Search
Search results
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.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015) in Movies
Jul 20, 2017
There has been an awakening...
Contains spoilers, click to show
There was a point where I honestly thought that this day was never going to come. Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time in 30 years we have an exciting, entertaining Star Wars movie. Now this review will contain a non spoilers section and a spoilers section, so if you haven’t seen the movie yet, maybe don’t read past the spoiler warning. So, strap in because if this franchise is starting as it means to go on, then I’ve got a good feeling about this…
First off, let’s talk about the new cast. All three of them are fantastic in their performances, with Daisy Ridley as Rey, John Boyega as Finn and Oscar Isaac as Poe Dameron respectively. Poe has the smallest role, which is my biggest and only complaint about the character, because he is awesome. He is funny, he’s an amazing pilot, he reeks of cool and he is the one character in this movie that I’d love to get a pint with. Finn is another new character, dealing with an inner conflict, (which I won’t ruin,) but is still likeable and relatable. Rey is arguably the most central of the three new main cast members and she delivers also, she sold the fairly bland character dealing with an exciting new adventure calling her name pretty well, but possibly could have done more in a few scenes, as it sort of feels like they could have cast anyone of the same age in this role and they would have delivered, but she did well enough. Of course, the old cast are also back, Anthony Daniels as C3PO is just as irritating as he was 30 years ago and while it’s nice to see Peter Mahew back as Chewie, they really could have put any tall, thin guy into the furry costume and it wouldn’t have made any difference. Carrie Fisher is back as Leia and the while lines she had were entertaining and at times touching, she simply wasn’t in the movie enough. I won’t talk about Luke until the spoilers section, so let’s move on to Han. It’s nice to see grumpy old gramps Harrison Ford actually look enthusiastic and as if he is actually enjoying himself for a change. His performance surprisingly isn’t phoned in and he genuinely commits to the role just as much as he did 30 years ago. Also, out of the original returning cast, he is definitely in the movie most.
Now that we have discussed the light side, now let’s move onto the dark side. Personally I don’t think these characters are as strong as the protagonists. It’s not the fault of the actors, Domnall Gleason as Hux is great, super evil and almost Nazi-like, Andy Serkis as Snoke is intimidating in his performance also and Adam Driver as Kylo Ren is one of the best performances in the movie, showing sadness and anger, all while being an unhinged threatening presence. The problem here is that the villains in this movie just don’t have the same impact as the villains in the original , Hux and Ren are made out to be young and naïve and while Snoke is pulling the strings, but we only ever see him as a hologram and even then, we don’t see him all that much. It’s as if this is these villain’s origin story, but in A New Hope, the villains and the Empire already felt like an established, villainous organisation, whereas in this movie it is as if a bunch of amateurs have happened across a new death star (let’s not lie, that’s all that the Starkiller base is,) and they don’t really know what they are doing. And Captain Phasma? Hardly worth talking about, she is in two scenes and does nothing in either of them besides let herself get taken advantage of. So that’s a summary on how I felt about the characters in general, onto the movie as a whole.
I feel that Abrams has gotten the tone of this movie just right. It’s funny enough that it’s constantly entertaining and never boring and it’s serious enough that you feel a genuine, palpable threat throughout. The score is also fantastic, as is expected from John Williams and overall the effects are spot on also. I did have a slight problem with some of the CGI characters, namely Snoke, the tentacle monsters that show up briefly and the market owner that was in possession of the Falcon at the start of the movie played by Simon Pegg, but there were also a lot of puppets and practical effects were used and it really pays off in the overall look of the movie, no more crammed scenes of cartoon garbage like the prequels, just what matters. The pacing of this movie is very fast, some might say too fast, with Abrams not really giving the viewers time to breathe and digest what they just saw before throwing another dogfight or lightsaber battle at them, but hey, at least you can’t say it’s boring and I’m happy to say that there isn’t a senate discussion in sight. I really do feel like I have to see the movie again however before making an overall verdict and that is due to the extremely fast pacing and because of all of the significant events that happen nothing really stands out, which leaves a lack of meat on the bone. The story is well written however, the world is built well and the characters are all introduced well, but the story does follow a lot of the same beats as the original trilogy. Without giving anything away, the story is divided up into three distinct acts, with each taking place on a different planet followed by an epilogue at the end. There is a cantina scene, a robot carrying an important message to be delivered, Tie Fighter vs. X Wing dogfights and a death star-like weapon of mass destruction, there is even a trench run.
Okay, so I saw the movie again on Tuesday this week and while most of what I felt the first time I felt again, making a lot of the feelings I had after my first viewing more concrete, I did notice a few new things. Also, from this point on there will be spoilers.
Knowing what was coming before it did really helped the pacing of this movie, it was much easier to digest a second time, but at no point was it a chore to watch the film again. I also noticed a lot more lens flares this time, upon first viewing I thought that the only lens flare in the movie was when the Starkiller base fires it’s weapon, but there are in fact quite a few throughout the film. Also the end scene with Luke was a lot better the second time, it didn’t feel as awkward or drawn out and felt more like a fitting end to the movie, although if you ask me, Luke should have at least had a line. Also the revelation that Kylo Ren was actually Ben Solo, Han’s son and Han’s death scene at the hands of Ren were also better on second viewing. While Han’s death was somewhat predictable and probably could have been executed better, it was nice to have him in this movie for the time we got him and I’m sure Harrison Ford is more than happy to never have to play the character again. Also BB-8 is possibly even more likable the second time. Seeing the movie again I also gained a greater appreciation for the cinematography in it, with some awesome long shots showing off the dogfights and the First Order vs. Resistance action. I’m glad I got to see the movie a second time as it has upped my opinion of the movie and if you are a Star Wars fan, it’s something that I would strongly recommend you do.
First off, let’s talk about the new cast. All three of them are fantastic in their performances, with Daisy Ridley as Rey, John Boyega as Finn and Oscar Isaac as Poe Dameron respectively. Poe has the smallest role, which is my biggest and only complaint about the character, because he is awesome. He is funny, he’s an amazing pilot, he reeks of cool and he is the one character in this movie that I’d love to get a pint with. Finn is another new character, dealing with an inner conflict, (which I won’t ruin,) but is still likeable and relatable. Rey is arguably the most central of the three new main cast members and she delivers also, she sold the fairly bland character dealing with an exciting new adventure calling her name pretty well, but possibly could have done more in a few scenes, as it sort of feels like they could have cast anyone of the same age in this role and they would have delivered, but she did well enough. Of course, the old cast are also back, Anthony Daniels as C3PO is just as irritating as he was 30 years ago and while it’s nice to see Peter Mahew back as Chewie, they really could have put any tall, thin guy into the furry costume and it wouldn’t have made any difference. Carrie Fisher is back as Leia and the while lines she had were entertaining and at times touching, she simply wasn’t in the movie enough. I won’t talk about Luke until the spoilers section, so let’s move on to Han. It’s nice to see grumpy old gramps Harrison Ford actually look enthusiastic and as if he is actually enjoying himself for a change. His performance surprisingly isn’t phoned in and he genuinely commits to the role just as much as he did 30 years ago. Also, out of the original returning cast, he is definitely in the movie most.
Now that we have discussed the light side, now let’s move onto the dark side. Personally I don’t think these characters are as strong as the protagonists. It’s not the fault of the actors, Domnall Gleason as Hux is great, super evil and almost Nazi-like, Andy Serkis as Snoke is intimidating in his performance also and Adam Driver as Kylo Ren is one of the best performances in the movie, showing sadness and anger, all while being an unhinged threatening presence. The problem here is that the villains in this movie just don’t have the same impact as the villains in the original , Hux and Ren are made out to be young and naïve and while Snoke is pulling the strings, but we only ever see him as a hologram and even then, we don’t see him all that much. It’s as if this is these villain’s origin story, but in A New Hope, the villains and the Empire already felt like an established, villainous organisation, whereas in this movie it is as if a bunch of amateurs have happened across a new death star (let’s not lie, that’s all that the Starkiller base is,) and they don’t really know what they are doing. And Captain Phasma? Hardly worth talking about, she is in two scenes and does nothing in either of them besides let herself get taken advantage of. So that’s a summary on how I felt about the characters in general, onto the movie as a whole.
I feel that Abrams has gotten the tone of this movie just right. It’s funny enough that it’s constantly entertaining and never boring and it’s serious enough that you feel a genuine, palpable threat throughout. The score is also fantastic, as is expected from John Williams and overall the effects are spot on also. I did have a slight problem with some of the CGI characters, namely Snoke, the tentacle monsters that show up briefly and the market owner that was in possession of the Falcon at the start of the movie played by Simon Pegg, but there were also a lot of puppets and practical effects were used and it really pays off in the overall look of the movie, no more crammed scenes of cartoon garbage like the prequels, just what matters. The pacing of this movie is very fast, some might say too fast, with Abrams not really giving the viewers time to breathe and digest what they just saw before throwing another dogfight or lightsaber battle at them, but hey, at least you can’t say it’s boring and I’m happy to say that there isn’t a senate discussion in sight. I really do feel like I have to see the movie again however before making an overall verdict and that is due to the extremely fast pacing and because of all of the significant events that happen nothing really stands out, which leaves a lack of meat on the bone. The story is well written however, the world is built well and the characters are all introduced well, but the story does follow a lot of the same beats as the original trilogy. Without giving anything away, the story is divided up into three distinct acts, with each taking place on a different planet followed by an epilogue at the end. There is a cantina scene, a robot carrying an important message to be delivered, Tie Fighter vs. X Wing dogfights and a death star-like weapon of mass destruction, there is even a trench run.
Okay, so I saw the movie again on Tuesday this week and while most of what I felt the first time I felt again, making a lot of the feelings I had after my first viewing more concrete, I did notice a few new things. Also, from this point on there will be spoilers.
Knowing what was coming before it did really helped the pacing of this movie, it was much easier to digest a second time, but at no point was it a chore to watch the film again. I also noticed a lot more lens flares this time, upon first viewing I thought that the only lens flare in the movie was when the Starkiller base fires it’s weapon, but there are in fact quite a few throughout the film. Also the end scene with Luke was a lot better the second time, it didn’t feel as awkward or drawn out and felt more like a fitting end to the movie, although if you ask me, Luke should have at least had a line. Also the revelation that Kylo Ren was actually Ben Solo, Han’s son and Han’s death scene at the hands of Ren were also better on second viewing. While Han’s death was somewhat predictable and probably could have been executed better, it was nice to have him in this movie for the time we got him and I’m sure Harrison Ford is more than happy to never have to play the character again. Also BB-8 is possibly even more likable the second time. Seeing the movie again I also gained a greater appreciation for the cinematography in it, with some awesome long shots showing off the dogfights and the First Order vs. Resistance action. I’m glad I got to see the movie a second time as it has upped my opinion of the movie and if you are a Star Wars fan, it’s something that I would strongly recommend you do.
Kyera (8 KP) rated Empire of Storms in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Re-Read Update:
This book destroyed me. I cheered when my baby, Abraxos, appeared (legitimately out loud cheered) and wanted to cry at those fateful words. If you've read this book, you know which ones I'm referring to and if not, I can't say because there would be spoilers. Despite the issues and shift in the characterization of some of our leads, this book takes you on an incredible emotional journey with highs that make you cheer (see above) and lows that bring you to tears (almost).
Despite the length of the book, I didn't feel as though the story lagged or the pacing was poor. Any free minute I had, I immediately turned to the book to continue where I left off. Even knowing what was going to happen, it managed to enthrall me.
One of the problems that I have with this book is its portrayal of relationships. There are aspects of it that are so swoon-worthy and make your heart hurt, but there are some that are not healthy. It's nice to see diverse portrayals of love and relationships, but my concern is that a young adult reader might see the territorial Fae nonsense in the book and not realize that it's an extreme. It might seem normalized. As I am not a teenager, I am aware of the intricacies and can roll my eyes at the "nonsense" without putting any weight on the idea. That may not be the same for teen readers.
There are aspects of the character development that seems off and others that, although regrettable, are completely valid. For example, Dorian has gone through an incredible amount of turmoil and emotional upheaval in the last two books. It's understandable that his personality would not quite be the same carefree, flirty scholar that we met in the first book who wished to stand up to his father but could never garner the courage to do so.
In a similar vein, we watch other characters develop into multi-faceted people and understand them more. Manon and Lysandra have become much more interesting characters as they were expanded upon, and at least for me have become some of my favourites. Despite the huge cast of fairly main characters, each is still given the time to shine and grow.
Finally, the world building continues in this book to an immense degree. A combination of the book's size and the various viewpoints has allowed Sarah J Maas to expand the world we have come to know. Erilea has been developed and we are able to see more pieces of Nehemia's homeland, Aelin's kingdom, and so much in between.
I still love this series and highly recommend it to young adult/teen readers who enjoy fantasy books.
Original Review:
These novels are so addicting, emotional and indescribable - but I'm going to try to do them justice. If you've not yet read up to Empire of Storms, please avoid this review as it has spoilers. I try to leave out the major plot points and just focus on the characters/world, but it's not free from them. Please read on only if you've read the series.
Our main cast of beloved and some tolerated, main/supporting characters grows throughout the series. Although we lose Nehemia, which I am still so sad about - we are introduced to the Fae. Their inclusion in the series brings the genre into high fantasy and makes it even more enjoyable. Prior to this series, I hadn't read many novels in which the supernatural creatures were the Fae but now I am obsessed. The world of the Fae isn't experienced or explained much, but I would love to see more of it. Their powers or abilities are so intriguing and well written. Just enough information is given that you can understand what is going on, then beautifully populate the world and battles in your mind.
Sarah J Maas makes you fall in love with each of the characters, whether you liked them when they were first introduced or not. One of the first perspective shifts we experience is when we are introduced to the bloodthirsty Manon Blackbeak. At first, you wish her scenes weren't there as they take away from time with our main characters but by the fifth novel she's one of the characters you're rooting for. Although she's a witch and over one hundred years old, she is given the ability to develop and change over the course of the novels. It takes time because she's learning that things she believed her entire life aren't true and don't need to affect how she views life.
Even characters that we were originally introduced to, like Lysandre are able to evolve and change over the course of the books. She and Celaena start off butting heads and competing, but that doesn't last. They join together and made a formidable pair (especially once magic is restored to the land). Lysandre grows into one of my favourite characters and her wholehearted commitment to the cause is inspiring.
Seeking more information about the Wyrdkeys, Celaena seeks knowledge from the Fae Queen Maeve. Unwilling to give her information away for nothing, Queen Maeve makes a deal that Celaena must train with and impress one of her trusted warriors, Rowan. Prince Rowan is able to manipulate ice and wind, whilst also transforming into a hawk. Her inner circle are sworn to her with a blood oath and a group of Fae warriors that include Rowan, Lorcan, Gavriel, Vaughen, Fenrys and Connall. Later on, this group is affectionately titled Rowan's cadre and some join our heroes on their journey.
Unsurprisingly, we discover that Celaena is actually the Princess (or Queen) of Terrasen and that revelation brings with it some people from her past. Her cousin, Aedion was forced for years to do the bidding of the King of Adarlan whilst secretly helping his people. He is a general and his legion of warriors called the Bane are loyal to him rather than the King. We also meet another person from Terrasen, the daughter of the woman who sacrificed herself to allow Aelin to escape as a child - Elide. She was mistreated by her Uncle for years, until Manon Blackbeak helped her escape. After only a few days, she crosses paths with Lorcan who is a member of Rowan's cadre and they begin to journey together.
Lorcan is not well liked by Rowan or Aelin when we first come across him in Rifthold. He is still bound to Queen Maeve and is seeking to find and destroy the Wyrdkeys. Throughout his journey across Erilea, he discovers that he has a soft spot for Elide and protects her. Some of the other cadre are viewed in a more favourable light by Aelin and her friends, as they attempt to delay their orders from Maeve to help on the quest.
Sarah J Maas writes the best pairings that fill your heart with so much feeling then she rips it out and stomps all over it. Rowan loves Aelin with his whole heart, every part, the good, the bad, the broken and beaten, the assassin, the Queen, the Fae and no one else has ever done that for her. Their love is true and enduring. Heartwrenching and pure. Even though they didn't start off on the best footing, after training her for a time and even breaking his blood oath to Maeve - Rowan is completely enamored. Plus, they're mates so there's nothing more important and bonding. Each relationship is authentic and pulls at your heartstrings.
Throughout the novels, you are able to experience more of the lands with Erilea from the dark, twisted towers of Morath to the Queen's home of Terrasen. They are welcome additions to our mental maps of the land and wonderfully illustrated through words.
This is one of my favourite series by far and is highly recommended to all - also specifically to young adult readers who enjoy well writen novels with developed characters, immersive world-building and fantasy.
This book destroyed me. I cheered when my baby, Abraxos, appeared (legitimately out loud cheered) and wanted to cry at those fateful words. If you've read this book, you know which ones I'm referring to and if not, I can't say because there would be spoilers. Despite the issues and shift in the characterization of some of our leads, this book takes you on an incredible emotional journey with highs that make you cheer (see above) and lows that bring you to tears (almost).
Despite the length of the book, I didn't feel as though the story lagged or the pacing was poor. Any free minute I had, I immediately turned to the book to continue where I left off. Even knowing what was going to happen, it managed to enthrall me.
One of the problems that I have with this book is its portrayal of relationships. There are aspects of it that are so swoon-worthy and make your heart hurt, but there are some that are not healthy. It's nice to see diverse portrayals of love and relationships, but my concern is that a young adult reader might see the territorial Fae nonsense in the book and not realize that it's an extreme. It might seem normalized. As I am not a teenager, I am aware of the intricacies and can roll my eyes at the "nonsense" without putting any weight on the idea. That may not be the same for teen readers.
There are aspects of the character development that seems off and others that, although regrettable, are completely valid. For example, Dorian has gone through an incredible amount of turmoil and emotional upheaval in the last two books. It's understandable that his personality would not quite be the same carefree, flirty scholar that we met in the first book who wished to stand up to his father but could never garner the courage to do so.
In a similar vein, we watch other characters develop into multi-faceted people and understand them more. Manon and Lysandra have become much more interesting characters as they were expanded upon, and at least for me have become some of my favourites. Despite the huge cast of fairly main characters, each is still given the time to shine and grow.
Finally, the world building continues in this book to an immense degree. A combination of the book's size and the various viewpoints has allowed Sarah J Maas to expand the world we have come to know. Erilea has been developed and we are able to see more pieces of Nehemia's homeland, Aelin's kingdom, and so much in between.
I still love this series and highly recommend it to young adult/teen readers who enjoy fantasy books.
Original Review:
These novels are so addicting, emotional and indescribable - but I'm going to try to do them justice. If you've not yet read up to Empire of Storms, please avoid this review as it has spoilers. I try to leave out the major plot points and just focus on the characters/world, but it's not free from them. Please read on only if you've read the series.
Our main cast of beloved and some tolerated, main/supporting characters grows throughout the series. Although we lose Nehemia, which I am still so sad about - we are introduced to the Fae. Their inclusion in the series brings the genre into high fantasy and makes it even more enjoyable. Prior to this series, I hadn't read many novels in which the supernatural creatures were the Fae but now I am obsessed. The world of the Fae isn't experienced or explained much, but I would love to see more of it. Their powers or abilities are so intriguing and well written. Just enough information is given that you can understand what is going on, then beautifully populate the world and battles in your mind.
Sarah J Maas makes you fall in love with each of the characters, whether you liked them when they were first introduced or not. One of the first perspective shifts we experience is when we are introduced to the bloodthirsty Manon Blackbeak. At first, you wish her scenes weren't there as they take away from time with our main characters but by the fifth novel she's one of the characters you're rooting for. Although she's a witch and over one hundred years old, she is given the ability to develop and change over the course of the novels. It takes time because she's learning that things she believed her entire life aren't true and don't need to affect how she views life.
Even characters that we were originally introduced to, like Lysandre are able to evolve and change over the course of the books. She and Celaena start off butting heads and competing, but that doesn't last. They join together and made a formidable pair (especially once magic is restored to the land). Lysandre grows into one of my favourite characters and her wholehearted commitment to the cause is inspiring.
Seeking more information about the Wyrdkeys, Celaena seeks knowledge from the Fae Queen Maeve. Unwilling to give her information away for nothing, Queen Maeve makes a deal that Celaena must train with and impress one of her trusted warriors, Rowan. Prince Rowan is able to manipulate ice and wind, whilst also transforming into a hawk. Her inner circle are sworn to her with a blood oath and a group of Fae warriors that include Rowan, Lorcan, Gavriel, Vaughen, Fenrys and Connall. Later on, this group is affectionately titled Rowan's cadre and some join our heroes on their journey.
Unsurprisingly, we discover that Celaena is actually the Princess (or Queen) of Terrasen and that revelation brings with it some people from her past. Her cousin, Aedion was forced for years to do the bidding of the King of Adarlan whilst secretly helping his people. He is a general and his legion of warriors called the Bane are loyal to him rather than the King. We also meet another person from Terrasen, the daughter of the woman who sacrificed herself to allow Aelin to escape as a child - Elide. She was mistreated by her Uncle for years, until Manon Blackbeak helped her escape. After only a few days, she crosses paths with Lorcan who is a member of Rowan's cadre and they begin to journey together.
Lorcan is not well liked by Rowan or Aelin when we first come across him in Rifthold. He is still bound to Queen Maeve and is seeking to find and destroy the Wyrdkeys. Throughout his journey across Erilea, he discovers that he has a soft spot for Elide and protects her. Some of the other cadre are viewed in a more favourable light by Aelin and her friends, as they attempt to delay their orders from Maeve to help on the quest.
Sarah J Maas writes the best pairings that fill your heart with so much feeling then she rips it out and stomps all over it. Rowan loves Aelin with his whole heart, every part, the good, the bad, the broken and beaten, the assassin, the Queen, the Fae and no one else has ever done that for her. Their love is true and enduring. Heartwrenching and pure. Even though they didn't start off on the best footing, after training her for a time and even breaking his blood oath to Maeve - Rowan is completely enamored. Plus, they're mates so there's nothing more important and bonding. Each relationship is authentic and pulls at your heartstrings.
Throughout the novels, you are able to experience more of the lands with Erilea from the dark, twisted towers of Morath to the Queen's home of Terrasen. They are welcome additions to our mental maps of the land and wonderfully illustrated through words.
This is one of my favourite series by far and is highly recommended to all - also specifically to young adult readers who enjoy well writen novels with developed characters, immersive world-building and fantasy.
Cyn Armistead (14 KP) rated Down These Strange Streets in Books
Mar 1, 2018
This anthology gathers stories from authors who normally write in various genres. The commonality is that each story is a mystery, and there's a fantastic twist to each. Martin's introduction calls such stories the "bastard stepchild" of mystery and horror.
[a:Charlaine Harris|17061|Charlaine Harris|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1307925926p2/17061.jpg]'; "Death by Dahlia," set in the Sookie Stackhouse universe, is one of a series of stories about the vampire Dahlia Lynley-Chivers. Each story stands alone, but my enjoyment grows greater with each addition to her tales. I'd much rather see Dahlia as the main character of a novel than Sookie, to be honest. This story, set at the party for the ascension of a new vampire sherrif, was a little gem, and a nice start to the collection.
"The Bleeding Shadow" by [a:Joe R. Lansdale|58971|Joe R. Lansdale|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1200406474p2/58971.jpg] is grittier from start to finish, set in the south of black folks in the 1950s. A beautiful woman sends her sometime-suitor to find her brother, a blues musician who has gotten into music that isn't of this world. I couldn't be done with this one soon enough, as it gave me the willies. I have a feeling Lansdale would be happy that it stuck with me for a while.
[a:Simon R. Green|41942|Simon R. Green|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1224555729p2/41942.jpg]'s "Hungry Heart" takes us to the Nightside, where John Taylor is hired by a young witch to retrieve her stolen heart. I haven't read any of the Nightside novels, but this is probably the third or fourth short story I've read, and for some reason they never leave me wanting more. I don't hunger for the darkness, I guess. I will give Green points for creativity in evil henchmen, though.
"Styx and Stones" by [a:Steven Saylor|42919|Steven Saylor|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1243268148p2/42919.jpg] takes a teenage version of his novel hero Gordianus on a world tour to see the Seven Wonders of the World, and this stop is Babylon. Gordianus and his companion, Antipater, find a murderous ghost in residence near their inn in addition to seeing the Ziggurat, the Gate of Ishtar, and what's left of the Hanging Gardens.
[a:S. M. Stirling|6448047|S. M. Stirling|http://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/nophoto-U-50x66.jpg]'s "Pain and Suffering" was unsatisfying to me. It opened with an ex-soldier's combat flashback twisted into something Other, then we learn that the ex-soldier is a cop. He and his partner spend a lot of time investigating an apparent arson and possibly-connected kidnapping. The flashbacks repeat. There's more, but I don't want to spoil the story. I just felt that there was a lot of build-up for very little payoff, and that perhaps this story was meant as a teaser for a novel in which context it would all make far more sense.
"It's Still the Same Old Story' by [a:Carrie Vaughn|8988|Carrie Vaughn|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1231952277p2/8988.jpg] features vampire Rick, from the Kitty Norville books. An old friend calls him needing his help, but by the time he gets to her, she's dead. Most of the story is told in flashback, with him remembering when he originally met the now-old-woman, when they were lovers for a time. The murder is no great mystery for very long. The story felt more rote than anything else, as if perhaps Vaughn wanted to humanize Rick a bit by showing that he had cared for this woman at one time. I didn't feel much of anything from it.
One of the more creative pieces, "The Lady is a Screamer" by [a:Conn Iggulden|119121|Conn Iggulden|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1235073163p2/119121.jpg], is told in first person by a con man turned ghostbuster. I didn't like it, precisely, and i certainly didn't like the narrator. It stands alone, though, and doesn't feel derivative at all, so that says something all by itself.
"Hellbender" by [a:Laurie R. King|6760|Laurie R. King|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1314242901p2/6760.jpg] is probably the only story that left me determined to hunt down more of the author's work. I would classify it as near-future science fiction, but it certainly fits in the noir detective genre as well. I have no hesitation giving this one story five out of five stars.
"Shadow Thieves" is a Garrett, P.I. story by [a:Glen Cook|13026|Glen Cook|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1207159752p2/13026.jpg]. That's another series I haven't read, but I believe this is the first time I've read a short story set in that world. I wouldn't mind reading the series if the novels are all light-hearted like this story. There was some darkness, obviously, or the piece wouldn't be in this anthology - but overall, there was humor.
[a:Melinda M. Snodgrass|725899|Melinda M. Snodgrass|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1271184595p2/725899.jpg]'; "No Mystery, No Miracle" is probably the most controversial story in the book if anybody is really paying attention. I found it intriguing and well-written.
"The Difference Between a Puzzle and a Mystery" by [a:M.L.N. Hanover|1868743|M.L.N. Hanover|http://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/nophoto-M-50x66.jpg] takes us a big city, where an overworked cop is trying to get a confession out of a supposedly demon-possessed killer. He gets help from an unusual minister (Unitarian, we're told - not something that will thrill any UUs out there). I found this one of the most chilling stories in the book. Telling you why, however, would be a spoiler.
I would love to see a novel featuring the main characters of [a:Lisa Tuttle|38313|Lisa Tuttle|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1296860221p2/38313.jpg]'s "The Curious Affair of the Deodand" - a young woman in the Watson role and a young man as a Sherlock Holmes-type consulting detective. The young lady is every bit as vital to resolving the case as the man is, which is one of the things I enjoyed about the story. The resolution isn't as satisfying as it could be, though, which is one of the reasons I'd like to see the same characters in other circumstances.
"Lord John and the Plague of Zombies" by [a:Diana Gabaldon|3617|Diana Gabaldon|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1213918339p2/3617.jpg] is a Lord John Grey story. This is, I believe, the first thing I've read by Gabaldon. It wasn't bad and it wasn't earth-shakingly good. It was decently-plotted with predictable characters and a nice little twist at the end, so enjoyable to read. I won't avoid her work but I'm not burning to read more, either.
"Beware the Snake" is an SPQR story by [a:John Maddox Roberts|19522|John Maddox Roberts|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1285244765p2/19522.jpg]. Once again, I'm unfamiliar with the author and the series, but the story gave enough context for me to understand the setting and the characters, so that was all right. It was enjoyable, although I probably would have twigged to a couple of things more quickly were I more familiar with Roman naming customs.
[a:Patricia Briggs|40563|Patricia Briggs|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1228867484p2/40563.jpg]'; "In Red, With Pearls" is set in Mercedes Thompson's world but featuring werewolf Warren Smith and his lover Kyle. Kyle is set upon by a zombie assassin who is thwarted by Warren, but of course Warren wants to know who sent the zombie, why, and who made the zombie. It's a very good story, as I've come to expect from Briggs. I had a bit of a hard time keeping up with some of the secondary characters in the story, but then I was distracted at the time.
"The Adakian Eagle" by [a:Bradley Denton|198305|Bradley Denton|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1320697919p2/198305.jpg] is a Dashiell Hammett story - as in, Hammett is a character. That was interesting alone, but the story in general was well-told. Spare and hard, as befits one of the main characters.
All in all this is a collection that I can definitely recommend. There are very few clunkers are several excellent stories. [a:George R.R. Martin|346732|George R.R. Martin|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1195658637p2/346732.jpg] and [a:Gardner R. Dozois|12052|Gardner R. Dozois|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1247758142p2/12052.jpg] did their jobs very well.
[a:Charlaine Harris|17061|Charlaine Harris|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1307925926p2/17061.jpg]'; "Death by Dahlia," set in the Sookie Stackhouse universe, is one of a series of stories about the vampire Dahlia Lynley-Chivers. Each story stands alone, but my enjoyment grows greater with each addition to her tales. I'd much rather see Dahlia as the main character of a novel than Sookie, to be honest. This story, set at the party for the ascension of a new vampire sherrif, was a little gem, and a nice start to the collection.
"The Bleeding Shadow" by [a:Joe R. Lansdale|58971|Joe R. Lansdale|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1200406474p2/58971.jpg] is grittier from start to finish, set in the south of black folks in the 1950s. A beautiful woman sends her sometime-suitor to find her brother, a blues musician who has gotten into music that isn't of this world. I couldn't be done with this one soon enough, as it gave me the willies. I have a feeling Lansdale would be happy that it stuck with me for a while.
[a:Simon R. Green|41942|Simon R. Green|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1224555729p2/41942.jpg]'s "Hungry Heart" takes us to the Nightside, where John Taylor is hired by a young witch to retrieve her stolen heart. I haven't read any of the Nightside novels, but this is probably the third or fourth short story I've read, and for some reason they never leave me wanting more. I don't hunger for the darkness, I guess. I will give Green points for creativity in evil henchmen, though.
"Styx and Stones" by [a:Steven Saylor|42919|Steven Saylor|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1243268148p2/42919.jpg] takes a teenage version of his novel hero Gordianus on a world tour to see the Seven Wonders of the World, and this stop is Babylon. Gordianus and his companion, Antipater, find a murderous ghost in residence near their inn in addition to seeing the Ziggurat, the Gate of Ishtar, and what's left of the Hanging Gardens.
[a:S. M. Stirling|6448047|S. M. Stirling|http://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/nophoto-U-50x66.jpg]'s "Pain and Suffering" was unsatisfying to me. It opened with an ex-soldier's combat flashback twisted into something Other, then we learn that the ex-soldier is a cop. He and his partner spend a lot of time investigating an apparent arson and possibly-connected kidnapping. The flashbacks repeat. There's more, but I don't want to spoil the story. I just felt that there was a lot of build-up for very little payoff, and that perhaps this story was meant as a teaser for a novel in which context it would all make far more sense.
"It's Still the Same Old Story' by [a:Carrie Vaughn|8988|Carrie Vaughn|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1231952277p2/8988.jpg] features vampire Rick, from the Kitty Norville books. An old friend calls him needing his help, but by the time he gets to her, she's dead. Most of the story is told in flashback, with him remembering when he originally met the now-old-woman, when they were lovers for a time. The murder is no great mystery for very long. The story felt more rote than anything else, as if perhaps Vaughn wanted to humanize Rick a bit by showing that he had cared for this woman at one time. I didn't feel much of anything from it.
One of the more creative pieces, "The Lady is a Screamer" by [a:Conn Iggulden|119121|Conn Iggulden|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1235073163p2/119121.jpg], is told in first person by a con man turned ghostbuster. I didn't like it, precisely, and i certainly didn't like the narrator. It stands alone, though, and doesn't feel derivative at all, so that says something all by itself.
"Hellbender" by [a:Laurie R. King|6760|Laurie R. King|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1314242901p2/6760.jpg] is probably the only story that left me determined to hunt down more of the author's work. I would classify it as near-future science fiction, but it certainly fits in the noir detective genre as well. I have no hesitation giving this one story five out of five stars.
"Shadow Thieves" is a Garrett, P.I. story by [a:Glen Cook|13026|Glen Cook|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1207159752p2/13026.jpg]. That's another series I haven't read, but I believe this is the first time I've read a short story set in that world. I wouldn't mind reading the series if the novels are all light-hearted like this story. There was some darkness, obviously, or the piece wouldn't be in this anthology - but overall, there was humor.
[a:Melinda M. Snodgrass|725899|Melinda M. Snodgrass|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1271184595p2/725899.jpg]'; "No Mystery, No Miracle" is probably the most controversial story in the book if anybody is really paying attention. I found it intriguing and well-written.
"The Difference Between a Puzzle and a Mystery" by [a:M.L.N. Hanover|1868743|M.L.N. Hanover|http://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/nophoto-M-50x66.jpg] takes us a big city, where an overworked cop is trying to get a confession out of a supposedly demon-possessed killer. He gets help from an unusual minister (Unitarian, we're told - not something that will thrill any UUs out there). I found this one of the most chilling stories in the book. Telling you why, however, would be a spoiler.
I would love to see a novel featuring the main characters of [a:Lisa Tuttle|38313|Lisa Tuttle|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1296860221p2/38313.jpg]'s "The Curious Affair of the Deodand" - a young woman in the Watson role and a young man as a Sherlock Holmes-type consulting detective. The young lady is every bit as vital to resolving the case as the man is, which is one of the things I enjoyed about the story. The resolution isn't as satisfying as it could be, though, which is one of the reasons I'd like to see the same characters in other circumstances.
"Lord John and the Plague of Zombies" by [a:Diana Gabaldon|3617|Diana Gabaldon|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1213918339p2/3617.jpg] is a Lord John Grey story. This is, I believe, the first thing I've read by Gabaldon. It wasn't bad and it wasn't earth-shakingly good. It was decently-plotted with predictable characters and a nice little twist at the end, so enjoyable to read. I won't avoid her work but I'm not burning to read more, either.
"Beware the Snake" is an SPQR story by [a:John Maddox Roberts|19522|John Maddox Roberts|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1285244765p2/19522.jpg]. Once again, I'm unfamiliar with the author and the series, but the story gave enough context for me to understand the setting and the characters, so that was all right. It was enjoyable, although I probably would have twigged to a couple of things more quickly were I more familiar with Roman naming customs.
[a:Patricia Briggs|40563|Patricia Briggs|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1228867484p2/40563.jpg]'; "In Red, With Pearls" is set in Mercedes Thompson's world but featuring werewolf Warren Smith and his lover Kyle. Kyle is set upon by a zombie assassin who is thwarted by Warren, but of course Warren wants to know who sent the zombie, why, and who made the zombie. It's a very good story, as I've come to expect from Briggs. I had a bit of a hard time keeping up with some of the secondary characters in the story, but then I was distracted at the time.
"The Adakian Eagle" by [a:Bradley Denton|198305|Bradley Denton|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1320697919p2/198305.jpg] is a Dashiell Hammett story - as in, Hammett is a character. That was interesting alone, but the story in general was well-told. Spare and hard, as befits one of the main characters.
All in all this is a collection that I can definitely recommend. There are very few clunkers are several excellent stories. [a:George R.R. Martin|346732|George R.R. Martin|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1195658637p2/346732.jpg] and [a:Gardner R. Dozois|12052|Gardner R. Dozois|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1247758142p2/12052.jpg] did their jobs very well.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Skulls of Sedlec in Tabletop Games
Feb 27, 2020
When it comes to board gaming, bigger does not always necessarily mean better. And that is something that Button Shy Games has really embraced. With all of their wallet games comprising of only 18 cards, they always manage to pack a lot of game into one small space. I think they’ve got the right idea – engaging gameplay, multitude of themes and mechanics, and easy storage and transport! So how does their newest game hold up to their other successful wallet games? Keep reading to find out!
Let us travel back to the 16th Century AD. You are a monk working in the Sedlec Ossuary, a chapel in the Czech Republic. The coincidental timing of the Black Plague and the Hussite Wars has led to some serious overcrowding in the Sedlec graveyard. Working under a half-blind monk, you and your fellow underlings have been tasked with exhuming graves and artfully arranging the skulls in the crypt. Who can create the most unique and tasteful display of skulls? There’s only one way to find out.
Disclaimer: We were provided a prototype review copy of this game for the purposes of this preview. The final components may vary once the Kickstarter campaign has concluded, so the published game may look differently than the one presented in these pictures. -L
Skulls of Sedlec is a game of card drafting and hand management in which players are trying to amass the most points by the end of the game. Here’s how it works. To set up, shuffle all 18 cards. Create a 2×3 grid of 6 facedown piles consisting of 3 cards each. Pick any pile and flip one card face-up from the top. You are now ready to begin! The game is played over a series of turns in which players will draft and play cards into their personal Stack, an arrangement of cards in a pyramid shape. Each card has 2 skulls on it, and each skull earns a certain number of points based on its placement in your Stack. For example, Criminal skulls are vying for redemption in the afterlife, so they score 2 points if they are adjacent to any Priest skulls. At the end of the game, the player with the highest scoring Stack is the winner!
During the game, on your turn, you will take one of these three possible actions: Dig, Collect, or Stack. When you choose to Dig, you choose 2 facedown piles in the graveyard and flip their top cards face-up. Once you have done that, choose one of the two cards you flipped to take into your hand. If you choose to Collect, you simply choose any face-up card from the graveyard and take it into your hand. There is a hand limit of 2 cards per player, though, so if you already have 2 cards in your hand you may not take the Collect action. If you choose to Stack, you select one card from your hand and add it to your Stack, following the placement rules – Stacks are built from the bottom up. Your first card will be placed into the bottom row of your Stack. Depending on how many players are in the game, your Stack will require a different number of cards in each row. A card may only be played into a higher row if it is directly centered over two cards on the row beneath it. Logical enough! The game ends when each player has completed their Stack. Points are then added, and the highest score wins.
As I mentioned earlier, the size of the game does not always dictate the quality of the game, and Skulls of Sedlec is the perfect example of that. For only consisting of 18 cards, it takes a good deal of strategy to claim victory. There are 5 different types of skulls, and they earn points in different ways depending on their placement. You really have to be thinking in advance as to how you want to play the cards in your hand, and what other skulls you need to pick up to maximize your score. You can also see the Stacks of your opponents, so you know what you’re up against. You need an adaptive strategy for success based on the current cards available in the graveyard, as well as potentially anticipating your opponents’ moves. Be careful, though, because once a card has been played to your Stack, it cannot be moved.
Components. Again, this is just a preview copy of the game, but the card quality is already great. It might be something upgraded during the Kickstarter campaign, but if it’s not, you’re still getting a high quality game. Of course, the trademark wallet is on par with the rest of the wallet series, and it protects the cards well. The artwork of Skulls of Sedlec might not be awe-inspiring, but it is still colorful, thematic, and well-done. I appreciate the simplicity of the cards because it makes it easier to see the card types throughout the game and final scoring. You can clearly tell which skulls are which, so the game does not grind to a halt while trying to figure out what the scoring requirements are for a particular skull. And each skull type has a corresponding symbol, which can help our color-blind friends play the game – instead of relying solely on color, the symbols help differentiate the cards. So big kudos there!
As someone who does a fair amount of solo playing, I would like to mention the solo expansion of Skulls of Sedlec, Monstrance. Again, this is a preview of the solo expansion, so final rules and components may vary from those described here. When playing Skulls of Sedlec as a solo game, you will be creating a Stack like in a multiplayer game, as well as a Feature. The Feature you build will have a shape different to that of your normal Stack, and is determined by the Feature card you select at game setup. You will also select a second Feature card, which will be flipped over to reveal a new condition or effect for the game (for example, Romantics in the Stack do not score). Create a graveyard of 4 facedown piles of cards, evenly spread throughout the piles. You are then ready to play.
Gameplay is similar to that of a multiplayer game, but the solo player does not have a hand of cards. Instead, every card that you select will be immediately played into your Stack or your Feature. Placement rules are the same for the Stack, and cards in your Feature must be supported from below or adjacently. When both your Stack and Feature are complete, the game is over and you tally up your score. The solo expansion offers scoring milestones to compare with your score. See if you can best yourself and become a Legendary Artisan instead of remaining a Humble Monk.
Personally, I am not a huge fan of beat-your-own-score solo expansions. That being said, the gameplay of the Monstrance solo expansion still requires decent strategy and thought to maximize your final score. The addition of Features to solo play add another level of strategy because placement is just as important there as it is in your general Stack. Another neat twist is the addition of effects/conditions in solo play. They affect your strategy and make for a unique game every play.
Overall, I would say that Skulls of Sedlec is one of my favorite ButtonShy Games that I have played. It’s fast to play, simple to teach and learn, yet strategic enough that it keeps you engaged the entire time. Another thing I love about it is that it is only a 2-3 player game. We all know that getting together for game nights can be tricky, so I can see myself bringing Skulls of Sedlec to many game nights in which maybe only a few of us could attend. I’m glad I got the opportunity to preview this game, and I will be following the progress of the campaign for sure. If you’re looking for a small filler that still keeps your brain working, definitely consider backing the Skulls of Sedlec campaign!
Let us travel back to the 16th Century AD. You are a monk working in the Sedlec Ossuary, a chapel in the Czech Republic. The coincidental timing of the Black Plague and the Hussite Wars has led to some serious overcrowding in the Sedlec graveyard. Working under a half-blind monk, you and your fellow underlings have been tasked with exhuming graves and artfully arranging the skulls in the crypt. Who can create the most unique and tasteful display of skulls? There’s only one way to find out.
Disclaimer: We were provided a prototype review copy of this game for the purposes of this preview. The final components may vary once the Kickstarter campaign has concluded, so the published game may look differently than the one presented in these pictures. -L
Skulls of Sedlec is a game of card drafting and hand management in which players are trying to amass the most points by the end of the game. Here’s how it works. To set up, shuffle all 18 cards. Create a 2×3 grid of 6 facedown piles consisting of 3 cards each. Pick any pile and flip one card face-up from the top. You are now ready to begin! The game is played over a series of turns in which players will draft and play cards into their personal Stack, an arrangement of cards in a pyramid shape. Each card has 2 skulls on it, and each skull earns a certain number of points based on its placement in your Stack. For example, Criminal skulls are vying for redemption in the afterlife, so they score 2 points if they are adjacent to any Priest skulls. At the end of the game, the player with the highest scoring Stack is the winner!
During the game, on your turn, you will take one of these three possible actions: Dig, Collect, or Stack. When you choose to Dig, you choose 2 facedown piles in the graveyard and flip their top cards face-up. Once you have done that, choose one of the two cards you flipped to take into your hand. If you choose to Collect, you simply choose any face-up card from the graveyard and take it into your hand. There is a hand limit of 2 cards per player, though, so if you already have 2 cards in your hand you may not take the Collect action. If you choose to Stack, you select one card from your hand and add it to your Stack, following the placement rules – Stacks are built from the bottom up. Your first card will be placed into the bottom row of your Stack. Depending on how many players are in the game, your Stack will require a different number of cards in each row. A card may only be played into a higher row if it is directly centered over two cards on the row beneath it. Logical enough! The game ends when each player has completed their Stack. Points are then added, and the highest score wins.
As I mentioned earlier, the size of the game does not always dictate the quality of the game, and Skulls of Sedlec is the perfect example of that. For only consisting of 18 cards, it takes a good deal of strategy to claim victory. There are 5 different types of skulls, and they earn points in different ways depending on their placement. You really have to be thinking in advance as to how you want to play the cards in your hand, and what other skulls you need to pick up to maximize your score. You can also see the Stacks of your opponents, so you know what you’re up against. You need an adaptive strategy for success based on the current cards available in the graveyard, as well as potentially anticipating your opponents’ moves. Be careful, though, because once a card has been played to your Stack, it cannot be moved.
Components. Again, this is just a preview copy of the game, but the card quality is already great. It might be something upgraded during the Kickstarter campaign, but if it’s not, you’re still getting a high quality game. Of course, the trademark wallet is on par with the rest of the wallet series, and it protects the cards well. The artwork of Skulls of Sedlec might not be awe-inspiring, but it is still colorful, thematic, and well-done. I appreciate the simplicity of the cards because it makes it easier to see the card types throughout the game and final scoring. You can clearly tell which skulls are which, so the game does not grind to a halt while trying to figure out what the scoring requirements are for a particular skull. And each skull type has a corresponding symbol, which can help our color-blind friends play the game – instead of relying solely on color, the symbols help differentiate the cards. So big kudos there!
As someone who does a fair amount of solo playing, I would like to mention the solo expansion of Skulls of Sedlec, Monstrance. Again, this is a preview of the solo expansion, so final rules and components may vary from those described here. When playing Skulls of Sedlec as a solo game, you will be creating a Stack like in a multiplayer game, as well as a Feature. The Feature you build will have a shape different to that of your normal Stack, and is determined by the Feature card you select at game setup. You will also select a second Feature card, which will be flipped over to reveal a new condition or effect for the game (for example, Romantics in the Stack do not score). Create a graveyard of 4 facedown piles of cards, evenly spread throughout the piles. You are then ready to play.
Gameplay is similar to that of a multiplayer game, but the solo player does not have a hand of cards. Instead, every card that you select will be immediately played into your Stack or your Feature. Placement rules are the same for the Stack, and cards in your Feature must be supported from below or adjacently. When both your Stack and Feature are complete, the game is over and you tally up your score. The solo expansion offers scoring milestones to compare with your score. See if you can best yourself and become a Legendary Artisan instead of remaining a Humble Monk.
Personally, I am not a huge fan of beat-your-own-score solo expansions. That being said, the gameplay of the Monstrance solo expansion still requires decent strategy and thought to maximize your final score. The addition of Features to solo play add another level of strategy because placement is just as important there as it is in your general Stack. Another neat twist is the addition of effects/conditions in solo play. They affect your strategy and make for a unique game every play.
Overall, I would say that Skulls of Sedlec is one of my favorite ButtonShy Games that I have played. It’s fast to play, simple to teach and learn, yet strategic enough that it keeps you engaged the entire time. Another thing I love about it is that it is only a 2-3 player game. We all know that getting together for game nights can be tricky, so I can see myself bringing Skulls of Sedlec to many game nights in which maybe only a few of us could attend. I’m glad I got the opportunity to preview this game, and I will be following the progress of the campaign for sure. If you’re looking for a small filler that still keeps your brain working, definitely consider backing the Skulls of Sedlec campaign!
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Battlestar Galactica: The Board Game in Tabletop Games
Feb 23, 2021
Welcome aboard the Battlestar Galactica, a ship home to the remnants of the human race. After an uprising and near-annihilation by the Cylons (cyborg workers/soldiers created by the humans), the human survivors have taken to space to outrun their mechanical enemies and search for a new world to inhabit. Hardly a walk in the park, this journey through space is filled with many challenges – from fuel and food shortages to mutiny and battles for power. The biggest challenge of all, however, is that the Cylons have advanced to such a high level that they actually appear to be human. Are the Galactica’s misfortunes just bad luck, or are they being orchestrated by a Cylon who has infiltrated the ship and is yet to be discovered? Who can you trust? Which race will end up victorious?
Disclaimer: There are several expansions for Battlestar Galactica. This review will not take any expansions into account, and will focus solely on the base game. Also, I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook in this review, but rather provide an overview of the gameplay. – L
To setup for a game, follow the instructions in the rulebook – there are simply too many to detail here. Each player selects a Character, and receives the corresponding Character sheet and tokens. Based on the Characters selected, one player will receive the President title and another the Admiral title. Depending on how many players there are, a Loyalty deck is created and each player is secretly dealt a Loyalty card – either “You are not a Cylon” or “You Are a Cylon.” The Loyalty cards determine how you will play the game: human players win if they complete their given objective, and Cylon players win if they prevent the humans from completing their objective (by depleting resources, successfully invading the Galactica, or destroying the Galactica itself). The game is now ready to begin!
Battlestar Galactica is played over a series of rounds in which players take turns moving, performing actions, playing/drawing cards, etc. until either the human players or Cylon players have won the game. A player’s turn consists of 4 main steps, carried out in the following order: Receive Skills, Movement, Action, and Crisis. To begin your turn, you will draw Skill cards according to the skills listed on your Character sheet. Skill cards can be used to address crises or can provide special abilities. In the next step, Movement, you may move your Character to a different location/ship (all provide special actions). After moving, you will then choose one Action to perform – either listed on your current location, Character sheet, by using a Skill card, or you may choose to perform no action at all. Once you have completed your action, draw the top card of the Crisis deck, and resolve it. Depending on the Crisis card drawn, you may need to then Activate Cylon Ships or Prepare for Jump (more on this in a bit). If neither of those are listed on the Crisis card, then your turn ends and play moves to the next player.
I know that seems like a lot, but each turn of Battlestar Galactica can essentially be broken down into 2 phases: Player Actions and Space Combat. The first phase, Player Actions, is what is detailed above – drawing Skills, Movement, Actions, and drawing Crisis cards. This phase is where players make progress towards their objectives. Certain Actions or Skill cards earn specific rewards necessary to move forward in the game. Crisis cards can consist of Cylon attacks (activating and adding new Cylon ships to the board), Skill checks (all players secretly contribute Skill cards to either aid or sabotage the Skill check), or Events (resolved immediately). The second phase of play, Space Combat, takes place after the Crisis card has been drawn on each turn. Certain Crisis cards will show icons of Cylon ships, indicating that they are to be activated for combat, launched into play, or moved around the Galactica. Cylon ships will act based upon an action hierarchy, detailed in the rulebook. If the drawn Crisis card has the “Prepare for Jump” icon, move the fleet token forward on the Jump Preparation track, jumping the fleet if necessary (and moving the humans closer to their game-end objective). I have purposefully left out some elements of play, for you to discover on your own, or because they just provide intricate detail for the steps and actions described above. When the game-end objective is met by either the human players or the Cylons, the game is over and that respective race wins the game!
To say that there is a lot going on in Battlestar Galactica is quite an understatement. There are several rules and game elements that I did not touch upon, just because if I did then this review would be too long. With so many elements in play and of which to keep track, this game is not exactly for the faint of heart. The gameplay is very involved and requires a good amount of strategy – this is definitely a game that could take up most of a game night to play. That being said, I love this game. There is a lot going on, but that just provides players with so many different strategies to complete their objectives. Maybe you want to focus on dealing with Skill checks or Crisis cards, but maybe you’d rather think offensively and be prepared for any potential Space Combat. Can you help the crew efficiently manage its resources, or position its fleet to protect the Galactica itself? Your strategy must be adaptable at a moment’s notice to help you complete your objective….whatever it may be.
Speaking of which, the fact that there may or may not be secret Cylon players attempting to disrupt your plans really takes a hidden identity game to the next level. Cylons want to sabotage the humans, but in subtle ways as to not be found out – because once a Cylon is revealed, the humans can target and hinder their turns. Can you convince the humans that your previous actions were honest mistakes, or will they catch on that you are trying to undermine their efforts? The elements of deception and bluffing in this regard make the game much more immersive and make it feel realistic – there is a traitor among us and we have to find them, while also completing our own objectives. You really start to question who to trust and how your own actions can be perceived by your fellow players. There have been times, when playing this game, that we have taken breaks for dinner or snacks, and all players pocketed their cards rather than leave them on the table, vulnerable to sneaky opponents. Battlestar Galactica is definitely engaging for all players, and for such an involved and lengthy game, that is something to be applauded.
Let’s touch on components for a minute. The production quality of this game is great. The cardboard elements, including resource dials, are thick and sturdy. The cards and Character sheets are quality, colorful, and feel good in hand. And the plastic ships are well made too. The artwork consists mainly of screen caps from the TV show (which I admittedly have not yet seen…) but the theme and cohesiveness of the components makes for an immersive and engaging game overall.
In general, I am not a person who enjoys hidden identity games – simply because I am a bad liar and get found out almost immediately. However, the way this mechanic is incorporated into Battlestar Galactica makes it more a game of strategy than simple deception. And games of strategy are what I truly love. Managing your hand of Skill cards to best overcome Crisis cards, thinking tactically about how to deploy your fleet and battle Cylon ships, and having to determine who among the crew can actually be trusted keeps all players engaged across the board. Nobody can just sit back and relax, every single turn can drastically affect the outcome of the game. Everyone is in it, and that is what I love about this game. Purple Phoenix Games gives it a 11 / 12. This game has been out of print for a while now, but if you ever get a chance to play – jump on it! You don’t have to know the show to enjoy the game. Trust me, I haven’t seen a single episode yet.
Disclaimer: There are several expansions for Battlestar Galactica. This review will not take any expansions into account, and will focus solely on the base game. Also, I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook in this review, but rather provide an overview of the gameplay. – L
To setup for a game, follow the instructions in the rulebook – there are simply too many to detail here. Each player selects a Character, and receives the corresponding Character sheet and tokens. Based on the Characters selected, one player will receive the President title and another the Admiral title. Depending on how many players there are, a Loyalty deck is created and each player is secretly dealt a Loyalty card – either “You are not a Cylon” or “You Are a Cylon.” The Loyalty cards determine how you will play the game: human players win if they complete their given objective, and Cylon players win if they prevent the humans from completing their objective (by depleting resources, successfully invading the Galactica, or destroying the Galactica itself). The game is now ready to begin!
Battlestar Galactica is played over a series of rounds in which players take turns moving, performing actions, playing/drawing cards, etc. until either the human players or Cylon players have won the game. A player’s turn consists of 4 main steps, carried out in the following order: Receive Skills, Movement, Action, and Crisis. To begin your turn, you will draw Skill cards according to the skills listed on your Character sheet. Skill cards can be used to address crises or can provide special abilities. In the next step, Movement, you may move your Character to a different location/ship (all provide special actions). After moving, you will then choose one Action to perform – either listed on your current location, Character sheet, by using a Skill card, or you may choose to perform no action at all. Once you have completed your action, draw the top card of the Crisis deck, and resolve it. Depending on the Crisis card drawn, you may need to then Activate Cylon Ships or Prepare for Jump (more on this in a bit). If neither of those are listed on the Crisis card, then your turn ends and play moves to the next player.
I know that seems like a lot, but each turn of Battlestar Galactica can essentially be broken down into 2 phases: Player Actions and Space Combat. The first phase, Player Actions, is what is detailed above – drawing Skills, Movement, Actions, and drawing Crisis cards. This phase is where players make progress towards their objectives. Certain Actions or Skill cards earn specific rewards necessary to move forward in the game. Crisis cards can consist of Cylon attacks (activating and adding new Cylon ships to the board), Skill checks (all players secretly contribute Skill cards to either aid or sabotage the Skill check), or Events (resolved immediately). The second phase of play, Space Combat, takes place after the Crisis card has been drawn on each turn. Certain Crisis cards will show icons of Cylon ships, indicating that they are to be activated for combat, launched into play, or moved around the Galactica. Cylon ships will act based upon an action hierarchy, detailed in the rulebook. If the drawn Crisis card has the “Prepare for Jump” icon, move the fleet token forward on the Jump Preparation track, jumping the fleet if necessary (and moving the humans closer to their game-end objective). I have purposefully left out some elements of play, for you to discover on your own, or because they just provide intricate detail for the steps and actions described above. When the game-end objective is met by either the human players or the Cylons, the game is over and that respective race wins the game!
To say that there is a lot going on in Battlestar Galactica is quite an understatement. There are several rules and game elements that I did not touch upon, just because if I did then this review would be too long. With so many elements in play and of which to keep track, this game is not exactly for the faint of heart. The gameplay is very involved and requires a good amount of strategy – this is definitely a game that could take up most of a game night to play. That being said, I love this game. There is a lot going on, but that just provides players with so many different strategies to complete their objectives. Maybe you want to focus on dealing with Skill checks or Crisis cards, but maybe you’d rather think offensively and be prepared for any potential Space Combat. Can you help the crew efficiently manage its resources, or position its fleet to protect the Galactica itself? Your strategy must be adaptable at a moment’s notice to help you complete your objective….whatever it may be.
Speaking of which, the fact that there may or may not be secret Cylon players attempting to disrupt your plans really takes a hidden identity game to the next level. Cylons want to sabotage the humans, but in subtle ways as to not be found out – because once a Cylon is revealed, the humans can target and hinder their turns. Can you convince the humans that your previous actions were honest mistakes, or will they catch on that you are trying to undermine their efforts? The elements of deception and bluffing in this regard make the game much more immersive and make it feel realistic – there is a traitor among us and we have to find them, while also completing our own objectives. You really start to question who to trust and how your own actions can be perceived by your fellow players. There have been times, when playing this game, that we have taken breaks for dinner or snacks, and all players pocketed their cards rather than leave them on the table, vulnerable to sneaky opponents. Battlestar Galactica is definitely engaging for all players, and for such an involved and lengthy game, that is something to be applauded.
Let’s touch on components for a minute. The production quality of this game is great. The cardboard elements, including resource dials, are thick and sturdy. The cards and Character sheets are quality, colorful, and feel good in hand. And the plastic ships are well made too. The artwork consists mainly of screen caps from the TV show (which I admittedly have not yet seen…) but the theme and cohesiveness of the components makes for an immersive and engaging game overall.
In general, I am not a person who enjoys hidden identity games – simply because I am a bad liar and get found out almost immediately. However, the way this mechanic is incorporated into Battlestar Galactica makes it more a game of strategy than simple deception. And games of strategy are what I truly love. Managing your hand of Skill cards to best overcome Crisis cards, thinking tactically about how to deploy your fleet and battle Cylon ships, and having to determine who among the crew can actually be trusted keeps all players engaged across the board. Nobody can just sit back and relax, every single turn can drastically affect the outcome of the game. Everyone is in it, and that is what I love about this game. Purple Phoenix Games gives it a 11 / 12. This game has been out of print for a while now, but if you ever get a chance to play – jump on it! You don’t have to know the show to enjoy the game. Trust me, I haven’t seen a single episode yet.
