Search
Search results
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Orchard: A 9 Card Solitaire Game in Tabletop Games
Mar 1, 2022
I love playing games with other people. Absolutely LOVE it. However, I also love playing games solo as well. When a game comes along that is specifically designed for solo play only, I tend to like them more than multiplayer games that include a solo mode. Also included here are cooperative games where the solo player just quarterbacks multiple players. But a game that is designed for solo play and even includes it in its title? I cannot recall many games I have played like this. But how is this one?
Orchard: A 9 Card Solitaire Game (simply Orchard from here on out) is a solo game where the player is attempting to harvest the most fruit from trees that are bred for high yield. As there are no players to play against, the player will instead compare their ending score with a table in the rulebook. Will the player’s game result in a “Pal-tree” score or will they score enough to be considered “Almost imposs-apple!”?
To setup, place the dice and Rotten Fruiteeple on the table. Shuffle the 18 cards, deal two decks of nine cards (two games worth), and choose a deck to play. Flip the first card over to start the orchard, shuffle the remaining cards and draw two into hand. The game is now setup and ready to begin!
Turns in Orchard could not be simpler: Play a Card, Place Dice, Draw a Card. From the two-card hand, choose one to be placed in the orchard with one very important rule: the newly-placed card must overlap another card in the orchard by overlapping matching tree types. So, a card can only be placed if the apple tree overlaps an apple tree, etc. More than one icon may overlap the existing card, but each icon must match types below it.
Once the new card has been placed, for each icon overlapped, a die matching the fruit type is placed on the icon. If this is the first time the tree has been overlapped, the die face is placed with value 1 showing. However, the die will increase in value each subsequent time it is overlapped (total die values of 1, 3, 6, 10). Therefore, when a card has been overlapped four times on the same icon, the maximum number of points has been reached for that icon. Should a player wish instead to forego any die placement and be unable (or unwilling) to place a card correctly, they may place any card, overlap an icon, and then add a Rotten Fruiteeple atop the mismatched icon. This spoils the fruit for the remainder of the game, so no further dice may be placed upon it, and also reduces the final score by three VP at game end for each token placed.
Finally, when the card and die have been placed, the player draws another card into their hand. When the final card has been played, or no further legal placements can be made, the game ends and the player totals up the dice values to arrive at their final score.
Components. This game is 18 cards of good quality, a bunch of custom dice, and two Rotten Fruit meeples. Everything is good quality and size, and it fits into a really cool sliding deck-box. The art, for me, is fine. The colors match fruits from the real world, and the dice match those color well enough too. I feel like different fruit choices could have been made to increase accessibility for our color-blind gamer friends. The plums and apples are both small and round (with an ever-so-slight different shape on the apple). I don’t know what other fruits would have been more appropriate – I’m not a botanist. Similarly, the dice are custom made with the pips looking like a plum or apple, and two sides of the dice showing a leaf icon. Perhaps in the interest of differentiation, instead of the leaves, the different dice colors could instead show the matching fruit style (if only the plum and apple looked differently enough). So instead of leaves, the red dice could show apples, the yellow dice could show pears, and the purple dice could show, I don’t know, eggplants? I am not color-blind, so these do not affect me, but it is something I have taken to commenting on as I review more and more games.
All in all, Orchard is a really good little game of overlapping and puzzling out next moves. The games are super-quick and engaging, and I always want to improve my score each time I play. When a game forces me to play again and again I feel it is a sign of a good game. I have plans to keep this one in its own special place where I can just grab it and go, instead of being dwarfed by my collection of much larger game boxes. If you are like me and pine for good solo play, then perhaps you should check out Orchard: A 9 Card Solitaire Game. The rules are light, game play is simple and fast, and it keeps drawing me in every time I look at the box.
Also let me know your highest score because I apparently am trash at this game, even though I really enjoy playing it. Have you scored in the top tier? Those must be some delicious fruits.
Orchard: A 9 Card Solitaire Game (simply Orchard from here on out) is a solo game where the player is attempting to harvest the most fruit from trees that are bred for high yield. As there are no players to play against, the player will instead compare their ending score with a table in the rulebook. Will the player’s game result in a “Pal-tree” score or will they score enough to be considered “Almost imposs-apple!”?
To setup, place the dice and Rotten Fruiteeple on the table. Shuffle the 18 cards, deal two decks of nine cards (two games worth), and choose a deck to play. Flip the first card over to start the orchard, shuffle the remaining cards and draw two into hand. The game is now setup and ready to begin!
Turns in Orchard could not be simpler: Play a Card, Place Dice, Draw a Card. From the two-card hand, choose one to be placed in the orchard with one very important rule: the newly-placed card must overlap another card in the orchard by overlapping matching tree types. So, a card can only be placed if the apple tree overlaps an apple tree, etc. More than one icon may overlap the existing card, but each icon must match types below it.
Once the new card has been placed, for each icon overlapped, a die matching the fruit type is placed on the icon. If this is the first time the tree has been overlapped, the die face is placed with value 1 showing. However, the die will increase in value each subsequent time it is overlapped (total die values of 1, 3, 6, 10). Therefore, when a card has been overlapped four times on the same icon, the maximum number of points has been reached for that icon. Should a player wish instead to forego any die placement and be unable (or unwilling) to place a card correctly, they may place any card, overlap an icon, and then add a Rotten Fruiteeple atop the mismatched icon. This spoils the fruit for the remainder of the game, so no further dice may be placed upon it, and also reduces the final score by three VP at game end for each token placed.
Finally, when the card and die have been placed, the player draws another card into their hand. When the final card has been played, or no further legal placements can be made, the game ends and the player totals up the dice values to arrive at their final score.
Components. This game is 18 cards of good quality, a bunch of custom dice, and two Rotten Fruit meeples. Everything is good quality and size, and it fits into a really cool sliding deck-box. The art, for me, is fine. The colors match fruits from the real world, and the dice match those color well enough too. I feel like different fruit choices could have been made to increase accessibility for our color-blind gamer friends. The plums and apples are both small and round (with an ever-so-slight different shape on the apple). I don’t know what other fruits would have been more appropriate – I’m not a botanist. Similarly, the dice are custom made with the pips looking like a plum or apple, and two sides of the dice showing a leaf icon. Perhaps in the interest of differentiation, instead of the leaves, the different dice colors could instead show the matching fruit style (if only the plum and apple looked differently enough). So instead of leaves, the red dice could show apples, the yellow dice could show pears, and the purple dice could show, I don’t know, eggplants? I am not color-blind, so these do not affect me, but it is something I have taken to commenting on as I review more and more games.
All in all, Orchard is a really good little game of overlapping and puzzling out next moves. The games are super-quick and engaging, and I always want to improve my score each time I play. When a game forces me to play again and again I feel it is a sign of a good game. I have plans to keep this one in its own special place where I can just grab it and go, instead of being dwarfed by my collection of much larger game boxes. If you are like me and pine for good solo play, then perhaps you should check out Orchard: A 9 Card Solitaire Game. The rules are light, game play is simple and fast, and it keeps drawing me in every time I look at the box.
Also let me know your highest score because I apparently am trash at this game, even though I really enjoy playing it. Have you scored in the top tier? Those must be some delicious fruits.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Failure to Protect (Dre Thomas & Angela Evans #4) in Books
Nov 12, 2019
I don't normally read legal thrillers, but there was something about Failure to Protect by Pamela Samuels Young that drew me in. I think it's because I was bullied as a child, but mostly because I'm a mom now. My oldest son has high functioning Autism and ADHD. He was bullied one year in school, and his school seemed to not do anything about it. Failure to Protect was a very emotional read, and I'm really glad I decided to give it a try.
The plot for Failure to Protect was solid. Nine-year-old Bailey Lewis is constantly being bullied at her school. When something major happens, Bailey's mother, Erika, decides to sue the elementary school. However, the principal, Darcella, is more concerned with keeping the school's good record intact instead of worrying about bullied students. The principal will do whatever it takes to make sure her school's stellar reputation doesn't get soiled even if it means doing some bullying herself.
Pamela Samuels Young did such a stellar job with the world building. Her knowledge of the court process and justice system is fantastic. Young is an attorney, and it's obvious she knows her stuff. Unfortunately, the subject of bullying in schools is all too real, and sadly, many schools are more worried about their reputation and all the paperwork and time a bullying case would take than actually caring about a bullied student. This fiction novel reads like a true story. There are a few plot twists which make this book even more interesting! Failure to Protect also answered every question I had. There's no speculation in Failure to Protect, and there's also no cliffhangers. This book is part of a series, but it's the first book I've read in the series, and I feel like it works as a standalone.
The pacing in Failure to Protect is done perfectly. Every single paragraph, and every single chapter flowed smoothly into the next. Not once did I want to put this book down. It had my attention throughout! I was also a fan of the short chapters which I felt helped with the pacing.
The best thing about Failure to Protect, besides everything, were the characters. Each character had such a unique personality which really helped them to feel like a real person rather than just a character in a novel. I loved little Bailey, and I just wanted to hug her and let her know that I'd protect her against her bully. It was heartbreaking reading about all she went through in her young life from losing her father not too long ago to being relentlessly bullied in school and online. I also felt horrible for her mother Erika. She also went through two horrible tragedies including one a parent should never have to go through. I was constantly in her corner, and I kept rooting for her throughout the whole bullying ordeal with the school. Erika felt like what happened to Bailey was mostly her fault, and I wanted to tell Erika that sometimes it's not easy to know everything about our children. Dre was my favorite character. I enjoyed his thought process and how passionate he was about everything. It was obvious how much he loved his goddaughter Bailey. I loved how Angela grew as a character when it came to her relationship with Erika. At first, she wasn't big on Erika, but it was obvious how much she did end up caring for her. Angela and Jenny were both fantastic attorneys, and I loved how they were willing to dedicate all their time and knowledge for Bailey's case. Darcella, the principal, was such a horrible person. Young did a fantastic job at creating Darcella to be the antagonist. So many times I was so angry with Darcella. I wanted to just shake her and ask her why she didn't do anything for Bailey. Darcella does explain why she decided to overlook the bullying, but I just wanted to know why she bothered to work in a profession dealing with children if she didn't have any empathy. I was so annoyed with Darcella. I was also annoyed with Ethan Landers, Darcella's attorney. I know he was just doing his job at the end of the day, but it wasn't easy to read about how he could just side with the enemy. Zola, Bailey's teacher, was also an interesting character. She was so conflicted about doing the right thing, and I liked reading about why she chose to do what she did. Apache, Dre's best friend, was a minor character in Failure to Protect, but he gets a mention because I loved his scenes. He was such a character, and I loved how comical he was especially when it came to helping out Dre.
Trigger warnings in Failure to Protect include bullying, racism, sexual situations (although not too graphic), suicide, death, lying, alcohol, mentions of past drug use and selling, profanity, and mentions of violence.
All in all, Failure to Protect is an emotionally well written novel. It would make a fantastic Lifetime movie - at least that's what I kept thinking whilst reading it. The story line is something that unfortunately is so commonplace in a lot of schools. I would definitely recommend Failure to Protect by Pamela Samuels Young to those aged 18+. I think this is a book that everyone should read and can relate to on at least some level. If you do decide to read Failure to Protect (which you should), please know that you'll feel a vast range of emotions!
--
(A special thank you to Pamela Samuels Young for providing me with an eBook of Failure to Protect in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
The plot for Failure to Protect was solid. Nine-year-old Bailey Lewis is constantly being bullied at her school. When something major happens, Bailey's mother, Erika, decides to sue the elementary school. However, the principal, Darcella, is more concerned with keeping the school's good record intact instead of worrying about bullied students. The principal will do whatever it takes to make sure her school's stellar reputation doesn't get soiled even if it means doing some bullying herself.
Pamela Samuels Young did such a stellar job with the world building. Her knowledge of the court process and justice system is fantastic. Young is an attorney, and it's obvious she knows her stuff. Unfortunately, the subject of bullying in schools is all too real, and sadly, many schools are more worried about their reputation and all the paperwork and time a bullying case would take than actually caring about a bullied student. This fiction novel reads like a true story. There are a few plot twists which make this book even more interesting! Failure to Protect also answered every question I had. There's no speculation in Failure to Protect, and there's also no cliffhangers. This book is part of a series, but it's the first book I've read in the series, and I feel like it works as a standalone.
The pacing in Failure to Protect is done perfectly. Every single paragraph, and every single chapter flowed smoothly into the next. Not once did I want to put this book down. It had my attention throughout! I was also a fan of the short chapters which I felt helped with the pacing.
The best thing about Failure to Protect, besides everything, were the characters. Each character had such a unique personality which really helped them to feel like a real person rather than just a character in a novel. I loved little Bailey, and I just wanted to hug her and let her know that I'd protect her against her bully. It was heartbreaking reading about all she went through in her young life from losing her father not too long ago to being relentlessly bullied in school and online. I also felt horrible for her mother Erika. She also went through two horrible tragedies including one a parent should never have to go through. I was constantly in her corner, and I kept rooting for her throughout the whole bullying ordeal with the school. Erika felt like what happened to Bailey was mostly her fault, and I wanted to tell Erika that sometimes it's not easy to know everything about our children. Dre was my favorite character. I enjoyed his thought process and how passionate he was about everything. It was obvious how much he loved his goddaughter Bailey. I loved how Angela grew as a character when it came to her relationship with Erika. At first, she wasn't big on Erika, but it was obvious how much she did end up caring for her. Angela and Jenny were both fantastic attorneys, and I loved how they were willing to dedicate all their time and knowledge for Bailey's case. Darcella, the principal, was such a horrible person. Young did a fantastic job at creating Darcella to be the antagonist. So many times I was so angry with Darcella. I wanted to just shake her and ask her why she didn't do anything for Bailey. Darcella does explain why she decided to overlook the bullying, but I just wanted to know why she bothered to work in a profession dealing with children if she didn't have any empathy. I was so annoyed with Darcella. I was also annoyed with Ethan Landers, Darcella's attorney. I know he was just doing his job at the end of the day, but it wasn't easy to read about how he could just side with the enemy. Zola, Bailey's teacher, was also an interesting character. She was so conflicted about doing the right thing, and I liked reading about why she chose to do what she did. Apache, Dre's best friend, was a minor character in Failure to Protect, but he gets a mention because I loved his scenes. He was such a character, and I loved how comical he was especially when it came to helping out Dre.
Trigger warnings in Failure to Protect include bullying, racism, sexual situations (although not too graphic), suicide, death, lying, alcohol, mentions of past drug use and selling, profanity, and mentions of violence.
All in all, Failure to Protect is an emotionally well written novel. It would make a fantastic Lifetime movie - at least that's what I kept thinking whilst reading it. The story line is something that unfortunately is so commonplace in a lot of schools. I would definitely recommend Failure to Protect by Pamela Samuels Young to those aged 18+. I think this is a book that everyone should read and can relate to on at least some level. If you do decide to read Failure to Protect (which you should), please know that you'll feel a vast range of emotions!
--
(A special thank you to Pamela Samuels Young for providing me with an eBook of Failure to Protect in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Mitropia in Tabletop Games
Apr 21, 2020
Have you ever had a crush on someone and just wanted to surround them with your presence? Too creepy? Okay, have you ever been at odds with your sworn enemies and learned to settle your differences by transporting yourselves to the plane of the gods to engage in a battle of strategic placement and enveloping in order to determine supremacy? Too specific? Well, the latter is the premise for the game Mitropia.
Mitropia is an area majority game that can end in several fashions. To setup your first game, please use the setup instructions in the rule book to form the playing area. However, the more you play, the more you might like to change it up and try out some wacky board formations. Every player receives a player mat featuring a tribe with different special abilities. They will each also receive the matching colored warrior tokens (and bag if present), cards from the two decks according to the setup in the rules. Each player will place their chieftan (two stacked warrior tokens) on the board. The game is ready to be played!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a near-retail prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I know the final components will be a little different from these shown (upgrades!). Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game – and the rules will certainly be tweaked from this version and the rules we used to play it. You are invited to download the rulebook from the publisher’s website, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign running April 16 – May 17, 2020, purchase it from your FLGS, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
Game play is relatively simple. Players are attempting to score points by occupying and/or surrounding terrain tiles. Some tiles are worth more points than others depending on tribe abilities and other factors. The game ends once there are no more legal plays, all players have passed, or a chieftan has been captured by an opponent. Points are then tallied and a victor is determined.
On a turn, a player will make a “move,” which is a strange term as the player is actually placing out a warrior token. The placement of the warrior is dependent upon a move pattern card that is showing on the player mat, or one from the player’s hand to be discarded. These move cards show where the warrior can be placed (like Onitama‘s movement cards). Move cards can be combined with special action cards to make interesting warrior placement upon the board. Again, the goal of the game is to encompass as much terrain as possible, and surround your opponents to capture their warrior tokens.
In addition to simply placing out new warriors to claim lands and surround opponents, using terrain types to their fullest is a strategy not to be ignored. Wormholes are teleport locations, and mountains are impassable. Using just these features can wreak havoc on unsuspecting opponents. Mountains can especially be brutal when being used as an obstacle to facilitate surrounding enemies. When you play Mitropia be warned: mind the mountains.
Play continues in turns until a win condition or game end condition has been met. The players tally points to declare a victor, and then setup to play again for the player will definitely want to play another.
Components. Again, this is a near-retail prototype copy, so the components are very close to what will be available and in each box upon a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, these components are amazing! I told the publisher the day after receiving the game that I was very impressed with what was packed in the box. Now, I haven’t been able to Tetris the components back in the box and have the cover fit flush since I opened it, but what is inside the box truly is wonderful. The player discs are all nicely-painted wood bits. The player mats, cards, and terrain tiles are all great quality. The art on everything is super stellar, and I just love playing with everything! You know the feeling when you’re playing a game that just has that perfect tactile quality? That’s Mitropia. And this copy isn’t even upgraded!
So here are my thoughts on this beast. I have never played Go, and I’m not really sure I want to after having Mitropia in my hands. I probably will play Go sometime, but I can only picture myself wishing I had been playing Mitropia. There is just something about having special abilities and slight differences that really improves my enjoyment. I love being able to see my turns several rounds in advance, but then having to switch tactics because an opponent has thwarted my evil plan at the last moment. I love being able to sit and think about my plays. I do not suffer from analysis paralysis, and this is a caveat I have for the game – do NOT play with AP-prone opponents. There is a lot going on here and so many options on a turn. AP sufferers can just stare at the board frightened of playing the wrong move or deciding whether or not to play a special ability card. However, I think this is a fantastic game with an excellent theme overlaid. If you are looking for a thematic game of Go that looks beautiful, is colorful instead of boring, allows players to have special powers and abilities, card play similar to the award-winning Onitama, then you certainly owe it to yourself to give a look at Mitropia. Please head over to the Kickstarter campaign that ends May 17, 2020 and check it out to learn even more and see what others are saying about it. I will be guarding my copy like you wouldn’t believe.
Mitropia is an area majority game that can end in several fashions. To setup your first game, please use the setup instructions in the rule book to form the playing area. However, the more you play, the more you might like to change it up and try out some wacky board formations. Every player receives a player mat featuring a tribe with different special abilities. They will each also receive the matching colored warrior tokens (and bag if present), cards from the two decks according to the setup in the rules. Each player will place their chieftan (two stacked warrior tokens) on the board. The game is ready to be played!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a near-retail prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I know the final components will be a little different from these shown (upgrades!). Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game – and the rules will certainly be tweaked from this version and the rules we used to play it. You are invited to download the rulebook from the publisher’s website, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign running April 16 – May 17, 2020, purchase it from your FLGS, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
Game play is relatively simple. Players are attempting to score points by occupying and/or surrounding terrain tiles. Some tiles are worth more points than others depending on tribe abilities and other factors. The game ends once there are no more legal plays, all players have passed, or a chieftan has been captured by an opponent. Points are then tallied and a victor is determined.
On a turn, a player will make a “move,” which is a strange term as the player is actually placing out a warrior token. The placement of the warrior is dependent upon a move pattern card that is showing on the player mat, or one from the player’s hand to be discarded. These move cards show where the warrior can be placed (like Onitama‘s movement cards). Move cards can be combined with special action cards to make interesting warrior placement upon the board. Again, the goal of the game is to encompass as much terrain as possible, and surround your opponents to capture their warrior tokens.
In addition to simply placing out new warriors to claim lands and surround opponents, using terrain types to their fullest is a strategy not to be ignored. Wormholes are teleport locations, and mountains are impassable. Using just these features can wreak havoc on unsuspecting opponents. Mountains can especially be brutal when being used as an obstacle to facilitate surrounding enemies. When you play Mitropia be warned: mind the mountains.
Play continues in turns until a win condition or game end condition has been met. The players tally points to declare a victor, and then setup to play again for the player will definitely want to play another.
Components. Again, this is a near-retail prototype copy, so the components are very close to what will be available and in each box upon a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, these components are amazing! I told the publisher the day after receiving the game that I was very impressed with what was packed in the box. Now, I haven’t been able to Tetris the components back in the box and have the cover fit flush since I opened it, but what is inside the box truly is wonderful. The player discs are all nicely-painted wood bits. The player mats, cards, and terrain tiles are all great quality. The art on everything is super stellar, and I just love playing with everything! You know the feeling when you’re playing a game that just has that perfect tactile quality? That’s Mitropia. And this copy isn’t even upgraded!
So here are my thoughts on this beast. I have never played Go, and I’m not really sure I want to after having Mitropia in my hands. I probably will play Go sometime, but I can only picture myself wishing I had been playing Mitropia. There is just something about having special abilities and slight differences that really improves my enjoyment. I love being able to see my turns several rounds in advance, but then having to switch tactics because an opponent has thwarted my evil plan at the last moment. I love being able to sit and think about my plays. I do not suffer from analysis paralysis, and this is a caveat I have for the game – do NOT play with AP-prone opponents. There is a lot going on here and so many options on a turn. AP sufferers can just stare at the board frightened of playing the wrong move or deciding whether or not to play a special ability card. However, I think this is a fantastic game with an excellent theme overlaid. If you are looking for a thematic game of Go that looks beautiful, is colorful instead of boring, allows players to have special powers and abilities, card play similar to the award-winning Onitama, then you certainly owe it to yourself to give a look at Mitropia. Please head over to the Kickstarter campaign that ends May 17, 2020 and check it out to learn even more and see what others are saying about it. I will be guarding my copy like you wouldn’t believe.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wordslingers: The Story of Self-Publishing (2021) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
They say that everyone has a book in them. I guess the key question is whether anyone else wants to read it. Such is the subject of this new documentary from A. Brooks Bennett. As a publisher says at one point “Writing a book is a creative act; publishing a book is a business”.
The democratization of publishing
The internet has brought many advantages to modern life, but perhaps one of the most interesting is the democratization of publishing. No longer is control in the hands of publishing houses, who might glance at and immediately dismiss new ideas in literature. It’s worth remembering that 12 publishing houses turned down J.K. Rowling’s draft for Harry Potter! Now anyone can be creative in writing and self-publish on the web. My own wife – Sue Mann – did just this, self-publishing the WW1 poems and reminiscences of two of her great-uncles. (It’s available from all good bookshops… oh, no…. actually just from here!) Are the poems artistically any good? I have no idea! Will it sell many copies? Clearly not! Was it a personal goal achieved in honouring their memory? Absolutely! Different people want different things from the medium.
Very ‘American’.
It’s probably down to the pioneer spirit, but as a generalisation Americans seem far more ambitious than Brits: or at least, more OPENLY ambitious. Whereas most Brits will quietly get on with building their careers, some Americans will go hell-for-leather towards their vision of “success” no matter the cost: no guts; no glory; and be noisy about it!
But for every J.K. Rowling or Bill Bryson there are several thousand writers who have ‘failed to launch’.
Here we follow two budding authors – one from California; the other from North Carolina – self-publishing their work and seeking sales.
One – Giles A (“Andy”) Anderson – has self-published a seemingly disturbing work called “Vidu” – the first of what he hopes will be a five-part series. He first talks from a ghoulish bookstore, speaking psycho-babble with the requisite hyperbole of an ‘artiste’. (It suggests how the books might read… but perhaps that’s misjudging). It comes then as a surprise when we find he doesn’t live alone in a coffin playing video games on his own, but has a lovely wife and two young and perfectly normal children. So his book is an “off the beaten track kinda book”, but the man seems well-grounded and following his dream in bite-size pieces.
Moral: Avoid the Travel Books
As is often the case though, the documentary homes in on, and spends most of its time with, the other author – Adam Shephard. Shephard is struggling to launch as an author and also – in parallel – wrestling with the Green Card process for his supportive and vivacious Croatian wife Ivana. The problem is that Shephard has written an extended travel blog: ten-a-penny on sites like WordPress.
I read a Forbes article last year that reported that – astonishingly – in a survey 11% of American respondents had never travelled outside of their home state and 40% had never left the country. For such a well-heeled country, the US is incredibly insular. So Shephard’s vision is to encourage youngsters to step outside of their comfort zone and jump on that plane to Guatemala. It’s a fine objective. But does anyone want to listen? And – crucially – is the book any good and commercial enough? As the famous ‘founder of self-publishing’, the late Dan Poynter (to who the film is dedicated) says “You can’t make any money off a travel book”.
The film never goes as far as having either of the featured books critically reviewed: that might have added some extra spice to the story (and possibly provoked some painful reactions). But the piles of unopened boxes in Adam’s clinically white storage facility rather speaks for itself. Since Shephard never seems to do anything by halves, the boxes are piled high and thus the fall from grace is hard, long…. and absolutely riveting. (Ivana’s support and love in such difficult circumstances is commendable: he is a truly blessed man).
Jaw-dropping Walmart scene
At least at the start of the film, Adam’s self-belief and confidence in himself is infectious. The peak of his bravado, and a jaw-dropping highpoint in the movie for me, was a scene filmed in Walmart. Shephard, in a case of “reverse shoplifting”, sneaks HIS books onto the bookshelves of Walmart. What happens when they then try to buy one? It’s a real eye-opener and worth watching the documentary for in its own right.
It’s an interesting legal position: if Walmart were to be upset about this scene, what on earth could they charge them with!? Littering?
Highs and lows.
Shephard seems to have talent as a speaker, and it struck me that he would be genuinely suited to a job in sales. In the movie we see him performing self-confidence-building pitches to young people (and, boy, could we sometimes use that in the UK post-Brexit). A few books sold. But another event barely breaking even. The pattern becomes familiar and, in a way, rather tragic.
There are unexpected highs and lows for Adam and Ivana along the way though, unrelated to the publishing story, and the filmmaker skillfully weaves them into the narrative to good effect.
Thought-provoking.
I watched this on a whim and thought I’d probably switch off after 10 minutes. Documentaries normally are not my thing! But no. It had me gripped to see how things would turn out – like watching a slow-motion car crash! The journey was well-worth the ride: a real page-turner you might say.
The democratization of publishing
The internet has brought many advantages to modern life, but perhaps one of the most interesting is the democratization of publishing. No longer is control in the hands of publishing houses, who might glance at and immediately dismiss new ideas in literature. It’s worth remembering that 12 publishing houses turned down J.K. Rowling’s draft for Harry Potter! Now anyone can be creative in writing and self-publish on the web. My own wife – Sue Mann – did just this, self-publishing the WW1 poems and reminiscences of two of her great-uncles. (It’s available from all good bookshops… oh, no…. actually just from here!) Are the poems artistically any good? I have no idea! Will it sell many copies? Clearly not! Was it a personal goal achieved in honouring their memory? Absolutely! Different people want different things from the medium.
Very ‘American’.
It’s probably down to the pioneer spirit, but as a generalisation Americans seem far more ambitious than Brits: or at least, more OPENLY ambitious. Whereas most Brits will quietly get on with building their careers, some Americans will go hell-for-leather towards their vision of “success” no matter the cost: no guts; no glory; and be noisy about it!
But for every J.K. Rowling or Bill Bryson there are several thousand writers who have ‘failed to launch’.
Here we follow two budding authors – one from California; the other from North Carolina – self-publishing their work and seeking sales.
One – Giles A (“Andy”) Anderson – has self-published a seemingly disturbing work called “Vidu” – the first of what he hopes will be a five-part series. He first talks from a ghoulish bookstore, speaking psycho-babble with the requisite hyperbole of an ‘artiste’. (It suggests how the books might read… but perhaps that’s misjudging). It comes then as a surprise when we find he doesn’t live alone in a coffin playing video games on his own, but has a lovely wife and two young and perfectly normal children. So his book is an “off the beaten track kinda book”, but the man seems well-grounded and following his dream in bite-size pieces.
Moral: Avoid the Travel Books
As is often the case though, the documentary homes in on, and spends most of its time with, the other author – Adam Shephard. Shephard is struggling to launch as an author and also – in parallel – wrestling with the Green Card process for his supportive and vivacious Croatian wife Ivana. The problem is that Shephard has written an extended travel blog: ten-a-penny on sites like WordPress.
I read a Forbes article last year that reported that – astonishingly – in a survey 11% of American respondents had never travelled outside of their home state and 40% had never left the country. For such a well-heeled country, the US is incredibly insular. So Shephard’s vision is to encourage youngsters to step outside of their comfort zone and jump on that plane to Guatemala. It’s a fine objective. But does anyone want to listen? And – crucially – is the book any good and commercial enough? As the famous ‘founder of self-publishing’, the late Dan Poynter (to who the film is dedicated) says “You can’t make any money off a travel book”.
The film never goes as far as having either of the featured books critically reviewed: that might have added some extra spice to the story (and possibly provoked some painful reactions). But the piles of unopened boxes in Adam’s clinically white storage facility rather speaks for itself. Since Shephard never seems to do anything by halves, the boxes are piled high and thus the fall from grace is hard, long…. and absolutely riveting. (Ivana’s support and love in such difficult circumstances is commendable: he is a truly blessed man).
Jaw-dropping Walmart scene
At least at the start of the film, Adam’s self-belief and confidence in himself is infectious. The peak of his bravado, and a jaw-dropping highpoint in the movie for me, was a scene filmed in Walmart. Shephard, in a case of “reverse shoplifting”, sneaks HIS books onto the bookshelves of Walmart. What happens when they then try to buy one? It’s a real eye-opener and worth watching the documentary for in its own right.
It’s an interesting legal position: if Walmart were to be upset about this scene, what on earth could they charge them with!? Littering?
Highs and lows.
Shephard seems to have talent as a speaker, and it struck me that he would be genuinely suited to a job in sales. In the movie we see him performing self-confidence-building pitches to young people (and, boy, could we sometimes use that in the UK post-Brexit). A few books sold. But another event barely breaking even. The pattern becomes familiar and, in a way, rather tragic.
There are unexpected highs and lows for Adam and Ivana along the way though, unrelated to the publishing story, and the filmmaker skillfully weaves them into the narrative to good effect.
Thought-provoking.
I watched this on a whim and thought I’d probably switch off after 10 minutes. Documentaries normally are not my thing! But no. It had me gripped to see how things would turn out – like watching a slow-motion car crash! The journey was well-worth the ride: a real page-turner you might say.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated My Sister's Keeper in Books
Dec 7, 2018
“If you use one of your children to save the life of another, are you being a good mother or a very bad one?”
<i>My Sister’s Keeper </i>was the first Jodi Picoult novel I read. (I have since read all Picoult’s books to date) I was not expecting much when I first picked it up, especially as I was reading it for a medical ethics module at college. Yet this book rekindled my love of reading and suddenly, after only reading one story, I was asking for Jodi Picoult books for my birthday.
Many people may be familiar with the storyline, even if they have not read the book, as <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> shot to fame when the film version hit the cinemas. Thirteen-year-old Anna Fitzgerald was Rhode Islands first genetically engineered baby, created with the purpose of providing her older sister Kate with the means to survive acute promyelocytic leukemia. However over the next few years Kate relapses resulting in Anna going under numerous procedures, such as bone marrow extraction, in order to save Kate’s life. Now things have got so bad that Kate will die unless Anna gives up one of her kidneys, yet unwilling to do this Anna hires a lawyer, Campbell Alexander, to sue her parents for the rights of her own body.
From reading a synopsis the reader can already see that <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> is going to be an emotional story, but what was it that made me love the author so much?
The story was told from six points of view: Anna, Jesse (older brother), Sara (mother), Brian (father), Campbell and Julie (guardian ad litem). Notice that Kate was not one of the narrators, which leads us to speculate from the very start that Anna wins the case and Kate dies. Despite the six main characters there is no antagonist – unless you count cancer – and in all of them the reader can find something relatable.
In one of the chapters, Jesse pronounces that Kate is the martyr, Anna the peacekeeper and himself the lost cause. With Anna we can recognize the struggle to follow the decisions laid down for us by other people – a time when we have no choice of our own. Jesse represents the times when we have been ignored and forgotten because of bigger or more important events, thus resulting in attention seeking behaviour. Brian, the firefighter, the man who wants to save everyone, cannot put out the metaphorical fire that is his family. Sara, whose narrative starts in the past rather than present day, shows us how easy it is to get wrapped up in one problem (or daughter), ignoring everything (or everyone) else.
One thing that is great about all Picoult’s novels is that they are not focused on one storyline. Granted this book is focused on the trial and Kate’s illness, but the inclusion of Campbell and Julia’s voices provide an interesting subplot. Julia is not exactly thrilled to discover that she will be working alongside Campbell, a person she knew from school that she had a difficult past with. Since then Julia has found herself unlucky in love and blames Campbell for this. Campbell on the other hand has been having trouble of his own and now needs a service dog with him at all times. Yet he is self conscious about people knowing the true reason behind this and often comes up with creative lies to stop people from asking questions. “Maybe if God gives you a handicap, he makes sure you’ve got a few extra doses of humor to take the edge off.”
Another reason Picoult’s books are so great is that the reader learns something every time. <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> is full of medical and legal jargon, which may go over some people’s heads, but it is also bursting with random bits of knowledge, for example the way a fire should be treated, facts about astronomy and many other interesting details that the characters use as metaphors to describe their experiences.
Without taking into account Picoult’s novels and writing style as a whole, <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> is a story that will stay in people’s hearts and minds for a long time. It is never revealed who the narrator of the prologue was, but we immediately assume that it is Anna and that she wants Kate to die. By the end, we are still unsure who the character was but if it was Anna we see it in a completely different light. This is not a book about whether it is ethical for Anna to be Kate’s donor; it is not a story about cancer. Instead it is a message about the right for each person to have choices in regards to their lives.
A warning to potential readers: this book could break your heart, shock you or leave you in tears. <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> is full of irony. Some of that makes up part of the story line, for instance Jesse’s experimentation with arson – fires that are then put out by his father. But the biggest sense of irony, the biggest shock is the ending (FYI this is the complete opposite to the film ending). After everything that has been achieved, devastating circumstances result in the same conclusion that it would have had Anna sat back and done nothing. Yet this does not make it a pointless story, despite Anna’s actions almost tearing the family apart, it also wakes them from the stupor that Kate’s illness has put them in and makes them realise how precious everything else in their life is too.
I highly recommend this book to everyone, and if you have not read a Jodi Picoult novel before I strongly suggest you begin with this one. It is suitable for adult and adolescent readers, especially those who like to think about hypothetical, moral questions. <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> definitely gets you questioning your own choices and actions within your own life and may even make you view the world slightly differently.
<i>My Sister’s Keeper </i>was the first Jodi Picoult novel I read. (I have since read all Picoult’s books to date) I was not expecting much when I first picked it up, especially as I was reading it for a medical ethics module at college. Yet this book rekindled my love of reading and suddenly, after only reading one story, I was asking for Jodi Picoult books for my birthday.
Many people may be familiar with the storyline, even if they have not read the book, as <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> shot to fame when the film version hit the cinemas. Thirteen-year-old Anna Fitzgerald was Rhode Islands first genetically engineered baby, created with the purpose of providing her older sister Kate with the means to survive acute promyelocytic leukemia. However over the next few years Kate relapses resulting in Anna going under numerous procedures, such as bone marrow extraction, in order to save Kate’s life. Now things have got so bad that Kate will die unless Anna gives up one of her kidneys, yet unwilling to do this Anna hires a lawyer, Campbell Alexander, to sue her parents for the rights of her own body.
From reading a synopsis the reader can already see that <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> is going to be an emotional story, but what was it that made me love the author so much?
The story was told from six points of view: Anna, Jesse (older brother), Sara (mother), Brian (father), Campbell and Julie (guardian ad litem). Notice that Kate was not one of the narrators, which leads us to speculate from the very start that Anna wins the case and Kate dies. Despite the six main characters there is no antagonist – unless you count cancer – and in all of them the reader can find something relatable.
In one of the chapters, Jesse pronounces that Kate is the martyr, Anna the peacekeeper and himself the lost cause. With Anna we can recognize the struggle to follow the decisions laid down for us by other people – a time when we have no choice of our own. Jesse represents the times when we have been ignored and forgotten because of bigger or more important events, thus resulting in attention seeking behaviour. Brian, the firefighter, the man who wants to save everyone, cannot put out the metaphorical fire that is his family. Sara, whose narrative starts in the past rather than present day, shows us how easy it is to get wrapped up in one problem (or daughter), ignoring everything (or everyone) else.
One thing that is great about all Picoult’s novels is that they are not focused on one storyline. Granted this book is focused on the trial and Kate’s illness, but the inclusion of Campbell and Julia’s voices provide an interesting subplot. Julia is not exactly thrilled to discover that she will be working alongside Campbell, a person she knew from school that she had a difficult past with. Since then Julia has found herself unlucky in love and blames Campbell for this. Campbell on the other hand has been having trouble of his own and now needs a service dog with him at all times. Yet he is self conscious about people knowing the true reason behind this and often comes up with creative lies to stop people from asking questions. “Maybe if God gives you a handicap, he makes sure you’ve got a few extra doses of humor to take the edge off.”
Another reason Picoult’s books are so great is that the reader learns something every time. <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> is full of medical and legal jargon, which may go over some people’s heads, but it is also bursting with random bits of knowledge, for example the way a fire should be treated, facts about astronomy and many other interesting details that the characters use as metaphors to describe their experiences.
Without taking into account Picoult’s novels and writing style as a whole, <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> is a story that will stay in people’s hearts and minds for a long time. It is never revealed who the narrator of the prologue was, but we immediately assume that it is Anna and that she wants Kate to die. By the end, we are still unsure who the character was but if it was Anna we see it in a completely different light. This is not a book about whether it is ethical for Anna to be Kate’s donor; it is not a story about cancer. Instead it is a message about the right for each person to have choices in regards to their lives.
A warning to potential readers: this book could break your heart, shock you or leave you in tears. <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> is full of irony. Some of that makes up part of the story line, for instance Jesse’s experimentation with arson – fires that are then put out by his father. But the biggest sense of irony, the biggest shock is the ending (FYI this is the complete opposite to the film ending). After everything that has been achieved, devastating circumstances result in the same conclusion that it would have had Anna sat back and done nothing. Yet this does not make it a pointless story, despite Anna’s actions almost tearing the family apart, it also wakes them from the stupor that Kate’s illness has put them in and makes them realise how precious everything else in their life is too.
I highly recommend this book to everyone, and if you have not read a Jodi Picoult novel before I strongly suggest you begin with this one. It is suitable for adult and adolescent readers, especially those who like to think about hypothetical, moral questions. <i>My Sister’s Keeper</i> definitely gets you questioning your own choices and actions within your own life and may even make you view the world slightly differently.
Darren (1599 KP) rated American Heist (2015) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: American Heist starts with James (Christensen) waiting before starting to look for someone then an explosion surprises him bring us back a day in time where we follow James going about his everyday life. James has a brother Frankie (Brody) fresh out of prison being picked up by his criminal connection Sugar (Akon) who keeps him happy with drinks, drugs and girls on his first night out before meeting the boss Ray (Kittles).
James has turned his life around where he now works on the straight life working as a mechanic, he sees an old flame Emily (Brewster) back in town where James sees his life moving in the right direction. Frankie turns up to see his brother’s life after ten years locked away. Frankie arranges to meet for drinks with James which leads to him discussion a new job opportunity which leads us back to the opening scene where James gets tricked into a job as Frankie is trying to repay his debts.
Ray has assembled a team to pull off an elaborate bank robbery which will finally see Frankie pay back the debts he owes because James has the skills to get part of the plan done.
American Heist is a story that does seem to follow the traditional idea of a recently released from prison criminal goes straight back into the criminal world even if it isn’t fully his desire. We also see how the man thinking he has escaped from the criminal world gets dragged back in for one more job. This side of the story has been done before but is does really push the two brothers on an emotional level. When it comes to the actual heist it does become the secondary story behind the brothers relationship with the preparation being a quick flash scene and like most heist films go completely wrong. The story will have to go down as a solid entry into the genre but won’t be a film climbing into anyone’s best. (7/10)
Actor Review
Hayden Christensen: James is the former criminal who has turned his life around with a clean cut job where he is trying to get his own business, his life may not be perfect but he is happy that everything is all legal now. When his brothers released from prison he ends up caught up trying to pay off Frankie’s debts forced into working for criminal Ray. Hayden continues to try and recover from the criticism he got for Star Wars with another anti pretty boy film where he tries to play tough but doesn’t quite pull it off. (6/10)
james
Adrien Brody: Frankie is James’ brother who fresh out of prisoner does straight back into his criminal underworld where criminal boss Ray wants both Frankie and James to work for him. Frankie went through a lot in prison and always stood up for his brothers, as well as helping him become the man he is now. Adrien gives a performance you would expect from an Oscar winner, he does show his skills but sometimes feels like he is overacting to the situations. (7/10)
frankie
Jordana Brewster: Emily is the old flame who comes back into James’ life. Emily just so happens to be a dispatch caller for the police which could make the bank job all that much harder as Emily and James start rekindling their romance. Jordana does a good job but really doesn’t get enough screen time for the romantic angle in the story. (6/10)
Akon: Sugar is the second in command to Ray who gets the dirty jobs done when other people won’t get involved. Akon does make a good supporting actor never trying to over act like many musicians do when they enter the acting world. (7/10)
Tory Kittles: Ray is the criminal who helped Frankie in prison leaving him being owed a favour from Frankie when he finally gets out. Ray makes Frankie bring James back into the criminal world to take part in an elaborate heist. Tory makes for a good emotionless tough criminal who believes in every word he is saying. (7/10)
Support Cast: American Heist doesn’t really have many more characters involved in the story, we have the generic characters trying to chase down the criminals and the members of the group trying to pull off the heist.
Director Review: Sarik Andreasyan – Sarik gives us a solid heist film that really does focus on the relationship between the two brothers who have gone down different paths but must work together one last time. (7/10)
Action: American Heist keeps the action in a realistic level apart from one moment, making each feel like it could be a real heist and aftermath. (7/10)
Drama: American Heist creates a dysfunctional relationship between the two brothers which helps show just how far they would go for each other. (7/10)
Settings: American Heist keeps the settings in location where you would imagine the characters would want to turn to crime to end all the suffering they are going through. (8/10)
Suggestion: American Heist is one to try, I do think if you are a fan of the genre you will enjoy but there is only so much you can do with a heist film without fully copying anything else. (Try It)
Best Part: I really liked how the film ended, but can’t give it away.
Worst Part: How James gets pulled into the criminal world again.
Action Scene Of The Film: Ray’s escape attempt.
Believability: The heist feels like it could be how a real one would end, but the relationship side mixed with the heist not so. (4/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Kill Point (TV Show)
Oscar Chances: None
Budget: $10 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 34 Minutes
Overall: American Heist will go down as an emotionally gritty heist film about two brothers.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/26/american-heist-2015/
James has turned his life around where he now works on the straight life working as a mechanic, he sees an old flame Emily (Brewster) back in town where James sees his life moving in the right direction. Frankie turns up to see his brother’s life after ten years locked away. Frankie arranges to meet for drinks with James which leads to him discussion a new job opportunity which leads us back to the opening scene where James gets tricked into a job as Frankie is trying to repay his debts.
Ray has assembled a team to pull off an elaborate bank robbery which will finally see Frankie pay back the debts he owes because James has the skills to get part of the plan done.
American Heist is a story that does seem to follow the traditional idea of a recently released from prison criminal goes straight back into the criminal world even if it isn’t fully his desire. We also see how the man thinking he has escaped from the criminal world gets dragged back in for one more job. This side of the story has been done before but is does really push the two brothers on an emotional level. When it comes to the actual heist it does become the secondary story behind the brothers relationship with the preparation being a quick flash scene and like most heist films go completely wrong. The story will have to go down as a solid entry into the genre but won’t be a film climbing into anyone’s best. (7/10)
Actor Review
Hayden Christensen: James is the former criminal who has turned his life around with a clean cut job where he is trying to get his own business, his life may not be perfect but he is happy that everything is all legal now. When his brothers released from prison he ends up caught up trying to pay off Frankie’s debts forced into working for criminal Ray. Hayden continues to try and recover from the criticism he got for Star Wars with another anti pretty boy film where he tries to play tough but doesn’t quite pull it off. (6/10)
james
Adrien Brody: Frankie is James’ brother who fresh out of prisoner does straight back into his criminal underworld where criminal boss Ray wants both Frankie and James to work for him. Frankie went through a lot in prison and always stood up for his brothers, as well as helping him become the man he is now. Adrien gives a performance you would expect from an Oscar winner, he does show his skills but sometimes feels like he is overacting to the situations. (7/10)
frankie
Jordana Brewster: Emily is the old flame who comes back into James’ life. Emily just so happens to be a dispatch caller for the police which could make the bank job all that much harder as Emily and James start rekindling their romance. Jordana does a good job but really doesn’t get enough screen time for the romantic angle in the story. (6/10)
Akon: Sugar is the second in command to Ray who gets the dirty jobs done when other people won’t get involved. Akon does make a good supporting actor never trying to over act like many musicians do when they enter the acting world. (7/10)
Tory Kittles: Ray is the criminal who helped Frankie in prison leaving him being owed a favour from Frankie when he finally gets out. Ray makes Frankie bring James back into the criminal world to take part in an elaborate heist. Tory makes for a good emotionless tough criminal who believes in every word he is saying. (7/10)
Support Cast: American Heist doesn’t really have many more characters involved in the story, we have the generic characters trying to chase down the criminals and the members of the group trying to pull off the heist.
Director Review: Sarik Andreasyan – Sarik gives us a solid heist film that really does focus on the relationship between the two brothers who have gone down different paths but must work together one last time. (7/10)
Action: American Heist keeps the action in a realistic level apart from one moment, making each feel like it could be a real heist and aftermath. (7/10)
Drama: American Heist creates a dysfunctional relationship between the two brothers which helps show just how far they would go for each other. (7/10)
Settings: American Heist keeps the settings in location where you would imagine the characters would want to turn to crime to end all the suffering they are going through. (8/10)
Suggestion: American Heist is one to try, I do think if you are a fan of the genre you will enjoy but there is only so much you can do with a heist film without fully copying anything else. (Try It)
Best Part: I really liked how the film ended, but can’t give it away.
Worst Part: How James gets pulled into the criminal world again.
Action Scene Of The Film: Ray’s escape attempt.
Believability: The heist feels like it could be how a real one would end, but the relationship side mixed with the heist not so. (4/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Kill Point (TV Show)
Oscar Chances: None
Budget: $10 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 34 Minutes
Overall: American Heist will go down as an emotionally gritty heist film about two brothers.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/26/american-heist-2015/
Bill & Hillary : So This Is That Thing Called Love
Darwin Porter and Danforth Prince
Book
On the campus of Yale University, in 1970, an "odd couple," Hillary Rodham and Bill ("Bubba")...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Post (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Landing the Hindenburg in a Thunderstorm.
What a combination: Streep, Hanks, Spielberg, Kaminski behind the camera, Williams behind the notes. What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb in Books
Apr 13, 2019
"The crime itself was indefensible. The brilliant, spoiled and bored sons of two of Chicago's wealthiest families planned to commit the perfect crime both for the thrill of and to prove their perverse misunderstanding of Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy of the 'superman,' who was above all law so long as he made no mistake. Their plan, worked out over several months, was to kidnap and immediately kill one of their younger neighbors and hide his body. They would then demand and collect a ransom. The body would never be discovered, the crime would never be solved and only they would know that they had prevailed over ordinary human beings and their simple-minded legal system. But far from being the 'perfect crime,' the murder of 14-year-old Bobby Franks turned out to be amateurishly botched. Before any ransom could be paid, the boy's body was discovered in a culvert near where Nathan Leopold often went bird-watching. A pair of telltale glasses were found adjacent to the body. They were easily traced to Leopold who first came up with a paper-thin alibi and soon thereafter confessed to the crime. His fellow murderer likewise confessed. Each of the 'superboys' placed blame for the actual killing on the other." - Alan M. Dershowitz
If you mentioned the names Leopold and Loeb today, many people wouldn't know who you were talking about, but if you had mentioned them just thirty years ago, many people would recall the 'murder of the century.'
If you are a fan of the True Crime genre, you'll come across the case of two wealthy Chicago boys who thought they could get away with murder. (The trial is probably the most talked about trial to-date because this is the first time that psychology was brought before a court room.)
For a good part of the late 1920's, Leopold and Loeb were household names for good reason: they came from millionaire families, they were college graduates before they were 18-years-old, and their trial was the first time in history that the world saw psychology put in front of a judge. The trial was even more unforgettable due to a closing speech given by famous defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, which is reprinted in its entirety,spanning a hefty 93 pages.
Nathan Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb were two people who should have never met, according to the courtroom. The two met at about the age of fifteen, soon after they began to embark on criminal acts together, ranging from theft to arson. It's stated in 'the Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' that Loeb had created a fantasy world where he was a crime ringleader that was too smart for the police to catch. Readers get to judge for themselves whether or not they believe Loeb was the cause of their crimes, or if Leopold was the one really in charge.
After robbing Loeb's fraternity house together, Leopold and Loeb came up with a plan to kidnap a wealthy child that they could then ransom. "They began to devise elaborate plans for this kidnapping, and soon the planning became the all-important thing. They gave up the idea of kidnapping this particular person [a young man named William], and settled on the idea of kidnapping anyone who would fit in their kidnapping plans." Throughout the book, we find out that the boys were pretty desperate for a kidnapping victim, that they even thought about kidnapping one of their close friends:
"The plan of kidnaping Dick Rubel was given up because Dick Rubel's father was so tight we might not get any money from him."
Leopold and Loeb discussed everything from how they would receive the ransom, what weapons they would use, how they would get the victim inside a rented vehicle, and what they would do with the body afterwards. "In March, 1924, the patient [Loeb] conceived the idea of securing the money by having it thrown off a moving train. This idea was discussed in great detail, and gradually developed into a carefully systematized plan. As time wore on the plan became greatly modified from the original one. They discussed at considerable length the choice of a suitable subject for kidnapping. The patient's companion [Leopold] suggested that they kidnap a young girl instead of a boy, but the patient [Loeb] objected to this. His companion [Leopold] also suggested that they kidnap the patient's [Loeb] younger brother, but the patient apparently did not seriously consider doing this. They then considered half a dozen boys, any one of whom would do, for the following reasons: that they were physically small enough to be easily handled and their parents were extremely wealthy and would have no difficulty or disinclination to pay ransom money."
During the trial, Leopold and Loeb's psychological evaluations became the forefront of their guilty plea, stating that they were not responsible for their actions due to their upbringing and environment. "I submit the facts do not rest on the evidence of these boys alone. It is proven by the writings; it is proven by every act. It is proven by their companions, and there can by no question about it." Clarence Darrow explains in his famous closing statement. "We brought into this courtroom a number of their boy friends, whom they had known day by day, who had associated with them in the club house, were their constant companions, and they tell the same stories. They tell the story that neither of these two boys was responsible for his conduct."
'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' contains the portions of the psychiatric evaluations that were submitted in court,but the testimony of character witnesses is omitted. For a factual telling of a real life trial, this book is okay. If the reader pays attention, they may notice that some of the book contradicts itself, such as one page states that the car robe used to wrap up Franks' body was found buried near Lake Michigan,but then pages later, the book states it had been burned at Loeb's home.
The psychiatric reports are very repetitive,just using different words to describe the same things. Yet, these reports are the backbone of the trial and well worth a read. The evaluations and Darrow's extensive speech were what saved Leopold and Loeb from a death sentence.
There are very few books written about the 'murder of the century,' and even less about the 'lawyer of the century.' Leopold and Loeb, as well as Darrow, have faded into the obscurity of the True Crime genre, but because the boys' mental state was brought into question, we now accept forensic science/psychology in the court room today. I feel that only people who are truly interested in True Crime, or even have a fascination for the court room are the only ones who will enjoy 'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb.'
If you mentioned the names Leopold and Loeb today, many people wouldn't know who you were talking about, but if you had mentioned them just thirty years ago, many people would recall the 'murder of the century.'
If you are a fan of the True Crime genre, you'll come across the case of two wealthy Chicago boys who thought they could get away with murder. (The trial is probably the most talked about trial to-date because this is the first time that psychology was brought before a court room.)
For a good part of the late 1920's, Leopold and Loeb were household names for good reason: they came from millionaire families, they were college graduates before they were 18-years-old, and their trial was the first time in history that the world saw psychology put in front of a judge. The trial was even more unforgettable due to a closing speech given by famous defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, which is reprinted in its entirety,spanning a hefty 93 pages.
Nathan Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb were two people who should have never met, according to the courtroom. The two met at about the age of fifteen, soon after they began to embark on criminal acts together, ranging from theft to arson. It's stated in 'the Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' that Loeb had created a fantasy world where he was a crime ringleader that was too smart for the police to catch. Readers get to judge for themselves whether or not they believe Loeb was the cause of their crimes, or if Leopold was the one really in charge.
After robbing Loeb's fraternity house together, Leopold and Loeb came up with a plan to kidnap a wealthy child that they could then ransom. "They began to devise elaborate plans for this kidnapping, and soon the planning became the all-important thing. They gave up the idea of kidnapping this particular person [a young man named William], and settled on the idea of kidnapping anyone who would fit in their kidnapping plans." Throughout the book, we find out that the boys were pretty desperate for a kidnapping victim, that they even thought about kidnapping one of their close friends:
"The plan of kidnaping Dick Rubel was given up because Dick Rubel's father was so tight we might not get any money from him."
Leopold and Loeb discussed everything from how they would receive the ransom, what weapons they would use, how they would get the victim inside a rented vehicle, and what they would do with the body afterwards. "In March, 1924, the patient [Loeb] conceived the idea of securing the money by having it thrown off a moving train. This idea was discussed in great detail, and gradually developed into a carefully systematized plan. As time wore on the plan became greatly modified from the original one. They discussed at considerable length the choice of a suitable subject for kidnapping. The patient's companion [Leopold] suggested that they kidnap a young girl instead of a boy, but the patient [Loeb] objected to this. His companion [Leopold] also suggested that they kidnap the patient's [Loeb] younger brother, but the patient apparently did not seriously consider doing this. They then considered half a dozen boys, any one of whom would do, for the following reasons: that they were physically small enough to be easily handled and their parents were extremely wealthy and would have no difficulty or disinclination to pay ransom money."
During the trial, Leopold and Loeb's psychological evaluations became the forefront of their guilty plea, stating that they were not responsible for their actions due to their upbringing and environment. "I submit the facts do not rest on the evidence of these boys alone. It is proven by the writings; it is proven by every act. It is proven by their companions, and there can by no question about it." Clarence Darrow explains in his famous closing statement. "We brought into this courtroom a number of their boy friends, whom they had known day by day, who had associated with them in the club house, were their constant companions, and they tell the same stories. They tell the story that neither of these two boys was responsible for his conduct."
'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' contains the portions of the psychiatric evaluations that were submitted in court,but the testimony of character witnesses is omitted. For a factual telling of a real life trial, this book is okay. If the reader pays attention, they may notice that some of the book contradicts itself, such as one page states that the car robe used to wrap up Franks' body was found buried near Lake Michigan,but then pages later, the book states it had been burned at Loeb's home.
The psychiatric reports are very repetitive,just using different words to describe the same things. Yet, these reports are the backbone of the trial and well worth a read. The evaluations and Darrow's extensive speech were what saved Leopold and Loeb from a death sentence.
There are very few books written about the 'murder of the century,' and even less about the 'lawyer of the century.' Leopold and Loeb, as well as Darrow, have faded into the obscurity of the True Crime genre, but because the boys' mental state was brought into question, we now accept forensic science/psychology in the court room today. I feel that only people who are truly interested in True Crime, or even have a fascination for the court room are the only ones who will enjoy 'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb.'
Becs (244 KP) rated How NOT to Summon a Demon Lord in TV
Jul 22, 2019
Catching and Action-Packed!
TRIGGER WARNINGS: memory loss, anger issues, agoraphobia, graphic injuries, fat-shaming, body-shaming, forced marriage, incest, manipulation, toxic relationship, mind control, misogynistic language, slavery, torture, violence, executions
I was generally worried at whether this show was going to be good or if it was going to be one of those trashy anime's that are just 'alright'. I randomly put it on as I had just finished my hundredth re-watch of Vampire Knight and was shocked. This was crafted into a rather enjoyable story that had an amazing cast of main characters. There was silliness, softcore (ecchi) content, action, and adventure.
Throughout the show, there are scenes that are deemed inappropriate and the first episode contains one of those "whoa there" scenes. I wouldn't recommend watching if you don't want somewhat sexual scenes littered throughout the show. Besides those moments, How NOT to Summon a Demon Lord is pretty fun and an enjoyable series that fits with the genre of the show.
How NOT to Summon a Demon Lord captures the whole overpowered main character but balances it with a main character that has limits to his power. There is also the whole sense of danger to those that are close to the main character. The story is told really well and wraps up nicely, leaving the ending open so that if more seasons do end up getting made it would work perfectly with continuing the story on. But if this was the end, then it ended on a good note.
You won't see much of the modern world in the show except for the very beginning. The setting is set in a parallel fantasy world (isekai) where the main character is instantly sucked into a world similar to the game that he was playing. There isn't much connection between the game world and the modern world, but it really isn't an issue as it happened early on in the show.
The show itself is about the main character, who plays an all-mighty powerful Demon Lord in a game in the modern world, but then gets physically summoned into this parallel fantasy world. The twist: the main character is actually stuck in the body of his character Diablo. The story follows a pretty typical plotline where the main character adapts to being in a new body, a new world, how he deals with his surroundings, and how he tackles the issues that arise.
The biggest plot point revolves around the two summoners: Rem and Shera. Each had their own reason for summoning Diablo and he even gets involved with those same issues, seeking to help them. It's insinuated incredibly well that these two young women are main characters alongside Diablo, but some issues arise. Like the slave collars that are around the women's necks should have been around Diablo's neck. The issues that these young women have are as weighty as the salve collars. Slavery is apparently legal in this world, but Diablo doesn't abuse his power and actually allows the women to do as they please, even going as far as forming a bond with both of them.
Overall, I enjoyed watching the story unfold and seeing the producers establish the difference between the modern world and the game that Diablo was experiencing. And even seeing Diablo overpower so many of the opponents he encountered throughout the world. I was entertained throughout every episode and ended up binging this in an entire night!
Generally, when you have a show like this, the characters have to carry a ton to really make the show good. In How NOT to Summon a Demon Lord, they do an exceptional job at portraying that. Diablo is a pretty solid main character, even being likable! The problem with action-packed shows like this with an overly powerful main character is that the character isn't likable and that makes the show rather boring. With this show, you do not get that vibe one bit. Diablo actually works because he's a generally nice guy at heart, never resorting to using his powers right away or even stop caring about whether or not he kills someone. His strength is evenly matched with his lack of communication and his heavy social anxiety. I mean, you get inside his head quite often and he uses both his brains and brawn to help in a rough spot, instead of just randomly firing about as most power main characters do. This really adds to the appeal of Diablo.
The other two main characters, Rem and Shera are two girls with their own reasons for summoning a powerful demon to aid them. Both are entertaining and even have their own backstories that really add to the story. Rem's backstory is a bit more emotional compared to Shera's but the watcher is able to emphasize with both excruciatingly well. Especially when all three main characters develop a sturdy friendship and gain the trust of the others. Shera is the glue that holds both Rem and Diablo together when they start doubting themselves.
There are a wide variety of antagonists and side characters that don't get a ton of focus, but they do help push the main cast and story along. These antagonists have their own goals and that causes serious conflict with the goals Diablo, Rem, and Shera have/want to do. But then there are also the side characters that are actually on the side of the three mains and do play important roles in various points of the story.
The art and visual effects were well down and it wasn't the same graphic scenes and spells as most anime's do. For instance, Diablo doesn't just spam the same spell over and over (like I do when I'm playing a game because I'm a button smasher haha) instead, he uses different attacks and spells for each occasion. The show doesn't shower blood around like it's rain *cough cough Game of Thrones cough cough*, but it does a good enough job letting the watcher know when someone gets hurt/ dies.
My final thoughts:
Overall, this was a well-done show that held the action and made the characters very likable, without rushing the story. There is comedy, action, magic, and a bit of a push on the boundary with softcore (ecchi) content but you get a good sense from the main characters and story that it's defiantly worth checking out.
I was generally worried at whether this show was going to be good or if it was going to be one of those trashy anime's that are just 'alright'. I randomly put it on as I had just finished my hundredth re-watch of Vampire Knight and was shocked. This was crafted into a rather enjoyable story that had an amazing cast of main characters. There was silliness, softcore (ecchi) content, action, and adventure.
Throughout the show, there are scenes that are deemed inappropriate and the first episode contains one of those "whoa there" scenes. I wouldn't recommend watching if you don't want somewhat sexual scenes littered throughout the show. Besides those moments, How NOT to Summon a Demon Lord is pretty fun and an enjoyable series that fits with the genre of the show.
How NOT to Summon a Demon Lord captures the whole overpowered main character but balances it with a main character that has limits to his power. There is also the whole sense of danger to those that are close to the main character. The story is told really well and wraps up nicely, leaving the ending open so that if more seasons do end up getting made it would work perfectly with continuing the story on. But if this was the end, then it ended on a good note.
You won't see much of the modern world in the show except for the very beginning. The setting is set in a parallel fantasy world (isekai) where the main character is instantly sucked into a world similar to the game that he was playing. There isn't much connection between the game world and the modern world, but it really isn't an issue as it happened early on in the show.
The show itself is about the main character, who plays an all-mighty powerful Demon Lord in a game in the modern world, but then gets physically summoned into this parallel fantasy world. The twist: the main character is actually stuck in the body of his character Diablo. The story follows a pretty typical plotline where the main character adapts to being in a new body, a new world, how he deals with his surroundings, and how he tackles the issues that arise.
The biggest plot point revolves around the two summoners: Rem and Shera. Each had their own reason for summoning Diablo and he even gets involved with those same issues, seeking to help them. It's insinuated incredibly well that these two young women are main characters alongside Diablo, but some issues arise. Like the slave collars that are around the women's necks should have been around Diablo's neck. The issues that these young women have are as weighty as the salve collars. Slavery is apparently legal in this world, but Diablo doesn't abuse his power and actually allows the women to do as they please, even going as far as forming a bond with both of them.
Overall, I enjoyed watching the story unfold and seeing the producers establish the difference between the modern world and the game that Diablo was experiencing. And even seeing Diablo overpower so many of the opponents he encountered throughout the world. I was entertained throughout every episode and ended up binging this in an entire night!
Generally, when you have a show like this, the characters have to carry a ton to really make the show good. In How NOT to Summon a Demon Lord, they do an exceptional job at portraying that. Diablo is a pretty solid main character, even being likable! The problem with action-packed shows like this with an overly powerful main character is that the character isn't likable and that makes the show rather boring. With this show, you do not get that vibe one bit. Diablo actually works because he's a generally nice guy at heart, never resorting to using his powers right away or even stop caring about whether or not he kills someone. His strength is evenly matched with his lack of communication and his heavy social anxiety. I mean, you get inside his head quite often and he uses both his brains and brawn to help in a rough spot, instead of just randomly firing about as most power main characters do. This really adds to the appeal of Diablo.
The other two main characters, Rem and Shera are two girls with their own reasons for summoning a powerful demon to aid them. Both are entertaining and even have their own backstories that really add to the story. Rem's backstory is a bit more emotional compared to Shera's but the watcher is able to emphasize with both excruciatingly well. Especially when all three main characters develop a sturdy friendship and gain the trust of the others. Shera is the glue that holds both Rem and Diablo together when they start doubting themselves.
There are a wide variety of antagonists and side characters that don't get a ton of focus, but they do help push the main cast and story along. These antagonists have their own goals and that causes serious conflict with the goals Diablo, Rem, and Shera have/want to do. But then there are also the side characters that are actually on the side of the three mains and do play important roles in various points of the story.
The art and visual effects were well down and it wasn't the same graphic scenes and spells as most anime's do. For instance, Diablo doesn't just spam the same spell over and over (like I do when I'm playing a game because I'm a button smasher haha) instead, he uses different attacks and spells for each occasion. The show doesn't shower blood around like it's rain *cough cough Game of Thrones cough cough*, but it does a good enough job letting the watcher know when someone gets hurt/ dies.
My final thoughts:
Overall, this was a well-done show that held the action and made the characters very likable, without rushing the story. There is comedy, action, magic, and a bit of a push on the boundary with softcore (ecchi) content but you get a good sense from the main characters and story that it's defiantly worth checking out.