Search
Search results
Inky Books (3 KP) rated The Queen of the Tearling in Books
Jun 21, 2018
Here’s the book I’ve been looking for! I’ve been waiting and searching and looking for a book that would hold my interest long enough to get through it. While I listened to the book instead of reading it because of the little time I have because of school and work (six classes plus 20 hours a week, why do I do this to myself?) plus trying to train my new puppy, I just haven’t had enough time to sleep, let alone read a book. So listening to books on my 1 hour + commute to and from school and work six days a week was the only option.
I’m so glad I found this book because I could borrow it right away from the library. I had seen it, decided a few times not to buy the book because of the books I still haven’t read, so I just jumped at the chance.
So, let us start at the beginning. It was slow to start. I wasn’t connected to any of the characters, I didn’t have much of an interest other than just entertainment. There were a lot of people introduced at once and I had a hard time keeping them straight at first. Over time the characters got sorted out and each had their own personality.
This book was told from a few different perspectives, but for the most part it added important details to the story. It was interesting to see the thoughts of some people other than Kelsea, and it rounded out the story better than if it would have been just her perspective.
However, with the change in perspectives I found that I had a few issues with one character in particular. Javel is a complicated character, and not in the way most people like. His inner monologue has him come off as a strong character, one that doesn’t take crap. His actions and words tell a completely different story. Javel is a weak man. I was very unimpressed with his character and his story until the very, very end. He only had that one redeeming quality, but it paled against everything else about him.
Kelsea is a character I can defiantly stand behind, though there are two things that irked me. This is more about the writing of the book than it is about Kelsea herself, but that fact that she’s plain, not beautiful, was mentioned so often that I got very annoyed. She’s not as beautiful as her mother was, so what? She looked plain standing next to this woman. Yeah, so what’s your point? I get that she is plain but it doesn’t need to be mentioned multiple times in the first chapter and at least once in all the other chapters. The second was that she sees beauty as vanity. Just because a women is beautiful doesn’t mean she’s automatically a rival or that she’s worthless. It annoyed me that every woman was more beautiful than Kelsea could have imagined. Yeah, well get used to it. You’re the queen now, you’re going to be surrounded by beautiful people.
The one other issue I had was with the timing of everything. I can’t get a sense of how long it was from the begging of the book to the end, and it jumps forward weeks ahead with little explanation.
Despite those problems that I have with the book I really enjoyed it. Very rarely do I get to read about queens taking their keep by storm and upturning everything in her wake. Usually Princesses or other random girls are the main character, and this made me happy. It gave me an insight to what her life was like as queen without boring me.
The plot twist was rather predictable, I had it figured out from halfway through the book, but the way it was handled in the end was interesting.
This author isn’t afraid of killing her characters or going into details most would just briefly skim over. It was refreshing. I can’t wait to listen to or read the next book to see what happens from here!
I’m so glad I found this book because I could borrow it right away from the library. I had seen it, decided a few times not to buy the book because of the books I still haven’t read, so I just jumped at the chance.
So, let us start at the beginning. It was slow to start. I wasn’t connected to any of the characters, I didn’t have much of an interest other than just entertainment. There were a lot of people introduced at once and I had a hard time keeping them straight at first. Over time the characters got sorted out and each had their own personality.
This book was told from a few different perspectives, but for the most part it added important details to the story. It was interesting to see the thoughts of some people other than Kelsea, and it rounded out the story better than if it would have been just her perspective.
However, with the change in perspectives I found that I had a few issues with one character in particular. Javel is a complicated character, and not in the way most people like. His inner monologue has him come off as a strong character, one that doesn’t take crap. His actions and words tell a completely different story. Javel is a weak man. I was very unimpressed with his character and his story until the very, very end. He only had that one redeeming quality, but it paled against everything else about him.
Kelsea is a character I can defiantly stand behind, though there are two things that irked me. This is more about the writing of the book than it is about Kelsea herself, but that fact that she’s plain, not beautiful, was mentioned so often that I got very annoyed. She’s not as beautiful as her mother was, so what? She looked plain standing next to this woman. Yeah, so what’s your point? I get that she is plain but it doesn’t need to be mentioned multiple times in the first chapter and at least once in all the other chapters. The second was that she sees beauty as vanity. Just because a women is beautiful doesn’t mean she’s automatically a rival or that she’s worthless. It annoyed me that every woman was more beautiful than Kelsea could have imagined. Yeah, well get used to it. You’re the queen now, you’re going to be surrounded by beautiful people.
The one other issue I had was with the timing of everything. I can’t get a sense of how long it was from the begging of the book to the end, and it jumps forward weeks ahead with little explanation.
Despite those problems that I have with the book I really enjoyed it. Very rarely do I get to read about queens taking their keep by storm and upturning everything in her wake. Usually Princesses or other random girls are the main character, and this made me happy. It gave me an insight to what her life was like as queen without boring me.
The plot twist was rather predictable, I had it figured out from halfway through the book, but the way it was handled in the end was interesting.
This author isn’t afraid of killing her characters or going into details most would just briefly skim over. It was refreshing. I can’t wait to listen to or read the next book to see what happens from here!
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The House by the Cemetery in Books
Jan 31, 2019 (Updated Feb 2, 2019)
I have a love-hate relationship with The House by the Cemetery by John Everson, and it’s really tearing me apart. I absolutely enjoyed the story itself, but there’s a few issues, one of which is a huge red flag, that I simply can’t allow to go unspoken–and if other reviews are any clue, I’m not the only one that’s immensely bothered by it.
The story involves a witch that died in 1963, a haunted house, a haunted house attraction, and a lot of characters (too many to keep track of without a notebook, actually). Hired to repair the haunted house so that guests can safely walk through it, Mike Kostner spends much of his time drinking beer and talking with the girls, Katie and Emery. At the same time, Jeanie’s been hired on as a makeup artist for the upcoming attraction and drags her boyfriend, Bong, into it. Then there’s Jillie and Ted, paranormal investigators. And then there are three other groups of people to form more members of the cast, which I found to be extremely overwhelming.
At this point in my review, I usually talk about characters and their development, what I like about them, what I don’t, etc. In this case, I can’t really do that. The only character I managed to forge any sort of emotional connection with was Jeanie, and it’s mainly sympathetic. As for the rest of the roles played, I’m largely disappointed. Why? Because there’s a severe lack of sensitivity in this novel–which has been mentioned in several other reviews. There are four characters whose sole defining characteristic is either their race or their weight. There’s no depth given beyond that to them as an individual. The remarks dealing with weight are largely shaming and those dealing with race are stereotypical. And here’s where I’m going to take a moment to discuss the character Bong, which I feel is the most blatant insult to another race’s customs that I’ve seen in a long time.
Bong’s full name is Bong-soon Mon. Phonetically, that sounds a lot like “bong soon man.” It’s not overly obvious if you’re not familiar with Korean names, and Bong-soon is an actual name used in the drama Strong Woman Do Bong Soon. However, in this case, Everson shortens Bong-soon, which is actually the character’s name (whether it’s his first or last, I’m not sure), to Bong. Thus he makes it more of a laughing matter (really, it’s not funny), whether it’s intentional or unintentional. Usually I’m not sensitive to these types of material, but in this book the way it comes across is really bothersome and, like several other readers, I agree with the idea that this book desperately needs an edit for sensitivity. Please bear in mind that I read an arc of this book and so I’m not sure if any of these issues were addressed in the final publication.
EDIT: After speaking with the author, he explained to me that the reason he shortened the name as he did comes from personal experience with someone that had the same name, and what they went by. Everson also assured me it was not his intent to fat shame those characters. I really appreciate that he reached out to me, and feel it's important that my misconception be corrected, but not hidden.
Plotwise, I adored this book. I can’t go too much into detail without sharing spoilers, but I can say this: the Everson does have a talent for creating beautifully grisly, albeit somewhat repetitive, scenes. The bloodbath that takes place near the end of the book is a glorious gore-fest that I felt the rest of the story worked up to quite well, even if it crawled earlier on while Mike was working on the house. As for the setting, it’s well written. I liked the idea of a house next to a cemetery, and its easy to infer its age without being told: it’s too close to a turnpike to have been put there before the turnpike was built. I was, however, confused by the juxtaposition of a heavily wooded house and cemetery in close proximity to a city or town, as in my experience turnpikes usually don’t have exits between major locales. At least, not very many present-day ones do, as most of them have been converted to, or created as, a controlled-access highway, where intersecting roads tend to cross over or under so that they do not impede traffic. That said, it strikes me as weird that a single house and cemetery would have an exit from a turnpike.
So I decided to google cemeteries and turnpikes, and what did I find? Bachelor’s Grove Cemetery is an actual haunted locale found in the suburbs of Chicago. And yes, it actually is that close to a turnpike! If you like to watch Ghost Adventures, the cemetery was featured in a 2012 episode. Also, the cemetery is extremely old. Even better? Many of the ghost stories referenced in the book are actual tales surrounding the cemetery. It’s actually pretty fascinating and I wouldn’t even have known about it were it not for Everson’s book.
Overall, I did enjoy reading this book. I loved the homage to horror movies of all types, including lesser known genres. I absolutely adored the way in which some of the characters were manipulated, too. Hence why I stated early in this review that I have a love-hate relationship with it. Because of the lack of sensitivity though, and the way I was made to feel as a reader because of it (I’m overweight, after all), I can’t give it more than three skulls.
I’d like to thank the publisher and NetGalley for providing me with a free copy of this book for review.
The story involves a witch that died in 1963, a haunted house, a haunted house attraction, and a lot of characters (too many to keep track of without a notebook, actually). Hired to repair the haunted house so that guests can safely walk through it, Mike Kostner spends much of his time drinking beer and talking with the girls, Katie and Emery. At the same time, Jeanie’s been hired on as a makeup artist for the upcoming attraction and drags her boyfriend, Bong, into it. Then there’s Jillie and Ted, paranormal investigators. And then there are three other groups of people to form more members of the cast, which I found to be extremely overwhelming.
At this point in my review, I usually talk about characters and their development, what I like about them, what I don’t, etc. In this case, I can’t really do that. The only character I managed to forge any sort of emotional connection with was Jeanie, and it’s mainly sympathetic. As for the rest of the roles played, I’m largely disappointed. Why? Because there’s a severe lack of sensitivity in this novel–which has been mentioned in several other reviews. There are four characters whose sole defining characteristic is either their race or their weight. There’s no depth given beyond that to them as an individual. The remarks dealing with weight are largely shaming and those dealing with race are stereotypical. And here’s where I’m going to take a moment to discuss the character Bong, which I feel is the most blatant insult to another race’s customs that I’ve seen in a long time.
Bong’s full name is Bong-soon Mon. Phonetically, that sounds a lot like “bong soon man.” It’s not overly obvious if you’re not familiar with Korean names, and Bong-soon is an actual name used in the drama Strong Woman Do Bong Soon. However, in this case, Everson shortens Bong-soon, which is actually the character’s name (whether it’s his first or last, I’m not sure), to Bong. Thus he makes it more of a laughing matter (really, it’s not funny), whether it’s intentional or unintentional. Usually I’m not sensitive to these types of material, but in this book the way it comes across is really bothersome and, like several other readers, I agree with the idea that this book desperately needs an edit for sensitivity. Please bear in mind that I read an arc of this book and so I’m not sure if any of these issues were addressed in the final publication.
EDIT: After speaking with the author, he explained to me that the reason he shortened the name as he did comes from personal experience with someone that had the same name, and what they went by. Everson also assured me it was not his intent to fat shame those characters. I really appreciate that he reached out to me, and feel it's important that my misconception be corrected, but not hidden.
Plotwise, I adored this book. I can’t go too much into detail without sharing spoilers, but I can say this: the Everson does have a talent for creating beautifully grisly, albeit somewhat repetitive, scenes. The bloodbath that takes place near the end of the book is a glorious gore-fest that I felt the rest of the story worked up to quite well, even if it crawled earlier on while Mike was working on the house. As for the setting, it’s well written. I liked the idea of a house next to a cemetery, and its easy to infer its age without being told: it’s too close to a turnpike to have been put there before the turnpike was built. I was, however, confused by the juxtaposition of a heavily wooded house and cemetery in close proximity to a city or town, as in my experience turnpikes usually don’t have exits between major locales. At least, not very many present-day ones do, as most of them have been converted to, or created as, a controlled-access highway, where intersecting roads tend to cross over or under so that they do not impede traffic. That said, it strikes me as weird that a single house and cemetery would have an exit from a turnpike.
So I decided to google cemeteries and turnpikes, and what did I find? Bachelor’s Grove Cemetery is an actual haunted locale found in the suburbs of Chicago. And yes, it actually is that close to a turnpike! If you like to watch Ghost Adventures, the cemetery was featured in a 2012 episode. Also, the cemetery is extremely old. Even better? Many of the ghost stories referenced in the book are actual tales surrounding the cemetery. It’s actually pretty fascinating and I wouldn’t even have known about it were it not for Everson’s book.
Overall, I did enjoy reading this book. I loved the homage to horror movies of all types, including lesser known genres. I absolutely adored the way in which some of the characters were manipulated, too. Hence why I stated early in this review that I have a love-hate relationship with it. Because of the lack of sensitivity though, and the way I was made to feel as a reader because of it (I’m overweight, after all), I can’t give it more than three skulls.
I’d like to thank the publisher and NetGalley for providing me with a free copy of this book for review.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated The Road to Canterbury in Tabletop Games
Oct 4, 2021
I am not a sinless man. In fact, it’s been years since I’ve been to confession, and at this point I’m afraid I would be there for hours just spilling the beans. I know many pious people, but alas, I am not one. However, I do appreciate those that attempt to live that holy life. It takes a lot of guts and a lot of hard work. I guess I’m a little slothy when it comes to that, personally. Anyway, I know of the Seven Deadly Sins, Cardinal Sins, Capital Vices, or whatever you’d like to call them. In fact, I really like the movie Seven – I think it’s great! That said, let’s find out just “what’s in the box?”
The Road To Canterbury is a game of medieval hand management and area influence. In it players are false pardoners stalking the road to the city of Canterbury as pilgrims make their way there from London. As their companies run across these pardoners, they are offered the chance to purchase pardons – salvation and forgiveness for their sins. However, these pardoners are also keen to help the pilgrims along the path of sin, thus making their faux pardons worth even more money! The pardoner who ends the game with the most money will win along The Road to Canterbury.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of the Impoverished Pilgrim Edition (2nd edition) game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, follow the rulebook, as there are many components to track. The main areas are the Circle of Sin mat that holds the Parson pawn, the decks area that hold the various decks of cards from which players will be drawing, and each player’s personal area where players will hide their earnings and hand of cards behind the privacy screen. Once all is setup somewhat correctly, it should look similar to the photo below. Warning: When I set this up and took the photo, I neglected to realize the red company and the map tiles were translated to the wrong spaces, so just switch those.
The Road to Canterbury is a game of rounds, and each round players will be taking similar steps: Play One Card, Redraw, Perform a Reckoning of Sin. Players will have access to three different types of cards that can be played during the Play One Card phase: Sin cards (five of which are dealt at setup), Pardon cards, and Relic cards. During this phase, the active player can play a Sin card to one of the active Pilgrims to tempt them towards committing that sin. The first time the player adds a Sin card to a Pilgrim, they place one of their corruption cubes on the matching sin on the Circle of Sin. Alternatively, they may play a powerful Relic card that offers adjustments to the rules, or has some interesting results. When a player feels that enough Sin cards of a specific type have been played on a Pilgrim, they may opt to play a matching Pardon card in order to gain precious coin to their pockets. Each Pardon card essentially pardons ALL the sins of that type on the Pilgrim, and the player then collects coins exponentially for a larger total of matching Sin cards on that Pilgrim. If the Parson is currently sitting on the matching sin, the pardoner receives extra coin for it being an especially egregious sin in the eyes of the church. Each time the Pilgrim is pardoned, the pardoner places one of their corruption cubes upon the Pilgrim.
After the active player has played their card, they must Redraw their hand back to five cards, choosing to draw from the Sin, Pardon, or Relic offerings. Some Sin cards may be drawn that are Death Approaches cards. When these surface, they are immediately attached to the Pilgrim whose color matches that of the drawn card’s border color. This essentially eats up a slot on the Pilgrim that could be used for a Sin card to be pardoned.
Once the player has redrawn cards to their hand they must next Perform a Reckoning of Sin. The active player assesses each active Pilgrim to see if they have seven or more cards attached to them. If so, that Pilgrim will perish from the “deadly” sins. Whichever player has placed the most number of corruption cubes upon the Pilgrim is considered present at time of death and will receive credit for the sending to the heavens. They move one of the cubes upon the Pilgrim to the first space on the map tile, earning bonus points and a Last Rites token. Last Rites may be performed immediately to take another turn, or may be held until the end of the game for a 3 VP bonus per token. The most interesting aspect of a Pilgrim dying is the fact that their card now becomes a permanent placeholder underneath their company’s colored banner. So the next Pilgrim to enter play for that company will need only six additional cards to kick the bucket, and so on.
Play continues in this fashion of players taking turns through their three phases. The game ends when all the spaces on the map tile are filled with cubes. Bonus points are counted, coins are added, and the player with the most money/highest score is the winner! The best temptress and pardoner this side of Yorkshire!
Components. I have no experience with the first edition of The Road to Canterbury, so unfortunately I cannot compare and contrast components. However, I have seen many photos and even checked out a review video or two. What I can say about components is that this edition has refreshed the look of nearly everything, and so much for the better. Instead of boring plain cards, there’s just a little more decoration. Not so much to be invasive or distracting, but very tasteful. The component quality throughout is quite stellar. There’s a lot of cardboard in this box, and it all looks and feels great. I do quite like the art style, even though it’s all medievall-y and too artsy for my normal preference. All in all a great quality box of game.
So like I said, I have no experience with this game prior to receiving it and playing through it now. It certainly doesn’t feel like a 10-year-old game, nor does it really feel like many of the Alf Seegert games I have played in the past. Neither of these points are bad at all, just some thoughts I had.
It should be obvious by my ratings graphic that I dig this game a lot. I have nothing like it in my collection, and I am super excited to really bring this out with different types of gamers to see how it fares (once the COVID is no longer an issue, of course). I see this being a hit with my family, who enjoys a lot of take that style games. I see this being a hit with my more thinky gamer friends, because there are just so many juicy choices to be had every turn. I can see this even being a hit with my more gateway friends, because it isn’t terribly heavy, has some humor in it, and I can see the prospect of sowing sin and killing off innocent Pilgrims being attractive to some of my more morbid friends.
For me, I love the ability to take every turn and make important decisions. I try to make every turn meaningful to my agenda, but tactical with what may be at my disposal at the time. When should I play this Relic? Why is named something ridiculous? Should I wait a while longer to pardon this sin, or should I pile on another and then pardon next turn? Ooh, but what if my opponent has the same Pardon card. Am I truly happy that this poor Wife of Bath is about to kick it? GAAHHHHH!
Now it’s no secret that I am a big fan of Dr. Seegert’s games, as I have previously reviewed Fantastiqa and Haven with very high ratings. So, I was not at all surprised that I would love this one as well. It offers so many great choices, looks great on the table, fills a unique void that was present in my collection, and can be played with various types of gamers, even though it is designed for two or three players total. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an unapologetic 5 / 6. I don’t think it will break into my Top 10, but I certainly won’t rule it out quite yet. More plays with different types of gamers may change my mind on that statement, and I eagerly await my plateful of crow. So if you are like me in your gaming preferences, check out this version of The Road to Canterbury. Let me know how often you tend to grab Relics too, because I feel like I need to utilize them more, but it is so hard to pass up a Sin or Pardon. I Lust after them so very badly.
The Road To Canterbury is a game of medieval hand management and area influence. In it players are false pardoners stalking the road to the city of Canterbury as pilgrims make their way there from London. As their companies run across these pardoners, they are offered the chance to purchase pardons – salvation and forgiveness for their sins. However, these pardoners are also keen to help the pilgrims along the path of sin, thus making their faux pardons worth even more money! The pardoner who ends the game with the most money will win along The Road to Canterbury.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of the Impoverished Pilgrim Edition (2nd edition) game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, follow the rulebook, as there are many components to track. The main areas are the Circle of Sin mat that holds the Parson pawn, the decks area that hold the various decks of cards from which players will be drawing, and each player’s personal area where players will hide their earnings and hand of cards behind the privacy screen. Once all is setup somewhat correctly, it should look similar to the photo below. Warning: When I set this up and took the photo, I neglected to realize the red company and the map tiles were translated to the wrong spaces, so just switch those.
The Road to Canterbury is a game of rounds, and each round players will be taking similar steps: Play One Card, Redraw, Perform a Reckoning of Sin. Players will have access to three different types of cards that can be played during the Play One Card phase: Sin cards (five of which are dealt at setup), Pardon cards, and Relic cards. During this phase, the active player can play a Sin card to one of the active Pilgrims to tempt them towards committing that sin. The first time the player adds a Sin card to a Pilgrim, they place one of their corruption cubes on the matching sin on the Circle of Sin. Alternatively, they may play a powerful Relic card that offers adjustments to the rules, or has some interesting results. When a player feels that enough Sin cards of a specific type have been played on a Pilgrim, they may opt to play a matching Pardon card in order to gain precious coin to their pockets. Each Pardon card essentially pardons ALL the sins of that type on the Pilgrim, and the player then collects coins exponentially for a larger total of matching Sin cards on that Pilgrim. If the Parson is currently sitting on the matching sin, the pardoner receives extra coin for it being an especially egregious sin in the eyes of the church. Each time the Pilgrim is pardoned, the pardoner places one of their corruption cubes upon the Pilgrim.
After the active player has played their card, they must Redraw their hand back to five cards, choosing to draw from the Sin, Pardon, or Relic offerings. Some Sin cards may be drawn that are Death Approaches cards. When these surface, they are immediately attached to the Pilgrim whose color matches that of the drawn card’s border color. This essentially eats up a slot on the Pilgrim that could be used for a Sin card to be pardoned.
Once the player has redrawn cards to their hand they must next Perform a Reckoning of Sin. The active player assesses each active Pilgrim to see if they have seven or more cards attached to them. If so, that Pilgrim will perish from the “deadly” sins. Whichever player has placed the most number of corruption cubes upon the Pilgrim is considered present at time of death and will receive credit for the sending to the heavens. They move one of the cubes upon the Pilgrim to the first space on the map tile, earning bonus points and a Last Rites token. Last Rites may be performed immediately to take another turn, or may be held until the end of the game for a 3 VP bonus per token. The most interesting aspect of a Pilgrim dying is the fact that their card now becomes a permanent placeholder underneath their company’s colored banner. So the next Pilgrim to enter play for that company will need only six additional cards to kick the bucket, and so on.
Play continues in this fashion of players taking turns through their three phases. The game ends when all the spaces on the map tile are filled with cubes. Bonus points are counted, coins are added, and the player with the most money/highest score is the winner! The best temptress and pardoner this side of Yorkshire!
Components. I have no experience with the first edition of The Road to Canterbury, so unfortunately I cannot compare and contrast components. However, I have seen many photos and even checked out a review video or two. What I can say about components is that this edition has refreshed the look of nearly everything, and so much for the better. Instead of boring plain cards, there’s just a little more decoration. Not so much to be invasive or distracting, but very tasteful. The component quality throughout is quite stellar. There’s a lot of cardboard in this box, and it all looks and feels great. I do quite like the art style, even though it’s all medievall-y and too artsy for my normal preference. All in all a great quality box of game.
So like I said, I have no experience with this game prior to receiving it and playing through it now. It certainly doesn’t feel like a 10-year-old game, nor does it really feel like many of the Alf Seegert games I have played in the past. Neither of these points are bad at all, just some thoughts I had.
It should be obvious by my ratings graphic that I dig this game a lot. I have nothing like it in my collection, and I am super excited to really bring this out with different types of gamers to see how it fares (once the COVID is no longer an issue, of course). I see this being a hit with my family, who enjoys a lot of take that style games. I see this being a hit with my more thinky gamer friends, because there are just so many juicy choices to be had every turn. I can see this even being a hit with my more gateway friends, because it isn’t terribly heavy, has some humor in it, and I can see the prospect of sowing sin and killing off innocent Pilgrims being attractive to some of my more morbid friends.
For me, I love the ability to take every turn and make important decisions. I try to make every turn meaningful to my agenda, but tactical with what may be at my disposal at the time. When should I play this Relic? Why is named something ridiculous? Should I wait a while longer to pardon this sin, or should I pile on another and then pardon next turn? Ooh, but what if my opponent has the same Pardon card. Am I truly happy that this poor Wife of Bath is about to kick it? GAAHHHHH!
Now it’s no secret that I am a big fan of Dr. Seegert’s games, as I have previously reviewed Fantastiqa and Haven with very high ratings. So, I was not at all surprised that I would love this one as well. It offers so many great choices, looks great on the table, fills a unique void that was present in my collection, and can be played with various types of gamers, even though it is designed for two or three players total. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an unapologetic 5 / 6. I don’t think it will break into my Top 10, but I certainly won’t rule it out quite yet. More plays with different types of gamers may change my mind on that statement, and I eagerly await my plateful of crow. So if you are like me in your gaming preferences, check out this version of The Road to Canterbury. Let me know how often you tend to grab Relics too, because I feel like I need to utilize them more, but it is so hard to pass up a Sin or Pardon. I Lust after them so very badly.
Alice (12 KP) rated The Copper Promise (The Copper Cat, #1) in Books
Jul 3, 2018
The Copper Promise was one of those books that I stumbled upon on Friday a fortnight ago, I picked up the kindle sample – a grand total of 5 chapters – and sat there and devoured it. By Saturday evening I was in possession of a paperback and by Sunday I was over 100 pages in; I read between 50-80 pages per day and finished it on Thursday 17th November – a whole 5 days after purchase.
I’m a rare 5 star reviewer and a book has to tick every single tiny little box for me to even consider going past 4 stars. I’ve also never picked up a sample and ordered a book within 24 hours, I usually sit and think about it for a while but The Copper Promise was one of those books. I was about 70 pages in to The Copper Promise when I bought its sequels The Iron Ghost and The Silver Tide. This never happens – ever.
From the get go, Jen Williams’ characters and world building was on point. The story follows what will eventually become The Black Feather Three – Wydrin of Crosshaven, Sir Sebastian Carverson of Ynnsmouth and Lord Aaron Frith of The Blackwood:-
Wydrin of Crosshaven is a foul-mouthed, crass, violently aggressive and sarcastic pirate-cum-sell-sword and she’s AMAZING!
Sir Sebastian Carverson of Ynnsmouth is a disgraced Knight of Ynnsmouth, sword-sworn to the god-peak Isu turned sell-sword for hire with a heart of gold.
And last but certainly not least Lord Aaron Frith of Blackwood, last surviving heir of the The Blackwood, tortured soul (and I mean this in the literal sense) and one confused man with a neat newly acquired trick.
∞
Frith has hired Wydrin and Sebastian and a weird little fella called Gallo to take him to The Citadel as a means to exact revenge on the people who gravely injured him and murdered his family. Gallo goes on ahead as he’s impatient and things go a little belly-up for him; Frith, Wydrin and Sebastian go to the Citadel, go exploring in the creepy castle and see Gallo who they assumed was dead, the trio of adventurers unknowingly unleash a god in the form of a dragon which in turn unleashes several far-ranging ramifications – Frith absorbs a lot of magic and knowledge, Sebastian almost dies because of Gallo’s betrayal but pulls through because of a mystic connection he forges at death’s door and The Copper Cat goes about her business.
This Citadel invasion and ultimate unleashing of a long-believed dead god sets the story up nicely for its onward and upward momentum. Frith absorbs the power he was searching for in the lake hidden at the bottom of the Citadel and becomes a force to be reckoned with (eventually) but not only do they release a dragon they also release her brood army – neat green and golden dragon-hybrid things with a connection to both Y’Ruen (the dragon) and Sebastian – cue his nightmares.
The book as a debut was stunningly well written with characters that were neatly rounded off with few cliffhangers and a nicely written flow and mixture of present and past tense. The characters (particularly Wydrin) were superb and I couldn’t get enough of her utter crassness and her unrelenting torment of Frith – brilliantly written.
∞
I really liked the fact that Jen Williams also gave us chapters from the point of view of the brood army as they traverse Ede destroying any and everything. She shows us the stark contrast of them being a number (The Thirty-Third) and of them becoming a unique being (Ephemeral) with their own thoughts and feelings – some remained purely numbers but a large amount of them became individuals and “broke” from the brood.
There have been some mixed reviews on this book but my opinion is this book was amazing. An outstanding read of amusing proportions where plenty of banter, adventure, magic and mayhem abound. Although the ending closes off some individual story arcs it also opens the door to many more which continue in the next book – my overall feeling towards The Copper Promise was along the lines of “Please don’t leave me!” and “Oh dear god I need more. Right now.”
As mentioned above I bought the next two instalments and I’m 150 pages through the second one and it is just as good as the first one! I can’t wait to see where this story goes!
I’m a rare 5 star reviewer and a book has to tick every single tiny little box for me to even consider going past 4 stars. I’ve also never picked up a sample and ordered a book within 24 hours, I usually sit and think about it for a while but The Copper Promise was one of those books. I was about 70 pages in to The Copper Promise when I bought its sequels The Iron Ghost and The Silver Tide. This never happens – ever.
From the get go, Jen Williams’ characters and world building was on point. The story follows what will eventually become The Black Feather Three – Wydrin of Crosshaven, Sir Sebastian Carverson of Ynnsmouth and Lord Aaron Frith of The Blackwood:-
Wydrin of Crosshaven is a foul-mouthed, crass, violently aggressive and sarcastic pirate-cum-sell-sword and she’s AMAZING!
Sir Sebastian Carverson of Ynnsmouth is a disgraced Knight of Ynnsmouth, sword-sworn to the god-peak Isu turned sell-sword for hire with a heart of gold.
And last but certainly not least Lord Aaron Frith of Blackwood, last surviving heir of the The Blackwood, tortured soul (and I mean this in the literal sense) and one confused man with a neat newly acquired trick.
∞
Frith has hired Wydrin and Sebastian and a weird little fella called Gallo to take him to The Citadel as a means to exact revenge on the people who gravely injured him and murdered his family. Gallo goes on ahead as he’s impatient and things go a little belly-up for him; Frith, Wydrin and Sebastian go to the Citadel, go exploring in the creepy castle and see Gallo who they assumed was dead, the trio of adventurers unknowingly unleash a god in the form of a dragon which in turn unleashes several far-ranging ramifications – Frith absorbs a lot of magic and knowledge, Sebastian almost dies because of Gallo’s betrayal but pulls through because of a mystic connection he forges at death’s door and The Copper Cat goes about her business.
This Citadel invasion and ultimate unleashing of a long-believed dead god sets the story up nicely for its onward and upward momentum. Frith absorbs the power he was searching for in the lake hidden at the bottom of the Citadel and becomes a force to be reckoned with (eventually) but not only do they release a dragon they also release her brood army – neat green and golden dragon-hybrid things with a connection to both Y’Ruen (the dragon) and Sebastian – cue his nightmares.
The book as a debut was stunningly well written with characters that were neatly rounded off with few cliffhangers and a nicely written flow and mixture of present and past tense. The characters (particularly Wydrin) were superb and I couldn’t get enough of her utter crassness and her unrelenting torment of Frith – brilliantly written.
∞
I really liked the fact that Jen Williams also gave us chapters from the point of view of the brood army as they traverse Ede destroying any and everything. She shows us the stark contrast of them being a number (The Thirty-Third) and of them becoming a unique being (Ephemeral) with their own thoughts and feelings – some remained purely numbers but a large amount of them became individuals and “broke” from the brood.
There have been some mixed reviews on this book but my opinion is this book was amazing. An outstanding read of amusing proportions where plenty of banter, adventure, magic and mayhem abound. Although the ending closes off some individual story arcs it also opens the door to many more which continue in the next book – my overall feeling towards The Copper Promise was along the lines of “Please don’t leave me!” and “Oh dear god I need more. Right now.”
As mentioned above I bought the next two instalments and I’m 150 pages through the second one and it is just as good as the first one! I can’t wait to see where this story goes!
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Warlords (Tau ming chong) (2010) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
General Pang Qing Yun is the sole survivor of his entire battalion. The Ching army was taken out against Taiping rebels in Hechuan. Pang meets a woman and spends the night with her while she leaves before he wakes up the next morning. Some bandits ride into the town Pang is in. One of them, Jiang Wuyang, notices Pang and challenges him. Pang makes short work of Jiang. Jiang, impressed with Pang, introduces Pang to Zhao Er Hu. Pang follows Jiang and Er Hu back to their village where he notices that same woman he spent the night with. Her name is Lian and she's Er Hu's wife.
The village is very poor and in desperate need of food, so they decide to attack a passing food convoy. In the midst of the battle, Pang saves Jiang from certain death. The bandits successful, they bring food back to their families. Kui troops, the imperial army, invade the village and usurps the food that they stole. Now without food or money, the bandits are starving and unsure of what lies ahead for them. Pang suggests to Er Hu that they should join Lord Chen's army as they could earn wages for their families and actually have something to be proud of. Questioning Pang's reasoning since he abandoned his army once before, Jiang suggests that Pang, himself, and Er Hu take a blood oath. The pact made them blood brothers on that day.
After joining the army, their 800 soldiers go after Shu City, which has an army of 5,000. They somehow manage to get the upper hand and with the help of 1,500 imperial soldiers, they get a victory. It'll be the first of many for them as they move up in rank rapidly. With plans to overthrow Suzhou and then Nanjing, the capital, they have their work set out for them. The brothers soon begin to fall apart on their rise to the top though. Er Hu tends to be loyal with his word and his brothers no matter what as Pang will sacrifice anyone and even make deals with his enemies just to win while Jiang is stuck between them.
Let me just start this by saying, I loved this movie. The battle sequences are stunning, the cinematography was brilliant, and the acting was pretty much right on the money. The Warlords took everything I loved about Mongol and made it just a little bit better. Jet Li deserves a mention. After seeing Unleashed and Fearless, it was nice to see him actually show his acting chops. So I've wanted to see him show those off again. Luckily, he did a great job in this as he showed just about every emotion in this film at some time or another. His fight scenes were also incredible, but that comes to be expected with just about any film he's involved in. I think Andy Lau deserves a nod, as well. His character is just so passionate about being honorable and loyal that when things go wrong, his reaction is just explosive. He has some really powerful scenes where he's fighting for what he thinks is right, but I can't really mention with spoiling anything. There is a scene where he's having dinner and there's play going on that's mocking him, Pang, and Jiang. He begins to laugh, which leads to him crying uncontrollably, and then he begins laughing again. He just managed to pull it off flawlessly and I was incredibly impressed.
The battle scenes didn't pull any punches either. Blood flies across the screen as limbs roll on the ground. It's truly fantastic. They were truly the highlight of the film for me as the first half of the film doesn't seem to let up from the battlefield. The film is also extremely colorful. Every scene is stunningly vibrant. There are also so many memorable scenes from the film and half of that is due to how they were shot. There's a scene where Er Hu runs into this coliseum where there are just hundreds of dead bodies lying on the ground and the camera kind of spins around him capturing his emotions and the devastation that lies around him. It's truly something worth seeing for yourself.
The Warlords is one of the best feudal Japan films I've ever seen. If you were a fan of films like Mongol: The Rise of Genghis Khan, The Last Samurai, or Seven Samurai, then I highly recommend this.
The village is very poor and in desperate need of food, so they decide to attack a passing food convoy. In the midst of the battle, Pang saves Jiang from certain death. The bandits successful, they bring food back to their families. Kui troops, the imperial army, invade the village and usurps the food that they stole. Now without food or money, the bandits are starving and unsure of what lies ahead for them. Pang suggests to Er Hu that they should join Lord Chen's army as they could earn wages for their families and actually have something to be proud of. Questioning Pang's reasoning since he abandoned his army once before, Jiang suggests that Pang, himself, and Er Hu take a blood oath. The pact made them blood brothers on that day.
After joining the army, their 800 soldiers go after Shu City, which has an army of 5,000. They somehow manage to get the upper hand and with the help of 1,500 imperial soldiers, they get a victory. It'll be the first of many for them as they move up in rank rapidly. With plans to overthrow Suzhou and then Nanjing, the capital, they have their work set out for them. The brothers soon begin to fall apart on their rise to the top though. Er Hu tends to be loyal with his word and his brothers no matter what as Pang will sacrifice anyone and even make deals with his enemies just to win while Jiang is stuck between them.
Let me just start this by saying, I loved this movie. The battle sequences are stunning, the cinematography was brilliant, and the acting was pretty much right on the money. The Warlords took everything I loved about Mongol and made it just a little bit better. Jet Li deserves a mention. After seeing Unleashed and Fearless, it was nice to see him actually show his acting chops. So I've wanted to see him show those off again. Luckily, he did a great job in this as he showed just about every emotion in this film at some time or another. His fight scenes were also incredible, but that comes to be expected with just about any film he's involved in. I think Andy Lau deserves a nod, as well. His character is just so passionate about being honorable and loyal that when things go wrong, his reaction is just explosive. He has some really powerful scenes where he's fighting for what he thinks is right, but I can't really mention with spoiling anything. There is a scene where he's having dinner and there's play going on that's mocking him, Pang, and Jiang. He begins to laugh, which leads to him crying uncontrollably, and then he begins laughing again. He just managed to pull it off flawlessly and I was incredibly impressed.
The battle scenes didn't pull any punches either. Blood flies across the screen as limbs roll on the ground. It's truly fantastic. They were truly the highlight of the film for me as the first half of the film doesn't seem to let up from the battlefield. The film is also extremely colorful. Every scene is stunningly vibrant. There are also so many memorable scenes from the film and half of that is due to how they were shot. There's a scene where Er Hu runs into this coliseum where there are just hundreds of dead bodies lying on the ground and the camera kind of spins around him capturing his emotions and the devastation that lies around him. It's truly something worth seeing for yourself.
The Warlords is one of the best feudal Japan films I've ever seen. If you were a fan of films like Mongol: The Rise of Genghis Khan, The Last Samurai, or Seven Samurai, then I highly recommend this.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Military Wives (2020) in Movies
Feb 25, 2020
The story perfectly balances between melodrama and feel good comedy (1 more)
Kristin Scott-Thomas and Sharon Horgan work fabulously together
Bound to grab the grey pound and be a huge UK success
I must admit that I was a bit of a drag-along to this one. The trailer excited me not.... one.... bit. Sentimental film. Dull story. Wrong demographic. No, no, no. But... in this case I am very happy to be proved wrong, wrong, wrong.
True that I didn't sit in the ideal demographic for this movie. 90% of the audience at the UK premiere showing I attended last night were female and older that me. This is a movie to turn the blue-rinse crowd out in DROVES! Because the - inherently British - story is engaging and rewarding from start to finish.
Loosely based on the true story, it's 2010 and a regiment of husbands (and at least one wife.... nice to see an all female marriage featured) are dispatched from the fictional "Flitcroft Barracks" to Afghanistan on a tour of duty. Thereafter every ring at the door by a friend spells mild panic ; every thoughtless call from an accident-chaser induces hypertension.
Trying to take their minds off there loved ones, Colonel's wife Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) muscles in on the insipid entertainment plans of Lisa (Sharon Horgan) in organising a singing group. Lisa thinks "girls just wanna have fun"; Kate thinks they should be training as a proper choir. Sparks fly.
But against all the odds, the women progressively improve until they get the chance to present their talents to an unaware nation.
My wife summed up in one word why this movie is so good...... "balance". The movie covers topics of fear, grief, social conflict, family conflict and uplifting joy. One step off the tightrope could have spelled disaster. But director Peter Cattaneo, of "Full Monty" fame, through the expert script of Roseanne Flynn and Rachel Tunnard, walks that line with perfect balance. It never feels overly melodramatic; never feels a light piece of superficial fluff either.
And when "the performance" happens, you will be hard pushed not to need a tissue or two..... I certainly succumbed to the emotion of the moment.
At the core of the story are the perfectly cast duo of Kristin Scott Thomas and Sharon Horgan. With just a handful of introductory lines, you quickly get the measure of Kate's character, without ever knowing the story behind the icy and brittle facade. The conflict between her and the fun-loving egalitarian Lisa is writ large. What's nice here is that you are never totally sure who's side of the argument you are on. It is easy to side with Lisa at the start of the film, but as you learn more and particularly after a particularly careless act by Lisa towards the end of the film, your sympathies change.
The rest of the excellent ensemble cast also work naturally together, with Emma Lowndes as Annie and Amy James-Kelly as the newly married Sarah being particularly impressive.This feels like a group of actors who were brought together to film a story and bonded as friends in the process. You end up caring a great deal for what happens to them
Although the script is based on the true story of the military wives it diverges significantly from what actually happens in the interests of an engaging story. Choirmaster Gareth Malone was, of course, actively involved in the true story as a part of a TV programme, but none of that is referenced in the movie. But that doesn't remotely impinge on your enjoyment of the movie for one second.
In particular, a sub-story about the long-term effects of grief is particularly well handled, with 'Dave' turning from being a passive to an active participant in the story at a key moment.
It's that depressing time of the year when everyone is fed up of rain, wind and dripping noses. It's a time of year when you look for some uplifting entertainment.... people surely watch "Death in Paradise" for the sun rather than the stories? Ladies - and the odd gentleman - I give you "Military Wives". It's not bloody Shakespeare. But if this doesn't make you feel uplifted and better about the world, then I will dutifully kiss the regimental goat.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-military-wives-2020/. Thanks).
True that I didn't sit in the ideal demographic for this movie. 90% of the audience at the UK premiere showing I attended last night were female and older that me. This is a movie to turn the blue-rinse crowd out in DROVES! Because the - inherently British - story is engaging and rewarding from start to finish.
Loosely based on the true story, it's 2010 and a regiment of husbands (and at least one wife.... nice to see an all female marriage featured) are dispatched from the fictional "Flitcroft Barracks" to Afghanistan on a tour of duty. Thereafter every ring at the door by a friend spells mild panic ; every thoughtless call from an accident-chaser induces hypertension.
Trying to take their minds off there loved ones, Colonel's wife Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) muscles in on the insipid entertainment plans of Lisa (Sharon Horgan) in organising a singing group. Lisa thinks "girls just wanna have fun"; Kate thinks they should be training as a proper choir. Sparks fly.
But against all the odds, the women progressively improve until they get the chance to present their talents to an unaware nation.
My wife summed up in one word why this movie is so good...... "balance". The movie covers topics of fear, grief, social conflict, family conflict and uplifting joy. One step off the tightrope could have spelled disaster. But director Peter Cattaneo, of "Full Monty" fame, through the expert script of Roseanne Flynn and Rachel Tunnard, walks that line with perfect balance. It never feels overly melodramatic; never feels a light piece of superficial fluff either.
And when "the performance" happens, you will be hard pushed not to need a tissue or two..... I certainly succumbed to the emotion of the moment.
At the core of the story are the perfectly cast duo of Kristin Scott Thomas and Sharon Horgan. With just a handful of introductory lines, you quickly get the measure of Kate's character, without ever knowing the story behind the icy and brittle facade. The conflict between her and the fun-loving egalitarian Lisa is writ large. What's nice here is that you are never totally sure who's side of the argument you are on. It is easy to side with Lisa at the start of the film, but as you learn more and particularly after a particularly careless act by Lisa towards the end of the film, your sympathies change.
The rest of the excellent ensemble cast also work naturally together, with Emma Lowndes as Annie and Amy James-Kelly as the newly married Sarah being particularly impressive.This feels like a group of actors who were brought together to film a story and bonded as friends in the process. You end up caring a great deal for what happens to them
Although the script is based on the true story of the military wives it diverges significantly from what actually happens in the interests of an engaging story. Choirmaster Gareth Malone was, of course, actively involved in the true story as a part of a TV programme, but none of that is referenced in the movie. But that doesn't remotely impinge on your enjoyment of the movie for one second.
In particular, a sub-story about the long-term effects of grief is particularly well handled, with 'Dave' turning from being a passive to an active participant in the story at a key moment.
It's that depressing time of the year when everyone is fed up of rain, wind and dripping noses. It's a time of year when you look for some uplifting entertainment.... people surely watch "Death in Paradise" for the sun rather than the stories? Ladies - and the odd gentleman - I give you "Military Wives". It's not bloody Shakespeare. But if this doesn't make you feel uplifted and better about the world, then I will dutifully kiss the regimental goat.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-military-wives-2020/. Thanks).
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Peak Oil Profiteer in Tabletop Games
Jun 11, 2021
One of the most important energy resources in the world is oil. We have a finite amount, it is used in our everyday lives, and it is always in demand. So imagine if a country found a new supply of oil – everyone would be fighting for a piece! Enter Peak Oil Profiteer, a game that puts you in charge of an oil corporation vying for money and oil in this new-found oil vein. Sound like something you might be interested in? Keep reading and see what it’s all about!
Disclaimer: For this preview, we played the Tabletopia version of the game. The pictures you will see below are screenshots from my plays online. Also, I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook, but rather provide a general overview of the rules and gameplay. For a more in-depth look, check it out when it hits Kickstarter! -L
Peak Oil Profiteer is an economic game of area majority/movement, network building, and simultaneous action selection in which players take on the roles of oil corporations competing to make the most money in an oil-rich country before corruption overtakes the land. There is a power struggle between 3 Factions, so play your cards right (literally) to come out ahead. To setup for a game, set the board in the middle of the table, populate the 3 Faction Tracks with their corresponding cubes, place the Corruption cube on 93%, create the Contingency deck (as described in the rules), shuffle the Blackmail deck, and give each player their 5 Action cards, starting Money, and 3 Pawns in their color. Flip all 9 Leader tokens face-down, shuffle them, and randomly give one to each player, placing the remaining Leader tokens face-up near the board.
The game is played over a series of rounds. At the start of every round, one card from the Contingency deck will be revealed/resolved. Contingency cards will either be Events (that will most likely alter the rules for the current round), or Consultants (to be ‘hired’ by an individual player for special abilities). Once the Contingency card has been dealt with, the round moves to the next phase: Action Selection. All players have the same 5 Action cards, numbered 1-5, available to them every round. Players will select one of their 5 Action cards and place it face-down in front of them. Then, in numerical order, all Action cards will be resolved. When your Action number has been called, you will reveal your Action card, perform the corresponding action, and take the card back into your hand. Once all players have performed their Action for the round, check the Corruption track – if it has reached 100% then the game ends, and if not then the game moves to a new round.
The 5 Actions available to all player are: 1. Networking, 2. Sell Weapons, 3. Buy Drilling Rights, 4. Sell Oil, and 5. Contingency. Networking allows you to collect Blackmail in order to win control of Faction Leaders. You may only Sell Weapons to a Faction if you control at least one of its Leaders. You will earn a set amount of Money, and a new Troop cube will be added to the game board. To Buy Drilling Rights from a Faction, you again need to control at least one of its Leaders. Pay for the rights, and then add one of your Pawns to that region of the board. Once you’ve got Drilling Rights, you can Sell Oil. Remove your Pawn from the corresponding region, and collect the appropriate amount of Money. And lastly, Contingency allows you to either ‘hire’ a Consultant, or perform an extra action as a result of an Event.
The amount of Money that you pay/earn for each of the actions is dictated by the Faction Tracks. For example, the price of Weapons decreases as Factions get more Troops on the board, which means you won’t earn as much selling to a Faction with lots of Troops in play. You have to time your Actions wisely in order to maximize your profit! If, at the end of a round, the Corruption track has reached 100%, the game ends. Players count up their Money, and the player with the highest earnings is declared the winner.
Although the theme isn’t something that would normally appeal to me, I have to say that Peak Oil
Profiteer is a solid game. The gameplay is straightforward, the player interaction is competitive but not combative, and the strategy keeps you engaged all game. The ultimate goal is to earn the most Money, and the Faction Track creates sort of a “commodity speculation” type mechanic to the gameplay. The costs vary depending on the Faction Track, and it can be manipulated by all players. That in and of itself creates some fun player interaction because the Faction Track affects all players. Doing something to block an opponent now may come back to bite you next round. Another neat element about Peak Oil Profiteer is that players select their Actions simultaneously, and they are then resolved in numerical order. Depending on where your turn falls in the round, you might be able to do just what you had planned, unless an opponent went before you and changed the game layout. There is an amount of uncertainty that forces players to adjust their strategy on the fly and adapt to the current situation.
I will say that resolving Actions in numerical order does kind of add an element of Action Programming, if you will. Once you have selected your Action this round, you are locked in. No matter what happens before your turn, you must perform your selected Action if at all possible. It creates some neat strategic opportunities, but at the same time, can feel like you’ve been blocked out. Just something to consider! Normally, I would touch on components, but as this was a Tabletopia version of the game, I can’t really do so. I will say that the art style and card/board layouts online are thematic and immersive. If the physical version of the game looks anything like this digital version, it’ll be a good looking game! One component that I especially appreciated was that each player gets a Player Reference/Round Reference card. It gives you the information you need without being too wordy, and it stops you from having to refer back to the rule book every turn. So big thanks from me for that!
Having never played the original Peak Oil game, I have to say that Peak Oil Profiteer made a good impression on me. It’s fast to teach and learn, engaging, and strategic enough to keep you thinking. The fluctuation of the Faction Track, and the order of Action resolution add elements of uncertainty and ‘luck’ (if you will) that keep the game from having a clear run-away winner. Everyone is in it until the very end, and the race for the most Money is a nail-biter for sure. If you’re looking for something interactive but not too confrontational, while also putting your strategic chops to the test, consider backing Peak Oil Profiteer on Kickstarter!
Disclaimer: For this preview, we played the Tabletopia version of the game. The pictures you will see below are screenshots from my plays online. Also, I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook, but rather provide a general overview of the rules and gameplay. For a more in-depth look, check it out when it hits Kickstarter! -L
Peak Oil Profiteer is an economic game of area majority/movement, network building, and simultaneous action selection in which players take on the roles of oil corporations competing to make the most money in an oil-rich country before corruption overtakes the land. There is a power struggle between 3 Factions, so play your cards right (literally) to come out ahead. To setup for a game, set the board in the middle of the table, populate the 3 Faction Tracks with their corresponding cubes, place the Corruption cube on 93%, create the Contingency deck (as described in the rules), shuffle the Blackmail deck, and give each player their 5 Action cards, starting Money, and 3 Pawns in their color. Flip all 9 Leader tokens face-down, shuffle them, and randomly give one to each player, placing the remaining Leader tokens face-up near the board.
The game is played over a series of rounds. At the start of every round, one card from the Contingency deck will be revealed/resolved. Contingency cards will either be Events (that will most likely alter the rules for the current round), or Consultants (to be ‘hired’ by an individual player for special abilities). Once the Contingency card has been dealt with, the round moves to the next phase: Action Selection. All players have the same 5 Action cards, numbered 1-5, available to them every round. Players will select one of their 5 Action cards and place it face-down in front of them. Then, in numerical order, all Action cards will be resolved. When your Action number has been called, you will reveal your Action card, perform the corresponding action, and take the card back into your hand. Once all players have performed their Action for the round, check the Corruption track – if it has reached 100% then the game ends, and if not then the game moves to a new round.
The 5 Actions available to all player are: 1. Networking, 2. Sell Weapons, 3. Buy Drilling Rights, 4. Sell Oil, and 5. Contingency. Networking allows you to collect Blackmail in order to win control of Faction Leaders. You may only Sell Weapons to a Faction if you control at least one of its Leaders. You will earn a set amount of Money, and a new Troop cube will be added to the game board. To Buy Drilling Rights from a Faction, you again need to control at least one of its Leaders. Pay for the rights, and then add one of your Pawns to that region of the board. Once you’ve got Drilling Rights, you can Sell Oil. Remove your Pawn from the corresponding region, and collect the appropriate amount of Money. And lastly, Contingency allows you to either ‘hire’ a Consultant, or perform an extra action as a result of an Event.
The amount of Money that you pay/earn for each of the actions is dictated by the Faction Tracks. For example, the price of Weapons decreases as Factions get more Troops on the board, which means you won’t earn as much selling to a Faction with lots of Troops in play. You have to time your Actions wisely in order to maximize your profit! If, at the end of a round, the Corruption track has reached 100%, the game ends. Players count up their Money, and the player with the highest earnings is declared the winner.
Although the theme isn’t something that would normally appeal to me, I have to say that Peak Oil
Profiteer is a solid game. The gameplay is straightforward, the player interaction is competitive but not combative, and the strategy keeps you engaged all game. The ultimate goal is to earn the most Money, and the Faction Track creates sort of a “commodity speculation” type mechanic to the gameplay. The costs vary depending on the Faction Track, and it can be manipulated by all players. That in and of itself creates some fun player interaction because the Faction Track affects all players. Doing something to block an opponent now may come back to bite you next round. Another neat element about Peak Oil Profiteer is that players select their Actions simultaneously, and they are then resolved in numerical order. Depending on where your turn falls in the round, you might be able to do just what you had planned, unless an opponent went before you and changed the game layout. There is an amount of uncertainty that forces players to adjust their strategy on the fly and adapt to the current situation.
I will say that resolving Actions in numerical order does kind of add an element of Action Programming, if you will. Once you have selected your Action this round, you are locked in. No matter what happens before your turn, you must perform your selected Action if at all possible. It creates some neat strategic opportunities, but at the same time, can feel like you’ve been blocked out. Just something to consider! Normally, I would touch on components, but as this was a Tabletopia version of the game, I can’t really do so. I will say that the art style and card/board layouts online are thematic and immersive. If the physical version of the game looks anything like this digital version, it’ll be a good looking game! One component that I especially appreciated was that each player gets a Player Reference/Round Reference card. It gives you the information you need without being too wordy, and it stops you from having to refer back to the rule book every turn. So big thanks from me for that!
Having never played the original Peak Oil game, I have to say that Peak Oil Profiteer made a good impression on me. It’s fast to teach and learn, engaging, and strategic enough to keep you thinking. The fluctuation of the Faction Track, and the order of Action resolution add elements of uncertainty and ‘luck’ (if you will) that keep the game from having a clear run-away winner. Everyone is in it until the very end, and the race for the most Money is a nail-biter for sure. If you’re looking for something interactive but not too confrontational, while also putting your strategic chops to the test, consider backing Peak Oil Profiteer on Kickstarter!
Erika (17788 KP) rated Loki - Season 1 in TV
Jul 16, 2021 (Updated Jul 16, 2021)
I’ll stick with Loki’s original story-arc.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Loki, featuring the return of Tom Hiddleston to the MCU, has escaped with the tesseract, and is subsequently caught by the TVA. He agrees to help Owen Wilson’s Mobius track down a variant that is conveniently a version of himself. What ensues is a painful setup for Ironman with Magic… oh, sorry, Dr. Strange and the Multiverse of Madness.
On one hand, my ma always told me, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all, but on the other hand, I haven’t been this pissed off at a major franchise since Star Wars: The Last Jedi. My visceral, negative reaction was caused by many things.
First, this series did not need to be made. Loki had a perfect ending to his overall arc, and it really didn’t need to be messed with. I am a huge Tom Hiddleston fan, I went to NYC to see him in a play, waited outside freezing my butt off to meet him, all of that. I was so glad when Loki was killed off, so he’d be free to do other things, and not just be known for Loki. Alas, that did not happen.
This series was made for two subsets of fans: the fans that can’t accept the death of their favorite character, and the fans that are absolutely, irrationally obsessed with having their favorite character paired up romantically. I fall into neither of these categories. ‘More Stories to Tell’ was the tagline… it should have been ‘More Money to be Made’.
After watching the same movie in a different flavor for over ten years, I realized that maybe the MCU wasn’t for me anymore. But, when Loki was announced, I was promised something new and weird! I thought, maybe this will be the show to get me back into the MCU. That was not the case. I cannot believe the rave reviews about this series; did we all watch the same thing?
The first warning sign for me was when it was announced that Michael Waldron, who was a writer for Rick & Morty was going to be helming this series. Rick & Morty is funny… if you’re a dude-bro, drunk, or high. When I read a few of his interviews prior to the release of Loki, another warning sign, this guy kind of sounded like a huge douchebag. I was then calmed and reassured that maybe it wouldn’t be a train-wreck because Hiddleston was heavily involved in the series.
As I’ve mentioned before, we were promised something new, different, and weird. Don’t make promises you can’t keep, creative team behind Loki.
Episode 1 was cheap; did I need to see clips from previous movies used in a very uncreative way? No, I did not. There was also something just off about the casting of Wilson. Now, this may be on me because my teen-years were spent quoting Owen Wilson films. There were a few things I liked about Episode 1, like the Blade Runner robot reference. There was a red flag in this episode though. Pro-tip: never, EVER have a character verbalize/confirm that they’re smart. Because it’s probably not the case.
Episode 2 was the bright spot, it was my favorite, by far. It was fast-paced, amusing, and the most interesting episode out of the whole series. The Mt Vesuvius/unleashing of the goats thing was the sort of thing I was looking for in this series. I actually chuckled a little, which rarely happens. It moved the story along, and we get the big reveal of the Loki variant that’s causing all the havoc.
Episode 3 was, for lack of a better word, boring. The pace slowed, and it was the infamous Disney+ show filler episode. We’re introduced to Mary Sue, sorry, I mean Lady Loki, but not really, Sylvie, the Enchantress, right? No, wait, she’s a completely different, new character. Probably shouldn’t have opted for the name Sylvie in that case. She’s a brand new, *strong* female, that shows her strength by punching people and has no personality (see: Carol Danvers - Captain Marvel, Hope van Dyne - Ant-Man). Y’all, you told me you were going to give me something different, new, weird. A Mary Sue isn’t new, different, or weird. This episode was a get-to-know-each-other, and build a pseudo-sibling relationship, right? Because anything else would be weird in a bad way, not an interesting way. There was a considerable shift in our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki character evolution, he opened-up, announced that he was a member of the LGBTQQIAAP nation, progress! First bi-sexual character in the MCU, way to go Disney, getting with the times! It was still a filler episode though, and while the stakes seemed high, you knew that there were three more episodes to go, of course they would live.
Again, I was reassured after this lackluster episode by Hiddleston, that 4 and 5 were his favorite. That fact is now disturbing.
Episode 4 was the death knell. I think the response from the creative team afterwards was also incredibly tone-deaf, and, quite frankly, insulting. The 4th episode was so bad, I legitimately had to go cleanse my eyes and brain with a GBBO marathon. The fact that the creative team had no idea that the insta-love (see: Jane and Thor - Thor) between two characters that had seemingly formed a pseudo-sibling relationship wouldn’t come off a little incest-y is really strange to me. If a pseudo-sibling relationship was not the intention, then it was poor writing, directing and acting by all parties involved. Sometimes, when a Mary Sue punches our main character, he falls in love with her (see: Hope and Scott - Ant-Man). The whole narcissism thing was hilarious, I’m glad our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki was cured of that by Sylvie and another *strong* personality-lacking woman (see: Sif -Thor/Thor: the Dark World) kicking him between the legs was what he’d needed all along. If a small portion of this episode was actually utilizing the myth of Narcissus, then I’m glad they followed it through to the dying part. This is when everything clicked for me. Our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki’s character evolution made him a big ol’ bowl of mushy, overcooked oatmeal. HOW and WHY would you take one of the best anti-heroes in the MCU, or any superhero franchise, and make him so mushy? More importantly, I didn’t care about what happened to any of the characters, except B-15. Normally, that’s my cue to stop watching a show, but I wanted to see if they tried to convince audiences that this Oatmeal Loki was actually smart and logical.
Episode 5 was when things slightly improved. Again, I couldn’t forgive the events of Episode 4, and I totally fast-forwarded during whatever talk Loki and Mary Sue, sorry, Sylvie, had with a blankie around their shoulders. All of the other Lokis were better in their tiny amount of screen time than Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki. Alligator Loki had more personality than Sylvie. Richard Grant is the superior Loki in my opinion. This episode also reintroduced hand holding with CGI colors swirling around characters (see: Guardians of the Galaxy).
Episode 6 was our finale. Thank God. We’re introduced to the real head of the TVA, which was who everyone was expecting. This episode was a little slow-paced, with a lot of interesting chit-chat. Oatmeal Loki actually seemed like he had a brain cell or two for a few brief, fleeting moments. He even showed off some of his powers, which, by the way, we were told we’d see more of… but didn’t. Then, our Oatmeal Loki was distracted by his Mary Sue, went for a kiss, and plopped right on his ass, looking like a fool. I almost snorted my coffee as I watched. Then, they confirmed a Season 2.
Honestly, I was hoping Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki would get killed off. Sadly, it didn’t happen, and they’re getting another series, and an appearance in Ironman with Magic. I’m so glad this series was something new, different, and weird, not just the bog-standard, MCU drivel we normally get. Oh, wait… I probably don’t even need to state that this wasn’t my cup of tea, and, again, solidified the fact that I’m over the MCU. I also know that I should avoid anything Michael Waldron and Kate Herron touch. Eventually, I’ll stop feeling betrayed by Hiddleston, but it may take a while. Is that ridiculous? Probably.
On one hand, my ma always told me, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all, but on the other hand, I haven’t been this pissed off at a major franchise since Star Wars: The Last Jedi. My visceral, negative reaction was caused by many things.
First, this series did not need to be made. Loki had a perfect ending to his overall arc, and it really didn’t need to be messed with. I am a huge Tom Hiddleston fan, I went to NYC to see him in a play, waited outside freezing my butt off to meet him, all of that. I was so glad when Loki was killed off, so he’d be free to do other things, and not just be known for Loki. Alas, that did not happen.
This series was made for two subsets of fans: the fans that can’t accept the death of their favorite character, and the fans that are absolutely, irrationally obsessed with having their favorite character paired up romantically. I fall into neither of these categories. ‘More Stories to Tell’ was the tagline… it should have been ‘More Money to be Made’.
After watching the same movie in a different flavor for over ten years, I realized that maybe the MCU wasn’t for me anymore. But, when Loki was announced, I was promised something new and weird! I thought, maybe this will be the show to get me back into the MCU. That was not the case. I cannot believe the rave reviews about this series; did we all watch the same thing?
The first warning sign for me was when it was announced that Michael Waldron, who was a writer for Rick & Morty was going to be helming this series. Rick & Morty is funny… if you’re a dude-bro, drunk, or high. When I read a few of his interviews prior to the release of Loki, another warning sign, this guy kind of sounded like a huge douchebag. I was then calmed and reassured that maybe it wouldn’t be a train-wreck because Hiddleston was heavily involved in the series.
As I’ve mentioned before, we were promised something new, different, and weird. Don’t make promises you can’t keep, creative team behind Loki.
Episode 1 was cheap; did I need to see clips from previous movies used in a very uncreative way? No, I did not. There was also something just off about the casting of Wilson. Now, this may be on me because my teen-years were spent quoting Owen Wilson films. There were a few things I liked about Episode 1, like the Blade Runner robot reference. There was a red flag in this episode though. Pro-tip: never, EVER have a character verbalize/confirm that they’re smart. Because it’s probably not the case.
Episode 2 was the bright spot, it was my favorite, by far. It was fast-paced, amusing, and the most interesting episode out of the whole series. The Mt Vesuvius/unleashing of the goats thing was the sort of thing I was looking for in this series. I actually chuckled a little, which rarely happens. It moved the story along, and we get the big reveal of the Loki variant that’s causing all the havoc.
Episode 3 was, for lack of a better word, boring. The pace slowed, and it was the infamous Disney+ show filler episode. We’re introduced to Mary Sue, sorry, I mean Lady Loki, but not really, Sylvie, the Enchantress, right? No, wait, she’s a completely different, new character. Probably shouldn’t have opted for the name Sylvie in that case. She’s a brand new, *strong* female, that shows her strength by punching people and has no personality (see: Carol Danvers - Captain Marvel, Hope van Dyne - Ant-Man). Y’all, you told me you were going to give me something different, new, weird. A Mary Sue isn’t new, different, or weird. This episode was a get-to-know-each-other, and build a pseudo-sibling relationship, right? Because anything else would be weird in a bad way, not an interesting way. There was a considerable shift in our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki character evolution, he opened-up, announced that he was a member of the LGBTQQIAAP nation, progress! First bi-sexual character in the MCU, way to go Disney, getting with the times! It was still a filler episode though, and while the stakes seemed high, you knew that there were three more episodes to go, of course they would live.
Again, I was reassured after this lackluster episode by Hiddleston, that 4 and 5 were his favorite. That fact is now disturbing.
Episode 4 was the death knell. I think the response from the creative team afterwards was also incredibly tone-deaf, and, quite frankly, insulting. The 4th episode was so bad, I legitimately had to go cleanse my eyes and brain with a GBBO marathon. The fact that the creative team had no idea that the insta-love (see: Jane and Thor - Thor) between two characters that had seemingly formed a pseudo-sibling relationship wouldn’t come off a little incest-y is really strange to me. If a pseudo-sibling relationship was not the intention, then it was poor writing, directing and acting by all parties involved. Sometimes, when a Mary Sue punches our main character, he falls in love with her (see: Hope and Scott - Ant-Man). The whole narcissism thing was hilarious, I’m glad our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki was cured of that by Sylvie and another *strong* personality-lacking woman (see: Sif -Thor/Thor: the Dark World) kicking him between the legs was what he’d needed all along. If a small portion of this episode was actually utilizing the myth of Narcissus, then I’m glad they followed it through to the dying part. This is when everything clicked for me. Our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki’s character evolution made him a big ol’ bowl of mushy, overcooked oatmeal. HOW and WHY would you take one of the best anti-heroes in the MCU, or any superhero franchise, and make him so mushy? More importantly, I didn’t care about what happened to any of the characters, except B-15. Normally, that’s my cue to stop watching a show, but I wanted to see if they tried to convince audiences that this Oatmeal Loki was actually smart and logical.
Episode 5 was when things slightly improved. Again, I couldn’t forgive the events of Episode 4, and I totally fast-forwarded during whatever talk Loki and Mary Sue, sorry, Sylvie, had with a blankie around their shoulders. All of the other Lokis were better in their tiny amount of screen time than Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki. Alligator Loki had more personality than Sylvie. Richard Grant is the superior Loki in my opinion. This episode also reintroduced hand holding with CGI colors swirling around characters (see: Guardians of the Galaxy).
Episode 6 was our finale. Thank God. We’re introduced to the real head of the TVA, which was who everyone was expecting. This episode was a little slow-paced, with a lot of interesting chit-chat. Oatmeal Loki actually seemed like he had a brain cell or two for a few brief, fleeting moments. He even showed off some of his powers, which, by the way, we were told we’d see more of… but didn’t. Then, our Oatmeal Loki was distracted by his Mary Sue, went for a kiss, and plopped right on his ass, looking like a fool. I almost snorted my coffee as I watched. Then, they confirmed a Season 2.
Honestly, I was hoping Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki would get killed off. Sadly, it didn’t happen, and they’re getting another series, and an appearance in Ironman with Magic. I’m so glad this series was something new, different, and weird, not just the bog-standard, MCU drivel we normally get. Oh, wait… I probably don’t even need to state that this wasn’t my cup of tea, and, again, solidified the fact that I’m over the MCU. I also know that I should avoid anything Michael Waldron and Kate Herron touch. Eventually, I’ll stop feeling betrayed by Hiddleston, but it may take a while. Is that ridiculous? Probably.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Inception (2010) in Movies
May 20, 2018
A Modern Classic
I have a confession to make - INCEPTION is one of my favorite Christopher Nolan films - and, perhaps, it is in my list of TOP 10 ALL TIME FAVORITE films, so this might not be a fair and impartial review of the film. To be fair to me, I did make a conscience effort whilst watching this movie to scrape away my previous preconceptions and opinions of this film and just let it wash over me in this "new light" of my blog to see what my reaction is.
My reaction: I LOVE THIS FILM!!!
I was asked how far back do you have to go before you can consider a film a "classic" and, I guess, I'd have to say 2010, for this film - to me - is a classic.
In INCEPTION, Nolan, and his co-writer brother Jonathan Nolan, go into the dreamworld with the premise that we can join in "shared dreams" to extract information from people that are locked away deep in their conscious (or in some cases unconscious) minds. This film deals with the idea of "Inception", planting an idea into someone's mind. This is, in essence, a "heist" film where our team of heroes is constantly at war with the minds they are inhabiting (since they are seen as parasites). The clock is ticking and they must get in and get out before they get lost.
Speaking of time, Nolan - once again - plays with the idea of time in this film. Once you go into a dream, 1 minute is like 1 hour and when you go into a dream of a dream, then 1 minute is like 60 hours and when you go into a dream within a dream within a dream, then...well...you get the idea.
If someone loses their way in this film, it's because they are trying to make logical sense of a dream world that defies physics - and time. My suggestion to you is to let go and let the movie take you to some fantastical places - with some fantastical imagery and plot machinations - that I enjoyed the heck out of.
Helping out this film is that it is impeccably cast. Leonardo DiCaprio is Cobb the head of this group that enters the dream realm. He is perfectly cast and Nolan, and this film, relies on his likeableness, his charm and the feeling that something just isn't quite right with him. All to very good effect. Ellen Page is strong as Ariadne, the rookie of the team that is our eyes and ears into this world. Ken Watanabe brings his typically strong game to the role of Saito - the man that gives the team the job and goes along for the ride. Nolan regular Cillian Murphy is a welcome addition as the person who they are trying to "Incept" and even small parts are filled with wonderful character actors like the late great, Pete Postlethwaite, Tom Berenger and good ol' Michael Caine.
But it is the emergence of two of the co-stars that, up until this film I thought were "fair actors but not great" that really elevates this film for me. Joseph Gordon-Levitt was always the "long haired kid from 3RD ROCK FROM THE SUN", but in this - as Cobb's right-hand man Arthur - he excels and really jumps out of the film as a screen presence. Of course, it really helps him that he has one of the best action sequences - for the most part practically shot - that I have ever scene. And, of course, there's TOM HARDY. He is a movie star and really shows it in the supporting role of Eames. This guy will win an Oscar one day, probably for a film that Nolan Directs him in.
My only quibble - and it is a QUIBBLE - is that I didn't really feel any strong chemistry between Marion Cotillard's Mal and DiCaprio's Cobb. She was supposed to be the big "love of his life" and I just didn't sense that. She was very good - and imposing - as she infiltrated Cobb's mind (which is, I think, the purpose of her character), but I could have used a little more between her and DiCaprio. But...as I say...a quibble.
All in all, a terrific - different - film. One that I am calling a "classic".
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
My reaction: I LOVE THIS FILM!!!
I was asked how far back do you have to go before you can consider a film a "classic" and, I guess, I'd have to say 2010, for this film - to me - is a classic.
In INCEPTION, Nolan, and his co-writer brother Jonathan Nolan, go into the dreamworld with the premise that we can join in "shared dreams" to extract information from people that are locked away deep in their conscious (or in some cases unconscious) minds. This film deals with the idea of "Inception", planting an idea into someone's mind. This is, in essence, a "heist" film where our team of heroes is constantly at war with the minds they are inhabiting (since they are seen as parasites). The clock is ticking and they must get in and get out before they get lost.
Speaking of time, Nolan - once again - plays with the idea of time in this film. Once you go into a dream, 1 minute is like 1 hour and when you go into a dream of a dream, then 1 minute is like 60 hours and when you go into a dream within a dream within a dream, then...well...you get the idea.
If someone loses their way in this film, it's because they are trying to make logical sense of a dream world that defies physics - and time. My suggestion to you is to let go and let the movie take you to some fantastical places - with some fantastical imagery and plot machinations - that I enjoyed the heck out of.
Helping out this film is that it is impeccably cast. Leonardo DiCaprio is Cobb the head of this group that enters the dream realm. He is perfectly cast and Nolan, and this film, relies on his likeableness, his charm and the feeling that something just isn't quite right with him. All to very good effect. Ellen Page is strong as Ariadne, the rookie of the team that is our eyes and ears into this world. Ken Watanabe brings his typically strong game to the role of Saito - the man that gives the team the job and goes along for the ride. Nolan regular Cillian Murphy is a welcome addition as the person who they are trying to "Incept" and even small parts are filled with wonderful character actors like the late great, Pete Postlethwaite, Tom Berenger and good ol' Michael Caine.
But it is the emergence of two of the co-stars that, up until this film I thought were "fair actors but not great" that really elevates this film for me. Joseph Gordon-Levitt was always the "long haired kid from 3RD ROCK FROM THE SUN", but in this - as Cobb's right-hand man Arthur - he excels and really jumps out of the film as a screen presence. Of course, it really helps him that he has one of the best action sequences - for the most part practically shot - that I have ever scene. And, of course, there's TOM HARDY. He is a movie star and really shows it in the supporting role of Eames. This guy will win an Oscar one day, probably for a film that Nolan Directs him in.
My only quibble - and it is a QUIBBLE - is that I didn't really feel any strong chemistry between Marion Cotillard's Mal and DiCaprio's Cobb. She was supposed to be the big "love of his life" and I just didn't sense that. She was very good - and imposing - as she infiltrated Cobb's mind (which is, I think, the purpose of her character), but I could have used a little more between her and DiCaprio. But...as I say...a quibble.
All in all, a terrific - different - film. One that I am calling a "classic".
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated Wuthering Heights in Books
Feb 12, 2020
Stands up (2 more)
Enthralling
Unique
Dislikable characters (1 more)
Difficult accents without translations
I will do my best to review this, however, I didn't heed the intro, this tour de force really does leave you as quickly as it comes, and reading another book before reviewing this one was a mistake.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.