Search
Search results
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.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Jetpack Joyride in Tabletop Games
Jan 8, 2020 (Updated Jan 8, 2020)
It should come as no surprise that I love to play board games. Hence my involvement in this wonderful group! But besides board games, I also enjoy my fair share of video games too. These two worlds of gaming occasionally collide when a classic from one realm is transferred over to the other! Is the adaptation as fun as the original, or does it leave much to be desired?
Originally a mobile game, Jetpack Joyride follows our main character, Barry, as he attempts to escape a top-secret lab with a stolen jetpack! He must avoid being hit by zappers, annihilated by lasers, and blown away by missiles in the process. If Barry succeeds, he escapes with not only the high-tech jetpack, but also with as many gold coins and other top-secret gadgets as he can get his hands on! So the risk is definitely worth the reward. But if Barry is unable to escape, he will face the consequences for his unauthorized joyride… In all honesty, I had never heard of Jetpack Joyride before I Kickstarted the board game version, so I downloaded it on my phone to see how it plays. Do you remember Flappy Bird? The mobile version of Jetpack Joyride is kiiiinda like that, but more exciting and way less infuriating. It’s free to download in the App Store and Google Play Store, so check it out if you’re interested! Anyway, back to the board game version. The premise is the same as the app – you have to create a path for Barry to use for his escape from the lab, utilizing the gadgets available to you and collecting gold coins on your way.
DISCLAIMER: We are using the Kickstarter Deluxe version of the game. We do have the expansions from the KS campaign, but will not be using those for this review. Also, we do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. -T
Jetpack Joyride is a real-time game of tile placement in which players are racing to see who can complete their run (path through the lab) the fastest. The game lasts for 3 runs, and points are earned throughout all runs. To setup, each player receives a set of 4 lab sector cards and sets them on the table in front of them in numerical order, 1-4. Three mission cards (cards that score points at the end of the run) are revealed and available for all players. Players may also have gadgets, available only to them, to help score extra points. When a run begins, all players grab translucent polyominoes (like matte versions of bits from Blokus) from the common pool and place them on their lab cards to create an unbroken path through the lab. There are specific placement restrictions that I will leave for you to discover in the rulebook. The game has no set time limit for each run, but it is a race to complete a path before your opponents. At the end of the run, points are tallied for completed missions and gadget cards. Easy, right? Here’s a small twist – before starting the next run, all players pick up their lab cards and pass them to the player on their left. So each run, players are looking at new cards and must find new paths through the lab! New mission cards and gadgets are revealed before subsequent runs as well. The player with the most points at the end of all 3 runs is the winner!
Jetpack Joyride is a fast-paced, exciting, and surprisingly strategic game that keeps all players engaged and entertained. And that’s what I love about it. First of all, real-time games are always high-energy, at least in my opinion. It’s nearly impossible to stay calm and collected when you’re literally racing against your opponents! Jetpack Joyride is definitely not a passive game, and there’s so much action and excitement that you sometimes forget you’re literally just laying tiles on cards. The next thing I love about this game is how deceptively strategic it is. Laying tiles to form a legal path across cards is not complicated, but doing so while also trying to earn extra points by completing missions (like placing 3 tiles of the same shape in a row, for example) adds a strategic element that you don’t expect. You’re not only trying to finish your run the fastest, but you’ve also got to fulfill the requirements for multiple mission and gadget cards too. One misplaced tile could decimate a run for you, so you’ve always got to be thinking several tiles in advance.
Going along with that, another neat thing about Jetpack Joyride is that all players are drawing tiles from a common pool. There is a finite number of tiles, and a specific number of the different shapes, so if the shape of tile you need is gone from the pool, you’re outta luck! You have to think and move quickly, otherwise you might get knocked out of a run, and that costs you valuable end-game points. For such a simple game, Jetpack Joyride also has a lot of variability. All lab cards are double-sided, and can be mixed and matched in any combination, as long as they are in a numerical set of 1-4. There are so many possibilities, chances are you won’t ever play with the same card combo twice….and if you do, chances are you won’t remember it 😛 All of these aspects elevate this game from a simple party game to a strategically fun game that can be played with any player count.
Overall, I think Jetpack Joyride is great. After my first play, I rated it a 4+, but after a few more I’ve changed my rating to a 5. As you can see from our scores above, Travis and our guest judge Luke enjoyed it as well. It’s a nice, light game that can be used as a filler between heavier games, or as a main-event game all on its own. Definitely a game I will use with newer gamers, and the strategic side will keep me coming back for more. I think Jetpack Joyride will get a lot of playtime from me, and it was worth my investment on Kickstarter. Purple Phoenix Games gives it a jet-powered 15 / 18.
Originally a mobile game, Jetpack Joyride follows our main character, Barry, as he attempts to escape a top-secret lab with a stolen jetpack! He must avoid being hit by zappers, annihilated by lasers, and blown away by missiles in the process. If Barry succeeds, he escapes with not only the high-tech jetpack, but also with as many gold coins and other top-secret gadgets as he can get his hands on! So the risk is definitely worth the reward. But if Barry is unable to escape, he will face the consequences for his unauthorized joyride… In all honesty, I had never heard of Jetpack Joyride before I Kickstarted the board game version, so I downloaded it on my phone to see how it plays. Do you remember Flappy Bird? The mobile version of Jetpack Joyride is kiiiinda like that, but more exciting and way less infuriating. It’s free to download in the App Store and Google Play Store, so check it out if you’re interested! Anyway, back to the board game version. The premise is the same as the app – you have to create a path for Barry to use for his escape from the lab, utilizing the gadgets available to you and collecting gold coins on your way.
DISCLAIMER: We are using the Kickstarter Deluxe version of the game. We do have the expansions from the KS campaign, but will not be using those for this review. Also, we do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. -T
Jetpack Joyride is a real-time game of tile placement in which players are racing to see who can complete their run (path through the lab) the fastest. The game lasts for 3 runs, and points are earned throughout all runs. To setup, each player receives a set of 4 lab sector cards and sets them on the table in front of them in numerical order, 1-4. Three mission cards (cards that score points at the end of the run) are revealed and available for all players. Players may also have gadgets, available only to them, to help score extra points. When a run begins, all players grab translucent polyominoes (like matte versions of bits from Blokus) from the common pool and place them on their lab cards to create an unbroken path through the lab. There are specific placement restrictions that I will leave for you to discover in the rulebook. The game has no set time limit for each run, but it is a race to complete a path before your opponents. At the end of the run, points are tallied for completed missions and gadget cards. Easy, right? Here’s a small twist – before starting the next run, all players pick up their lab cards and pass them to the player on their left. So each run, players are looking at new cards and must find new paths through the lab! New mission cards and gadgets are revealed before subsequent runs as well. The player with the most points at the end of all 3 runs is the winner!
Jetpack Joyride is a fast-paced, exciting, and surprisingly strategic game that keeps all players engaged and entertained. And that’s what I love about it. First of all, real-time games are always high-energy, at least in my opinion. It’s nearly impossible to stay calm and collected when you’re literally racing against your opponents! Jetpack Joyride is definitely not a passive game, and there’s so much action and excitement that you sometimes forget you’re literally just laying tiles on cards. The next thing I love about this game is how deceptively strategic it is. Laying tiles to form a legal path across cards is not complicated, but doing so while also trying to earn extra points by completing missions (like placing 3 tiles of the same shape in a row, for example) adds a strategic element that you don’t expect. You’re not only trying to finish your run the fastest, but you’ve also got to fulfill the requirements for multiple mission and gadget cards too. One misplaced tile could decimate a run for you, so you’ve always got to be thinking several tiles in advance.
Going along with that, another neat thing about Jetpack Joyride is that all players are drawing tiles from a common pool. There is a finite number of tiles, and a specific number of the different shapes, so if the shape of tile you need is gone from the pool, you’re outta luck! You have to think and move quickly, otherwise you might get knocked out of a run, and that costs you valuable end-game points. For such a simple game, Jetpack Joyride also has a lot of variability. All lab cards are double-sided, and can be mixed and matched in any combination, as long as they are in a numerical set of 1-4. There are so many possibilities, chances are you won’t ever play with the same card combo twice….and if you do, chances are you won’t remember it 😛 All of these aspects elevate this game from a simple party game to a strategically fun game that can be played with any player count.
Overall, I think Jetpack Joyride is great. After my first play, I rated it a 4+, but after a few more I’ve changed my rating to a 5. As you can see from our scores above, Travis and our guest judge Luke enjoyed it as well. It’s a nice, light game that can be used as a filler between heavier games, or as a main-event game all on its own. Definitely a game I will use with newer gamers, and the strategic side will keep me coming back for more. I think Jetpack Joyride will get a lot of playtime from me, and it was worth my investment on Kickstarter. Purple Phoenix Games gives it a jet-powered 15 / 18.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Niche in Tabletop Games
Mar 3, 2021
I have a gamer confession to make and I am not sure how it will be received. Perhaps it isn’t a gamer confession at all. I will let you be the judge. I am not a fan of Sudoku. There! I said it, and I stand by it. I find it tedious and far too intelligent a game for me. However, if someone would just dumb it down enough for me to get it, I may actually enjoy it. Oh wait, Andy Hopwood did that for me already? Hot dog!
Niche is a puzzly abstracty Sudoku-y card sheddy game for two to seven players that can be played in as few as 10 minutes. In it players attempt to shed their hand and score the most points by adding cards to established lines of cards. As with most of Andy Hopwood’s games, though, there is a twist.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup the dealer will shuffle the deck and, well, deal out seven cards to each player. The cards not dealt form a deck and from this deck a starter card is flipped to the table. Setup is complete and the game may now begin!
On a turn each player will need to perform three steps: Select, Place, Score. When Selecting a card from their hand the player will need to observe the last played card. This card will essentially inform the player of what CANNOT be played. For example (per the photo above), if a yellow triangle was just played, then the next card played can be NEITHER yellow nor a triangle. So from their hand the active player will select a group of cards that can be played this turn and choose one to add adjacently to the most recently played card.
The player then must Place their card such that they do not add the same card to the line that already exists within the line. For an example here (per the photo below), the most recently played card is a blue circle. In hand are two blue squares, a yellow square, and a red square. As the previous card is blue the only choices left are the yellow and red square. However, the card played previous to the blue circle was a yellow square, so that leaves our player with only one choice: the red square connected to the blue circle. Now, the player could actually use the yellow square, but would need to place it below the blue circle forming the beginning of a new line. I will explain why that is a less strategic play.
When players perform the third step in a turn, Scoring, they will count up all cards in the lines extended by their card, both vertically and horizontally. In our previous example the red square continues a line of two cards so their score for that placement is three. Should they place the yellow square below they will only score two as they have added onto only one card. Fans of Azul will be familiar with this scoring system. Players are expected to keep track of their own scores each turn.
Should a player not have any legal plays using cards in their hand they must pass, and await their next turn. Play continues in this manner of players performing these three steps in a turn until a player sheds their entire hand of cards. All other players will have one more chance to play one card to score points. Players add up all the points they have scored throughout the game and the player with the most points is the winner!
Components. This is a deck of cards in a tuckbox. The cards are all fine quality, and the iconography could not be much clearer. I have zero qualms with the components here.
Gameplay is super quick and puzzly, with a great weight for its type of game. This will not be a centerpiece title of the game night, but will offer filler style gameplay for gamers mulling about or waiting for the next game to begin. I enjoy the simplicity of the rules coupled with the puzzly and thinky nature of each turn. Obviously the name of the game is scoring points, so you want to add to an already-long line instead of having to begin a new off-shoot somewhere, but it is near impossible to anticipate what other players will place on their turns. Therefore, more strategic players will find either solace or frustration from the more tactical style of play here.
I do want to mention that this game was originally designed for an event benefiting The Foundation for Conductive Education in the UK. Quote taken from the BGG profile for Niche: “The game aims to promote and support The Foundation for Conductive Education. This method works with children and adults who have conditions such as Cerebral Palsy, Stroke, M.S. or Parkinsons, helping them to lead more independent lives.” I know this organization holds a special place in the designer’s heart and I just wanted to take a moment to give a shout-out to this amazing organization and this amazing person who created a game for the benefit of others. I applaud both entities, and hope for much success.
That said, Niche is a game that can be played with any type of gamer in almost any situation. It takes up little table space (at most nine cards in a line) and is rules-light. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an extended 8 / 12. If you are a fan of Sudoku and would like to explore a little card game that gives this reviewer the same vibe (but infinitely more fun) then I urge you to grab a copy of Niche. Not only will you be purchasing a good little game, but your purchase also goes toward furthering an organization that is doing very important work in the UK. And if you would like to feel very smart, play Niche with me sometime and watch me struggle to play the right card.
Niche is a puzzly abstracty Sudoku-y card sheddy game for two to seven players that can be played in as few as 10 minutes. In it players attempt to shed their hand and score the most points by adding cards to established lines of cards. As with most of Andy Hopwood’s games, though, there is a twist.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup the dealer will shuffle the deck and, well, deal out seven cards to each player. The cards not dealt form a deck and from this deck a starter card is flipped to the table. Setup is complete and the game may now begin!
On a turn each player will need to perform three steps: Select, Place, Score. When Selecting a card from their hand the player will need to observe the last played card. This card will essentially inform the player of what CANNOT be played. For example (per the photo above), if a yellow triangle was just played, then the next card played can be NEITHER yellow nor a triangle. So from their hand the active player will select a group of cards that can be played this turn and choose one to add adjacently to the most recently played card.
The player then must Place their card such that they do not add the same card to the line that already exists within the line. For an example here (per the photo below), the most recently played card is a blue circle. In hand are two blue squares, a yellow square, and a red square. As the previous card is blue the only choices left are the yellow and red square. However, the card played previous to the blue circle was a yellow square, so that leaves our player with only one choice: the red square connected to the blue circle. Now, the player could actually use the yellow square, but would need to place it below the blue circle forming the beginning of a new line. I will explain why that is a less strategic play.
When players perform the third step in a turn, Scoring, they will count up all cards in the lines extended by their card, both vertically and horizontally. In our previous example the red square continues a line of two cards so their score for that placement is three. Should they place the yellow square below they will only score two as they have added onto only one card. Fans of Azul will be familiar with this scoring system. Players are expected to keep track of their own scores each turn.
Should a player not have any legal plays using cards in their hand they must pass, and await their next turn. Play continues in this manner of players performing these three steps in a turn until a player sheds their entire hand of cards. All other players will have one more chance to play one card to score points. Players add up all the points they have scored throughout the game and the player with the most points is the winner!
Components. This is a deck of cards in a tuckbox. The cards are all fine quality, and the iconography could not be much clearer. I have zero qualms with the components here.
Gameplay is super quick and puzzly, with a great weight for its type of game. This will not be a centerpiece title of the game night, but will offer filler style gameplay for gamers mulling about or waiting for the next game to begin. I enjoy the simplicity of the rules coupled with the puzzly and thinky nature of each turn. Obviously the name of the game is scoring points, so you want to add to an already-long line instead of having to begin a new off-shoot somewhere, but it is near impossible to anticipate what other players will place on their turns. Therefore, more strategic players will find either solace or frustration from the more tactical style of play here.
I do want to mention that this game was originally designed for an event benefiting The Foundation for Conductive Education in the UK. Quote taken from the BGG profile for Niche: “The game aims to promote and support The Foundation for Conductive Education. This method works with children and adults who have conditions such as Cerebral Palsy, Stroke, M.S. or Parkinsons, helping them to lead more independent lives.” I know this organization holds a special place in the designer’s heart and I just wanted to take a moment to give a shout-out to this amazing organization and this amazing person who created a game for the benefit of others. I applaud both entities, and hope for much success.
That said, Niche is a game that can be played with any type of gamer in almost any situation. It takes up little table space (at most nine cards in a line) and is rules-light. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an extended 8 / 12. If you are a fan of Sudoku and would like to explore a little card game that gives this reviewer the same vibe (but infinitely more fun) then I urge you to grab a copy of Niche. Not only will you be purchasing a good little game, but your purchase also goes toward furthering an organization that is doing very important work in the UK. And if you would like to feel very smart, play Niche with me sometime and watch me struggle to play the right card.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Dragons Wild in Tabletop Games
Feb 1, 2021
Have you ever had Gamer Deja Vu? Like you know you’ve played this game before but don’t remember, or the mechanics just feel so familiar? I have it seldomly, but I still feel it at times. What I enjoy about certain games is how quick they are teach, have familiar mechanics, but also have their own twists to truly make it unique. Have I found that here with Dragons Wild?
Dragons Wild is a trick-taking game very similar to the old standard, Rummy. So like its predecessor players are trying to rid their hands of cards in order to signal the end of the game. Where this version separates is in the little details that are absent from Rummy.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign launching February 2, 2021, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup choose a dealer and a scorer (different players). The dealer will shuffle the entire deck of cards, save for the scoring cards, and deal each player seven cards. The draw deck is placed in the middle of the table and the dealer flips the top card to create the discard pile. The scorer finds the reference score card and places the dragon token on or near the “Round 1, Score 8 per card” text. The game may now begin!
Generally, the game is played much like Rummy where players are attempting to lay down melds of cards containing either runs (1, 2, 3, 4, etc) or sets (2, 2, 2 of different suits). Once a player has a meld in front of themselves they may play their cards onto other players’ melds. Players must discard a card at the end of each turn, and play continues in this manner until a player runs out of cards.
Dragons Wild, however, adds a few twists to pump up the play of traditional Rummy. Each player will need to keep track of their point totals as they will change with each play of a card. Should a player lay a meld on Round 1 they score eight VP for each card laid. In Round 2 cards are worth seven points each. Round 3 each card is worth six points and so on until Round 8 (or more) where each card is worth just one point.
Another way in which Dragons Wild differs from its older cousin is in the buying of cards (as far as I remember – I’m no Rummy expert). On their turn the active player must draw a card from either the top of the draw deck or the top of the discard pile. However, before the active player chooses, should another player wish to buy the face-up discard card the active player decides to allow or disallow the buy. With a successful buy the buying player takes the discarded card as well as the top card of the draw deck as payment. A player may buy as many as three cards in this fashion for each new active player.
Also, Dragons Wild offers a slight rule change for Wild cards in melds. Every time I have played Rummy in my lifetime any Wild is up for grabs as long as it can be replaced with a legal card from any player’s hand on their turn. This is not the case in Dragons Wild, as only Wild cards that hang on the end of a RUN of cards may be taken, replaced, or moved to the other end by the active player.
The game ends once one player is able to rid their entire hand of cards and still have one card to discard at the end of their turn. Players then total their scores from all cards played, scoring points differently depending on the Round in which they were laid. Other players still possessing cards then subtract the NUMBER of cards still held from their entire score, not their values. The player with the most points after this scoring phase is the winner!
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, and I am completely unsure which, if any, components will be upgraded as a result of a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, I can comment on a couple things. First, the art style. While it is not my cup of tea (dragons have tea parties, right?) I can see where others may quite enjoy its fancifulness and whimsy. The game is very colorful, and I do appreciate that quite a lot. The cards are laid out well, and each suit is a different species of fantastic beast (though I rarely knew which was which – I just paid attention to the background color in the corners of the cards mostly). So I have no real problems with the components at all, I just wish for different art. The designer was nice enough to send along a print of a purple phoenix with this copy, which is super rad of her, and it looks great. Maybe she will add them into the final version…
Gameplay is familiar, like I stated earlier, because I would think most people have played Rummy or a variation of it at some point. In fact, my family was big into Rummikub growing up, and my grandparents were big into Rummy proper. So this was somewhat nostalgic for me while also bringing a few house rules and art that is different from a boring deck of normal playing cards.
The rules are not at all difficult, so learning, teaching, and playing have not seemed to be an issue at all here. If players have all played a version of Rummy before then this one will fly pretty quickly. It is a simple, fast, and slightly unique version of Rummy that would be nice to keep around if you need to wait on another player to arrive and they are 10 minutes away, or as a palette cleanser between games. Definitely a filler game, and not at all a bad one!
If you are looking for a differently-themed Rummy replacement with a twist, I recommend checking out Dragons Wild. It’s cute, quick, and has dragons, for Pete’s sake. Consider backing the Kickstarter campaign or asking your LFGS to stock it upon release.
Dragons Wild is a trick-taking game very similar to the old standard, Rummy. So like its predecessor players are trying to rid their hands of cards in order to signal the end of the game. Where this version separates is in the little details that are absent from Rummy.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign launching February 2, 2021, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup choose a dealer and a scorer (different players). The dealer will shuffle the entire deck of cards, save for the scoring cards, and deal each player seven cards. The draw deck is placed in the middle of the table and the dealer flips the top card to create the discard pile. The scorer finds the reference score card and places the dragon token on or near the “Round 1, Score 8 per card” text. The game may now begin!
Generally, the game is played much like Rummy where players are attempting to lay down melds of cards containing either runs (1, 2, 3, 4, etc) or sets (2, 2, 2 of different suits). Once a player has a meld in front of themselves they may play their cards onto other players’ melds. Players must discard a card at the end of each turn, and play continues in this manner until a player runs out of cards.
Dragons Wild, however, adds a few twists to pump up the play of traditional Rummy. Each player will need to keep track of their point totals as they will change with each play of a card. Should a player lay a meld on Round 1 they score eight VP for each card laid. In Round 2 cards are worth seven points each. Round 3 each card is worth six points and so on until Round 8 (or more) where each card is worth just one point.
Another way in which Dragons Wild differs from its older cousin is in the buying of cards (as far as I remember – I’m no Rummy expert). On their turn the active player must draw a card from either the top of the draw deck or the top of the discard pile. However, before the active player chooses, should another player wish to buy the face-up discard card the active player decides to allow or disallow the buy. With a successful buy the buying player takes the discarded card as well as the top card of the draw deck as payment. A player may buy as many as three cards in this fashion for each new active player.
Also, Dragons Wild offers a slight rule change for Wild cards in melds. Every time I have played Rummy in my lifetime any Wild is up for grabs as long as it can be replaced with a legal card from any player’s hand on their turn. This is not the case in Dragons Wild, as only Wild cards that hang on the end of a RUN of cards may be taken, replaced, or moved to the other end by the active player.
The game ends once one player is able to rid their entire hand of cards and still have one card to discard at the end of their turn. Players then total their scores from all cards played, scoring points differently depending on the Round in which they were laid. Other players still possessing cards then subtract the NUMBER of cards still held from their entire score, not their values. The player with the most points after this scoring phase is the winner!
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, and I am completely unsure which, if any, components will be upgraded as a result of a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, I can comment on a couple things. First, the art style. While it is not my cup of tea (dragons have tea parties, right?) I can see where others may quite enjoy its fancifulness and whimsy. The game is very colorful, and I do appreciate that quite a lot. The cards are laid out well, and each suit is a different species of fantastic beast (though I rarely knew which was which – I just paid attention to the background color in the corners of the cards mostly). So I have no real problems with the components at all, I just wish for different art. The designer was nice enough to send along a print of a purple phoenix with this copy, which is super rad of her, and it looks great. Maybe she will add them into the final version…
Gameplay is familiar, like I stated earlier, because I would think most people have played Rummy or a variation of it at some point. In fact, my family was big into Rummikub growing up, and my grandparents were big into Rummy proper. So this was somewhat nostalgic for me while also bringing a few house rules and art that is different from a boring deck of normal playing cards.
The rules are not at all difficult, so learning, teaching, and playing have not seemed to be an issue at all here. If players have all played a version of Rummy before then this one will fly pretty quickly. It is a simple, fast, and slightly unique version of Rummy that would be nice to keep around if you need to wait on another player to arrive and they are 10 minutes away, or as a palette cleanser between games. Definitely a filler game, and not at all a bad one!
If you are looking for a differently-themed Rummy replacement with a twist, I recommend checking out Dragons Wild. It’s cute, quick, and has dragons, for Pete’s sake. Consider backing the Kickstarter campaign or asking your LFGS to stock it upon release.
