Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated G.I. Joe: Retaliation (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Who didn’t grow up as a child of the eighties and nineties and not play with G.I. Joes? And of those, who can honestly say they were not thoroughly disappointed in G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra? Surprisingly, I can say that I wasn’t thoroughly disappointed, but I know the movie could have been so much more than it was. Could it have done without the surreal technology, the sappy love story and the unrealistic action scenes in the movie? Yes. Many fans cried out about this. G.I. Joe: Retaliation set out to respond.
Did they succeed? That’s debatable, but they did a lot of things right in the go-around. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not award winning or anything, and you should never expect a movie like this to be that. But let’s run through a check list. Sappy out of place love-story: gone. Surreal technology: less. Let’s face it, despite what some people felt about the first movie, it did kind of set that precedent. Retaliation is considered a true follow up to The Rise of Cobra. So would it honestly make any sense to go from one extreme of nearly impossible gadgets to none at all? Absolutely not. Besides, the cartoon series also had technology in it. I am not trying to defend the use of it, and there were some pretty crazy gadgets going on in this movie, but it seemed to jive better with what I remember of it as a kid. And they found a really unique way to tone it down without it not seeming right. Unfortunately, there is still a fair amount of unrealistic action in this movie, but that’s kind of become the norm for most action movies these days.
We pick up fairly close to where we left off in The Rise of Cobra. Duke (Channing Tatum) is now commanding a unit of the Joes with Roadblock, Lady Jaye, Flint and Snake Eyes (Dwayne Johnson, Adrianne Palicki, D.J. Cotrona and Ray Park respectively) under his command. The Joes are sent out on a mission, a good rapport is built between Duke and Roadblock, but then they go and destroy that when their convoy gets attacked by Cobra eliminating Duke from the rest of the film. Go cry spoiler somewhere else, this happens in the beginning of the movie, and it’s been everywhere since the delay of the movie from last year. I was hoping they would somehow managed to keep him in the movie, especially after seeing the chemistry between Tatum and Johnson, but alas…
So the convoy attacked, and all the Joes presumed dead. Only Roadblock, Jaye and Flint actually survive and try to get to the bottom of everything. Meanwhile President Zartan (remember how the last movie ended) is up to his own nefarious plans in breaking out Cobra Commander with the aide of Storm Shadow. The Joes work their magic, still have access to some technology (though not over the top like The Rise of Cobra), and recruit people to help them along the way, including the man who is the reason the Joes were started: General Joe Coulton (played epic-ly by Bruce Willis).
The movie was entertaining, had a lot of great and clever humor that wasn’t thrown in your face, and had some great action scenes (if you can get past the fact that in one scene they are fighting Cirque Du Soleil style on the side of a cliff). But it’s some of the little things in this movie that prevent it from redeeming the franchise after the first iteration, including the casting of RZA in a part that looks like it is meant to be serious, but his horrible acting make you really wonder if it was supposed to be a serious role or not. The other gripe I had with the movie was the unlikely resolution of the main conflict. With the Cobra Commander so confident in his plan, why would he, or any self-respecting super villain, deliver a way to foil the evil plan with literally half a second left on a silver platter. The last issue I had with the movie was Storm Shadow. I really liked the conflict between him and Snake Eyes in The Rise of Cobra, but they seemed to discredit his character a lot in this movie. Ultimately they changed the nature of Storm Shadow to make it seem as if he might switch sides in any future installments of the franchise, and that’s just not cool. The character was awesome the way he was.
As for the 3D aspect, it’s said this was the reason that the studio delayed the movie for a year. They wanted to add more effects to it. This tells me two things: the movie was shot in 2D and they had little faith in it. Honestly, I think we all know they tried to add more Duke to the movie in this time (which it’s really hard to tell if they did), but you can tell there was work done with 3D aspect. Too much. It was very distracting at points, and it seemed liked they added elements to scenes just to have 3D. For instance there was a scene where you were in a situation room viewing information on a monitor. It literally looked like they just super imposed a shoulder into the lower right of the screen so they could have in 3D as if you were looking over someone’s shoulder. That’s just silly.
All that being said. I had fun watching the movie. Dwayne Johnson is becoming a powerhouse that everyone was expecting him to years ago. I hope that he can continue this streak with some good movies (he’s got two more within the next month alone). I own the first one on Blu Ray, and I will probably buy this one when comes out as well. I would watch it in theater just for the enormity of the action on the big screen, but skip the 3D.
Did they succeed? That’s debatable, but they did a lot of things right in the go-around. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not award winning or anything, and you should never expect a movie like this to be that. But let’s run through a check list. Sappy out of place love-story: gone. Surreal technology: less. Let’s face it, despite what some people felt about the first movie, it did kind of set that precedent. Retaliation is considered a true follow up to The Rise of Cobra. So would it honestly make any sense to go from one extreme of nearly impossible gadgets to none at all? Absolutely not. Besides, the cartoon series also had technology in it. I am not trying to defend the use of it, and there were some pretty crazy gadgets going on in this movie, but it seemed to jive better with what I remember of it as a kid. And they found a really unique way to tone it down without it not seeming right. Unfortunately, there is still a fair amount of unrealistic action in this movie, but that’s kind of become the norm for most action movies these days.
We pick up fairly close to where we left off in The Rise of Cobra. Duke (Channing Tatum) is now commanding a unit of the Joes with Roadblock, Lady Jaye, Flint and Snake Eyes (Dwayne Johnson, Adrianne Palicki, D.J. Cotrona and Ray Park respectively) under his command. The Joes are sent out on a mission, a good rapport is built between Duke and Roadblock, but then they go and destroy that when their convoy gets attacked by Cobra eliminating Duke from the rest of the film. Go cry spoiler somewhere else, this happens in the beginning of the movie, and it’s been everywhere since the delay of the movie from last year. I was hoping they would somehow managed to keep him in the movie, especially after seeing the chemistry between Tatum and Johnson, but alas…
So the convoy attacked, and all the Joes presumed dead. Only Roadblock, Jaye and Flint actually survive and try to get to the bottom of everything. Meanwhile President Zartan (remember how the last movie ended) is up to his own nefarious plans in breaking out Cobra Commander with the aide of Storm Shadow. The Joes work their magic, still have access to some technology (though not over the top like The Rise of Cobra), and recruit people to help them along the way, including the man who is the reason the Joes were started: General Joe Coulton (played epic-ly by Bruce Willis).
The movie was entertaining, had a lot of great and clever humor that wasn’t thrown in your face, and had some great action scenes (if you can get past the fact that in one scene they are fighting Cirque Du Soleil style on the side of a cliff). But it’s some of the little things in this movie that prevent it from redeeming the franchise after the first iteration, including the casting of RZA in a part that looks like it is meant to be serious, but his horrible acting make you really wonder if it was supposed to be a serious role or not. The other gripe I had with the movie was the unlikely resolution of the main conflict. With the Cobra Commander so confident in his plan, why would he, or any self-respecting super villain, deliver a way to foil the evil plan with literally half a second left on a silver platter. The last issue I had with the movie was Storm Shadow. I really liked the conflict between him and Snake Eyes in The Rise of Cobra, but they seemed to discredit his character a lot in this movie. Ultimately they changed the nature of Storm Shadow to make it seem as if he might switch sides in any future installments of the franchise, and that’s just not cool. The character was awesome the way he was.
As for the 3D aspect, it’s said this was the reason that the studio delayed the movie for a year. They wanted to add more effects to it. This tells me two things: the movie was shot in 2D and they had little faith in it. Honestly, I think we all know they tried to add more Duke to the movie in this time (which it’s really hard to tell if they did), but you can tell there was work done with 3D aspect. Too much. It was very distracting at points, and it seemed liked they added elements to scenes just to have 3D. For instance there was a scene where you were in a situation room viewing information on a monitor. It literally looked like they just super imposed a shoulder into the lower right of the screen so they could have in 3D as if you were looking over someone’s shoulder. That’s just silly.
All that being said. I had fun watching the movie. Dwayne Johnson is becoming a powerhouse that everyone was expecting him to years ago. I hope that he can continue this streak with some good movies (he’s got two more within the next month alone). I own the first one on Blu Ray, and I will probably buy this one when comes out as well. I would watch it in theater just for the enormity of the action on the big screen, but skip the 3D.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A fantasy that’s glossy and beautiful to look at.
Before the heavyweight juggernaut of “Mary Poppins Returns” arrives at Christmas, here’s another Disney live action feature to get everyone in the festive spirit.
The Plot.
It’s Victorian London and Young Clara (Mackenzie Foy) lives with her father (Matthew Macfadyen), her older sister Louise (Ellie Bamber) and her younger brother Fritz (Tom Sweet). It’s Christmas and the family are having a hard time as they are grieving the recent death of wife and mother Marie (Anna Madeley). Like her mother, Clara has an astute mind with an engineering bias and is encouraged in this pursuit by her quirky inventor godfather, Drosselmeyer (Morgan Freeman). At his fabled Christmas ball, Clara asks for his help in accessing a gift Clara’s mother has bequeathed to her. This leads Clara on a magical adventure to a parallel world with four realms, where everything is not quite peace and harmony.
The Review.
This is a film that visually delights from the word go. The film opens with a swooping tour of Victorian London (who knew the Disney castle was in the capital’s suburbs?!) via Westminster bridge and into the Stahlbaum’s attic. It’s a spectacular tour-de-force of special-effects wizardry and sets up the expectation of what’s to come. For every scene that follows is a richly decorated feast for the eyes. Drosselmeyer’s party is a glorious event, full of extras, strong on costume design and with a rich colour palette as filmed by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“). When we are pitched into the Four Realms – no wardrobe required – the magical visions continue.
The film represents a Narnia-esque take on the four compass-point lands of Oz, and on that basis it’s a bit formulaic. But the good vs evil angles are more subtley portrayed. Of the Four Realms leaders, Keira Knightley as Sugar Plum rather steals the show from the others (played by Richard E. Grant, Eugenio Derbez and Helen Mirren). Mirren in particular is given little to do.
What age kids would this be suitable for? Well, probably a good judge would be the Wizard of Oz. If your kids are not completely freaked out by the Wicked Witch of the West and the flying monkeys, then they will probably cope OK with the scary bits of the “Realm of Entertainment”. Although those who suffer from either musophobia or (especially) coulrophobia might want to give it a miss! All kids are different though, and the “loss of the mother” is also an angle to consider: that might worry and upset young children. It is definitely a “PG” certificate rather than a “U” certificate.
Young people who also enjoy ballet (I nearly fell into a sexist trap there!) will also get a kick out of some of the dance sequences, which are “Fantasia-esque” in their presentation and feature Misty Copeland, famously the first African American Female Principal Dancer with the American Ballet Theatre. (I have no appreciation at all for ballet, but I’m sure it was brilliant!)
As for the moral tone of the film, the female empowerment message is rather ladled on with a trowel, but as it’s a good message I have no great problem with that. I am often appalled at how lacking in confidence young people are in their own abilities. Here is a young lady (an engineer!) learning self-resilience and the confidence to be able to do anything in life she puts her mind to. Well said.
The story is rather generic – child visits a magical other world – but the screenplay is impressive given its the first-feature screenplay for Ashleigh Powell: there is an article on her approach to screenwriting that you might find interesting here.
The film is credited with two directors. This – particularly if there is also an army of screenwriters – is normally a warning sign on a film. (As a case in point, the chaotic 1967 version of “Casino Royale” had six different directors, and it shows!). Here, there clearly were issues with the filming since Disney insisted on reshoots for which the original director, Lasse Hallström, was not available. This is where the “Captain America” director Joe Johnston stepped in.
The turns.
I really enjoyed Mackenzie Foy‘s performance as Clara. Now 18, she is a feisty and believable Disney princess for the modern age. (If, like me, you are struggling to place where you’ve heard her name before, she was the young Murph in Nolan’s “Interstellar“).
Another name I was struggling with was Ellie Bamber as her sister. Ellie was excellent in the traumatic role of the daughter in the brilliant “Nocturnal Animals“, one of my favourite films of 2016. (Hopefully the therapy has worked and Ellie can sleep at night again!).
A newcomer with a big role is Jayden Fowora-Knight as the Nutcracker soldier: Jayden had a bit part in “Ready Player One” but does a great job here in a substantial role in the film. He stands out as a black actor in a Disney feature: notwithstanding the Finn character in “Star Wars”, this is a long-overdue and welcome approach from Disney.
British comedians Omid Djalili and Jack Whitehouse turn up to add some light relief, but the humour seems rather forced and not particularly fitting.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one much, but I did. Prinicipally because it is such a visual feast and worth going to see just for that alone: I have a prediction that this film will be nominated for production design, costume design and possible special effects.
I think kids of the right age – I would have thought 6 to 10 sort of range – will enjoy this a lot, particularly if they like dance. Young girls in particular will most relate to the lead character. For such kids, I’d rate this a 4*. The rating below reflects my rating as an adult: so I don’t think ‘drag-a-long’ parents in the Christmas holidays (if it is still on by then) will not be totally bored.
The Plot.
It’s Victorian London and Young Clara (Mackenzie Foy) lives with her father (Matthew Macfadyen), her older sister Louise (Ellie Bamber) and her younger brother Fritz (Tom Sweet). It’s Christmas and the family are having a hard time as they are grieving the recent death of wife and mother Marie (Anna Madeley). Like her mother, Clara has an astute mind with an engineering bias and is encouraged in this pursuit by her quirky inventor godfather, Drosselmeyer (Morgan Freeman). At his fabled Christmas ball, Clara asks for his help in accessing a gift Clara’s mother has bequeathed to her. This leads Clara on a magical adventure to a parallel world with four realms, where everything is not quite peace and harmony.
The Review.
This is a film that visually delights from the word go. The film opens with a swooping tour of Victorian London (who knew the Disney castle was in the capital’s suburbs?!) via Westminster bridge and into the Stahlbaum’s attic. It’s a spectacular tour-de-force of special-effects wizardry and sets up the expectation of what’s to come. For every scene that follows is a richly decorated feast for the eyes. Drosselmeyer’s party is a glorious event, full of extras, strong on costume design and with a rich colour palette as filmed by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“). When we are pitched into the Four Realms – no wardrobe required – the magical visions continue.
The film represents a Narnia-esque take on the four compass-point lands of Oz, and on that basis it’s a bit formulaic. But the good vs evil angles are more subtley portrayed. Of the Four Realms leaders, Keira Knightley as Sugar Plum rather steals the show from the others (played by Richard E. Grant, Eugenio Derbez and Helen Mirren). Mirren in particular is given little to do.
What age kids would this be suitable for? Well, probably a good judge would be the Wizard of Oz. If your kids are not completely freaked out by the Wicked Witch of the West and the flying monkeys, then they will probably cope OK with the scary bits of the “Realm of Entertainment”. Although those who suffer from either musophobia or (especially) coulrophobia might want to give it a miss! All kids are different though, and the “loss of the mother” is also an angle to consider: that might worry and upset young children. It is definitely a “PG” certificate rather than a “U” certificate.
Young people who also enjoy ballet (I nearly fell into a sexist trap there!) will also get a kick out of some of the dance sequences, which are “Fantasia-esque” in their presentation and feature Misty Copeland, famously the first African American Female Principal Dancer with the American Ballet Theatre. (I have no appreciation at all for ballet, but I’m sure it was brilliant!)
As for the moral tone of the film, the female empowerment message is rather ladled on with a trowel, but as it’s a good message I have no great problem with that. I am often appalled at how lacking in confidence young people are in their own abilities. Here is a young lady (an engineer!) learning self-resilience and the confidence to be able to do anything in life she puts her mind to. Well said.
The story is rather generic – child visits a magical other world – but the screenplay is impressive given its the first-feature screenplay for Ashleigh Powell: there is an article on her approach to screenwriting that you might find interesting here.
The film is credited with two directors. This – particularly if there is also an army of screenwriters – is normally a warning sign on a film. (As a case in point, the chaotic 1967 version of “Casino Royale” had six different directors, and it shows!). Here, there clearly were issues with the filming since Disney insisted on reshoots for which the original director, Lasse Hallström, was not available. This is where the “Captain America” director Joe Johnston stepped in.
The turns.
I really enjoyed Mackenzie Foy‘s performance as Clara. Now 18, she is a feisty and believable Disney princess for the modern age. (If, like me, you are struggling to place where you’ve heard her name before, she was the young Murph in Nolan’s “Interstellar“).
Another name I was struggling with was Ellie Bamber as her sister. Ellie was excellent in the traumatic role of the daughter in the brilliant “Nocturnal Animals“, one of my favourite films of 2016. (Hopefully the therapy has worked and Ellie can sleep at night again!).
A newcomer with a big role is Jayden Fowora-Knight as the Nutcracker soldier: Jayden had a bit part in “Ready Player One” but does a great job here in a substantial role in the film. He stands out as a black actor in a Disney feature: notwithstanding the Finn character in “Star Wars”, this is a long-overdue and welcome approach from Disney.
British comedians Omid Djalili and Jack Whitehouse turn up to add some light relief, but the humour seems rather forced and not particularly fitting.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one much, but I did. Prinicipally because it is such a visual feast and worth going to see just for that alone: I have a prediction that this film will be nominated for production design, costume design and possible special effects.
I think kids of the right age – I would have thought 6 to 10 sort of range – will enjoy this a lot, particularly if they like dance. Young girls in particular will most relate to the lead character. For such kids, I’d rate this a 4*. The rating below reflects my rating as an adult: so I don’t think ‘drag-a-long’ parents in the Christmas holidays (if it is still on by then) will not be totally bored.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Gem Blenders in Tabletop Games
Oct 24, 2019
Collectible Card Games (CCG) and Living Card Games (LCG) are enjoyed by the members of Purple Phoenix Games. From these genres we primarily play Lord of the Rings LCG, A Game of Thrones (2e) LCG, and DiceMasters (ok we kinda cheated here but it still applies). So we are no strangers to constructing decks or teams and going head-to-head to defeat opponents. When I heard about Gem Blenders being a CCG with an interesting theme, I knew we had to try it.
Gem Blenders is a competitive card game of upgrading (blending) heroes into stronger forces that will attack your opponent’s HP. The winner is the player who can decrease their opponent’s HP to zero first.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. As this is a preview copy of the game, I do not know if the final rules or components will be similar or different to what we were provided. Similarly, our copy came with two pre-constructed decks ready to duel. -T
To setup, players will need to construct their decks according to the construction requirements and limitations found in the rulebook. I will not be covering every rule found in the rulebook here, as the rules are very extensive. Once the four heroes per player are chosen, they must be arranged in a diamond pattern with the Left, Center, and Right heroes being on the “front line” and the Back hero being the sole back liner. Front line heroes can attack, but the hero in back cannot. Draw your opening hand of six cards and you are ready to play! Wait, you don’t like your initial draw? Ok then, shuffle back into your deck and draw a new set of six. You are ready to play!
On a turn a player will complete three phases. Firstly, draw a card. The next phase is to play cards from your hand. You are allowed to play one gem card per turn, so initially players will probably be attaching gems to heroes. Simply slide the gem card under the top of the hero card so that the colored gem graphic can be seen (see below). Other actions include attack (once per turn), blend or de-blend heroes, discard gems, activate hero effects, and play action cards.
Heroes will have effects printed on their cards with instructions on how to use them. You may use all four heroes’ effects if possible in any turn. Discarding gems is self-explanatory, and there are cards in the game that can activate or become more powerful depending on having gems in the discard pile. Action cards can help players manipulate their decks, search for specific cards, or even cancel another player’s action out of turn. They can be severely powerful, so there are strict limitations as to which Action cards and how many of them you may keep in your deck.
Blending heroes is a crux of the game and the way to make your heroes stronger in battle. By collecting the gems and attaching them to your heroes you are providing them with requirements for blending. You may only blend a hero when they have the appropriate gems attached to them according to the Blend card you wish to play. The hero then becomes the blended hero with the new effects and stronger Attack and Defense values. These are important stats for the Attack action. When a player Attacks, they choose which of their front line heroes they would like to send into battle (or all of them). The attackers may only attack the heroes directly opposite them on the table. So a Center hero may only attack the other Center hero across from them (in a 2 player game). Stats are simply compared and any attack power that remains undefended will be deducted from the defender player’s HP.
The last step of a turn is declaring your turn over. Then the next player may take their turn. Play will continue in this fashion until one player has zero HP and a winner is figured.
Components. To reiterate, we were provided a prototype copy of the game, so I will not comment on aspects that may be changed as a result of a successful Kickstarter campaign or through any stretch goals. I was given no information or scoops about what is planned, so I will merely comment on what I can here. This is a card game, and came to us in a box similar to that of the Tiny Epic series, but a bit smaller. It was enough for two constructed decks of 54 cards each and a couple reference cards. We were able to play the game right out of the box this way and that was very appreciated.
However, the card layout and art style of the game is where we have our issues. I recently turned 40 and, well, my eyesight isn’t what it used to be. When playing Gem Blenders, much of the game is about upgrading your forces and attacking your opponent(s). So when I look across the table at my opponent’s card, I want to be able to clearly see their Attack and Defense. Unfortunately, the text is so small in this version of the game that we were constantly asking each other what the A and D numbers were. Now, I mentioned earlier that we play and love DiceMasters as well, and that game also suffers from readability issues, so we can begrudgingly overlook that. I hope the finished version of the game addresses this and makes adjustments on visibility of important stats.
Also, the art style of the game just did not resonate with us at all. Again, it could be such that the art will change once the game is truly finished, but considering the cards we were provided, we were hoping for something a bit flashier or more polished. As you can see from the shots here on this review, the hero cards are all black and white, the gem cards have a colorful gem in the middle of the white background of the card with a smaller iteration of the gem in the upper portion of the card. The action cards are also the stark black and white similar to the hero cards. The blend cards feature different wallpapers with a somewhat improved illustration on the front. I found that I would rather see more of the text and battle stats than the illustrations of this game.
That all said, the game is really solid, the theme is interesting, and the game play is quite fun. If it looked better it would be a great option for a quick head-to-head CCG with an excellent and inventive theme. I do hope improvements to the game are planned, and if that’s the case then I will definitely be keeping it on my radar.
Gem Blenders is a competitive card game of upgrading (blending) heroes into stronger forces that will attack your opponent’s HP. The winner is the player who can decrease their opponent’s HP to zero first.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. As this is a preview copy of the game, I do not know if the final rules or components will be similar or different to what we were provided. Similarly, our copy came with two pre-constructed decks ready to duel. -T
To setup, players will need to construct their decks according to the construction requirements and limitations found in the rulebook. I will not be covering every rule found in the rulebook here, as the rules are very extensive. Once the four heroes per player are chosen, they must be arranged in a diamond pattern with the Left, Center, and Right heroes being on the “front line” and the Back hero being the sole back liner. Front line heroes can attack, but the hero in back cannot. Draw your opening hand of six cards and you are ready to play! Wait, you don’t like your initial draw? Ok then, shuffle back into your deck and draw a new set of six. You are ready to play!
On a turn a player will complete three phases. Firstly, draw a card. The next phase is to play cards from your hand. You are allowed to play one gem card per turn, so initially players will probably be attaching gems to heroes. Simply slide the gem card under the top of the hero card so that the colored gem graphic can be seen (see below). Other actions include attack (once per turn), blend or de-blend heroes, discard gems, activate hero effects, and play action cards.
Heroes will have effects printed on their cards with instructions on how to use them. You may use all four heroes’ effects if possible in any turn. Discarding gems is self-explanatory, and there are cards in the game that can activate or become more powerful depending on having gems in the discard pile. Action cards can help players manipulate their decks, search for specific cards, or even cancel another player’s action out of turn. They can be severely powerful, so there are strict limitations as to which Action cards and how many of them you may keep in your deck.
Blending heroes is a crux of the game and the way to make your heroes stronger in battle. By collecting the gems and attaching them to your heroes you are providing them with requirements for blending. You may only blend a hero when they have the appropriate gems attached to them according to the Blend card you wish to play. The hero then becomes the blended hero with the new effects and stronger Attack and Defense values. These are important stats for the Attack action. When a player Attacks, they choose which of their front line heroes they would like to send into battle (or all of them). The attackers may only attack the heroes directly opposite them on the table. So a Center hero may only attack the other Center hero across from them (in a 2 player game). Stats are simply compared and any attack power that remains undefended will be deducted from the defender player’s HP.
The last step of a turn is declaring your turn over. Then the next player may take their turn. Play will continue in this fashion until one player has zero HP and a winner is figured.
Components. To reiterate, we were provided a prototype copy of the game, so I will not comment on aspects that may be changed as a result of a successful Kickstarter campaign or through any stretch goals. I was given no information or scoops about what is planned, so I will merely comment on what I can here. This is a card game, and came to us in a box similar to that of the Tiny Epic series, but a bit smaller. It was enough for two constructed decks of 54 cards each and a couple reference cards. We were able to play the game right out of the box this way and that was very appreciated.
However, the card layout and art style of the game is where we have our issues. I recently turned 40 and, well, my eyesight isn’t what it used to be. When playing Gem Blenders, much of the game is about upgrading your forces and attacking your opponent(s). So when I look across the table at my opponent’s card, I want to be able to clearly see their Attack and Defense. Unfortunately, the text is so small in this version of the game that we were constantly asking each other what the A and D numbers were. Now, I mentioned earlier that we play and love DiceMasters as well, and that game also suffers from readability issues, so we can begrudgingly overlook that. I hope the finished version of the game addresses this and makes adjustments on visibility of important stats.
Also, the art style of the game just did not resonate with us at all. Again, it could be such that the art will change once the game is truly finished, but considering the cards we were provided, we were hoping for something a bit flashier or more polished. As you can see from the shots here on this review, the hero cards are all black and white, the gem cards have a colorful gem in the middle of the white background of the card with a smaller iteration of the gem in the upper portion of the card. The action cards are also the stark black and white similar to the hero cards. The blend cards feature different wallpapers with a somewhat improved illustration on the front. I found that I would rather see more of the text and battle stats than the illustrations of this game.
That all said, the game is really solid, the theme is interesting, and the game play is quite fun. If it looked better it would be a great option for a quick head-to-head CCG with an excellent and inventive theme. I do hope improvements to the game are planned, and if that’s the case then I will definitely be keeping it on my radar.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Children of Blood and Bone: Book 1 in Books
Jan 25, 2019
Children of Blood and Bone
‘’In the beginning, Orisha was a land where the rare and sacred maji thrived. Each of the ten clans was gifted by the gods above and given a different power to land.’’
It is not every day that you encounter a book that lets you dive in a world of magic, with such intensity as Children of Blood and Bone. A story so beautifully written, that you forget this is not the real world and you are in a fantasy story. This is one of the books I wish I could keep reading it for the first time again and again.
When majis are born with white hair, it means that they are touched by the Gods. They are called Diviners, and when they celebrate their thirteenth birthday, they have the ability to use magic.
Zelie still remembers how Orisha used to have magic. Different clans existed, and they could all control different things: air, water, earth… But Zelie also remembers the night when everything went wrong. When the king and the army came and killed hundreds of people. Zelie remembers, like it was yesterday, how on that night they brutally killed her mother. The night when magic disappeared forever.
And when Zelie realises that she is one of the very few people that can still use magic, and return magic in Orisha, she goes on a quest with her brother. With the help of a princess that escapes the castle, she has to learn to control her magic powers, and also her feelings for an enemy she mustn’t trust.
‘’I longed for the day I would feel the magic of the dead in my bones, but right now all I can feel is an unnerving tingle in my veins.’’
The world is so well created, and the characters are all loveable and adorable. The magic story in this book is unique and I loved getting to know more about all clans, what they can do, and reading about people realising they have magic in themselves.
Zelie, as a character, is the protagonist, as all adventures are revolved around her, but the other characters are as much as important, if not in some cases, more important than her. She is a character that many of us can relate to. A person that has been denied the sole purpose of existing. A person that has suffered, because of other people’s choices. For Zelie, this was the denial of magic to her and her people, but for others it could be just anything. What I loved the most was the bravery that she showed, even though inside her she would be so scared. It felt as if fear itself made her to be brave. And I have felt that many times. Sometimes, you don’t really have a choice, but to be brave, no matter how scared you might be.
Then, we have Zelie’s brother, Tzain, who is always the more cautious one and tries to (unsuccessfully) keep Zelie out of trouble. He has so much love for Zelie in his heart and is always the one throwing himself out there to protect her. If I ever had a brother, I would wish for him to be Tzain. I couldn’t explain the love and connection they have together with Zelie. It’s so beautiful!
Then there is Amari, the princess that doesn’t agree with her father’s choices, and decides to follow her heart. I think I loved Amari the most out of all characters, as she was my true hero. Raised in a world of ruthless cruelty, and forced to do things she doesn’t want, her father, the king, always believes that she is weak, and incapable of defending herself and ruling a kingdom. And out there, with Zelie and Tzain, is where Amari finds her true self, and the moment she does is the best scene in this whole book, the beauty of a woman being so powerful, only because she was being belittled her whole life.
‘’It’s like seeing her for the first time: the human behind the maji. Fear embedded in the pain. Tragedy caused in Father’s name.’’
And in the end, we have Inan, the most controversial character in this book. The son of the king, and brother of Amari, dedicated to follow his father and rule the kingdom, but struggling between what is right and wrong. When he realises he has magic as well, he can’t confess, as his father kills those who have magic, but meeting Zelie, he is not so sure anymore of what really is happening in his kingdom, and has to make a decision on whose side he wants to be.
‘’The truth cuts like the sharpest knife I’ve ever known.’’
I loved how the story is focused on both worlds:
The world of Zelie and Tzain, where they live in small town with their father, they have to pay incredible amount of diviner tax, and the taxes get more and more expensive, and become impossible to be paid, so people have to go and do free labor for the king, never to be free again. They are faced with such unfairness and cruelty, but their families and the people in the village are sticking together to survive through everything.
And then we have the world of Amari and Inan, and the King. A world where magic is forbidden and all people that can use magic are being slaughtered. A world where being fierceless and cruel means that you are strong enough to lead a kingdom, and protect Orisha.
The only remark I have on this book were the acknowledgements. As much as I respect that story being told, and appreciate it with all my heart, I also really wished I haven’t read that part as it changed the story in the end for me, in a negative way. As I truly believe that every single person has the ability of magic in themselves. Every single person is powerful, and we all should be Diviners! And Inan having the ability himself proves my point on this as well.
A story about the battle of magic and friendships, a story about wins and losses, a world where magic lives in every single one of us. A world where we all belong. A masterpiece, this is. And a powerful one as well.
It is not every day that you encounter a book that lets you dive in a world of magic, with such intensity as Children of Blood and Bone. A story so beautifully written, that you forget this is not the real world and you are in a fantasy story. This is one of the books I wish I could keep reading it for the first time again and again.
When majis are born with white hair, it means that they are touched by the Gods. They are called Diviners, and when they celebrate their thirteenth birthday, they have the ability to use magic.
Zelie still remembers how Orisha used to have magic. Different clans existed, and they could all control different things: air, water, earth… But Zelie also remembers the night when everything went wrong. When the king and the army came and killed hundreds of people. Zelie remembers, like it was yesterday, how on that night they brutally killed her mother. The night when magic disappeared forever.
And when Zelie realises that she is one of the very few people that can still use magic, and return magic in Orisha, she goes on a quest with her brother. With the help of a princess that escapes the castle, she has to learn to control her magic powers, and also her feelings for an enemy she mustn’t trust.
‘’I longed for the day I would feel the magic of the dead in my bones, but right now all I can feel is an unnerving tingle in my veins.’’
The world is so well created, and the characters are all loveable and adorable. The magic story in this book is unique and I loved getting to know more about all clans, what they can do, and reading about people realising they have magic in themselves.
Zelie, as a character, is the protagonist, as all adventures are revolved around her, but the other characters are as much as important, if not in some cases, more important than her. She is a character that many of us can relate to. A person that has been denied the sole purpose of existing. A person that has suffered, because of other people’s choices. For Zelie, this was the denial of magic to her and her people, but for others it could be just anything. What I loved the most was the bravery that she showed, even though inside her she would be so scared. It felt as if fear itself made her to be brave. And I have felt that many times. Sometimes, you don’t really have a choice, but to be brave, no matter how scared you might be.
Then, we have Zelie’s brother, Tzain, who is always the more cautious one and tries to (unsuccessfully) keep Zelie out of trouble. He has so much love for Zelie in his heart and is always the one throwing himself out there to protect her. If I ever had a brother, I would wish for him to be Tzain. I couldn’t explain the love and connection they have together with Zelie. It’s so beautiful!
Then there is Amari, the princess that doesn’t agree with her father’s choices, and decides to follow her heart. I think I loved Amari the most out of all characters, as she was my true hero. Raised in a world of ruthless cruelty, and forced to do things she doesn’t want, her father, the king, always believes that she is weak, and incapable of defending herself and ruling a kingdom. And out there, with Zelie and Tzain, is where Amari finds her true self, and the moment she does is the best scene in this whole book, the beauty of a woman being so powerful, only because she was being belittled her whole life.
‘’It’s like seeing her for the first time: the human behind the maji. Fear embedded in the pain. Tragedy caused in Father’s name.’’
And in the end, we have Inan, the most controversial character in this book. The son of the king, and brother of Amari, dedicated to follow his father and rule the kingdom, but struggling between what is right and wrong. When he realises he has magic as well, he can’t confess, as his father kills those who have magic, but meeting Zelie, he is not so sure anymore of what really is happening in his kingdom, and has to make a decision on whose side he wants to be.
‘’The truth cuts like the sharpest knife I’ve ever known.’’
I loved how the story is focused on both worlds:
The world of Zelie and Tzain, where they live in small town with their father, they have to pay incredible amount of diviner tax, and the taxes get more and more expensive, and become impossible to be paid, so people have to go and do free labor for the king, never to be free again. They are faced with such unfairness and cruelty, but their families and the people in the village are sticking together to survive through everything.
And then we have the world of Amari and Inan, and the King. A world where magic is forbidden and all people that can use magic are being slaughtered. A world where being fierceless and cruel means that you are strong enough to lead a kingdom, and protect Orisha.
The only remark I have on this book were the acknowledgements. As much as I respect that story being told, and appreciate it with all my heart, I also really wished I haven’t read that part as it changed the story in the end for me, in a negative way. As I truly believe that every single person has the ability of magic in themselves. Every single person is powerful, and we all should be Diviners! And Inan having the ability himself proves my point on this as well.
A story about the battle of magic and friendships, a story about wins and losses, a world where magic lives in every single one of us. A world where we all belong. A masterpiece, this is. And a powerful one as well.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Words (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
On paper, The Words is a film that is better suited as a literary novella. In print, we, as readers, are often granted insight to our characters thoughts and motivation that is frequently lost on film or delivered in a lackluster voiceover that most critics deem as lazy film making. Furthermore, the story within a story, within a story approach in film often leaves the audience with uninteresting shells of characters and can make a story forgettable at best.
Given these reasons, it is easy to see why many would choose to undertake a less ambitious story for their directorial debut. That group does not include co-writer-directors Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal. This duo is actually successful at tackling this dangerous story-within-a-story film device by keeping it simple. Focusing on the main characters of each story and their motivation, while tying each together with some common themes like love, what it means to write something great, and how far the need for success will drive the characters.
The movie begins with highly successful author Clay Hammond (Dennis Quaid) conducting a reading of his latest novel The Words. Among his audience is literary grad student and adoring fan, Daniella (Olivia Wilde), who has aspirations of picking the brain of the man that authored her favorite stories and perhaps getting involved romantically. As Hammond begins to read his story we are introduced to the tale of starving writer Rory Jensen (Bradley Cooper) and his wife Dora (Zoe Saldana). The two are a young couple in love, trying to get on their feet while Rory struggles with multiple rejections of his novels, until he is finally forced to come to grips with his own limitations as an artist and a writer.
As he settles into life and a job as a mail clerk at a publishing firm, he finds a lost manuscript in a vintage leather briefcase that Dora had purchased for him during their honeymoon in Paris. That story turns out to be something that moves him to tears. It is the final thing in his realization that he will never be the great writer that he thought he was, the great writer that wrote this anonymous story. In an effort to feel and try to understand what it is like to create something great, Rory decides to retype the novel word for word on his laptop if only to admire the beautiful story that he had instantly fallen in love with. When Dora mistakenly reads the novel, she encourages him to submit it to a publisher. Before he can tell her the truth, his world is transformed into the life he had always imagined he would have for himself and Dora as the novel gains him both great literary and commercial success. And finally, now that his star has risen he can get his own novel published.
Enter Jeremy Irons as the old man who reveals himself to Rory as the true author of his story. The old man feels compelled to explain to Rory the tragic origin of the story that has become the young author’s success. Irons steals every second he is on screen as his delivery of the old man oozes with the intellectual style that has been his trademark over the years. Like Rory, we are helpless to do nothing but listen and get lost in the words of his story as if he was sitting next to us and telling the story in real life.
The old man reveals that the novel is the result of great love and pain that his younger self (Ben Barnes) and the love of his life Celia (Nora Arnezeder) endured. While I am not familiar with Barnes’ and Arnezeder’s work, their performance as the younger couple in Irons’ story had a genuine connection. And while this love story does not seem to be anything new when it comes to film, it served its purpose by strengthening the other stories, showing how a great story can be mused from someplace unexpected, even if only once.
With Rory now confronted with his deceitful success, he struggles to decide how to make things right and live with himself as a fraud. It’s at this point the film subtly suggest that Hammond’s story of Rory may actually be a disguised autobiography.
As Rory, Bradley Cooper gives perhaps his best performance to date. I feel that despite his poor and deceitful decision, at no point does he lose the audience. With the help of a strong and emotionally charged performance by Zoe Saldana, we experience Cooper’s honest plight and can understand the events that unfold around him. He is effective as a man who genuinely believes he does not deserve the success that he stole. Without a doubt, this will be a surprising role for those fans who only know Cooper from the humorous characters he plays in The Hangover and most recently Hit and Run. I hope this is the beginning of growth in his craft beyond the charming, confident character we have seen in Limitless and perhaps into a deeper emotional actor.
The weakest part of this film is the story of Clay Hammond and Daniella. Dennis Quaid is quite unlikable as Hammond. He is monotone in his readings and the prose of his story is mediocre at best. While the film drops hints that Hammond’s story of Rory is autobiographical it makes sense that Quaid’s character is played this way. He succeeds in helping create the notion that Hammond is unworthy of the success his character has enjoyed. But something about his performance is so unlikable that even when his character has a redeeming moment, it is lost on an audience that may not care enough about him for it to work.
To add to this dislike of Quaid, Olivia Wilde seems out of place as the character Daniella. It is not that her performance is bad, it is just that every time they showed her as the starry-eyed fan who is love struck for Hammond, she just seemed out of place. Additionally there did not seem to be any connection between Daniella and Hammond in the way the other characters’ connections helped strengthen their performances.
In the end, I enjoyed this movie more than I expected. Visually the Montreal backdrop does an excellent job as both New York and Paris. And the continual piano score helps blend the stories. The simple focus on the main characters helped maintain the three different stories and keep the overall pacing of the movie in order. In addition, the solid to exceptional performances also helped to keep the film focused and avoided the empty shell of characters that most movies of this nature create. That being said, this movie is not for everyone, but those looking for a change of pace from the summer blockbusters season should consider this film.
Given these reasons, it is easy to see why many would choose to undertake a less ambitious story for their directorial debut. That group does not include co-writer-directors Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal. This duo is actually successful at tackling this dangerous story-within-a-story film device by keeping it simple. Focusing on the main characters of each story and their motivation, while tying each together with some common themes like love, what it means to write something great, and how far the need for success will drive the characters.
The movie begins with highly successful author Clay Hammond (Dennis Quaid) conducting a reading of his latest novel The Words. Among his audience is literary grad student and adoring fan, Daniella (Olivia Wilde), who has aspirations of picking the brain of the man that authored her favorite stories and perhaps getting involved romantically. As Hammond begins to read his story we are introduced to the tale of starving writer Rory Jensen (Bradley Cooper) and his wife Dora (Zoe Saldana). The two are a young couple in love, trying to get on their feet while Rory struggles with multiple rejections of his novels, until he is finally forced to come to grips with his own limitations as an artist and a writer.
As he settles into life and a job as a mail clerk at a publishing firm, he finds a lost manuscript in a vintage leather briefcase that Dora had purchased for him during their honeymoon in Paris. That story turns out to be something that moves him to tears. It is the final thing in his realization that he will never be the great writer that he thought he was, the great writer that wrote this anonymous story. In an effort to feel and try to understand what it is like to create something great, Rory decides to retype the novel word for word on his laptop if only to admire the beautiful story that he had instantly fallen in love with. When Dora mistakenly reads the novel, she encourages him to submit it to a publisher. Before he can tell her the truth, his world is transformed into the life he had always imagined he would have for himself and Dora as the novel gains him both great literary and commercial success. And finally, now that his star has risen he can get his own novel published.
Enter Jeremy Irons as the old man who reveals himself to Rory as the true author of his story. The old man feels compelled to explain to Rory the tragic origin of the story that has become the young author’s success. Irons steals every second he is on screen as his delivery of the old man oozes with the intellectual style that has been his trademark over the years. Like Rory, we are helpless to do nothing but listen and get lost in the words of his story as if he was sitting next to us and telling the story in real life.
The old man reveals that the novel is the result of great love and pain that his younger self (Ben Barnes) and the love of his life Celia (Nora Arnezeder) endured. While I am not familiar with Barnes’ and Arnezeder’s work, their performance as the younger couple in Irons’ story had a genuine connection. And while this love story does not seem to be anything new when it comes to film, it served its purpose by strengthening the other stories, showing how a great story can be mused from someplace unexpected, even if only once.
With Rory now confronted with his deceitful success, he struggles to decide how to make things right and live with himself as a fraud. It’s at this point the film subtly suggest that Hammond’s story of Rory may actually be a disguised autobiography.
As Rory, Bradley Cooper gives perhaps his best performance to date. I feel that despite his poor and deceitful decision, at no point does he lose the audience. With the help of a strong and emotionally charged performance by Zoe Saldana, we experience Cooper’s honest plight and can understand the events that unfold around him. He is effective as a man who genuinely believes he does not deserve the success that he stole. Without a doubt, this will be a surprising role for those fans who only know Cooper from the humorous characters he plays in The Hangover and most recently Hit and Run. I hope this is the beginning of growth in his craft beyond the charming, confident character we have seen in Limitless and perhaps into a deeper emotional actor.
The weakest part of this film is the story of Clay Hammond and Daniella. Dennis Quaid is quite unlikable as Hammond. He is monotone in his readings and the prose of his story is mediocre at best. While the film drops hints that Hammond’s story of Rory is autobiographical it makes sense that Quaid’s character is played this way. He succeeds in helping create the notion that Hammond is unworthy of the success his character has enjoyed. But something about his performance is so unlikable that even when his character has a redeeming moment, it is lost on an audience that may not care enough about him for it to work.
To add to this dislike of Quaid, Olivia Wilde seems out of place as the character Daniella. It is not that her performance is bad, it is just that every time they showed her as the starry-eyed fan who is love struck for Hammond, she just seemed out of place. Additionally there did not seem to be any connection between Daniella and Hammond in the way the other characters’ connections helped strengthen their performances.
In the end, I enjoyed this movie more than I expected. Visually the Montreal backdrop does an excellent job as both New York and Paris. And the continual piano score helps blend the stories. The simple focus on the main characters helped maintain the three different stories and keep the overall pacing of the movie in order. In addition, the solid to exceptional performances also helped to keep the film focused and avoided the empty shell of characters that most movies of this nature create. That being said, this movie is not for everyone, but those looking for a change of pace from the summer blockbusters season should consider this film.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Cinderella is Dead in Books
Jun 6, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Thank you to Netgalley and Kalynn Bayron for giving me the opportunity to read an advance copy of Cinderella is Dead in exchange for an honest review.
With such a strong title to a novel, it’s easy to predict that an author would struggle to maintain the sense of danger and mystery that is immediately evoked. However, as Kalynn Bayron opens on the revelation that Cinderella has been dead for 200 years and introduces us to two young women hiding from those who are sure to kill them, I think it is safe to say that she has the drama side of things covered!
The kingdom of Mersaille was once ruled by none other than Prince Charming and Cinderella. After her untimely death, Cinderella’s tale is held in almost biblical stature for generations, with young girls reciting it each night in preparation for their own chance to attend an annual ball once they turn 16 and wishing for their own fairy godmother to grant their happily ever after.
However, as the reader enters the town of Lille 200 years later, we witness that life within the kingdom is far from that of a fairytale. The balls that act as a tribute to Cinderella are mandatory meat markets with lecherous “suitors”, domestic violence and the suppression of women is commonplace and the ruler, Prince Manford, thrives on the power, fear and violence.
The reader witnesses this abysmal society through Bayron’s use of a first-person perspective: that of our protagonist Sophia. Sophia is everything a modern protagonist should be: she questions the unjust world around her and, having just turned 16 is preparing to attend her first ball, not with excitement, but with trepidation.
Sophia reveals to the reader that a girl only has three chances to be chosen by a suitor at the ball, after that she is considered forfeit, taken away from her family in disgrace and placed either into a workhouse or service. Men, however, are under no such conditions: they can attend balls when they wish and can choose a number of girls if they want to. Many girls’ singular hope is to be chosen by a good man at the ball, one who will not beat her, perhaps even one who will take them away from Lille. This is not enough for Sophia, she wants more for her life and, as she says herself:
“I don’t want to be saved by some knight in shining armor. I’d like to be the one in the armor, and I’d like to be the one doing the saving.”
At the beginning of the book, Sophia’s main gripe with the society she lives in is that it will not allow her to be with Erin, the girl she loves. As the book continues, the underlying theme of the rights and treatment of women strengthens, along with Sophia, but the first few pages at least are centered on the teenage relationship between Sophia and Erin.
What I absolutely adored about Bayron’s writing style here is the complete lack of shock or awe in this relationship: it is mentioned right from the start and at no point in this novel does Sophia “come out”, there is simply no need. All those around Sophia, who know her and care for her, are aware of her feelings for Erin and, although Sophia is occasionally referred to as “different”, the author chooses to abolish any unnecessary labels within her novel.
Unfortunately, Bayron does not have an easy ride in store for Sophia: reeling from a firm separation from Erin, Sophia is cast a lifeline, an “easy way out” in the form of a local boy who is also “different”. Sadly, this option is quickly and dramatically ripped away from her: forcing her to find her strength pretty damn quickly as she begins a life as an outlaw.
Along her path, Sophia meets two strong female characters: Constance and Amina. Although, wildly different, both these women play a significant role in Sophia’s self-discovery.
Amina is as far from the traditional fairy godmother image as you can get and, although she feels guilt for her previous actions, it takes meeting Sophia for her to recognise her previous denial and to help change the way of the world. Amina is a protector to Sophia right to the end, in her own unique way.
Constance, what can we say about Constance? I defy anyone to read this book and not fall in love with this girl! Constance possesses the strength that Sophia does not yet recognise within herself; she is fiery and, as a descendant of an “evil stepsister”, leads a resistance movement to uncover and publicise the truth about the real tale of Cinderella. Despite, technically saving Sophia towards the beginning of the story, Constance is not Sophia’s saviour: nor is Sophia the saviour; however, the power that they find together is monumental.
Constance is a complete juxtaposition to Erin: whereas Erin accepts the rules of society out of fear for herself and her family, Constance actively rebels against them. It is almost as if they represent the paths Sophia has to choose from. Nevertheless, along their adventure, Sophia and Constance’s relationship strengthens into love. This is no fairytale, love at first sight deal though! If anything, the slow-burning romance between the two made it more believable and I really appreciated that Sophia didn’t just rebound due to Erin’s choices: she had been burnt and she was still unsure of her own feelings never mind anyone else’s.
At the hands of Bayron, Sophia experiences heartbreak, friendship, murder, love and conspiracy: she is on the brink of danger too many times to count and is constantly second guessing who she can trust. Yet, it is clear that the author adores her main character: Sophia’s journey to realise that she is enough is incredible and the strength that she finds within herself is inspirational. Sophia is also surrounded by a cast of strong female characters: there are no Prince Charming’s in this novel that’s for sure!
I wasn’t that far into this book when I decided I need to read more of Kalynn Bayron’s work. I love how there are no chapters in this novel, we are taken on this relentless journey with Sophia: the reader is not given a chance to stop and take stock, reflect or rest until it is all over and this creates the tensest experience. Even we don’t know who to trust towards the end!
‘Cinderella is Dead’ is powerful, thought-provoking and is constantly leaving the reader guessing. On a basic level the novel deals with violence, love, politics and a little bit of necromancy thrown in there for good measure. However, the intelligent writing as well as the massive plot twist and the subjects of LGBTQ love, women’s rights and domestic violence lifts this novel from that basic level into, what I predict could be a bestseller.
With such a strong title to a novel, it’s easy to predict that an author would struggle to maintain the sense of danger and mystery that is immediately evoked. However, as Kalynn Bayron opens on the revelation that Cinderella has been dead for 200 years and introduces us to two young women hiding from those who are sure to kill them, I think it is safe to say that she has the drama side of things covered!
The kingdom of Mersaille was once ruled by none other than Prince Charming and Cinderella. After her untimely death, Cinderella’s tale is held in almost biblical stature for generations, with young girls reciting it each night in preparation for their own chance to attend an annual ball once they turn 16 and wishing for their own fairy godmother to grant their happily ever after.
However, as the reader enters the town of Lille 200 years later, we witness that life within the kingdom is far from that of a fairytale. The balls that act as a tribute to Cinderella are mandatory meat markets with lecherous “suitors”, domestic violence and the suppression of women is commonplace and the ruler, Prince Manford, thrives on the power, fear and violence.
The reader witnesses this abysmal society through Bayron’s use of a first-person perspective: that of our protagonist Sophia. Sophia is everything a modern protagonist should be: she questions the unjust world around her and, having just turned 16 is preparing to attend her first ball, not with excitement, but with trepidation.
Sophia reveals to the reader that a girl only has three chances to be chosen by a suitor at the ball, after that she is considered forfeit, taken away from her family in disgrace and placed either into a workhouse or service. Men, however, are under no such conditions: they can attend balls when they wish and can choose a number of girls if they want to. Many girls’ singular hope is to be chosen by a good man at the ball, one who will not beat her, perhaps even one who will take them away from Lille. This is not enough for Sophia, she wants more for her life and, as she says herself:
“I don’t want to be saved by some knight in shining armor. I’d like to be the one in the armor, and I’d like to be the one doing the saving.”
At the beginning of the book, Sophia’s main gripe with the society she lives in is that it will not allow her to be with Erin, the girl she loves. As the book continues, the underlying theme of the rights and treatment of women strengthens, along with Sophia, but the first few pages at least are centered on the teenage relationship between Sophia and Erin.
What I absolutely adored about Bayron’s writing style here is the complete lack of shock or awe in this relationship: it is mentioned right from the start and at no point in this novel does Sophia “come out”, there is simply no need. All those around Sophia, who know her and care for her, are aware of her feelings for Erin and, although Sophia is occasionally referred to as “different”, the author chooses to abolish any unnecessary labels within her novel.
Unfortunately, Bayron does not have an easy ride in store for Sophia: reeling from a firm separation from Erin, Sophia is cast a lifeline, an “easy way out” in the form of a local boy who is also “different”. Sadly, this option is quickly and dramatically ripped away from her: forcing her to find her strength pretty damn quickly as she begins a life as an outlaw.
Along her path, Sophia meets two strong female characters: Constance and Amina. Although, wildly different, both these women play a significant role in Sophia’s self-discovery.
Amina is as far from the traditional fairy godmother image as you can get and, although she feels guilt for her previous actions, it takes meeting Sophia for her to recognise her previous denial and to help change the way of the world. Amina is a protector to Sophia right to the end, in her own unique way.
Constance, what can we say about Constance? I defy anyone to read this book and not fall in love with this girl! Constance possesses the strength that Sophia does not yet recognise within herself; she is fiery and, as a descendant of an “evil stepsister”, leads a resistance movement to uncover and publicise the truth about the real tale of Cinderella. Despite, technically saving Sophia towards the beginning of the story, Constance is not Sophia’s saviour: nor is Sophia the saviour; however, the power that they find together is monumental.
Constance is a complete juxtaposition to Erin: whereas Erin accepts the rules of society out of fear for herself and her family, Constance actively rebels against them. It is almost as if they represent the paths Sophia has to choose from. Nevertheless, along their adventure, Sophia and Constance’s relationship strengthens into love. This is no fairytale, love at first sight deal though! If anything, the slow-burning romance between the two made it more believable and I really appreciated that Sophia didn’t just rebound due to Erin’s choices: she had been burnt and she was still unsure of her own feelings never mind anyone else’s.
At the hands of Bayron, Sophia experiences heartbreak, friendship, murder, love and conspiracy: she is on the brink of danger too many times to count and is constantly second guessing who she can trust. Yet, it is clear that the author adores her main character: Sophia’s journey to realise that she is enough is incredible and the strength that she finds within herself is inspirational. Sophia is also surrounded by a cast of strong female characters: there are no Prince Charming’s in this novel that’s for sure!
I wasn’t that far into this book when I decided I need to read more of Kalynn Bayron’s work. I love how there are no chapters in this novel, we are taken on this relentless journey with Sophia: the reader is not given a chance to stop and take stock, reflect or rest until it is all over and this creates the tensest experience. Even we don’t know who to trust towards the end!
‘Cinderella is Dead’ is powerful, thought-provoking and is constantly leaving the reader guessing. On a basic level the novel deals with violence, love, politics and a little bit of necromancy thrown in there for good measure. However, the intelligent writing as well as the massive plot twist and the subjects of LGBTQ love, women’s rights and domestic violence lifts this novel from that basic level into, what I predict could be a bestseller.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
He captured a feeling. Sky with no ceiling.
A memorable event
I am a child of the 60’s, born in 1961. The “Space Race” for me was not some historical concept but a pervasive backdrop to my childhood. I still recall, at the age of 8, being marched into my junior school’s assembly hall. We all peered at the grainy black-and-white pictures of Neil Armstrong as he spoke his famously fluffed line before stepping onto the lunar surface. The event happened at 3:54am UK time, so clearly my recollection of “seeing it live” is bogus. (I read that the BBC stayed on air until 10:30 in the morning, so it was probably a ‘final review’ of the night’s events I saw). It is probably lodged in my memory less for the historical event and more due to the fact that there was TELEVISION ON IN THE MORNING! (Kids, ask your grandparents!)
A very personal connection. My personal copy of Waddington’s “Blast Off” board game, briefly shown in the film.
The plot
But back to Damien Chazelle‘s film. We start early in the 60’s with America getting well and truly kicked up the proberbial by the Russians in the space race: they fail to get the first man in space; they fail to carry out the first spacewalk. So the Americans, following the famous JFK speech, set their sights on the moon. It’s the equivalent of making a mess of cutting your toenails but then deciding to have a go at brain surgery. NASA develop the Gemini programme to practice the essential docking manoevers required as a precursor for the seemingly impossible (‘two blackboard’) mission that is Apollo.
But the price paid for such ambition is high.
Ryan Gosling plays Neil Armstrong as a dedicated, prickly, professional; altogether not a terribly likeable individual. Claire Foy plays his long-suffering wife Janet, putting her support for her husband’s dangerous profession ahead of her natural fears of becoming a single mother.
Review
There is obviously little tension to be mined from a film that has such a well-known historical context. Those with even a subliminal knowledge of the subject will be aware of the key triumphs and tragedies along the way. The script (by Josh Singer, “The Post“; “Spotlight“) is very well done in developing a creeping dread of knowing what is shortly to come.
Even with these inherent spoilers, Chazelle still manages to evoke armrest-squeezing tension into the space flight sequences. A lot of this is achieved through disorientating camera movements and flashing images that may irritate some but I found to be highly effective. (Did anyone else flash back to that excellent “Mission Space” ride at Epcot during the launch sequences?) This hand-held cinematography by Linus Sandgren (Chazelle’s “La La Land” collaborator) is matched by some utterly drop-dead gorgeous shots – beautifully framed; beautifully lit – that would be worthy of a Kaminski/Spielberg collaboration.
Those expecting a rollercoaster thrill-ride of the likes of “Apollo 13” will be disappointed. The film has more of the slow-and-long-burn feeling of “The Right Stuff” in mood and, at 141 minutes, some might even find it quite boring. There is significant time, for example, spent within the family home. These scenes include turbulent events of which I wasn’t previously aware: events that form the cornerstone of the film’s drama. For me, the balance of the personal and the historical background was perfectly done. I found it curious though that with such a family-oriented drama Chazelle chose to ditch completely any cuts away to the earthbound onlookers during the tense lunar landing sequence. (Compare and contrast with Ron Howard‘s masterly inter-cutting in the re-entry scene of “Apollo 13”). With the outcome foretold, perhaps such tension building was considered unnecessary? I’m not suggesting it was wrong to ‘stay in the moment’ with the astronauts, but it’s a bold directorial move.
Overall, the foolhardiness of NASA trying to do what they did with the 60’s technology at their disposal is well-portrayed. If you’ve been lucky enough, as I have, to view the Apollo 11 capsule in the National Air and Space museum in Washington you can’t help but be impressed by the bravery of Armstong, Aldrin and Collins in getting in that bucket of bolts and putting their lives on the line. True American heroes.
On that topic, the “flag issue” has generated much self-righteous heat within the US media; that is regarding Chazelle not showing the American flag being planted. This seems fatuous to me. Not only is the flag shown on the moon, but the film ably demonstrates the American know-how and bravery behind the mission. If Clint Eastwood had been directing he would have probably gone there: but for me it certainly didn’t need any further patriotism rubbed in the viewer’s face.
The turns
Are Oscar nominations on the cards for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? For me, it would be staggering if they are not: this film has “Oscar nomination” written all over it. I’d also certainly not bet against Foy winning for Best Actress: her portrayal of a wife on the edge is nothing short of brilliant. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might be Gosling’s year too.
Elsewhere there are strong supporting performances from Kyle Chandler (as Deke Slayton), Corey Stoll (as the ‘tell it how it is’ Buzz Aldrin) and Jason Clarke (as Ed White). It’s also great to see Belfast-born Ciarán Hinds in another mainstream Hollywood release.
For me, another dead cert Oscar nomination will be Justin Hurwitz for the score which is breathtakingly brilliant, not just in its compelling themes but also in its orchestration: the use of the eerie theremin and melodic harp are just brilliant together. I haven’t heard a score this year that’s more fitting to the visuals: although it’s early in the Oscar season to be calling it, I’d be very surprised if this didn’t walk away with the statuette.
Summary
Loved this. Damien Chazelle – with “Whiplash“, “La La Land” and now “First Man” – has hit all of three out of the park in my book. It’s not really a film for thrill-seekers, who might get bored, but anyone, like me, with an interest in the history of space exploration will I think lap it up: for this was surely the most memorable decade in space history… so far.
On leaving the cinema I looked up at the rising moon and marvelled once more at the audacity of man. My eyes then drifted across to the red dot that was Mars. How long I wonder? And how many dramatic film biographies still to come?
I am a child of the 60’s, born in 1961. The “Space Race” for me was not some historical concept but a pervasive backdrop to my childhood. I still recall, at the age of 8, being marched into my junior school’s assembly hall. We all peered at the grainy black-and-white pictures of Neil Armstrong as he spoke his famously fluffed line before stepping onto the lunar surface. The event happened at 3:54am UK time, so clearly my recollection of “seeing it live” is bogus. (I read that the BBC stayed on air until 10:30 in the morning, so it was probably a ‘final review’ of the night’s events I saw). It is probably lodged in my memory less for the historical event and more due to the fact that there was TELEVISION ON IN THE MORNING! (Kids, ask your grandparents!)
A very personal connection. My personal copy of Waddington’s “Blast Off” board game, briefly shown in the film.
The plot
But back to Damien Chazelle‘s film. We start early in the 60’s with America getting well and truly kicked up the proberbial by the Russians in the space race: they fail to get the first man in space; they fail to carry out the first spacewalk. So the Americans, following the famous JFK speech, set their sights on the moon. It’s the equivalent of making a mess of cutting your toenails but then deciding to have a go at brain surgery. NASA develop the Gemini programme to practice the essential docking manoevers required as a precursor for the seemingly impossible (‘two blackboard’) mission that is Apollo.
But the price paid for such ambition is high.
Ryan Gosling plays Neil Armstrong as a dedicated, prickly, professional; altogether not a terribly likeable individual. Claire Foy plays his long-suffering wife Janet, putting her support for her husband’s dangerous profession ahead of her natural fears of becoming a single mother.
Review
There is obviously little tension to be mined from a film that has such a well-known historical context. Those with even a subliminal knowledge of the subject will be aware of the key triumphs and tragedies along the way. The script (by Josh Singer, “The Post“; “Spotlight“) is very well done in developing a creeping dread of knowing what is shortly to come.
Even with these inherent spoilers, Chazelle still manages to evoke armrest-squeezing tension into the space flight sequences. A lot of this is achieved through disorientating camera movements and flashing images that may irritate some but I found to be highly effective. (Did anyone else flash back to that excellent “Mission Space” ride at Epcot during the launch sequences?) This hand-held cinematography by Linus Sandgren (Chazelle’s “La La Land” collaborator) is matched by some utterly drop-dead gorgeous shots – beautifully framed; beautifully lit – that would be worthy of a Kaminski/Spielberg collaboration.
Those expecting a rollercoaster thrill-ride of the likes of “Apollo 13” will be disappointed. The film has more of the slow-and-long-burn feeling of “The Right Stuff” in mood and, at 141 minutes, some might even find it quite boring. There is significant time, for example, spent within the family home. These scenes include turbulent events of which I wasn’t previously aware: events that form the cornerstone of the film’s drama. For me, the balance of the personal and the historical background was perfectly done. I found it curious though that with such a family-oriented drama Chazelle chose to ditch completely any cuts away to the earthbound onlookers during the tense lunar landing sequence. (Compare and contrast with Ron Howard‘s masterly inter-cutting in the re-entry scene of “Apollo 13”). With the outcome foretold, perhaps such tension building was considered unnecessary? I’m not suggesting it was wrong to ‘stay in the moment’ with the astronauts, but it’s a bold directorial move.
Overall, the foolhardiness of NASA trying to do what they did with the 60’s technology at their disposal is well-portrayed. If you’ve been lucky enough, as I have, to view the Apollo 11 capsule in the National Air and Space museum in Washington you can’t help but be impressed by the bravery of Armstong, Aldrin and Collins in getting in that bucket of bolts and putting their lives on the line. True American heroes.
On that topic, the “flag issue” has generated much self-righteous heat within the US media; that is regarding Chazelle not showing the American flag being planted. This seems fatuous to me. Not only is the flag shown on the moon, but the film ably demonstrates the American know-how and bravery behind the mission. If Clint Eastwood had been directing he would have probably gone there: but for me it certainly didn’t need any further patriotism rubbed in the viewer’s face.
The turns
Are Oscar nominations on the cards for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? For me, it would be staggering if they are not: this film has “Oscar nomination” written all over it. I’d also certainly not bet against Foy winning for Best Actress: her portrayal of a wife on the edge is nothing short of brilliant. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might be Gosling’s year too.
Elsewhere there are strong supporting performances from Kyle Chandler (as Deke Slayton), Corey Stoll (as the ‘tell it how it is’ Buzz Aldrin) and Jason Clarke (as Ed White). It’s also great to see Belfast-born Ciarán Hinds in another mainstream Hollywood release.
For me, another dead cert Oscar nomination will be Justin Hurwitz for the score which is breathtakingly brilliant, not just in its compelling themes but also in its orchestration: the use of the eerie theremin and melodic harp are just brilliant together. I haven’t heard a score this year that’s more fitting to the visuals: although it’s early in the Oscar season to be calling it, I’d be very surprised if this didn’t walk away with the statuette.
Summary
Loved this. Damien Chazelle – with “Whiplash“, “La La Land” and now “First Man” – has hit all of three out of the park in my book. It’s not really a film for thrill-seekers, who might get bored, but anyone, like me, with an interest in the history of space exploration will I think lap it up: for this was surely the most memorable decade in space history… so far.
On leaving the cinema I looked up at the rising moon and marvelled once more at the audacity of man. My eyes then drifted across to the red dot that was Mars. How long I wonder? And how many dramatic film biographies still to come?
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Kim-Joy's Magic Bakery in Tabletop Games
Apr 8, 2022
A magical bakery in a forest co-owned by a quirky board game loving contestant on The Great British Bake Off? If there was ever a game specifically designed for my wife, this is it. She loves baking, cute card games, and that super-famous show (she was always a fan of Mary Berry). That said, I don’t think I would ever be able to live with myself if I didn’t bring this one home and share it with my wife. Let’s see what we liked and what we didn’t.
Kim-Joy’s Magic Bakery is a cooperative hand management scenario-based card game for two to five players. In it, players are employees of the Magic Bakery and are tasked with baking wondrous items to satisfy a group of customers requesting their favourite (it’s British, I’m just doing my part) dishes. The game ends once all customers have been served or are otherwise no longer in the game. Depending on the current scenario, the group scores points based on how many customers they were able to serve. All players win together or they do not win.
Setup the Customers card deck according to the number of players, shuffle them, and deal out one or two (depending on number of players as well) face up to the table to begin the Customer Row. Do NOT shuffle the Layers cards. Instead, separate them by type and place them all face-up in decks by type. Do shuffle the yellow Ingredients cards and place out five face up (or face down depending on scenario) to form the Pantry Row. Each player draws a starting hand of three Ingredient cards from the deck, and the starting player takes the Kim-Joy standee to begin!
On a turn, the active player will have choices of actions to be taken, in any order they choose, from among the following: take an Ingredient card, pass a card to another player, bake a Layer, fulfill a Customer order, or refresh the Pantry. Depending on the number of players, each turn will consist of either two or three actions being taken. Most actions are self-explanatory, but I will give a quick hit to them all. The active player may see an interesting Ingredient card in the offer row and may simply draw it into their hand for an action. Once the player has enough Ingredients to bake a Layer (by discarding the requisite Ingredient cards) they may do so for an action. If the player has a card they believe another player could utilize, they may simply pass them that card as an action – either Ingredient or Layer. The goal of the game is help fulfill customer orders, so by using an action to fulfill an order, the player discards all the necessary cards and helps the group inch one step closer to victory. At a loss and need a suggestion for an action? Discard all cards from the Ingredient Row and draw new ones.
Once each player has completed their actions, the Customer Row is shifted one space to the right and a new Customer comes into the bakery. The bakery can only accommodate three customers, so if a new hungry Customer visits, they force out the Customer who has been there the longest, and the players lose the opportunity to serve that (possibly irate) Customer. Play continues in this fashion of players completing actions working toward satisfying as many Customers as possible until there are no more Customers in the deck nor in the bakery. Players then count the number of Customers they served, and score points according to the goals set by the scenario card! As the game typically takes 15-30 minutes, player usually request another try, so be prepared for that eventuality.
Components. This is simply a card game that includes an unnecessary, but cute, standee to mark the starting player. The cards are nice, and come in two sizes. Surprisingly, the cards sport a non-linen low-gloss finish (I’m just saying that many games nowadays are linen and as thick as possible) and feature whimsical and wonderful artwork. The game as a whole is very stylish and boasts a super fun theme. I have no issues with the components, artwork, or theme here. It all works together really well.
I will definitely suggest that new bakers player their first game without the added challenges of the scenarios. They throw in some extra complexity and difficulty that younger bakers just will not appreciate. The different scenarios are all very interesting and add in a little wrinkle to the game to make it just that much more intriguing. I have enjoyed all the different scenarios I have played, though I have not played all of them. In time, my dears. In time. Luckily, the designer has aptly seen it fit to include Helpful Duck cards that act as any Ingredient card needed at the time. These little cuties are God-sends in certain situations, and can also be included in more numbers to make scenarios easier to complete.
Being big fans of the show, I knew my wife and I would love this one. It is cute, challenging, but doesn’t try to be much more than what it is. With so many games out there competing to be bigger, more complex, and more aggressive, it is so nice to settle down with a light and jolly little card game like Kim-Joy’s Magic Bakery. I feel like I am working in a bakery while I’m playing – orders are coming in too quickly and I need just one or two more actions each turn to gather ingredients and bake new layers. It’s a really great theme and a really great game regardless of theme. The weight is perfect for young and older players, and good cooperative games that are not susceptible to quarterbacking are sometimes hard to find. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a quite scrumptious 10 / 12. I wonder if Kim-Joy herself plays this game. If so, I officially challenge her to play with my wife and I… and maybe show us a couple tricks in the actual bakery as well. I could go for a killer Chocolate Bombe, Millionaire’s Shortbread, or a vegetarian Old Fashioned Trifle! And if you get THAT joke, my brother will love you.
Kim-Joy’s Magic Bakery is a cooperative hand management scenario-based card game for two to five players. In it, players are employees of the Magic Bakery and are tasked with baking wondrous items to satisfy a group of customers requesting their favourite (it’s British, I’m just doing my part) dishes. The game ends once all customers have been served or are otherwise no longer in the game. Depending on the current scenario, the group scores points based on how many customers they were able to serve. All players win together or they do not win.
Setup the Customers card deck according to the number of players, shuffle them, and deal out one or two (depending on number of players as well) face up to the table to begin the Customer Row. Do NOT shuffle the Layers cards. Instead, separate them by type and place them all face-up in decks by type. Do shuffle the yellow Ingredients cards and place out five face up (or face down depending on scenario) to form the Pantry Row. Each player draws a starting hand of three Ingredient cards from the deck, and the starting player takes the Kim-Joy standee to begin!
On a turn, the active player will have choices of actions to be taken, in any order they choose, from among the following: take an Ingredient card, pass a card to another player, bake a Layer, fulfill a Customer order, or refresh the Pantry. Depending on the number of players, each turn will consist of either two or three actions being taken. Most actions are self-explanatory, but I will give a quick hit to them all. The active player may see an interesting Ingredient card in the offer row and may simply draw it into their hand for an action. Once the player has enough Ingredients to bake a Layer (by discarding the requisite Ingredient cards) they may do so for an action. If the player has a card they believe another player could utilize, they may simply pass them that card as an action – either Ingredient or Layer. The goal of the game is help fulfill customer orders, so by using an action to fulfill an order, the player discards all the necessary cards and helps the group inch one step closer to victory. At a loss and need a suggestion for an action? Discard all cards from the Ingredient Row and draw new ones.
Once each player has completed their actions, the Customer Row is shifted one space to the right and a new Customer comes into the bakery. The bakery can only accommodate three customers, so if a new hungry Customer visits, they force out the Customer who has been there the longest, and the players lose the opportunity to serve that (possibly irate) Customer. Play continues in this fashion of players completing actions working toward satisfying as many Customers as possible until there are no more Customers in the deck nor in the bakery. Players then count the number of Customers they served, and score points according to the goals set by the scenario card! As the game typically takes 15-30 minutes, player usually request another try, so be prepared for that eventuality.
Components. This is simply a card game that includes an unnecessary, but cute, standee to mark the starting player. The cards are nice, and come in two sizes. Surprisingly, the cards sport a non-linen low-gloss finish (I’m just saying that many games nowadays are linen and as thick as possible) and feature whimsical and wonderful artwork. The game as a whole is very stylish and boasts a super fun theme. I have no issues with the components, artwork, or theme here. It all works together really well.
I will definitely suggest that new bakers player their first game without the added challenges of the scenarios. They throw in some extra complexity and difficulty that younger bakers just will not appreciate. The different scenarios are all very interesting and add in a little wrinkle to the game to make it just that much more intriguing. I have enjoyed all the different scenarios I have played, though I have not played all of them. In time, my dears. In time. Luckily, the designer has aptly seen it fit to include Helpful Duck cards that act as any Ingredient card needed at the time. These little cuties are God-sends in certain situations, and can also be included in more numbers to make scenarios easier to complete.
Being big fans of the show, I knew my wife and I would love this one. It is cute, challenging, but doesn’t try to be much more than what it is. With so many games out there competing to be bigger, more complex, and more aggressive, it is so nice to settle down with a light and jolly little card game like Kim-Joy’s Magic Bakery. I feel like I am working in a bakery while I’m playing – orders are coming in too quickly and I need just one or two more actions each turn to gather ingredients and bake new layers. It’s a really great theme and a really great game regardless of theme. The weight is perfect for young and older players, and good cooperative games that are not susceptible to quarterbacking are sometimes hard to find. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a quite scrumptious 10 / 12. I wonder if Kim-Joy herself plays this game. If so, I officially challenge her to play with my wife and I… and maybe show us a couple tricks in the actual bakery as well. I could go for a killer Chocolate Bombe, Millionaire’s Shortbread, or a vegetarian Old Fashioned Trifle! And if you get THAT joke, my brother will love you.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Voltage in Tabletop Games
Jan 8, 2022
One thing that I truly love about the board gaming hobby is the ability to discover new games at nearly every turn. Just when I think I’ve seen it all, I come across a post on BGG or a social media game group that blows my mind. Either with unique gameplay, or sweet components, I’m always in awe at how many games are new to me every day. Enter Voltage. I came across this game at The Table when I visited Travis in Tennessee this summer. This game has apparently been around since 2006, but I never came across it until 2021. The box was unassuming on the shelf, but the gameplay seemed interesting. Added bonus: it’s a 2-player game that doesn’t take forever to play, which was perfect for a quick game night out. So I guess I am very late to the Voltage party, but as you can tell from my rating above, I think it’s a pretty stellar game. Keep reading to find out why!
Voltage is a competitive game for 2 players in which players are trying to be the first to earn 4 total points. To setup for the game, place the board between the two players. Take the double-sized Terminal blocks and place them on their corresponding spaces of the board. The starting orientation for the Terminal blocks should read + – – + horizontally across the board. Shuffle the deck of cards and deal 4 to each player. Each player selects a Score Marker and places it on the first space of their score track. Choose a starting player, and the game is ready to begin! Pictured below is the starting setup for a game.
Over a series of turns, players will be playing cards to their corresponding colored Terminals in an attempt to win the set. If the Terminal is set to a + then the player with the highest value will win the set. Alternately, if the Terminal is set to a – then the player with the lowest value will win the set. Cards are played to Terminals until a Terminal has a set of 5 total cards. The Terminal is then scored, the cards used are discarded, and the winning player earns a point. The game continues in this fashion until one player has earned 4 total points.
On your turn, you must perform one of these three actions: Play a card & draw a card, Play 2 cards, or Draw 2 cards. Simple enough, but the strategy is what makes this game. When playing cards to the different Terminals, there are a few placement rules to keep in mind. Of course, you may only play cards to the Terminal of the matching color. You are allowed to play cards on your side of the Terminal, or on your opponent’s side. Now to get to the actions themselves. If you choose to play a card and draw a card, you must do so in that order. If you choose to play 2 cards, you must play both cards on different colors – you cannot play both to the same Terminal. The last action, draw 2 cards, is self-explanatory.
The cards of the game are numbered from 1-3, and are of the 4 Terminal colors. There are 3 types of special cards: Bypass, Blown Fuse, and Transformer. A Bypass card allows you to move a card from your opponent’s side to your side of the Terminal, and a Blown Fuse allows you to remove a card from your opponent’s side completely from play. Both of these types of cards count toward the 5-card maximum of the Terminals, so use them wisely. A Transformer is identified by the card back – if the V logo is colored Yellow. When you draw a Transformer, you must then flip one of the Terminal blocks to its opposite side. Since the draw deck is always visible, you can see when a Transformer card is next, so that could help inform your strategy for your turn. The game continues in this fashion of alternating player turns until one player has earned 4 total points. They are declared the winner!
I have to say that the gameplay of Voltage really surprised me. I went into my first play expecting a light little game, and what I got was so much more. There really is a pretty decent strategic element to this game that caught me a little off guard at first. The gameplay itself seems simple – draw cards, play cards, win sets to earn points. But how you accomplish that is more challenging that it seems. The ability to play cards to your side or your opponent’s allows you to try to tip the scales in your favor. You can’t simply focus on your side alone, you need to keep tabs across the entire board to inform your next move. And then if your opponent draws a Transformer, they could just as easily reverse the polarity of that Terminal and now you’re on the wrong end! When playing 2 cards, they must be played to different colored Terminals, so how can you place your cards so they are most beneficial to you? Do you risk placing the big numbers right away in hopes of winning a + Terminal, or do you play lower-numbered cards in case that Terminal gets flipped? All things to consider throughout the game. Along with the strategy, one thing that I love about Voltage is that there really is no runaway winner each time – the direction of a set can literally change with one card, and neither player can really feel secure during the game. You have to anticipate your opponent’s moves while trying to complete sets that are currently favorable to you. That all being said, I guess there is a bit of a ‘take that’ element in the gameplay that might seem a little aggressive to some players, but that’s kind of just the nature of this head-to-head gameplay.
To touch on components, this game is pretty basic. The cards are nice quality, and the artwork is electrical and thematic. The board itself is nice and thick, and the spaces are all clearly marked. The Terminal blocks are probably my favorite components of this game. They are nice chunky plastic blocks, and the colors are bright neon colors – some of my favorites! For a game with such few components, the quality of them is appreciated.
After playing Voltage with Travis at The Table, I actually came home and found a copy for myself – that’s how much I liked it! I don’t think it’s my all-time favorite 2-player game yet, but it’s certainly working its way up the list…. If you’re in the market for a fast, yet strategic, 2-player game, I would highly recommend giving Voltage a try. The simplicity of the gameplay coupled with the vast strategic options makes for an engaging and entertaining game. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an electrifying 9 / 12.
Voltage is a competitive game for 2 players in which players are trying to be the first to earn 4 total points. To setup for the game, place the board between the two players. Take the double-sized Terminal blocks and place them on their corresponding spaces of the board. The starting orientation for the Terminal blocks should read + – – + horizontally across the board. Shuffle the deck of cards and deal 4 to each player. Each player selects a Score Marker and places it on the first space of their score track. Choose a starting player, and the game is ready to begin! Pictured below is the starting setup for a game.
Over a series of turns, players will be playing cards to their corresponding colored Terminals in an attempt to win the set. If the Terminal is set to a + then the player with the highest value will win the set. Alternately, if the Terminal is set to a – then the player with the lowest value will win the set. Cards are played to Terminals until a Terminal has a set of 5 total cards. The Terminal is then scored, the cards used are discarded, and the winning player earns a point. The game continues in this fashion until one player has earned 4 total points.
On your turn, you must perform one of these three actions: Play a card & draw a card, Play 2 cards, or Draw 2 cards. Simple enough, but the strategy is what makes this game. When playing cards to the different Terminals, there are a few placement rules to keep in mind. Of course, you may only play cards to the Terminal of the matching color. You are allowed to play cards on your side of the Terminal, or on your opponent’s side. Now to get to the actions themselves. If you choose to play a card and draw a card, you must do so in that order. If you choose to play 2 cards, you must play both cards on different colors – you cannot play both to the same Terminal. The last action, draw 2 cards, is self-explanatory.
The cards of the game are numbered from 1-3, and are of the 4 Terminal colors. There are 3 types of special cards: Bypass, Blown Fuse, and Transformer. A Bypass card allows you to move a card from your opponent’s side to your side of the Terminal, and a Blown Fuse allows you to remove a card from your opponent’s side completely from play. Both of these types of cards count toward the 5-card maximum of the Terminals, so use them wisely. A Transformer is identified by the card back – if the V logo is colored Yellow. When you draw a Transformer, you must then flip one of the Terminal blocks to its opposite side. Since the draw deck is always visible, you can see when a Transformer card is next, so that could help inform your strategy for your turn. The game continues in this fashion of alternating player turns until one player has earned 4 total points. They are declared the winner!
I have to say that the gameplay of Voltage really surprised me. I went into my first play expecting a light little game, and what I got was so much more. There really is a pretty decent strategic element to this game that caught me a little off guard at first. The gameplay itself seems simple – draw cards, play cards, win sets to earn points. But how you accomplish that is more challenging that it seems. The ability to play cards to your side or your opponent’s allows you to try to tip the scales in your favor. You can’t simply focus on your side alone, you need to keep tabs across the entire board to inform your next move. And then if your opponent draws a Transformer, they could just as easily reverse the polarity of that Terminal and now you’re on the wrong end! When playing 2 cards, they must be played to different colored Terminals, so how can you place your cards so they are most beneficial to you? Do you risk placing the big numbers right away in hopes of winning a + Terminal, or do you play lower-numbered cards in case that Terminal gets flipped? All things to consider throughout the game. Along with the strategy, one thing that I love about Voltage is that there really is no runaway winner each time – the direction of a set can literally change with one card, and neither player can really feel secure during the game. You have to anticipate your opponent’s moves while trying to complete sets that are currently favorable to you. That all being said, I guess there is a bit of a ‘take that’ element in the gameplay that might seem a little aggressive to some players, but that’s kind of just the nature of this head-to-head gameplay.
To touch on components, this game is pretty basic. The cards are nice quality, and the artwork is electrical and thematic. The board itself is nice and thick, and the spaces are all clearly marked. The Terminal blocks are probably my favorite components of this game. They are nice chunky plastic blocks, and the colors are bright neon colors – some of my favorites! For a game with such few components, the quality of them is appreciated.
After playing Voltage with Travis at The Table, I actually came home and found a copy for myself – that’s how much I liked it! I don’t think it’s my all-time favorite 2-player game yet, but it’s certainly working its way up the list…. If you’re in the market for a fast, yet strategic, 2-player game, I would highly recommend giving Voltage a try. The simplicity of the gameplay coupled with the vast strategic options makes for an engaging and entertaining game. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an electrifying 9 / 12.
Rest by Charlotte Gainsbourg
7.0
Rate It
Album Watch
Sometimes it takes a personal tragedy to catalyse an artist’s practise, a crack in everything, to...
Pop