Search
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated The Other Boleyn Girl in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Going into <b>The Other Boleyn Girl</b> I already knew that the historical details weren't very factual, but I had this laying around and needed something both light and set in the past, so I figured this would do nicely. The writing itself is perfectly fine, and mostly, I did enjoy the book. Although, for the first half, it seemed as if everyone only wore red and by the end I got so sick of hearing about Anne's "B" for Boleyn necklace I could scream.
Mary Boleyn, the narrator, is a strange character: sympathetic and of reasonable intelligence one minute, a moronic irritant the next. Personality-wise she went up and down and back and forth. First she was fine not being the King's favorite anymore and seeming to want to leave the court life for the country to be with her children, then she was jealous of a title Anne received, years after the affair between Mary and Henry was over. Possibly this was put in as part of the rivalry between the sisters, but it didn't contextually fit. Her development could have used more work and she didn't mature or change much throughout the whole book, especially between the years 1522 to 1533. I seriously got tired of everybody's patronizing and calling her a fool all the time. They should have just named the book, <b>The Foolish Boleyn Girl</b>. I find it hard to believe Mary was so ignorant the king would have continued to have her as mistress for four years, give or take. She had to offer something other than good looks and being great in the bedroom. Anne herself sure was a piece of work, and even though she was pretty much evil throughout the book, I did still feel sorry for her at the end. Jane Parker was a one-dimensional malicious harpy who wasn't given a reason why she was that way; she was just the resident baddy to the Boleyns. To me, it felt like defamation of character.
Politics and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church were merely mentioned in passing as court life and its primary players took center stage. The whole incest plot, I could have done without. Now if it were the absolute truth then it'd be okay, but since it's highly debatable and based on hearsay, I found it unnecessary and gratuitous. Around the two-thirds mark, the pace let up and it became more sluggish and boring, and it wasn't until the last sixty pages that it recaptured my attention again.
As long as readers know going into this book that the history has been twisted around and invented for pure sensation, then it's fine as a fictional read, but take any "facts" with a grain of salt. While it was an okay read, I didn't love it, but it managed to divert my attention for a few days.
One last note dealing with the fourth question in the Q&A with Philippa Gregory in the back of the book:
<blockquote>How about Mary and Anne's brother, George? Did he really sleep with his sister so that she could give Henry a son?
<i>Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way--she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.</i></blockquote>
Obvious? How in the world is that obvious? You cannot be serious, Ms. Gregory. Now I'm far from an expert in Tudor England, but I cannot imagine that being a common practice. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this time could tell me if that ever happened, because it just boggles my mind that George would be the "<i>obvious choice</i>." Not to mention, who the hell did Anne supposedly kill? I hadn't heard that anywhere. Even my searches are coming up blank.
Mary Boleyn, the narrator, is a strange character: sympathetic and of reasonable intelligence one minute, a moronic irritant the next. Personality-wise she went up and down and back and forth. First she was fine not being the King's favorite anymore and seeming to want to leave the court life for the country to be with her children, then she was jealous of a title Anne received, years after the affair between Mary and Henry was over. Possibly this was put in as part of the rivalry between the sisters, but it didn't contextually fit. Her development could have used more work and she didn't mature or change much throughout the whole book, especially between the years 1522 to 1533. I seriously got tired of everybody's patronizing and calling her a fool all the time. They should have just named the book, <b>The Foolish Boleyn Girl</b>. I find it hard to believe Mary was so ignorant the king would have continued to have her as mistress for four years, give or take. She had to offer something other than good looks and being great in the bedroom. Anne herself sure was a piece of work, and even though she was pretty much evil throughout the book, I did still feel sorry for her at the end. Jane Parker was a one-dimensional malicious harpy who wasn't given a reason why she was that way; she was just the resident baddy to the Boleyns. To me, it felt like defamation of character.
Politics and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church were merely mentioned in passing as court life and its primary players took center stage. The whole incest plot, I could have done without. Now if it were the absolute truth then it'd be okay, but since it's highly debatable and based on hearsay, I found it unnecessary and gratuitous. Around the two-thirds mark, the pace let up and it became more sluggish and boring, and it wasn't until the last sixty pages that it recaptured my attention again.
As long as readers know going into this book that the history has been twisted around and invented for pure sensation, then it's fine as a fictional read, but take any "facts" with a grain of salt. While it was an okay read, I didn't love it, but it managed to divert my attention for a few days.
One last note dealing with the fourth question in the Q&A with Philippa Gregory in the back of the book:
<blockquote>How about Mary and Anne's brother, George? Did he really sleep with his sister so that she could give Henry a son?
<i>Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way--she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.</i></blockquote>
Obvious? How in the world is that obvious? You cannot be serious, Ms. Gregory. Now I'm far from an expert in Tudor England, but I cannot imagine that being a common practice. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this time could tell me if that ever happened, because it just boggles my mind that George would be the "<i>obvious choice</i>." Not to mention, who the hell did Anne supposedly kill? I hadn't heard that anywhere. Even my searches are coming up blank.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 16, 2020 (Updated Jan 16, 2020)
Cutting satire (1 more)
Great ensemble cast
Don't be stupid, be a smarty
Taika Waititi's much discussed movie is an odd beast. Set in a small German town towards the end of the war, Jojo (Roman Griffith Davis), is a young boy indoctrinated with Nazi fervour as a member of the Hitler youth. Together with his rotund and bespectacled friend Yorki (Archie Yates), they are not likely to spread fear into the approaching Allied forces: they are a pair that would be likely to get picked last for 'sides' in a school football match.
Perhaps to bolster his flagging self-esteem, Jojo has an imaginary friend - - Adolf Hitler (played by director Taika Waititi). Hitler provides him with sage - and sometimes foolish - advice. His mother (Scarlett Johansson), as well as obviously being hot and thus obtaining lustful looks from returning troops, is also kindly. She makes up for the absence of Jojo's father, due to the war, with the help of some play-acting and a sooty beard.
But, when alone in the house, Jojo hears noises from upstairs, his world - and his whole belief system - begins to unravel.
Comedies have tip-toed around the sensibilities of World War II in the past, most famously with Mel Brook's "The Producers". I don't think anyone's previously been brave enough to introduce the holocaust into the comedy mix. And - to a degree... we are NOT talking excessive bad taste here - the movie goes there. There's an underlying sharpness to some of the dialogue that - despite not being Jewish myself - nevertheless put my sensibilities on edge: the pit in hell 'set aside for Jews', for example, is filled with not only piranhas... but also bacon.
As a satire lampooning Antisemitism, much of the comedy is slapstick and the anti-Jewish sentiments expressed are deliberately ludicrous. And it's one of my issues I guess with the film. There are some good lines (Rebel Wilson's fanatical Nazi screaming "Let's burn some books" at the students) but some of the slapstick farce just didn't work for me. Sam Rockwell is great as a one-eyed ex-war hero looking for new challenges and exuberant costumes! But a lame gag from him about German Shepherds made me go "What? Really?". And this lessens the impact for me of the satire.
The second half of the film for me was far better, taking a much darker and edgier tone. There's a sudden turn in the film - brilliantly executed - that is truly shocking. This scene is somewhat reminiscent of one in that other great Holocaust comedy, "Schindler's List". It's understated, yet devastating. (Now, before seeing the film I'd heard from other reviews that the film "turned darker" and - based on the trailer - I'd kind of set in my mind what that would be. But I was wrong! So take this comment not as a spoiler, but as an anti-spoiler!).
As the war unravels for Germany, a late re-appearance by the imaginary Hitler is also memorable.
As the young star, Welsh kid Roman Griffith Davis - with no previous acting experience - turns in a star performance. Though to say that the performance ranks alongside the top 5 male performances of 2019 is, I think, overstepping the mark. Scarlett Johansson got a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her role. And I think this is deserved.
Elsewhere in the cast, few seemed to have recognized Thomasin McKenzie's role playing Elsa. The 19 year-old New Zealander really delivered for me. A strong female character, she's vulnerable yet with a will of iron under the surface. She made me really care about the outcome of the story.
Less positive for me is Rebel Wilson. Here she is marginally less annoying than I normally find her in that she's playing a deliberately annoying and unhinged character. But the role seemed largely redundant to me: it didn't add anything to the overall story (unlike Rockwell's - surprising - character arc).
If there was an Oscar for originality - and that WOULD be a good new award category - then this film would be a contender. It's certainly novel: amusing in places; disturbing in others. If you like your comedies on the edge and bit whacky - like "Death of Stalin" - then you will probably enjoy this. I'm not sure it's the best film of the year - and there are probably others I would swap into that Oscars nomination list - but it's still a well-made movie and a recommended watch.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/16/one-manns-movies-film-review-jojo-rabbit-2020/ )
Perhaps to bolster his flagging self-esteem, Jojo has an imaginary friend - - Adolf Hitler (played by director Taika Waititi). Hitler provides him with sage - and sometimes foolish - advice. His mother (Scarlett Johansson), as well as obviously being hot and thus obtaining lustful looks from returning troops, is also kindly. She makes up for the absence of Jojo's father, due to the war, with the help of some play-acting and a sooty beard.
But, when alone in the house, Jojo hears noises from upstairs, his world - and his whole belief system - begins to unravel.
Comedies have tip-toed around the sensibilities of World War II in the past, most famously with Mel Brook's "The Producers". I don't think anyone's previously been brave enough to introduce the holocaust into the comedy mix. And - to a degree... we are NOT talking excessive bad taste here - the movie goes there. There's an underlying sharpness to some of the dialogue that - despite not being Jewish myself - nevertheless put my sensibilities on edge: the pit in hell 'set aside for Jews', for example, is filled with not only piranhas... but also bacon.
As a satire lampooning Antisemitism, much of the comedy is slapstick and the anti-Jewish sentiments expressed are deliberately ludicrous. And it's one of my issues I guess with the film. There are some good lines (Rebel Wilson's fanatical Nazi screaming "Let's burn some books" at the students) but some of the slapstick farce just didn't work for me. Sam Rockwell is great as a one-eyed ex-war hero looking for new challenges and exuberant costumes! But a lame gag from him about German Shepherds made me go "What? Really?". And this lessens the impact for me of the satire.
The second half of the film for me was far better, taking a much darker and edgier tone. There's a sudden turn in the film - brilliantly executed - that is truly shocking. This scene is somewhat reminiscent of one in that other great Holocaust comedy, "Schindler's List". It's understated, yet devastating. (Now, before seeing the film I'd heard from other reviews that the film "turned darker" and - based on the trailer - I'd kind of set in my mind what that would be. But I was wrong! So take this comment not as a spoiler, but as an anti-spoiler!).
As the war unravels for Germany, a late re-appearance by the imaginary Hitler is also memorable.
As the young star, Welsh kid Roman Griffith Davis - with no previous acting experience - turns in a star performance. Though to say that the performance ranks alongside the top 5 male performances of 2019 is, I think, overstepping the mark. Scarlett Johansson got a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her role. And I think this is deserved.
Elsewhere in the cast, few seemed to have recognized Thomasin McKenzie's role playing Elsa. The 19 year-old New Zealander really delivered for me. A strong female character, she's vulnerable yet with a will of iron under the surface. She made me really care about the outcome of the story.
Less positive for me is Rebel Wilson. Here she is marginally less annoying than I normally find her in that she's playing a deliberately annoying and unhinged character. But the role seemed largely redundant to me: it didn't add anything to the overall story (unlike Rockwell's - surprising - character arc).
If there was an Oscar for originality - and that WOULD be a good new award category - then this film would be a contender. It's certainly novel: amusing in places; disturbing in others. If you like your comedies on the edge and bit whacky - like "Death of Stalin" - then you will probably enjoy this. I'm not sure it's the best film of the year - and there are probably others I would swap into that Oscars nomination list - but it's still a well-made movie and a recommended watch.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/16/one-manns-movies-film-review-jojo-rabbit-2020/ )
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Anger Begets Greater Anger”.
What is it? A black-comedy drama. But my fear would be that with such an ‘art-house’ title, it’s going to put a lot of people off… (“I saw ‘Paint Drying in Jackson, Mississippi‘, and that was dull”!). But it really really shouldn’t. FOR THIS IS A GEM OF A MOVIE… and so, so entertaining that two hours just sped by.
Frances McDormand (“Hail Caesar“, “Fargo”) plays a mother – Mildred Hayes – in pain. Her daughter Angela (Kathryn Newton) has been raped, set alight and murdered (so clearly LOL territory!) After ten months and no culprit arrested, she takes things into her own hands by renting the three billboards in question and posting a message to the local police chief, Willoughby (Woody Harrelson, “War for the Planet of the Apes“).
But the popular Chief Willoughby has his own problems, setting many in the town on a collision course with the feisty Mildred as tempers flare. Stoking the flames is the racist, unstable and unpredictable Officer Jason Dixon (Sam Rockwell, “Moon”). The billboard advertiser Red Welby (Caleb Landry Jones, “Get Out“) is uncomfortably caught in the middle of the battle.
In terms of the story, nothing in this film goes in the direction you expect. Willoughby’s reaction to the crisis is extraordinary… in a good way. Dixon’s reaction is also extraordinary for different reasons! Red herrings are scattered throughout the script to further set you off balance.
The film reminded me greatly of “Manchester By The Sea“, and not just because Lucas Hedges (as Mildred’s grieving and uncomfortable son) is again playing a very similar role. There is gut-wrenching drama, but diffused in the blink-of-an-eye by laugh-out-loud dialogue. Whereas “Manchester” could perhaps be described as a drama with black comedy, “Three Billboards” is probably better described as a black comedy with drama. But the comedy is dark, oh, so very dark! Some of the lines are so outrageous (both in terms of language used – very extreme – and the racial/homophobic nature of it) that you are sometimes uncertain whether you should be laughing at all. But it’s been brilliantly balanced and orchestrated.
As I commented in “Battle of the Sexes” the Screen Actors Guild Award for “Best Ensemble Cast” is one of my favourite categories of award, and I thought that film should have been nominated (it wasn’t)! But the ensemble cast in “Three Billboards” is another great example, and this one IS nominated! (Hoorah!)
For this whole town just LIVES AND BREATHES, thanks to the combined efforts of the cast: as well as the lead names, the cast includes Peter Dinklage (“Game of Thrones”) as a diminutive used car salesman; Caleb Landry Jones as Red Welby; Zeljko Ivanek as the police desk sergeant; Amanda Warren (“mother!“) as Mildred’s put-upon co-worker and (particularly) Sandy Martin as Dixon’s wizened and cranky old mother. All are fed with great lines and scenes to bring the story alive.
At the helm is writer/director (and London-born!) Martin McDonagh (“In Bruges”, “Seven Psychopaths”) and he delivers genius. I recently cruelly made fun of the writers of the awful “Pitch Perfect 3” for not coming up with any sort of viable plot. Here I am at the other extreme, in awe of how someone can sit down with a blank piece of paper and come out with this story, these characters and this dialogue. It would be foolish so early in the season to predict the Oscars, but here must be a great candidate for Original Screenplay.
Elsewhere I would see Frances McDormand and Woody Harrelson both as Oscar nominees for Best Actress/Actor and Sam Rockwell is surely a shoe-in for a Best Supporting Actor nomination for this…. I wonder what odds I can get for a win? Jason Dixon (is this perhaps a pun because he always keeps crossing “the line”?!) will I think be one of the most memorable characters for me in the cinema this year: a character you can despise, pity and even strangely admire at stages throughout the two hours. Something that Rockwell balances with consummate skill.
In terms of my one criticism, the script (in my opinion) rather over-eggs the pudding in the last ten minutes, stepping over into actions I didn’t find realistic. It was a nice ending when it came, but not one I felt invested in. So I’m going to put my (rarely used) ‘5-Fad’ back in my pocket, and instead rate this one just a tad lower. But regardless of that, ignore the title and GO AND SEE THIS ONE!
(Just a final note for those severely affected by the subject matter: while there is some significant violence in the film, the rape is not shown – i.e. there are no “flashback” scenes, apart from some – very brief – corpse photos in a folder Willoughby looks through).
Frances McDormand (“Hail Caesar“, “Fargo”) plays a mother – Mildred Hayes – in pain. Her daughter Angela (Kathryn Newton) has been raped, set alight and murdered (so clearly LOL territory!) After ten months and no culprit arrested, she takes things into her own hands by renting the three billboards in question and posting a message to the local police chief, Willoughby (Woody Harrelson, “War for the Planet of the Apes“).
But the popular Chief Willoughby has his own problems, setting many in the town on a collision course with the feisty Mildred as tempers flare. Stoking the flames is the racist, unstable and unpredictable Officer Jason Dixon (Sam Rockwell, “Moon”). The billboard advertiser Red Welby (Caleb Landry Jones, “Get Out“) is uncomfortably caught in the middle of the battle.
In terms of the story, nothing in this film goes in the direction you expect. Willoughby’s reaction to the crisis is extraordinary… in a good way. Dixon’s reaction is also extraordinary for different reasons! Red herrings are scattered throughout the script to further set you off balance.
The film reminded me greatly of “Manchester By The Sea“, and not just because Lucas Hedges (as Mildred’s grieving and uncomfortable son) is again playing a very similar role. There is gut-wrenching drama, but diffused in the blink-of-an-eye by laugh-out-loud dialogue. Whereas “Manchester” could perhaps be described as a drama with black comedy, “Three Billboards” is probably better described as a black comedy with drama. But the comedy is dark, oh, so very dark! Some of the lines are so outrageous (both in terms of language used – very extreme – and the racial/homophobic nature of it) that you are sometimes uncertain whether you should be laughing at all. But it’s been brilliantly balanced and orchestrated.
As I commented in “Battle of the Sexes” the Screen Actors Guild Award for “Best Ensemble Cast” is one of my favourite categories of award, and I thought that film should have been nominated (it wasn’t)! But the ensemble cast in “Three Billboards” is another great example, and this one IS nominated! (Hoorah!)
For this whole town just LIVES AND BREATHES, thanks to the combined efforts of the cast: as well as the lead names, the cast includes Peter Dinklage (“Game of Thrones”) as a diminutive used car salesman; Caleb Landry Jones as Red Welby; Zeljko Ivanek as the police desk sergeant; Amanda Warren (“mother!“) as Mildred’s put-upon co-worker and (particularly) Sandy Martin as Dixon’s wizened and cranky old mother. All are fed with great lines and scenes to bring the story alive.
At the helm is writer/director (and London-born!) Martin McDonagh (“In Bruges”, “Seven Psychopaths”) and he delivers genius. I recently cruelly made fun of the writers of the awful “Pitch Perfect 3” for not coming up with any sort of viable plot. Here I am at the other extreme, in awe of how someone can sit down with a blank piece of paper and come out with this story, these characters and this dialogue. It would be foolish so early in the season to predict the Oscars, but here must be a great candidate for Original Screenplay.
Elsewhere I would see Frances McDormand and Woody Harrelson both as Oscar nominees for Best Actress/Actor and Sam Rockwell is surely a shoe-in for a Best Supporting Actor nomination for this…. I wonder what odds I can get for a win? Jason Dixon (is this perhaps a pun because he always keeps crossing “the line”?!) will I think be one of the most memorable characters for me in the cinema this year: a character you can despise, pity and even strangely admire at stages throughout the two hours. Something that Rockwell balances with consummate skill.
In terms of my one criticism, the script (in my opinion) rather over-eggs the pudding in the last ten minutes, stepping over into actions I didn’t find realistic. It was a nice ending when it came, but not one I felt invested in. So I’m going to put my (rarely used) ‘5-Fad’ back in my pocket, and instead rate this one just a tad lower. But regardless of that, ignore the title and GO AND SEE THIS ONE!
(Just a final note for those severely affected by the subject matter: while there is some significant violence in the film, the rape is not shown – i.e. there are no “flashback” scenes, apart from some – very brief – corpse photos in a folder Willoughby looks through).
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Seasons in Tabletop Games
Jul 6, 2019 (Updated Nov 4, 2021)
I have mentioned before that I have a bad habit. Well several, but this one pertains to board games. You see, I once had a collection of games that I loved, but was pulled into the BGG Auctions and would engage in auctioning off many of games that I deemed of good return value. But then I would start to miss them. And then I would start to reacquire them. Then my wife stepped in and made me see how foolish I was to rid myself of them in the first place. Well, next up in this line is a game I recently reacquired and never should have let go in the first place – Seasons!
Seasons is a fantastical dice rolling, card drafting, hand management game for two to four players. In it, players are sorcerers competing in a legendary magical tournament that spans three years in an attempt to be crowned the next Archmage of the kingdom. As the seasons change, sorcerers may draw power from changing mana sources, and utilizing these sources most efficiently and effectively will earn victory over all. So tighten up your belt and get to casting, young mage!
To setup, follow the rules in the rulebook (there are many steps, and I have feeble and weak fingers) until the table looks somewhat similar to the photo below – except for the obvious oversight in placing the orange cube on the zero space of bonus actions. The main areas of interest are the main game board where the years and seasons are tracked, the Crystal score track, and player board/tableau area. Players will be dealt a hand of nine cards to start, and then draft one card at a time, passing to their neighbor each time, and deciding which three cards they would like to start the game with, and assigning three more cards each into the Library for rounds two and three. The game begins in Winter, and the black cube is placed on the number 1 of the seasons board. The game is now setup and ready to begin with the first player!
Each turn the active player will roll all dice in the current season (this game is setup for two players, so three total dice are used each turn). They will choose one die to use for the turn, and other players will choose theirs. The players then gather the resources present on the die face. These could be element tokens, crystals (VP), summon gauge stars, cards drawn from the deck, or even transmutation powers. Once resources are gained, the active player may then choose to play a card from their hand to their personal tableau, given they have adequate summoning power (the number of cards that can be played) available on their board. The cost to play the card is found under the illustration, and is usually paid in crystals, element tokens, or a combination of both. These Power Cards may allow the player immediate benefits, ongoing benefits, or benefits that may be activated at certain times during the game.
Another option players have from their chosen die is the ability to transmutate. When a player chooses a die with this option, they are able to consult the current season on the main board and exchange element tokens for crystals, depending on the provided exchange system. For example, a player wishing to exchange earth tokens (the green plant) during Winter will be provided with three crystals each, while attempting the same transmutation during Spring will only provide one crystal each.
Once each player has taken their turn to collect their resources, complete their turn actions, and pass onto the next player, the unchosen die is resolved. Each die face also shows a number of dotted pips at the bottom. The number of pips shown on the unchosen die refers to the number of spaces the cube on the main board season tracker is to be moved forward around the board. One pip, one space forward. This could result in the current season continuing or progressing into the next season. When the cube progresses from Fall to Winter, players will collect their cards set aside for year two or three, respectively. These cards are added to their hand and available to be used immediately on their turn. If, however, on their turn a player has little they can do, or simply wish to boost their turn, they may use one of four bonus actions, as printed on their player board. These actions allow the player to trade two element tokens from their reserves for any other two element tokens from the main supply, allow transmutation if the symbol is not present on their chosen die face, increase their summoning gauge by one, or draw two power cards from the deck and choose one to add to their hand instead of drawing one, per their die face. Each player can use three total bonus actions for each game at a cost of crystals for each usage. Certainly a trade-off.
Play continues in this fashion of choosing and resolving dice, playing cards, and transmuting tokens for crystals until the cube has completed its three year journey around the main board. At that time crystals are scored from cards and added to the tracker, with five points deducted for each card remaining in hand and points deducted for the usage of bonus actions. The player with the most crystals at the end of the game is the winner!
Components. I have a lot to say here, but will attempt to be as succinct as I can. The components in Seasons are simply phenomenal. Yes, the boards, cards, and cubes are all fine quality and unimpressive. However, the art style throughout the game and those big chunky dice are the real standouts to me. I mean, who DOESN’T like to roll big, chunky dice? And the player colors? Oh man, I love them! Players can choose orange, purple, gray, or lime green. Those are some great color options, and such a simple upgrade from primary colors used on many other games. The dice are primary colors, but I still enjoy them and I will let it slide. No real complaints on components from me. I have heard complaints about people not vibing on the color choices associate with the elements/energy, but I applaud the mold-breaking here. Why can’t Fall be red and associated with a feather? Why can’t Summer be yellow and associated with a flame? Fire doesn’t always have to be red. Go on, Seasons! Be you!
Our thoughts on each game should never be a surprise. I will say this for Seasons – I believe that when I auctioned it off the first time, part of the reasoning was because I did not fully understand the rules. I was a newer gamer at the time and was lured in by colors and art style (which are still stunning). More than likely I thought I was smarter than I truly am and included all the cards in my first plays instead of heeding the suggestions given by the rulebook for easier first games. Now, being a more seasoned (I couldn’t resist) gamer, I can better appreciate what is in this box. The unique card play, the dice drafting for resources and actions, the progression of time as a result of the rejected die, all come together to make a very solid and different game. I am trying to think my way through my collection to find a parallel that uses all these mechanics together as well as Seasons does and I am finding it difficult. It is so easy to just throw mechanics into a blender and see the goo that results, but everything with Seasons feels right and I am just in love.
Why did I ever get rid of Seasons? I will claim young and dumb, though I wasn’t very young. Do not emulate my decision to shed this one out of your collection. You don’t have a copy? I would recommend visiting your FLGS to see if they might have a copy in stock. It’s a great one, and one that I will treasure from here on out. Purple Phoenix Games officially gives this one an amazingly colorful 5 / 6. I know the others will enjoy it too, but until they play it, I will be giddy with excitement each time I am able to play my copy. Why are you still here? Go get Seasons!
Seasons is a fantastical dice rolling, card drafting, hand management game for two to four players. In it, players are sorcerers competing in a legendary magical tournament that spans three years in an attempt to be crowned the next Archmage of the kingdom. As the seasons change, sorcerers may draw power from changing mana sources, and utilizing these sources most efficiently and effectively will earn victory over all. So tighten up your belt and get to casting, young mage!
To setup, follow the rules in the rulebook (there are many steps, and I have feeble and weak fingers) until the table looks somewhat similar to the photo below – except for the obvious oversight in placing the orange cube on the zero space of bonus actions. The main areas of interest are the main game board where the years and seasons are tracked, the Crystal score track, and player board/tableau area. Players will be dealt a hand of nine cards to start, and then draft one card at a time, passing to their neighbor each time, and deciding which three cards they would like to start the game with, and assigning three more cards each into the Library for rounds two and three. The game begins in Winter, and the black cube is placed on the number 1 of the seasons board. The game is now setup and ready to begin with the first player!
Each turn the active player will roll all dice in the current season (this game is setup for two players, so three total dice are used each turn). They will choose one die to use for the turn, and other players will choose theirs. The players then gather the resources present on the die face. These could be element tokens, crystals (VP), summon gauge stars, cards drawn from the deck, or even transmutation powers. Once resources are gained, the active player may then choose to play a card from their hand to their personal tableau, given they have adequate summoning power (the number of cards that can be played) available on their board. The cost to play the card is found under the illustration, and is usually paid in crystals, element tokens, or a combination of both. These Power Cards may allow the player immediate benefits, ongoing benefits, or benefits that may be activated at certain times during the game.
Another option players have from their chosen die is the ability to transmutate. When a player chooses a die with this option, they are able to consult the current season on the main board and exchange element tokens for crystals, depending on the provided exchange system. For example, a player wishing to exchange earth tokens (the green plant) during Winter will be provided with three crystals each, while attempting the same transmutation during Spring will only provide one crystal each.
Once each player has taken their turn to collect their resources, complete their turn actions, and pass onto the next player, the unchosen die is resolved. Each die face also shows a number of dotted pips at the bottom. The number of pips shown on the unchosen die refers to the number of spaces the cube on the main board season tracker is to be moved forward around the board. One pip, one space forward. This could result in the current season continuing or progressing into the next season. When the cube progresses from Fall to Winter, players will collect their cards set aside for year two or three, respectively. These cards are added to their hand and available to be used immediately on their turn. If, however, on their turn a player has little they can do, or simply wish to boost their turn, they may use one of four bonus actions, as printed on their player board. These actions allow the player to trade two element tokens from their reserves for any other two element tokens from the main supply, allow transmutation if the symbol is not present on their chosen die face, increase their summoning gauge by one, or draw two power cards from the deck and choose one to add to their hand instead of drawing one, per their die face. Each player can use three total bonus actions for each game at a cost of crystals for each usage. Certainly a trade-off.
Play continues in this fashion of choosing and resolving dice, playing cards, and transmuting tokens for crystals until the cube has completed its three year journey around the main board. At that time crystals are scored from cards and added to the tracker, with five points deducted for each card remaining in hand and points deducted for the usage of bonus actions. The player with the most crystals at the end of the game is the winner!
Components. I have a lot to say here, but will attempt to be as succinct as I can. The components in Seasons are simply phenomenal. Yes, the boards, cards, and cubes are all fine quality and unimpressive. However, the art style throughout the game and those big chunky dice are the real standouts to me. I mean, who DOESN’T like to roll big, chunky dice? And the player colors? Oh man, I love them! Players can choose orange, purple, gray, or lime green. Those are some great color options, and such a simple upgrade from primary colors used on many other games. The dice are primary colors, but I still enjoy them and I will let it slide. No real complaints on components from me. I have heard complaints about people not vibing on the color choices associate with the elements/energy, but I applaud the mold-breaking here. Why can’t Fall be red and associated with a feather? Why can’t Summer be yellow and associated with a flame? Fire doesn’t always have to be red. Go on, Seasons! Be you!
Our thoughts on each game should never be a surprise. I will say this for Seasons – I believe that when I auctioned it off the first time, part of the reasoning was because I did not fully understand the rules. I was a newer gamer at the time and was lured in by colors and art style (which are still stunning). More than likely I thought I was smarter than I truly am and included all the cards in my first plays instead of heeding the suggestions given by the rulebook for easier first games. Now, being a more seasoned (I couldn’t resist) gamer, I can better appreciate what is in this box. The unique card play, the dice drafting for resources and actions, the progression of time as a result of the rejected die, all come together to make a very solid and different game. I am trying to think my way through my collection to find a parallel that uses all these mechanics together as well as Seasons does and I am finding it difficult. It is so easy to just throw mechanics into a blender and see the goo that results, but everything with Seasons feels right and I am just in love.
Why did I ever get rid of Seasons? I will claim young and dumb, though I wasn’t very young. Do not emulate my decision to shed this one out of your collection. You don’t have a copy? I would recommend visiting your FLGS to see if they might have a copy in stock. It’s a great one, and one that I will treasure from here on out. Purple Phoenix Games officially gives this one an amazingly colorful 5 / 6. I know the others will enjoy it too, but until they play it, I will be giddy with excitement each time I am able to play my copy. Why are you still here? Go get Seasons!
