Search
Search results
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated Goodnight Mister Tom in Books
Nov 7, 2019
In September 1939, as Britain stands on the brink of the war, many young children from the cities are evacuated tot he countryside to escape an imminent German bombardment. Willie Beech, a boy from Deptford who is physically and emotionally abused by his mother, arrives at the home of Tom Oakley, a widower in his sixties who lives in the village of Little Weirwold. The boy is thinly clad, underfed and covered with painful bruises, and believes he is full of sin, a result of his upbringing by his mother, a domineering, insane, God-fearing widow.
"Mister Tom", as William christens his new guardian, is reclusive and bad-tempered, and as such is avoided by the community. Willie lives with him as his Mother wants him to live with someone who is either religious or lives next to a church. Though initially distant, he is touched after discovering William's home-life and treats him with kindness and understanding, helping to educate him. Under his care, William begins to thrive, forming a small circle of friends at school among his classmates including fellow-evacuee Zach. He also becomes proficient in drawing and dramatics. As William is changed by Tom, so is Tom transformed by William's presence in his home. It is revealed that Tom lost his wife and baby son to Scarlatina some 40 years previously, and he has become reclusive because of this.
The growing bond between William and Tom is threatened when William's mother requests that the boy returns to her in the city, telling him she is sick. At first, William thinks this will be a good thing, as he can be helpful to his mother. However, his mother is not pleased to learn the details of his time with Tom, feeling that he has not been disciplined properly. While William has been away, she has become pregnant and had a girl, but is neglecting the baby. After a bad reunion, where his mother becomes furious upon learning the details of her son's life with Tom, abhorring his association with the Jewish Zach among other things, she hits William and puts him in the under-stairs cupboard, chains him to the piping. William regains consciousness briefly to find himself in the cupboard – he has been stripped of his clothes, minus his underwear, and his ankle is twisted. He quietly sobs for Tom, before he falls asleep.
Back in Little Weirwold, Tom has a premonition that something is not right with William. Although he has never travelled beyond his immediate locality, he ventures into London and eventually locates William's neighbourhood of Deptford and his home. He persuades a local policeman to break down the door of the apparently empty home, to be greeted with a vile stench. They find William in the closet with the baby, who had also been locked under the stairs by William's mother and has now died. William is malnourished and badly bruised as he had been locked under the stairs for a number of days. William is hospitalised, but whilst there suffers horrific nightmares and is drugged simply to prevent his screams from disturbing other children. Tom is warned that it is likely that William will be taken to a children's home, and, unable to observe William's distress any longer, kidnaps him from the hospital and takes him back to Little Weirwold.
Back with Mister Tom, William is much damaged by his ordeal and is also blaming himself for the death of his sister as he had not been able to provide enough milk to feed her whilst locked away, and becomes very depressed. Later, when his favourite teacher Annie Hartridge has a baby, William is shocked to learn from Zach that a woman cannot conceive a child on her own, and realises that his mother was having a relationship with a man, even though she had previously told him that it was wrong for unmarried couples to live together or have children together (something which society in general had regarded as unacceptable at this time). Tom is traced by the authorities, who have come to tell William that his mother is dead, having committed suicide. They also offer him a place in a children's home, as they've been unable to trace any other relatives who may have been able to take care of him. Luckily the authorities realise that William has already found a good home and allow Tom to adopt him.
Tom, William and Zach then enjoy a holiday at the seaside village of Salmouth, where they stay in the house of a widow whose sons have been sent out to war. Zach then receives news that his father has been injured by a German bomb in London and he hurries home on the next train saying farewell to all his friends. Unfortunately this is the last time they see him. William later learns that Zach has been killed and is grief-stricken for some time, but his grief is later healed by another recluse, Geoffery Sanderton. Geoffery, a young man who had lost a leg during the war and takes William for private art lessons,recognises the signs of grief and gives William a pipe to paint along with a picture of two smiling young men. One of the men is Geoffery and he tells William about the loss of his own best friend, the other man in the picture and the owner of the pipe. This is when William starts to come to terms with Zach's death. Adding to this, Doctor Little, the village doctor, who was Zach's guardian while he was evacuated, is surprised but pleased when William asks to have Zach's bike. Through learning to ride it, William realises that Zach lives on inside him and he will never forget his wonderful companion that Zach was.
In the months following, William grows closer to Carrie, one of his friends. One night, on returning home to Tom (whom he now calls "Dad"), he thinks back on how much he has changed since arriving in Little Weirwold and realises that he is growing.
Goodnight Mr Tom Wiki.
Goodnight Mr Tom was published by Kestrel in 1981 and later on in that same year in the US by Harper and Row. The book won Author Michelle Magorian the annual Guardian Children's fiction prize. Magorian was also a runner up for the Carnegie Medal. The book has been adapted as a Movie, a play and a musical. The most recent theatrical adaption won the Laurence Olivier award for Best Entertainment.
I came across the book when I was 10/11 years old. I needed the book for English at primary school, since we needed to read the book and complete a series of assignments for our teacher. I have in the subsequent years read and re-read the book. The book is rather good and I recommand it for children from the ages of 9/10 upwards. The book is a good representation of what happened during WW2 in a fictional setting. And William and Mr Tom healing each other from what they both experienced (Tom loosing family to Scarlatina and William being abused by his mother). I give the book an 8/10.
"Mister Tom", as William christens his new guardian, is reclusive and bad-tempered, and as such is avoided by the community. Willie lives with him as his Mother wants him to live with someone who is either religious or lives next to a church. Though initially distant, he is touched after discovering William's home-life and treats him with kindness and understanding, helping to educate him. Under his care, William begins to thrive, forming a small circle of friends at school among his classmates including fellow-evacuee Zach. He also becomes proficient in drawing and dramatics. As William is changed by Tom, so is Tom transformed by William's presence in his home. It is revealed that Tom lost his wife and baby son to Scarlatina some 40 years previously, and he has become reclusive because of this.
The growing bond between William and Tom is threatened when William's mother requests that the boy returns to her in the city, telling him she is sick. At first, William thinks this will be a good thing, as he can be helpful to his mother. However, his mother is not pleased to learn the details of his time with Tom, feeling that he has not been disciplined properly. While William has been away, she has become pregnant and had a girl, but is neglecting the baby. After a bad reunion, where his mother becomes furious upon learning the details of her son's life with Tom, abhorring his association with the Jewish Zach among other things, she hits William and puts him in the under-stairs cupboard, chains him to the piping. William regains consciousness briefly to find himself in the cupboard – he has been stripped of his clothes, minus his underwear, and his ankle is twisted. He quietly sobs for Tom, before he falls asleep.
Back in Little Weirwold, Tom has a premonition that something is not right with William. Although he has never travelled beyond his immediate locality, he ventures into London and eventually locates William's neighbourhood of Deptford and his home. He persuades a local policeman to break down the door of the apparently empty home, to be greeted with a vile stench. They find William in the closet with the baby, who had also been locked under the stairs by William's mother and has now died. William is malnourished and badly bruised as he had been locked under the stairs for a number of days. William is hospitalised, but whilst there suffers horrific nightmares and is drugged simply to prevent his screams from disturbing other children. Tom is warned that it is likely that William will be taken to a children's home, and, unable to observe William's distress any longer, kidnaps him from the hospital and takes him back to Little Weirwold.
Back with Mister Tom, William is much damaged by his ordeal and is also blaming himself for the death of his sister as he had not been able to provide enough milk to feed her whilst locked away, and becomes very depressed. Later, when his favourite teacher Annie Hartridge has a baby, William is shocked to learn from Zach that a woman cannot conceive a child on her own, and realises that his mother was having a relationship with a man, even though she had previously told him that it was wrong for unmarried couples to live together or have children together (something which society in general had regarded as unacceptable at this time). Tom is traced by the authorities, who have come to tell William that his mother is dead, having committed suicide. They also offer him a place in a children's home, as they've been unable to trace any other relatives who may have been able to take care of him. Luckily the authorities realise that William has already found a good home and allow Tom to adopt him.
Tom, William and Zach then enjoy a holiday at the seaside village of Salmouth, where they stay in the house of a widow whose sons have been sent out to war. Zach then receives news that his father has been injured by a German bomb in London and he hurries home on the next train saying farewell to all his friends. Unfortunately this is the last time they see him. William later learns that Zach has been killed and is grief-stricken for some time, but his grief is later healed by another recluse, Geoffery Sanderton. Geoffery, a young man who had lost a leg during the war and takes William for private art lessons,recognises the signs of grief and gives William a pipe to paint along with a picture of two smiling young men. One of the men is Geoffery and he tells William about the loss of his own best friend, the other man in the picture and the owner of the pipe. This is when William starts to come to terms with Zach's death. Adding to this, Doctor Little, the village doctor, who was Zach's guardian while he was evacuated, is surprised but pleased when William asks to have Zach's bike. Through learning to ride it, William realises that Zach lives on inside him and he will never forget his wonderful companion that Zach was.
In the months following, William grows closer to Carrie, one of his friends. One night, on returning home to Tom (whom he now calls "Dad"), he thinks back on how much he has changed since arriving in Little Weirwold and realises that he is growing.
Goodnight Mr Tom Wiki.
Goodnight Mr Tom was published by Kestrel in 1981 and later on in that same year in the US by Harper and Row. The book won Author Michelle Magorian the annual Guardian Children's fiction prize. Magorian was also a runner up for the Carnegie Medal. The book has been adapted as a Movie, a play and a musical. The most recent theatrical adaption won the Laurence Olivier award for Best Entertainment.
I came across the book when I was 10/11 years old. I needed the book for English at primary school, since we needed to read the book and complete a series of assignments for our teacher. I have in the subsequent years read and re-read the book. The book is rather good and I recommand it for children from the ages of 9/10 upwards. The book is a good representation of what happened during WW2 in a fictional setting. And William and Mr Tom healing each other from what they both experienced (Tom loosing family to Scarlatina and William being abused by his mother). I give the book an 8/10.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Peak Oil Profiteer in Tabletop Games
Jun 11, 2021
One of the most important energy resources in the world is oil. We have a finite amount, it is used in our everyday lives, and it is always in demand. So imagine if a country found a new supply of oil – everyone would be fighting for a piece! Enter Peak Oil Profiteer, a game that puts you in charge of an oil corporation vying for money and oil in this new-found oil vein. Sound like something you might be interested in? Keep reading and see what it’s all about!
Disclaimer: For this preview, we played the Tabletopia version of the game. The pictures you will see below are screenshots from my plays online. Also, I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook, but rather provide a general overview of the rules and gameplay. For a more in-depth look, check it out when it hits Kickstarter! -L
Peak Oil Profiteer is an economic game of area majority/movement, network building, and simultaneous action selection in which players take on the roles of oil corporations competing to make the most money in an oil-rich country before corruption overtakes the land. There is a power struggle between 3 Factions, so play your cards right (literally) to come out ahead. To setup for a game, set the board in the middle of the table, populate the 3 Faction Tracks with their corresponding cubes, place the Corruption cube on 93%, create the Contingency deck (as described in the rules), shuffle the Blackmail deck, and give each player their 5 Action cards, starting Money, and 3 Pawns in their color. Flip all 9 Leader tokens face-down, shuffle them, and randomly give one to each player, placing the remaining Leader tokens face-up near the board.
The game is played over a series of rounds. At the start of every round, one card from the Contingency deck will be revealed/resolved. Contingency cards will either be Events (that will most likely alter the rules for the current round), or Consultants (to be ‘hired’ by an individual player for special abilities). Once the Contingency card has been dealt with, the round moves to the next phase: Action Selection. All players have the same 5 Action cards, numbered 1-5, available to them every round. Players will select one of their 5 Action cards and place it face-down in front of them. Then, in numerical order, all Action cards will be resolved. When your Action number has been called, you will reveal your Action card, perform the corresponding action, and take the card back into your hand. Once all players have performed their Action for the round, check the Corruption track – if it has reached 100% then the game ends, and if not then the game moves to a new round.
The 5 Actions available to all player are: 1. Networking, 2. Sell Weapons, 3. Buy Drilling Rights, 4. Sell Oil, and 5. Contingency. Networking allows you to collect Blackmail in order to win control of Faction Leaders. You may only Sell Weapons to a Faction if you control at least one of its Leaders. You will earn a set amount of Money, and a new Troop cube will be added to the game board. To Buy Drilling Rights from a Faction, you again need to control at least one of its Leaders. Pay for the rights, and then add one of your Pawns to that region of the board. Once you’ve got Drilling Rights, you can Sell Oil. Remove your Pawn from the corresponding region, and collect the appropriate amount of Money. And lastly, Contingency allows you to either ‘hire’ a Consultant, or perform an extra action as a result of an Event.
The amount of Money that you pay/earn for each of the actions is dictated by the Faction Tracks. For example, the price of Weapons decreases as Factions get more Troops on the board, which means you won’t earn as much selling to a Faction with lots of Troops in play. You have to time your Actions wisely in order to maximize your profit! If, at the end of a round, the Corruption track has reached 100%, the game ends. Players count up their Money, and the player with the highest earnings is declared the winner.
Although the theme isn’t something that would normally appeal to me, I have to say that Peak Oil
Profiteer is a solid game. The gameplay is straightforward, the player interaction is competitive but not combative, and the strategy keeps you engaged all game. The ultimate goal is to earn the most Money, and the Faction Track creates sort of a “commodity speculation” type mechanic to the gameplay. The costs vary depending on the Faction Track, and it can be manipulated by all players. That in and of itself creates some fun player interaction because the Faction Track affects all players. Doing something to block an opponent now may come back to bite you next round. Another neat element about Peak Oil Profiteer is that players select their Actions simultaneously, and they are then resolved in numerical order. Depending on where your turn falls in the round, you might be able to do just what you had planned, unless an opponent went before you and changed the game layout. There is an amount of uncertainty that forces players to adjust their strategy on the fly and adapt to the current situation.
I will say that resolving Actions in numerical order does kind of add an element of Action Programming, if you will. Once you have selected your Action this round, you are locked in. No matter what happens before your turn, you must perform your selected Action if at all possible. It creates some neat strategic opportunities, but at the same time, can feel like you’ve been blocked out. Just something to consider! Normally, I would touch on components, but as this was a Tabletopia version of the game, I can’t really do so. I will say that the art style and card/board layouts online are thematic and immersive. If the physical version of the game looks anything like this digital version, it’ll be a good looking game! One component that I especially appreciated was that each player gets a Player Reference/Round Reference card. It gives you the information you need without being too wordy, and it stops you from having to refer back to the rule book every turn. So big thanks from me for that!
Having never played the original Peak Oil game, I have to say that Peak Oil Profiteer made a good impression on me. It’s fast to teach and learn, engaging, and strategic enough to keep you thinking. The fluctuation of the Faction Track, and the order of Action resolution add elements of uncertainty and ‘luck’ (if you will) that keep the game from having a clear run-away winner. Everyone is in it until the very end, and the race for the most Money is a nail-biter for sure. If you’re looking for something interactive but not too confrontational, while also putting your strategic chops to the test, consider backing Peak Oil Profiteer on Kickstarter!
Disclaimer: For this preview, we played the Tabletopia version of the game. The pictures you will see below are screenshots from my plays online. Also, I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook, but rather provide a general overview of the rules and gameplay. For a more in-depth look, check it out when it hits Kickstarter! -L
Peak Oil Profiteer is an economic game of area majority/movement, network building, and simultaneous action selection in which players take on the roles of oil corporations competing to make the most money in an oil-rich country before corruption overtakes the land. There is a power struggle between 3 Factions, so play your cards right (literally) to come out ahead. To setup for a game, set the board in the middle of the table, populate the 3 Faction Tracks with their corresponding cubes, place the Corruption cube on 93%, create the Contingency deck (as described in the rules), shuffle the Blackmail deck, and give each player their 5 Action cards, starting Money, and 3 Pawns in their color. Flip all 9 Leader tokens face-down, shuffle them, and randomly give one to each player, placing the remaining Leader tokens face-up near the board.
The game is played over a series of rounds. At the start of every round, one card from the Contingency deck will be revealed/resolved. Contingency cards will either be Events (that will most likely alter the rules for the current round), or Consultants (to be ‘hired’ by an individual player for special abilities). Once the Contingency card has been dealt with, the round moves to the next phase: Action Selection. All players have the same 5 Action cards, numbered 1-5, available to them every round. Players will select one of their 5 Action cards and place it face-down in front of them. Then, in numerical order, all Action cards will be resolved. When your Action number has been called, you will reveal your Action card, perform the corresponding action, and take the card back into your hand. Once all players have performed their Action for the round, check the Corruption track – if it has reached 100% then the game ends, and if not then the game moves to a new round.
The 5 Actions available to all player are: 1. Networking, 2. Sell Weapons, 3. Buy Drilling Rights, 4. Sell Oil, and 5. Contingency. Networking allows you to collect Blackmail in order to win control of Faction Leaders. You may only Sell Weapons to a Faction if you control at least one of its Leaders. You will earn a set amount of Money, and a new Troop cube will be added to the game board. To Buy Drilling Rights from a Faction, you again need to control at least one of its Leaders. Pay for the rights, and then add one of your Pawns to that region of the board. Once you’ve got Drilling Rights, you can Sell Oil. Remove your Pawn from the corresponding region, and collect the appropriate amount of Money. And lastly, Contingency allows you to either ‘hire’ a Consultant, or perform an extra action as a result of an Event.
The amount of Money that you pay/earn for each of the actions is dictated by the Faction Tracks. For example, the price of Weapons decreases as Factions get more Troops on the board, which means you won’t earn as much selling to a Faction with lots of Troops in play. You have to time your Actions wisely in order to maximize your profit! If, at the end of a round, the Corruption track has reached 100%, the game ends. Players count up their Money, and the player with the highest earnings is declared the winner.
Although the theme isn’t something that would normally appeal to me, I have to say that Peak Oil
Profiteer is a solid game. The gameplay is straightforward, the player interaction is competitive but not combative, and the strategy keeps you engaged all game. The ultimate goal is to earn the most Money, and the Faction Track creates sort of a “commodity speculation” type mechanic to the gameplay. The costs vary depending on the Faction Track, and it can be manipulated by all players. That in and of itself creates some fun player interaction because the Faction Track affects all players. Doing something to block an opponent now may come back to bite you next round. Another neat element about Peak Oil Profiteer is that players select their Actions simultaneously, and they are then resolved in numerical order. Depending on where your turn falls in the round, you might be able to do just what you had planned, unless an opponent went before you and changed the game layout. There is an amount of uncertainty that forces players to adjust their strategy on the fly and adapt to the current situation.
I will say that resolving Actions in numerical order does kind of add an element of Action Programming, if you will. Once you have selected your Action this round, you are locked in. No matter what happens before your turn, you must perform your selected Action if at all possible. It creates some neat strategic opportunities, but at the same time, can feel like you’ve been blocked out. Just something to consider! Normally, I would touch on components, but as this was a Tabletopia version of the game, I can’t really do so. I will say that the art style and card/board layouts online are thematic and immersive. If the physical version of the game looks anything like this digital version, it’ll be a good looking game! One component that I especially appreciated was that each player gets a Player Reference/Round Reference card. It gives you the information you need without being too wordy, and it stops you from having to refer back to the rule book every turn. So big thanks from me for that!
Having never played the original Peak Oil game, I have to say that Peak Oil Profiteer made a good impression on me. It’s fast to teach and learn, engaging, and strategic enough to keep you thinking. The fluctuation of the Faction Track, and the order of Action resolution add elements of uncertainty and ‘luck’ (if you will) that keep the game from having a clear run-away winner. Everyone is in it until the very end, and the race for the most Money is a nail-biter for sure. If you’re looking for something interactive but not too confrontational, while also putting your strategic chops to the test, consider backing Peak Oil Profiteer on Kickstarter!
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Tiny Epic Mechs in Tabletop Games
Jun 30, 2021
I am someone who loves strategy. It is fun for me to create elaborate plans and see them through to either success or failure. Ok, it’s fun to see them succeed, not so much fail. BUT either way – I like to have a plan. So when Tiny Epic Mechs launched on Kickstarter, I was a little wary. Action programming? Can’t that effectively negate any strategy you have set up? I was on the fence. But I backed it anyway. So was my investment a good one, or did my programmed action of picking up this game backfire and leave me KO’d?
Disclaimer: I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook in this review, but give a general overview of turns and gameplay. For a more in-depth look at the rules, pick up a copy of the game from the publisher or your FLGS! -L
Tiny Epic Mechs is a game of action programming in which players take on the roles of Mech pilots competing in an arena-style battle royale event. Through the purchase of new weapons, powering up into Mech suits, combat with opponents (either face-to-face, or through the deployment of mines and turrets), and controlling different zones of the arena, players are trying to earn the most Victory Points by the end of 6 rounds of play. To begin, follow the setup instructions for the arena, based on the player count. Each player receives a player card (to track resources, and also acts as a reference card), a Pilot card, components in their chosen player color, and 1 Basic Weapon card to equip on their Pilot. Set the Round Tracker to round 1, create a market row of Advanced Weapons, place the Mighty Mech suit on it’s corresponding zone card, and the game is ready to begin!
Each round consists of 3 phases: Program, Execution, and Scoring. During the Program phase, players will secretly choose 4 Program Cards from their hand to represent their 4 moves/actions for this round. The chosen Program Cards will be laid out in order above the player card, and will immediately be covered by a face-down unused Program Card. (There are 8 Program Cards total, only 4 of which are used each round). It is important to note that the orientation of the Program Cards matters – Program Cards must be played parallel to the zone cards of the arena. Since they dictate the directions in which you move, you must place them exactly as you want to move. During the second phase, Execution, players will take turns revealing their Program Cards, one at a time and in order, and resolving the actions. To Execute a Program Card, you will first move your Pilot in the direction of the card’s arrow, and then resolve the action listed on the card. Movement is a must and cannot be skipped.
After Movement, you may perform the action on your card – Collect Resources, Purchase a Weapon, Deploy a Mine or a Turret, or Power Up. The first three of these are pretty self-explanatory. The Power Up action allows your Pilot to either heal themselves or upgrade into a Mech suit. Now to discuss crux of the game – combat. During the Execution phase, if you enter into the same zone as another player, you must immediately begin Combat. You will use your equipped weapons to battle your opponent, in hopes of knocking them out or forcing them to retreat. Weapons will deal base damage, or Power Attack damage, based on the circumstances of the combat. To attack with a weapon, you will deal the base damage immediately to your opponent. After your attack, the weapon you used is Exhausted and cannot be used again this combat. Your opponent then has the chance to attack back – either regularly or via Power Attack (I’ll leave that for you to discover on your own). Combat continues, alternating between players, until either a player is KO’d, or is forced to retreat because all of their weapons have been Exhausted. Initiating combat, dealing damage, and defeating your opponent all earn you VP, so combat is a vital part of the game!
After all players have revealed and performed their final Program Card, the round ends. At the end of the 2nd, 4th, and 6th round, players will perform a Scoring phase, earning points for any zones occupied by their own mines, turrets, or Pilot. At the end of the 6th and final round, scoring takes place as stated above, but players will also earn VP for all weapons they have purchased throughout the game. The player with the highest VP is the winner!
I have to admit that I am not a person who generally enjoys the mechanic of action programming. I like to really think through my strategy, and execute it exactly as I want. Action programming makes strategizing more difficult because your success or failure depends on the actions selected in advance by your opponents. You can’t really adapt mid-round, you kind of just have to deal with what’s happening. That being said, Tiny Epic Mechs, in my opinion, has a good balance of combat and actions/resource management. Your entire strategy can’t be based on combat – you need to upgrade weapons, climb into your Mech suit, etc. – and the ability to vary combat with individual upgrades makes the gameplay feel more strategic. Yes, your opponents might still mess up some of your best-laid plans, but you have to be prepared for any situation.
The overall gameplay can feel calculated or chaotic simply based on the player count. In a 2-player game, obviously there are only 2 people, and you have more opportunities to really focus on your individual Pilot before necessarily traipsing into combat. In a game with 3 or 4 players, interactions between players are inevitable and can really make the action programming mechanic stand out/feel more random/etc. Especially with a small play arena, Pilots will be crossing paths at probably every turn, and you may be forced into more combats that you anticipated. With only 2 players, there are interactions between players, but it feels a little more calm overall, and you can really work with a strategy instead of having to adapt to sudden changes in the arena.
Let’s touch on components for a minute. As always, this Tiny Epic delivers on quality components. The cards are colorful and sturdy, the text easy to read. The wooden components for tracking health/resources are good, but maybe just a little too small, even for my regularly-sized hands. The ITEMeeples, Mech suits, and weapons are always fun to play with, and sturdy enough to hold up to lots of plays. All in all, great work from Gamelyn Games once again.
For being a game of action programming, I have to admit that I enjoyed Tiny Epic Mechs more than I thought I would. At least at a 2-player count. Anything more feels too chaotic and random to me. The elements of programming and combat are engaging and elevate the gameplay, but it’s just not my favorite mechanic. Will I keep this game? Definitely. For what it is, I think it does a good job. Will I get more action programming games in the future? Probably not. I’d say Tiny Epic Mechs fills that spot for me, and that is all good in my book. Check this one out if you’re looking for something fun and relatively simple that utilizes this mechanic. Purple Phoenix Games gives it a mechanical 7 / 12.
Disclaimer: I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook in this review, but give a general overview of turns and gameplay. For a more in-depth look at the rules, pick up a copy of the game from the publisher or your FLGS! -L
Tiny Epic Mechs is a game of action programming in which players take on the roles of Mech pilots competing in an arena-style battle royale event. Through the purchase of new weapons, powering up into Mech suits, combat with opponents (either face-to-face, or through the deployment of mines and turrets), and controlling different zones of the arena, players are trying to earn the most Victory Points by the end of 6 rounds of play. To begin, follow the setup instructions for the arena, based on the player count. Each player receives a player card (to track resources, and also acts as a reference card), a Pilot card, components in their chosen player color, and 1 Basic Weapon card to equip on their Pilot. Set the Round Tracker to round 1, create a market row of Advanced Weapons, place the Mighty Mech suit on it’s corresponding zone card, and the game is ready to begin!
Each round consists of 3 phases: Program, Execution, and Scoring. During the Program phase, players will secretly choose 4 Program Cards from their hand to represent their 4 moves/actions for this round. The chosen Program Cards will be laid out in order above the player card, and will immediately be covered by a face-down unused Program Card. (There are 8 Program Cards total, only 4 of which are used each round). It is important to note that the orientation of the Program Cards matters – Program Cards must be played parallel to the zone cards of the arena. Since they dictate the directions in which you move, you must place them exactly as you want to move. During the second phase, Execution, players will take turns revealing their Program Cards, one at a time and in order, and resolving the actions. To Execute a Program Card, you will first move your Pilot in the direction of the card’s arrow, and then resolve the action listed on the card. Movement is a must and cannot be skipped.
After Movement, you may perform the action on your card – Collect Resources, Purchase a Weapon, Deploy a Mine or a Turret, or Power Up. The first three of these are pretty self-explanatory. The Power Up action allows your Pilot to either heal themselves or upgrade into a Mech suit. Now to discuss crux of the game – combat. During the Execution phase, if you enter into the same zone as another player, you must immediately begin Combat. You will use your equipped weapons to battle your opponent, in hopes of knocking them out or forcing them to retreat. Weapons will deal base damage, or Power Attack damage, based on the circumstances of the combat. To attack with a weapon, you will deal the base damage immediately to your opponent. After your attack, the weapon you used is Exhausted and cannot be used again this combat. Your opponent then has the chance to attack back – either regularly or via Power Attack (I’ll leave that for you to discover on your own). Combat continues, alternating between players, until either a player is KO’d, or is forced to retreat because all of their weapons have been Exhausted. Initiating combat, dealing damage, and defeating your opponent all earn you VP, so combat is a vital part of the game!
After all players have revealed and performed their final Program Card, the round ends. At the end of the 2nd, 4th, and 6th round, players will perform a Scoring phase, earning points for any zones occupied by their own mines, turrets, or Pilot. At the end of the 6th and final round, scoring takes place as stated above, but players will also earn VP for all weapons they have purchased throughout the game. The player with the highest VP is the winner!
I have to admit that I am not a person who generally enjoys the mechanic of action programming. I like to really think through my strategy, and execute it exactly as I want. Action programming makes strategizing more difficult because your success or failure depends on the actions selected in advance by your opponents. You can’t really adapt mid-round, you kind of just have to deal with what’s happening. That being said, Tiny Epic Mechs, in my opinion, has a good balance of combat and actions/resource management. Your entire strategy can’t be based on combat – you need to upgrade weapons, climb into your Mech suit, etc. – and the ability to vary combat with individual upgrades makes the gameplay feel more strategic. Yes, your opponents might still mess up some of your best-laid plans, but you have to be prepared for any situation.
The overall gameplay can feel calculated or chaotic simply based on the player count. In a 2-player game, obviously there are only 2 people, and you have more opportunities to really focus on your individual Pilot before necessarily traipsing into combat. In a game with 3 or 4 players, interactions between players are inevitable and can really make the action programming mechanic stand out/feel more random/etc. Especially with a small play arena, Pilots will be crossing paths at probably every turn, and you may be forced into more combats that you anticipated. With only 2 players, there are interactions between players, but it feels a little more calm overall, and you can really work with a strategy instead of having to adapt to sudden changes in the arena.
Let’s touch on components for a minute. As always, this Tiny Epic delivers on quality components. The cards are colorful and sturdy, the text easy to read. The wooden components for tracking health/resources are good, but maybe just a little too small, even for my regularly-sized hands. The ITEMeeples, Mech suits, and weapons are always fun to play with, and sturdy enough to hold up to lots of plays. All in all, great work from Gamelyn Games once again.
For being a game of action programming, I have to admit that I enjoyed Tiny Epic Mechs more than I thought I would. At least at a 2-player count. Anything more feels too chaotic and random to me. The elements of programming and combat are engaging and elevate the gameplay, but it’s just not my favorite mechanic. Will I keep this game? Definitely. For what it is, I think it does a good job. Will I get more action programming games in the future? Probably not. I’d say Tiny Epic Mechs fills that spot for me, and that is all good in my book. Check this one out if you’re looking for something fun and relatively simple that utilizes this mechanic. Purple Phoenix Games gives it a mechanical 7 / 12.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated The Imposter Kings in Tabletop Games
May 1, 2021
If there is one thing that I love about board gaming, it’s strategy. Planning out and executing a long-term plan, only to have your opponents throw a wrench in it, thus forcing you to re-strategize on the spot? That’s my JAM. So when I heard about The Imposter Kings, I knew it was right up my alley. After getting to play it, did it live up to my expectations? Or is it an imposter that doesn’t hold up? Keep reading to find out!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -L
The Imposter Kings is a card game for 2-4 players in which players are attempting to gain and maintain control of the throne, accumulating a total of 7 points to win the game. There are some slight rules variations between 2-, 3-, and 4-player games, but the overall gameplay is the same. This review will focus on the 2-player rules. To setup for the game, assemble the deck as described in the rules for your chosen player count. In a 2-player game, the deck is comprised of 18 cards. Each player is given a King card, and one player’s will be the True King. The True King merely determines the first player for the round. Shuffle the deck and deal 8 cards to each player. There will be 2 cards leftover, and those will go into the center of the play area, one face-up and one face-down. This lets the players know which card is not in either players hand, as well as a random unknown card in neither players’ hand. Each player will select a card from their hand to be their Successor, and will place it face-down next to their King, and they will also select one card from their hand to discard face-down. The game is now ready to begin!
On your turn, you will play any card from your hand to the Court (play area) that is of an equal or higher value than the card played previously. The last-played card to the Court is considered to be on the Throne. All cards in Imposter Kings are numbered 1-9, and each card has an associated special ability. Once you play a card to the Court, you may/must use the ability (if optional/mandatory). These special abilities can alter the Court and gameplay by Disgracing cards (flipping them face-down to ‘reset’ the number line), swapping cards with other players, playing a lower-numbered card on top of a higher number etc. The round continues in this fashion, with players alternating, until one player is no longer able to play a card to the Court. That player loses the round, and the winning player receives a number of points, depending on certain aspects. The deck is reshuffled, the True King is passed to the loser of the round, and a new round commences. The first player to reach 7 points is the ultimate winner!
That details the basics of the gameplay, but there are a few special things to keep in mind. Certain cards will force players to play a card to their Antechamber – face-up in front of them. If ever you have a card in your Antechamber at the beginning of a turn, you must play it to the Court, regardless of its value. This can be a good strategic way to trap your opponent into playing a specific card on their next turn! Sometimes a card will need to be Condemned – it is then placed face-down in front of you, and then removed from play on your next turn. Another good way to eat up an opponent’s turn! If you ever get to a point in the round when you are unable to play a card to the Court, you may choose to use your King power – it allows you to flip your King over to Disgrace the card currently on the Throne, and take your Successor into your hand (hopefully giving you a chance to keep playing in the round!). However, there is an Assassin card in the game!! If you have the Assassin, you can reveal it when your opponent decides to use their King – thus assassinating them and immediately winning the round. Lots of tricksy ways to make sure you end up on the Throne!
So all in all, how does The Imposter Kings hold up? Fairly well, actually. For being a simple and relatively fast card game, there is a lot of strategy required for success. You have to decide which cards/powers to use when, while also trying to deduce what your opponent has in their hand. Can you trap them and force the round to end? Or have they kept a dark horse in hand for just this situation? There is a lot more to The Imposter Kings than meets the eye, and that makes it a fun challenge. The first time I played this game, it reminded me of a similar game by ButtonShy titled Hierarchy. The concept and gameplay are similar, but the biggest difference is that The Imposter Kings can be played with 3 and 4 players. That adds another element of strategy/chaos to the game, as there are more cards to deduce, more opportunities for the Court to change between your turns, and just more strategy in general. Hierarchy is strictly a 2-player game, but The Imposter Kings allows you to play with more people. With higher player counts, new and unique cards are added to the starting deck, offering even more abilities and strategic options for play. The gameplay scales with player count, and that keeps it engaging.
Let me touch on components for a minute. This is a retail version of the game, and the production quality is very nice! The game comes in a nice small box, and the deck of cards is sturdy in hand. The artwork is interesting, the text is clear, and the cards are color-coded based on their value. The coloring really helps with quick visual identification of what cards are in play. The game also comes with some reference cards for the various abilities, and those were much appreciated. The rulebook had a couple of areas of ambiguity, but watching the videos on the BGG page for The Imposter Kings helped answer any questions I might have had. All in all, good production quality!
So as you can probably tell from this review, I generally like The Imposter Kings. The gameplay is strategic, engaging, and its 3-4 player variants offer some unique twists that the 2-player just cannot handle. This is a game that I can see myself bringing out when I have newer gamers at my table. The gameplay is simple, yet strategic, and it is not overwhelming to learn or play. It definitely makes players think, and even now I’m thinking about what strategy I might try next game. If you are looking for something relatively simple, yet surprisingly strategic, consider checking out The Imposter Kings. Purple Phoenix Games gives it a royal 8 / 12.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -L
The Imposter Kings is a card game for 2-4 players in which players are attempting to gain and maintain control of the throne, accumulating a total of 7 points to win the game. There are some slight rules variations between 2-, 3-, and 4-player games, but the overall gameplay is the same. This review will focus on the 2-player rules. To setup for the game, assemble the deck as described in the rules for your chosen player count. In a 2-player game, the deck is comprised of 18 cards. Each player is given a King card, and one player’s will be the True King. The True King merely determines the first player for the round. Shuffle the deck and deal 8 cards to each player. There will be 2 cards leftover, and those will go into the center of the play area, one face-up and one face-down. This lets the players know which card is not in either players hand, as well as a random unknown card in neither players’ hand. Each player will select a card from their hand to be their Successor, and will place it face-down next to their King, and they will also select one card from their hand to discard face-down. The game is now ready to begin!
On your turn, you will play any card from your hand to the Court (play area) that is of an equal or higher value than the card played previously. The last-played card to the Court is considered to be on the Throne. All cards in Imposter Kings are numbered 1-9, and each card has an associated special ability. Once you play a card to the Court, you may/must use the ability (if optional/mandatory). These special abilities can alter the Court and gameplay by Disgracing cards (flipping them face-down to ‘reset’ the number line), swapping cards with other players, playing a lower-numbered card on top of a higher number etc. The round continues in this fashion, with players alternating, until one player is no longer able to play a card to the Court. That player loses the round, and the winning player receives a number of points, depending on certain aspects. The deck is reshuffled, the True King is passed to the loser of the round, and a new round commences. The first player to reach 7 points is the ultimate winner!
That details the basics of the gameplay, but there are a few special things to keep in mind. Certain cards will force players to play a card to their Antechamber – face-up in front of them. If ever you have a card in your Antechamber at the beginning of a turn, you must play it to the Court, regardless of its value. This can be a good strategic way to trap your opponent into playing a specific card on their next turn! Sometimes a card will need to be Condemned – it is then placed face-down in front of you, and then removed from play on your next turn. Another good way to eat up an opponent’s turn! If you ever get to a point in the round when you are unable to play a card to the Court, you may choose to use your King power – it allows you to flip your King over to Disgrace the card currently on the Throne, and take your Successor into your hand (hopefully giving you a chance to keep playing in the round!). However, there is an Assassin card in the game!! If you have the Assassin, you can reveal it when your opponent decides to use their King – thus assassinating them and immediately winning the round. Lots of tricksy ways to make sure you end up on the Throne!
So all in all, how does The Imposter Kings hold up? Fairly well, actually. For being a simple and relatively fast card game, there is a lot of strategy required for success. You have to decide which cards/powers to use when, while also trying to deduce what your opponent has in their hand. Can you trap them and force the round to end? Or have they kept a dark horse in hand for just this situation? There is a lot more to The Imposter Kings than meets the eye, and that makes it a fun challenge. The first time I played this game, it reminded me of a similar game by ButtonShy titled Hierarchy. The concept and gameplay are similar, but the biggest difference is that The Imposter Kings can be played with 3 and 4 players. That adds another element of strategy/chaos to the game, as there are more cards to deduce, more opportunities for the Court to change between your turns, and just more strategy in general. Hierarchy is strictly a 2-player game, but The Imposter Kings allows you to play with more people. With higher player counts, new and unique cards are added to the starting deck, offering even more abilities and strategic options for play. The gameplay scales with player count, and that keeps it engaging.
Let me touch on components for a minute. This is a retail version of the game, and the production quality is very nice! The game comes in a nice small box, and the deck of cards is sturdy in hand. The artwork is interesting, the text is clear, and the cards are color-coded based on their value. The coloring really helps with quick visual identification of what cards are in play. The game also comes with some reference cards for the various abilities, and those were much appreciated. The rulebook had a couple of areas of ambiguity, but watching the videos on the BGG page for The Imposter Kings helped answer any questions I might have had. All in all, good production quality!
So as you can probably tell from this review, I generally like The Imposter Kings. The gameplay is strategic, engaging, and its 3-4 player variants offer some unique twists that the 2-player just cannot handle. This is a game that I can see myself bringing out when I have newer gamers at my table. The gameplay is simple, yet strategic, and it is not overwhelming to learn or play. It definitely makes players think, and even now I’m thinking about what strategy I might try next game. If you are looking for something relatively simple, yet surprisingly strategic, consider checking out The Imposter Kings. Purple Phoenix Games gives it a royal 8 / 12.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Asator in Tabletop Games
Oct 20, 2020
Vikings. Raiding and pillaging and dragon riding. That’s about the extent of my knowledge of the ancient(?) civilization that so many people go bonkers romanticizing. Okay, so they didn’t REALLY ride dragons, but How To Train Your Dragon is great and the game I am previewing today also includes dragons, so I’m rolling with it. But how does this Viking game play and compare to its inspirations?
Asator is a head to head (or teams) game of troop maneuvering and attacking using 30 identical miniatures on each side. Each mini acts as a platoon of three different kinds of armies, plus a Chieftan, Master, Wizard, and Dragon that all have different special abilities. The winner of Asator is the player who can eliminate their opponent’s leadership (Chieftan, Master, and Wizard).
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I know that the final components will be slightly different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, place the battle mat on the table, and then players will place groups of minis on the field within the closest three rows of hexes in alternating turn fashion. Players will also take the two large Battle Sheets and a dry-erase marker to keep track of every one of their minis’ stats throughout the game. Each player will also choose five of the given 10 Wizard spell cards to use for the game, and each spell may only be used once during the game. Once all army minis are placed, the first player will move up to 20 units on the battlefield and attack opponent armies if possible. The game is now on and decimation is the goal.
Each mini type corresponds to a different group of armies, plus the dragon and three leader pieces. All armies of the same type have the same stats for movement, hit points (HP), armor rating (AR), and attack weapons. Also each mini is labeled on the bottom so keeping track of each unit is made a little easier. Obviously the leader pieces are more powerful and each has a special style of combat. The Master wields an axe and shield (which is broken after one hit) to increase AR and dole out the damage. The Chieftan wields a spear, twin axes, a bow, and a shield. Similar to the Master, the Chieftan’s shield is broken after an attack against him, and his spear is broken after a missed attack. The Wizard is not at all strong in melee, but has powerful spells at his disposal to be used for the disposal of enemy units.
Besides the leadership trio each side also brings a Dragon to the battle. Dragons can move slowly by land, but quite quickly by air. Once in the air he or she may deliver a Fire Blast that causes huge damage, but then the Dragon must ground themselves to regain stamina for flight. In addition, each player will have access to Cavalry, Infantry, and Bowmen, each with their own stat blocks and abilities.
This is all well and good, and is somewhat similar to the strategy one would use in Chess. Combat, however, is much more involved than that of simply moving into an enemy’s space and automatically overtaking it. In Asator combat victory is decided via a VERY pared down version of D&D combat. It uses a simplified d20-based attack versus the enemy Armor Rating (AR). Rolls over the AR of the enemy is a success and damage is dealt. Done. Some attacks require a roll of 2d6 for damage amount, like spells and Dragon attacks. That said, combat is decided using 1d20 and 2d6. That’s it.
The game continues in turns where the first player will move their pieces and attack, and then the next player will do the same until one player has defeated all three enemy leaders and earned the title of Asator – Master of War.
Components. Again, we were provided a prototype copy of the game, but most of the components are what will be received when the game is backed or purchased. That said, the game utilizes a cloth battle mat that folds into the box, four dry-erase Battle Sheets, two dry-erase markers, dice for both players, Wizard spell cards for both players, and 60 miniatures. The battle mat is great fabric quality with minimal art that doesn’t get in the way of play (much appreciated). The dry-erase components are good. The card quality is fine. The dice are black and white dice to correspond with players using the black or white minis, and are of normal quality. The minis are great and I enjoyed playing with them.
Now for the negatives of what is included in the box. First, the art. Now, there is very minimal art used throughout the game. It’s just not a focal point, and it shows in the game’s production. I found the sketch on the cover of the rule book (which is the same as the watermark on the Battle Mat) to be very cool, but the box cover art leaves some to be desired. Similarly, the Wizard spell cards use very generic-looking art icons with text for explanation. I am most certainly being hyper-critical here because flashy art on these components are certainly not needed to play or highly enjoy the game. For my tastes, though, I would like to see more polished art on these pieces as the art is so sparse throughout.
But how does the game feel? It’s truly quite good. I don’t play many wargames or 1v1 skirmish style games, so to present me with something like this and for me to enjoy it as much as I have has to be a sign of something good. Again, I am no strategic war general, but being able to employ different strategies every game is exciting. Testing out the different combinations of Wizard spell cards is fun for a tinkerer. And, of course, playing with a bunch of minis is always good fun.
There is a good game here, and I absolutely love the combination of Chess maneuverability with the simplified RPG d20 battle system. It works well in a game like this where each piece owns a stat block of which players will need to be mindful. I didn’t quite mention my favorite part of the rules yet either: natural 20 on a combat roll equals insta-death. Yes, even to the Dragon, which happened in my very first game. THAT is a cool rule that tripped up tactics quite often in my plays.
All in all this game is a great example of combining a couple sets of mechanics that wouldn’t be expected and creating a great gaming experience from them. I invite you to back the game on Kickstarter when it goes live if you are looking for that special game that is unlike many others you currently own. If the art were spruced up a bit I would be fawning all over it, but even without impressive art I still find I have the twitch in my brain to play it again and again. I wonder how many natural 20s I can roll in a game. Great, now I want to set it up and see…
Asator is a head to head (or teams) game of troop maneuvering and attacking using 30 identical miniatures on each side. Each mini acts as a platoon of three different kinds of armies, plus a Chieftan, Master, Wizard, and Dragon that all have different special abilities. The winner of Asator is the player who can eliminate their opponent’s leadership (Chieftan, Master, and Wizard).
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I know that the final components will be slightly different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, place the battle mat on the table, and then players will place groups of minis on the field within the closest three rows of hexes in alternating turn fashion. Players will also take the two large Battle Sheets and a dry-erase marker to keep track of every one of their minis’ stats throughout the game. Each player will also choose five of the given 10 Wizard spell cards to use for the game, and each spell may only be used once during the game. Once all army minis are placed, the first player will move up to 20 units on the battlefield and attack opponent armies if possible. The game is now on and decimation is the goal.
Each mini type corresponds to a different group of armies, plus the dragon and three leader pieces. All armies of the same type have the same stats for movement, hit points (HP), armor rating (AR), and attack weapons. Also each mini is labeled on the bottom so keeping track of each unit is made a little easier. Obviously the leader pieces are more powerful and each has a special style of combat. The Master wields an axe and shield (which is broken after one hit) to increase AR and dole out the damage. The Chieftan wields a spear, twin axes, a bow, and a shield. Similar to the Master, the Chieftan’s shield is broken after an attack against him, and his spear is broken after a missed attack. The Wizard is not at all strong in melee, but has powerful spells at his disposal to be used for the disposal of enemy units.
Besides the leadership trio each side also brings a Dragon to the battle. Dragons can move slowly by land, but quite quickly by air. Once in the air he or she may deliver a Fire Blast that causes huge damage, but then the Dragon must ground themselves to regain stamina for flight. In addition, each player will have access to Cavalry, Infantry, and Bowmen, each with their own stat blocks and abilities.
This is all well and good, and is somewhat similar to the strategy one would use in Chess. Combat, however, is much more involved than that of simply moving into an enemy’s space and automatically overtaking it. In Asator combat victory is decided via a VERY pared down version of D&D combat. It uses a simplified d20-based attack versus the enemy Armor Rating (AR). Rolls over the AR of the enemy is a success and damage is dealt. Done. Some attacks require a roll of 2d6 for damage amount, like spells and Dragon attacks. That said, combat is decided using 1d20 and 2d6. That’s it.
The game continues in turns where the first player will move their pieces and attack, and then the next player will do the same until one player has defeated all three enemy leaders and earned the title of Asator – Master of War.
Components. Again, we were provided a prototype copy of the game, but most of the components are what will be received when the game is backed or purchased. That said, the game utilizes a cloth battle mat that folds into the box, four dry-erase Battle Sheets, two dry-erase markers, dice for both players, Wizard spell cards for both players, and 60 miniatures. The battle mat is great fabric quality with minimal art that doesn’t get in the way of play (much appreciated). The dry-erase components are good. The card quality is fine. The dice are black and white dice to correspond with players using the black or white minis, and are of normal quality. The minis are great and I enjoyed playing with them.
Now for the negatives of what is included in the box. First, the art. Now, there is very minimal art used throughout the game. It’s just not a focal point, and it shows in the game’s production. I found the sketch on the cover of the rule book (which is the same as the watermark on the Battle Mat) to be very cool, but the box cover art leaves some to be desired. Similarly, the Wizard spell cards use very generic-looking art icons with text for explanation. I am most certainly being hyper-critical here because flashy art on these components are certainly not needed to play or highly enjoy the game. For my tastes, though, I would like to see more polished art on these pieces as the art is so sparse throughout.
But how does the game feel? It’s truly quite good. I don’t play many wargames or 1v1 skirmish style games, so to present me with something like this and for me to enjoy it as much as I have has to be a sign of something good. Again, I am no strategic war general, but being able to employ different strategies every game is exciting. Testing out the different combinations of Wizard spell cards is fun for a tinkerer. And, of course, playing with a bunch of minis is always good fun.
There is a good game here, and I absolutely love the combination of Chess maneuverability with the simplified RPG d20 battle system. It works well in a game like this where each piece owns a stat block of which players will need to be mindful. I didn’t quite mention my favorite part of the rules yet either: natural 20 on a combat roll equals insta-death. Yes, even to the Dragon, which happened in my very first game. THAT is a cool rule that tripped up tactics quite often in my plays.
All in all this game is a great example of combining a couple sets of mechanics that wouldn’t be expected and creating a great gaming experience from them. I invite you to back the game on Kickstarter when it goes live if you are looking for that special game that is unlike many others you currently own. If the art were spruced up a bit I would be fawning all over it, but even without impressive art I still find I have the twitch in my brain to play it again and again. I wonder how many natural 20s I can roll in a game. Great, now I want to set it up and see…
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
It’s about 6 weeks since I finished season 3 of this incredible show from Netflix. I have been putting off writing about it, because I wanted to let it settle. And also because I have a hell of a lot to say about it. I am gonna try and be comprehensive, without giving too much away in terms of spoilers. I am going to assume you have seen some of it, or have heard the hype, at least. If you haven’t got around to it yet, then all I can say is: what are you doing with your entertainment life? Get on it, now! It is as ubiquitous as Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, or The Wire, and sits comfortably in that group for consistent quality and lasting impressions.
Season one first aired in July 2017. I heard good things very quickly, albeit with some hesitation. It was dark, sometimes literally, utilising a trademark washed-out effect visually, that instantly gave it a bleak feel, which was not to everyone’s taste, but I loved. General consensus had it that the writing was great; the situation and concept drew you in from minute one. In fact, I believe the first episode is one of the best pilots seen in the last decade, bar none. It made no bones about what we were to expect from the start: intelligent dialogue, a lot of tension and a hefty chunk of jaw-dropping brutality.
Jason Bateman has enjoyed a remarkable career in the last ten years, putting behind him a patchy child-star and B actor tag, to emerge as the go to guy for deadpan comedy pathos, rivalled only, perhaps by Paul Rudd. Ozark is Bateman’s show in many regards, fulfilling his ambition to produce and direct as well as act, and he is a superb central pivot to the show, as hard nosed accountant turned drug cartel puppet, Marty Byrde. He excels in all three roles on every level, and if you are a fan of his lighter work, chances are you will fall head over heels for his dubious charm in Ozark.
But, whilst he is the lynchpin of the show, and a compelling character in every subtley drawn way, there is so much more to the show than him. Laura Linney, as his initially timid wife, Wendy, is never less than interesting. Perfectly cast, utilising her skill for portraying strong yet flawed women at every turn; she grows into a character so full of contradictions and conflicts, that you change your mind whether you like her or not almost episode to episode. Time will tell, but she may yet emerge in season 4 as the most fully realised character in the show, depending on how her arc ends. The potential is huge, and despite a CV of solid roles over the years, this could be the defining work of her career. It’s already close.
Then there are the kids in this very modern nuclear family, Charlotte and Jonah, played by Sofia Hublitz and Skylar Gaetner. These characters could have been set decoration in lesser hands, but in this show they are given the chance to grow and become pivotal to the ongoing story in remarkable ways. There is nothing stereotypical about either of them, and the two young actors more than rise to the challenge of matching the more experienced pros. Many a show has been ruined by miscast youths that can’t match the more sophisticated adult content, but I remain impressed by these two, both as characters and actors. Again, they have the scope to go into very fascinating places within the story when season four emerges.
The true strength of the show, however, may lie in its consistently solid output of great supporting characters. Julia Gartner, as older than her years redneck with ambitions to rise above it, Ruth, has garnered all the plaudits, quite rightly. You grow to like her in usual ways. At first mistrusting her and then ended up 100% on her side. At times, she is the only one making sense and making the right decisions. The continual ways she is forced to grow up fast and bounce back from traumatic situations is so beautifully handled, that when she does show her vulnerable side it is at once shocking and heart- rending.
A lot of characters come and go; some forever, much quicker than you anticipated… for the sake of non spoilers, I won’t go into a who’s who here, but many meet a very sticky end, and it isn’t always who you think it will be. Especially by season 3, which largely drops the dark filter on the camera lens, but cranks up the body count exponentially, you start to feel that no one is safe, and anyone can go at any minute. Except, when they do, and why they do, is so well interwoven into the plot that you forget to look for the sucker punch and are still left with your jaw hitting the floor.
There were moments on season three where I was actually talking to the screen, begging certain characters not to do what they were doing; a sure sign of complete emotional investment. A big part of that was the addition of Tom Pelphrey as Wendy’s brother, who from the start puts a genius new spin on the family dynamic, becoming intertwined in interesting and ultimately devastating ways. His character takes a while to warm up, but by mid-season he is guaranteed to be your favourite person in it. And in episode 9, he delivers a monologue and a performance that I would quite honestly say is one of the absolute best things I’ve ever seen in a TV show.
I was moderately outraged then, to see he wasn’t rewarded with at least a nomination for the 2020 Emmy Awards. An oversight rather than a snub, for sure, but when Bateman, Linney and Garner all got nominated and he didn’t it felt like a real injustice, and a lot of online vitriol reflected that. Such a shame, especially if it turns out to be the best work he ever does – and I can’t imagine anything better, but who knows where he will go from here.
By the end of season 3 I felt exhausted. Each episode is slightly over an hour long, but can feel like you just watched a self contained movie. The quality certainly feels that way. I was both elated and shocked by the way it was left on a cliff edge, and relieved that I could take a break from it now. Although, waiting potentially up to two years to see how the story ends now seems like a long wait.
And it will be the end, one way or another, as the production announced season four will be the last, however stretching from 10 to 14 episodes, divided into 2 halves of 7; a trick Breaking Bad also did in its fifth and final season. I love that idea. Knowing the finish line is coming, rather than having it stretch out for years until the ideas and the momentum have long run out. Dexter springs to mind: a show that should have ended two seasons earlier, for sure.
I can really only see two ways it can go from here: either everyone dies, and that seems quite likely right now, or they win big. There simply is no inbetween I can imagine that would be satisfying. And I’m on the fence which I will prefer… The only certainty is that I will be very excited indeed when it comes around. And shows that make you feel that way are rare. In the meantime, I’m gonna watch a lot of comedies. I need a laugh after this…
Season one first aired in July 2017. I heard good things very quickly, albeit with some hesitation. It was dark, sometimes literally, utilising a trademark washed-out effect visually, that instantly gave it a bleak feel, which was not to everyone’s taste, but I loved. General consensus had it that the writing was great; the situation and concept drew you in from minute one. In fact, I believe the first episode is one of the best pilots seen in the last decade, bar none. It made no bones about what we were to expect from the start: intelligent dialogue, a lot of tension and a hefty chunk of jaw-dropping brutality.
Jason Bateman has enjoyed a remarkable career in the last ten years, putting behind him a patchy child-star and B actor tag, to emerge as the go to guy for deadpan comedy pathos, rivalled only, perhaps by Paul Rudd. Ozark is Bateman’s show in many regards, fulfilling his ambition to produce and direct as well as act, and he is a superb central pivot to the show, as hard nosed accountant turned drug cartel puppet, Marty Byrde. He excels in all three roles on every level, and if you are a fan of his lighter work, chances are you will fall head over heels for his dubious charm in Ozark.
But, whilst he is the lynchpin of the show, and a compelling character in every subtley drawn way, there is so much more to the show than him. Laura Linney, as his initially timid wife, Wendy, is never less than interesting. Perfectly cast, utilising her skill for portraying strong yet flawed women at every turn; she grows into a character so full of contradictions and conflicts, that you change your mind whether you like her or not almost episode to episode. Time will tell, but she may yet emerge in season 4 as the most fully realised character in the show, depending on how her arc ends. The potential is huge, and despite a CV of solid roles over the years, this could be the defining work of her career. It’s already close.
Then there are the kids in this very modern nuclear family, Charlotte and Jonah, played by Sofia Hublitz and Skylar Gaetner. These characters could have been set decoration in lesser hands, but in this show they are given the chance to grow and become pivotal to the ongoing story in remarkable ways. There is nothing stereotypical about either of them, and the two young actors more than rise to the challenge of matching the more experienced pros. Many a show has been ruined by miscast youths that can’t match the more sophisticated adult content, but I remain impressed by these two, both as characters and actors. Again, they have the scope to go into very fascinating places within the story when season four emerges.
The true strength of the show, however, may lie in its consistently solid output of great supporting characters. Julia Gartner, as older than her years redneck with ambitions to rise above it, Ruth, has garnered all the plaudits, quite rightly. You grow to like her in usual ways. At first mistrusting her and then ended up 100% on her side. At times, she is the only one making sense and making the right decisions. The continual ways she is forced to grow up fast and bounce back from traumatic situations is so beautifully handled, that when she does show her vulnerable side it is at once shocking and heart- rending.
A lot of characters come and go; some forever, much quicker than you anticipated… for the sake of non spoilers, I won’t go into a who’s who here, but many meet a very sticky end, and it isn’t always who you think it will be. Especially by season 3, which largely drops the dark filter on the camera lens, but cranks up the body count exponentially, you start to feel that no one is safe, and anyone can go at any minute. Except, when they do, and why they do, is so well interwoven into the plot that you forget to look for the sucker punch and are still left with your jaw hitting the floor.
There were moments on season three where I was actually talking to the screen, begging certain characters not to do what they were doing; a sure sign of complete emotional investment. A big part of that was the addition of Tom Pelphrey as Wendy’s brother, who from the start puts a genius new spin on the family dynamic, becoming intertwined in interesting and ultimately devastating ways. His character takes a while to warm up, but by mid-season he is guaranteed to be your favourite person in it. And in episode 9, he delivers a monologue and a performance that I would quite honestly say is one of the absolute best things I’ve ever seen in a TV show.
I was moderately outraged then, to see he wasn’t rewarded with at least a nomination for the 2020 Emmy Awards. An oversight rather than a snub, for sure, but when Bateman, Linney and Garner all got nominated and he didn’t it felt like a real injustice, and a lot of online vitriol reflected that. Such a shame, especially if it turns out to be the best work he ever does – and I can’t imagine anything better, but who knows where he will go from here.
By the end of season 3 I felt exhausted. Each episode is slightly over an hour long, but can feel like you just watched a self contained movie. The quality certainly feels that way. I was both elated and shocked by the way it was left on a cliff edge, and relieved that I could take a break from it now. Although, waiting potentially up to two years to see how the story ends now seems like a long wait.
And it will be the end, one way or another, as the production announced season four will be the last, however stretching from 10 to 14 episodes, divided into 2 halves of 7; a trick Breaking Bad also did in its fifth and final season. I love that idea. Knowing the finish line is coming, rather than having it stretch out for years until the ideas and the momentum have long run out. Dexter springs to mind: a show that should have ended two seasons earlier, for sure.
I can really only see two ways it can go from here: either everyone dies, and that seems quite likely right now, or they win big. There simply is no inbetween I can imagine that would be satisfying. And I’m on the fence which I will prefer… The only certainty is that I will be very excited indeed when it comes around. And shows that make you feel that way are rare. In the meantime, I’m gonna watch a lot of comedies. I need a laugh after this…
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Awkward Guests in Tabletop Games
Aug 6, 2020
One of my favorite classic mass-market games is definitely Clue. Murder, mystery, and a bit of deduction make for an engaging and entertaining game! That being said, even classic games can use a little updating from time to time. Allow me to introduce to you a Clue-on-steroids kind of game named Awkward Guests. How does it hold up to the OG staple? Keep reading to find out!
Mr. Walton has been murdered! You have been called in to investigate and get to the bottom of this gruesome mystery. By interrogating the suspects and the household staff, searching for clues, and examining the crime scene, you must decide WHO the killer is, WHY did they commit the murder, and HOW it was done. There may or may not even be an accomplice that needs to be caught too. Put your deduction skills to the test as you work to be the first investigator to solve the case!
Disclaimer: I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook in this review, but rather give a general overview of the rules and gameplay. To read the entire rulebook, check out the game at your FLGS or directly from the publisher! -L
Awkward Guests is a card game of hand management, trading, and deduction in which the players are trying to be the first player to solve the murder of Mr. Walton. The game is actually pretty simple to play. To start, each player receives a hand of 6 cards and a case tracking sheet. The cards will have one or more references (case information) on them, as well as a value of 1-3 points, depending on the reliability of the information presented on the card. On your turn, you will ask for information about two different references in which you are interested. The other players will then look through their cards, and offer some or all that pertain to the chosen references in trade to the active player. The active player may then choose a player with whom to trade, giving that player any number of cards, as long as their value equals or exceeds the value of the cards received in trade. Look at your new cards, make notes on your case tracking sheet, and play continues to the next player. After all players have inquired and traded cards, players have the opportunity to solve the mystery. You must know WHO, HOW, and WHY, and possibly the identity of the ACCOMPLICE depending on case difficulty, in order to solve the mystery. If nobody is ready to solve, everyone discards their hand down to 3, and draws new cards to a hand size of 6. A new round then begins, and play continues until one player successfully solves the mystery.
When you get down to it, Awkward Guests is easy to learn and play. It mostly consists of trading cards to learn information. That’s it. And that’s what makes it a great game, in my opinion. Although it feels more involved than regular Clue, the gameplay itself is very similar and that familiarity is reassuring. One thing that elevates Awkward Guests above Clue is the fact that it requires so much more strategy than original Clue. In Clue, when asking for information, you are asking 1 specific opponent for information, and they have to provide it if they have it. In Awkward Guests, you are able to ask all opponents for information, and they can offer as much or as little information as they want. It increases the amount of strategy required to play, and takes it from a simple grid movement memory game, to one that encourages deduction and compromise. Since players are trading cards, you never know who is holding what cards at any given time, and that makes it harder to pinpoint the information you may need. You can’t just memorize another player’s hand of cards, because on any given turn that hand has completely changed. Along those lines as well, you have to decide what information you are willing to trade, in hopes of receiving useful information in return. You don’t want to just trade back the same cards to the same players in an effort to stunt their investigation, because that could deter them from trading with you in the future. You have to decide when is the right time to trade, and what information you are willing to hand to your opponents, because you need to be receiving new information as well.
Another brilliant thing about Awkward Guests is the amount of replayability. Each case uses a different combination of cards, and with so many cards, that means that thousands of different game decks could be generated and played as individual cases. The game design and card system boasts a possible total of 3,600 case solutions, each reached through these different card deck combinations. No matter how many times you play, it is almost guaranteed that you will never play the same case twice. That being said, the biggest downside of Awkward Guests for me is the actual game setup and teardown. Each case deck requires certain cards, so that means to set up, you have to search through all 243 cards and pull out only those required for the selected case. And then after the game, you must sort them all back into their correct order. That just takes a bit of time, and makes it a game that can’t just be played on the fly.
One other downside for me when playing Awkward Guests are the player screens. Each player receives a screen to block their case tracking sheet from opponents. As you learn information, you write it on your sheet to help keep track of your notes and accusations throughout the game. The player screens are also reference sheets, providing much gameplay information to alleviate the need to reference the rulebook at every turn. The downside is that there is just SO MUCH information in the player screens. It is quite overwhelming, and honestly, makes the game seem more complicated and confusing than it really is. I appreciate the effort to provide that cheat-sheet, but it needs to be majorly edited and redacted to be truly useful.
Let’s talk components. The game comes with some high quality double-sided case tracking sheets, and nice sturdy cards and cardboard components. It’s pretty simple, but really gets the job done effectively. The artwork is pretty basic and the color scheme is mostly monochromatic. It may not be the most exciting game to look at, but the lack of colors makes it feel appropriately thematic.
Overall, Awkward Guests is a good step-up game from Clue. It requires strategy, deduction, and even though the game is ultimately competitive, selective cooperation is a key to success. As a huge fan of Clue as a child, I can definitely say that I am a fan of Awkward Guests as an adult. Originally printed in a different language, this game was brought to Kickstarter with an English version in 2018, and I am certainly thankful that the decision was made to reprint it in English! If you like deduction games with a twist, I would absolutely recommend giving this one a shot. Purple Phoenix Games gives Awkward Guests a mysterious 17 / 24.
Mr. Walton has been murdered! You have been called in to investigate and get to the bottom of this gruesome mystery. By interrogating the suspects and the household staff, searching for clues, and examining the crime scene, you must decide WHO the killer is, WHY did they commit the murder, and HOW it was done. There may or may not even be an accomplice that needs to be caught too. Put your deduction skills to the test as you work to be the first investigator to solve the case!
Disclaimer: I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook in this review, but rather give a general overview of the rules and gameplay. To read the entire rulebook, check out the game at your FLGS or directly from the publisher! -L
Awkward Guests is a card game of hand management, trading, and deduction in which the players are trying to be the first player to solve the murder of Mr. Walton. The game is actually pretty simple to play. To start, each player receives a hand of 6 cards and a case tracking sheet. The cards will have one or more references (case information) on them, as well as a value of 1-3 points, depending on the reliability of the information presented on the card. On your turn, you will ask for information about two different references in which you are interested. The other players will then look through their cards, and offer some or all that pertain to the chosen references in trade to the active player. The active player may then choose a player with whom to trade, giving that player any number of cards, as long as their value equals or exceeds the value of the cards received in trade. Look at your new cards, make notes on your case tracking sheet, and play continues to the next player. After all players have inquired and traded cards, players have the opportunity to solve the mystery. You must know WHO, HOW, and WHY, and possibly the identity of the ACCOMPLICE depending on case difficulty, in order to solve the mystery. If nobody is ready to solve, everyone discards their hand down to 3, and draws new cards to a hand size of 6. A new round then begins, and play continues until one player successfully solves the mystery.
When you get down to it, Awkward Guests is easy to learn and play. It mostly consists of trading cards to learn information. That’s it. And that’s what makes it a great game, in my opinion. Although it feels more involved than regular Clue, the gameplay itself is very similar and that familiarity is reassuring. One thing that elevates Awkward Guests above Clue is the fact that it requires so much more strategy than original Clue. In Clue, when asking for information, you are asking 1 specific opponent for information, and they have to provide it if they have it. In Awkward Guests, you are able to ask all opponents for information, and they can offer as much or as little information as they want. It increases the amount of strategy required to play, and takes it from a simple grid movement memory game, to one that encourages deduction and compromise. Since players are trading cards, you never know who is holding what cards at any given time, and that makes it harder to pinpoint the information you may need. You can’t just memorize another player’s hand of cards, because on any given turn that hand has completely changed. Along those lines as well, you have to decide what information you are willing to trade, in hopes of receiving useful information in return. You don’t want to just trade back the same cards to the same players in an effort to stunt their investigation, because that could deter them from trading with you in the future. You have to decide when is the right time to trade, and what information you are willing to hand to your opponents, because you need to be receiving new information as well.
Another brilliant thing about Awkward Guests is the amount of replayability. Each case uses a different combination of cards, and with so many cards, that means that thousands of different game decks could be generated and played as individual cases. The game design and card system boasts a possible total of 3,600 case solutions, each reached through these different card deck combinations. No matter how many times you play, it is almost guaranteed that you will never play the same case twice. That being said, the biggest downside of Awkward Guests for me is the actual game setup and teardown. Each case deck requires certain cards, so that means to set up, you have to search through all 243 cards and pull out only those required for the selected case. And then after the game, you must sort them all back into their correct order. That just takes a bit of time, and makes it a game that can’t just be played on the fly.
One other downside for me when playing Awkward Guests are the player screens. Each player receives a screen to block their case tracking sheet from opponents. As you learn information, you write it on your sheet to help keep track of your notes and accusations throughout the game. The player screens are also reference sheets, providing much gameplay information to alleviate the need to reference the rulebook at every turn. The downside is that there is just SO MUCH information in the player screens. It is quite overwhelming, and honestly, makes the game seem more complicated and confusing than it really is. I appreciate the effort to provide that cheat-sheet, but it needs to be majorly edited and redacted to be truly useful.
Let’s talk components. The game comes with some high quality double-sided case tracking sheets, and nice sturdy cards and cardboard components. It’s pretty simple, but really gets the job done effectively. The artwork is pretty basic and the color scheme is mostly monochromatic. It may not be the most exciting game to look at, but the lack of colors makes it feel appropriately thematic.
Overall, Awkward Guests is a good step-up game from Clue. It requires strategy, deduction, and even though the game is ultimately competitive, selective cooperation is a key to success. As a huge fan of Clue as a child, I can definitely say that I am a fan of Awkward Guests as an adult. Originally printed in a different language, this game was brought to Kickstarter with an English version in 2018, and I am certainly thankful that the decision was made to reprint it in English! If you like deduction games with a twist, I would absolutely recommend giving this one a shot. Purple Phoenix Games gives Awkward Guests a mysterious 17 / 24.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Artemis Fowl (2020) in Movies
Jun 13, 2020
Disney: "We're making a film of Artemis Fowl!"
Me: *wildly switches from happiness to devastation about the possibilities*
Artemis Fowl's father, Artemis Fowl Snr., has gone missing, the media is portraying him as a criminal and calling for answers. Shocked and confused by what's happening Artemis Jnr. receives a phone call from his father's kidnapper and must hand over an item to secure his release. But he's no idea what the item is, or where, he's about to learn a great deal about fantastical things in a very short space of time and meet an odd selection of new friends.
So... I'm going to break this down into two parts, the first bit will be just about the film and the second will be me ranting about the film in conjunction with the book... *calm thoughts* Let us begin.
From the very beginning I was thrown, the opening in no way seems like a family film and I was wondering if by avoiding reading about it all beforehand that I'd got the wrong idea about what to expect.
With such a good cast backing up our newcomers I had medium hopes for what was going to hit our screens...
Ferdia Shaw takes on the part of Artemis Fowl Jnr., putting aside the comparison between the two versions until later, the performance isn't bad but it's quite forgettable. The same sadly goes for Lara McDonnell as Holly Short. Neither one has much of a presence on screen and I think that's mostly to do with the fact that Artemis and Holly are both rather bland in the whole story.
There's something oddly appealing about Josh Gad as Mulch but I'm not sure that giving him such a large role as narrator worked. It's never really clear why he's given that role and the scene's where we cut back to him talking are given a strange noir look that doesn't match with the rest of the film. Even so, I'm willing to concede that he's my favourite character as he has just enough humour to carry it.
Judi Dench as Commander Root was a little bit of a challenge to see. Root is a gruff but caring character, the trouble come in the fact that the change comes quite unnaturally at times.
One of the main failings is that there are times when the script feels poor, the dialogue is a little forced and doesn't fit with the characters, couple that with a variety of scenes that don't fit with the style of everything else and the fact that some pieces could be removed without really affecting anything around it and I'm left less than inspired by the film.
I did like the look of Haven City, the animation of the overhead view looked really promising. As we got into the city though I couldn't help but think it looked a little cheap and the aesthetic wasn't great. Effects, in general, were not good if I'm honest, particularly when you get to the siege on Fowl manor, when the siege is ending it comes with some chaos that is a perfect example of this coupled with another example of how the story glosses over an explanation of what's happening that could have offered some extra development for characters. (Specifically in this instance, Foley, who was woefully underused. He might not have been as majestic as a Brosnan centaur but he deserved better than the film gave him.)
By the end a lot of things get resolved seemingly by fairy magic because it's not clear how any of it happens. Potentially it's something that I wouldn't have noticed as there's a certain amount of this kind of wrapping up that you can forgive, but by this point I was so frustrated by everything that I was spotting everything.
I'm aware I'm waffling more than I intended so let me "briefly" mention things regarding the book...
The film is, in my opinion, only vaguely based on the book. It has kept ideas and pieces of story while removing and adding characters to varying degrees. Notably Artemis' mother is gone and his father is there instead. Removing mum makes Juliet's inclusion surplus to requirements, I can understand wanting to keep her for a young female character for viewers to identify with, but the role she ends up with is bland and in no way lives up to the book's version. The blandness also extends to her brother, Butler, and that's partly because of the major change they made...
Artemis. He is barely recognisable in comparison. He's a jeans-wearing, surfing, tween? He's much more casual than the original and this fluffier version doesn't have the same edge that book Artemis does. In their revamp they have changed his story and I very quickly felt like it could have been a sequel to the books, Artemis Snr. felt more like the Artemis from the books grown up and he was teaching his son about all the things he learnt. Part of the thing I enjoyed about the books is that Artemis was always an anti-hero of sorts, he was very difficult to like at times because of his actions, film Artemis is a little bit jumbled in this respect as they give him a very clear reason for the things he does so when he tries to show that tough side it doesn't have any impact.
There are a lot of differences, but I will leave that analysis for someone who is much more thorough at scouring the books and film than I am. I'll be keeping my eye out for other reviews with the comparisons in, if you spot any then please leave a link in the comments below.
When it came to scoring this I thought about it on two levels.
As a film from such a big company I was quite shocked by the quality of script and effects, there was a baddie that didn't really participate in anything and there were scenes and characters which weren't needed... and to finish it off in such an obvious set up for a sequel... I was done. I had marked it down for a generous score of 2 stars, that's normally my "I didn't like it but I can see why other people might" score, but I can't quite see what would appeal to people in it if I'm honest.
As an adaptation of the book I was too frustrated by the changes they made to Artemis, they essentially changed the fundamentals of the character and that had a knock-on effect to other characters as well. No one came out unscathed, but even though Mulch was heavily adapted I was glad that some of his humour was still there. Scoring on this basis I would have given it 1 star, but again, that felt generous to me.
In the end I will always score something on my enjoyment, in this instance it seems fair to even out the two scores. They've taken a great book and removed most of its personality, the final product was not exciting to watch and I don't think I could bring myself to watch a sequel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/artemis-fowl-movie-review.html
Me: *wildly switches from happiness to devastation about the possibilities*
Artemis Fowl's father, Artemis Fowl Snr., has gone missing, the media is portraying him as a criminal and calling for answers. Shocked and confused by what's happening Artemis Jnr. receives a phone call from his father's kidnapper and must hand over an item to secure his release. But he's no idea what the item is, or where, he's about to learn a great deal about fantastical things in a very short space of time and meet an odd selection of new friends.
So... I'm going to break this down into two parts, the first bit will be just about the film and the second will be me ranting about the film in conjunction with the book... *calm thoughts* Let us begin.
From the very beginning I was thrown, the opening in no way seems like a family film and I was wondering if by avoiding reading about it all beforehand that I'd got the wrong idea about what to expect.
With such a good cast backing up our newcomers I had medium hopes for what was going to hit our screens...
Ferdia Shaw takes on the part of Artemis Fowl Jnr., putting aside the comparison between the two versions until later, the performance isn't bad but it's quite forgettable. The same sadly goes for Lara McDonnell as Holly Short. Neither one has much of a presence on screen and I think that's mostly to do with the fact that Artemis and Holly are both rather bland in the whole story.
There's something oddly appealing about Josh Gad as Mulch but I'm not sure that giving him such a large role as narrator worked. It's never really clear why he's given that role and the scene's where we cut back to him talking are given a strange noir look that doesn't match with the rest of the film. Even so, I'm willing to concede that he's my favourite character as he has just enough humour to carry it.
Judi Dench as Commander Root was a little bit of a challenge to see. Root is a gruff but caring character, the trouble come in the fact that the change comes quite unnaturally at times.
One of the main failings is that there are times when the script feels poor, the dialogue is a little forced and doesn't fit with the characters, couple that with a variety of scenes that don't fit with the style of everything else and the fact that some pieces could be removed without really affecting anything around it and I'm left less than inspired by the film.
I did like the look of Haven City, the animation of the overhead view looked really promising. As we got into the city though I couldn't help but think it looked a little cheap and the aesthetic wasn't great. Effects, in general, were not good if I'm honest, particularly when you get to the siege on Fowl manor, when the siege is ending it comes with some chaos that is a perfect example of this coupled with another example of how the story glosses over an explanation of what's happening that could have offered some extra development for characters. (Specifically in this instance, Foley, who was woefully underused. He might not have been as majestic as a Brosnan centaur but he deserved better than the film gave him.)
By the end a lot of things get resolved seemingly by fairy magic because it's not clear how any of it happens. Potentially it's something that I wouldn't have noticed as there's a certain amount of this kind of wrapping up that you can forgive, but by this point I was so frustrated by everything that I was spotting everything.
I'm aware I'm waffling more than I intended so let me "briefly" mention things regarding the book...
The film is, in my opinion, only vaguely based on the book. It has kept ideas and pieces of story while removing and adding characters to varying degrees. Notably Artemis' mother is gone and his father is there instead. Removing mum makes Juliet's inclusion surplus to requirements, I can understand wanting to keep her for a young female character for viewers to identify with, but the role she ends up with is bland and in no way lives up to the book's version. The blandness also extends to her brother, Butler, and that's partly because of the major change they made...
Artemis. He is barely recognisable in comparison. He's a jeans-wearing, surfing, tween? He's much more casual than the original and this fluffier version doesn't have the same edge that book Artemis does. In their revamp they have changed his story and I very quickly felt like it could have been a sequel to the books, Artemis Snr. felt more like the Artemis from the books grown up and he was teaching his son about all the things he learnt. Part of the thing I enjoyed about the books is that Artemis was always an anti-hero of sorts, he was very difficult to like at times because of his actions, film Artemis is a little bit jumbled in this respect as they give him a very clear reason for the things he does so when he tries to show that tough side it doesn't have any impact.
There are a lot of differences, but I will leave that analysis for someone who is much more thorough at scouring the books and film than I am. I'll be keeping my eye out for other reviews with the comparisons in, if you spot any then please leave a link in the comments below.
When it came to scoring this I thought about it on two levels.
As a film from such a big company I was quite shocked by the quality of script and effects, there was a baddie that didn't really participate in anything and there were scenes and characters which weren't needed... and to finish it off in such an obvious set up for a sequel... I was done. I had marked it down for a generous score of 2 stars, that's normally my "I didn't like it but I can see why other people might" score, but I can't quite see what would appeal to people in it if I'm honest.
As an adaptation of the book I was too frustrated by the changes they made to Artemis, they essentially changed the fundamentals of the character and that had a knock-on effect to other characters as well. No one came out unscathed, but even though Mulch was heavily adapted I was glad that some of his humour was still there. Scoring on this basis I would have given it 1 star, but again, that felt generous to me.
In the end I will always score something on my enjoyment, in this instance it seems fair to even out the two scores. They've taken a great book and removed most of its personality, the final product was not exciting to watch and I don't think I could bring myself to watch a sequel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/artemis-fowl-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated If Beale Street Could Talk (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Love and Rage against the machine.
The baby asked,
‘Is there not one righteous among them?”
― James Baldwin, If Beale Street Could Talk
Beale Street refers to the jumpin’ heart of Memphis where Louis Armstrong was born. As explained in text from Baldwin’s source book (requiring a speed read!) it’s used as a metaphor for the birthplace of every black person in America. (“Every black person in America was born on Beale Street“). But the story is set in Harlem, New York, and with this intellectual stretch, before I even get past the title, I am immediately reaching for the “P-word”, of which more later.
The Plot
Tish (KiKi Layne) is 19 and in love with her lifelong friend ‘Fonny’ (Stephan James). So much in love in fact (and so careless) that Tish is now pregnant with his child. Tish must break this news to both families herself, since Fonny is inside awaiting trial for a vicious rape that he claims he didn’t commit. Tish and their joint families are trying to help, but can Fonny be released in time to see the birth of his child? Or are the institutions so set against him that release is impossible and death row might await?
Interwoven with Love and Anger
At its heart, this film portrays a truly beautiful love story. Tish and Fonny (both adorably played by the young leads) are friends becoming more than friends. We see their emerging love through flashback scenes. Some of these, particularly one on a metro train, are exquisitely done; long gazes into eyes, starting as one thing and ending as another.
In another scene, Fonny takes Tish’s virginity, and it’s done with style, taste and finesse. For younger teens this should be compulsory viewing as an antidote to all the horrible porn they are seeing on the internet: THIS is what sex, based on a foundation of true love, is all about. (The film is UK15 rated for “infrequent very strong language, strong sex” – I actually agree with the rating for the language (and actually I think an act of marital violence should also have also been referenced)…. but not for the sex, which should be 12A).
It’s a love story then? Well, yes, but offset against that, it’s a very angry film, seething with rage about how the police force and the justice system is set ‘against the black man’. Director Barry Jenkins (of – eventual – Oscar winner “Moonlight” fame) has a message to impart and he is intent on imparting it.
A great ensemble performance
The film didn’t get a SAG nomination for the ensemble cast, but it almost feels that they missed out here. As well as the two young leads being spectacular, the whole of the rest of the cast really gel well together, particularly the respective parents: Colman Domingo (“Selma“) as Tish’s father Joseph; Regina King as Tish’s mother Sharon; Michael Beach (“Patriots Day“) as Fonny’s father Frank and Aunjanue Ellis as his bible-bashing mother. A dramatic scene where they all collectively hear the news about the pregnancy is both comical and shocking in equal measure.
Poor sound mixing
If this film gets an Oscar nomination for sound, I’ll frankly be cross! There is significant use of sonorous, bass-heavy music and effects (including a lovely cello theme by Nicholas Britell) – all very effective; there is a lot of earnest and quietly spoken dialogue between the characters – also moody and effective. Unfortunately the two are mixed together in some scenes and frankly I couldn’t make out what was being said. Most frustrating.
In addition, there is voiceover narration from Tish (if you follow my blog regularly you KNOW what I think about that!). Actually, this isn’t as overly intrusive as in films like “The Hate U Give“, but it sounds like it was recorded in a dustbin! It’s a bit like that effect you get with headphones where the plug isn’t quite in the socket, and everything sounds way off and tinny. When combined with Layne’s accent the effect, again, made the dialogue difficult to comprehend.
The c-word and the n-word
There’s a degree of bad language in the film, albeit mild in comparison to “The Favourite“! Tish’s sister (Teyonah Parris) uses the c-word in one very funny dissing of Fonny’s ‘up-themselves’ sisters (Ebony Obsidian and Dominique Thorne). But the n-word is used repeatedly during the film, and that I can never get used to. I ‘get it’ (in the sense that I understand the perception) that this is a word that ‘only black people can use between themselves’. But this just feels elitist and wrong to me. At a time when Viggo Mortensen gets crucified for using it once (while being descriptive and in-context) during a press junket for “Green Book“, I just feel that if a word is taboo it should be taboo, period.
The p-word
My p-word here is “pretentious”. Barry Jenkins clearly feels he has something to prove after the success of “Moonlight“, and there are certainly moments of directorial brilliance in the film. As previously mentioned, the sex scene is one of the best I’ve seen in a long while. Also beautifully done are a birthing scene and two confrontational scenes in Puerto Rico. But there are also moments that seem to be staged, artificial and too ‘arty’ for their own good. Any hidden meaning behind them completely passed me by. (Examples are Sharon’s wig scene and a pan around Fonny’s wood sculpture). It all seems to be “trying too hard”.
Hate for the police is also writ large on the film, with every discriminatory police officer in the whole of the US embodied in the wicked sneering face of the police office Bell (Ed Skrein).
A platform that should be used for more than ranting
This is a film written and directed by an American black man (Jenkins) and largely fully cast with American black people. And I’m a white Englishman commenting on it. I’m clearly unqualified to pass judgement on how black America really feels about things! But comment I will from this fug of ignorance.
It feels to me that the “Black Lives Movement” has given, at long last, black film-makers like Jenkins a platform in cinema to present from. This is a great thing. But I’m sensing that at the moment the tone of the output from that platform (such as this film) seems to me heavily tinged with anger: a scream of frustration about the system and racial injustice over the years. It’s the film-makers right to make films about subjects dear to them. And I’m sure this summer we’ll sadly again see atrocities as previously seen in the likes of Ferguson and Dallas, fuelling the fire of hate. But I would personally really like to see someone like Jenkins use his undoubted talents to make a more uplifting film: a film reflecting the more positive strives that are happening in society, allowing for people of all races and all sexual orientations to make their way in business (not drug-running or crime!) and/or life in general. Those good news stories – the positive side of race relations – are out there and my view is that someone like Barry Jenkins should be telling them.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t as much of a fan of “Moonlight” as the Academy, and this film also left me conflicted. The film is well-made and the cast is very engaging. It also has a love story at its heart that is moody but well-done. Overall though the movie felt over-engineered and a little pretentious, and that knocked it down a few pegs for me.
‘Is there not one righteous among them?”
― James Baldwin, If Beale Street Could Talk
Beale Street refers to the jumpin’ heart of Memphis where Louis Armstrong was born. As explained in text from Baldwin’s source book (requiring a speed read!) it’s used as a metaphor for the birthplace of every black person in America. (“Every black person in America was born on Beale Street“). But the story is set in Harlem, New York, and with this intellectual stretch, before I even get past the title, I am immediately reaching for the “P-word”, of which more later.
The Plot
Tish (KiKi Layne) is 19 and in love with her lifelong friend ‘Fonny’ (Stephan James). So much in love in fact (and so careless) that Tish is now pregnant with his child. Tish must break this news to both families herself, since Fonny is inside awaiting trial for a vicious rape that he claims he didn’t commit. Tish and their joint families are trying to help, but can Fonny be released in time to see the birth of his child? Or are the institutions so set against him that release is impossible and death row might await?
Interwoven with Love and Anger
At its heart, this film portrays a truly beautiful love story. Tish and Fonny (both adorably played by the young leads) are friends becoming more than friends. We see their emerging love through flashback scenes. Some of these, particularly one on a metro train, are exquisitely done; long gazes into eyes, starting as one thing and ending as another.
In another scene, Fonny takes Tish’s virginity, and it’s done with style, taste and finesse. For younger teens this should be compulsory viewing as an antidote to all the horrible porn they are seeing on the internet: THIS is what sex, based on a foundation of true love, is all about. (The film is UK15 rated for “infrequent very strong language, strong sex” – I actually agree with the rating for the language (and actually I think an act of marital violence should also have also been referenced)…. but not for the sex, which should be 12A).
It’s a love story then? Well, yes, but offset against that, it’s a very angry film, seething with rage about how the police force and the justice system is set ‘against the black man’. Director Barry Jenkins (of – eventual – Oscar winner “Moonlight” fame) has a message to impart and he is intent on imparting it.
A great ensemble performance
The film didn’t get a SAG nomination for the ensemble cast, but it almost feels that they missed out here. As well as the two young leads being spectacular, the whole of the rest of the cast really gel well together, particularly the respective parents: Colman Domingo (“Selma“) as Tish’s father Joseph; Regina King as Tish’s mother Sharon; Michael Beach (“Patriots Day“) as Fonny’s father Frank and Aunjanue Ellis as his bible-bashing mother. A dramatic scene where they all collectively hear the news about the pregnancy is both comical and shocking in equal measure.
Poor sound mixing
If this film gets an Oscar nomination for sound, I’ll frankly be cross! There is significant use of sonorous, bass-heavy music and effects (including a lovely cello theme by Nicholas Britell) – all very effective; there is a lot of earnest and quietly spoken dialogue between the characters – also moody and effective. Unfortunately the two are mixed together in some scenes and frankly I couldn’t make out what was being said. Most frustrating.
In addition, there is voiceover narration from Tish (if you follow my blog regularly you KNOW what I think about that!). Actually, this isn’t as overly intrusive as in films like “The Hate U Give“, but it sounds like it was recorded in a dustbin! It’s a bit like that effect you get with headphones where the plug isn’t quite in the socket, and everything sounds way off and tinny. When combined with Layne’s accent the effect, again, made the dialogue difficult to comprehend.
The c-word and the n-word
There’s a degree of bad language in the film, albeit mild in comparison to “The Favourite“! Tish’s sister (Teyonah Parris) uses the c-word in one very funny dissing of Fonny’s ‘up-themselves’ sisters (Ebony Obsidian and Dominique Thorne). But the n-word is used repeatedly during the film, and that I can never get used to. I ‘get it’ (in the sense that I understand the perception) that this is a word that ‘only black people can use between themselves’. But this just feels elitist and wrong to me. At a time when Viggo Mortensen gets crucified for using it once (while being descriptive and in-context) during a press junket for “Green Book“, I just feel that if a word is taboo it should be taboo, period.
The p-word
My p-word here is “pretentious”. Barry Jenkins clearly feels he has something to prove after the success of “Moonlight“, and there are certainly moments of directorial brilliance in the film. As previously mentioned, the sex scene is one of the best I’ve seen in a long while. Also beautifully done are a birthing scene and two confrontational scenes in Puerto Rico. But there are also moments that seem to be staged, artificial and too ‘arty’ for their own good. Any hidden meaning behind them completely passed me by. (Examples are Sharon’s wig scene and a pan around Fonny’s wood sculpture). It all seems to be “trying too hard”.
Hate for the police is also writ large on the film, with every discriminatory police officer in the whole of the US embodied in the wicked sneering face of the police office Bell (Ed Skrein).
A platform that should be used for more than ranting
This is a film written and directed by an American black man (Jenkins) and largely fully cast with American black people. And I’m a white Englishman commenting on it. I’m clearly unqualified to pass judgement on how black America really feels about things! But comment I will from this fug of ignorance.
It feels to me that the “Black Lives Movement” has given, at long last, black film-makers like Jenkins a platform in cinema to present from. This is a great thing. But I’m sensing that at the moment the tone of the output from that platform (such as this film) seems to me heavily tinged with anger: a scream of frustration about the system and racial injustice over the years. It’s the film-makers right to make films about subjects dear to them. And I’m sure this summer we’ll sadly again see atrocities as previously seen in the likes of Ferguson and Dallas, fuelling the fire of hate. But I would personally really like to see someone like Jenkins use his undoubted talents to make a more uplifting film: a film reflecting the more positive strives that are happening in society, allowing for people of all races and all sexual orientations to make their way in business (not drug-running or crime!) and/or life in general. Those good news stories – the positive side of race relations – are out there and my view is that someone like Barry Jenkins should be telling them.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t as much of a fan of “Moonlight” as the Academy, and this film also left me conflicted. The film is well-made and the cast is very engaging. It also has a love story at its heart that is moody but well-done. Overall though the movie felt over-engineered and a little pretentious, and that knocked it down a few pegs for me.