Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
Tarantino makes good movies, I like them, but I don't love them. When everyone was raving about the OUATIH trailer I was sitting back going "that looks okay, but..." I wasn't sure I could see how they were going to mix the two strands of the story together, or why. After seeing it I'm still not sure.
I'm not going to do an extended synopsis for this, partly because I'm not sure what the point was to a lot of it. 2 hours and 41 minutes is a lot of time to fill with such random stuff. There are essentially to films here, and I definitely would have wanted to watch one of them. It doesn't matter how many times I think about this film, I can't make sense of why these stories were put together.
There's a lot of acting talent in this, obviously. I'm not a particular fan of DiCaprio, I can't give you a real reason behind that. I don't mind some of his older films but recently nothing has really caught my eye. He has some excellent moments in this though. I particularly liked the scene where he's on set explaining the story of his novel to his young co-star. The audience and Rick are able to reach the realisation at the same time, it's a moving moment that was annoyingly ruined for me by Trudi's lines afterwards. I guess it does reflect the way Hollywood is though so in that respect it was spot on.
Brad Pitt swooped in and stole the show though. There's a very laid back and sometimes cheeky sense to Cliff, and most of his scenes had me engaged with what was going on. The only thing I would say though is that occasionally you just see Brad Pitt and other characters he's portrayed in this performance. He really does have a strong presence though and apart from those small blips he was by far the best performance of the film and my favourite scenes were his fight with Bruce Lee and the last ten minutes. Both of these were done so well and Pitt's reactions were perfect.
The cast has a lot of bit parters in it, I'm never quite sure what gets something classed as a cameo over a "proper" role. As we're in Hollywood there are obviously a lot of Hollywood stars making appearances and they've all got really strong casting behind them, but they barely get any screen time. We get some Sharon Tate background from Steve McQueen (Damien Lewis) at a party, later on we have Bruce Lee appear for the onset fight scene, there are a lot of faces popping up everywhere.
I briefly want to mention Bruce Lee in this film, since seeing the film I read a couple of pieces about his portrayal in this... I know nothing about him as a person beyond his martial arts skills and while I did find the Lee/Booth fight scene amusing I thought it was a little... off? Lee comes across as a bit of an arse, there's no denying that. Like I said, I know nothing about him, this could be a true depiction but I feel like I would have heard that before if he was. Regardless of the truth, the character didn't come across well, he could easily have been given a slightly cocky demeanour to allow for the challenge to happen without giving him that persona.
I haven't got enough time to talk about every actor in the film but there wasn't anyone who stuck out as being bad, every role was handled reasonably well. Whether they all needed to be there though is another matter.
Earlier I mentioned that the film has two story threads, those being Rick Dalton/Cliff Booth and Sharon Tate. We get the odd crossover moment with the two but ultimately there's no proper link until the end. One of the problems going into the film is that if you don't know anything about Sharon Tate and Charles Manson then one of these storylines isn't going to make a great deal of sense. I'd be interested to see how people going in without that knowledge found the story overall, there have to be some out there right?
OUATIH almost seems like an introduction to Manson being in Mindhunter season 2, you've even got potential crossover as he's played by the same guy. I found the Manson inclusion to be very misleading in the advertising. His appearance is beyond brief in the final cut and it felt like we were due a lot more after watching the trailer. I think I would have preferred the movie if it was weighted the other way with the Tate/Manson side as the focus and the Dalton/Booth side at the add on.
Despite Pitt's performance, the great setting and some other small highlight this film just didn't hit the right notes for me. It was so long, I could have forgiven that had there been a more complex link between the two bits of story. I went in with low expectations and when I came out those were only just met.
If you're considering leaving partway through this there are three reasons that you should stick it out.
- Brad Pitt as Cliff Booth
- Booth's dog
- The last ten minutes (give or take)
The 18 certificate is there for "strong bloody violence", somehow the large amount of drug use doesn't warrant inclusion on the card. Up until around the 2 hour 30 minutes mark this film is a 15. You've had drugs, language and some fights, but nothing that matches up to those last few minutes. They earn that 18 certificate... and it's hilarious. Cliff and his dog are epic and it was worth the rest of the film just to see that, there's some terrible (ridiculous) acting in it that potentially it could have done without but at least I came out slightly less annoyed.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/once-upon-time-in-hollywood-movie-review.html
I'm not going to do an extended synopsis for this, partly because I'm not sure what the point was to a lot of it. 2 hours and 41 minutes is a lot of time to fill with such random stuff. There are essentially to films here, and I definitely would have wanted to watch one of them. It doesn't matter how many times I think about this film, I can't make sense of why these stories were put together.
There's a lot of acting talent in this, obviously. I'm not a particular fan of DiCaprio, I can't give you a real reason behind that. I don't mind some of his older films but recently nothing has really caught my eye. He has some excellent moments in this though. I particularly liked the scene where he's on set explaining the story of his novel to his young co-star. The audience and Rick are able to reach the realisation at the same time, it's a moving moment that was annoyingly ruined for me by Trudi's lines afterwards. I guess it does reflect the way Hollywood is though so in that respect it was spot on.
Brad Pitt swooped in and stole the show though. There's a very laid back and sometimes cheeky sense to Cliff, and most of his scenes had me engaged with what was going on. The only thing I would say though is that occasionally you just see Brad Pitt and other characters he's portrayed in this performance. He really does have a strong presence though and apart from those small blips he was by far the best performance of the film and my favourite scenes were his fight with Bruce Lee and the last ten minutes. Both of these were done so well and Pitt's reactions were perfect.
The cast has a lot of bit parters in it, I'm never quite sure what gets something classed as a cameo over a "proper" role. As we're in Hollywood there are obviously a lot of Hollywood stars making appearances and they've all got really strong casting behind them, but they barely get any screen time. We get some Sharon Tate background from Steve McQueen (Damien Lewis) at a party, later on we have Bruce Lee appear for the onset fight scene, there are a lot of faces popping up everywhere.
I briefly want to mention Bruce Lee in this film, since seeing the film I read a couple of pieces about his portrayal in this... I know nothing about him as a person beyond his martial arts skills and while I did find the Lee/Booth fight scene amusing I thought it was a little... off? Lee comes across as a bit of an arse, there's no denying that. Like I said, I know nothing about him, this could be a true depiction but I feel like I would have heard that before if he was. Regardless of the truth, the character didn't come across well, he could easily have been given a slightly cocky demeanour to allow for the challenge to happen without giving him that persona.
I haven't got enough time to talk about every actor in the film but there wasn't anyone who stuck out as being bad, every role was handled reasonably well. Whether they all needed to be there though is another matter.
Earlier I mentioned that the film has two story threads, those being Rick Dalton/Cliff Booth and Sharon Tate. We get the odd crossover moment with the two but ultimately there's no proper link until the end. One of the problems going into the film is that if you don't know anything about Sharon Tate and Charles Manson then one of these storylines isn't going to make a great deal of sense. I'd be interested to see how people going in without that knowledge found the story overall, there have to be some out there right?
OUATIH almost seems like an introduction to Manson being in Mindhunter season 2, you've even got potential crossover as he's played by the same guy. I found the Manson inclusion to be very misleading in the advertising. His appearance is beyond brief in the final cut and it felt like we were due a lot more after watching the trailer. I think I would have preferred the movie if it was weighted the other way with the Tate/Manson side as the focus and the Dalton/Booth side at the add on.
Despite Pitt's performance, the great setting and some other small highlight this film just didn't hit the right notes for me. It was so long, I could have forgiven that had there been a more complex link between the two bits of story. I went in with low expectations and when I came out those were only just met.
If you're considering leaving partway through this there are three reasons that you should stick it out.
- Brad Pitt as Cliff Booth
- Booth's dog
- The last ten minutes (give or take)
The 18 certificate is there for "strong bloody violence", somehow the large amount of drug use doesn't warrant inclusion on the card. Up until around the 2 hour 30 minutes mark this film is a 15. You've had drugs, language and some fights, but nothing that matches up to those last few minutes. They earn that 18 certificate... and it's hilarious. Cliff and his dog are epic and it was worth the rest of the film just to see that, there's some terrible (ridiculous) acting in it that potentially it could have done without but at least I came out slightly less annoyed.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/once-upon-time-in-hollywood-movie-review.html
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated The Grimm Forest in Tabletop Games
Apr 9, 2021
I am so psyched to be reviewing another board game based on fairytale lore. The Brothers Grimm material is such an enchanting (eh? eh?) theme and games can be taken in so many wonderful directions. Though I have never actually read any of the Grimm’s Fairy Tales (I know, I know), I have seen most of the movies based on the stories. I also know that the source material happens to be way darker than what Disney puts out, so when I heard we would be receiving The Grimm Forest to review, and not having really researched it much beforehand, I had a feeling it would be darker fare. But how dark does it go? Let’s find out.
The Grimm Forest is a simultaneous action selection, set collection, take that game for four family members of the infamous Three Little Pigs. As fantasy contractors players are tasked with constructing three houses as sturdy and quickly as they can. However, these contractors will have competition for limited resources, as well as the occasional interference from scary creatures and buddies of opponents. Like the baseball movie says, “If you build it, you will win the contract to build more stuff.” Or something like that.
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, place the Location boards on the table for the Fields, Forest, and Brickyard (for a three-player game, as below). The First Builder Bonus tokens are placed below the matching Locations as well as the resources that can be harvested. One of each Mega Resource (5 Straw, 4 Wood, 3 Brick) are placed on the matching Location at the beginning of each round. The Friend and Fable decks are shuffled and placed nearby, as are the House sections (Floors, Walls, Roofs – Rooves?), and the Monster minis. Each player chooses a color and collects the Player board, Pig mini, and Gather cards matching that color. The first player is given the Starting Player tome token and the game may now begin!
The Grimm Forest is played over a series of rounds with each pig having a multi-step turn. Initially, however, the pigs will be deciding from which Location they would like to harvest resources by laying the corresponding Gather card from their hand to the table face-down. Once all pigs have laid their card, the Gather cards are flipped and revealed simultaneously. If any pig had chosen to also play one Fable card it would have been revealed and possibly resolved prior to this step. Players will place their Pig mini on the Location board they chose and then harvesting of resources may begin, unless a player has a Fable card that resolves at this point in the turn. If a Pig is alone in a Location they receive all resources currently found there. If Pigs share a Location then the shared minis will share the resources equally, keeping any remaining resources on the Location for the next round. If any player used a Fable card that activates at the end of the Gather phase, it is resolved now.
After the Gather phase, the Pigs will be able to take actions. On their turn, in turn order, each Pig may choose to perform two of the following actions in any order they wish (actions may be repeated except for Friend Special Actions): Draw a Fable card, Gain 1 Resource, Build, Special Actions. Drawing a Fable card is self-explanatory and players will keep their Fable cards secret from the other players. They may choose to play one of these Fable cards during the choosing of Gather cards portion of the beginning phase of a turn. A Pig may instead wish to gain one resource of their choosing and add it to their collection. As mentioned earlier, a Pig may also use their active Friend card’s (which is earned by building a Wall section) Special Action once per turn, should they have collected one earlier.
The true hero of The Grimm Forest is the Build action as this is what propels players to victory. Pigs may Build any house type they wish, as long as that type is not currently under construction elsewhere on their board. Also note that houses must be built from the ground up so Floors must be present before Walls can be built and Walls need to be constructed in order to hold up a Roof. Pigs may build these sections of houses by discarding the appropriate number and type of resources they have gathered previously: two resources for a Floor, four resources for Walls, and six resources for a Roof. Once a Pig completes construction of the first house of a type they will grab the matching First Builder Bonus token and reap its rewards.
The game continues in this fashion until one player has built three houses of any type, or multiple players have completed their three houses by the end of the round. Those tied players then check for sturdiness to break their tie: brick houses are sturdier than wood, which are sturdier than straw. The winner is the player with the sturdiest collection of houses, and then all players are invited to share a plate of bacon in celebration of the win (not in the rules, but I added that for… flavor).
Components. This game is chocked full of killer components. I do not oftentimes compliment boxes and inserts, but when a game comes with GameTrayz already, you know that the publisher cared a ton about the game. Everything sets up and tears down so much nicer and quicker with a GameTrayz insert that I wish every game would come with them. Yeah, I know, $$$. Outside of the insert (or inside?) the other components in the game are simply stellar. Everything from the card backs resembling book covers, the incredible plastic house pieces, and amazing minis, just makes this one sing when on the table. The art is done by the incredible Mr. Cuddington, and they are quickly becoming some of my favorite board game artists.
Wait, there are monster minis? But I didn’t talk about that in my overview. Well, yes, that’s correct. These monsters come into play from certain Fable cards, and when they are played it instructs the player to introduce the appropriate monster mini on the playing area. This can be done with such dramatic flair that you truly get a sense of dread that little piggies may feel. If you have seen Stranger Things (not a sponsor) and remember the part when the Demogorgon mini hits the table, then you understand how I introduce my monster minis. These monsters wreak havoc on the players and sometimes deny them resources, and other chaos to mess with pigs.
Overall, I am so enamored with this game. It has nearly everything I love about games. It has amazing theme and art. That is always big with me. The components are super high quality, as all Druid City Games/Skybound Games usually are, and the game is so smooth once it is learned. All phases and turn components work together well, and there are plenty of choices each player makes every round. The game comes with advanced rules and components as well once all players are comfortable with the base game, and I love when games come with that added complexity and difficulty.
I have nothing bad to say about this game at all, which makes me sad, because I can usually find something to improve with every game I play. Okay wait, I just thought of one: I appreciate that the player colors include both orange and purple, but then the others are blue and green. I think the player colors could have come with some different choices as I feel blue, green, and purple are within similar color bands. Maybe pink and aqua would be better choices for my taste? I don’t know, and I am sure research was done to decide on the player colors, but like I said, I needed to find SOMETHING to complain about.
So it is certainly no surprise that I love this game and rated so highly. I doubt it will ever truly break into my Top 10, but I feel it ticks all of my boxes for a great game and a 6 from me. Purple Phoenix Games as a whole gives this one a porky 15 / 18. If you are looking for a great game that is admittedly lighter, but gives great gameplay throughout, features incredible art and components, and offers opportunities for role-play then you definitely need to grab a copy of The Grimm Forest. I will be recommending this to so many gamers in the future, and I will be pushing the floor of the age suggestion on the box once my son decides he wants to learn to read. I think I am going to go try out the Advanced rules now, and remember: don’t eat an apple that a scary person gave you at the door.
The Grimm Forest is a simultaneous action selection, set collection, take that game for four family members of the infamous Three Little Pigs. As fantasy contractors players are tasked with constructing three houses as sturdy and quickly as they can. However, these contractors will have competition for limited resources, as well as the occasional interference from scary creatures and buddies of opponents. Like the baseball movie says, “If you build it, you will win the contract to build more stuff.” Or something like that.
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, place the Location boards on the table for the Fields, Forest, and Brickyard (for a three-player game, as below). The First Builder Bonus tokens are placed below the matching Locations as well as the resources that can be harvested. One of each Mega Resource (5 Straw, 4 Wood, 3 Brick) are placed on the matching Location at the beginning of each round. The Friend and Fable decks are shuffled and placed nearby, as are the House sections (Floors, Walls, Roofs – Rooves?), and the Monster minis. Each player chooses a color and collects the Player board, Pig mini, and Gather cards matching that color. The first player is given the Starting Player tome token and the game may now begin!
The Grimm Forest is played over a series of rounds with each pig having a multi-step turn. Initially, however, the pigs will be deciding from which Location they would like to harvest resources by laying the corresponding Gather card from their hand to the table face-down. Once all pigs have laid their card, the Gather cards are flipped and revealed simultaneously. If any pig had chosen to also play one Fable card it would have been revealed and possibly resolved prior to this step. Players will place their Pig mini on the Location board they chose and then harvesting of resources may begin, unless a player has a Fable card that resolves at this point in the turn. If a Pig is alone in a Location they receive all resources currently found there. If Pigs share a Location then the shared minis will share the resources equally, keeping any remaining resources on the Location for the next round. If any player used a Fable card that activates at the end of the Gather phase, it is resolved now.
After the Gather phase, the Pigs will be able to take actions. On their turn, in turn order, each Pig may choose to perform two of the following actions in any order they wish (actions may be repeated except for Friend Special Actions): Draw a Fable card, Gain 1 Resource, Build, Special Actions. Drawing a Fable card is self-explanatory and players will keep their Fable cards secret from the other players. They may choose to play one of these Fable cards during the choosing of Gather cards portion of the beginning phase of a turn. A Pig may instead wish to gain one resource of their choosing and add it to their collection. As mentioned earlier, a Pig may also use their active Friend card’s (which is earned by building a Wall section) Special Action once per turn, should they have collected one earlier.
The true hero of The Grimm Forest is the Build action as this is what propels players to victory. Pigs may Build any house type they wish, as long as that type is not currently under construction elsewhere on their board. Also note that houses must be built from the ground up so Floors must be present before Walls can be built and Walls need to be constructed in order to hold up a Roof. Pigs may build these sections of houses by discarding the appropriate number and type of resources they have gathered previously: two resources for a Floor, four resources for Walls, and six resources for a Roof. Once a Pig completes construction of the first house of a type they will grab the matching First Builder Bonus token and reap its rewards.
The game continues in this fashion until one player has built three houses of any type, or multiple players have completed their three houses by the end of the round. Those tied players then check for sturdiness to break their tie: brick houses are sturdier than wood, which are sturdier than straw. The winner is the player with the sturdiest collection of houses, and then all players are invited to share a plate of bacon in celebration of the win (not in the rules, but I added that for… flavor).
Components. This game is chocked full of killer components. I do not oftentimes compliment boxes and inserts, but when a game comes with GameTrayz already, you know that the publisher cared a ton about the game. Everything sets up and tears down so much nicer and quicker with a GameTrayz insert that I wish every game would come with them. Yeah, I know, $$$. Outside of the insert (or inside?) the other components in the game are simply stellar. Everything from the card backs resembling book covers, the incredible plastic house pieces, and amazing minis, just makes this one sing when on the table. The art is done by the incredible Mr. Cuddington, and they are quickly becoming some of my favorite board game artists.
Wait, there are monster minis? But I didn’t talk about that in my overview. Well, yes, that’s correct. These monsters come into play from certain Fable cards, and when they are played it instructs the player to introduce the appropriate monster mini on the playing area. This can be done with such dramatic flair that you truly get a sense of dread that little piggies may feel. If you have seen Stranger Things (not a sponsor) and remember the part when the Demogorgon mini hits the table, then you understand how I introduce my monster minis. These monsters wreak havoc on the players and sometimes deny them resources, and other chaos to mess with pigs.
Overall, I am so enamored with this game. It has nearly everything I love about games. It has amazing theme and art. That is always big with me. The components are super high quality, as all Druid City Games/Skybound Games usually are, and the game is so smooth once it is learned. All phases and turn components work together well, and there are plenty of choices each player makes every round. The game comes with advanced rules and components as well once all players are comfortable with the base game, and I love when games come with that added complexity and difficulty.
I have nothing bad to say about this game at all, which makes me sad, because I can usually find something to improve with every game I play. Okay wait, I just thought of one: I appreciate that the player colors include both orange and purple, but then the others are blue and green. I think the player colors could have come with some different choices as I feel blue, green, and purple are within similar color bands. Maybe pink and aqua would be better choices for my taste? I don’t know, and I am sure research was done to decide on the player colors, but like I said, I needed to find SOMETHING to complain about.
So it is certainly no surprise that I love this game and rated so highly. I doubt it will ever truly break into my Top 10, but I feel it ticks all of my boxes for a great game and a 6 from me. Purple Phoenix Games as a whole gives this one a porky 15 / 18. If you are looking for a great game that is admittedly lighter, but gives great gameplay throughout, features incredible art and components, and offers opportunities for role-play then you definitely need to grab a copy of The Grimm Forest. I will be recommending this to so many gamers in the future, and I will be pushing the floor of the age suggestion on the box once my son decides he wants to learn to read. I think I am going to go try out the Advanced rules now, and remember: don’t eat an apple that a scary person gave you at the door.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated TEN in Tabletop Games
Nov 28, 2021
When it comes to game mechanics, set collection is my JAM. Auction/bidding and push your luck, not so much….. So when Alderac Entertainment Group brought TEN into my life, I was a bit wary at first. A game of collecting sequences/sets of numbers? Awesome!! Add in bidding for Wildcards or pushing your luck to not Bust each turn? A bit too risky, at least for my gaming tastes. After having had the opportunity to play TEN, were my initial feelings misplaced? Spoiler: Yes. For me, TEN was a prime example of “Don’t judge a game by its mechanics.” Keep reading to find out why.
Disclaimer: We were provided with a copy of TEN for the purposes of this review. This is a final production copy, so what you see pictured is what you would receive in a retail copy of the game. -L
TEN is a push-your-luck game of set collection and auction/bidding in which players are trying to amass the most points by the end of the game. Points are earned by collecting sets of numeric sequences in the 4 colors of the game: Blue, Green, Pink, and Orange. Played over a series of turns, players will be drawing/collecting cards from the tableau, buying cards from the Market, or Busting if they push their luck a bit too far. To setup for a game, assemble the deck of cards as dictated by the player count and set it in the play area. Each player gets 5 Currency tokens with which to start the game, and are all dealt a random reference card. The player who was dealt the reference card with the Starting Player symbol will begin the game. Before getting into the actual gameplay, I want to mention the different card types, as to provide a better understanding when reading this review. In each of the 4 colors, there are card values numbered 1-9, with more copies of the lower numbers and fewer of the higher numbers. There are also Wildcards that can be used to represent any #/color, depending on the card. Some cards in the deck are Currency cards and show a value of 1-5 Currency. Should you choose to take these from the tableau, you collect that amount of Currency to be used for auctions or buying cards in later turns.
On your turn, you will perform a series of actions, the first of which is Draw a Card. You will draw a card from the top of the deck and place it in the tableau. If the card is a # card or a Currency card, you will then decide if you wish to continue drawing cards. If you do, draw the next card, and so on, until either you decide to stop or you Bust (more on this in a bit). As long as you do not Bust, you can decide when to stop drawing cards to the tableau. You may then take one of the following rewards: take all the # cards to your play area, or take Currency tokens (equal to the amount shown on the Currency cards in the tableau). When you take the # cards, they go into your play area and all other players will collect Currency tokens. You then have the opportunity to Buy a card from the Market (by paying the numeric value of the card) and add it to your play area. If you instead choose to collect Currency, you will take Currency equal to the total value of Currency in the tableau, and all other players receive nothing from your turn. All # cards are moved to the Market, and your turn ends. In the picture below, if I choose to take the # cards, I would take the Orange 2 and Blue 6 to my play area, and all other players would collect 7 Currency. Conversely, I could choose to take 7 Currency, and the # cards are added to the Market (on the right-hand side of the picture).
So how does Busting work? The tableau may never have a value of more than 10. Every # card you draw adds to your total value, and any Currency card drawn subtracts from the total. If you were to draw a # card that would give you a total value of more than 10, you Bust! OR if you ever have Currency cards that total more than 10, you Bust as well. So there’s a bit of math involved, with addition and subtraction, but you have to make sure you never get more than 10! For example, in the picture below, the net total value of the tableau is 1. (8 from # cards, -7 from Currency cards) If I were to draw a Currency card of 4-5, I would Bust, because that totals more than 10. In this pictured instance, any # card I draw would not make me Bust, as the highest total would only be a 10, given the current cards in play. If you ever push your luck too far and end up Busting, all # cards in the tableau are moved to the Market, and you gain a Bust token (worth 3 Currency). If you Busted with # cards, then all other players will collect Currency tokens, but if you Bust with Currency cards, nobody receives anything. After resolving a Bust, your turn ends and the game continues to the next player.
If, on your turn, you ever draw a Wildcard, your turn pauses and the Wildcard is auctioned. Each player will have one chance to either bid (increasing the bid from the previous) or pass. Whomever wins the auction must pay their bid, and they collect the Wildcard to their play area. Once the auction has been resolved, your turn continues as normal. It is possible to have multiple auctions on your turn – it all depends on the cards. The game continues in this fashion, players taking turns drawing cards, collecting cards/Currency, buying from the Market, bidding in auctions, etc., until the draw deck has been depleted. The active player finishes their turn as normal, but may not draw any more cards. Points are then tallied. All players will arrange their cards to create consecutive sequences of numbers in the 4 different colors. You receive 1 point per card in your longest sequence of each color. If you have a complete set of numbers 1-9 in a color, you get a bonus point. Players count up all their points, and the player with the highest value is the winner!
That kind of seems like a lot, but I promise it’s actually pretty intuitive when you get playing. Also, huge shoutout to AEG for providing such a well-done reference card – it includes a little flowchart to help you with how the turns flow. The gameplay itself is essentially pretty straightforward. You draw a card, and then react based on what it is. Bust? Collect a Bust token and your turn ends. No Bust? Decide if you want to keep drawing. Done pushing your luck? Collect either the # cards or Currency. Try to make sequential runs of numbers in the different colors – the more cards you get in sequence, the more points you’ll get at the end of the game. The thing that elevates TEN beyond a simple push-your-luck game to me is that it requires more strategy than just luck. You can see what cards are available in the Market – is there something you need to buy? You can see everyone else’s playing area – do they need any of the numbers you just revealed? You know how much Currency every player has – do you bid high on this Wildcard because your neighbor can’t outbid you? There is so much more than just luck in this game, and that is what takes it to the next level for me. I know that Travis has reviewed No, Thanks! in the past, and I would say that this gives me similar vibes, but way better in my opinion.
When it comes to playing games, I am generally not a huge risk-taker. I like making logical choices based on known information and end-game strategy. But something about this game just gets me. I think one element that makes me love this game is the different types of cards – # cards and Currency cards. When you’re pushing your luck and drawing cards, there’s an added element of excitement, because the two different types of cards affect the net total differently. It doesn’t all positively add to the net total, which makes me more likely to keep drawing in hopes that things will cancel out and I can maximize the turn. If everything all added together, and you just couldn’t get more than 10, I would probably only ever draw 2 cards per turn, max., just to make sure I didn’t Bust. But the fact that Currency cards subtract from the net total encourages players to keep pushing their luck, and either earning a big payoff or a big Bust. This game is exciting, engaging, and entertaining to play, and that makes it fun!
To touch on components, AEG always hits it out of the park – and TEN is no exception. The game is mostly just a bunch of cards, and some white/black Currency tokens. The tokens themselves are nice plastic, and are smooth and chunky in hand. The cards are thick and sturdy, and hold up to shuffling pretty well. The colors of the game are bright and vibrant, and they are very clear to differentiate between. It’s a nice pop of color on the table, and that adds to the overall enjoyment of the game. Each of the 4 colors, and the Wildcards for that matter, have a unique background design – which can help our colorblind friends who may not necessarily be able to differentiate between the colors. Just an added plus to help the gamers tell what cards belong to what colors! The game box is equally as colorful, and is eye-catching on the shelf. All in all, I’d say AEG gets a 10 for their production quality here. (Get it?)
I spoke earlier about judging a game by its mechanics, and how TEN really challenged me on that. I was expecting a game that I would like, but would be kind of just ok overall for me. What I got is a game that is highly strategic, yet also unpredictable at times. I am definitely a planner when it comes to strategy, but the unpredictability of this game is light, fun, and engaging for all players at all times. It just is fun to play. This is a game that I see staying in my collection for a long time, and hopefully getting to the table quite often when I need a quick filler that isn’t so light that it’s mindless, but not heavy enough that it’s a brain-burner. If you’re in the market for a fun little game that challenges all players, I would definitely recommend checking out TEN. Purple Phoenix Games rates our games on a scale of 1-6 (not 10 unfortunately in this case), and we give this one a solid 5 / 6.
Disclaimer: We were provided with a copy of TEN for the purposes of this review. This is a final production copy, so what you see pictured is what you would receive in a retail copy of the game. -L
TEN is a push-your-luck game of set collection and auction/bidding in which players are trying to amass the most points by the end of the game. Points are earned by collecting sets of numeric sequences in the 4 colors of the game: Blue, Green, Pink, and Orange. Played over a series of turns, players will be drawing/collecting cards from the tableau, buying cards from the Market, or Busting if they push their luck a bit too far. To setup for a game, assemble the deck of cards as dictated by the player count and set it in the play area. Each player gets 5 Currency tokens with which to start the game, and are all dealt a random reference card. The player who was dealt the reference card with the Starting Player symbol will begin the game. Before getting into the actual gameplay, I want to mention the different card types, as to provide a better understanding when reading this review. In each of the 4 colors, there are card values numbered 1-9, with more copies of the lower numbers and fewer of the higher numbers. There are also Wildcards that can be used to represent any #/color, depending on the card. Some cards in the deck are Currency cards and show a value of 1-5 Currency. Should you choose to take these from the tableau, you collect that amount of Currency to be used for auctions or buying cards in later turns.
On your turn, you will perform a series of actions, the first of which is Draw a Card. You will draw a card from the top of the deck and place it in the tableau. If the card is a # card or a Currency card, you will then decide if you wish to continue drawing cards. If you do, draw the next card, and so on, until either you decide to stop or you Bust (more on this in a bit). As long as you do not Bust, you can decide when to stop drawing cards to the tableau. You may then take one of the following rewards: take all the # cards to your play area, or take Currency tokens (equal to the amount shown on the Currency cards in the tableau). When you take the # cards, they go into your play area and all other players will collect Currency tokens. You then have the opportunity to Buy a card from the Market (by paying the numeric value of the card) and add it to your play area. If you instead choose to collect Currency, you will take Currency equal to the total value of Currency in the tableau, and all other players receive nothing from your turn. All # cards are moved to the Market, and your turn ends. In the picture below, if I choose to take the # cards, I would take the Orange 2 and Blue 6 to my play area, and all other players would collect 7 Currency. Conversely, I could choose to take 7 Currency, and the # cards are added to the Market (on the right-hand side of the picture).
So how does Busting work? The tableau may never have a value of more than 10. Every # card you draw adds to your total value, and any Currency card drawn subtracts from the total. If you were to draw a # card that would give you a total value of more than 10, you Bust! OR if you ever have Currency cards that total more than 10, you Bust as well. So there’s a bit of math involved, with addition and subtraction, but you have to make sure you never get more than 10! For example, in the picture below, the net total value of the tableau is 1. (8 from # cards, -7 from Currency cards) If I were to draw a Currency card of 4-5, I would Bust, because that totals more than 10. In this pictured instance, any # card I draw would not make me Bust, as the highest total would only be a 10, given the current cards in play. If you ever push your luck too far and end up Busting, all # cards in the tableau are moved to the Market, and you gain a Bust token (worth 3 Currency). If you Busted with # cards, then all other players will collect Currency tokens, but if you Bust with Currency cards, nobody receives anything. After resolving a Bust, your turn ends and the game continues to the next player.
If, on your turn, you ever draw a Wildcard, your turn pauses and the Wildcard is auctioned. Each player will have one chance to either bid (increasing the bid from the previous) or pass. Whomever wins the auction must pay their bid, and they collect the Wildcard to their play area. Once the auction has been resolved, your turn continues as normal. It is possible to have multiple auctions on your turn – it all depends on the cards. The game continues in this fashion, players taking turns drawing cards, collecting cards/Currency, buying from the Market, bidding in auctions, etc., until the draw deck has been depleted. The active player finishes their turn as normal, but may not draw any more cards. Points are then tallied. All players will arrange their cards to create consecutive sequences of numbers in the 4 different colors. You receive 1 point per card in your longest sequence of each color. If you have a complete set of numbers 1-9 in a color, you get a bonus point. Players count up all their points, and the player with the highest value is the winner!
That kind of seems like a lot, but I promise it’s actually pretty intuitive when you get playing. Also, huge shoutout to AEG for providing such a well-done reference card – it includes a little flowchart to help you with how the turns flow. The gameplay itself is essentially pretty straightforward. You draw a card, and then react based on what it is. Bust? Collect a Bust token and your turn ends. No Bust? Decide if you want to keep drawing. Done pushing your luck? Collect either the # cards or Currency. Try to make sequential runs of numbers in the different colors – the more cards you get in sequence, the more points you’ll get at the end of the game. The thing that elevates TEN beyond a simple push-your-luck game to me is that it requires more strategy than just luck. You can see what cards are available in the Market – is there something you need to buy? You can see everyone else’s playing area – do they need any of the numbers you just revealed? You know how much Currency every player has – do you bid high on this Wildcard because your neighbor can’t outbid you? There is so much more than just luck in this game, and that is what takes it to the next level for me. I know that Travis has reviewed No, Thanks! in the past, and I would say that this gives me similar vibes, but way better in my opinion.
When it comes to playing games, I am generally not a huge risk-taker. I like making logical choices based on known information and end-game strategy. But something about this game just gets me. I think one element that makes me love this game is the different types of cards – # cards and Currency cards. When you’re pushing your luck and drawing cards, there’s an added element of excitement, because the two different types of cards affect the net total differently. It doesn’t all positively add to the net total, which makes me more likely to keep drawing in hopes that things will cancel out and I can maximize the turn. If everything all added together, and you just couldn’t get more than 10, I would probably only ever draw 2 cards per turn, max., just to make sure I didn’t Bust. But the fact that Currency cards subtract from the net total encourages players to keep pushing their luck, and either earning a big payoff or a big Bust. This game is exciting, engaging, and entertaining to play, and that makes it fun!
To touch on components, AEG always hits it out of the park – and TEN is no exception. The game is mostly just a bunch of cards, and some white/black Currency tokens. The tokens themselves are nice plastic, and are smooth and chunky in hand. The cards are thick and sturdy, and hold up to shuffling pretty well. The colors of the game are bright and vibrant, and they are very clear to differentiate between. It’s a nice pop of color on the table, and that adds to the overall enjoyment of the game. Each of the 4 colors, and the Wildcards for that matter, have a unique background design – which can help our colorblind friends who may not necessarily be able to differentiate between the colors. Just an added plus to help the gamers tell what cards belong to what colors! The game box is equally as colorful, and is eye-catching on the shelf. All in all, I’d say AEG gets a 10 for their production quality here. (Get it?)
I spoke earlier about judging a game by its mechanics, and how TEN really challenged me on that. I was expecting a game that I would like, but would be kind of just ok overall for me. What I got is a game that is highly strategic, yet also unpredictable at times. I am definitely a planner when it comes to strategy, but the unpredictability of this game is light, fun, and engaging for all players at all times. It just is fun to play. This is a game that I see staying in my collection for a long time, and hopefully getting to the table quite often when I need a quick filler that isn’t so light that it’s mindless, but not heavy enough that it’s a brain-burner. If you’re in the market for a fun little game that challenges all players, I would definitely recommend checking out TEN. Purple Phoenix Games rates our games on a scale of 1-6 (not 10 unfortunately in this case), and we give this one a solid 5 / 6.
Erika (17789 KP) rated Loki - Season 1 in TV
Jul 16, 2021 (Updated Jul 16, 2021)
I’ll stick with Loki’s original story-arc.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Loki, featuring the return of Tom Hiddleston to the MCU, has escaped with the tesseract, and is subsequently caught by the TVA. He agrees to help Owen Wilson’s Mobius track down a variant that is conveniently a version of himself. What ensues is a painful setup for Ironman with Magic… oh, sorry, Dr. Strange and the Multiverse of Madness.
On one hand, my ma always told me, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all, but on the other hand, I haven’t been this pissed off at a major franchise since Star Wars: The Last Jedi. My visceral, negative reaction was caused by many things.
First, this series did not need to be made. Loki had a perfect ending to his overall arc, and it really didn’t need to be messed with. I am a huge Tom Hiddleston fan, I went to NYC to see him in a play, waited outside freezing my butt off to meet him, all of that. I was so glad when Loki was killed off, so he’d be free to do other things, and not just be known for Loki. Alas, that did not happen.
This series was made for two subsets of fans: the fans that can’t accept the death of their favorite character, and the fans that are absolutely, irrationally obsessed with having their favorite character paired up romantically. I fall into neither of these categories. ‘More Stories to Tell’ was the tagline… it should have been ‘More Money to be Made’.
After watching the same movie in a different flavor for over ten years, I realized that maybe the MCU wasn’t for me anymore. But, when Loki was announced, I was promised something new and weird! I thought, maybe this will be the show to get me back into the MCU. That was not the case. I cannot believe the rave reviews about this series; did we all watch the same thing?
The first warning sign for me was when it was announced that Michael Waldron, who was a writer for Rick & Morty was going to be helming this series. Rick & Morty is funny… if you’re a dude-bro, drunk, or high. When I read a few of his interviews prior to the release of Loki, another warning sign, this guy kind of sounded like a huge douchebag. I was then calmed and reassured that maybe it wouldn’t be a train-wreck because Hiddleston was heavily involved in the series.
As I’ve mentioned before, we were promised something new, different, and weird. Don’t make promises you can’t keep, creative team behind Loki.
Episode 1 was cheap; did I need to see clips from previous movies used in a very uncreative way? No, I did not. There was also something just off about the casting of Wilson. Now, this may be on me because my teen-years were spent quoting Owen Wilson films. There were a few things I liked about Episode 1, like the Blade Runner robot reference. There was a red flag in this episode though. Pro-tip: never, EVER have a character verbalize/confirm that they’re smart. Because it’s probably not the case.
Episode 2 was the bright spot, it was my favorite, by far. It was fast-paced, amusing, and the most interesting episode out of the whole series. The Mt Vesuvius/unleashing of the goats thing was the sort of thing I was looking for in this series. I actually chuckled a little, which rarely happens. It moved the story along, and we get the big reveal of the Loki variant that’s causing all the havoc.
Episode 3 was, for lack of a better word, boring. The pace slowed, and it was the infamous Disney+ show filler episode. We’re introduced to Mary Sue, sorry, I mean Lady Loki, but not really, Sylvie, the Enchantress, right? No, wait, she’s a completely different, new character. Probably shouldn’t have opted for the name Sylvie in that case. She’s a brand new, *strong* female, that shows her strength by punching people and has no personality (see: Carol Danvers - Captain Marvel, Hope van Dyne - Ant-Man). Y’all, you told me you were going to give me something different, new, weird. A Mary Sue isn’t new, different, or weird. This episode was a get-to-know-each-other, and build a pseudo-sibling relationship, right? Because anything else would be weird in a bad way, not an interesting way. There was a considerable shift in our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki character evolution, he opened-up, announced that he was a member of the LGBTQQIAAP nation, progress! First bi-sexual character in the MCU, way to go Disney, getting with the times! It was still a filler episode though, and while the stakes seemed high, you knew that there were three more episodes to go, of course they would live.
Again, I was reassured after this lackluster episode by Hiddleston, that 4 and 5 were his favorite. That fact is now disturbing.
Episode 4 was the death knell. I think the response from the creative team afterwards was also incredibly tone-deaf, and, quite frankly, insulting. The 4th episode was so bad, I legitimately had to go cleanse my eyes and brain with a GBBO marathon. The fact that the creative team had no idea that the insta-love (see: Jane and Thor - Thor) between two characters that had seemingly formed a pseudo-sibling relationship wouldn’t come off a little incest-y is really strange to me. If a pseudo-sibling relationship was not the intention, then it was poor writing, directing and acting by all parties involved. Sometimes, when a Mary Sue punches our main character, he falls in love with her (see: Hope and Scott - Ant-Man). The whole narcissism thing was hilarious, I’m glad our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki was cured of that by Sylvie and another *strong* personality-lacking woman (see: Sif -Thor/Thor: the Dark World) kicking him between the legs was what he’d needed all along. If a small portion of this episode was actually utilizing the myth of Narcissus, then I’m glad they followed it through to the dying part. This is when everything clicked for me. Our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki’s character evolution made him a big ol’ bowl of mushy, overcooked oatmeal. HOW and WHY would you take one of the best anti-heroes in the MCU, or any superhero franchise, and make him so mushy? More importantly, I didn’t care about what happened to any of the characters, except B-15. Normally, that’s my cue to stop watching a show, but I wanted to see if they tried to convince audiences that this Oatmeal Loki was actually smart and logical.
Episode 5 was when things slightly improved. Again, I couldn’t forgive the events of Episode 4, and I totally fast-forwarded during whatever talk Loki and Mary Sue, sorry, Sylvie, had with a blankie around their shoulders. All of the other Lokis were better in their tiny amount of screen time than Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki. Alligator Loki had more personality than Sylvie. Richard Grant is the superior Loki in my opinion. This episode also reintroduced hand holding with CGI colors swirling around characters (see: Guardians of the Galaxy).
Episode 6 was our finale. Thank God. We’re introduced to the real head of the TVA, which was who everyone was expecting. This episode was a little slow-paced, with a lot of interesting chit-chat. Oatmeal Loki actually seemed like he had a brain cell or two for a few brief, fleeting moments. He even showed off some of his powers, which, by the way, we were told we’d see more of… but didn’t. Then, our Oatmeal Loki was distracted by his Mary Sue, went for a kiss, and plopped right on his ass, looking like a fool. I almost snorted my coffee as I watched. Then, they confirmed a Season 2.
Honestly, I was hoping Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki would get killed off. Sadly, it didn’t happen, and they’re getting another series, and an appearance in Ironman with Magic. I’m so glad this series was something new, different, and weird, not just the bog-standard, MCU drivel we normally get. Oh, wait… I probably don’t even need to state that this wasn’t my cup of tea, and, again, solidified the fact that I’m over the MCU. I also know that I should avoid anything Michael Waldron and Kate Herron touch. Eventually, I’ll stop feeling betrayed by Hiddleston, but it may take a while. Is that ridiculous? Probably.
On one hand, my ma always told me, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all, but on the other hand, I haven’t been this pissed off at a major franchise since Star Wars: The Last Jedi. My visceral, negative reaction was caused by many things.
First, this series did not need to be made. Loki had a perfect ending to his overall arc, and it really didn’t need to be messed with. I am a huge Tom Hiddleston fan, I went to NYC to see him in a play, waited outside freezing my butt off to meet him, all of that. I was so glad when Loki was killed off, so he’d be free to do other things, and not just be known for Loki. Alas, that did not happen.
This series was made for two subsets of fans: the fans that can’t accept the death of their favorite character, and the fans that are absolutely, irrationally obsessed with having their favorite character paired up romantically. I fall into neither of these categories. ‘More Stories to Tell’ was the tagline… it should have been ‘More Money to be Made’.
After watching the same movie in a different flavor for over ten years, I realized that maybe the MCU wasn’t for me anymore. But, when Loki was announced, I was promised something new and weird! I thought, maybe this will be the show to get me back into the MCU. That was not the case. I cannot believe the rave reviews about this series; did we all watch the same thing?
The first warning sign for me was when it was announced that Michael Waldron, who was a writer for Rick & Morty was going to be helming this series. Rick & Morty is funny… if you’re a dude-bro, drunk, or high. When I read a few of his interviews prior to the release of Loki, another warning sign, this guy kind of sounded like a huge douchebag. I was then calmed and reassured that maybe it wouldn’t be a train-wreck because Hiddleston was heavily involved in the series.
As I’ve mentioned before, we were promised something new, different, and weird. Don’t make promises you can’t keep, creative team behind Loki.
Episode 1 was cheap; did I need to see clips from previous movies used in a very uncreative way? No, I did not. There was also something just off about the casting of Wilson. Now, this may be on me because my teen-years were spent quoting Owen Wilson films. There were a few things I liked about Episode 1, like the Blade Runner robot reference. There was a red flag in this episode though. Pro-tip: never, EVER have a character verbalize/confirm that they’re smart. Because it’s probably not the case.
Episode 2 was the bright spot, it was my favorite, by far. It was fast-paced, amusing, and the most interesting episode out of the whole series. The Mt Vesuvius/unleashing of the goats thing was the sort of thing I was looking for in this series. I actually chuckled a little, which rarely happens. It moved the story along, and we get the big reveal of the Loki variant that’s causing all the havoc.
Episode 3 was, for lack of a better word, boring. The pace slowed, and it was the infamous Disney+ show filler episode. We’re introduced to Mary Sue, sorry, I mean Lady Loki, but not really, Sylvie, the Enchantress, right? No, wait, she’s a completely different, new character. Probably shouldn’t have opted for the name Sylvie in that case. She’s a brand new, *strong* female, that shows her strength by punching people and has no personality (see: Carol Danvers - Captain Marvel, Hope van Dyne - Ant-Man). Y’all, you told me you were going to give me something different, new, weird. A Mary Sue isn’t new, different, or weird. This episode was a get-to-know-each-other, and build a pseudo-sibling relationship, right? Because anything else would be weird in a bad way, not an interesting way. There was a considerable shift in our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki character evolution, he opened-up, announced that he was a member of the LGBTQQIAAP nation, progress! First bi-sexual character in the MCU, way to go Disney, getting with the times! It was still a filler episode though, and while the stakes seemed high, you knew that there were three more episodes to go, of course they would live.
Again, I was reassured after this lackluster episode by Hiddleston, that 4 and 5 were his favorite. That fact is now disturbing.
Episode 4 was the death knell. I think the response from the creative team afterwards was also incredibly tone-deaf, and, quite frankly, insulting. The 4th episode was so bad, I legitimately had to go cleanse my eyes and brain with a GBBO marathon. The fact that the creative team had no idea that the insta-love (see: Jane and Thor - Thor) between two characters that had seemingly formed a pseudo-sibling relationship wouldn’t come off a little incest-y is really strange to me. If a pseudo-sibling relationship was not the intention, then it was poor writing, directing and acting by all parties involved. Sometimes, when a Mary Sue punches our main character, he falls in love with her (see: Hope and Scott - Ant-Man). The whole narcissism thing was hilarious, I’m glad our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki was cured of that by Sylvie and another *strong* personality-lacking woman (see: Sif -Thor/Thor: the Dark World) kicking him between the legs was what he’d needed all along. If a small portion of this episode was actually utilizing the myth of Narcissus, then I’m glad they followed it through to the dying part. This is when everything clicked for me. Our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki’s character evolution made him a big ol’ bowl of mushy, overcooked oatmeal. HOW and WHY would you take one of the best anti-heroes in the MCU, or any superhero franchise, and make him so mushy? More importantly, I didn’t care about what happened to any of the characters, except B-15. Normally, that’s my cue to stop watching a show, but I wanted to see if they tried to convince audiences that this Oatmeal Loki was actually smart and logical.
Episode 5 was when things slightly improved. Again, I couldn’t forgive the events of Episode 4, and I totally fast-forwarded during whatever talk Loki and Mary Sue, sorry, Sylvie, had with a blankie around their shoulders. All of the other Lokis were better in their tiny amount of screen time than Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki. Alligator Loki had more personality than Sylvie. Richard Grant is the superior Loki in my opinion. This episode also reintroduced hand holding with CGI colors swirling around characters (see: Guardians of the Galaxy).
Episode 6 was our finale. Thank God. We’re introduced to the real head of the TVA, which was who everyone was expecting. This episode was a little slow-paced, with a lot of interesting chit-chat. Oatmeal Loki actually seemed like he had a brain cell or two for a few brief, fleeting moments. He even showed off some of his powers, which, by the way, we were told we’d see more of… but didn’t. Then, our Oatmeal Loki was distracted by his Mary Sue, went for a kiss, and plopped right on his ass, looking like a fool. I almost snorted my coffee as I watched. Then, they confirmed a Season 2.
Honestly, I was hoping Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki would get killed off. Sadly, it didn’t happen, and they’re getting another series, and an appearance in Ironman with Magic. I’m so glad this series was something new, different, and weird, not just the bog-standard, MCU drivel we normally get. Oh, wait… I probably don’t even need to state that this wasn’t my cup of tea, and, again, solidified the fact that I’m over the MCU. I also know that I should avoid anything Michael Waldron and Kate Herron touch. Eventually, I’ll stop feeling betrayed by Hiddleston, but it may take a while. Is that ridiculous? Probably.
“OMG when is Purple Phoenix Games gonna review another Harry Potter game??” We listened. So here is the next installment of our unofficial Harry Potter games series. In Harry Potter: Hogwarts Battle – Defence Against the Dark Arts (which I will gladly reduce to Defence throughout the review, even though my American English Spidey-Senses are all over that spelling), players will be playing through a duel in the classroom using spells, allies, and items to push back and stun their opponent. Have you got the wand strength to stand up to your rival?
Like I just mentioned, Defence pits two players against each other in a sparring scenario. Players will be drafting cards that represent Spells to sling, Allies to aid, and Items to help knock opponents off their balance. The winner of Defence is the wizard who can stun their opponent three times. Only then will they be able to stand a chance against their dark foes.
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 a game, follow the rulebook instructions to lay out the main duel board and its shuffled decks that will surround it. These include the Hogwarts deck (from which players will be purchasing cards to add to their discard piles), the Library deck (which includes only Books cards that add influence or the ability to draw the top card of the player deck), Hexes (which are placed directly in the opponent’s discard pile and must be dealt with first when in hand), and Banished cards. Each player will choose a House card and a matching mover token to be placed on the board. Likewise, each player will have a starting hand of seven Alohomora! cards, one Wand, one Cauldron, and one starter Ally: Owl, Toad, or Cat. Each player will shuffle their starting deck, drawing five for their starting hand. Determine the starting player and the duel may begin!
On a player’s turn they will first deal with any Hex cards they have acquired, following the instructions written on the card. Once cleared, the active player will play cards from their hand in any order they wish to gain Influence to purchase cards from the Classroom (market), Attack points to push back their opponent towards the Stun space, or Health points to move their own mover token one space closer to the Starting space on the board.
Cards that are purchased from the Classroom can be Items, Spells, or even Allies. Items and Spells typically provide Influence, Health, or Attack, and some will have House bonuses in addition to normal effects. In order to take advantage of the House bonus, a player will either need to be from the affiliated House, or have an active Ally belonging to the affiliated House. This is a new mechanic in this game and adds another layer of strategy to a player’s purchasing.
As wizards duel back and forth slinging Spells, recruiting and activating Allies, and using Items to push back their opponent, one wizard will be stunned. When this happens the players will reset their play areas by combining all of their cards they have in their possession. Shuffle the lot of them, draw another hand of five cards and reset their mover token back to the Starting space. The next round is ready to begin and the wizard who stuns their opponent thrice will be crowned champion! Or get an A for the day… or whatever the Common Core equivalent is nowadays.
Components. I have many great things to say about the components in this box and a couple little gripes. Gripelets, really. First gripe: the box comes with a cardstock sleeve. It is very cool and looks great, but it’s unnecessary and I find it keeps snagging on other boxes and such. Not a big deal, as I can always get rid of it, but that’s an opinion. Second, the board is very dark. It features a very dark purple (yay purple!) with black spaces upon which players move their tokens. The colors are very close under certain lighting and I wish there was even just a faint outline of the spaces in a white or gray. Lastly, and probably just me and the way I play, the Attack and Health trackers are almost completely unnecessary. I know you are supposed to take a token every time you “Gain” a Health or Attack point, but I always just keep track in my head thus negating the need for the tokens.
But onto the great. Literally everything else is great. I have always enjoyed the components in the original game, and as this one contains many of the same, I also enjoy these. The art style is interesting and pretty cool, and I really don’t mind screencaps as much as many others do. So for me, overall, I really enjoy the components here.
All in all I truly love this game. I am almost always in the mood to play Harry Potter: Hogwarts Battle, but it is cooperative and my wife doesn’t really enjoy the OG HP game. This one, however, she does enjoy because she can just flex on me and stun me into oblivion with her superior deckbuilding abilities. This one is quicker to setup and play, and holds a much smaller footprint. The mechanics are familiar without being totally duplicating, and I just love deckbuilders in general. So this one was bound to be a big hit with me from the start.
If you are looking for a great Harry Potter-themed deckbuilding game and are not completely sold on the bigger cooperative game, take a look at this much smaller two-player competitive title. Do try to take some of the cards with a grain of salt, as I am sure it is difficult to imagine having both Hermione and Draco as allies simultaneously, but it can happen in the game. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a very enthusiastic 11 / 12. Just a word of caution, try not to Flipendo your table when you lose. It won’t end well.
Like I just mentioned, Defence pits two players against each other in a sparring scenario. Players will be drafting cards that represent Spells to sling, Allies to aid, and Items to help knock opponents off their balance. The winner of Defence is the wizard who can stun their opponent three times. Only then will they be able to stand a chance against their dark foes.
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 a game, follow the rulebook instructions to lay out the main duel board and its shuffled decks that will surround it. These include the Hogwarts deck (from which players will be purchasing cards to add to their discard piles), the Library deck (which includes only Books cards that add influence or the ability to draw the top card of the player deck), Hexes (which are placed directly in the opponent’s discard pile and must be dealt with first when in hand), and Banished cards. Each player will choose a House card and a matching mover token to be placed on the board. Likewise, each player will have a starting hand of seven Alohomora! cards, one Wand, one Cauldron, and one starter Ally: Owl, Toad, or Cat. Each player will shuffle their starting deck, drawing five for their starting hand. Determine the starting player and the duel may begin!
On a player’s turn they will first deal with any Hex cards they have acquired, following the instructions written on the card. Once cleared, the active player will play cards from their hand in any order they wish to gain Influence to purchase cards from the Classroom (market), Attack points to push back their opponent towards the Stun space, or Health points to move their own mover token one space closer to the Starting space on the board.
Cards that are purchased from the Classroom can be Items, Spells, or even Allies. Items and Spells typically provide Influence, Health, or Attack, and some will have House bonuses in addition to normal effects. In order to take advantage of the House bonus, a player will either need to be from the affiliated House, or have an active Ally belonging to the affiliated House. This is a new mechanic in this game and adds another layer of strategy to a player’s purchasing.
As wizards duel back and forth slinging Spells, recruiting and activating Allies, and using Items to push back their opponent, one wizard will be stunned. When this happens the players will reset their play areas by combining all of their cards they have in their possession. Shuffle the lot of them, draw another hand of five cards and reset their mover token back to the Starting space. The next round is ready to begin and the wizard who stuns their opponent thrice will be crowned champion! Or get an A for the day… or whatever the Common Core equivalent is nowadays.
Components. I have many great things to say about the components in this box and a couple little gripes. Gripelets, really. First gripe: the box comes with a cardstock sleeve. It is very cool and looks great, but it’s unnecessary and I find it keeps snagging on other boxes and such. Not a big deal, as I can always get rid of it, but that’s an opinion. Second, the board is very dark. It features a very dark purple (yay purple!) with black spaces upon which players move their tokens. The colors are very close under certain lighting and I wish there was even just a faint outline of the spaces in a white or gray. Lastly, and probably just me and the way I play, the Attack and Health trackers are almost completely unnecessary. I know you are supposed to take a token every time you “Gain” a Health or Attack point, but I always just keep track in my head thus negating the need for the tokens.
But onto the great. Literally everything else is great. I have always enjoyed the components in the original game, and as this one contains many of the same, I also enjoy these. The art style is interesting and pretty cool, and I really don’t mind screencaps as much as many others do. So for me, overall, I really enjoy the components here.
All in all I truly love this game. I am almost always in the mood to play Harry Potter: Hogwarts Battle, but it is cooperative and my wife doesn’t really enjoy the OG HP game. This one, however, she does enjoy because she can just flex on me and stun me into oblivion with her superior deckbuilding abilities. This one is quicker to setup and play, and holds a much smaller footprint. The mechanics are familiar without being totally duplicating, and I just love deckbuilders in general. So this one was bound to be a big hit with me from the start.
If you are looking for a great Harry Potter-themed deckbuilding game and are not completely sold on the bigger cooperative game, take a look at this much smaller two-player competitive title. Do try to take some of the cards with a grain of salt, as I am sure it is difficult to imagine having both Hermione and Draco as allies simultaneously, but it can happen in the game. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a very enthusiastic 11 / 12. Just a word of caution, try not to Flipendo your table when you lose. It won’t end well.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 10, 2019
Joaquin's Performance Elevates This Film
Give Joaquin Phoenix the Oscar right now. His bravura performance as the titular character in JOKER is one for the ages. He is on the screen in every scene of this film and captivates and repulses you at the same time. This performance raises this film to another level.
The question is - what level was this film at, and where does this performance raise it to?
Set in Gotham City right around the time of the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, JOKER tells the origin story of...well...a character that calls himself JOKER. This sad sack, with the name of Arthur Fleck, is a part-time clown (standing outside of store closings with a spinning sign or going to Children's Hospital). We watch his origins as he rises (or perhaps...falls?) to the anarchic symbol that is JOKER. And that's the interesting thing about this film. You are watching the fall of a man and the rise of a symbol - does Fleck find comfort or madness in this journey - or, perhaps, maybe he finds comfort in madness?
Embodying this broken spirit that keeps getting up despite whatever beatings (sometimes physical, sometimes mental, always with the potential to finally break him) is the unique talent that is Joaquin Phoenix. You can tell from his portrayal of Arthur that there is something just "off" with him and you continually wait for the breaking point that will drive him down the road of JOKER. But it is not only his acting that is on display here, it the manipulation and movements of his body that is amazing and outstanding. Much like a professional dancer, Phoenix/Fleck waltzes through this film like there is a musical score that only he can hear - and that is both fascinating and disturbing at the same time. There is a fine line that needs to be trod here, for if you don't, this character and performance can easily be one of total madness (a.k.a. Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance in the SHINING) but Phoenix balances sanity/insanity very well and you are waiting for the final blow that will send him, inevitably, over the edge. It's like watching a ticking time bomb that you cannot see the clock counting down to zero - but count down to zero you are sure it will do.
Exchanging blows with Phoenix for about 1/3 of this film is Robert DeNiro as talk show host Murray Franklin (think a meaner version of Johnny Carson). DeNiro is VERY good in this role and it is good to see that he still can "bring it" as a serious actor when he wants to. Unfortunately, DeNiro's character isn't really in the first 2/3 of this film and that's too bad. Phoenix' Arthur Fleck is a force to be reckoned with and he really could have used another character just as strong to play against.
Unfortunately, Writer/Director Todd Phillips (THE HANGOVER films) doesn't really give Phoenix anyone strong to play against for the first 2/3 of this film though Frances Conroy (overbearing mother), Zazie Beetz (potential love interest) and Brett Cullen (billionaire Thomas Wayne, father of Bruce) come and go in all too brief appearances that never really are on screen long enough to stand their ground (though Conroy comes close). This makes the first part of this film very on-sided, dreary, depressing and dark. I get that Director/Writer Phillips was going for the "Decaying of Gotham" theme as seen through the eyes of Fleck, but it became a slog after awhile. I wanted to yell at the screen at about the 1 hour mark "All right, I get it!"
Now...to give Phillips credit, he creates an interesting version of this world that we all know well (through the Dark Knight and various other DC Universe films), so I give him points for originality. And...he really NAILS the ending (the last 1/3 of the film - the part WITH DeNiro). I thought it was effective and potent and left it's mark.
Which brings me back to my opening thought. Phoenix raises this film up with his performance - the question is "from where to where". I'd have to say (because of the slowness of the first 2/3 of this film) that Phoenix fearless performance raises this dark and dreary film from a "C" to a "B". So with that in mind, I give JOKER...
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The question is - what level was this film at, and where does this performance raise it to?
Set in Gotham City right around the time of the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, JOKER tells the origin story of...well...a character that calls himself JOKER. This sad sack, with the name of Arthur Fleck, is a part-time clown (standing outside of store closings with a spinning sign or going to Children's Hospital). We watch his origins as he rises (or perhaps...falls?) to the anarchic symbol that is JOKER. And that's the interesting thing about this film. You are watching the fall of a man and the rise of a symbol - does Fleck find comfort or madness in this journey - or, perhaps, maybe he finds comfort in madness?
Embodying this broken spirit that keeps getting up despite whatever beatings (sometimes physical, sometimes mental, always with the potential to finally break him) is the unique talent that is Joaquin Phoenix. You can tell from his portrayal of Arthur that there is something just "off" with him and you continually wait for the breaking point that will drive him down the road of JOKER. But it is not only his acting that is on display here, it the manipulation and movements of his body that is amazing and outstanding. Much like a professional dancer, Phoenix/Fleck waltzes through this film like there is a musical score that only he can hear - and that is both fascinating and disturbing at the same time. There is a fine line that needs to be trod here, for if you don't, this character and performance can easily be one of total madness (a.k.a. Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance in the SHINING) but Phoenix balances sanity/insanity very well and you are waiting for the final blow that will send him, inevitably, over the edge. It's like watching a ticking time bomb that you cannot see the clock counting down to zero - but count down to zero you are sure it will do.
Exchanging blows with Phoenix for about 1/3 of this film is Robert DeNiro as talk show host Murray Franklin (think a meaner version of Johnny Carson). DeNiro is VERY good in this role and it is good to see that he still can "bring it" as a serious actor when he wants to. Unfortunately, DeNiro's character isn't really in the first 2/3 of this film and that's too bad. Phoenix' Arthur Fleck is a force to be reckoned with and he really could have used another character just as strong to play against.
Unfortunately, Writer/Director Todd Phillips (THE HANGOVER films) doesn't really give Phoenix anyone strong to play against for the first 2/3 of this film though Frances Conroy (overbearing mother), Zazie Beetz (potential love interest) and Brett Cullen (billionaire Thomas Wayne, father of Bruce) come and go in all too brief appearances that never really are on screen long enough to stand their ground (though Conroy comes close). This makes the first part of this film very on-sided, dreary, depressing and dark. I get that Director/Writer Phillips was going for the "Decaying of Gotham" theme as seen through the eyes of Fleck, but it became a slog after awhile. I wanted to yell at the screen at about the 1 hour mark "All right, I get it!"
Now...to give Phillips credit, he creates an interesting version of this world that we all know well (through the Dark Knight and various other DC Universe films), so I give him points for originality. And...he really NAILS the ending (the last 1/3 of the film - the part WITH DeNiro). I thought it was effective and potent and left it's mark.
Which brings me back to my opening thought. Phoenix raises this film up with his performance - the question is "from where to where". I'd have to say (because of the slowness of the first 2/3 of this film) that Phoenix fearless performance raises this dark and dreary film from a "C" to a "B". So with that in mind, I give JOKER...
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Abstract Academy in Tabletop Games
Feb 25, 2022
There’s just something about a well-thought out and appealing box cover to really get you into it, am I right? Look at that graphic. The negative space used for the A and Y in AcademY is just sublime! Wait, I recognize those names on the box. Didn’t they also design some other games I enjoy? (1 minute later after consulting BGG) IT’S THE TEAM BEHIND TRUFFLE SHUFFLE, POINT SALAD, AND DOLLARS TO DONUTS?? I love those games! Oh, this is going to be good! AND it’s from Crafty Games? Boom. Gotta be a hit, I just know it. But where is all the food?
Abstract Academy is a card laying, hand management, pattern building game for two to four players. In it, players become art school students trying to impress their teachers. The only problem is that they must share a canvas, as the costs of school allow them very few luxuries. The player who can most effectively build masterpieces and satisfy all tested requirements over three rounds will ace the class and claim victory over the other starving artists.
DISCLAIMER 1: 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
DISCLAIMER 2: My current temporary housing did not want me to have great lighting for photos in this review. Please try to ignore the yellow tint; I do not enjoy over-editing game photos.
To setup, shuffle each deck type and place the decks on the table. The rulebook does not specify where, so just throw them wherever. This is a game about art, so be creative. Each player draws a hand of three Canvas cards (with the whitish back and colors on the faces). The starting Teacher’s Pet player will then reveal cards according to the round from the respective decks, per the rules and provided reference cards. Each round will reveal different sets of Assignment and Professor cards. Players also draw one Inspiration card and the game is ready to begin! Paintbrushes at the ready!
Turns could not be simpler: Play a Canvas card, and then Draw a Canvas card. Both of these actions are self-explanatory, but let me expound on this a bit. Once the first Canvas card has been played by the current Teacher’s Pet, each subsequent card must be played orthogonally adjacent to another card on the table. To define the size of the entire project’s canvas, players will be confined to a 4 x 4 grid of cards. Once a column (the cards that would lead a path to the opponent) has been completed with four cards, the rows gain special rules. Firstly, the row closest to each player becomes the “Home Row.” Players may only play cards into their own Home Row, unless the only legal place to play a card is in the opponent’s Home Row. Secondly, the Home Row and the row above it is now consider the Scoring Zone, and will dictate which cards are able to be used to satisfy Inspiration, Professor, and Assignment requirements for VP. Therefore, until the 4 x 4 grid has been solidified, players are unaware which cards may end up in their Home Rows or Scoring Zones!
Victory Points are earned by scoring the special requirements of Inspiration, Professor, and Assignment cards once the entire 4 x 4 grid of Canvas cards is complete. Oftentimes players will need to compare scores to determine which player earns the points. For example, the Moret Professor card states that five VP are earned when the player controls the “most color areas with four or more quadrants.” Each Canvas card is divided into four quadrants, and quadrants are colored with one of the primary colors. A “color area” is simply a connected network of the same color within the player’s Scoring Zone. So, to satisfy Professor Moret, the player who controls the most amount of color areas that are four quadrants or larger.
Assignment cards come in Red, Blue, and Yellow, and pertain to those colors. For example, the red “Get to the Point!” Assignment requires the “most red areas with only one quadrant.” So the assignment is asking players to dapple their canvas with unconnected red quadrants.
In stark contrast, the Inspiration card requirements resemble shapes of quadrants, as opposed to colors or numbers of quadrants. Most of the shapes on these cards are reminiscent of Tetris-style shapes, where players will score their Inspiration cards by building the correct shape of connected quadrants of the same color within their Scoring Zone.
Once these cards are all scored for the round, the Teacher’s Pet sets up for the next round per the rulebook/reference cards. The subsequent rounds will require alternate decks to reveal cards, or choice of decks. When the third and final round has been scored, the points are tallied and the victor is crowned! With a construction paper and macaroni crown, most likely. They ARE starving artists, after all.
Components. This game is a double-card-deck box with 90+ cards and a rulebook. The cards are great quality, but the true hero here is, and appropriately so, the artwork. Every card is very stylish, the Professors are all nods to real artists (well, except maybe not the promo), and it has just a really great look overall. While being played, it just has an amazing table presence. I like that a lot.
I struggled with assigning a score to this one for a few reasons. First, I like so much about this game, and I dislike a few things. I very much enjoy having so many ways to score points each round, as it keeps my mind busy with trying to put the puzzle together. The monkey wrench, though, is that when you start a round, you play cards that may not even end up in your Scoring Zone. As your hand is always three cards, it is difficult to really plan too far in advance to create a perfect Scoring Zone. Is that a bad thing? Maybe, but I think it is also quite necessary to add a little chaos to this specific game. I will explain what I mean in a bit. Perhaps a few points docked for that.
Playing Canvas cards effectively is absolutely the crux of this game, because if a pattern or shape is being built to your benefit, your opponent can easily (and definitely accidentally) ruin your best laid plans with an ill-placed card to wonkify the grid. I think that is both delicious and very very frustrating. You know what? I will decide to give a few points back for this.
The ability for the Teacher’s Pet, a title that can be passed to the other player throughout the game, to choose which two of the three Assignment decks to reveal during Round 3 just adds to the replayability factor of Abstract Academy. True, there are only five cards in each Assignments deck, and there are mathematical or statistical formulae that can calculate the exact number of possible different unique games, the ever-changing grid of cards is what makes this nearly infinitely replayable. Okay, more points earned here.
I guess I judged too harshly, and my true rating is a little lower than perhaps this little game deserves. I absolutely know that I will be playing this a whole lot more – with gamers of all ages and weight preferences. It is easy to teach, keeps the brain engaged throughout, and forces players to step back and truly appreciate that which they have equally built together. I can completely foresee my score for Abstract Academy increasing with more and more plays, so please do not regard a 4 / 6 from Purple Phoenix Games as an absolute and inflexible score.
If you are a gamer who enjoys just a little chaos added to their careful planning, light and quick card games that pack more punch than expected, and some truly awesome table presence, then you most certainly need to grab a copy of Abstract Academy. I am soon to be culling my collection and curating it to only include games I thoroughly enjoy. I have a feeling Abstract Academy is going to make the cut. It checks off so many boxes for me and how I game, and I cannot wait to introduce my kiddos to it when they can grasp the concepts.
Abstract Academy is a card laying, hand management, pattern building game for two to four players. In it, players become art school students trying to impress their teachers. The only problem is that they must share a canvas, as the costs of school allow them very few luxuries. The player who can most effectively build masterpieces and satisfy all tested requirements over three rounds will ace the class and claim victory over the other starving artists.
DISCLAIMER 1: 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
DISCLAIMER 2: My current temporary housing did not want me to have great lighting for photos in this review. Please try to ignore the yellow tint; I do not enjoy over-editing game photos.
To setup, shuffle each deck type and place the decks on the table. The rulebook does not specify where, so just throw them wherever. This is a game about art, so be creative. Each player draws a hand of three Canvas cards (with the whitish back and colors on the faces). The starting Teacher’s Pet player will then reveal cards according to the round from the respective decks, per the rules and provided reference cards. Each round will reveal different sets of Assignment and Professor cards. Players also draw one Inspiration card and the game is ready to begin! Paintbrushes at the ready!
Turns could not be simpler: Play a Canvas card, and then Draw a Canvas card. Both of these actions are self-explanatory, but let me expound on this a bit. Once the first Canvas card has been played by the current Teacher’s Pet, each subsequent card must be played orthogonally adjacent to another card on the table. To define the size of the entire project’s canvas, players will be confined to a 4 x 4 grid of cards. Once a column (the cards that would lead a path to the opponent) has been completed with four cards, the rows gain special rules. Firstly, the row closest to each player becomes the “Home Row.” Players may only play cards into their own Home Row, unless the only legal place to play a card is in the opponent’s Home Row. Secondly, the Home Row and the row above it is now consider the Scoring Zone, and will dictate which cards are able to be used to satisfy Inspiration, Professor, and Assignment requirements for VP. Therefore, until the 4 x 4 grid has been solidified, players are unaware which cards may end up in their Home Rows or Scoring Zones!
Victory Points are earned by scoring the special requirements of Inspiration, Professor, and Assignment cards once the entire 4 x 4 grid of Canvas cards is complete. Oftentimes players will need to compare scores to determine which player earns the points. For example, the Moret Professor card states that five VP are earned when the player controls the “most color areas with four or more quadrants.” Each Canvas card is divided into four quadrants, and quadrants are colored with one of the primary colors. A “color area” is simply a connected network of the same color within the player’s Scoring Zone. So, to satisfy Professor Moret, the player who controls the most amount of color areas that are four quadrants or larger.
Assignment cards come in Red, Blue, and Yellow, and pertain to those colors. For example, the red “Get to the Point!” Assignment requires the “most red areas with only one quadrant.” So the assignment is asking players to dapple their canvas with unconnected red quadrants.
In stark contrast, the Inspiration card requirements resemble shapes of quadrants, as opposed to colors or numbers of quadrants. Most of the shapes on these cards are reminiscent of Tetris-style shapes, where players will score their Inspiration cards by building the correct shape of connected quadrants of the same color within their Scoring Zone.
Once these cards are all scored for the round, the Teacher’s Pet sets up for the next round per the rulebook/reference cards. The subsequent rounds will require alternate decks to reveal cards, or choice of decks. When the third and final round has been scored, the points are tallied and the victor is crowned! With a construction paper and macaroni crown, most likely. They ARE starving artists, after all.
Components. This game is a double-card-deck box with 90+ cards and a rulebook. The cards are great quality, but the true hero here is, and appropriately so, the artwork. Every card is very stylish, the Professors are all nods to real artists (well, except maybe not the promo), and it has just a really great look overall. While being played, it just has an amazing table presence. I like that a lot.
I struggled with assigning a score to this one for a few reasons. First, I like so much about this game, and I dislike a few things. I very much enjoy having so many ways to score points each round, as it keeps my mind busy with trying to put the puzzle together. The monkey wrench, though, is that when you start a round, you play cards that may not even end up in your Scoring Zone. As your hand is always three cards, it is difficult to really plan too far in advance to create a perfect Scoring Zone. Is that a bad thing? Maybe, but I think it is also quite necessary to add a little chaos to this specific game. I will explain what I mean in a bit. Perhaps a few points docked for that.
Playing Canvas cards effectively is absolutely the crux of this game, because if a pattern or shape is being built to your benefit, your opponent can easily (and definitely accidentally) ruin your best laid plans with an ill-placed card to wonkify the grid. I think that is both delicious and very very frustrating. You know what? I will decide to give a few points back for this.
The ability for the Teacher’s Pet, a title that can be passed to the other player throughout the game, to choose which two of the three Assignment decks to reveal during Round 3 just adds to the replayability factor of Abstract Academy. True, there are only five cards in each Assignments deck, and there are mathematical or statistical formulae that can calculate the exact number of possible different unique games, the ever-changing grid of cards is what makes this nearly infinitely replayable. Okay, more points earned here.
I guess I judged too harshly, and my true rating is a little lower than perhaps this little game deserves. I absolutely know that I will be playing this a whole lot more – with gamers of all ages and weight preferences. It is easy to teach, keeps the brain engaged throughout, and forces players to step back and truly appreciate that which they have equally built together. I can completely foresee my score for Abstract Academy increasing with more and more plays, so please do not regard a 4 / 6 from Purple Phoenix Games as an absolute and inflexible score.
If you are a gamer who enjoys just a little chaos added to their careful planning, light and quick card games that pack more punch than expected, and some truly awesome table presence, then you most certainly need to grab a copy of Abstract Academy. I am soon to be culling my collection and curating it to only include games I thoroughly enjoy. I have a feeling Abstract Academy is going to make the cut. It checks off so many boxes for me and how I game, and I cannot wait to introduce my kiddos to it when they can grasp the concepts.
Baby Monitor 3G
Lifestyle and Health & Fitness
App
The First HD quality multiplatform Baby Monitor is here! BABY MONITOR 3G is a universal video and...
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Crazy Rich Asians (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A Rom-Com with Substance
Yes, I know what you’re thinking. This isn’t really the kind of film I’m particularly fond of. Everything about it screams ‘cheesy rom-com’, just look at that poster. But, I’m happy to say I walked away from this film feeling so glad that I had watched it. This is a classic example of not judging a film by its poster or trailer, as it has so much more to offer.
As the title of my review suggests, I mainly loved this film because of the overall narrative. There’s a lot of character development and dark secrets, meaning your interest is constantly held throughout the film. You really start to care about these characters and their lives, and I didn’t feel like anyone was just thrown in there for the sake of it. The dynamics between characters is really well done and realistic, and it’s very easy for you to quickly love or hate them. I was so impressed by the quality of the acting, and how each actor brought their characters to life on screen. I was especially blown away by Michelle Yeoh and Gemma Chan, for very different reasons. I was also happy to see an all-Asian cast in a mainstream film, as we still have a lot to do when it comes to wider representation and films like this are a huge step in the right direction.
I also feel like people could identify with some of the themes, especially this idea of a class divide and feeling unwelcome. It was so eye-opening to see how some people are shunned by families because of their social status, and how important it is for families to protect their name and heritage at all costs. Whilst Crazy Rich Asians shows an extreme version of this type of behaviour, class divides are prevalent across the world so this was a really interesting theme to explore. This theme is one of the reasons why I felt this film had so much substance, as it goes beyond simply being just another rom-com and shows us some serious, real-life issues instead. There are some scenes in Crazy Rich Asians that are far from comedic, and shows us a darker side to life within a wealthy, influential circle. The results are as dark as you’d expect. I don’t want to give any spoilers – experience it for yourself instead.
As for the comedy, it was genuinely laugh-out-loud funny. I am always apprehensive with comedy films as sometimes it can become too ridiculous and slapstick, but Crazy Rich Asians was satirical and smart, with some silly moments thrown in there too. I’m so impressed with how they blended humour with drama this effortlessly. It knows how to balance this without going too far one way, and the result is an incredibly well-rounded and three dimensional film that made me laugh and cry in equal measure. It’s a truly captivating film from start to finish.
Visually, it’s a stunning piece of cinema. You’re greeted with bright colours, gorgeous set design, and you’re transported to a world of luxury and Chinese culture, with these hostile undertones. On the big screen it’s even better, because you get to experience this gorgeous film on a large scale. It’s hard to take your eyes off it. I’m looking forward to revisiting this film in future so I can look for more details the second time around, as I’m sure I missed stuff during my initial viewing!
If this is the future of rom-com, consider me converted. I was so impressed by the overall film and would recommend it to anyone. Please don’t let the title and synopsis put you off, it’s such a smart, funny, heartbreaking film and I urge you to give it a go. You might end up as surprised as me!
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/09/16/a-rom-com-with-substance-my-thoughts-on-crazy-rich-asians/
As the title of my review suggests, I mainly loved this film because of the overall narrative. There’s a lot of character development and dark secrets, meaning your interest is constantly held throughout the film. You really start to care about these characters and their lives, and I didn’t feel like anyone was just thrown in there for the sake of it. The dynamics between characters is really well done and realistic, and it’s very easy for you to quickly love or hate them. I was so impressed by the quality of the acting, and how each actor brought their characters to life on screen. I was especially blown away by Michelle Yeoh and Gemma Chan, for very different reasons. I was also happy to see an all-Asian cast in a mainstream film, as we still have a lot to do when it comes to wider representation and films like this are a huge step in the right direction.
I also feel like people could identify with some of the themes, especially this idea of a class divide and feeling unwelcome. It was so eye-opening to see how some people are shunned by families because of their social status, and how important it is for families to protect their name and heritage at all costs. Whilst Crazy Rich Asians shows an extreme version of this type of behaviour, class divides are prevalent across the world so this was a really interesting theme to explore. This theme is one of the reasons why I felt this film had so much substance, as it goes beyond simply being just another rom-com and shows us some serious, real-life issues instead. There are some scenes in Crazy Rich Asians that are far from comedic, and shows us a darker side to life within a wealthy, influential circle. The results are as dark as you’d expect. I don’t want to give any spoilers – experience it for yourself instead.
As for the comedy, it was genuinely laugh-out-loud funny. I am always apprehensive with comedy films as sometimes it can become too ridiculous and slapstick, but Crazy Rich Asians was satirical and smart, with some silly moments thrown in there too. I’m so impressed with how they blended humour with drama this effortlessly. It knows how to balance this without going too far one way, and the result is an incredibly well-rounded and three dimensional film that made me laugh and cry in equal measure. It’s a truly captivating film from start to finish.
Visually, it’s a stunning piece of cinema. You’re greeted with bright colours, gorgeous set design, and you’re transported to a world of luxury and Chinese culture, with these hostile undertones. On the big screen it’s even better, because you get to experience this gorgeous film on a large scale. It’s hard to take your eyes off it. I’m looking forward to revisiting this film in future so I can look for more details the second time around, as I’m sure I missed stuff during my initial viewing!
If this is the future of rom-com, consider me converted. I was so impressed by the overall film and would recommend it to anyone. Please don’t let the title and synopsis put you off, it’s such a smart, funny, heartbreaking film and I urge you to give it a go. You might end up as surprised as me!
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/09/16/a-rom-com-with-substance-my-thoughts-on-crazy-rich-asians/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Alone in Berlin (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Small Rebellions.
Once again, World War II turns up another true story of quiet valour to turn into a motion picture. At a time when Trump is pontificating about so called “fake news”, here is a timely tale from history which centres on the battle against genuinely fake news: the Nazi propaganda machine.
After losing their only son in the French campaign, Berliners Otto (Brendan Gleeson,”Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”) and Anna (Emma Thompson, “Saving Mr Banks“) turn against the regime and in repeated acts of rebellion Otto laboriously hand writes subversive postcards to leave in office blocks around Berlin.
Resistance is futile. Otto (Brendan Gleeson) and Anna (Emma Thompson) out on a new mission.
Out to catch him is local police investigator Escherich (Daniel Brühl) but in an age before CCTV that’s no easy task and with increasing SS pressure the stakes for Escherich steadily increase. For Otto and Anna, the stress is there but both are resigned to their fate: with their son stolen from them for an unjust cause they are an island of indifference in an unholy land. Both are ‘alone in Berlin’.
Daniel Brühl as police detective Escherich getting more than he bargained for from the SS.
After 70 years it still chills the blood to see German locations decked out in Nazi regalia, but one of the joys of this film is this rendering of life in wartime Berlin: starting with jubilation at German progress prior to D-Day and turning to despair and genuine danger as the tide turns towards 1945. In a pretty bleak film there are touches of black comedy now and then: Otto’s carpentry company is being encouraged “by the Fuhrer” to double and triple their output… of coffins.
A (very clean) Berlin, decked out with Nazi regalia.
More joy comes from the star turns of Gleeson and Thompson, both of who deliver on their emotionally challenging roles. Gleeson in particular makes a very believable German with a sour demeanor and a steely determination. But the star acting turn for me goes to the wonderful Daniel Brühl (“Rush“) as the tormented police detective, bullied into an ethical corner by the SS. The finale of the film – whilst not seeming quite believable – makes for a nicely unexpected twist.
The Nazi Womens’ League out on another fund-raising sweep, providing Thompson with one of her best scenes in the film with an Oberführer’s wife.
Based on a novel by Hans Fallada, the lead writing credits for the piece are shared between Achim von Borries and the director Vincent Perez – in a rare directorial outing for the Swiss actor. The script exudes a melancholic gloom and at times expresses beautifully both the grief and love shared by this older couple. But some of the dialogue needs more work and we don’t see enough of Thompson in the early part of the film where her motivations should be being developed. This rather comes down to a lack of focus by the director. While the primary story of the card distribution is slight, it is compelling and a detour into a sub-story about an old Jewish lodger living upstairs is unnecessary and detracts from the overall story arc. I would have far preferred if the running time had been a tight 90 minutes just focused on Otto’s mission. One final comment on the script: did I mishear that Anna claimed to have a 6 year old child during an air raid scene? I know Emma Thompson looks great for her age, but….
Otto and Elise Hampel – the real life characters on which the film’s Otto and Anna Quangel were based.
I can’t finish this without commending the beautiful piano score of Alexandre Desplat. From the first note I knew it was him – he has such a characteristic style – and his clever use of the score complements the film exquisitely. “Small” films like this tend to rather disappear into the woodwork for Oscar consideration, but here’s a soundtrack that I think should be considered: (but what do I know… when “Nocturnal Animals” wasn’t even nominated in one of the Oscar crimes of the century!).
In summary, I found this a thoughtful and thought-provoking film, that – despite some of the mean reviews I’ve seen – I thought was well crafted and with excellent production design by Jean-Vincent Puzos (“Amour”). It will be particularly appreciated by older audiences looking for an untold story from the war, and by all lovers of fine acting performances by the three leads.
After losing their only son in the French campaign, Berliners Otto (Brendan Gleeson,”Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”) and Anna (Emma Thompson, “Saving Mr Banks“) turn against the regime and in repeated acts of rebellion Otto laboriously hand writes subversive postcards to leave in office blocks around Berlin.
Resistance is futile. Otto (Brendan Gleeson) and Anna (Emma Thompson) out on a new mission.
Out to catch him is local police investigator Escherich (Daniel Brühl) but in an age before CCTV that’s no easy task and with increasing SS pressure the stakes for Escherich steadily increase. For Otto and Anna, the stress is there but both are resigned to their fate: with their son stolen from them for an unjust cause they are an island of indifference in an unholy land. Both are ‘alone in Berlin’.
Daniel Brühl as police detective Escherich getting more than he bargained for from the SS.
After 70 years it still chills the blood to see German locations decked out in Nazi regalia, but one of the joys of this film is this rendering of life in wartime Berlin: starting with jubilation at German progress prior to D-Day and turning to despair and genuine danger as the tide turns towards 1945. In a pretty bleak film there are touches of black comedy now and then: Otto’s carpentry company is being encouraged “by the Fuhrer” to double and triple their output… of coffins.
A (very clean) Berlin, decked out with Nazi regalia.
More joy comes from the star turns of Gleeson and Thompson, both of who deliver on their emotionally challenging roles. Gleeson in particular makes a very believable German with a sour demeanor and a steely determination. But the star acting turn for me goes to the wonderful Daniel Brühl (“Rush“) as the tormented police detective, bullied into an ethical corner by the SS. The finale of the film – whilst not seeming quite believable – makes for a nicely unexpected twist.
The Nazi Womens’ League out on another fund-raising sweep, providing Thompson with one of her best scenes in the film with an Oberführer’s wife.
Based on a novel by Hans Fallada, the lead writing credits for the piece are shared between Achim von Borries and the director Vincent Perez – in a rare directorial outing for the Swiss actor. The script exudes a melancholic gloom and at times expresses beautifully both the grief and love shared by this older couple. But some of the dialogue needs more work and we don’t see enough of Thompson in the early part of the film where her motivations should be being developed. This rather comes down to a lack of focus by the director. While the primary story of the card distribution is slight, it is compelling and a detour into a sub-story about an old Jewish lodger living upstairs is unnecessary and detracts from the overall story arc. I would have far preferred if the running time had been a tight 90 minutes just focused on Otto’s mission. One final comment on the script: did I mishear that Anna claimed to have a 6 year old child during an air raid scene? I know Emma Thompson looks great for her age, but….
Otto and Elise Hampel – the real life characters on which the film’s Otto and Anna Quangel were based.
I can’t finish this without commending the beautiful piano score of Alexandre Desplat. From the first note I knew it was him – he has such a characteristic style – and his clever use of the score complements the film exquisitely. “Small” films like this tend to rather disappear into the woodwork for Oscar consideration, but here’s a soundtrack that I think should be considered: (but what do I know… when “Nocturnal Animals” wasn’t even nominated in one of the Oscar crimes of the century!).
In summary, I found this a thoughtful and thought-provoking film, that – despite some of the mean reviews I’ve seen – I thought was well crafted and with excellent production design by Jean-Vincent Puzos (“Amour”). It will be particularly appreciated by older audiences looking for an untold story from the war, and by all lovers of fine acting performances by the three leads.