Search
Search results
Josh Burns (166 KP) rated Spartacus: A Game of Blood and Treachery in Tabletop Games
Jun 20, 2019
Easy to learn but a ton of fun (1 more)
Great strategy and combat
I had my eye on this game for a while before finally pulling the trigger and ordering it a few years ago. I had little faith in a game based on a tv show, but I love gladiator games and there aren't many to choose from.
The base game is 3-4 players, there are expansions that increase that, but I'm sticking with the base game for this review. Each player controls a different House, which have their own stats, abilities, and alternate objectives, with the main objective being to reach 10 influence.
The game plays basically as follows:
Upkeep phase: collect money, try to heal wounded gladiators, and reactivate slaves that were used.
Market: A number of cards are drawn and placed face down, then one card is flipped. It could be a gladiator, a slave (can earn you money and may have abilities that are useful outside the arena) or gear for your gladiators. All players choose how many coins to bid and keep them in a closed fist until everyone is ready, then everyone reveals their bid. Whoever was highest wins. You then repeat till each card is flipped. You can also put your own cards up for auction or offer trades.
the arena: after this, 2 players chosen by another player have to either fight each other, pitting a slave or gladiator against the oppents, or forfeit at the cost of Influence. Players may place bets on who will win and if the loser will be killed, or badly injured.
The game is basically 2 games in 1: outside the arena and in it.
Outside: It is primarily about making deals, lying, setting each other up, making temporary allies and backstabbing. Literally the only rule in the actual rulebook about how to go about this is: "Don't be a dick. " It actually says that, and says they mean keep it fun, don't actually try to be a spiteful douche. There is nothing directing you when to lie or be honest, if you have to keep promises, etc.
In the arena: Combat is fun and simple. Not all fighters are equal but I have seen weak ones overcome the odds. If you're a fan of the show you will recognize many names. As a quick sidenote, an expansion can turn these fights from 1 vs 1 to 2 vs 2. I've won hard fought games, and I've lost on purpose to win a bet or fulfill a deal. Your fighter may or may not die or be injured. The player who chose the participants also decides the fate of the losing fighter (if they didn't die fighting) with a thumbs up or down. The player with the losing fighter can plead for the fighters survival or bribe, or maybe the player chosing wants the losing player to owe them a favor. There is never a clear cut choice.
In conclusion: This is a favorite of mine. It is unbelievably fun making deals (whether you keep them or not) bribing, setting players against each other etc. The combat is fun and easy to learn and the other players are typically screaming at whoever they want to win if they aren't doing well (in good fun, not actual anger). I can't think of anything to not like about it. If you like the show you'll love references such as the "Jupiter's Cock" card and seeing all the characters (slaves, gladiators, and dominas). If you don't like the show, it's still a hell of a game and you don't need to watch the show to know what's going on.
The base game is 3-4 players, there are expansions that increase that, but I'm sticking with the base game for this review. Each player controls a different House, which have their own stats, abilities, and alternate objectives, with the main objective being to reach 10 influence.
The game plays basically as follows:
Upkeep phase: collect money, try to heal wounded gladiators, and reactivate slaves that were used.
Market: A number of cards are drawn and placed face down, then one card is flipped. It could be a gladiator, a slave (can earn you money and may have abilities that are useful outside the arena) or gear for your gladiators. All players choose how many coins to bid and keep them in a closed fist until everyone is ready, then everyone reveals their bid. Whoever was highest wins. You then repeat till each card is flipped. You can also put your own cards up for auction or offer trades.
the arena: after this, 2 players chosen by another player have to either fight each other, pitting a slave or gladiator against the oppents, or forfeit at the cost of Influence. Players may place bets on who will win and if the loser will be killed, or badly injured.
The game is basically 2 games in 1: outside the arena and in it.
Outside: It is primarily about making deals, lying, setting each other up, making temporary allies and backstabbing. Literally the only rule in the actual rulebook about how to go about this is: "Don't be a dick. " It actually says that, and says they mean keep it fun, don't actually try to be a spiteful douche. There is nothing directing you when to lie or be honest, if you have to keep promises, etc.
In the arena: Combat is fun and simple. Not all fighters are equal but I have seen weak ones overcome the odds. If you're a fan of the show you will recognize many names. As a quick sidenote, an expansion can turn these fights from 1 vs 1 to 2 vs 2. I've won hard fought games, and I've lost on purpose to win a bet or fulfill a deal. Your fighter may or may not die or be injured. The player who chose the participants also decides the fate of the losing fighter (if they didn't die fighting) with a thumbs up or down. The player with the losing fighter can plead for the fighters survival or bribe, or maybe the player chosing wants the losing player to owe them a favor. There is never a clear cut choice.
In conclusion: This is a favorite of mine. It is unbelievably fun making deals (whether you keep them or not) bribing, setting players against each other etc. The combat is fun and easy to learn and the other players are typically screaming at whoever they want to win if they aren't doing well (in good fun, not actual anger). I can't think of anything to not like about it. If you like the show you'll love references such as the "Jupiter's Cock" card and seeing all the characters (slaves, gladiators, and dominas). If you don't like the show, it's still a hell of a game and you don't need to watch the show to know what's going on.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated My Absolute Darling in Books
Aug 21, 2018
There are books that make you love them from the first page. This one was not one of those!
There were millions of times when I wanted to give it up and put this book down - I found it extremely hard to keep going, but I somehow finished it.
The story itself is so twisted, it is just unbelievable. It is one of the most twisted plots I've ever read in my life. And there were parts I loved, but there were also parts I hated.
The thing I loved the most was the adventures Turtle had with Jacob.
The thing I hated the most... - Where do I start?
The relationship between Turtle and her father, the unrealistic characters description, the unreliable situations they find themselves into, the unreal thoughts that a 14-year-old girl might have, the swearing throughout the book.
I have never had such a feeling towards a book, and as much as I don't like it - it bothers me. It bothers me of what could have happened, what could be different, why this and why that...
It is definitely worth reading it, but only for those that can cope with it. I am not sure if I can...
There were millions of times when I wanted to give it up and put this book down - I found it extremely hard to keep going, but I somehow finished it.
The story itself is so twisted, it is just unbelievable. It is one of the most twisted plots I've ever read in my life. And there were parts I loved, but there were also parts I hated.
The thing I loved the most was the adventures Turtle had with Jacob.
The thing I hated the most... - Where do I start?
The relationship between Turtle and her father, the unrealistic characters description, the unreliable situations they find themselves into, the unreal thoughts that a 14-year-old girl might have, the swearing throughout the book.
I have never had such a feeling towards a book, and as much as I don't like it - it bothers me. It bothers me of what could have happened, what could be different, why this and why that...
It is definitely worth reading it, but only for those that can cope with it. I am not sure if I can...
Dairy Diary Favourites (Dairy Cookbook): 100 Much-Loved Recipes from the Past 35 Years
Emily Davenport, Maggie Ramsey and Graham Meigh
Book
To celebrate the 35th anniversary of the iconic Dairy Diary we have created a collection of the top...
Pete Fowler recommended The Willows by Belbury Poly in Music (curated)
Tim Booth recommended Discreet Music by Brian Eno in Music (curated)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Death on the Nile (2022) in Movies
Feb 19, 2022
I don't like to go into a film with a negative impression... but... #NotMyPoirot #SlashTheStash.
Linnet Ridgeway goes to Poirot with fears for her safety, and that of her new husband, when an old mutual acquaintance shows up at each new location on their honeymoon.
An Agatha Christie novel always makes for a great plot, and this one has had several different adaptations over the years. Don't go into it expecting a faithful adaptation though, this one comes out a bit spicier. It also takes some liberties with Poirot's backstory, which does add some interesting context to things about him, but at the same time, it's not the source material.
As with Death Train, Death Boat has a star-studded cast. While I love most of them in other things, I found the whole dynamic to be a little all over the place. Tom Bateman and Ali Fazal were solid, Russell Brand was surprisingly good, but everyone else was either rather bland or too over the top. Then there's Kenneth... I'll give it to them, it feels wrong thinking that Poirot is sexy... but there's one moment where even I, a Ken denier, took a sharp intake of breath.
Death on the Nile comes in at 2 hours and 7 minutes, had they cut what felt like 10 minutes of Gal Gadot walking down the length of the ship, it could easily have come in under 2 hours.
I think that identifies the issue I have with these new adaptations. This one in particular has a very theatrical feel to it. A lot of the boat shots early on feel like you're watching it happen on a stage. I don't object to that style, I like watching theatre, but having it thrown in randomly threw me.
My other big gripe was the choice of shots. Death Boat really likes to not show you faces when people are talking. Watching these scenes was off-putting, it felt like they'd been re-edited and had a new audio track overlaid... badly. There's also a scene where the camera swoops backwards and forwards between the people who are talking, and after a while, I could feel the motion sickness building.
It isn't until films like this come out that you realise just how much of one is computer generated. I have to assume that the majority of this budget went on the cast, it certainly wasn't spent on the effects. The de-aging on Branagh in the opening was awful, and must have cost more than hiring a younger actor to do those scenes. The generated scenery wasn't any better, it was painfully obvious which weren't real.
Death on the Nile is, at the end of the day, another classic Christie story, and even with some butchering, there's still a great mystery to unfold. That being said, I would rather sit through one of the other adaptations again if they were all laid out in front of me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/death-on-nile-movie-review.html
Linnet Ridgeway goes to Poirot with fears for her safety, and that of her new husband, when an old mutual acquaintance shows up at each new location on their honeymoon.
An Agatha Christie novel always makes for a great plot, and this one has had several different adaptations over the years. Don't go into it expecting a faithful adaptation though, this one comes out a bit spicier. It also takes some liberties with Poirot's backstory, which does add some interesting context to things about him, but at the same time, it's not the source material.
As with Death Train, Death Boat has a star-studded cast. While I love most of them in other things, I found the whole dynamic to be a little all over the place. Tom Bateman and Ali Fazal were solid, Russell Brand was surprisingly good, but everyone else was either rather bland or too over the top. Then there's Kenneth... I'll give it to them, it feels wrong thinking that Poirot is sexy... but there's one moment where even I, a Ken denier, took a sharp intake of breath.
Death on the Nile comes in at 2 hours and 7 minutes, had they cut what felt like 10 minutes of Gal Gadot walking down the length of the ship, it could easily have come in under 2 hours.
I think that identifies the issue I have with these new adaptations. This one in particular has a very theatrical feel to it. A lot of the boat shots early on feel like you're watching it happen on a stage. I don't object to that style, I like watching theatre, but having it thrown in randomly threw me.
My other big gripe was the choice of shots. Death Boat really likes to not show you faces when people are talking. Watching these scenes was off-putting, it felt like they'd been re-edited and had a new audio track overlaid... badly. There's also a scene where the camera swoops backwards and forwards between the people who are talking, and after a while, I could feel the motion sickness building.
It isn't until films like this come out that you realise just how much of one is computer generated. I have to assume that the majority of this budget went on the cast, it certainly wasn't spent on the effects. The de-aging on Branagh in the opening was awful, and must have cost more than hiring a younger actor to do those scenes. The generated scenery wasn't any better, it was painfully obvious which weren't real.
Death on the Nile is, at the end of the day, another classic Christie story, and even with some butchering, there's still a great mystery to unfold. That being said, I would rather sit through one of the other adaptations again if they were all laid out in front of me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/death-on-nile-movie-review.html
Molly J (Cover To Cover Cafe) (106 KP) rated The Memory House in Books
Apr 15, 2019
characters (1 more)
plot line
Timeless and Gripping!
When I pick up a Rachel Hauck novel, I don’t have to wonder if I’ll like it, or if it will be one that I will put down and walk away from. Because, when I read a novel by this phenomenally fantastic author, I will love it and I will most certainly not walk away from the novel. In fact, I always read a Hauck novel in less than 48 hours.
The Memory House is a moving and captivating story. It’s chiseled magnificently and really makes the reader feel as if they are the heart of the story. It’s told in trademark Hauck style of dual timelines, but is still absolutely gripping. Each page turn tells more of Beck and Everleigh’s stories, and each turn of the page, opens the readers eyes just a little more.
Having been through hard times in life, I sometimes find myself questioning God, and wondering if anything good will come of my situations. Then, with a little faith and hope, He shows me that nothing is for naught, and everything will be just fine, even if it feels like the end. Beck and Everleigh, both dealt heartache and pain in their lives, blossomed for me and I saw a little bit of myself in each of them.
This story is filled with love, hope, faith, and heartache. This story is filled with beautiful souls, and a plot line that will leave you wanting more from this fantabulous author. From start to finish, you’ll fall more and more in love with these tender characters. You’ll feel the messages surround you, and you’ll hear God whispering throughout.
Don’t waste another minute without grabbing this book. If you’ve never read a Hauck novel before you’ll be a fan for life. If you’re a current fan, you’ll find yourself lost in another amazing novel by Hauck. Definitely worthy of 4 stars, two thumbs and hats off. I can’t wait to share this novel with my friends and family.
*I received a complimentary copy of this book from Thomas Nelson and was under no obligation to post a review, positive or negative.*
The Memory House is a moving and captivating story. It’s chiseled magnificently and really makes the reader feel as if they are the heart of the story. It’s told in trademark Hauck style of dual timelines, but is still absolutely gripping. Each page turn tells more of Beck and Everleigh’s stories, and each turn of the page, opens the readers eyes just a little more.
Having been through hard times in life, I sometimes find myself questioning God, and wondering if anything good will come of my situations. Then, with a little faith and hope, He shows me that nothing is for naught, and everything will be just fine, even if it feels like the end. Beck and Everleigh, both dealt heartache and pain in their lives, blossomed for me and I saw a little bit of myself in each of them.
This story is filled with love, hope, faith, and heartache. This story is filled with beautiful souls, and a plot line that will leave you wanting more from this fantabulous author. From start to finish, you’ll fall more and more in love with these tender characters. You’ll feel the messages surround you, and you’ll hear God whispering throughout.
Don’t waste another minute without grabbing this book. If you’ve never read a Hauck novel before you’ll be a fan for life. If you’re a current fan, you’ll find yourself lost in another amazing novel by Hauck. Definitely worthy of 4 stars, two thumbs and hats off. I can’t wait to share this novel with my friends and family.
*I received a complimentary copy of this book from Thomas Nelson and was under no obligation to post a review, positive or negative.*
Kristin (149 KP) rated 'Till the Last Petal Falls (Once Upon a Reality #1) in Books
Dec 7, 2018
Disclaimer: I received a copy from the author in exchange for an honest review.
"Never settle for a fairytale."
During my Psychology classes in college, we discussed how various characters have psychological issues: popular cartoon characters, the cast of "Winnie the Pooh," and the vast majority of the Disney Princesses. Belle is no exception, and this book explores that idea beautifully, no pun intended.
Jolee answers a Craigslist ad which sounds too good to be true, and she finds herself in the mountains of Aspen, tutoring a shut-in with some very serious issues of his own. As time goes by, she learns for and more about this man, and most of it is not good. However, she sticks by him, hoping to "fix" him with her love.
Sound like a recipe for disaster?
I used to teach a rehabilitation class for men convicted of domestic violence, and this book definitely delves into that dynamic head-first. It's a real eye-opener into the lives of those involved in those situations, from both sides of the coin as well as an outsider's perspective. Comparing it to the story of "Beauty and the Beast" really adds a whole new layer to it, as most of us either grew up with that story/movie or fell in love with it because of our kids/grandkids/etc. It's a crazy thought, but the more you think about it, the more you realize Belle suffered from Stockholm syndrome as well as battered-woman syndrome, and that HEA Disney ending is not the one generally associated with those situations.
Bravo to the author for writing this cross-examination of a beloved children's story and shedding some light on this serious issue while also maintaining a gripping novel.
5 stars
"Never settle for a fairytale."
During my Psychology classes in college, we discussed how various characters have psychological issues: popular cartoon characters, the cast of "Winnie the Pooh," and the vast majority of the Disney Princesses. Belle is no exception, and this book explores that idea beautifully, no pun intended.
Jolee answers a Craigslist ad which sounds too good to be true, and she finds herself in the mountains of Aspen, tutoring a shut-in with some very serious issues of his own. As time goes by, she learns for and more about this man, and most of it is not good. However, she sticks by him, hoping to "fix" him with her love.
Sound like a recipe for disaster?
I used to teach a rehabilitation class for men convicted of domestic violence, and this book definitely delves into that dynamic head-first. It's a real eye-opener into the lives of those involved in those situations, from both sides of the coin as well as an outsider's perspective. Comparing it to the story of "Beauty and the Beast" really adds a whole new layer to it, as most of us either grew up with that story/movie or fell in love with it because of our kids/grandkids/etc. It's a crazy thought, but the more you think about it, the more you realize Belle suffered from Stockholm syndrome as well as battered-woman syndrome, and that HEA Disney ending is not the one generally associated with those situations.
Bravo to the author for writing this cross-examination of a beloved children's story and shedding some light on this serious issue while also maintaining a gripping novel.
5 stars
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated 8 1/2 (1963) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
Fellini has six or seven movies that are considered genuine masterpieces, as well as many other perfectly decent efforts in a 40 year career. I love the idea of him and knew I would love his work, but to my shame it took this film for me to finally lose my Fellini cherry, aged 47. I can only begin by saying I adored it – loving each moment as a piece of art in itself, and the whole as a thing of true joy and wonder that has only grown in my imagination since seeing it. It made me laugh, made me sad, made me long for places and people from my past, made me think about my own identity and personality and place in the world. It also very much entertained me; I didn’t find it hard work like some on this list in any way.
Marcello Mastroianni is effortlessly cool and stylish, as is everyone in this semi-fantastical world of memories, dreams and fears. He lounges through the film in a way so naturally relaxed and interesting that you are drawn to every detail of his bizarre adventures. The presence of Claudia Cardinale and Anouk Aimée don’t hurt know bringing some Italian chic to affairs either. Visually, I lost count of the amount of times my jaw hit the ground! Freeze this rich and resplendent film in any moment and it will probably be an image worth framing. The black and white photography is so sharp, using light and dark in astonishing ways. What director since 1963 would not look at this and say “I am stealing that!”? Not a film you could watch every day, but one I know for sure will be amongst my favourites of this period forever. I can’t wait to watch his others!
Marcello Mastroianni is effortlessly cool and stylish, as is everyone in this semi-fantastical world of memories, dreams and fears. He lounges through the film in a way so naturally relaxed and interesting that you are drawn to every detail of his bizarre adventures. The presence of Claudia Cardinale and Anouk Aimée don’t hurt know bringing some Italian chic to affairs either. Visually, I lost count of the amount of times my jaw hit the ground! Freeze this rich and resplendent film in any moment and it will probably be an image worth framing. The black and white photography is so sharp, using light and dark in astonishing ways. What director since 1963 would not look at this and say “I am stealing that!”? Not a film you could watch every day, but one I know for sure will be amongst my favourites of this period forever. I can’t wait to watch his others!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Well where do I start? I love the fact that there is no substantial synopsis for this film, a lot have just gone with "the ongoing adventures of Newt Scamander" or similarly vague offerings.
It's difficult to separate them from their Harry Potter ancestry. They are of course the same universe. If you can sever the links then the films aren't too bad, but they're not amazing either. The other issue is that with the links you're obviously given lots of issues with continuity and timelines.
After only given a brief sighting of Grindelwald in the first film we're sold a creepy and scary version in this one very early on. His suspension during the transfer to the coach gives him the sinister grace of a dementor. This leads to the first of two problems for me. Abernathy in this whole introductory section is odd and you can tell something is up, so when we're eventually presented with that was happening it wasn't a surprise.
Here's problem two. Once Grindelwald is secured in the coach the rest of the sequence takes place outside, in the dark, in a storm. Very atmospheric with striking shots... most of which you can't see because of the lightning and rain. Everything is so fast that it's just a blur. It seems to be a popular occurrence recently and I will never understand why you would spend so much money on them when you can't see what's happening. One of the bits that you can see properly is the ghostly face of Grindelwald appearing in the coach window... which is a shame because it felt like it was awfully done and could have used some covering up.
As a quick note while I remember, I would like to acknowledge the impressive advances in wizarding technology. Early roombas and Fitbits. Great job!
Looking back over the notes most of them were about characters. Barely any about storyline. Just one thing that seemed completely out of place/inaccurate, and that was Minerva McGonagall. I'm not well enough versed in Harry Potter history but looking at the chatter I don't think her timeline matches with that of the film... but I'll leave that to the super nerds. If it is inaccurate it would have been very easy to avoid so it seems ridiculous to have had in at all.
The fluffy, feathered and scaly friends also need an honourable mention. *gets out soap box and steps up* Nifflers rule. I will fight anyone who thinks otherwise. Although, bad film! Getting my hopes up and then dashing them. You give them leeway with the animation considering they're fantastic beasts, but the only creatures that don't really have a decent presence on screen are the matagots that protect the Ministry of Magic. Even as hairless catlike creatures you'd expect something a little more impressive than what feels like CGI with a layer of detail missing.
I'm also intrigued by the phoenix. Is it Fawkes? How did Albus get his? Of course I could have missed things that answer all of the questions I have about it.
After reviewing all my notes I can (un)happily say that almost all of the women come off quite badly in this film. Bunty, Newt's assistant (I hope that was her name, she was fairly forgetable other than this point), came over as a little creepy with her comments that clearly show her affections for him. Queenie has a bit of a transformation in this one. She's still got her optimistic outlook but she's devolving a bit. Tina is taken by jealousy, which seems a little off for her. The newest addition of Nagini came out relatively unscathed and I'm hoping for an intriguing ongoing story for her.
The male characters came off slightly better. Jacob and Flamel were some welcome relief from this bleak installment of the franchise. Hats off to Callum Turner and Joshua Shea though. They both managed to pick up the Newt mannerisms really well. I can appreciate it even though it's one of the things I dislike about Fantastic Beasts, the constant head tilting.
Jude Law as Albus Dumbledore still doesn't sit quite right, but he made a reasonable job of it. He doesn't quite hold the same presence in the scenes as you'd expect him to for the man he becomes though. Everyone also got into a tizzy about his sexuality. Who cares? Whether he is or isn't gay makes no difference to the movie whatsoever. Just enjoy a film a don't worry about it until it's relevant.
It really is difficult to sum the story line up for this one. There's a reason that everyone has generalised the synopsis. It's just a lot of nothing in particular. It's part two of five. There didn't really seem to be a lot apart from filler. What I can tell you is that the first time I saw this (I went to the midnight screening at Vue originally) I fell asleep through a significant chunk in the middle and yet I still came out with the same understanding and enjoyment as I did after the second time.
What you should do
You're going to have to see it at some point if you're into the HP universe. Just a statement of fact there!
Movie thing you wish you could take home
That magic spell for collapsing all my belongings into a couple of trunks, I'm assuming it would come in handy for cleaning as well.
It's difficult to separate them from their Harry Potter ancestry. They are of course the same universe. If you can sever the links then the films aren't too bad, but they're not amazing either. The other issue is that with the links you're obviously given lots of issues with continuity and timelines.
After only given a brief sighting of Grindelwald in the first film we're sold a creepy and scary version in this one very early on. His suspension during the transfer to the coach gives him the sinister grace of a dementor. This leads to the first of two problems for me. Abernathy in this whole introductory section is odd and you can tell something is up, so when we're eventually presented with that was happening it wasn't a surprise.
Here's problem two. Once Grindelwald is secured in the coach the rest of the sequence takes place outside, in the dark, in a storm. Very atmospheric with striking shots... most of which you can't see because of the lightning and rain. Everything is so fast that it's just a blur. It seems to be a popular occurrence recently and I will never understand why you would spend so much money on them when you can't see what's happening. One of the bits that you can see properly is the ghostly face of Grindelwald appearing in the coach window... which is a shame because it felt like it was awfully done and could have used some covering up.
As a quick note while I remember, I would like to acknowledge the impressive advances in wizarding technology. Early roombas and Fitbits. Great job!
Looking back over the notes most of them were about characters. Barely any about storyline. Just one thing that seemed completely out of place/inaccurate, and that was Minerva McGonagall. I'm not well enough versed in Harry Potter history but looking at the chatter I don't think her timeline matches with that of the film... but I'll leave that to the super nerds. If it is inaccurate it would have been very easy to avoid so it seems ridiculous to have had in at all.
The fluffy, feathered and scaly friends also need an honourable mention. *gets out soap box and steps up* Nifflers rule. I will fight anyone who thinks otherwise. Although, bad film! Getting my hopes up and then dashing them. You give them leeway with the animation considering they're fantastic beasts, but the only creatures that don't really have a decent presence on screen are the matagots that protect the Ministry of Magic. Even as hairless catlike creatures you'd expect something a little more impressive than what feels like CGI with a layer of detail missing.
I'm also intrigued by the phoenix. Is it Fawkes? How did Albus get his? Of course I could have missed things that answer all of the questions I have about it.
After reviewing all my notes I can (un)happily say that almost all of the women come off quite badly in this film. Bunty, Newt's assistant (I hope that was her name, she was fairly forgetable other than this point), came over as a little creepy with her comments that clearly show her affections for him. Queenie has a bit of a transformation in this one. She's still got her optimistic outlook but she's devolving a bit. Tina is taken by jealousy, which seems a little off for her. The newest addition of Nagini came out relatively unscathed and I'm hoping for an intriguing ongoing story for her.
The male characters came off slightly better. Jacob and Flamel were some welcome relief from this bleak installment of the franchise. Hats off to Callum Turner and Joshua Shea though. They both managed to pick up the Newt mannerisms really well. I can appreciate it even though it's one of the things I dislike about Fantastic Beasts, the constant head tilting.
Jude Law as Albus Dumbledore still doesn't sit quite right, but he made a reasonable job of it. He doesn't quite hold the same presence in the scenes as you'd expect him to for the man he becomes though. Everyone also got into a tizzy about his sexuality. Who cares? Whether he is or isn't gay makes no difference to the movie whatsoever. Just enjoy a film a don't worry about it until it's relevant.
It really is difficult to sum the story line up for this one. There's a reason that everyone has generalised the synopsis. It's just a lot of nothing in particular. It's part two of five. There didn't really seem to be a lot apart from filler. What I can tell you is that the first time I saw this (I went to the midnight screening at Vue originally) I fell asleep through a significant chunk in the middle and yet I still came out with the same understanding and enjoyment as I did after the second time.
What you should do
You're going to have to see it at some point if you're into the HP universe. Just a statement of fact there!
Movie thing you wish you could take home
That magic spell for collapsing all my belongings into a couple of trunks, I'm assuming it would come in handy for cleaning as well.