing his daughter, played with wonderful awareness by Maria Bakalova, using her as a tentative hook for a story and also a sneaky way to fool those who would recognise Borat himself, but not his offspring. Just witness the most excruciating set piece of the film where ex mayor of New York and avid Trump supporting buffoon Rudy Giuliani all but incriminates himself as a rapist. A scene that matches anything the first film offered for maximum can’t-believe-what-I’m-seeing cringe value.
There are those that say they don’t like Borat or find him funny. I have never been sure that is the point, because everytime we do laugh, we immediately have to ask ourselves what we just laughed at and why we did? It is our own prejudices and preconceptions that are been highlighted – this is the “joke”, and it doesn’t require you to like the character or laugh at the more puerile moments – it is asking you to assess the judgements we all make on the values we live with in the world we have created. Liking it or finding it amusing is only necessary when looking at it as an entertainment, but its best aspects are so much more than that.
Myself, I agree, it often isn’t funny, and relies too often on crass elements such as bodily functions and teenage sexual innuendo. In many ways it is awful, but I also see that all of this is part of the cleverness. As a movie it has no peer to compare it to. Nothing else tries to do what these films attempt, so it is difficult to assess it as a work of entertainment or of… art (is it art?). Did I “enjoy” it? I mean, no not really, did I think it had artistic elements worthy of comment? I mean, no. But is it one of the most intelligent and genius commentaries on life in 2020? God damn right it is! There is so much relevance to worthy topics of social and political conversation here that you could spent 3 times the running time of the film talking about it. And more than being funny, that is the point of satire.
Both Baron Cohen and Bakalova are already doing well into award season with it, and good luck to them! They certainly deserve the triple nods they got from the Golden Globes, which is the biggest awards event to recognise comedy as a separate entity. I agree with some critics I have read that speculate this film is so of now that it won’t age well, and in fact come to make less and less sense as we move on and forget what the Trump era was like to live through. Longevity is something I know I look for when awarding high praise, so for that alone I have to knock it down a few points. In conclusion, I admire this acheivement more than I liked or enjoyed it. But I do recommend you see it as soon as possible if you haven’t already, because it is going to get wrinkly very quickly – just like Rudy G.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Swearmints in Tabletop Games
Feb 5, 2021
You know how sometimes you happen to make up a new slang for something and maybe even once or twice it has caught on? At least locally. Well I do not think many of mine have gone anywhere, but now is my chance to make a name for myself as the slang-king in this little mint tin game.
Swearmints is a small card game of voting for the best explanations of silly combination new-slang. The gameplay is familiar but the hilarity is all new.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign launching March 9, 2021, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup choose a Mint Master (the first dealer) and give them the mint tin with the mint cubes inside. Shuffle the cards to create a draw pile. The Mint Master will then deal each player two cards and the game may begin!
During a round each player will consult their two cards, choosing a word from each, and combining the words to make a new phrase. The cards have four words printed on each side so players will have access to 16 total words. Once all players have chosen their new term they will go around the table introducing and explaining their new slang term to the Mint Master. As all players have finished the Mint Master will choose their favorite new term by awarding one mint cube to the winning player. Players may also earn bonus mint cubes for using two alliterative words, and another mint cube for using two rhyming words. A new Mint Master is then crowned around the table and they thusly deal two cards to the players to begin a new round.
Play continues in this fashion until the tin runs out of mint cubes. The player with the most mint cubes is the winner!
Components. This game is a bunch of cards and green translucent cubes in a mint tin. The cards are fine and double-sided. The cubes are also fine. There is no art to speak of in the game, and no theme. So from me, even if this were the final version (which again, I am not sure) the components are all fine and no complaints from me.
The game is obviously a new variation of the Apples to Apples mechanic where one player is the judge and awards the winner with their opinions. This is tried and true and works for so many games. I feel it also works here. This is not at all a difficult game to learn, teach, or play. In fact, I played a very G-rated game of it with my 4-year-old son and he absolutely loved it. Of course, I had to choose appropriate words for him to use, but he technically played the game and played it well.
Swearmints is a small game that can easily fit in a pocket or backpack and be enjoyed by almost all people in all scenarios. Need something to play with Gramps and Grammie over the weekend? Swearmints. Need something to warmup game night with new players to open them up some? Swearmints. Need an icebreaker at work (once work resumes in-person)? Swearmints. There are so many scenarios I can see this being very successful to have on hand and it can be played very innocently or very inappropriately, depending on present company. That’s what makes this a great new spin on the A2A gameplay: its adaptability and portability.
If you are like me, you could always use a little package of excitement in your pocket. Wait. I mean, you could appreciate toting around a small and unassuming little game that can fit many gaming opportunities as they arise. Should you be looking for that little firecracker, then consider backing Swearmints on Kickstarter when the campaign launches in March. You never know when you might need to break it out to ease the tension in the room or to initiate a muggle into the gaming world.
Swearmints is a small card game of voting for the best explanations of silly combination new-slang. The gameplay is familiar but the hilarity is all new.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign launching March 9, 2021, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup choose a Mint Master (the first dealer) and give them the mint tin with the mint cubes inside. Shuffle the cards to create a draw pile. The Mint Master will then deal each player two cards and the game may begin!
During a round each player will consult their two cards, choosing a word from each, and combining the words to make a new phrase. The cards have four words printed on each side so players will have access to 16 total words. Once all players have chosen their new term they will go around the table introducing and explaining their new slang term to the Mint Master. As all players have finished the Mint Master will choose their favorite new term by awarding one mint cube to the winning player. Players may also earn bonus mint cubes for using two alliterative words, and another mint cube for using two rhyming words. A new Mint Master is then crowned around the table and they thusly deal two cards to the players to begin a new round.
Play continues in this fashion until the tin runs out of mint cubes. The player with the most mint cubes is the winner!
Components. This game is a bunch of cards and green translucent cubes in a mint tin. The cards are fine and double-sided. The cubes are also fine. There is no art to speak of in the game, and no theme. So from me, even if this were the final version (which again, I am not sure) the components are all fine and no complaints from me.
The game is obviously a new variation of the Apples to Apples mechanic where one player is the judge and awards the winner with their opinions. This is tried and true and works for so many games. I feel it also works here. This is not at all a difficult game to learn, teach, or play. In fact, I played a very G-rated game of it with my 4-year-old son and he absolutely loved it. Of course, I had to choose appropriate words for him to use, but he technically played the game and played it well.
Swearmints is a small game that can easily fit in a pocket or backpack and be enjoyed by almost all people in all scenarios. Need something to play with Gramps and Grammie over the weekend? Swearmints. Need something to warmup game night with new players to open them up some? Swearmints. Need an icebreaker at work (once work resumes in-person)? Swearmints. There are so many scenarios I can see this being very successful to have on hand and it can be played very innocently or very inappropriately, depending on present company. That’s what makes this a great new spin on the A2A gameplay: its adaptability and portability.
If you are like me, you could always use a little package of excitement in your pocket. Wait. I mean, you could appreciate toting around a small and unassuming little game that can fit many gaming opportunities as they arise. Should you be looking for that little firecracker, then consider backing Swearmints on Kickstarter when the campaign launches in March. You never know when you might need to break it out to ease the tension in the room or to initiate a muggle into the gaming world.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Isla Dorada in Tabletop Games
Jun 24, 2021
I have always wanted to be an explorer. Not that I ever really would: I hate sweating, I need at least daily showers, I’m allergic to all the poison plants, and honestly, walking all that way in boots seems like such a drag. BUT! I will play games about exploring and totally get into the themes and mythos. I love them! How does a 10 year old game about exploring hold up to today’s gaming standards? Read on, weary traveler.
Isla Dorada is a set collection, hand management, bidding, exploration, adventure card and board game from a team of designers including Bruno Faidutti and Alan R. Moon. The players are a cohesive exploration team which has crash landed on an island, and they seek the riches within. To do this, the players will be traveling around the island attempting to satisfy their Destinies and pick up treasures along the way. But not every player wants to go where the others want to go. What to do, what to do…
Follow the setup instructions in the rule book until you have a board with turn tracker discs and the players’ shared totem pawn upon the crash site. Each differently-backed card deck will be shuffled and each player will receive cards drawn from these decks as their starting collection. The youngest player will receive the first player marker and will start the game by placing the totem on a path heading away from the crash site where they would like to go and announce the amount of cards they are willing to bid (even zero cards) in order to convince the party to travel there. The game is now on!
Players will be collecting Adventure cards to be used as currency when bidding on party travel in order to fulfill goals on their personal Destiny cards. When traveling each turn, a turn marker disc will be placed on the location the party has visited in order to track the movements for said Destiny cards, which mostly have lists of areas to be visited. They will also be attempting to avoid certain areas of the island which will trigger their Curse card that awards negative points at the end of the game. During two turns of the game players will be able to draw and choose cards from the Treasure deck that will help award points at game end as well. The winner is the player who best collects a combination of completed Destiny cards, Treasures, money, and considerations for negative points from Curses.
Components. People, Isla Dorada boasts some of the best components in a game we have seen. The totem pawn and Bigfoot/Leviathan pawns are simply amazing. The art throughout the game is mesmerizing and gorgeous. So much attention to little details have gone into this production and the final product is a stunning game that you want to keep playing because the component are just so fabulous.
But the game play? It is awesome with the right game mates. If you can play this with your enthusiastic friends, each turn will be simply exciting and joyous to play. Getting friends and family members to shout at each other their bids to move the party toward Septris instead of Methritis because their Curse card is brutal is downright great entertainment. Watching paths being cut off by the Bigfoot and Leviathan and having people visibly create alternate pathways and tactics can be enjoyable as well.
So do I like this game? Yep! It has beautiful components, is somewhat easy to teach to players of all experience levels, and leaves you satisfied when the game is over. This is not a serial, “play every game night” sort of title, but with the right group and mood, this can be a dynamite experience. If you are looking for a high-energy adventure game with lots of player interaction, set out to find a copy. I do wish you good luck, though, as a copy may be hard to come by. Alas, Purple Phoenix Games gives Isla Dorada a totemic 15 / 18. At least we will always have Kilitiping…
Isla Dorada is a set collection, hand management, bidding, exploration, adventure card and board game from a team of designers including Bruno Faidutti and Alan R. Moon. The players are a cohesive exploration team which has crash landed on an island, and they seek the riches within. To do this, the players will be traveling around the island attempting to satisfy their Destinies and pick up treasures along the way. But not every player wants to go where the others want to go. What to do, what to do…
Follow the setup instructions in the rule book until you have a board with turn tracker discs and the players’ shared totem pawn upon the crash site. Each differently-backed card deck will be shuffled and each player will receive cards drawn from these decks as their starting collection. The youngest player will receive the first player marker and will start the game by placing the totem on a path heading away from the crash site where they would like to go and announce the amount of cards they are willing to bid (even zero cards) in order to convince the party to travel there. The game is now on!
Players will be collecting Adventure cards to be used as currency when bidding on party travel in order to fulfill goals on their personal Destiny cards. When traveling each turn, a turn marker disc will be placed on the location the party has visited in order to track the movements for said Destiny cards, which mostly have lists of areas to be visited. They will also be attempting to avoid certain areas of the island which will trigger their Curse card that awards negative points at the end of the game. During two turns of the game players will be able to draw and choose cards from the Treasure deck that will help award points at game end as well. The winner is the player who best collects a combination of completed Destiny cards, Treasures, money, and considerations for negative points from Curses.
Components. People, Isla Dorada boasts some of the best components in a game we have seen. The totem pawn and Bigfoot/Leviathan pawns are simply amazing. The art throughout the game is mesmerizing and gorgeous. So much attention to little details have gone into this production and the final product is a stunning game that you want to keep playing because the component are just so fabulous.
But the game play? It is awesome with the right game mates. If you can play this with your enthusiastic friends, each turn will be simply exciting and joyous to play. Getting friends and family members to shout at each other their bids to move the party toward Septris instead of Methritis because their Curse card is brutal is downright great entertainment. Watching paths being cut off by the Bigfoot and Leviathan and having people visibly create alternate pathways and tactics can be enjoyable as well.
So do I like this game? Yep! It has beautiful components, is somewhat easy to teach to players of all experience levels, and leaves you satisfied when the game is over. This is not a serial, “play every game night” sort of title, but with the right group and mood, this can be a dynamite experience. If you are looking for a high-energy adventure game with lots of player interaction, set out to find a copy. I do wish you good luck, though, as a copy may be hard to come by. Alas, Purple Phoenix Games gives Isla Dorada a totemic 15 / 18. At least we will always have Kilitiping…
Mick Hucknall recommended Kind of Blue by Miles Davis in Music (curated)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 24, 2020
The epic ensemble cast (1 more)
The direction from Aaron Sorkin
“Trial” is a less wordy triumph for Sorkin
So, "The Trial of the Chicago 7" is one which I was unfortunately unable to catch on its short "Oscar-nom" cinema release, but is now on Netflix. And boy, for older viewers who prefer historical drama over wham-bam action, this is definitely worth the watch.
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Another favourite from the awards season that came with some strong acclaim from amongst friends and trusted reviewers, WWII satire Jojo Rabbit, from the likeable and unique mind of Taika Waititi, was always high on my list as a must see movie.
I have followed the Kiwi’s original output since way back, and always enjoyed his quirky sense of humour and childlike charm. Either Eagle vs Shark or The Flight of the Conchords would have been my first encounter; and by the time of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok I had become a tentative fan. Never entirely bowled over by his style and content in the same way as, say, Wes Anderson (to whom some compare his outlook on the creative world), and never rolling around on the floor in hysterics at his naivety and comedy of manners, nevertheless, I like the guy a lot.
So when I heard he had adapted a fantasy novel about Nazi Germany from the point of view of a child, and would be playing Hitler himself, I knew instantly where he would be pitching this. The idea of it being offensive in any way was not a concern or even a thought, and anyone that did react that way is just… ridiculous and deliberately missing the point for the sake of finding something to be outraged about.
Of course subjects of genocide, political repression and evil existing in the world should and must be treated with a sensitivity to a degree, and amongst the silly lampooning and most extreme moments of satire that care is evident. There are moments of real gravity and tenderness in the mix here, thanks in large to some wonderful performances from the adult actors, notably the ever reliable Sam Rockwell and the increasingly strong and impressive Scarlett Johansson, who picked up her second Oscar nomination for this, after Marriage Story ticked the box for true drama.
The film focuses and relies on young Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo, a happy little boy who sees goodness and light in an ever darkening world around him. Waititi as director works well with kids, placing the idea of charm and likability above acting prowess per se. And that is both the strength and ultimate weakness of this premise. He is charming and likeable, and cute and sweet and very watchable, but his inexperience in front of the camera and ability to find a range of emotions is often tested beyond his tender years, and can therefore break the magic spell that is woven in the best scenes.
The humour itself also doesn’t always hit the mark. Sometimes it is merely amusing rather than something laugh out loud funny, much as an average Mel Brooks film always was. And that can lead to a feel of something uneven and rambling, as the story struggles to find what it really wants to say. In its final moments it does land on an overlying message that leaves you with a winning impression, and you leave feeling that you saw something you enjoyed, but not something you would unreservedly recommend to everyone. In fact if someone said they didn’t enjoy it, or get the joke at all, then I would respect that view.
Under a microscope of scrutiny it doesn’t hold up that well, and I wonder how a few years of distance will treat it, once our sensibilities shift again with time. There are a few moments when the heart of the film connects with it’s silly bone and resonates, but not nearly enough. I personally wanted more of that. But, sadly, whenever JoJo threatens to grow up it retreats back into childhood and shies away from commenting on anything serious or truly meaningful. But, of course, that is not the point. As an entertainment it is a wonderful, unique and lovely film. And that should really be all that it is judged by.
In conclusion, a curiosity I will look forward to watching again, but don’t think quite makes the grade as an instant classic. It only reinforced however how much I like Rockwell and Johansson, and will always be curious about what Waititi is up to next.
I have followed the Kiwi’s original output since way back, and always enjoyed his quirky sense of humour and childlike charm. Either Eagle vs Shark or The Flight of the Conchords would have been my first encounter; and by the time of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok I had become a tentative fan. Never entirely bowled over by his style and content in the same way as, say, Wes Anderson (to whom some compare his outlook on the creative world), and never rolling around on the floor in hysterics at his naivety and comedy of manners, nevertheless, I like the guy a lot.
So when I heard he had adapted a fantasy novel about Nazi Germany from the point of view of a child, and would be playing Hitler himself, I knew instantly where he would be pitching this. The idea of it being offensive in any way was not a concern or even a thought, and anyone that did react that way is just… ridiculous and deliberately missing the point for the sake of finding something to be outraged about.
Of course subjects of genocide, political repression and evil existing in the world should and must be treated with a sensitivity to a degree, and amongst the silly lampooning and most extreme moments of satire that care is evident. There are moments of real gravity and tenderness in the mix here, thanks in large to some wonderful performances from the adult actors, notably the ever reliable Sam Rockwell and the increasingly strong and impressive Scarlett Johansson, who picked up her second Oscar nomination for this, after Marriage Story ticked the box for true drama.
The film focuses and relies on young Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo, a happy little boy who sees goodness and light in an ever darkening world around him. Waititi as director works well with kids, placing the idea of charm and likability above acting prowess per se. And that is both the strength and ultimate weakness of this premise. He is charming and likeable, and cute and sweet and very watchable, but his inexperience in front of the camera and ability to find a range of emotions is often tested beyond his tender years, and can therefore break the magic spell that is woven in the best scenes.
The humour itself also doesn’t always hit the mark. Sometimes it is merely amusing rather than something laugh out loud funny, much as an average Mel Brooks film always was. And that can lead to a feel of something uneven and rambling, as the story struggles to find what it really wants to say. In its final moments it does land on an overlying message that leaves you with a winning impression, and you leave feeling that you saw something you enjoyed, but not something you would unreservedly recommend to everyone. In fact if someone said they didn’t enjoy it, or get the joke at all, then I would respect that view.
Under a microscope of scrutiny it doesn’t hold up that well, and I wonder how a few years of distance will treat it, once our sensibilities shift again with time. There are a few moments when the heart of the film connects with it’s silly bone and resonates, but not nearly enough. I personally wanted more of that. But, sadly, whenever JoJo threatens to grow up it retreats back into childhood and shies away from commenting on anything serious or truly meaningful. But, of course, that is not the point. As an entertainment it is a wonderful, unique and lovely film. And that should really be all that it is judged by.
In conclusion, a curiosity I will look forward to watching again, but don’t think quite makes the grade as an instant classic. It only reinforced however how much I like Rockwell and Johansson, and will always be curious about what Waititi is up to next.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Composure in Tabletop Games
Sep 5, 2019
Sometimes you just identify with something so strongly that you have to respond to the call for action. Such was the case when I was contacted about reviewing Composure. Here’s what hooked me, “We started as just a couple buddies that didn’t think Cards Against Humanity was that funny.” If you know me or my game tastes, you would know that CAH is my ultimate least favorite game of all time. It’s just gross for the sake of being gross. Not a fan at all. So when we were sent Composure, I was hailing it to the group as the CAH-killer. Is it?
In Composure, the name of the game is keeping your composure while discussing subjects that may toe the line of offensive to some people. If you can answer difficult questions with a straight face, you may score VPs in the form of poker chips (included). If not, no chips. In fact, you pay chips to the pot when you laugh or get upset or just break composure.
To setup, deal each player 10 cards and 10 poker chips. You are now ready to play.
To start a round, everyone antes up a chip to the pot. When it is your turn to be the Dealer, you will choose a card from your hand and challenge another player to answer the question or scenario on your chosen card. Try to match up your card with the player you know with whom it will strike a chord and watch the devastation unfold. If anyone breaks composure, pay the pot. If you can answer without breaking composure, the Dealer awards you with chip(s). That’s the game. We just played until we got through our entire hands, but you can house rule end times/rounds.
Components. This game consists of a ton of cards and a ton of poker chips. Mine also came with a glamorous sheer sparkly bag into which I put the chips after playing. The cards are all fine quality, and the chips are standard white plastic poker chips. There really is no “art” to be had aside from the publisher’s logo on the cards and chip stickers. Nobody purchases CAH for the art, so nobody will purchase Composure for the art.
I think it must be me. I think because I toe the line of offensiveness on the daily that people with whom I play games come to expect that I will say something off-color or very dangerously close to offensive. Therefore, when I have played this game, the offensiveness was somewhat eschewed simply by my presence at the table. Don’t get me wrong, I am incredibly inclusive and I love all people, but I’ll probably say something stupid that I expect to be hilarious, but comes across as a little (or a whole ton) harsh and uncaring. That said, my game-mates are immune to this type of carrying on and so the game came across a little flat for us. This is NOT a knock on the game. I think it’s a case of game to gamer mismatch.
So here’s what I think. Composure IS a replacement for CAH for me. But then again, so is 52 Card Pickup. Now, while I do not own CAH, my brother Bryan does and that fills a niche for his collection. I did not have any offensive card games in my collection, so this will suit my needs in that area quite nicely. I don’t like the rudeness of CAH, but I get the same taste from this game without the punishment of having to play the former.
If you are looking for something that comes in an aggressive green color to knock off that disgusting big black box, then this is your game. If I were to house rule some stuff, I would have a discard and replace mechanic so that I can load my hand with group-appropriate cards and not be stuck with stinkers. That said, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a sturdy 6 / 12. If you’re like me, ditch the crap and get yourself a real slightly-offensive card game.
In Composure, the name of the game is keeping your composure while discussing subjects that may toe the line of offensive to some people. If you can answer difficult questions with a straight face, you may score VPs in the form of poker chips (included). If not, no chips. In fact, you pay chips to the pot when you laugh or get upset or just break composure.
To setup, deal each player 10 cards and 10 poker chips. You are now ready to play.
To start a round, everyone antes up a chip to the pot. When it is your turn to be the Dealer, you will choose a card from your hand and challenge another player to answer the question or scenario on your chosen card. Try to match up your card with the player you know with whom it will strike a chord and watch the devastation unfold. If anyone breaks composure, pay the pot. If you can answer without breaking composure, the Dealer awards you with chip(s). That’s the game. We just played until we got through our entire hands, but you can house rule end times/rounds.
Components. This game consists of a ton of cards and a ton of poker chips. Mine also came with a glamorous sheer sparkly bag into which I put the chips after playing. The cards are all fine quality, and the chips are standard white plastic poker chips. There really is no “art” to be had aside from the publisher’s logo on the cards and chip stickers. Nobody purchases CAH for the art, so nobody will purchase Composure for the art.
I think it must be me. I think because I toe the line of offensiveness on the daily that people with whom I play games come to expect that I will say something off-color or very dangerously close to offensive. Therefore, when I have played this game, the offensiveness was somewhat eschewed simply by my presence at the table. Don’t get me wrong, I am incredibly inclusive and I love all people, but I’ll probably say something stupid that I expect to be hilarious, but comes across as a little (or a whole ton) harsh and uncaring. That said, my game-mates are immune to this type of carrying on and so the game came across a little flat for us. This is NOT a knock on the game. I think it’s a case of game to gamer mismatch.
So here’s what I think. Composure IS a replacement for CAH for me. But then again, so is 52 Card Pickup. Now, while I do not own CAH, my brother Bryan does and that fills a niche for his collection. I did not have any offensive card games in my collection, so this will suit my needs in that area quite nicely. I don’t like the rudeness of CAH, but I get the same taste from this game without the punishment of having to play the former.
If you are looking for something that comes in an aggressive green color to knock off that disgusting big black box, then this is your game. If I were to house rule some stuff, I would have a discard and replace mechanic so that I can load my hand with group-appropriate cards and not be stuck with stinkers. That said, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a sturdy 6 / 12. If you’re like me, ditch the crap and get yourself a real slightly-offensive card game.