Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Few Good Men (1992) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Plot: At Guantanamo Marine Base, a private is attacked by 2 other marines and dies as a result. An investigation is conducted by Lt. Commander Jo Galloway and reveals to her superiors that she believes that the private was attacked by because he was going over the head of Colonel Jessup, the base commander and was threatening to reveal something unless he gets a transfer, so Jessup ordered a “code red” which is basically a type hazing done which is not legal. Galloway wants to be assigned to defend the 2 marines but her superior prefers that the whole go away quietly so he denies her request and has the case assigned to Lt. Dan Kaffee, a Naval lawyer who hasn’t tried a case in court and prefers to plea his cases out. But Galloway warns him that if he pleads the case out, Jessup will get away with murder. Kaffee decides not to plead the case out and tries to defend them but there’s no proof that Jessup actually gave the order.
Verdict: Courtroom Masterpiece
Story: Who doesn’t like a good investigation story? Well this gives us a look at how a team of lawyers need to uncover the truth about a marine’s death. We know who is meant to have committed the crime but we need to see who gave the final order. The team of lawyers are all very different and clash over every decision. They must put the differences behind them to work together to gain the evidence to prove the truth and it all comes to a clash in the courtroom creating one of the most iconic scenes in film history. It seems like quite a boring subject but put together it is one of the most engrossing stories in film. (9/10)
Actor Review
Tom Cruise: Lt. Daniel Kaffee top lawyer who comes off as a slacker, he has never lost a case but he now has to take one of the biggest of his career. Cruise nails this using his charm to get over how easy it all seems but also shows he can go toe to toe with the best in the business with the courtroom scene with Jack. (9/10)
cruise
Jack Nicholson: Col. Nathan R. Jessup believes he is top of any chain, he gives out orders to anyone and his old fashion techniques will be his downfall. Great performance from Jack showing what one man with all the power can do. (9/10)
jack
Demi Moore: Lt. Cdr. JoAnne Galloway officer who wants to take the case and wants to make it her own but if forced to work with Kaffee very much against her will. Good performance but sometime gets out shown by Cruise. (7/10)
demi
Kevin Bacon: Capt. Jack Ross an old friend of Kaffee who is going up against him in court, he will do what is right in his role but he won’t go over any laws to make sure he wins. Good supporting performance. (7/10)
Director Review: Rob Reiner – Great directing throughout to create one of the most interesting films of all time. (9/10)
Crime: Searching for the truth has never been so interesting. (10/10)
Drama: Top drama showing how each line is leading to something much bigger. (10/10)
Mystery: We have to watch as the lawyers uncover the truth. (9/10)
Thriller: Brings you to the edge of your seat from start to finish. (10/10)
Settings: Most of the settings work well, but the courtroom is the highlight arena of choice. (6/10)
Suggestion: This is a must watch for all, it is a classic that has one of the most iconic film scenes of all time. (Watch)
Best Part: Tom v Jack in courtroom.
Worst Part: Not one
Favourite Quote: See Video
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Nominated for four Oscars including ‘Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor, Best Sound, Best Film Editing.
Box Office: $243 Million
Budget: $40 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 18 Minutes
Tagline: In the heart of the nation’s capital, in a courthouse of the U.S. government, one man will stop at nothing to keep his honor, and one will stop at nothing to find the truth.
Overall: Brilliant Thriller
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/12/17/a-few-good-men-1992/
Verdict: Courtroom Masterpiece
Story: Who doesn’t like a good investigation story? Well this gives us a look at how a team of lawyers need to uncover the truth about a marine’s death. We know who is meant to have committed the crime but we need to see who gave the final order. The team of lawyers are all very different and clash over every decision. They must put the differences behind them to work together to gain the evidence to prove the truth and it all comes to a clash in the courtroom creating one of the most iconic scenes in film history. It seems like quite a boring subject but put together it is one of the most engrossing stories in film. (9/10)
Actor Review
Tom Cruise: Lt. Daniel Kaffee top lawyer who comes off as a slacker, he has never lost a case but he now has to take one of the biggest of his career. Cruise nails this using his charm to get over how easy it all seems but also shows he can go toe to toe with the best in the business with the courtroom scene with Jack. (9/10)
cruise
Jack Nicholson: Col. Nathan R. Jessup believes he is top of any chain, he gives out orders to anyone and his old fashion techniques will be his downfall. Great performance from Jack showing what one man with all the power can do. (9/10)
jack
Demi Moore: Lt. Cdr. JoAnne Galloway officer who wants to take the case and wants to make it her own but if forced to work with Kaffee very much against her will. Good performance but sometime gets out shown by Cruise. (7/10)
demi
Kevin Bacon: Capt. Jack Ross an old friend of Kaffee who is going up against him in court, he will do what is right in his role but he won’t go over any laws to make sure he wins. Good supporting performance. (7/10)
Director Review: Rob Reiner – Great directing throughout to create one of the most interesting films of all time. (9/10)
Crime: Searching for the truth has never been so interesting. (10/10)
Drama: Top drama showing how each line is leading to something much bigger. (10/10)
Mystery: We have to watch as the lawyers uncover the truth. (9/10)
Thriller: Brings you to the edge of your seat from start to finish. (10/10)
Settings: Most of the settings work well, but the courtroom is the highlight arena of choice. (6/10)
Suggestion: This is a must watch for all, it is a classic that has one of the most iconic film scenes of all time. (Watch)
Best Part: Tom v Jack in courtroom.
Worst Part: Not one
Favourite Quote: See Video
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Nominated for four Oscars including ‘Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor, Best Sound, Best Film Editing.
Box Office: $243 Million
Budget: $40 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 18 Minutes
Tagline: In the heart of the nation’s capital, in a courthouse of the U.S. government, one man will stop at nothing to keep his honor, and one will stop at nothing to find the truth.
Overall: Brilliant Thriller
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/12/17/a-few-good-men-1992/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Soup 2 Nuts in Tabletop Games
Oct 29, 2019
I like when I can learn something from a game. Or any experience, really. In the case of Soup 2 Nuts I learned that a proper six-course meal begins with the Soup course and ends with the Nuts course. I didn’t even know nuts was their own course! Now you are interested in what the other courses are, aren’t you? Fine, I will oblige: Soup, Appetizer, Salad, Main Course, Dessert, Nuts. These are the courses, and these are the rounds of play in this party card game of opinions and ridiculousness.
Soup 2 Nuts is a card game where players will be drawing cards from the giant stack, performing or answering questions written thereon and scoring points for what the other players deem “good enough.” The player with the highest score at the end of the six courses is the winner! … if you decide to even keep score.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game. It is not a prototype, so what you see is what you get. At least I think. More on that later. -T
To setup, open the aluminum can that the game comes in, dump out the components, shuffle the cards, and place them in a central stack. You are now ready to play. Yes, that’s it for setup.
So the game is very straightforward. Draw a card, read to yourself the prompt according to which course you are playing at the time (you play consecutively, so everyone will play a card at the Soup level through the Nuts level), and perform the action or answer the prompt question. After you have done this the other players will give you a thumbs up or thumbs down to indicate how well you did or how much they may agree with you. If you have a majority of ups you gain a point. A majority of downs is negative points. Yes, someone actually finished the game with negative points. I will not mention her name. You continue playing in this fashion until everyone has had a chance to complete actions on six cards (or passed if they wish, scoring zero points for the round). Tally up the points and announce the winner!
Components. This is a butt-ton of cards in a can. There is a golf pencil and tiny post-it-notes-style pad of paper. Also there was a hippo figure that came in our can. The hippo has nothing to do with the game (that we have found), and so we just keep it in the can and play around with it while waiting for people to decide what they want to do with their card. The cards are good quality, but the pencil and pad could have just as easily been left out all together. The can. Okay I have mixed feelings about the can the game comes in. On one hand, it is hilarious and appropriate for a game themed around a meal. It’s GREAT quality and comes with a plastic lid for containing the bits once you’ve popped the top. On the other hand, I now have to figure out how I am going to put it on my game shelves. One negative point to House Dunce Cap. (but I really do like the can haha)
So here’s the rub on this one. This is a VERY adult-focused game. It is NSFW and NSFKids. Please do not pull this out when you are playing games on a holiday with your parents and grandparents unless you have an incredibly modern relationship with them. Also, we very much recommend playing with as many people as you can. The more the better. We tried it with three players and it just did not work. We suggest at least five players to really let the game play shine as it should. There are also quite a few prompts that just didn’t apply as we were playing. I would house rule that you can have one re-draw if you would normally pass on a prompt, but you may play it however you’d like.
As this game is seriously a TON of prompts to get the group talking, debating, laughing, and being grossed out, we at Purple Phoenix Games give this one a hippo-in-the-can 7 / 18. It is not a horrible game, but it is not one I will be pulling off the shelves terribly often. If you enjoy TMI games and making each other squirm for points, give it a shot.
Soup 2 Nuts is a card game where players will be drawing cards from the giant stack, performing or answering questions written thereon and scoring points for what the other players deem “good enough.” The player with the highest score at the end of the six courses is the winner! … if you decide to even keep score.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game. It is not a prototype, so what you see is what you get. At least I think. More on that later. -T
To setup, open the aluminum can that the game comes in, dump out the components, shuffle the cards, and place them in a central stack. You are now ready to play. Yes, that’s it for setup.
So the game is very straightforward. Draw a card, read to yourself the prompt according to which course you are playing at the time (you play consecutively, so everyone will play a card at the Soup level through the Nuts level), and perform the action or answer the prompt question. After you have done this the other players will give you a thumbs up or thumbs down to indicate how well you did or how much they may agree with you. If you have a majority of ups you gain a point. A majority of downs is negative points. Yes, someone actually finished the game with negative points. I will not mention her name. You continue playing in this fashion until everyone has had a chance to complete actions on six cards (or passed if they wish, scoring zero points for the round). Tally up the points and announce the winner!
Components. This is a butt-ton of cards in a can. There is a golf pencil and tiny post-it-notes-style pad of paper. Also there was a hippo figure that came in our can. The hippo has nothing to do with the game (that we have found), and so we just keep it in the can and play around with it while waiting for people to decide what they want to do with their card. The cards are good quality, but the pencil and pad could have just as easily been left out all together. The can. Okay I have mixed feelings about the can the game comes in. On one hand, it is hilarious and appropriate for a game themed around a meal. It’s GREAT quality and comes with a plastic lid for containing the bits once you’ve popped the top. On the other hand, I now have to figure out how I am going to put it on my game shelves. One negative point to House Dunce Cap. (but I really do like the can haha)
So here’s the rub on this one. This is a VERY adult-focused game. It is NSFW and NSFKids. Please do not pull this out when you are playing games on a holiday with your parents and grandparents unless you have an incredibly modern relationship with them. Also, we very much recommend playing with as many people as you can. The more the better. We tried it with three players and it just did not work. We suggest at least five players to really let the game play shine as it should. There are also quite a few prompts that just didn’t apply as we were playing. I would house rule that you can have one re-draw if you would normally pass on a prompt, but you may play it however you’d like.
As this game is seriously a TON of prompts to get the group talking, debating, laughing, and being grossed out, we at Purple Phoenix Games give this one a hippo-in-the-can 7 / 18. It is not a horrible game, but it is not one I will be pulling off the shelves terribly often. If you enjoy TMI games and making each other squirm for points, give it a shot.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Okja (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
Okja (pronounced ok-cha, as far as I can discern from hearing it said) was a film I had on my radar from its release, but it took the impetus of Parasite and director Bong Joon Ho winning the Oscar to kick me into settling down to watch it. It is the kind of film I would have seen as a matter of course when I worked at the beloved Cameo Cinema, Edinburgh, back in the day… but the kind of film it takes me a while to get around to these days.
What I had heard was that it was quirky, had a very black humour and involved a giant pig. Other than that I was going in blind. Which is always preferable, with almost any film! Hype and too much information can ruin your experience of a thing, simply by putting preconceptions and ideas in your head that may influence your thinking and true reaction to something. I was very grateful then to avoid too much information regarding this unique movie.
The cast is full of people I like, outside of the Korean cast that were strangers to me, in all honesty. Jake Gyllenhaal and Paul Dano, especially, are two actors that have been high on my list of consistent performers you can trust for some years; both making interesting and compelling career choices in terms of subject matter and working with strong directors. Tilda Swinton too is usually good value for a promising watch, almost guaranteeing something slightly leftfield and worth thinking about.
Dano gets away with being the one likeable, if morally ambiguous, character out of the three; with Swinton and Gyllenhaal giving bizarre, heightened comic performances that it is hard to reference to anything else! As the main story of eco-consciousness and a girl’s love for her giant pig progresses in charming fashion, it is these starkly bonkers performances that stick out like very sore thumbs – sometimes raising awkward chuckles, but mostly making you go “what the hell is going on!?”
Well, what is going on is an exploration of corporate evil, the lies, deviousness and manipulation used to make a profit that ignores life and nature as anything worth preserving, or even loving. It wants us to look at meat eating for what it is, and imagines how we might think more about it as a species if we truly accept that animals have rights, personalities, even souls. Of course many people watching wouldn’t need to be converted to this way of thinking at all, so I am very curious (as a non vegetarian / vegan) what reaction a person whose consciousness of these things has been awake for years might have…?
It is possible to watch this without involving yourself too much in that whole debate, however. At its heart, it is a film about innocent love, and a rescue movie that sets unlikely heroes against a gargantuan nemesis against all odds. Naturally, it is a very smart script, that doesn’t ignore the notion of making fun of itself and keeping it mostly fun. In many ways, it seems like a family friendly film, apart from the underlying seriousness of the subject of cruelty, torture and, essentially, murder for the private gain of unscrupulous suits who would watch the world burn in the name of profit.
At the time of watching it, I caught myself in the right mood and really enjoyed it for what it was. Seo-Hyun Ahn as Mija is utterly lovely, and you do find yourself falling for Okja (rendered with marvelous CGI work) and sympathising with the warmth of their relationship as friends. The moments of the film that show nature and the calm of a non-modern world are the most compelling. The parts of the film with cities and noise and guns are more jarring – which, perhaps, is the point and fully intentional. Clearly, this is a director with serious vision and talent that was almost, if not quite, getting it right. As we now know, with Parasite he nailed it…
This is a film I’d be a little cautious of recommending to some people. It is just too odd in parts. It is a good film, not a great one. And perhaps more likely to impress in the hands of viewers that are already converted to the cause and way of thinking it champions.
What I had heard was that it was quirky, had a very black humour and involved a giant pig. Other than that I was going in blind. Which is always preferable, with almost any film! Hype and too much information can ruin your experience of a thing, simply by putting preconceptions and ideas in your head that may influence your thinking and true reaction to something. I was very grateful then to avoid too much information regarding this unique movie.
The cast is full of people I like, outside of the Korean cast that were strangers to me, in all honesty. Jake Gyllenhaal and Paul Dano, especially, are two actors that have been high on my list of consistent performers you can trust for some years; both making interesting and compelling career choices in terms of subject matter and working with strong directors. Tilda Swinton too is usually good value for a promising watch, almost guaranteeing something slightly leftfield and worth thinking about.
Dano gets away with being the one likeable, if morally ambiguous, character out of the three; with Swinton and Gyllenhaal giving bizarre, heightened comic performances that it is hard to reference to anything else! As the main story of eco-consciousness and a girl’s love for her giant pig progresses in charming fashion, it is these starkly bonkers performances that stick out like very sore thumbs – sometimes raising awkward chuckles, but mostly making you go “what the hell is going on!?”
Well, what is going on is an exploration of corporate evil, the lies, deviousness and manipulation used to make a profit that ignores life and nature as anything worth preserving, or even loving. It wants us to look at meat eating for what it is, and imagines how we might think more about it as a species if we truly accept that animals have rights, personalities, even souls. Of course many people watching wouldn’t need to be converted to this way of thinking at all, so I am very curious (as a non vegetarian / vegan) what reaction a person whose consciousness of these things has been awake for years might have…?
It is possible to watch this without involving yourself too much in that whole debate, however. At its heart, it is a film about innocent love, and a rescue movie that sets unlikely heroes against a gargantuan nemesis against all odds. Naturally, it is a very smart script, that doesn’t ignore the notion of making fun of itself and keeping it mostly fun. In many ways, it seems like a family friendly film, apart from the underlying seriousness of the subject of cruelty, torture and, essentially, murder for the private gain of unscrupulous suits who would watch the world burn in the name of profit.
At the time of watching it, I caught myself in the right mood and really enjoyed it for what it was. Seo-Hyun Ahn as Mija is utterly lovely, and you do find yourself falling for Okja (rendered with marvelous CGI work) and sympathising with the warmth of their relationship as friends. The moments of the film that show nature and the calm of a non-modern world are the most compelling. The parts of the film with cities and noise and guns are more jarring – which, perhaps, is the point and fully intentional. Clearly, this is a director with serious vision and talent that was almost, if not quite, getting it right. As we now know, with Parasite he nailed it…
This is a film I’d be a little cautious of recommending to some people. It is just too odd in parts. It is a good film, not a great one. And perhaps more likely to impress in the hands of viewers that are already converted to the cause and way of thinking it champions.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated You Decide in Tabletop Games
Nov 12, 2020
What game do you think of when I mention, “roll and move?” For me, it’s Candy Land. Perhaps most kids’ first foray into board games at all. To be honest, it’s not even a roll and move, it’s more a flip and move, but they are usually all the same anyway: roll/flip/spin something and then move your pawn. Sometimes there will be something on the spot to “do” and sometimes you just try to race to the finish. So when the publisher and I were chatting about You Decide and they mentioned it was a family-style roll and move game, I had my doubts, but I wanted to try it out. How does this first game from new publisher Davidson Games fare? Let’s find out and You Decide.
As mentioned in my intro, You Decide is a roll and move game for two players. More players can be added to the game with more copies of the game. In the game players are attempting to be the first to move all six of their pawns from the STARTing line to the FINISH line.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are retail copy components, and therefore final components. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but give a feel for the flow of the game and how it plays. You are invited to download the rulebook, purchase the game from the publisher, or through any retailers stocking it soon. -T
To setup, lay out the board between the two players and each player will place their pawns on the six circles on the START area. Roll off to see who will start the game and you are ready to begin!
You Decide turns are simple: roll both dice and decide which pawn to move. Move it and pass the turn to the opponent. When a player rolls the 2d6 it creates two numbers. For this review we will just use the example of a 4 and a 6. With this roll the player will decide to move the pawn in the 4 spot a total of six spaces, or the pawn in the 6 spot a total of four spaces. Easy, right?
Though movement is easy to determine, deciding which to activate is the challenge, though not severe. Upon many spaces on the board are printed instructions for the player to obey when a pawn lands on it. These could include returning the pawn to the START space, or moving forward a number of spaces but also allowing the opponent to move forward, or simply staying put and moving an opponent’s pawn.
When a player lands their pawn at the FINISH area, that number is no longer able to be used in subsequent rolls, and once several dice are at the FINISH area, each die rolls becomes more and more dire as players are on a mad dash to finish first. Play continues in this fashion until a winner has reached the FINISH area with all their pawns.
Components. This is a board, 12 pawns, and 2d6. The board is fine, with legible print and art that is present but stays out of the way. The pawns are typical plastic pawns but in excellent colors: orange and black. The 2d6 are fine as well. Black plastic with white pips. For this type of game, the components are completely functional. Nothing super impressive nor too egregious.
The gameplay is exactly what you want for a family level game. It is extremely light, offers choices that are meaningful without burning little brains, and has just the right amount of take-that to wean newer gamers off the Candy Land Express.
For me, it fills an interesting niche in my collection that I really didn’t know I had: a simple game for my family that even my 4-year-old can play and do well with, as long as we read the choices to him. Now, You Decide is very light and could be considered a gateway filler, but also as an easygoing family stepping stone game to get little ones rolling dice and making choices. Candy Land does NOT allow you to do that. So if you have young ones about to embark on their board game journey, I suggest you grab a copy of You Decide instead of those beginner games at Wal-Mart or Target. That is, unless You Decide gets picked up and sold at those locations.
As mentioned in my intro, You Decide is a roll and move game for two players. More players can be added to the game with more copies of the game. In the game players are attempting to be the first to move all six of their pawns from the STARTing line to the FINISH line.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are retail copy components, and therefore final components. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but give a feel for the flow of the game and how it plays. You are invited to download the rulebook, purchase the game from the publisher, or through any retailers stocking it soon. -T
To setup, lay out the board between the two players and each player will place their pawns on the six circles on the START area. Roll off to see who will start the game and you are ready to begin!
You Decide turns are simple: roll both dice and decide which pawn to move. Move it and pass the turn to the opponent. When a player rolls the 2d6 it creates two numbers. For this review we will just use the example of a 4 and a 6. With this roll the player will decide to move the pawn in the 4 spot a total of six spaces, or the pawn in the 6 spot a total of four spaces. Easy, right?
Though movement is easy to determine, deciding which to activate is the challenge, though not severe. Upon many spaces on the board are printed instructions for the player to obey when a pawn lands on it. These could include returning the pawn to the START space, or moving forward a number of spaces but also allowing the opponent to move forward, or simply staying put and moving an opponent’s pawn.
When a player lands their pawn at the FINISH area, that number is no longer able to be used in subsequent rolls, and once several dice are at the FINISH area, each die rolls becomes more and more dire as players are on a mad dash to finish first. Play continues in this fashion until a winner has reached the FINISH area with all their pawns.
Components. This is a board, 12 pawns, and 2d6. The board is fine, with legible print and art that is present but stays out of the way. The pawns are typical plastic pawns but in excellent colors: orange and black. The 2d6 are fine as well. Black plastic with white pips. For this type of game, the components are completely functional. Nothing super impressive nor too egregious.
The gameplay is exactly what you want for a family level game. It is extremely light, offers choices that are meaningful without burning little brains, and has just the right amount of take-that to wean newer gamers off the Candy Land Express.
For me, it fills an interesting niche in my collection that I really didn’t know I had: a simple game for my family that even my 4-year-old can play and do well with, as long as we read the choices to him. Now, You Decide is very light and could be considered a gateway filler, but also as an easygoing family stepping stone game to get little ones rolling dice and making choices. Candy Land does NOT allow you to do that. So if you have young ones about to embark on their board game journey, I suggest you grab a copy of You Decide instead of those beginner games at Wal-Mart or Target. That is, unless You Decide gets picked up and sold at those locations.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Dec 23, 2020
Gal Gadot returns as Diana Prince in “Wonder Woman 1984” which has seen its release date shift a few times due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The film has started to open overseas and will arrive in the U.S. on Christmas day with a limited debut on HBO Max as well.
The story sees Diana now living in Washington D.C. in 1984. Diana is popular but has refused male companionship as she still longs for her late love Steve Trevor (Chris Pine).
Diana works in the Smithsonian Institute in antiquities and keeps her secret identity under wraps even when a daring mall heist forces her to leap into action.
A shy and passive employee named Barbara (Kirsten Wiig); who is afraid of her own shadow and largely ignored by her peers is befriended by Diana and they discover one item from the heist is inscribed with the ability to grant a wish. Unknowingly Diana wishes for Steve to return and Barbara wishes to be more like Diana which sets a chain of events into motion.
A shady business man named Maxwell Lord (Perdro Pascal) has his site on obtaining the relic as he believes having the ability to grant wishes will allow him to save his failing business and give him the power he craves.
With such a promising setup; the film ultimately does not deliver on its premise and becomes bogged down in drawn out sequences with surprisingly little action and gaps in logic that defy even standards for a comic book film.
The first 90 minutes of the film has roughly 10-15 minutes of action tops and we are instead given lengthy scenes of Steve trying to find an 80s fashion look; flying over fireworks, and Maxwell trashing from one locale to another without much needed continuity.
An action scene involving a convoy chase through the desert seems very inspired by “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and ultimately does not deliver especially with such a long gape between the action sequences.
The final act does attempt to redeem the film as seeing Barbara transform into her new persona is interesting and Wiig does a very solid job with the role. This sadly is undermined with a single line of dialogue which takes away a big part of the transformation that audiences deserved to see.
There was also a sequence where Diana races down the streets and takes to flight with her Lasso and then discovers she can fly like Superman. Not only is this not in keeping with the character; but we see this extended fast moving sequence where she is clearly heading away from D.C. at great speed only to arrive at a destination with an item which had been established to be back at her home in D.C. It is this sort of sloppiness that really detracts from the film. There is also the fact that Steve has to fly her around on a jet that even as a pilot he should not know how to fly as he has never flown a jet aircraft in his life.
When the big confrontation comes it is a letdown as it is not overly epic and the CGI really does not seem to mesh. What is an even bigger disappointment is that a certain character stands emoting for several minutes while Diana gives such a bland and extended speech that even my wife had to ask “who wrote these lines”.
The film was not a total disaster as the characters were interesting and worked well with one another making the film entertaining in parts despite being really disappointed with it.
The film strikes me as a product of the talented Patty Jenkins being able to do whatever she wanted after the success of the first film. Jenkins not only Directed but did the screenplay for it. Considering the amazing job she did writing “Monster” I had high expectations for the film but to me it seemed like it could have used a bit more attention to several aspects.
My summary would be the following… good cast, entertaining in parts, not much action over two hours, takes huge liberties with Diana and her abilities, massive gaps in logic even for a comic movie. It aims to be epic and comes up lacking. At least the mid. credit scene was worth it.
3 stars out of 5
The story sees Diana now living in Washington D.C. in 1984. Diana is popular but has refused male companionship as she still longs for her late love Steve Trevor (Chris Pine).
Diana works in the Smithsonian Institute in antiquities and keeps her secret identity under wraps even when a daring mall heist forces her to leap into action.
A shy and passive employee named Barbara (Kirsten Wiig); who is afraid of her own shadow and largely ignored by her peers is befriended by Diana and they discover one item from the heist is inscribed with the ability to grant a wish. Unknowingly Diana wishes for Steve to return and Barbara wishes to be more like Diana which sets a chain of events into motion.
A shady business man named Maxwell Lord (Perdro Pascal) has his site on obtaining the relic as he believes having the ability to grant wishes will allow him to save his failing business and give him the power he craves.
With such a promising setup; the film ultimately does not deliver on its premise and becomes bogged down in drawn out sequences with surprisingly little action and gaps in logic that defy even standards for a comic book film.
The first 90 minutes of the film has roughly 10-15 minutes of action tops and we are instead given lengthy scenes of Steve trying to find an 80s fashion look; flying over fireworks, and Maxwell trashing from one locale to another without much needed continuity.
An action scene involving a convoy chase through the desert seems very inspired by “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and ultimately does not deliver especially with such a long gape between the action sequences.
The final act does attempt to redeem the film as seeing Barbara transform into her new persona is interesting and Wiig does a very solid job with the role. This sadly is undermined with a single line of dialogue which takes away a big part of the transformation that audiences deserved to see.
There was also a sequence where Diana races down the streets and takes to flight with her Lasso and then discovers she can fly like Superman. Not only is this not in keeping with the character; but we see this extended fast moving sequence where she is clearly heading away from D.C. at great speed only to arrive at a destination with an item which had been established to be back at her home in D.C. It is this sort of sloppiness that really detracts from the film. There is also the fact that Steve has to fly her around on a jet that even as a pilot he should not know how to fly as he has never flown a jet aircraft in his life.
When the big confrontation comes it is a letdown as it is not overly epic and the CGI really does not seem to mesh. What is an even bigger disappointment is that a certain character stands emoting for several minutes while Diana gives such a bland and extended speech that even my wife had to ask “who wrote these lines”.
The film was not a total disaster as the characters were interesting and worked well with one another making the film entertaining in parts despite being really disappointed with it.
The film strikes me as a product of the talented Patty Jenkins being able to do whatever she wanted after the success of the first film. Jenkins not only Directed but did the screenplay for it. Considering the amazing job she did writing “Monster” I had high expectations for the film but to me it seemed like it could have used a bit more attention to several aspects.
My summary would be the following… good cast, entertaining in parts, not much action over two hours, takes huge liberties with Diana and her abilities, massive gaps in logic even for a comic movie. It aims to be epic and comes up lacking. At least the mid. credit scene was worth it.
3 stars out of 5
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Tales & Games: The Three Little Pigs in Tabletop Games
Aug 18, 2020
The Wolf always gets a bad rap. Think of all the stories you know that include an anthropomorphic wolf and tell me three that show The Wolf in a positive light. Can’t think of any? Me neither. But they need to eat to survive and it’s tough in these streets! errm, trees! Such is the plight of The Wolf in this one, as he is attempting to wrest the Little Pigs out of their hidey-holes so he can have a nice bacon dinner. And honestly, who can blame him? Bacon!
Tales & Games: The Three Little Pigs (which I will fondly refer to as 3LP for the remainder of this review) is a cute little family dice and take-that game about building houses for maximum points while avoiding The Wolf’s hungry advances. The winner of the game is the Little Piggy who has built the most complete structures using the best materials that afford them the most endgame points.
To setup, sort the building tiles by material type and house level type as shown inside the box cover. Place the dice and spinner nearby. Let the youngest or cutest player go first. The game is now ready to be played!
On a player’s turn they will roll all the dice Yahtzee-style (so with two re-roll attempts), and the remainder of the turn is based on what is rolled. Players are not required to re-roll, but must stop once two or more Wolf symbols are rolled, or after the second re-roll. The player may then use the dice to purchase house materials corresponding to what was rolled. If three doors are rolled, a player may purchase a straw door (which cost two door symbols) or a wooden door (which cost three door symbols). These house parts can be of mixed materials, so once the pieces have been purchased, house construction can then be done.
Should a player roll The Wolf, then the “breath” spinner will be spun. The player who rolled The Wolf dice will choose an opponent AND one of their houses to target. Spin the spinner and destroy all matching pieces in their house. Some children have issues with this, but hey, they should have built more brick sections! Play continues in this fashion taking turns rolling and purchasing and building until several stacks of house sections are gone (depending on player count). All incomplete houses are crumbled, and piggy faces on standing houses are scored to determine the victor! When playing with my kiddo I don’t use the bonus cards, but they are available if playing with older and more strategic players.
Components. As this is one of the famed (and first in the line) Tales & Games Bookshelf games, it has set a standard for the series. These games come in boxes that look like books on the outside, open like a book, and contain a story to be read as a prelude to the game, if wished. The box is very very cool, and the insert is pink and wonderfully designed. The house tiles are thick and colorful, and the pink dice are just a joy to roll. I love the components in this one!
So obviously this is a game really designed to target younger gamers. And though it says 7+ on the box, I have successfully played this with my 3 year old with zero issues. He loves it, and in turn, makes me love it too. Now, I will certainly not pull this out at any given Game Night with adults (unless we have gamer spouses or friends who have NEVER played modern games at all). However, I really do enjoy playing it with my son for now, and for super-newbies. It is colorful, light on rules, offers some choices, and of course, has a touch of luck and take-that. All this while still feeling like you are in the story of The Three Little Pigs. So I say, if you were ever on the fence with this one – get it. Play it with whomever you like and just enjoy it. It is light enough with just a touch of adultness to keep you smiling. But don’t invite your Twilight Imperium or Mage Knight friends. They won’t like it. We at Purple Phoenix Games know how to get down with the simpler games as well, so that’s why we give this one a blown-over 9 / 12.
Tales & Games: The Three Little Pigs (which I will fondly refer to as 3LP for the remainder of this review) is a cute little family dice and take-that game about building houses for maximum points while avoiding The Wolf’s hungry advances. The winner of the game is the Little Piggy who has built the most complete structures using the best materials that afford them the most endgame points.
To setup, sort the building tiles by material type and house level type as shown inside the box cover. Place the dice and spinner nearby. Let the youngest or cutest player go first. The game is now ready to be played!
On a player’s turn they will roll all the dice Yahtzee-style (so with two re-roll attempts), and the remainder of the turn is based on what is rolled. Players are not required to re-roll, but must stop once two or more Wolf symbols are rolled, or after the second re-roll. The player may then use the dice to purchase house materials corresponding to what was rolled. If three doors are rolled, a player may purchase a straw door (which cost two door symbols) or a wooden door (which cost three door symbols). These house parts can be of mixed materials, so once the pieces have been purchased, house construction can then be done.
Should a player roll The Wolf, then the “breath” spinner will be spun. The player who rolled The Wolf dice will choose an opponent AND one of their houses to target. Spin the spinner and destroy all matching pieces in their house. Some children have issues with this, but hey, they should have built more brick sections! Play continues in this fashion taking turns rolling and purchasing and building until several stacks of house sections are gone (depending on player count). All incomplete houses are crumbled, and piggy faces on standing houses are scored to determine the victor! When playing with my kiddo I don’t use the bonus cards, but they are available if playing with older and more strategic players.
Components. As this is one of the famed (and first in the line) Tales & Games Bookshelf games, it has set a standard for the series. These games come in boxes that look like books on the outside, open like a book, and contain a story to be read as a prelude to the game, if wished. The box is very very cool, and the insert is pink and wonderfully designed. The house tiles are thick and colorful, and the pink dice are just a joy to roll. I love the components in this one!
So obviously this is a game really designed to target younger gamers. And though it says 7+ on the box, I have successfully played this with my 3 year old with zero issues. He loves it, and in turn, makes me love it too. Now, I will certainly not pull this out at any given Game Night with adults (unless we have gamer spouses or friends who have NEVER played modern games at all). However, I really do enjoy playing it with my son for now, and for super-newbies. It is colorful, light on rules, offers some choices, and of course, has a touch of luck and take-that. All this while still feeling like you are in the story of The Three Little Pigs. So I say, if you were ever on the fence with this one – get it. Play it with whomever you like and just enjoy it. It is light enough with just a touch of adultness to keep you smiling. But don’t invite your Twilight Imperium or Mage Knight friends. They won’t like it. We at Purple Phoenix Games know how to get down with the simpler games as well, so that’s why we give this one a blown-over 9 / 12.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Sorrim in Tabletop Games
Sep 2, 2020
Head to head competitive games are great, especially during the current lockdown situation. My wife and I could play 1v1 games all the time and be quite happy. That’s why we really enjoy abstract games so much. However, head to head fighting card games are something that my wife and I can kinda get heated over. How did Sorrim do for us? Keep reading.
Sorrim is a competitive 1v1 (or 2v2 or 3v3) card game for two players. A player wins once all of their opponent’s fighters have been knocked out. Fighters are all of differing magic (element) types and therefore can only be equipped with sigils (spells and attacks) of matching type. Whittling the opposing fighters’ health to zero will award triumphant players victory!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are retail copy components, and all copies will have components matching these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but to give our readers an idea of how the game plays. You are invited to order from The Game Crafter directly, your FLGS, or purchase through any retailers stocking it after it is released. -T
To setup the game, separate and shuffle the fighter deck and sigil deck. Deal each player a set of colored chips to keep track of values for each fighter. Fighter cards will be flipped and revealed at the beginning of the conflict. Roll the die to determine starting player and the game can begin! Note: this preview will be using the introductory 1v1 setup, though games can also be played on 2v2 and 3v3 modes with slightly different rules.
Each fighter will have their own stats to track as shown on their cards: Might, Altruism, Trickery, Health. Fighters will also possess special abilities printed on their cards to be used during the game.
Sigil cards will show either the word “Passive,” which will be active throughout the game or triggered by a special event, or they will show a group of numbers to indicate the required rolls needed to launch a successful attack.
On a player’s turn they will consult the fighter’s passive abilities to see if they will trigger. Next, the player will roll the die and compare with their cards to cast a sigil (spell). If the rolled result matches a sigil it may be cast. Opponents will check any passive abilities and adjust Health by amount of the fighter’s Might. Play continues in this fashion until one player’s fighters are all reduced to zero Health. That player loses and the winner must then mock the loser until the next game played.
Components. This game consists of some cards, a die, and some translucent chips. Each copy will be provided a link to the designer’s document to print off the rulebook and the stat sheets to track fighter stats as they change throughout the game. The cards are acceptable quality, the die is just an entry-level normal d6 (we were sent green with white ink), and the chips are TiddlyWink style. Everything is… fine. The art leaves some to be desired, especially in this era of gaming where art can elevate a good game to great, and a great game to amazing. This art does not help Sorrim. It’s not terrible, but it’s not wonderful either. Not my style.
All in all, the game is actually pretty decent. It is very quick-playing, especially the 1v1 mode, and after playing one game you kinda want to try some of the other fighter and sigil combinations. Any time a game makes you want to play more, that’s a great thing.
With Sorrim, my final thoughts are that it is a good game. I wouldn’t call it great, but there are several interesting mechanics and the variability/replayability built in is quite good. There are lots of two player battle card games, and Sorrim brings something a little different. The theme is enjoyable, and the gameplay is fast. There isn’t a ton of strategy involved as turns are dependent on rolling a number that matches your sigil cards, but it does deliver an easy-feeling, low-stress battle game for two. For some reason you just don’t feel annoyed when you lose, as can be the case with other PvP games. If you are looking for something in your collection that gives you this quick gameplay and is relatively rules-light, head over to The Game Crafter and give Sorrim a try.
Sorrim is a competitive 1v1 (or 2v2 or 3v3) card game for two players. A player wins once all of their opponent’s fighters have been knocked out. Fighters are all of differing magic (element) types and therefore can only be equipped with sigils (spells and attacks) of matching type. Whittling the opposing fighters’ health to zero will award triumphant players victory!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are retail copy components, and all copies will have components matching these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but to give our readers an idea of how the game plays. You are invited to order from The Game Crafter directly, your FLGS, or purchase through any retailers stocking it after it is released. -T
To setup the game, separate and shuffle the fighter deck and sigil deck. Deal each player a set of colored chips to keep track of values for each fighter. Fighter cards will be flipped and revealed at the beginning of the conflict. Roll the die to determine starting player and the game can begin! Note: this preview will be using the introductory 1v1 setup, though games can also be played on 2v2 and 3v3 modes with slightly different rules.
Each fighter will have their own stats to track as shown on their cards: Might, Altruism, Trickery, Health. Fighters will also possess special abilities printed on their cards to be used during the game.
Sigil cards will show either the word “Passive,” which will be active throughout the game or triggered by a special event, or they will show a group of numbers to indicate the required rolls needed to launch a successful attack.
On a player’s turn they will consult the fighter’s passive abilities to see if they will trigger. Next, the player will roll the die and compare with their cards to cast a sigil (spell). If the rolled result matches a sigil it may be cast. Opponents will check any passive abilities and adjust Health by amount of the fighter’s Might. Play continues in this fashion until one player’s fighters are all reduced to zero Health. That player loses and the winner must then mock the loser until the next game played.
Components. This game consists of some cards, a die, and some translucent chips. Each copy will be provided a link to the designer’s document to print off the rulebook and the stat sheets to track fighter stats as they change throughout the game. The cards are acceptable quality, the die is just an entry-level normal d6 (we were sent green with white ink), and the chips are TiddlyWink style. Everything is… fine. The art leaves some to be desired, especially in this era of gaming where art can elevate a good game to great, and a great game to amazing. This art does not help Sorrim. It’s not terrible, but it’s not wonderful either. Not my style.
All in all, the game is actually pretty decent. It is very quick-playing, especially the 1v1 mode, and after playing one game you kinda want to try some of the other fighter and sigil combinations. Any time a game makes you want to play more, that’s a great thing.
With Sorrim, my final thoughts are that it is a good game. I wouldn’t call it great, but there are several interesting mechanics and the variability/replayability built in is quite good. There are lots of two player battle card games, and Sorrim brings something a little different. The theme is enjoyable, and the gameplay is fast. There isn’t a ton of strategy involved as turns are dependent on rolling a number that matches your sigil cards, but it does deliver an easy-feeling, low-stress battle game for two. For some reason you just don’t feel annoyed when you lose, as can be the case with other PvP games. If you are looking for something in your collection that gives you this quick gameplay and is relatively rules-light, head over to The Game Crafter and give Sorrim a try.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Castles of Mad King Ludwig in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2020
“Well why CAN’T I just have a long hallway between my garden and my porch? How else am I going to get to the stairwell?” – Nobody ever.
Castles of Mad King Ludwig is a game of castle construction in the most ridiculous fashion. Oh, there ARE rules, mind you, but what results can be a ludicrous display of asinine architectural planning but also hilarity at what monstrosity you have assembled.
DISCLAIMER: I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, 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 from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. Also there is an expansion to this game, but we are not reviewing it at this time. Should we review it in the future we will either update this review or post a link to the new material here. -T
Ok, stop ranting about how stupid your castles always look at game’s end. In this game you are building a castle for an eccentric (and mad) king to appease his skewed vision of stylish housing. Setup is somewhat lengthy, so I will not detail all the steps here. Determine the starting player and give them the castleeple (grr) to denote them as the first Master Builder. As Master Builder, you will draw room tile cards that dictate from which size pile you will draw room tiles. The Master Builder will then assign each room tile a cost and place the tile next to the cost for all to see. Each player will then choose a room tile to add to their castle and pay the Master Builder the cost (or choose a corridor). The Master Builder will then choose their room tile and pay the bank the cost. For every room tile that did not get chosen a coin will be placed on it as consolation for whomever purchases it in the future.
Once you have placed your room tile you score the points printed on the room, add or subtract any bonus points for placing near other specific rooms, and check for room completion. If you have connected all entryways from a room to different rooms or corridors you may receive the benefits of room completion printed on a separate completion bonus tile. These bonuses could range from re-scoring the room, drawing extra bonus cards, or even receiving room tiles for free.
Game play continues this way until the room tile cards run out. Players take note of their position on the scoring tableau and count up any bonus cards they have completed as well as placement in the face-up public goals. Score any bonus points for leftover money and allow the winner to gloat and show off their preposterous castle… thing.
Components. There are quite a lot of components for this game. You are definitely getting your money’s worth here. The cards are of good quality. The room tiles, bonus tokens, scoring tableau, coins, and main organization board are thinner stock cardboard, but they have held up really well for me. The castleeple and scoring discs are nice, and the rule book is concise and easy to read and comprehend. The artwork is nice, and the whole package it put together really well. Ok, so I honestly don’t remember what the insert looks like because I tossed it right away, but I’m sure it was fine too?
So I gave this one some crap at the top of the review for being mostly ridiculous. And it is. But, I also really really like this game. It allows me to contrive a strategy and tactics as I play, and I feel great about what I have done by the end of the game. I did not really care for Suburbia when I played it, and though this is not a copy, it is similar. Why do I like this one so much but not the other? I really do not know. The art is way better on Castles, but surely that can’t be enough to overpower the game play right? Is it the Master Builder feature? It is the different sized and shaped room tiles that allow me to make a monster on the table in front of me? Must be all of these things. As you can see, I am not alone in my enjoyment of the game as Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an absurd 15 / 18. Get this one for all your architect aficionado friends.
Castles of Mad King Ludwig is a game of castle construction in the most ridiculous fashion. Oh, there ARE rules, mind you, but what results can be a ludicrous display of asinine architectural planning but also hilarity at what monstrosity you have assembled.
DISCLAIMER: I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, 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 from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. Also there is an expansion to this game, but we are not reviewing it at this time. Should we review it in the future we will either update this review or post a link to the new material here. -T
Ok, stop ranting about how stupid your castles always look at game’s end. In this game you are building a castle for an eccentric (and mad) king to appease his skewed vision of stylish housing. Setup is somewhat lengthy, so I will not detail all the steps here. Determine the starting player and give them the castleeple (grr) to denote them as the first Master Builder. As Master Builder, you will draw room tile cards that dictate from which size pile you will draw room tiles. The Master Builder will then assign each room tile a cost and place the tile next to the cost for all to see. Each player will then choose a room tile to add to their castle and pay the Master Builder the cost (or choose a corridor). The Master Builder will then choose their room tile and pay the bank the cost. For every room tile that did not get chosen a coin will be placed on it as consolation for whomever purchases it in the future.
Once you have placed your room tile you score the points printed on the room, add or subtract any bonus points for placing near other specific rooms, and check for room completion. If you have connected all entryways from a room to different rooms or corridors you may receive the benefits of room completion printed on a separate completion bonus tile. These bonuses could range from re-scoring the room, drawing extra bonus cards, or even receiving room tiles for free.
Game play continues this way until the room tile cards run out. Players take note of their position on the scoring tableau and count up any bonus cards they have completed as well as placement in the face-up public goals. Score any bonus points for leftover money and allow the winner to gloat and show off their preposterous castle… thing.
Components. There are quite a lot of components for this game. You are definitely getting your money’s worth here. The cards are of good quality. The room tiles, bonus tokens, scoring tableau, coins, and main organization board are thinner stock cardboard, but they have held up really well for me. The castleeple and scoring discs are nice, and the rule book is concise and easy to read and comprehend. The artwork is nice, and the whole package it put together really well. Ok, so I honestly don’t remember what the insert looks like because I tossed it right away, but I’m sure it was fine too?
So I gave this one some crap at the top of the review for being mostly ridiculous. And it is. But, I also really really like this game. It allows me to contrive a strategy and tactics as I play, and I feel great about what I have done by the end of the game. I did not really care for Suburbia when I played it, and though this is not a copy, it is similar. Why do I like this one so much but not the other? I really do not know. The art is way better on Castles, but surely that can’t be enough to overpower the game play right? Is it the Master Builder feature? It is the different sized and shaped room tiles that allow me to make a monster on the table in front of me? Must be all of these things. As you can see, I am not alone in my enjoyment of the game as Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an absurd 15 / 18. Get this one for all your architect aficionado friends.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Com-Pet-Ability in Tabletop Games
Apr 14, 2020
I have two dogs: a Yorkshire Terrier and a Powderpuff Chinese Crested. I love them dearly, but I just cannot see myself having any more 4-legged mammal pets. We promised our son a pet fish when we move (or a whole aquarium community if my wife will allow), but other than that, we will NOT be adding more pets to our household. So when I heard about a game that requires you to collect cards so that you have five pets to take home I immediate gave the deer-in-headlights look. No, I would not have a pet deer.
ComPetAbility is a card game with two play modes: a mode for players aged 7+ and one for younger gamers. We will be taking a look at the game for older gamers. In this game mode a player is attempting to amass five pets that will be accepting of each other and not cause heck in your house.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of the game for the purposes of this review. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, 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 from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, shuffle the large deck of cards and deal five to each player. Put the rest of the cards in the middle of the table as a draw pile, flip one over for the “shed” pile. You are now setup and ready to go!
The goal of the game is to begin a turn with five compatible pets (com-pet-able). This is achieved by having five cards whose three icons are satisfied with each other. For instance, turtles are compatible with every other type of animal, so the three icons on turtle cards are all green – compatible with all dogs, cats, and birds. Some dogs are compatible with other dogs but not cats, and some cats are compatible with other cats or kittens but not birds.
So on a turn, a player will choose a card to draw from either the draw pile or the shed pile to add to their hand. A turn ends when that player sheds (discards) a card to the shed pile. Turns continue in this fashion until a player begins their turn with five compatible animals. Players will then add up the points in their hands (the numbers in the upper right corner of the cards) of compatible animals. The player that ended the game with a completed set of five animal pets will score a bonus 10 points to add to their total. Whomever scores the highest is the winner of ComPetAbility!
Components. This is a stack of cards in a tin can. Yep, a tin can with a plastic lid. It’s very novel and lovely, but heck for someone who cares about how the games look and fit on their shelves. The game cards are good quality, which is handy because the game mode aimed at smaller children have them handling the cards a lot too so they have to be able to withstand that abuse. The art is cute, and the layout is easy to understand – even for young ones. No issues with the components from us (aside from the can not being a box, wink wink).
So here’s the thing with this one. We liked it. It is a great idea and is executed well. I don’t think I will pull this one out with adult gamers anymore though. The children’s mode of this game is what I hold dear, as my three-year-old LOVES it and “wins” every time. I have just played this one too many times where a player can be dealt either a winning hand or four of the five cards right away. I’m no designer, so I don’t know how to mitigate that besides chalking it up to “luck of the draw.” But that’s a negative for me, and perhaps I shouldn’t let it detract from an otherwise enjoyable game, but it’s what comes to mind every time I see on the shelf as a possibility for Game Night. However, if you like the theme, the style, and ease of play between two different modes then check it out. It can be used as a light filler, a gateway game, or children’s game. So for the pure flexibility of this one, Purple Phoenix Games gives it a canned (hehe) 13 / 18. The turtles are really cute, but the hybrid animals are kinda weird-lookin’.
ComPetAbility is a card game with two play modes: a mode for players aged 7+ and one for younger gamers. We will be taking a look at the game for older gamers. In this game mode a player is attempting to amass five pets that will be accepting of each other and not cause heck in your house.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of the game for the purposes of this review. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, 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 from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, shuffle the large deck of cards and deal five to each player. Put the rest of the cards in the middle of the table as a draw pile, flip one over for the “shed” pile. You are now setup and ready to go!
The goal of the game is to begin a turn with five compatible pets (com-pet-able). This is achieved by having five cards whose three icons are satisfied with each other. For instance, turtles are compatible with every other type of animal, so the three icons on turtle cards are all green – compatible with all dogs, cats, and birds. Some dogs are compatible with other dogs but not cats, and some cats are compatible with other cats or kittens but not birds.
So on a turn, a player will choose a card to draw from either the draw pile or the shed pile to add to their hand. A turn ends when that player sheds (discards) a card to the shed pile. Turns continue in this fashion until a player begins their turn with five compatible animals. Players will then add up the points in their hands (the numbers in the upper right corner of the cards) of compatible animals. The player that ended the game with a completed set of five animal pets will score a bonus 10 points to add to their total. Whomever scores the highest is the winner of ComPetAbility!
Components. This is a stack of cards in a tin can. Yep, a tin can with a plastic lid. It’s very novel and lovely, but heck for someone who cares about how the games look and fit on their shelves. The game cards are good quality, which is handy because the game mode aimed at smaller children have them handling the cards a lot too so they have to be able to withstand that abuse. The art is cute, and the layout is easy to understand – even for young ones. No issues with the components from us (aside from the can not being a box, wink wink).
So here’s the thing with this one. We liked it. It is a great idea and is executed well. I don’t think I will pull this one out with adult gamers anymore though. The children’s mode of this game is what I hold dear, as my three-year-old LOVES it and “wins” every time. I have just played this one too many times where a player can be dealt either a winning hand or four of the five cards right away. I’m no designer, so I don’t know how to mitigate that besides chalking it up to “luck of the draw.” But that’s a negative for me, and perhaps I shouldn’t let it detract from an otherwise enjoyable game, but it’s what comes to mind every time I see on the shelf as a possibility for Game Night. However, if you like the theme, the style, and ease of play between two different modes then check it out. It can be used as a light filler, a gateway game, or children’s game. So for the pure flexibility of this one, Purple Phoenix Games gives it a canned (hehe) 13 / 18. The turtles are really cute, but the hybrid animals are kinda weird-lookin’.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Star Is Born (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Dullsville Arizona.
It’s unusual for the illustrious Mrs. Movie-Man and I to disagree over our opinion of a movie. Sure, she doesn’t like some genres like horror and sci-fi that I do, and I will often go to them alone. But in the main if we sit there together then we tend to have the same general view as to whether we liked it or not. (I guess that’s why we’ve been such a good match for nearly 40 years!). Not so though with this film.
The story has been filmed three times before: in 1937 (with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March); 1954 (with Judy Garland and James Mason) and 1976 (with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson). In all of these films the story has been the same: an alcoholic and over-the-hill actor (or with Kris Kristofferson, rock star) finds a young talented ingenue to love and develop into a superstar.
The modern day remake is a little different in that Jackson Maine, our older star (now played by Bradley Cooper), is a stadium-filling mega-rock-star, recognised and idolised in every bar he goes into…. and he frequents a LOT of bars. Maine mixes the cocktail with drugs in this version meaning that as one star is ascending, his seems destined to be heading into a black hole.
At its heart, this is a good story of having self-confidence in your own abilities, no matter how people around you try to put you down. Gaga’s Ally is one such person; a waitress who is constantly being told, especially by her blue-collar dad and his boozy friends, that although she has a great voice she’s “never going to make it” because of the way she looks. In chilled fashion she meets Jackson Maine, who hears her sing and thinks she might be on the edge of glory. Not worried about her big nose, he appreciates she was born that way: in fact he likes her so much he wants to poke her face. (Sorry… couldn’t resist it).
I appreciate from the IMDB rating that I am probably in a minority here. (At the time of writing this – pre-general release – it is a ridiculously high – and I suspect artificially pumped up – 8.8). But for me, I found the whole thing a dull affair. I can’t remember the last time I went to a film when I actively looked at my watch… but 1 hour 45 into this, I did (it had another 30 minutes to run).
For one thing, I just didn’t believe Bradley Cooper as the rock star character. He just came across as totally false and unbelievable to me. I had more resonance with Gaga’s Ally. Even though she is a novice actor (and it showed at times) in general I thought she did a creditable job. But given these two factors together, there are long and indulgent exchanges between the pair that seemed to me to go on in–ter–min–ably. Best actor in the film for me was Sam Elliott as Jackson’s brother Bobby. The mellowing of the brothers is a scene that I found genuinely touching.
I’d also like a glance at the original script, since there are some passages (the “boyfriend/husband” lines is a case in point) where it felt like one of them made an script mistake and, instead of Cooper (as director) shouting “cut”, they kept it going as some sort of half-arsed improv.
What is impressive is that they got to film at live concerts (including at Glastonbury), although most of this footage is of the hand-held nausea-inducing variety. There is zero doubt that Gaga can belt out a song better than anyone. But I didn’t get that same feeling about Bradley Cooper’s singing: like a lot of this film (with Cooper as co-producer, co-screenwriter AND director) it felt to me like a self-indulgent piece of casting.
I know music is extremely subjective, and “country” isnt really my think anyway. But the songs by Gaga and Lukas Nelson were – “Shallow” aside – for me rather forgetable.
Overall, in a couple of years that have brought us some great musicals – “La La Land“; “Sing Street“; “The Greatest Showman” – here’s a film about the music industry that did nothing for me I’m afraid.
But with my new user-rating system (this is the first post on the new web site) you have a chance to have YOUR say, so vote away!
The story has been filmed three times before: in 1937 (with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March); 1954 (with Judy Garland and James Mason) and 1976 (with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson). In all of these films the story has been the same: an alcoholic and over-the-hill actor (or with Kris Kristofferson, rock star) finds a young talented ingenue to love and develop into a superstar.
The modern day remake is a little different in that Jackson Maine, our older star (now played by Bradley Cooper), is a stadium-filling mega-rock-star, recognised and idolised in every bar he goes into…. and he frequents a LOT of bars. Maine mixes the cocktail with drugs in this version meaning that as one star is ascending, his seems destined to be heading into a black hole.
At its heart, this is a good story of having self-confidence in your own abilities, no matter how people around you try to put you down. Gaga’s Ally is one such person; a waitress who is constantly being told, especially by her blue-collar dad and his boozy friends, that although she has a great voice she’s “never going to make it” because of the way she looks. In chilled fashion she meets Jackson Maine, who hears her sing and thinks she might be on the edge of glory. Not worried about her big nose, he appreciates she was born that way: in fact he likes her so much he wants to poke her face. (Sorry… couldn’t resist it).
I appreciate from the IMDB rating that I am probably in a minority here. (At the time of writing this – pre-general release – it is a ridiculously high – and I suspect artificially pumped up – 8.8). But for me, I found the whole thing a dull affair. I can’t remember the last time I went to a film when I actively looked at my watch… but 1 hour 45 into this, I did (it had another 30 minutes to run).
For one thing, I just didn’t believe Bradley Cooper as the rock star character. He just came across as totally false and unbelievable to me. I had more resonance with Gaga’s Ally. Even though she is a novice actor (and it showed at times) in general I thought she did a creditable job. But given these two factors together, there are long and indulgent exchanges between the pair that seemed to me to go on in–ter–min–ably. Best actor in the film for me was Sam Elliott as Jackson’s brother Bobby. The mellowing of the brothers is a scene that I found genuinely touching.
I’d also like a glance at the original script, since there are some passages (the “boyfriend/husband” lines is a case in point) where it felt like one of them made an script mistake and, instead of Cooper (as director) shouting “cut”, they kept it going as some sort of half-arsed improv.
What is impressive is that they got to film at live concerts (including at Glastonbury), although most of this footage is of the hand-held nausea-inducing variety. There is zero doubt that Gaga can belt out a song better than anyone. But I didn’t get that same feeling about Bradley Cooper’s singing: like a lot of this film (with Cooper as co-producer, co-screenwriter AND director) it felt to me like a self-indulgent piece of casting.
I know music is extremely subjective, and “country” isnt really my think anyway. But the songs by Gaga and Lukas Nelson were – “Shallow” aside – for me rather forgetable.
Overall, in a couple of years that have brought us some great musicals – “La La Land“; “Sing Street“; “The Greatest Showman” – here’s a film about the music industry that did nothing for me I’m afraid.
But with my new user-rating system (this is the first post on the new web site) you have a chance to have YOUR say, so vote away!