Search
Search results
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Gorinto in Tabletop Games
Mar 2, 2020
I have been noticing that as I do more and more reviews and previews I am learning to absolutely adore abstract strategy games. Like, I LOVE them now. So when a call for reviewers came out for a new abstract game with art by Josh Cappel, I was immediately intrigued. I love games with an Asian style (even if loosely themed), and games that reward players for thinking ahead and maximizing their turns. Wait, it plays in 30-60 minutes too? I’m a fan.
A “gorinto” is a Japanese five-tier pagoda tower where each tier is representative of something of religious importance. In this game, each tier is representative of one of the elements: fire, water, wind, earth, and void. In this prototype version, the season tracking pawn is a representative gorinto. To gain deeper understanding of these elements and attain ultimate Wisdom is the goal of the game of Gorinto.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and the final components will be different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign running until March 4, 2020, or purchase through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, each player will choose a color, take the play mat of matching color, and place their score marker on the score board. The season tracker will be placed on the scoreboard as well, along with the randomized Goal cards and end-of-game element scoring cards. The main play board will be populated with randomized element tiles pulled from the bag in the shape of a mountain, with 10 tiles placed along the side and top edges of the built mountain of tiles. Determine the first player and the game is ready to be played.
On a player’s turn they will choose one of these outlying tiles to move onto the board. Once placed, the player will choose tiles, based on the placed tile’s power, from the board. For example, “fire spreads tall,” so if a Fire tile is placed on the board, a player may choose any tile from the column where it was placed two spaces above or below the placed tile. The number of tiles that can be plucked from the board depends on the player’s “understanding” of the element (the number of tiles of that type on the player’s board +1). With two tiles on a player’s personal board, they can choose three tiles when moving that type of tile, in the example – fire.
Tiles moved from the left side of the mountain can only move horizontally in their row and tiles moved from the top of the mountain can only move vertically in their column. With each of the elements possessing different ways tiles can be chosen from the mountain, and understanding of each element affecting how many tiles can be chosen, players need to plan ahead for their turns… except that other players will be doing the same and planning their own strategies to destroy their opponents’ plans.
When there are fewer tiles to be moved outside the mountain than there are players, the season (round) ends. At this point, players will score the Goal cards before setting up for the next season.
Each season the Goal cards will be scored – so players will know throughout the game upon what they should be concentrating their efforts. Examples of these Goal cards are: score your tallest stack (1 point per tile), then score your shortest stack (0 points if no tiles on a stack); score your stacks with odd number of tiles twice; score the stack with the median number of tiles three times. By being able to manipulate and keep track of the tile stacks players can be planning their scores ahead of time for each season.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, but already one can see the direction this game is headed, and it’s glorious! I have seen the Kickstarter page, and am super excited about seeing nearly every component get a fantastic upgrade. The art direction is incredible, the physical components are plastic and cardboard heaven. I am even pretty happy with this prototype copy. Yeah, the tiles are squarish wooden tiles with stickers, and the retail copy will have sexy interlocking plastic tokens, and the player boards in prototype are rectangular, but the retail copy will have a fancy contoured edge. Even so! The game looks amazing on the table, and will be even more so once it goes to manufacturing in earnest.
I mentioned in my intro that I am falling more in love with abstracts the more I play them. Has it just been that abstracts have been getting better and better lately, or am I leveling up as a gamer? I don’t know and I don’t care. Abstracts hold a very special place in my heart now, and this one is one of the best I have played. Most abstracts get a bad rap for being themeless and boring to look at, but Gorinto brings it and I’m totally diggin’ it. I love games like Gekitai, Calico, Elementos, Hive, and Onitama, and now there’s another to add to my display case of amazing abstracts.
If you enjoy themed abstract strategy games, games that make you think without bogging you down, and games that make you smile even when you lose simply because you enjoyed the experience, you should check this one out. There is still time to back it through Kickstarter, but the campaign ends on Wednesday, March 6. At the time of writing, the campaign is funded at over 500%.
A “gorinto” is a Japanese five-tier pagoda tower where each tier is representative of something of religious importance. In this game, each tier is representative of one of the elements: fire, water, wind, earth, and void. In this prototype version, the season tracking pawn is a representative gorinto. To gain deeper understanding of these elements and attain ultimate Wisdom is the goal of the game of Gorinto.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and the final components will be different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign running until March 4, 2020, or purchase through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, each player will choose a color, take the play mat of matching color, and place their score marker on the score board. The season tracker will be placed on the scoreboard as well, along with the randomized Goal cards and end-of-game element scoring cards. The main play board will be populated with randomized element tiles pulled from the bag in the shape of a mountain, with 10 tiles placed along the side and top edges of the built mountain of tiles. Determine the first player and the game is ready to be played.
On a player’s turn they will choose one of these outlying tiles to move onto the board. Once placed, the player will choose tiles, based on the placed tile’s power, from the board. For example, “fire spreads tall,” so if a Fire tile is placed on the board, a player may choose any tile from the column where it was placed two spaces above or below the placed tile. The number of tiles that can be plucked from the board depends on the player’s “understanding” of the element (the number of tiles of that type on the player’s board +1). With two tiles on a player’s personal board, they can choose three tiles when moving that type of tile, in the example – fire.
Tiles moved from the left side of the mountain can only move horizontally in their row and tiles moved from the top of the mountain can only move vertically in their column. With each of the elements possessing different ways tiles can be chosen from the mountain, and understanding of each element affecting how many tiles can be chosen, players need to plan ahead for their turns… except that other players will be doing the same and planning their own strategies to destroy their opponents’ plans.
When there are fewer tiles to be moved outside the mountain than there are players, the season (round) ends. At this point, players will score the Goal cards before setting up for the next season.
Each season the Goal cards will be scored – so players will know throughout the game upon what they should be concentrating their efforts. Examples of these Goal cards are: score your tallest stack (1 point per tile), then score your shortest stack (0 points if no tiles on a stack); score your stacks with odd number of tiles twice; score the stack with the median number of tiles three times. By being able to manipulate and keep track of the tile stacks players can be planning their scores ahead of time for each season.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, but already one can see the direction this game is headed, and it’s glorious! I have seen the Kickstarter page, and am super excited about seeing nearly every component get a fantastic upgrade. The art direction is incredible, the physical components are plastic and cardboard heaven. I am even pretty happy with this prototype copy. Yeah, the tiles are squarish wooden tiles with stickers, and the retail copy will have sexy interlocking plastic tokens, and the player boards in prototype are rectangular, but the retail copy will have a fancy contoured edge. Even so! The game looks amazing on the table, and will be even more so once it goes to manufacturing in earnest.
I mentioned in my intro that I am falling more in love with abstracts the more I play them. Has it just been that abstracts have been getting better and better lately, or am I leveling up as a gamer? I don’t know and I don’t care. Abstracts hold a very special place in my heart now, and this one is one of the best I have played. Most abstracts get a bad rap for being themeless and boring to look at, but Gorinto brings it and I’m totally diggin’ it. I love games like Gekitai, Calico, Elementos, Hive, and Onitama, and now there’s another to add to my display case of amazing abstracts.
If you enjoy themed abstract strategy games, games that make you think without bogging you down, and games that make you smile even when you lose simply because you enjoyed the experience, you should check this one out. There is still time to back it through Kickstarter, but the campaign ends on Wednesday, March 6. At the time of writing, the campaign is funded at over 500%.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Tomorrowland (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I have to be honest. I was confused when I first heard that a movie was being made called Tomorrowland, and even more so when I heard it that actually is based on the themed area of Disney parks. How could they do it? What would it be about? It was strange. The teaser trailer didn’t give a whole lot away either (as teasers are designed to do). When I saw the full trailer, I had a little more understanding, and it definitely piqued my interest, but I was still totally in the dark. And I wanted to see the movie! I guess Disney really did their job right.
In this film, Tomorrowland is a place of unlimited possibilities. Another dimension, where the inhabitants of that dimension actively seek out intelligent people, inventors, who can do something that can change the world for the better. We begin at the 1964 World Fair in New York where we see a young Frank Walker (Thomas Robinson) entering into the inventor’s competition with a jetpack that doesn’t quite work. However, a mysterious young woman named Athena (Raffey Cassidy) takes an interest in him, offers him a pin and instructs him to follow her. Thus begins Frank’s adventure and we move forward in time to the present day, where we meet Casey Newton (Britt Robertson).
Casey is the teenage daughter of a NASA engineer, who is no slough in the intelligence department herself. We are introduced to her as she is sabotaging equipment at a NASA launch pad that is scheduled to be taken down, which will leave her father without a job. We see Athena again, who has mysteriously not aged, leaving a pin for Casey to discover Tomorrowland on her own. Only, this pin is a simple advertisement. We soon learn that something has gone terribly wrong, and our world is in danger. Athena leads Casey to an aged Frank Walker (George Clooney), who has since been banished from Tomorrowland, but still feeds off of their signal and sits and waits for the end of the world, which he knows when it will happen. But he and Athena see something in Casey that will help save both Tomorrowland, and our world.
Given the conversations, the imagery, and the theme of this movie, it is clearly targeted towards children more than adults. Though, there is plenty for an adult to enjoy about the movie, it is important to understand that the movie is clearly targeted to a younger audience. I say this because I feel, as did my guests who attended the press screening, that the main plot device, the main conflict of the movie, is far too complex a concept for this younger audience to understand. So before you read any further, spoiler alert. You have been forewarned. If you do not want to know, skip the next two paragraphs.
The idea here is that Frank Walker built a machine that could see any point in time. Past, future or present. With this machine, he saw the end of our world. The proposed resolution to stop the destruction of earth is this: turn off the machine. The argument being that the world ends because we see it ending. It becomes a fixation of our mind, and so it will happen. Apparently, the people of Tomorrowland have been streaming this information to Earth for years, but instead of taking steps to prevent it, Earth has embraced it. One of my favorite lines, delivered by one of my favorite actors (Hugh Laurie) indicated that we had simultaneous epidemics of obesity and starvation on Earth. It’s mind boggling. But the Casey comes up with the brilliant idea of turning it off, which will prevent the destruction of Earth because people will no longer be so focused on it. It’s a little more complicated than that, but this is the gist of it. Way too complex for your average child to comprehend.
Another part of the resolution and the end of the movie was brilliant, but I think it was poorly illustrated. As I mentioned earlier, the residents of Tomorrowland were searching for intelligent people, often high IQ inventors, who could make the world a better place. At the end of the film, Casey idea is to bring not only intelligent people, but anyone who will make a difference. Dancers, musicians, doctors, pilots, farmers, etc. I think I even saw a waitress in there. These are people who may not normally be recognized as highly intelligent, but can make huge differences in the world. The idea was to not be so limited in thinking, and understand how everything can contribute to a better world. However, they did not really do a great job of pointing this out, so some movie-goers may miss this point completely and simply see it as a rebuilding of Tomorrowland to its former glory.
Other than those two issues, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It had a great amount of humor, action and endearing moments. It was visually stunning, and took a concept that I never thought could be made into a movie and did just that. The movie was brilliantly cast, even down to the minor characters like Hugo (Keegan-Michael Key) and Ursula (Kathryn Hahn). Of course the score was fantastic, it is a Disney film after all. And despite my issues with the complexity of the plot, I still think that everyone, young and old, will enjoy this film.
Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But it is entertaining, and definitely worth seeing on the big screen. So go check it out. In theaters everywhere, today.
In this film, Tomorrowland is a place of unlimited possibilities. Another dimension, where the inhabitants of that dimension actively seek out intelligent people, inventors, who can do something that can change the world for the better. We begin at the 1964 World Fair in New York where we see a young Frank Walker (Thomas Robinson) entering into the inventor’s competition with a jetpack that doesn’t quite work. However, a mysterious young woman named Athena (Raffey Cassidy) takes an interest in him, offers him a pin and instructs him to follow her. Thus begins Frank’s adventure and we move forward in time to the present day, where we meet Casey Newton (Britt Robertson).
Casey is the teenage daughter of a NASA engineer, who is no slough in the intelligence department herself. We are introduced to her as she is sabotaging equipment at a NASA launch pad that is scheduled to be taken down, which will leave her father without a job. We see Athena again, who has mysteriously not aged, leaving a pin for Casey to discover Tomorrowland on her own. Only, this pin is a simple advertisement. We soon learn that something has gone terribly wrong, and our world is in danger. Athena leads Casey to an aged Frank Walker (George Clooney), who has since been banished from Tomorrowland, but still feeds off of their signal and sits and waits for the end of the world, which he knows when it will happen. But he and Athena see something in Casey that will help save both Tomorrowland, and our world.
Given the conversations, the imagery, and the theme of this movie, it is clearly targeted towards children more than adults. Though, there is plenty for an adult to enjoy about the movie, it is important to understand that the movie is clearly targeted to a younger audience. I say this because I feel, as did my guests who attended the press screening, that the main plot device, the main conflict of the movie, is far too complex a concept for this younger audience to understand. So before you read any further, spoiler alert. You have been forewarned. If you do not want to know, skip the next two paragraphs.
The idea here is that Frank Walker built a machine that could see any point in time. Past, future or present. With this machine, he saw the end of our world. The proposed resolution to stop the destruction of earth is this: turn off the machine. The argument being that the world ends because we see it ending. It becomes a fixation of our mind, and so it will happen. Apparently, the people of Tomorrowland have been streaming this information to Earth for years, but instead of taking steps to prevent it, Earth has embraced it. One of my favorite lines, delivered by one of my favorite actors (Hugh Laurie) indicated that we had simultaneous epidemics of obesity and starvation on Earth. It’s mind boggling. But the Casey comes up with the brilliant idea of turning it off, which will prevent the destruction of Earth because people will no longer be so focused on it. It’s a little more complicated than that, but this is the gist of it. Way too complex for your average child to comprehend.
Another part of the resolution and the end of the movie was brilliant, but I think it was poorly illustrated. As I mentioned earlier, the residents of Tomorrowland were searching for intelligent people, often high IQ inventors, who could make the world a better place. At the end of the film, Casey idea is to bring not only intelligent people, but anyone who will make a difference. Dancers, musicians, doctors, pilots, farmers, etc. I think I even saw a waitress in there. These are people who may not normally be recognized as highly intelligent, but can make huge differences in the world. The idea was to not be so limited in thinking, and understand how everything can contribute to a better world. However, they did not really do a great job of pointing this out, so some movie-goers may miss this point completely and simply see it as a rebuilding of Tomorrowland to its former glory.
Other than those two issues, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It had a great amount of humor, action and endearing moments. It was visually stunning, and took a concept that I never thought could be made into a movie and did just that. The movie was brilliantly cast, even down to the minor characters like Hugo (Keegan-Michael Key) and Ursula (Kathryn Hahn). Of course the score was fantastic, it is a Disney film after all. And despite my issues with the complexity of the plot, I still think that everyone, young and old, will enjoy this film.
Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But it is entertaining, and definitely worth seeing on the big screen. So go check it out. In theaters everywhere, today.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Aldabas: Doors of Cartagena in Tabletop Games
May 16, 2021
I’m just going to come right out with it so I can get it out of the way. This game has some really nice knockers. Yes, it is kid-friendly – I am referencing the door knockers that adorn the Doors of Cartagena. These ornate knockers have historically signified professions held by the residence’s inhabitants and can still be found in this Colombian city today. So how does this translate into a board game? Well, let’s dive into the world of Aldabas: Doors of Cartagena.
In Aldabas, players are (loose) urban planners in historic Cartagena attempting to build their city block with the most influential people in town. By drafting the most strategic door cards the winning player is they who scores the most points at the end of the game.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, place out 12 coins per player on the table, create the door offer dock, shuffle the Doors deck, and give each player five Doors and one Vault board. Each player then chooses one card from their hand to secretly place under their vault for endgame scoring. Place the shuffled Doors deck next to the Dock and deal one card to each space beneath the Dock. The game is now setup and ready to play!
On a turn the active player will take two actions. The actions are: Take Two Coins, Buy One Door, and Place One Door. Obviously, the first action has the player adding two coins from the supply to their play area (called the purse). To Buy One Door the player simply chooses one of the Door cards from the Dock area and pays its cost to the supply. The two cards on the leftmost spaces of the Dock are free, while the other cards cost coins according to their placement at the Dock. Once a card has been purchased, a new card is revealed and added to the rightmost space, sliding all other Doors cards to the left.
To Place One Door, the active player will choose a Doors card from their hand and place it on their block they are building in front of them. The Vault card acts as the bottom leftmost space, with the block encompassing a 4×3 grid above it and to the right (as shown below). Once the Door is placed, any special power it offers is triggered immediately, as are the Doors cards’ powers adjacently below and beside the newly placed Door card.
The catch here is that when placing Doors, it is illegal to place them orthogonally adjacent to Doors of the same color, and the spaces both below and to the left of the placed Door cannot be empty. Essentially, Doors need to be placed in a cone starting from the Vault. Play continues in this fashion with players taking turns until either the supply runs out of coins, a player fills up their 4×3 grid with Doors, or the Dock cannot be refilled because the Doors deck is empty. Then final scoring occurs, which is based on individual cards as well as any suit-specific bonuses offered.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, so final components may be different in many different ways upon a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, this game looks GORGEOUS on the table. The colors are all super vibrant, and the great knockers really pop. Excellent theme and art here carry an already-spiffy game. The game is basically a bunch of cards and some coin tokens. They are all fine quality, especially for a prototype. I have no issues at all. I love the way this looks!
So I love the way it looks, but do I love the way it plays? I think it’s a good little game. It reminds me a little of Viceroy with the color combinations and placement rules. While Viceroy is good, Aldabas is much better in almost all ways. Aldabas plays quicker and has more easily digestible rules. If you check Viceroy’s profile on BGG you will see that many users enjoy it, and it currently sits just above rank 1000. So when I say Aldabas gives a similar feel but delivers a more enjoyable game experience, I expect Aldabas to perform better in the BGG rankings, if that’s your thing.
The special powers on the Doors cards, though I didn’t really mention them, range from VPs at game end, to moving coins to and from the Vault onto Doors to make them more valuable, to gaining coins from the supply or stealing them from other players, to offering discounts on purchasing Doors from the Dock. There are some other fun rules used in scoring, but I will let you experience those on your own with your backed copy.
So final word from me on this one is that I highly recommend it and hope you give it a shot. It offers lots of strategic game play with a medium-sized table footprint, but boy it looks great on that table! Turns are fast, and everyone is in the game until end scoring, so I never felt there was a runaway winner issue. If you are like me, you will definitely want to be adding this to your collection. Big recommendations from me, I know you will enjoy it.
In Aldabas, players are (loose) urban planners in historic Cartagena attempting to build their city block with the most influential people in town. By drafting the most strategic door cards the winning player is they who scores the most points at the end of the game.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, place out 12 coins per player on the table, create the door offer dock, shuffle the Doors deck, and give each player five Doors and one Vault board. Each player then chooses one card from their hand to secretly place under their vault for endgame scoring. Place the shuffled Doors deck next to the Dock and deal one card to each space beneath the Dock. The game is now setup and ready to play!
On a turn the active player will take two actions. The actions are: Take Two Coins, Buy One Door, and Place One Door. Obviously, the first action has the player adding two coins from the supply to their play area (called the purse). To Buy One Door the player simply chooses one of the Door cards from the Dock area and pays its cost to the supply. The two cards on the leftmost spaces of the Dock are free, while the other cards cost coins according to their placement at the Dock. Once a card has been purchased, a new card is revealed and added to the rightmost space, sliding all other Doors cards to the left.
To Place One Door, the active player will choose a Doors card from their hand and place it on their block they are building in front of them. The Vault card acts as the bottom leftmost space, with the block encompassing a 4×3 grid above it and to the right (as shown below). Once the Door is placed, any special power it offers is triggered immediately, as are the Doors cards’ powers adjacently below and beside the newly placed Door card.
The catch here is that when placing Doors, it is illegal to place them orthogonally adjacent to Doors of the same color, and the spaces both below and to the left of the placed Door cannot be empty. Essentially, Doors need to be placed in a cone starting from the Vault. Play continues in this fashion with players taking turns until either the supply runs out of coins, a player fills up their 4×3 grid with Doors, or the Dock cannot be refilled because the Doors deck is empty. Then final scoring occurs, which is based on individual cards as well as any suit-specific bonuses offered.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, so final components may be different in many different ways upon a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, this game looks GORGEOUS on the table. The colors are all super vibrant, and the great knockers really pop. Excellent theme and art here carry an already-spiffy game. The game is basically a bunch of cards and some coin tokens. They are all fine quality, especially for a prototype. I have no issues at all. I love the way this looks!
So I love the way it looks, but do I love the way it plays? I think it’s a good little game. It reminds me a little of Viceroy with the color combinations and placement rules. While Viceroy is good, Aldabas is much better in almost all ways. Aldabas plays quicker and has more easily digestible rules. If you check Viceroy’s profile on BGG you will see that many users enjoy it, and it currently sits just above rank 1000. So when I say Aldabas gives a similar feel but delivers a more enjoyable game experience, I expect Aldabas to perform better in the BGG rankings, if that’s your thing.
The special powers on the Doors cards, though I didn’t really mention them, range from VPs at game end, to moving coins to and from the Vault onto Doors to make them more valuable, to gaining coins from the supply or stealing them from other players, to offering discounts on purchasing Doors from the Dock. There are some other fun rules used in scoring, but I will let you experience those on your own with your backed copy.
So final word from me on this one is that I highly recommend it and hope you give it a shot. It offers lots of strategic game play with a medium-sized table footprint, but boy it looks great on that table! Turns are fast, and everyone is in the game until end scoring, so I never felt there was a runaway winner issue. If you are like me, you will definitely want to be adding this to your collection. Big recommendations from me, I know you will enjoy it.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Bandada in Tabletop Games
Jan 19, 2021
Though I may not look it, I am indeed half Mexican. That said, the word, “Bandada,” means, “Flock.” I don’t really get to flex my Spanish skills often, and it shows. I definitely looked up the word Bandada before reading the rules this time. In any case, as gamers we all belong to the same nerdy flock of people who just like to have a great time with friends, family, and some colorful cardboard and plastic. Birds and other flying creatures have been all the rage recently, but will I be adding this one to my flock of gems?
In Bandada players are attempting to catch and return birds that have escaped from the local zoo. These birds are attracted to different food morsels (namely black, blue, and yellow dice) and by manipulating the food source players may be able to catch all the right birdies and score tons of points.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
Disclaimer the second: I am previewing this using the Solo Adventure Variant, which uses many of the same rules as the main multiplayer rules with a few twists.
To setup the solo player will roll all 12 dice and sort them by color. Shuffle the bird cards and reveal three cards face-up in a market row. Grab a scoring cube for the score card, and choose which location card to play. Select (randomly or not) a bonus scoring card and the game may begin!
There are other optional variant rules that can be added to the adventure, but I will not be detailing those here.
Turns are divided into two phases: the Drafting phase and the Cleanup phase. During the Drafting phase the player will choose one of the face-up bird cards to be added to their personal bandada, perform the action described on the top of the card, and then add it to their bandada (personal tableau).
After drafting and bandada-ing the player will perform the Cleanup phase by scoring points based on the bird card abilities printed on the bottom, discarding the remaining face-up cards, and then adding three new birds cards to that market row. This phase differs from the multiplayer rules in that birds are scored once added to the bandada in multiplayer and then again during the Cleanup phase. In the solo mode they are scored only once at the end of the Cleanup phase.
The bird cards all have actions printed at the top that will manipulate the food dice in some way. Actions could simply give the birds a specific number of colored dice and adjust the value up or down. Some abilities will have the player flipping the dice to the opposite side, or adjusting multiple dice by splitting a positive or negative value. Of note in this game is that dice values wrap around the die. For example to increase the value of a 6 die it then wraps around to become a value 1. Manipulation of these food dice will make or break the game success, as I found in all my plays.
The game continues in this fashion until after the fourth full round. The player then totals their score on the score card, adds the points from the bonus card chosen at the beginning, and checks for the victory condition on the location card (the rules suggest starting in Africa). If the player has met the victory condition, the trip was a success! If, like me, the player fails to make 35 points in Africa every time, they must play again!
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, but I have to say that this is a beautiful minimalistic game. It consists of primarily dice and cards. The dice are translucent and good quality, though translucent yellow with white pips can be hard to read at times. The cards are good quality as well and feature breathtaking avian art. It really does look great on the table and doesn’t take up a ton of room, so I have very few negatives here.
Gameplay is super speedy and agonizing for a solo player. Maximizing points on every turn and having to consider specific win conditions makes for a crunchy little card game that takes about 10 minutes to play. It is definitely something I will be reaching for whenever I have a spare 15 minutes. With setup and teardown I am looking at a fulfilling, if not frustrating, card game experience that can be both anxiety-triggering and also quite calming. I was not sure what to expect when I opened the box, but boy am I glad I have this little gem.
If you are in the market for a great little solo game that can also play multiplayer, looks amazing, and is quick to complete, then look no further. If you are an avian aficionado and need your board and card game collection to reflect this, check out Bandada. I need you all to also promise to write me back once you figure out how to succeed in Africa, as I just plum can’t do it. But I am going to keep trying. As I always say, a game that makes you want to play it more is a mark of a great game, and I think a great game comes in this little box.
In Bandada players are attempting to catch and return birds that have escaped from the local zoo. These birds are attracted to different food morsels (namely black, blue, and yellow dice) and by manipulating the food source players may be able to catch all the right birdies and score tons of points.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
Disclaimer the second: I am previewing this using the Solo Adventure Variant, which uses many of the same rules as the main multiplayer rules with a few twists.
To setup the solo player will roll all 12 dice and sort them by color. Shuffle the bird cards and reveal three cards face-up in a market row. Grab a scoring cube for the score card, and choose which location card to play. Select (randomly or not) a bonus scoring card and the game may begin!
There are other optional variant rules that can be added to the adventure, but I will not be detailing those here.
Turns are divided into two phases: the Drafting phase and the Cleanup phase. During the Drafting phase the player will choose one of the face-up bird cards to be added to their personal bandada, perform the action described on the top of the card, and then add it to their bandada (personal tableau).
After drafting and bandada-ing the player will perform the Cleanup phase by scoring points based on the bird card abilities printed on the bottom, discarding the remaining face-up cards, and then adding three new birds cards to that market row. This phase differs from the multiplayer rules in that birds are scored once added to the bandada in multiplayer and then again during the Cleanup phase. In the solo mode they are scored only once at the end of the Cleanup phase.
The bird cards all have actions printed at the top that will manipulate the food dice in some way. Actions could simply give the birds a specific number of colored dice and adjust the value up or down. Some abilities will have the player flipping the dice to the opposite side, or adjusting multiple dice by splitting a positive or negative value. Of note in this game is that dice values wrap around the die. For example to increase the value of a 6 die it then wraps around to become a value 1. Manipulation of these food dice will make or break the game success, as I found in all my plays.
The game continues in this fashion until after the fourth full round. The player then totals their score on the score card, adds the points from the bonus card chosen at the beginning, and checks for the victory condition on the location card (the rules suggest starting in Africa). If the player has met the victory condition, the trip was a success! If, like me, the player fails to make 35 points in Africa every time, they must play again!
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, but I have to say that this is a beautiful minimalistic game. It consists of primarily dice and cards. The dice are translucent and good quality, though translucent yellow with white pips can be hard to read at times. The cards are good quality as well and feature breathtaking avian art. It really does look great on the table and doesn’t take up a ton of room, so I have very few negatives here.
Gameplay is super speedy and agonizing for a solo player. Maximizing points on every turn and having to consider specific win conditions makes for a crunchy little card game that takes about 10 minutes to play. It is definitely something I will be reaching for whenever I have a spare 15 minutes. With setup and teardown I am looking at a fulfilling, if not frustrating, card game experience that can be both anxiety-triggering and also quite calming. I was not sure what to expect when I opened the box, but boy am I glad I have this little gem.
If you are in the market for a great little solo game that can also play multiplayer, looks amazing, and is quick to complete, then look no further. If you are an avian aficionado and need your board and card game collection to reflect this, check out Bandada. I need you all to also promise to write me back once you figure out how to succeed in Africa, as I just plum can’t do it. But I am going to keep trying. As I always say, a game that makes you want to play it more is a mark of a great game, and I think a great game comes in this little box.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Werewolves Within (2021) in Movies
Dec 14, 2021
An incredible ensemble cast. (2 more)
Plot stays true to the classic 'whodunit' formula.
Milana Vayntrub.
Not enough horror. (2 more)
Not enough werewolves.
The burning desire for a hard R-rating.
A Sleepover with Guns
A horror comedy film based on the 2016 Red Storm Entertainment developed, Ubisoft published multiplayer VR video game of the same name, Werewolves Within keeps the same mystery/whodunit element of the game by introducing audiences to a small town under attack from a werewolf and leaving them to wonder which of the townsfolk could be the actual lycanthrope.
Directed by Josh Ruben and written by Mishna Wolff, Werewolves Within begins as Ranger Finn Wheeler (Sam Richardson) arrives in Beaverfield for his new post. Finn hits it off with the local mail carrier Cecily (Milana Vayntrub), but the rest of the town is unusually eccentric, to say the least.
There’s Trisha (Micahela Watkins) and Pete (Michael Chernus) Aderton, a couple who makes weird miniature dolls of everyone they meet and care a little too much for their dog. Devon (Cheyenne Jackson) and Joaquim (Harvey Guillén) are a homosexual couple living off the riches of a successful technological company. The town’s resident mechanic is Gwen (Sarah Burns), a crude woman whose husband Marcus (George Basil) is largely regarded as the town idiot.
Elsewhere in town, rounding out Beaverfield’s colorful cast of characters, is the clingy owner of the local lodge, Jeanine (Catherine Curtin), canine attack expert Dr. Ellis (Rebecca Henderson), oil magnate Sam (Wayne Duvall) who hopes to install a pipeline through the town at any cost, and Emerson, a ‘scary’ hunter who hates people and lives on the outskirts of town.
One night, when the power suddenly goes out and with the town’s back-up generators in a state of disrepair, everyone in town takes refuge in Jeanine’s lodge. However, after a corpse is discovered underneath the lodge’s porch and the townsfolk barricade themselves inside the building in an attempt to protect themselves from whatever may be lurking outside, the werewolf manages to attack from within.
In the aftermath of the attack, everyone begins to turn on each other, as the monster’s strike from inside the lodge provides them with a shocking revelation: Somebody in the lodge is the werewolf.
The cast works so well together. Richardson is does an excellent job of portraying Finn, a guy so nice and soft spoken that he feels like an African American Ned Flanders attempting to take charge as the authority figure.
Similarly, Vayntrub is so charming as Cecily that it makes you wonder why she hasn’t been in much else outside of AT&T commercials and the occasional voice role as Marvel’s Squirrel Girl, while Guillén is just as funny here as he is on What We Do in the Shadows, albeit in a slightly different way.
However, the most entertaining aspect of the film’s casting is the way everyone’s eccentric chemistry bounces off each other in a way that evokes this palpable sense of quirky absurdity that you can’t really find anywhere else.
The formula of Werewolves Within is a lot like Knives Out or Murder on the Orient Express, as it’s a mystery wrapped within the confines of a horror comedy, with the ensemble cast taking center stage as they dance around the comedy genre and a mild R-rating while the horror aspect is mostly reduced to sitting in the backseat and tapping you on the shoulder from time to time.
In fact, to that same mysterious end, the eponymous werewolf isn’t actually revealed until the last ten or so minutes of the film.
As someone who hasn’t played the original video game, the film adaptation of Werewolves Within was, overall, a little disappointing from a personal standpoint.
Yes, the film is more of a whodunit than a straight horror film, and thus it’s understandable why it did not lean completely into the more gory and terrifying potential of its premise. Yet, even with this fact in mind, the film still feels particularly lacking when it comes to its actual horror elements.
It’s also one of the softest R-rated films to come along in quite some time. While some aspects, such as Finn biting his tongue or saying “Heavens to Betsy” instead of dropping an F-bomb make sense, it remains frustrating nonetheless that Werewolves Within constantly feels as if it’s purposely holding itself back.
Which is a shame, because there’s more to a film like this than silly on-screen hijinks and running attempts by the audience to figure out who the killer is – after all, some of us will pay good money to see the monster you’ve advertised your entire film.
Recently, there seems to be a rising trend among modern werewolf movies to barely feature a film’s respective monster on screen. This year’s Bloodthirsty is a great example and, as much as I love the film, The Wolf of Snow Hollow did the horror/comedy concoction to a much more satisfying degree than Werewolves Within, and yet totally massacred the idea of an actual werewolf being the culprit.
At the end of the day, Werewolves Within is a film where a bunch of weirdos in some-little-nowhere-town are forcibly crammed into a lodge during a snowstorm and proceed to irritate one another to semi-humorous results as a werewolf hides among them. The film is essentially a wolf in a person’s clothing, as while Werewolves Within is fine for what it is and features some great performances here and a couple laugh-out-loud moments, its potential seems to be far greater than what we received.
Ultimately, Werewolves Within leaves horror fans starving and salivating for more.
Directed by Josh Ruben and written by Mishna Wolff, Werewolves Within begins as Ranger Finn Wheeler (Sam Richardson) arrives in Beaverfield for his new post. Finn hits it off with the local mail carrier Cecily (Milana Vayntrub), but the rest of the town is unusually eccentric, to say the least.
There’s Trisha (Micahela Watkins) and Pete (Michael Chernus) Aderton, a couple who makes weird miniature dolls of everyone they meet and care a little too much for their dog. Devon (Cheyenne Jackson) and Joaquim (Harvey Guillén) are a homosexual couple living off the riches of a successful technological company. The town’s resident mechanic is Gwen (Sarah Burns), a crude woman whose husband Marcus (George Basil) is largely regarded as the town idiot.
Elsewhere in town, rounding out Beaverfield’s colorful cast of characters, is the clingy owner of the local lodge, Jeanine (Catherine Curtin), canine attack expert Dr. Ellis (Rebecca Henderson), oil magnate Sam (Wayne Duvall) who hopes to install a pipeline through the town at any cost, and Emerson, a ‘scary’ hunter who hates people and lives on the outskirts of town.
One night, when the power suddenly goes out and with the town’s back-up generators in a state of disrepair, everyone in town takes refuge in Jeanine’s lodge. However, after a corpse is discovered underneath the lodge’s porch and the townsfolk barricade themselves inside the building in an attempt to protect themselves from whatever may be lurking outside, the werewolf manages to attack from within.
In the aftermath of the attack, everyone begins to turn on each other, as the monster’s strike from inside the lodge provides them with a shocking revelation: Somebody in the lodge is the werewolf.
The cast works so well together. Richardson is does an excellent job of portraying Finn, a guy so nice and soft spoken that he feels like an African American Ned Flanders attempting to take charge as the authority figure.
Similarly, Vayntrub is so charming as Cecily that it makes you wonder why she hasn’t been in much else outside of AT&T commercials and the occasional voice role as Marvel’s Squirrel Girl, while Guillén is just as funny here as he is on What We Do in the Shadows, albeit in a slightly different way.
However, the most entertaining aspect of the film’s casting is the way everyone’s eccentric chemistry bounces off each other in a way that evokes this palpable sense of quirky absurdity that you can’t really find anywhere else.
The formula of Werewolves Within is a lot like Knives Out or Murder on the Orient Express, as it’s a mystery wrapped within the confines of a horror comedy, with the ensemble cast taking center stage as they dance around the comedy genre and a mild R-rating while the horror aspect is mostly reduced to sitting in the backseat and tapping you on the shoulder from time to time.
In fact, to that same mysterious end, the eponymous werewolf isn’t actually revealed until the last ten or so minutes of the film.
As someone who hasn’t played the original video game, the film adaptation of Werewolves Within was, overall, a little disappointing from a personal standpoint.
Yes, the film is more of a whodunit than a straight horror film, and thus it’s understandable why it did not lean completely into the more gory and terrifying potential of its premise. Yet, even with this fact in mind, the film still feels particularly lacking when it comes to its actual horror elements.
It’s also one of the softest R-rated films to come along in quite some time. While some aspects, such as Finn biting his tongue or saying “Heavens to Betsy” instead of dropping an F-bomb make sense, it remains frustrating nonetheless that Werewolves Within constantly feels as if it’s purposely holding itself back.
Which is a shame, because there’s more to a film like this than silly on-screen hijinks and running attempts by the audience to figure out who the killer is – after all, some of us will pay good money to see the monster you’ve advertised your entire film.
Recently, there seems to be a rising trend among modern werewolf movies to barely feature a film’s respective monster on screen. This year’s Bloodthirsty is a great example and, as much as I love the film, The Wolf of Snow Hollow did the horror/comedy concoction to a much more satisfying degree than Werewolves Within, and yet totally massacred the idea of an actual werewolf being the culprit.
At the end of the day, Werewolves Within is a film where a bunch of weirdos in some-little-nowhere-town are forcibly crammed into a lodge during a snowstorm and proceed to irritate one another to semi-humorous results as a werewolf hides among them. The film is essentially a wolf in a person’s clothing, as while Werewolves Within is fine for what it is and features some great performances here and a couple laugh-out-loud moments, its potential seems to be far greater than what we received.
Ultimately, Werewolves Within leaves horror fans starving and salivating for more.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Clash of the Titans (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Clash of the Titans tells the story of men turning their backs on the gods. The gods grow weaker as men refuse to pay worship to them and neither side will budge. That's where Perseus (Sam Worthington) comes in. Perseus is a demigod, half man and half god. Zeus (Liam Neeson) is his father, but Perseus was raised as a fisherman. As the gods grow desperate, they turn to Zeus' brother who was banished to the underworld, Hades (Ralph Fiennes) to hopefully scare them into realizing "the order of things." When Hades onslaught kills Perseus' family, Perseus vows revenge against him and will do everything within his power to destroy the god of the underworld. Perseus' journey will not be easy as several ungodly beasts stand in the way of him reaching his goal as he struggles with accepting sanctuary as a god or continuing on this journey as a man.
Clash of the Titans was highly anticipated on my end for quite some time. The trailers were pretty fantastic and everything seemed to point to the film being epic. Directed by Louis Leterrier (Unleashed, The Incredible Hulk) and starring Sam Worthington (Avatar, Terminator: Salvation), Liam Neeson (Taken, Batman Begins), and Ralph Fiennes (In Bruges, The Hurt Locker), this film had a solid cast and a director with some pretty great films under his belt. It had all the elements to make a fantastic film and yet it somehow managed to fail.
The film felt like a watered down version of what a film based on the God of War video game could potentially be. All the same gods are there, the Medusa character is in there, there's a character battling against the gods, the similarities are pretty obvious. The only thing that is different is that the main character is named Perseus instead of Kratos. On one hand, it may not be a bad thing comparing the film to God of War. If they do decide to make a God of War film down the road though, it seems like it'll be way too similar to this film unless they go full-blown, balls out rated R with it. That's the route they should go anyway, but Clash of the Titans basically feels like a censored version of God of War.
Certain other things about the film really bugged me. The main one being that the two main female characters Io (Gemma Arterton) and Andromeda (Alexa Davalos) cried at EVERYTHING. Every time they spoke it was like they started getting teary eyed. "Oh Perseus, I can't follow you into Medusa's lair since I'm not a big strong man like you are. *sob*" Just made me want to slap them and go, "GET A GRIP, LADY! SHEESH!" The biggest pet peeve of mine lies in the finale of the film. Everything regarding Hades and the kraken are dealt with so quickly. The film makes a huge deal about both of them only to have everything wrapped up in less than five minutes when the time finally comes. It just wound up feeling very rushed and anticlimactic. Also, what was the deal with the prophecy the witches gave Perseus? Was the explanation of getting around that because Perseus was half god? That's pretty weak. Instead, we're going to go with this ending that's completely open-ended and leaves massive room for a potential sequel. Lame.
Despite all of the things I found wrong with the film, there were some high points. The CG seemed very all or nothing to me. At times, the effects were fantastic. The giant scorpions scene and the kraken being the best examples. Pegasus is also a great example. The winged horses looked fairly genuine, but they looked kind of odd when they flew. Other times though, it seemed way too obvious that the characters were standing in front of a green screen and fighting with creatures that weren't actually there. There's a scene near the beginning where we first see Perseus as an adult where his father is talking to him and a thunderstorm is beginning to brew. The sky was obviously CG. There were just several moments like that that brought me out of the film.
Ralph Fiennes as Hades was easily the high point for me as far as acting goes. Fiennes was most impressive in David Cronenberg's Spider and has been on my radar for actors to keep an eye on ever since. He doesn't disappoint here. His smarminess as Hades spoke volumes. The ferry scene is also pretty amazing, at least until Perseus and Io begin their Medusa training. Ugh.
A few humorous points, the South Park fan in me chimed in when Io told Perseus "You're more than half man half god." I thought she was going to follow up with, "You're actually half man, half bear, half pig. Or maybe you're actually half bear half man-pig." Still laughing about that one. The scene where Perseus emerges from Medusa's lair and Io is waiting for him, she's wearing this really weird outfit. I heard the guy next to me say, "What the...is she wearing a mop?!" and it made me laugh out loud. Best part of the whole film though, at the end, when everything had been resolved somebody yelled at the top of their lungs, "I AM A GOD!!!!!!" After a brief silence, everyone in the theater started laughing. Kinda sad that the most entertaining part of the film wasn't actually a part of the film itself.
Clash of the Titans was one of the most anticipated blockbusters of the year, but fell short and wound up being one of the most disappointing. With mediocre special effects, a sloppy finale, and female characters that will get on your last nerve, the action film fails to live up to expectations. At the end of the day, Clash of the Titans is basically just a glorified Xena: Warrior Princess.
Clash of the Titans was highly anticipated on my end for quite some time. The trailers were pretty fantastic and everything seemed to point to the film being epic. Directed by Louis Leterrier (Unleashed, The Incredible Hulk) and starring Sam Worthington (Avatar, Terminator: Salvation), Liam Neeson (Taken, Batman Begins), and Ralph Fiennes (In Bruges, The Hurt Locker), this film had a solid cast and a director with some pretty great films under his belt. It had all the elements to make a fantastic film and yet it somehow managed to fail.
The film felt like a watered down version of what a film based on the God of War video game could potentially be. All the same gods are there, the Medusa character is in there, there's a character battling against the gods, the similarities are pretty obvious. The only thing that is different is that the main character is named Perseus instead of Kratos. On one hand, it may not be a bad thing comparing the film to God of War. If they do decide to make a God of War film down the road though, it seems like it'll be way too similar to this film unless they go full-blown, balls out rated R with it. That's the route they should go anyway, but Clash of the Titans basically feels like a censored version of God of War.
Certain other things about the film really bugged me. The main one being that the two main female characters Io (Gemma Arterton) and Andromeda (Alexa Davalos) cried at EVERYTHING. Every time they spoke it was like they started getting teary eyed. "Oh Perseus, I can't follow you into Medusa's lair since I'm not a big strong man like you are. *sob*" Just made me want to slap them and go, "GET A GRIP, LADY! SHEESH!" The biggest pet peeve of mine lies in the finale of the film. Everything regarding Hades and the kraken are dealt with so quickly. The film makes a huge deal about both of them only to have everything wrapped up in less than five minutes when the time finally comes. It just wound up feeling very rushed and anticlimactic. Also, what was the deal with the prophecy the witches gave Perseus? Was the explanation of getting around that because Perseus was half god? That's pretty weak. Instead, we're going to go with this ending that's completely open-ended and leaves massive room for a potential sequel. Lame.
Despite all of the things I found wrong with the film, there were some high points. The CG seemed very all or nothing to me. At times, the effects were fantastic. The giant scorpions scene and the kraken being the best examples. Pegasus is also a great example. The winged horses looked fairly genuine, but they looked kind of odd when they flew. Other times though, it seemed way too obvious that the characters were standing in front of a green screen and fighting with creatures that weren't actually there. There's a scene near the beginning where we first see Perseus as an adult where his father is talking to him and a thunderstorm is beginning to brew. The sky was obviously CG. There were just several moments like that that brought me out of the film.
Ralph Fiennes as Hades was easily the high point for me as far as acting goes. Fiennes was most impressive in David Cronenberg's Spider and has been on my radar for actors to keep an eye on ever since. He doesn't disappoint here. His smarminess as Hades spoke volumes. The ferry scene is also pretty amazing, at least until Perseus and Io begin their Medusa training. Ugh.
A few humorous points, the South Park fan in me chimed in when Io told Perseus "You're more than half man half god." I thought she was going to follow up with, "You're actually half man, half bear, half pig. Or maybe you're actually half bear half man-pig." Still laughing about that one. The scene where Perseus emerges from Medusa's lair and Io is waiting for him, she's wearing this really weird outfit. I heard the guy next to me say, "What the...is she wearing a mop?!" and it made me laugh out loud. Best part of the whole film though, at the end, when everything had been resolved somebody yelled at the top of their lungs, "I AM A GOD!!!!!!" After a brief silence, everyone in the theater started laughing. Kinda sad that the most entertaining part of the film wasn't actually a part of the film itself.
Clash of the Titans was one of the most anticipated blockbusters of the year, but fell short and wound up being one of the most disappointing. With mediocre special effects, a sloppy finale, and female characters that will get on your last nerve, the action film fails to live up to expectations. At the end of the day, Clash of the Titans is basically just a glorified Xena: Warrior Princess.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Vamp on the Batwalk in Tabletop Games
Feb 12, 2021
I think I could be a vampire. Not that I THINK I’m a vampire, but I think I could live(?) with being a vamp. Not the sparkly kind. Just the normal kind. Or maybe the “What We Do in the Shadows” kind. Yeah. At least initially I don’t think I would care much about being the most fashionable vampire in the group, but I could see why some of the elder vampires would need SOMETHING over which to compete and obsess. Maybe I could be one of the judges.
Vamp on the Batwalk has players take on the personalities of one of these fashionable elder vampires competing in the latest fashion show. The only problem is that vampires are unable to see themselves in mirrors, so they cannot really assure themselves that they look marvelous; the other vampires will have that privilege. Which vampire can win the most fashion shows this year with limited knowledge of how they look? Who would… stake… their reputation on mere fashion shows anyway?
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup invert the bottom of the box and insert it into the back of the box top lid to create a runway. A “batwalk,” if you will. Each player will choose a vampire and place their standee on the batwalk Start space. They will also take the matching Reference Card. All Vamp Cards matching the vamps in play are collected, shuffled together, and five are dealt to each player. Whichever player is most fashionable goes first and the game may begin!
Vamp on the Batwalk is a trick-taking game where players know not which cards they hold. Instead, their hands are facing all other players in order to suss out which cards they may be holding. The first player will open the game by playing any card from their hand. The next player also will play any card they wish, and so on until all players have played a card.
Once each card is played the “lead” card may be switched depending on the rules of the game. Should all cards played be of the same suit the highest card played is the lead card and wins the trick. Similarly, if the first card played remains the highest card in that suit and no other cards played earn the lead card status, that highest card wins the trick.
However, when a card is played that is the same value (a three played on a three of a different suit) the newest card with the matching value “Steals the Show” and becomes the new lead card. Some cards feature a star for the value. These star cards will always take the lead unless a garlic card has been played to trump the star. Garlic cards typically are the lowest-ranking suit, but when played in the same hand as a star become the trump suit.
Luckily, the reference cards have handy reminders for these special rules. After all cards from the hand have been played, players check who is winning the fashion show based on points earned during the round. If this is the end of the third round the vamp with the most points wins! If not, the player to the left of the most recent first player then becomes the first player for the next round.
Components. This game features an ingenious scoreboard that is just so fun to use. Having the box double as the scoreboard runway was such a great decision and it works flawlessly. The cards are all large tarot-sized (I think, I’m no tarot-master) and feature some really great art. The player standees are fine, but only four or so can actually fit on a space on the runway without creating a mess. All in all I adore the components and art style here.
Now, several games also employ this mechanic of holding your hand of cards outward for opponents to see, but here the players never really are told which cards they hold. In Vamp on the Batwalk the card play is silly and mostly a guessing game, at least in my head. One can never truly know all the cards they hold because each round not all cards are used. This adds another layer of difficulty in trying to guess what you are holding. This may turn off certain gamers, but it’s a silly way to play the game and I love it.
At the end of the day, this is a game about vampires putting on a fashion show. I feel like once I decided not to take it so seriously I began enjoying it so much more. Sometimes it’s a surprise to win a trick with a 2 of garlic. A throwaway card usually can win if a star is played. Or thinking you have THE card to win the trick only to have someone else Steal the Show and beat you out. It’s just chaotic silliness and I’m smitten.
If you are at all anything like me and can put aside the need to win at all times and at all costs, you will enjoy this one. It is wacky, has an amazing theme and excellent components, and is just a fun game to relax with or to help recharge after a brain burning sesh. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a blood-slurping 8 / 12. Even though I think the blue vamp is eerily similar to Travis McElroy, the almost-coolest-Travis, this one is a hit for me. Go grab it if you like fun games that don’t tax the brain a whole lot.
Vamp on the Batwalk has players take on the personalities of one of these fashionable elder vampires competing in the latest fashion show. The only problem is that vampires are unable to see themselves in mirrors, so they cannot really assure themselves that they look marvelous; the other vampires will have that privilege. Which vampire can win the most fashion shows this year with limited knowledge of how they look? Who would… stake… their reputation on mere fashion shows anyway?
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup invert the bottom of the box and insert it into the back of the box top lid to create a runway. A “batwalk,” if you will. Each player will choose a vampire and place their standee on the batwalk Start space. They will also take the matching Reference Card. All Vamp Cards matching the vamps in play are collected, shuffled together, and five are dealt to each player. Whichever player is most fashionable goes first and the game may begin!
Vamp on the Batwalk is a trick-taking game where players know not which cards they hold. Instead, their hands are facing all other players in order to suss out which cards they may be holding. The first player will open the game by playing any card from their hand. The next player also will play any card they wish, and so on until all players have played a card.
Once each card is played the “lead” card may be switched depending on the rules of the game. Should all cards played be of the same suit the highest card played is the lead card and wins the trick. Similarly, if the first card played remains the highest card in that suit and no other cards played earn the lead card status, that highest card wins the trick.
However, when a card is played that is the same value (a three played on a three of a different suit) the newest card with the matching value “Steals the Show” and becomes the new lead card. Some cards feature a star for the value. These star cards will always take the lead unless a garlic card has been played to trump the star. Garlic cards typically are the lowest-ranking suit, but when played in the same hand as a star become the trump suit.
Luckily, the reference cards have handy reminders for these special rules. After all cards from the hand have been played, players check who is winning the fashion show based on points earned during the round. If this is the end of the third round the vamp with the most points wins! If not, the player to the left of the most recent first player then becomes the first player for the next round.
Components. This game features an ingenious scoreboard that is just so fun to use. Having the box double as the scoreboard runway was such a great decision and it works flawlessly. The cards are all large tarot-sized (I think, I’m no tarot-master) and feature some really great art. The player standees are fine, but only four or so can actually fit on a space on the runway without creating a mess. All in all I adore the components and art style here.
Now, several games also employ this mechanic of holding your hand of cards outward for opponents to see, but here the players never really are told which cards they hold. In Vamp on the Batwalk the card play is silly and mostly a guessing game, at least in my head. One can never truly know all the cards they hold because each round not all cards are used. This adds another layer of difficulty in trying to guess what you are holding. This may turn off certain gamers, but it’s a silly way to play the game and I love it.
At the end of the day, this is a game about vampires putting on a fashion show. I feel like once I decided not to take it so seriously I began enjoying it so much more. Sometimes it’s a surprise to win a trick with a 2 of garlic. A throwaway card usually can win if a star is played. Or thinking you have THE card to win the trick only to have someone else Steal the Show and beat you out. It’s just chaotic silliness and I’m smitten.
If you are at all anything like me and can put aside the need to win at all times and at all costs, you will enjoy this one. It is wacky, has an amazing theme and excellent components, and is just a fun game to relax with or to help recharge after a brain burning sesh. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a blood-slurping 8 / 12. Even though I think the blue vamp is eerily similar to Travis McElroy, the almost-coolest-Travis, this one is a hit for me. Go grab it if you like fun games that don’t tax the brain a whole lot.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Would the last straight woman in Stockholm turn off the lights?
You’ve gotta love a Scandi-thriller. Well, that was until last year’s hopeless Michael Fassbender vehicle “The Snowman” which devalued the currency better than Brexit has done to the pound! The mother of them all though was the original “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy (in Swedish) in 2009. Although subject to a wholly unnecessary English remake two year’s later by David Fincher (with Mara Rooney and Daniel Craig) it was Noomi Rapace who struck the perfect note as the original anarchic and damaged Lisbeth Salander: a punk wielding a baseball bat like an alien-thing possessed (pun well and truly intended!).
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild in Video Games
Jul 25, 2017
Bonus Points - An Example Of The Favoritism Towards Certain Developers In The Gaming Industry, Even When They Don’t Deliver
Zelda: Breath Of The Wild came out last month and it has taken the gaming world by storm. As a non Zelda fan, I am left wondering why this is the case. Why is this Zelda game so revolutionary? I don’t own the game, but I have played the first few hours of it and I have read a good number of reviews on the game. There are a few critics claiming that this game, ‘writes a new chapter in the videogames industry,’ and that it is an, ‘evolution of everything that has come before.’
While I appreciate that this is a well made game and it is doing new things within the Zelda franchise, these statements stick in my throat a little. This isn’t because I don’t agree that this is an impressive game, because it is. Other than the odd frame rate drop, there aren’t many flaws with this game and I did enjoy the few hours that I spent with it, (I had a lend of a friends Switch for the night so I could try the game for myself.)
My problem comes from the fact that this is a well made game that isn’t doing anything that hasn’t been done before a million times and frankly been done better. Full disclosure, I have never been a Zelda fan, but I wanted this game to convert me and I’m sorry to say that it didn’t. The purpose of this piece isn’t to attack the Zelda franchise, so you fanboys can put your pitchforks down. What I want to discuss is how when Nintendo do anything that is slightly better than a disaster, it is heralded as the brave new step in video games by a large number of the video game press.
I get it, nostalgia is a powerful lens and most writers in their 30’s grew up playing on Nintendo systems and franchises like Mario and Zelda, but as someone who is around ten years younger and grew up with Playstation, I don’t feel that Nintendo has advanced a great deal since the turn of the millennium and frankly, I don’t see Nintendo as having broken any new ground in the last twenty years.
If games like Breath of the Wild came out on another console, they wouldn’t be lauded as the best thing since sliced bread. In fact they have, it’s called Horizon: Zero Dawn! When Horizon came out it received a positive critical reception and high sales, but no one was writing articles claiming it was the next step in the evolution of video games. Splatoon has been put on a pedestal and has been described as ‘fresh,’ and, ‘unique,’ even though it is nothing more than a dumbed down version of Team Fortress 2 for a younger audience. Super Mario Maker was released in 2015 and it was essentially a $60 level editor. Level editors have been included in other games since forever and no fuss has been made, but when Nintendo sell an entire game based on the concept, it’s hailed as another, ‘triumph by Nintendo.’
When you compare Breath of The Wild to other recent open world games like The Witcher or Skyrim, there is nothing that makes it unique from a design and functionality standpoint. If Breath of The Wild came out in 2008, then sure you could get away with labeling it revolutionary, but in this day and age it isn’t any more special than Horizon or Skyrim.
Let’s look at some of the features that have been called unique in the game. The tower climbing to uncover zones of the map mechanic has been done in the Assassin’s Creed and Far Cry series’. Using plants for crafting and cooking has been done in Far Cry and Skyrim. Far Cry 2 and Dead Island had degradable weapons. The inventory system is very reminiscent of multiple Ubisoft titles; essentially Breath of The Wild has taken some elements from other games and made something from that within the Zelda universe.
This may sound patronizing, but it honestly isn’t intended that way. I get it, Nintendo fans have had it hard over these last five years, they have had nothing to be proud of since the launch of the Wii and they have had to stand by their console of choice and defend themselves with very little ammo to defend themselves with, but as a result nowadays when anything better than a car crash is released by them it is inflated by a large number of critics in the industry and so Nintendo fans are given a justification for putting their mediocre games on a pedestal. This is why to the rest of the industry it appears that Nintendo fans can’t accept things for the way that they really are and everything is blown so far out of proportion.
Some examples of Nintendo games being blown out of proportion and reviewers being clouded by nostalgia are available to go and check out right now on Metacritic. Zelda: Skyward Sword is currently sitting at a 93, Zelda: Twilight Princess is sitting at a 95 and Metroid: Other M has a 79. All three of these games are recognized as subpar and once the novelty wore off, even the most hardcore of Nintendo fans would agree that these are forgettable, black marks on the respective franchises track records. Not that BOTW isn’t a game for Zelda fans to be proud of, because it is. I can see why this would be people’s game of the year so far and I can see why it could be considered as the best Zelda game, but to someone that isn’t a Zelda fan that praise is meaningless.
In summary, the inflation of mediocrity in the industry has to stop, if we want gaming to improve. If we want to break new ground across the gaming media, these sycophants and apologists living in a false perception of reality have to go. These novelty games that are applauded for simply carrying the title of a beloved franchise, have to stop being praised so highly and given a free pass of any sort of criticism just because of a nostalgic lens.
While I appreciate that this is a well made game and it is doing new things within the Zelda franchise, these statements stick in my throat a little. This isn’t because I don’t agree that this is an impressive game, because it is. Other than the odd frame rate drop, there aren’t many flaws with this game and I did enjoy the few hours that I spent with it, (I had a lend of a friends Switch for the night so I could try the game for myself.)
My problem comes from the fact that this is a well made game that isn’t doing anything that hasn’t been done before a million times and frankly been done better. Full disclosure, I have never been a Zelda fan, but I wanted this game to convert me and I’m sorry to say that it didn’t. The purpose of this piece isn’t to attack the Zelda franchise, so you fanboys can put your pitchforks down. What I want to discuss is how when Nintendo do anything that is slightly better than a disaster, it is heralded as the brave new step in video games by a large number of the video game press.
I get it, nostalgia is a powerful lens and most writers in their 30’s grew up playing on Nintendo systems and franchises like Mario and Zelda, but as someone who is around ten years younger and grew up with Playstation, I don’t feel that Nintendo has advanced a great deal since the turn of the millennium and frankly, I don’t see Nintendo as having broken any new ground in the last twenty years.
If games like Breath of the Wild came out on another console, they wouldn’t be lauded as the best thing since sliced bread. In fact they have, it’s called Horizon: Zero Dawn! When Horizon came out it received a positive critical reception and high sales, but no one was writing articles claiming it was the next step in the evolution of video games. Splatoon has been put on a pedestal and has been described as ‘fresh,’ and, ‘unique,’ even though it is nothing more than a dumbed down version of Team Fortress 2 for a younger audience. Super Mario Maker was released in 2015 and it was essentially a $60 level editor. Level editors have been included in other games since forever and no fuss has been made, but when Nintendo sell an entire game based on the concept, it’s hailed as another, ‘triumph by Nintendo.’
When you compare Breath of The Wild to other recent open world games like The Witcher or Skyrim, there is nothing that makes it unique from a design and functionality standpoint. If Breath of The Wild came out in 2008, then sure you could get away with labeling it revolutionary, but in this day and age it isn’t any more special than Horizon or Skyrim.
Let’s look at some of the features that have been called unique in the game. The tower climbing to uncover zones of the map mechanic has been done in the Assassin’s Creed and Far Cry series’. Using plants for crafting and cooking has been done in Far Cry and Skyrim. Far Cry 2 and Dead Island had degradable weapons. The inventory system is very reminiscent of multiple Ubisoft titles; essentially Breath of The Wild has taken some elements from other games and made something from that within the Zelda universe.
This may sound patronizing, but it honestly isn’t intended that way. I get it, Nintendo fans have had it hard over these last five years, they have had nothing to be proud of since the launch of the Wii and they have had to stand by their console of choice and defend themselves with very little ammo to defend themselves with, but as a result nowadays when anything better than a car crash is released by them it is inflated by a large number of critics in the industry and so Nintendo fans are given a justification for putting their mediocre games on a pedestal. This is why to the rest of the industry it appears that Nintendo fans can’t accept things for the way that they really are and everything is blown so far out of proportion.
Some examples of Nintendo games being blown out of proportion and reviewers being clouded by nostalgia are available to go and check out right now on Metacritic. Zelda: Skyward Sword is currently sitting at a 93, Zelda: Twilight Princess is sitting at a 95 and Metroid: Other M has a 79. All three of these games are recognized as subpar and once the novelty wore off, even the most hardcore of Nintendo fans would agree that these are forgettable, black marks on the respective franchises track records. Not that BOTW isn’t a game for Zelda fans to be proud of, because it is. I can see why this would be people’s game of the year so far and I can see why it could be considered as the best Zelda game, but to someone that isn’t a Zelda fan that praise is meaningless.
In summary, the inflation of mediocrity in the industry has to stop, if we want gaming to improve. If we want to break new ground across the gaming media, these sycophants and apologists living in a false perception of reality have to go. These novelty games that are applauded for simply carrying the title of a beloved franchise, have to stop being praised so highly and given a free pass of any sort of criticism just because of a nostalgic lens.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Stepsister in Books
Aug 16, 2019
Review by Disney Bookworm
I took a break from the Disney Twisted Tales collection to check out a new novel by the New York Times best-selling author Jennifer Donnelly and wow am I glad I did!
Judging purely by the title of the book: the cynical side of me expected this to be a retelling of the traditional fairy tale from the viewpoint of the “ugly stepsisters”. Perhaps with a remorseful twist and a concluding reconciliation. I could not have been more wrong.
This is possibly the first time I should have judged a book by its cover: the iconic glass slipper casting fragmented shards across the jacket should have certainly forewarned me that this will not be just another Cinderella story.
Unlike the twisted tales and the villain series, Step Sister is, as far as I know, not connected to the Disney enterprise at all. This makes it an edgier read by far but also allows the novel to lean as far away from the traditional fairy tale as it dares: smashing just a couple of stereotypes along the way.
Oh, and just a quick point: the novel opens on Isabelle and Octavia disfiguring their own feet, at the command of their mother, with the aim to fit into the glass slipper and marry the Prince. See what I mean- edgy right?
Stepsister is told from the viewpoint of Isabelle: a headstrong girl with an ambitious mother, an intelligent sister Octavia and a kind, sweet sister, Ella. Isabelle is a disappointment to her mother: a plain girl who prefers riding and fencing to corsets and suitors. A number of flashbacks to the girls’ childhood also suggests that Isabelle, Octavia and Ella were once very close, leading the reader to wonder how the relationship became the poisonous one we are so familiar with.
Unsurprisingly, their Maman’s plan to mutilate her way to the palace does not succeed and Ella takes her rightful place by the Prince’s side, claiming her ‘happily ever after’. But what is to become of the family she leaves behind? Maimed and outcast, Isabelle and Octavia struggle to carry on once their actions are brought to light and they are promptly labelled the “ugly stepsisters” by all around them.
Desolate and lost, Isabelle mistakenly believes that her life would improve if she were more attractive and makes a wish to the fairy queen Tanaquill, who promises to grant her desire when Isabelle finds the three missing parts of her heart.
Thus, begins Isabelle’s mission to reclaim her heart and turn her life around. The stepsister’s road of discovery is a bumpy one however, and is not made any easier by an old crone named Fate and a young man named Chance, both of whom seem to have an unhealthy obsession with her progress and a strange, almost friendly rivalry over the possession of Isabelle’s life map.
Jennifer Donnelly introduces us to a number of characters throughout Isabelle’s journey, all of whom are exquisite: Chance is an eccentric debonair with an entourage that may have just stepped out of The Greatest Showman; Octavia is every nerdy, sarcastic girl’s dream and even Fate is strangely likeable. It is truly impressive how Donnelly can make us feel like we know these people within the space of 470 pages.
I was also impressed with how different Jennifer Donnelly’s characters are from everything I have read before. Even Tanaquill is not the fairy godmother we all know and love. She isn’t even the slightly bonkers Helena Bonham-Carter version! There isn’t a bibbidi bobbidi boo in sight for this talon-fingered shapeshifter and she certainly does not grant wishes easily.
As a result, the reader does not quite trust the fairy queen: there is always an aspect of her that seems evil. Alas, this is another stroke of genius by Donnelly: the fairy queen doesn’t look like Tinkerbell or the Blue Fairy and so we don’t trust her- even when she is helping Isabelle and why is that? Because of her appearance? Well that makes us just as bad as those who persecute Isabelle!
Ella features very little in the novel. This is not wholly unexpected: it is not her story after all. She is frequently referred to and heavily present in Isabelle’s evolution but, out of all the characters, we know Ella the least. This is not to say that Donnelly presents Ella as a 2D character in order to prevent us from preferring her to our feistier protagonist: in fact, Ella slowly reveals a darker side to her own tale. Simply put, she does not have the depth and human rawness that Isabelle has. Isabelle appeals to the insecure teenager in us all: never believing that she is good enough, focusing on her flaws and judging herself based on the opinions of others.
When Isabelle finally finds the pieces of her heart and has to literally fight to achieve her happy ending, she automatically looks to one of the male characters to lead. After all, it has always been instilled into her that she is “just a girl”. However, Chance and his entourage have educated Isabelle as to the potential of her sex and it is through this inspiration that Isabelle and the reader realise that the answer has been there all along: the answer is Isabelle. All the childhood flashbacks of riding and fighting have been breadcrumbs for the reader: Isabelle is a warrior- her life is not mapped out by Fate or Chance anymore; she can decide her own path.
Step Sister holds up a gigantic mirror to the way we judge beauty and shows us what it really means to be a girl. Jennifer Donnelly proves that being strong, brave and, most importantly, true to yourself is what makes you beautiful. In fact, it is not until Isabelle accepts herself that she is described as beautiful and, by standing up for what she believes in, everyone achieves their own happy endings. As a mum of two young boys I really appreciated how Octavia’s love of science and math and Felix’s creativity and love of art directly contrasted with Maman’s old-fashioned desire to “marry off” her daughters. This story is no fairy tale: it is real, it is edgy and it is telling all generations that life is what you make it.
Judging purely by the title of the book: the cynical side of me expected this to be a retelling of the traditional fairy tale from the viewpoint of the “ugly stepsisters”. Perhaps with a remorseful twist and a concluding reconciliation. I could not have been more wrong.
This is possibly the first time I should have judged a book by its cover: the iconic glass slipper casting fragmented shards across the jacket should have certainly forewarned me that this will not be just another Cinderella story.
Unlike the twisted tales and the villain series, Step Sister is, as far as I know, not connected to the Disney enterprise at all. This makes it an edgier read by far but also allows the novel to lean as far away from the traditional fairy tale as it dares: smashing just a couple of stereotypes along the way.
Oh, and just a quick point: the novel opens on Isabelle and Octavia disfiguring their own feet, at the command of their mother, with the aim to fit into the glass slipper and marry the Prince. See what I mean- edgy right?
Stepsister is told from the viewpoint of Isabelle: a headstrong girl with an ambitious mother, an intelligent sister Octavia and a kind, sweet sister, Ella. Isabelle is a disappointment to her mother: a plain girl who prefers riding and fencing to corsets and suitors. A number of flashbacks to the girls’ childhood also suggests that Isabelle, Octavia and Ella were once very close, leading the reader to wonder how the relationship became the poisonous one we are so familiar with.
Unsurprisingly, their Maman’s plan to mutilate her way to the palace does not succeed and Ella takes her rightful place by the Prince’s side, claiming her ‘happily ever after’. But what is to become of the family she leaves behind? Maimed and outcast, Isabelle and Octavia struggle to carry on once their actions are brought to light and they are promptly labelled the “ugly stepsisters” by all around them.
Desolate and lost, Isabelle mistakenly believes that her life would improve if she were more attractive and makes a wish to the fairy queen Tanaquill, who promises to grant her desire when Isabelle finds the three missing parts of her heart.
Thus, begins Isabelle’s mission to reclaim her heart and turn her life around. The stepsister’s road of discovery is a bumpy one however, and is not made any easier by an old crone named Fate and a young man named Chance, both of whom seem to have an unhealthy obsession with her progress and a strange, almost friendly rivalry over the possession of Isabelle’s life map.
Jennifer Donnelly introduces us to a number of characters throughout Isabelle’s journey, all of whom are exquisite: Chance is an eccentric debonair with an entourage that may have just stepped out of The Greatest Showman; Octavia is every nerdy, sarcastic girl’s dream and even Fate is strangely likeable. It is truly impressive how Donnelly can make us feel like we know these people within the space of 470 pages.
I was also impressed with how different Jennifer Donnelly’s characters are from everything I have read before. Even Tanaquill is not the fairy godmother we all know and love. She isn’t even the slightly bonkers Helena Bonham-Carter version! There isn’t a bibbidi bobbidi boo in sight for this talon-fingered shapeshifter and she certainly does not grant wishes easily.
As a result, the reader does not quite trust the fairy queen: there is always an aspect of her that seems evil. Alas, this is another stroke of genius by Donnelly: the fairy queen doesn’t look like Tinkerbell or the Blue Fairy and so we don’t trust her- even when she is helping Isabelle and why is that? Because of her appearance? Well that makes us just as bad as those who persecute Isabelle!
Ella features very little in the novel. This is not wholly unexpected: it is not her story after all. She is frequently referred to and heavily present in Isabelle’s evolution but, out of all the characters, we know Ella the least. This is not to say that Donnelly presents Ella as a 2D character in order to prevent us from preferring her to our feistier protagonist: in fact, Ella slowly reveals a darker side to her own tale. Simply put, she does not have the depth and human rawness that Isabelle has. Isabelle appeals to the insecure teenager in us all: never believing that she is good enough, focusing on her flaws and judging herself based on the opinions of others.
When Isabelle finally finds the pieces of her heart and has to literally fight to achieve her happy ending, she automatically looks to one of the male characters to lead. After all, it has always been instilled into her that she is “just a girl”. However, Chance and his entourage have educated Isabelle as to the potential of her sex and it is through this inspiration that Isabelle and the reader realise that the answer has been there all along: the answer is Isabelle. All the childhood flashbacks of riding and fighting have been breadcrumbs for the reader: Isabelle is a warrior- her life is not mapped out by Fate or Chance anymore; she can decide her own path.
Step Sister holds up a gigantic mirror to the way we judge beauty and shows us what it really means to be a girl. Jennifer Donnelly proves that being strong, brave and, most importantly, true to yourself is what makes you beautiful. In fact, it is not until Isabelle accepts herself that she is described as beautiful and, by standing up for what she believes in, everyone achieves their own happy endings. As a mum of two young boys I really appreciated how Octavia’s love of science and math and Felix’s creativity and love of art directly contrasted with Maman’s old-fashioned desire to “marry off” her daughters. This story is no fairy tale: it is real, it is edgy and it is telling all generations that life is what you make it.
