Search
Search results
"As far as I’m concerned, I came out of the womb spouting cynicism and wishing for rain."
"As far as I’m concerned, I came out of the womb spouting cynicism and wishing for rain."
A while back, I read an online comic strip by the same author, Heartstopper Volume 1. I found it by chance and I literally flew through it. I adored it and I went ahead and TBR’d some of her other books. I found this one on Scribd and come to find this was her baby. This was her debut novel. The story was pretty good, it is NOT a love story, but I sometimes found myself getting frustrated with the main character. Reasons why are listed below.
The story is told from a teenager named Victoria ‘Tori’ Spring. She has two younger brothers and she is quite…indifferent. She has one best friend, and honestly one friend only, and she’s very much the pessimist. I can’t fully fault her for that, but some things that I just CANNOT tolerate. I found myself gasping and GLARING at the words as I read them.
She hates books. Yes, she said she hates books (-1 point). She knows the name of each book and the author who wrote them, but she won’t actually read them.
Though she loves film so I’ll give the point back to her (0).
"When you watch a film, you’re sort of an outsider looking in. With a book – you’re right there. You are inside. You are the main character."
She thinks Pride and Prejudice is ridiculous and boring…she gets positive points for that (+2) – I’m sorry I’m in the minority. I do not care for Jane Austen and find her so called romance novels dull and boring. Not sorry!
She despises Disney because the movies are total fake and unrealistic. WELL NO SHIT! It’s DISNEY! (-200) – I’m a Disney nerd and while I don’t agree with sugar coating the original fair tales, I still LOVE Disney. You can’t fault me for that!
Anyway…
Tori is highly cynical and while I can appreciate that in her, sometimes she made my favorite cartoon character, Daria, seem like a sweetheart. Two guys come into Tori’s life. One was an old childhood friend, Lucas, and the other is someone she met before, Michael. At the same time, a blog group called ‘Solitaire’ starts making trouble…almost in Tori’s honor.
I won’t go into great detail, mostly because I would definitely give more away than I want to. I breezed through this story quickly, but there are just some things in the story that just didn’t sit well with me.
This guy Lucas was so sketchy that he nearly drove Tori crazy with his change in personality.
Her parents…they literally do not seem to care. Her mother most of all. She is mostly on her computer and seems to kind of be absent, mentally, as a parental figure. That never gets resolved, and I don’t know if that’s a good thing or bad thing. In the end, it really bothered me at how disinterested her parents really were. I get that perhaps it’s something you do when you’re bringing up teenagers, but damn!!
"I swear to God I’m a freak! I mean it. One day I’m going to forget how to wake up."
You’re probably thinking that this really doesn’t seem like it would be in the mental health genre. It is. Tori goes through an awful lot in this story, not to mention the mental strain with her brother, Charlie. I will say there are some MILD trigger warnings regarding implied self harm.
I was kind of left with mixed emotions with this book. I have great respect for this author and this being her first story. I know it’s near and dear to her heart. I wouldn’t say that this was at the top of my list, but it’s not at the bottom either. I definitely appreciated it NOT BEING a love story. Although it seemed like it would, despite the subtitle of the book, but I’m glad it wasn’t.
A while back, I read an online comic strip by the same author, Heartstopper Volume 1. I found it by chance and I literally flew through it. I adored it and I went ahead and TBR’d some of her other books. I found this one on Scribd and come to find this was her baby. This was her debut novel. The story was pretty good, it is NOT a love story, but I sometimes found myself getting frustrated with the main character. Reasons why are listed below.
The story is told from a teenager named Victoria ‘Tori’ Spring. She has two younger brothers and she is quite…indifferent. She has one best friend, and honestly one friend only, and she’s very much the pessimist. I can’t fully fault her for that, but some things that I just CANNOT tolerate. I found myself gasping and GLARING at the words as I read them.
She hates books. Yes, she said she hates books (-1 point). She knows the name of each book and the author who wrote them, but she won’t actually read them.
Though she loves film so I’ll give the point back to her (0).
"When you watch a film, you’re sort of an outsider looking in. With a book – you’re right there. You are inside. You are the main character."
She thinks Pride and Prejudice is ridiculous and boring…she gets positive points for that (+2) – I’m sorry I’m in the minority. I do not care for Jane Austen and find her so called romance novels dull and boring. Not sorry!
She despises Disney because the movies are total fake and unrealistic. WELL NO SHIT! It’s DISNEY! (-200) – I’m a Disney nerd and while I don’t agree with sugar coating the original fair tales, I still LOVE Disney. You can’t fault me for that!
Anyway…
Tori is highly cynical and while I can appreciate that in her, sometimes she made my favorite cartoon character, Daria, seem like a sweetheart. Two guys come into Tori’s life. One was an old childhood friend, Lucas, and the other is someone she met before, Michael. At the same time, a blog group called ‘Solitaire’ starts making trouble…almost in Tori’s honor.
I won’t go into great detail, mostly because I would definitely give more away than I want to. I breezed through this story quickly, but there are just some things in the story that just didn’t sit well with me.
This guy Lucas was so sketchy that he nearly drove Tori crazy with his change in personality.
Her parents…they literally do not seem to care. Her mother most of all. She is mostly on her computer and seems to kind of be absent, mentally, as a parental figure. That never gets resolved, and I don’t know if that’s a good thing or bad thing. In the end, it really bothered me at how disinterested her parents really were. I get that perhaps it’s something you do when you’re bringing up teenagers, but damn!!
"I swear to God I’m a freak! I mean it. One day I’m going to forget how to wake up."
You’re probably thinking that this really doesn’t seem like it would be in the mental health genre. It is. Tori goes through an awful lot in this story, not to mention the mental strain with her brother, Charlie. I will say there are some MILD trigger warnings regarding implied self harm.
I was kind of left with mixed emotions with this book. I have great respect for this author and this being her first story. I know it’s near and dear to her heart. I wouldn’t say that this was at the top of my list, but it’s not at the bottom either. I definitely appreciated it NOT BEING a love story. Although it seemed like it would, despite the subtitle of the book, but I’m glad it wasn’t.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Glory Road (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Sports films have long been a popular genre in Hollywood as classics such as Pride of the Yankees, The Natural, and Raging Bull are all examples of some of the finest examples of sports films which encapsulate the very essence of the sport they portray.
In the new film Glory Road Josh Lucas stars as Don Haskins, a girls Basketball coach who is given the chance to coach a Division 1 team at Texas Western in 1966.
The small school cannot offer the coach much in the way of amenities as Don and his family are required to live in the student’s dorm. Since his dreams of playing pro ball came to a halt after a knee injury, Haskins looks at his job as a chance for him to make a name for himself.
The task will be daunting as Texas Western is a very small school that puts the majority of its athletic budget into the football program leaving next to no money for the gym, new equipment, and recruiting of players.
After a frustrating attempt to recruit players at a local invitational, Haskins sets his sites on a young African American player who while big on attitude, is also big on potential.
With scholarships to offer, Haskins and his staff travel the nation and shock the conservative school by offering scholarships to 8 African American players. In a day and age when teams had at most 1-2 African American players; many of whom did not see much playing time; this is a risky move for the coach.
Undaunted, the coach begins the process of integrating his new players with his current players all of whom are Caucasian, which leads to some tension over starting rights, abilities, and styles.
Haskins is a no nonsense coach who is very strict in regards to grades, effort in practice, and above all avoiding late nights and carousing while the season is underway. Despite this, many players decide to test the will of the coach which raises issues of commitment to the team and discipline, all of which are standard staples of sports films.
When the season starts, a funny thing happens. Not only is the coach playing his African American players in a heavy rotation, but little Texas Western is winning their games and beating some of the more noted teams in the country in the process.
As their notoriety increases so does the amount of hostility directed towards the team from racially incensed fans who do not like the make up of the team and especially hate their success.
Despite this, the team finds itself in the National Championship game against powerful Kentucky coached by the legendary Adolph Rupp (Jon Voight), where Haskins makes history by starting and playing only his African American players which is a first in NCAA finals history.
While the marketing and trailers for the film certainly do not hesitate from telling you most of the above and underscoring that the team ends up in the finals and that the film is based on a true story, it is not about the final results, it is about the journey the team took getting there.
Producer Jerry Bruckheimer is a master at knowing what the fans want and director James Gartner gives viewers a by the number film that delivers the goods. Yes, the film heavily uses all the sporting clichés from the ailing player, the us against the world mentality, the team of misfits, and so on all of which combines to offer little cinematic tension as it is very clear early on and from the ads where this film will end up.
Despite tipping their hand early and throughout, the filmmakers have decided not to rock the boat and have stuck with a tried and true formula that results with a winning albeit very predictable film.
Lucas does a solid job in the roll and makes the best of the material he has to work with. The game sequences are well managed and rousing which had members of my preview audience cheering.
While it offers little originality, Glory Road is a lot of fun, and despite mining every cliché in the book, is an entertaining time at the movies.
In the new film Glory Road Josh Lucas stars as Don Haskins, a girls Basketball coach who is given the chance to coach a Division 1 team at Texas Western in 1966.
The small school cannot offer the coach much in the way of amenities as Don and his family are required to live in the student’s dorm. Since his dreams of playing pro ball came to a halt after a knee injury, Haskins looks at his job as a chance for him to make a name for himself.
The task will be daunting as Texas Western is a very small school that puts the majority of its athletic budget into the football program leaving next to no money for the gym, new equipment, and recruiting of players.
After a frustrating attempt to recruit players at a local invitational, Haskins sets his sites on a young African American player who while big on attitude, is also big on potential.
With scholarships to offer, Haskins and his staff travel the nation and shock the conservative school by offering scholarships to 8 African American players. In a day and age when teams had at most 1-2 African American players; many of whom did not see much playing time; this is a risky move for the coach.
Undaunted, the coach begins the process of integrating his new players with his current players all of whom are Caucasian, which leads to some tension over starting rights, abilities, and styles.
Haskins is a no nonsense coach who is very strict in regards to grades, effort in practice, and above all avoiding late nights and carousing while the season is underway. Despite this, many players decide to test the will of the coach which raises issues of commitment to the team and discipline, all of which are standard staples of sports films.
When the season starts, a funny thing happens. Not only is the coach playing his African American players in a heavy rotation, but little Texas Western is winning their games and beating some of the more noted teams in the country in the process.
As their notoriety increases so does the amount of hostility directed towards the team from racially incensed fans who do not like the make up of the team and especially hate their success.
Despite this, the team finds itself in the National Championship game against powerful Kentucky coached by the legendary Adolph Rupp (Jon Voight), where Haskins makes history by starting and playing only his African American players which is a first in NCAA finals history.
While the marketing and trailers for the film certainly do not hesitate from telling you most of the above and underscoring that the team ends up in the finals and that the film is based on a true story, it is not about the final results, it is about the journey the team took getting there.
Producer Jerry Bruckheimer is a master at knowing what the fans want and director James Gartner gives viewers a by the number film that delivers the goods. Yes, the film heavily uses all the sporting clichés from the ailing player, the us against the world mentality, the team of misfits, and so on all of which combines to offer little cinematic tension as it is very clear early on and from the ads where this film will end up.
Despite tipping their hand early and throughout, the filmmakers have decided not to rock the boat and have stuck with a tried and true formula that results with a winning albeit very predictable film.
Lucas does a solid job in the roll and makes the best of the material he has to work with. The game sequences are well managed and rousing which had members of my preview audience cheering.
While it offers little originality, Glory Road is a lot of fun, and despite mining every cliché in the book, is an entertaining time at the movies.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Inglourious Basterds (2009) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019 (Updated Jun 22, 2019)
It's the middle of World War II and France is overrun with Nazis. A group of Jewish-American soldiers is making a name for themselves as, "The Basterds," as they have the full intention of scalping each and every Nazi involved in the Third Reich. The Basterds soon become a real nuisance to The Fuhrer as their reputation strengthens and fear spreads like wildfire amongst the Nazis. Shosanna Dreyfus, a French-Jew whose family was killed by the Nazis, now owns a movie theater that catches the eye of Joseph Goebbels and his new film. The smaller, more private theater gets handpicked by Fredrick Zoller, a Nazi war hero and star of Goebbels film Nation's Pride, for the premiere of his new film. As the premiere becomes an intimate gathering of the Nazis, including the most important people of the Third Reich, The Basterds realize this may be their chance to end this war once and for all.
Inglourious Basterds had the potential to be one of the greatest films of the year. It's the first full-length film from Quentin Tarantino since Death Proof and his films from the past 12 years have escalated him into being one of the most well-respected filmmakers of our time. That along with an incredibly strong cast led by Brad Pitt and the fact that the film took place during World War II had me incredibly excited for the film. I'm a fairly big admirer of most of Tarantino's previous works and there's something about World War II and Nazis that I've always found fascinating. The final product was still good, but just didn't wind up meeting my expectations.
The concept of Inglourious Basterds is rather ingenious. A group of Jewish-Americans coming together and killing as many Nazis as they can. An ultimate form of revenge. Not only that, but an incredible sense of satisfaction washes over them while they partake in it. It's great and is pulled off rather flawlessly when we actually get to see The Basterds in action. As much as I love Tarantino's dialogue, it just seemed like the majority of the film was spent waiting around and talking about what was actually going to happen. Significant events still took place, but there's really only three or four scenes that come to mind that you could label as being exciting. Whether the film needed more of that is fully up to the viewer, but I'm under the impression that the film was a bit lacking in that department. Something else that should be mentioned, the film is not historically accurate. It's more of a World War II set in the Tarantino-verse kind of deal and is more of an alternate universe. Knowing that before seeing the movie helped a great deal in enjoying the film a bit more.
As enjoyable as Brad Pitt's performance as Lt. Aldo Raine was, I believe the real performance worth noting is Christoph Waltz's portrayal of Col. Hans Landa. He's somehow able to walk the thin line between being polite and charming to being a frightening lunatic rather flawlessly. Even as he closes in on The Basterds and their plans, he still manages to steal most of the scenes he's in (the discussion about comparing Jews to rats at the beginning of the film, the "That's-a-bingo!" conversation with Aldo, etc). Landa is just an incredible detective with a marvelous personality that might just be one of the greatest characters Tarantino has ever written.
Inglourious Basterds is an extremely solid effort from Tarantino. The dialogue is definitely up to Tarantino's standard greatness, the performances are quite incredible, and the story is an entertaining one even with it straying away from what actually happened during that time period. It's just a shame it didn't meet the expectations I had based on the trailers and how much I enjoyed the past few Tarantino films. The hard hitting action scenes are magnificent, but it felt like there were too few and far between. The best suggestion I could give would be to go into the film expecting nothing and I think you'll walk away satisfied.
Inglourious Basterds had the potential to be one of the greatest films of the year. It's the first full-length film from Quentin Tarantino since Death Proof and his films from the past 12 years have escalated him into being one of the most well-respected filmmakers of our time. That along with an incredibly strong cast led by Brad Pitt and the fact that the film took place during World War II had me incredibly excited for the film. I'm a fairly big admirer of most of Tarantino's previous works and there's something about World War II and Nazis that I've always found fascinating. The final product was still good, but just didn't wind up meeting my expectations.
The concept of Inglourious Basterds is rather ingenious. A group of Jewish-Americans coming together and killing as many Nazis as they can. An ultimate form of revenge. Not only that, but an incredible sense of satisfaction washes over them while they partake in it. It's great and is pulled off rather flawlessly when we actually get to see The Basterds in action. As much as I love Tarantino's dialogue, it just seemed like the majority of the film was spent waiting around and talking about what was actually going to happen. Significant events still took place, but there's really only three or four scenes that come to mind that you could label as being exciting. Whether the film needed more of that is fully up to the viewer, but I'm under the impression that the film was a bit lacking in that department. Something else that should be mentioned, the film is not historically accurate. It's more of a World War II set in the Tarantino-verse kind of deal and is more of an alternate universe. Knowing that before seeing the movie helped a great deal in enjoying the film a bit more.
As enjoyable as Brad Pitt's performance as Lt. Aldo Raine was, I believe the real performance worth noting is Christoph Waltz's portrayal of Col. Hans Landa. He's somehow able to walk the thin line between being polite and charming to being a frightening lunatic rather flawlessly. Even as he closes in on The Basterds and their plans, he still manages to steal most of the scenes he's in (the discussion about comparing Jews to rats at the beginning of the film, the "That's-a-bingo!" conversation with Aldo, etc). Landa is just an incredible detective with a marvelous personality that might just be one of the greatest characters Tarantino has ever written.
Inglourious Basterds is an extremely solid effort from Tarantino. The dialogue is definitely up to Tarantino's standard greatness, the performances are quite incredible, and the story is an entertaining one even with it straying away from what actually happened during that time period. It's just a shame it didn't meet the expectations I had based on the trailers and how much I enjoyed the past few Tarantino films. The hard hitting action scenes are magnificent, but it felt like there were too few and far between. The best suggestion I could give would be to go into the film expecting nothing and I think you'll walk away satisfied.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated John Carpenter's Vampires (1998) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
A group of eccentric vampire hunters lead by the rugged and cold-hearted Jack Crow (James Woods) never really stop working. Taking great pride in the fruits of their labor, they work hard and play even harder as their celebrations after a job well done consist of alcohol flowing freely and plenty of women to take their minds off of work. But this particular job didn't go exactly as planned and it's weighing heavily on the mind of Jack Crow. Even after killing what's referred to as a "nest" of nine vampires, the master was no where to be found. Hardly a reason to celebrate in Jack's eyes. Unfortunately, his gut instinct was right as things get a hell of a lot worse for Jack's team when the master shows up to their little shindig. But this master is different from the others; stronger, more powerful, and why does he know Jack's name? There's something more elaborate going on and Jack Crow is going to find out exactly what it is while eradicating as many vampires as he possibly can along the way.
Judging by the ratings this film has (34% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, 5.8/10 on IMDb), I guess it's safe to say that this could be a guilty pleasure of mine. I love most of John Carpenter's work and I really enjoyed his take on vampires. Jack Crow is certainly reason alone to sit through this and although the character originated in John Steakley's novel, I feel Crow is just as strong of a character in Carpenter's world as Snake Plissken from Escape From New York. Even though he's basically a mean spirited SOB, you can't help but sympathize with the character as the film moves on. Considering all that's happened to him in his lifetime, he seems to be a decent guy deep down underneath that extremely thick and rough exterior. His dialogue was also a lot of fun. Gems such as him asking Father Adam Guiteau if he had wood after the fight they just had or when he's explaining the true mythos behind vampires and to "forget whatever you've seen in the movies" was just classic.
Other than Jack Crow, I actually really enjoyed the storyline which seemed to be a breaking point for a lot of people. A vampire seeking a black cross to finish a reverse exorcism, so he can walk in daylight without turning to dust. Only Carpenter could pull something like that off. Their methods of killing vampires were also a bit more original and unorthodox compared to other vampire films of the past. Jack Crow would shoot an arrow from a crossbow, which would be attached to a wire on the bottom of a jeep that would be reeled in by Daniel Baldwin's Anthony Montoya that would drag the vampire into the sunlight where their body would burst into flames. Maybe it's considered cheesy to some, but it was refreshing to see something different for a change. As big of a horror fan that I am, I don't really think of myself as a fan of vampires. I'm not sure if it's because I'm picky or because it seems like everything is being recycled when it comes to storylines in horror films these days, but I like to think when a vampire film does make an impact on me that it says more than the average horror film containing vampires.
John Carpenter, the master of horror, delivers a refreshing and interesting take on vampires with the aptly named Vampires. It also dawns another strong lead character in a Carpenter film in the form of Jack Crow and contains some of the most witty and enjoyable dialogue of any horror film from the late '90s. The storyline is also magnificently peculiar, which is a definite plus in my book. This would definitely make my list of favorite vampire films, if I ever decided to make one. If you're a fan of John Carpenter and haven't seen this gem, I highly recommend doing so. Or if you have, maybe it's time to dust it off and give it another watch.
Judging by the ratings this film has (34% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, 5.8/10 on IMDb), I guess it's safe to say that this could be a guilty pleasure of mine. I love most of John Carpenter's work and I really enjoyed his take on vampires. Jack Crow is certainly reason alone to sit through this and although the character originated in John Steakley's novel, I feel Crow is just as strong of a character in Carpenter's world as Snake Plissken from Escape From New York. Even though he's basically a mean spirited SOB, you can't help but sympathize with the character as the film moves on. Considering all that's happened to him in his lifetime, he seems to be a decent guy deep down underneath that extremely thick and rough exterior. His dialogue was also a lot of fun. Gems such as him asking Father Adam Guiteau if he had wood after the fight they just had or when he's explaining the true mythos behind vampires and to "forget whatever you've seen in the movies" was just classic.
Other than Jack Crow, I actually really enjoyed the storyline which seemed to be a breaking point for a lot of people. A vampire seeking a black cross to finish a reverse exorcism, so he can walk in daylight without turning to dust. Only Carpenter could pull something like that off. Their methods of killing vampires were also a bit more original and unorthodox compared to other vampire films of the past. Jack Crow would shoot an arrow from a crossbow, which would be attached to a wire on the bottom of a jeep that would be reeled in by Daniel Baldwin's Anthony Montoya that would drag the vampire into the sunlight where their body would burst into flames. Maybe it's considered cheesy to some, but it was refreshing to see something different for a change. As big of a horror fan that I am, I don't really think of myself as a fan of vampires. I'm not sure if it's because I'm picky or because it seems like everything is being recycled when it comes to storylines in horror films these days, but I like to think when a vampire film does make an impact on me that it says more than the average horror film containing vampires.
John Carpenter, the master of horror, delivers a refreshing and interesting take on vampires with the aptly named Vampires. It also dawns another strong lead character in a Carpenter film in the form of Jack Crow and contains some of the most witty and enjoyable dialogue of any horror film from the late '90s. The storyline is also magnificently peculiar, which is a definite plus in my book. This would definitely make my list of favorite vampire films, if I ever decided to make one. If you're a fan of John Carpenter and haven't seen this gem, I highly recommend doing so. Or if you have, maybe it's time to dust it off and give it another watch.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Draftosaurus in Tabletop Games
May 14, 2021
YESSSSS Let’s build a dinopark! I have been waiting for this for years! Yes, I know that Dinosaur Island exists. It’s a good game. In fact, I think it’s a great game. But I have been waiting for a quick game of building a dinopark that I can also share with my young kids. Have I found it with Draftosaurus, or is this just another in a long line of drafting games?
Draftosaurus is so appropriately named due to being a drafting game with a dinosaur theme. Instead of typically drafting cards, however, players are drafting adorable little dinomeeples to populate their theme park attractions. Each attraction, or pen in the game, offers different points for having different dinos in each, or the same, or just one, or exactly three, et al. The player with the most points from these pens at the end of the game is the winner!
To setup, every player receives a park board. Populate the draw bag with dinomeeples based on the number of players using the table in the rulebook. Give the wooden placement die to the youngest player and play can begin!
A game of Draftosaurus spans exactly two rounds. Each round is exactly the same: each player grabs six dinomeeples from the bag, active player rolls the die, players draft dinos, players pass the remaining dinos. Repeat these steps starting at die rolling, but the die is passed along with the dinos from the active player. This is repeated until all dinos have been drafted and placed in pens. Easy right?
The true nature of the game and the most fun part is in the placement die and placement of the dinos in the pens. When the die is rolled, this signifies specific placement rules for all players except the active player. So perhaps the die shows that dinos must be placed in the Grasslands, which are the pens on the bottom portion of the boards. Or maybe the die shows that new dinos may only be added to pens that currently have no dinos in them. Again, these rules do not apply to they that rolled the die, but rather every other player. Herein lies the scrumptious struggle: where does one place the dinos they currently possess in their hand from their neighbor? What pens will score the most points at endgame? Can a T.Rex really be appropriate in this pen? The choices can be maddening, or one can play the game with complete laissez-faire and still have a great time. After two rounds the game ends and players look upon their parks with pride as they count up their final scores.
Components. I really only know Ankama from the Krosmaster games, which though I am not really a fan of, the components are great. I believe Ankama has provided excellent components for Draftosaurus. The dinomeeples are all excellently colored and designed. The boards are good quality, though I question the “Grasslands” being brown and kinda devoid of grass. All in all, the components are great and I love handling them and playing with them.
Yes, we always include our scores at the beginning of each review. So you all already know what I’m about to say here. I love this game! I love having so many options available to me, only to have the die roll tell me I can’t do exactly what I want, so I have to alter my strategy on a dime. I love being able to see my dinos filling up the park (or swimming in the River if there are no places for them) and watching them frolic… well, okay not frolic in tight spaced pens. No wonder they all went crazy and escaped in those movies. In any case, if you or your family/friends/playdates enjoy drafting games, but want something a little different, while respecting your playtime (something that many drafting games extend) take a look at Draftosaurus. Even children can get in on the action, as there is no need to be able to read, necessarily. I haven’t yet tried it with my 3-year-old, but I think I will this weekend now. That all said, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an enthusiastically Triassic 19 / 24. Just keep Newman and Nick Fury away from your game table.
Draftosaurus is so appropriately named due to being a drafting game with a dinosaur theme. Instead of typically drafting cards, however, players are drafting adorable little dinomeeples to populate their theme park attractions. Each attraction, or pen in the game, offers different points for having different dinos in each, or the same, or just one, or exactly three, et al. The player with the most points from these pens at the end of the game is the winner!
To setup, every player receives a park board. Populate the draw bag with dinomeeples based on the number of players using the table in the rulebook. Give the wooden placement die to the youngest player and play can begin!
A game of Draftosaurus spans exactly two rounds. Each round is exactly the same: each player grabs six dinomeeples from the bag, active player rolls the die, players draft dinos, players pass the remaining dinos. Repeat these steps starting at die rolling, but the die is passed along with the dinos from the active player. This is repeated until all dinos have been drafted and placed in pens. Easy right?
The true nature of the game and the most fun part is in the placement die and placement of the dinos in the pens. When the die is rolled, this signifies specific placement rules for all players except the active player. So perhaps the die shows that dinos must be placed in the Grasslands, which are the pens on the bottom portion of the boards. Or maybe the die shows that new dinos may only be added to pens that currently have no dinos in them. Again, these rules do not apply to they that rolled the die, but rather every other player. Herein lies the scrumptious struggle: where does one place the dinos they currently possess in their hand from their neighbor? What pens will score the most points at endgame? Can a T.Rex really be appropriate in this pen? The choices can be maddening, or one can play the game with complete laissez-faire and still have a great time. After two rounds the game ends and players look upon their parks with pride as they count up their final scores.
Components. I really only know Ankama from the Krosmaster games, which though I am not really a fan of, the components are great. I believe Ankama has provided excellent components for Draftosaurus. The dinomeeples are all excellently colored and designed. The boards are good quality, though I question the “Grasslands” being brown and kinda devoid of grass. All in all, the components are great and I love handling them and playing with them.
Yes, we always include our scores at the beginning of each review. So you all already know what I’m about to say here. I love this game! I love having so many options available to me, only to have the die roll tell me I can’t do exactly what I want, so I have to alter my strategy on a dime. I love being able to see my dinos filling up the park (or swimming in the River if there are no places for them) and watching them frolic… well, okay not frolic in tight spaced pens. No wonder they all went crazy and escaped in those movies. In any case, if you or your family/friends/playdates enjoy drafting games, but want something a little different, while respecting your playtime (something that many drafting games extend) take a look at Draftosaurus. Even children can get in on the action, as there is no need to be able to read, necessarily. I haven’t yet tried it with my 3-year-old, but I think I will this weekend now. That all said, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an enthusiastically Triassic 19 / 24. Just keep Newman and Nick Fury away from your game table.
Inventory Now
Business and Productivity
App
Inventory Now is designed to help retailers track their inventory through the product life cycle. ...
EQ Player Plus
Music and Entertainment
App
The best equalizing technologies are applied for you who want to experience true sound. No more...
FF
FreshMenu: Food Ordering App
Food & Drink
App
Craving for a meal without the hassles of cooking or stepping out? The FreshMenu food delivery app...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Finding your feet (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Foot tapping and Tear Jerking.
There are some films whose trailers really don’t properly represent their contents. The trailer for the new ‘grey-pound’ film “Finding Your Feet” promised a light hearted and witty foray into an elderly dance-club. And, yes, you get some laughs. But it’s very much a bitter sweet comedy, and the bitterness is ladled on by the bucketload leading to more tears than smiles through the majority of the running time.
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Angelicalynnn (21 KP) Jul 6, 2018
iamsara (130 KP) Jul 19, 2018