Search
Animal Face Snap.pic: Funny Stickers Photo Booth
Lifestyle and Entertainment
App
▶▶▶Get *Animal Face SnapPic* and make the most of our photo manipulation special...
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.
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)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A war vehicle running low on fuel.
The words “Christopher Nolan” and “disappointment” are not words I would naturally associate… but for me, they apply where “Dunkirk” is concerned.
It promised so much from the trailer: a historical event of epic proportions; Kenneth Branagh; Tom Hardy; Mark Rylance; Hans Zimmer on the keys; the director of such classics as “The Dark Knight”; “Inception” and “Interstellar” : what could go wrong?
But it just doesn’t work and I’ve spent the last 24 hours trying to unpick why.
A key problem for me was the depiction of the beach itself. The film eschews CGI effects – a move that I would normally approve of – in favour of the use of “practical effects” and the involvement of “thousands of extras” (as the rather glutinously positive Wiki entry declares). Unfortunately for the movie, there were some 400,000 troops marooned in this last patch of civilisation ahead of the Nazi hoard, and all of the shots refuse to acknowledge this scale of potential human tragedy. Yes, there are individual scenes of horror, such as the soldier walking into the sea against the impassive stares of the young heroes. But nothing of scale. At times I thought I’d seen more people on the beach on a winter’s day in Bournemouth! In the absence of a co-production with China, and the provision of the volume of extras as in “The Great Wall“, CGI becomes a necessary evil to make the whole exercise believable.
What it was really like…. one of the famous paintings by Charles Cundall (Crown copyright).
My disquiet at this deepened when we got to the sharp end of the rescue by the “small boats”. In my mind (and I’m NOT quite old enough to remember this!) I imagine a sea full of them. A sight to truly merit Branagh’s awed gaze. But no. They might have been “original” vessels…. but there was only about half a dozen of them. A mental vision dashed.
Did I feel a spot of rain? Looking to unfriendly skies on the River Mole.
The film attempts to tell the story from three perspectives: from the land; from the sea and from the air. The sea though gets the lion’s share of the film, and there is much drowning that occurs that (I am aware) was distressing for some in the audience.
Styles going in One Direction…. down.
Nolan also pushes his quirky “timeline” manipulation too far for an audience that largely expects a linear telling of a classic tale. It’s day; it’s night; the minesweeper’s sailing; then sunk; then sailing again; a Spitfire crashes, then crashes again from a different perspective. I know many in the audience just didn’t ‘get’ that: leaving them presumably very confused!
That being said, the film is not a write off, and has its moments of brilliance. Kenneth Branagh (“Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit“, “Valkyrie”) – although having a range of Nolan’s clipped and cheesy lines to say – is impressive as the commanding officer. Mark Rylance (“Bridge of Spies“, “The BFG“) also shines as the captain of the “Moonstone”: one of the small boats out of Weymouth (although here there is a grievous lack of backstory for the civilian efforts). And Tom Hardy (“The Revenant“, “Legend“), although having limited opportunity to act with anything other than his eyes, is impressive as RAF pilot Farrier. His final scene of stoic heroism is memorable.
Fionn Whitehead is also impressive in his movie debut, and even Harry Styles (“This is Us“) equips himself well.
A surfeit of horror leads to a lack of compassion. Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard and Fionn Whitehead look on as the death toll mounts.
The cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema (“Interstellar“) is stunning with some memorable shots: a burning plane on a beach being a highspot for me.
And Hans Zimmer’s score is Oscar-worthy, generating enormous tension with a reverberating score, albeit sometimes let down by unsuitable cutaways (for example, to scenes of boat loading). Elsewhere in the sound department though I had major issues, with a decent percentage of the dialogue being completely inaudible in the sound mix.
Kenneth Branagh, impressive as Commander Bolton RN.
I really wanted this to be a “Battle of Britain”. Or a “Bridge Too Far”. Or even a “Saving Private Ryan”. Unfortunately, for me it was none of these, and this goes down as one of my movie disappointments of the year so far.
It promised so much from the trailer: a historical event of epic proportions; Kenneth Branagh; Tom Hardy; Mark Rylance; Hans Zimmer on the keys; the director of such classics as “The Dark Knight”; “Inception” and “Interstellar” : what could go wrong?
But it just doesn’t work and I’ve spent the last 24 hours trying to unpick why.
A key problem for me was the depiction of the beach itself. The film eschews CGI effects – a move that I would normally approve of – in favour of the use of “practical effects” and the involvement of “thousands of extras” (as the rather glutinously positive Wiki entry declares). Unfortunately for the movie, there were some 400,000 troops marooned in this last patch of civilisation ahead of the Nazi hoard, and all of the shots refuse to acknowledge this scale of potential human tragedy. Yes, there are individual scenes of horror, such as the soldier walking into the sea against the impassive stares of the young heroes. But nothing of scale. At times I thought I’d seen more people on the beach on a winter’s day in Bournemouth! In the absence of a co-production with China, and the provision of the volume of extras as in “The Great Wall“, CGI becomes a necessary evil to make the whole exercise believable.
What it was really like…. one of the famous paintings by Charles Cundall (Crown copyright).
My disquiet at this deepened when we got to the sharp end of the rescue by the “small boats”. In my mind (and I’m NOT quite old enough to remember this!) I imagine a sea full of them. A sight to truly merit Branagh’s awed gaze. But no. They might have been “original” vessels…. but there was only about half a dozen of them. A mental vision dashed.
Did I feel a spot of rain? Looking to unfriendly skies on the River Mole.
The film attempts to tell the story from three perspectives: from the land; from the sea and from the air. The sea though gets the lion’s share of the film, and there is much drowning that occurs that (I am aware) was distressing for some in the audience.
Styles going in One Direction…. down.
Nolan also pushes his quirky “timeline” manipulation too far for an audience that largely expects a linear telling of a classic tale. It’s day; it’s night; the minesweeper’s sailing; then sunk; then sailing again; a Spitfire crashes, then crashes again from a different perspective. I know many in the audience just didn’t ‘get’ that: leaving them presumably very confused!
That being said, the film is not a write off, and has its moments of brilliance. Kenneth Branagh (“Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit“, “Valkyrie”) – although having a range of Nolan’s clipped and cheesy lines to say – is impressive as the commanding officer. Mark Rylance (“Bridge of Spies“, “The BFG“) also shines as the captain of the “Moonstone”: one of the small boats out of Weymouth (although here there is a grievous lack of backstory for the civilian efforts). And Tom Hardy (“The Revenant“, “Legend“), although having limited opportunity to act with anything other than his eyes, is impressive as RAF pilot Farrier. His final scene of stoic heroism is memorable.
Fionn Whitehead is also impressive in his movie debut, and even Harry Styles (“This is Us“) equips himself well.
A surfeit of horror leads to a lack of compassion. Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard and Fionn Whitehead look on as the death toll mounts.
The cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema (“Interstellar“) is stunning with some memorable shots: a burning plane on a beach being a highspot for me.
And Hans Zimmer’s score is Oscar-worthy, generating enormous tension with a reverberating score, albeit sometimes let down by unsuitable cutaways (for example, to scenes of boat loading). Elsewhere in the sound department though I had major issues, with a decent percentage of the dialogue being completely inaudible in the sound mix.
Kenneth Branagh, impressive as Commander Bolton RN.
I really wanted this to be a “Battle of Britain”. Or a “Bridge Too Far”. Or even a “Saving Private Ryan”. Unfortunately, for me it was none of these, and this goes down as one of my movie disappointments of the year so far.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Potion Explosion in Tabletop Games
Jan 6, 2020
Your senior year at Horribilorum Sorcery Academy for Witty Witches and Wizards is almost at an end, but one thing stands between you and graduation – final exams! You’ve passed everything with flying colors, and now it’s time for your final exam in Potions class. Do you have what it takes to brew the most difficult and impressive potions? Or will amateur mistakes result in inaccurate recipes and ultimate failure? The time for studying is over, and the time for potion making is NOW!
Disclaimer: There are several expansions for this game. I do not have any of them, nor do I have any gameplay experience with any of them. If and when I do get them added into my base game, I will either amend this review or write a new one! – L
Potion Explosion is a game of set collection in which players are trying to complete potions for end-game VPs. To start the game, each player takes two beaker-shaped potion tiles to be kept in their desk (play area). On your turn, you will select one marble from the dispenser and play it to one of your potions. Easy enough. The marbles are housed in an angled dispenser, so when a marble is removed from one of the tracks, the rest roll down to fill in the gaps. Neat, right? But there’s a catch. If the marble you take causes two marbles of the same color to collide as they move down the dispenser, you have triggered an explosion! That means that you are allowed to take all marbles of the same color that were involved in the explosion on that same track. Sometimes, by removing all the marbles involved in an explosion, a second explosion may be triggered! In that case, you take all of those marbles as well!
Once you’ve taken a marble (or multiple, depending on any explosions), you immediately play those onto your active Potion Tiles. You have the option of keeping up to three marbles in the Ingredient Pool on your desk to be played in later turns. Extra marbles that cannot fit on your Potion Tiles or in your Ingredient Pool are returned to the dispenser. If you complete a potion on your turn, return its corresponding marbles to the dispenser and place the Potion Tile beneath your desk, to be scored at the end of the game. Then you select another Potion Tile from the available stacks to be added to your desk. You will always have two Potion Tiles on your desk. Your turn is now over, and play continues with the next player. The game ends when a certain number of Skill Tokens (earned for completing sets of 3 identical potions, or for completing sets of 5 different potions) have been awarded to players. Play continues until everyone has had the same amount of turns, and then VPs are counted. The player with the most VP is the winner!
I’ve got to lead this off by saying that one of the things I love most about Potion Explosion are the components. The Potion Tiles are nice and thick cardboard, and the marbles are just so much fun to fiddle with throughout the game. Yeah, I may accidentally roll some off the table every once in a while, but they’re a neat addition to the game. I’ve heard that the cardboard dispenser doesn’t hold up after many plays, but I have yet to see that issue, and know that lots of people are now 3D printing dispensers for themselves to circumvent this problem.
So how does it play? Potion Explosion is relatively fast to play, and requires more strategy than meets the eye. You’re selecting and playing marbles, but you’ve also got to keep an eye on any explosion possibilities. Maybe you need 4 blue marbles – are any of the dispenser tracks loaded with blues so that you could strategically trigger an explosion? Or is your neighbor really going for red marbles, so you trigger a red explosion just to keep those from them? The marble placement in the dispenser may be random, but your manipulation of the available marbles is not. Strategy is everything here, because one mistake in marble selection could end up handing your opponents the game.
I thoroughly enjoy Potion Explosion. It’s fast to teach, fast to learn, and fun to play with all ages! The mechanism of the marble dispenser is pretty neat, and it adds an extra element to the game. This game keeps me engaged the entire time because it is just so fun to watch the marbles moving down the tracks and potentially triggering multiple explosions. Although it requires good strategy, it’s a light enough game to give your a break in between some heavier brain-burners. If you haven’t had the opportunity to try Potion Explosion yet, I would highly recommend it. Purple Phoenix Games gives it a bubbling 14 / 18.
Disclaimer: There are several expansions for this game. I do not have any of them, nor do I have any gameplay experience with any of them. If and when I do get them added into my base game, I will either amend this review or write a new one! – L
Potion Explosion is a game of set collection in which players are trying to complete potions for end-game VPs. To start the game, each player takes two beaker-shaped potion tiles to be kept in their desk (play area). On your turn, you will select one marble from the dispenser and play it to one of your potions. Easy enough. The marbles are housed in an angled dispenser, so when a marble is removed from one of the tracks, the rest roll down to fill in the gaps. Neat, right? But there’s a catch. If the marble you take causes two marbles of the same color to collide as they move down the dispenser, you have triggered an explosion! That means that you are allowed to take all marbles of the same color that were involved in the explosion on that same track. Sometimes, by removing all the marbles involved in an explosion, a second explosion may be triggered! In that case, you take all of those marbles as well!
Once you’ve taken a marble (or multiple, depending on any explosions), you immediately play those onto your active Potion Tiles. You have the option of keeping up to three marbles in the Ingredient Pool on your desk to be played in later turns. Extra marbles that cannot fit on your Potion Tiles or in your Ingredient Pool are returned to the dispenser. If you complete a potion on your turn, return its corresponding marbles to the dispenser and place the Potion Tile beneath your desk, to be scored at the end of the game. Then you select another Potion Tile from the available stacks to be added to your desk. You will always have two Potion Tiles on your desk. Your turn is now over, and play continues with the next player. The game ends when a certain number of Skill Tokens (earned for completing sets of 3 identical potions, or for completing sets of 5 different potions) have been awarded to players. Play continues until everyone has had the same amount of turns, and then VPs are counted. The player with the most VP is the winner!
I’ve got to lead this off by saying that one of the things I love most about Potion Explosion are the components. The Potion Tiles are nice and thick cardboard, and the marbles are just so much fun to fiddle with throughout the game. Yeah, I may accidentally roll some off the table every once in a while, but they’re a neat addition to the game. I’ve heard that the cardboard dispenser doesn’t hold up after many plays, but I have yet to see that issue, and know that lots of people are now 3D printing dispensers for themselves to circumvent this problem.
So how does it play? Potion Explosion is relatively fast to play, and requires more strategy than meets the eye. You’re selecting and playing marbles, but you’ve also got to keep an eye on any explosion possibilities. Maybe you need 4 blue marbles – are any of the dispenser tracks loaded with blues so that you could strategically trigger an explosion? Or is your neighbor really going for red marbles, so you trigger a red explosion just to keep those from them? The marble placement in the dispenser may be random, but your manipulation of the available marbles is not. Strategy is everything here, because one mistake in marble selection could end up handing your opponents the game.
I thoroughly enjoy Potion Explosion. It’s fast to teach, fast to learn, and fun to play with all ages! The mechanism of the marble dispenser is pretty neat, and it adds an extra element to the game. This game keeps me engaged the entire time because it is just so fun to watch the marbles moving down the tracks and potentially triggering multiple explosions. Although it requires good strategy, it’s a light enough game to give your a break in between some heavier brain-burners. If you haven’t had the opportunity to try Potion Explosion yet, I would highly recommend it. Purple Phoenix Games gives it a bubbling 14 / 18.
CCNA Routing and Switching ICND2 200-105 Official Cert Guide
Book
Trust the best-selling Official Cert Guide series from Cisco Press to help you learn, prepare, and...
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Cooking Customers in Tabletop Games
Feb 4, 2020
Raise your hand if you have ever worked in the food industry. Okay, I see a few hands. Now raise your hand if you have ever been so torqued by a customer that you wanted to cook them in a pie. Oh, thanks for your hand Mrs. Lovett. Good to know. Well this game is an experience of getting your money and getting out. Fastest one to do so will win, and if you have to stew a few eyeballs in the process, more power to you.
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
Cooking Customers is a card and dice game where the first player to amass $20 in “tips” will be crowned the winner. Players earn tips by serving enough meals to customers at each table. Players can receive meals by rolling them on dice, or by card manipulation. Let me explain.
To setup, place the meals (black discs) in the middle of the table for all to reach. Similarly, place all the dice nearby. These dice have three sides: FIRED, MEAL, and a blank side. Shuffle the mighty deck of cards and deal five to each player, placing the rest of the deck in the middle of the table. Finally, shuffle the Table cards and place somewhere near the other components. Players are now ready to begin!
On a player’s turn, they will first draw the topmost Table card to be placed in front of themselves. This card will show how many meals need to be served to it to be satisfied and earn tips. The Table cards will mostly just sit there in front of players collecting meal discs for the game’s duration. Once a Table card is drawn (and only one Table per player, please) the active player may then play cards from hand. A player may play one or two cards, but only one card may be played to the active player’s tableau, and only one card may be played on an opponent. Should a player not wish to play a card to anyone’s tableau, they must discard a card to the middle of the table. Then the active player will draw back to the hand size of five cards.
Cards played to other players are usually bad, Munchkin-esque cards that halt progression or just cause mayhem for their designs. I will not go into detail on these, as half the fun of this game is the Take-That of these cards. Cards played to a player’s own tableau can be a myriad choices: Cooks, Helpers, Kitchen Supplies, etc. The most important are the Cook cards. A player will need to have a Cook “hired” in front of them in order to participate in the next phase of the game: rolling dice. Players can have Helper cards (sous chefs) and Kitchen Supplies active without a Cook, but the player may not roll dice or serve meals without a Cook. Cooks and Helpers will dictate how many dice are rolled in the next phase of a turn, and rolling more dice is always better.
Once all cards have been played on a player’s turn, they may now roll the dice (though for a game with such a dark theme I say we use the “Roll Them Bones” colloquialism). When the dice are rolled, players are hoping for MEAL to show up on all dice. This is how a meal can be collected and served to the Table cards. However, if at any time all dice read FIRED then the player’s Cook is fired and they may not continue rolling dice. The Cook is discarded and play is forfeited to the next player. #cheflife amirite?
Once a Table card has all the meals it needs to be satisfied, the player may score it by flipping it over to reveal the amount in tips they have earned. Play continues in this fashion until one player has earned $20 in tips. They can then taunt the other players with their superiority.
Components. Cooking Customers is a BUNCH of cards, some painted wooden discs, and some embossed dice. The cards are good quality, the discs are good as well, and the dice are great. All the components are pretty darn good. The art, though gross at times, is really well-done (see what I did there) and kept us laughing throughout our plays.
I do have one qualm about this game: the rulebook. Though only six pages long and with lots of illustrations throughout, I found that reading it made me more confused than it should have. I did take the rulebook’s advice to go to the publisher’s website, goodenoughgames.com, and watch the rules explanation and playthrough. That helped immensely to clear up what the rulebook did to my brain.
All in all, we had a great time playing this one. We all like Munchkin, and though it is NOT Munchkin, Cooking Customers delivers a take-that dice and card game that really is worth checking out. If you are looking for something with a new theme that plays quickly and has some meat on its bones (and there), then we certainly recommend Cooking Customers. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a hearty (food puns are too easy) 13 / 18. You can purchase a copy at goodenoughgames.com currently. While you’re there please watch the video.
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
Cooking Customers is a card and dice game where the first player to amass $20 in “tips” will be crowned the winner. Players earn tips by serving enough meals to customers at each table. Players can receive meals by rolling them on dice, or by card manipulation. Let me explain.
To setup, place the meals (black discs) in the middle of the table for all to reach. Similarly, place all the dice nearby. These dice have three sides: FIRED, MEAL, and a blank side. Shuffle the mighty deck of cards and deal five to each player, placing the rest of the deck in the middle of the table. Finally, shuffle the Table cards and place somewhere near the other components. Players are now ready to begin!
On a player’s turn, they will first draw the topmost Table card to be placed in front of themselves. This card will show how many meals need to be served to it to be satisfied and earn tips. The Table cards will mostly just sit there in front of players collecting meal discs for the game’s duration. Once a Table card is drawn (and only one Table per player, please) the active player may then play cards from hand. A player may play one or two cards, but only one card may be played to the active player’s tableau, and only one card may be played on an opponent. Should a player not wish to play a card to anyone’s tableau, they must discard a card to the middle of the table. Then the active player will draw back to the hand size of five cards.
Cards played to other players are usually bad, Munchkin-esque cards that halt progression or just cause mayhem for their designs. I will not go into detail on these, as half the fun of this game is the Take-That of these cards. Cards played to a player’s own tableau can be a myriad choices: Cooks, Helpers, Kitchen Supplies, etc. The most important are the Cook cards. A player will need to have a Cook “hired” in front of them in order to participate in the next phase of the game: rolling dice. Players can have Helper cards (sous chefs) and Kitchen Supplies active without a Cook, but the player may not roll dice or serve meals without a Cook. Cooks and Helpers will dictate how many dice are rolled in the next phase of a turn, and rolling more dice is always better.
Once all cards have been played on a player’s turn, they may now roll the dice (though for a game with such a dark theme I say we use the “Roll Them Bones” colloquialism). When the dice are rolled, players are hoping for MEAL to show up on all dice. This is how a meal can be collected and served to the Table cards. However, if at any time all dice read FIRED then the player’s Cook is fired and they may not continue rolling dice. The Cook is discarded and play is forfeited to the next player. #cheflife amirite?
Once a Table card has all the meals it needs to be satisfied, the player may score it by flipping it over to reveal the amount in tips they have earned. Play continues in this fashion until one player has earned $20 in tips. They can then taunt the other players with their superiority.
Components. Cooking Customers is a BUNCH of cards, some painted wooden discs, and some embossed dice. The cards are good quality, the discs are good as well, and the dice are great. All the components are pretty darn good. The art, though gross at times, is really well-done (see what I did there) and kept us laughing throughout our plays.
I do have one qualm about this game: the rulebook. Though only six pages long and with lots of illustrations throughout, I found that reading it made me more confused than it should have. I did take the rulebook’s advice to go to the publisher’s website, goodenoughgames.com, and watch the rules explanation and playthrough. That helped immensely to clear up what the rulebook did to my brain.
All in all, we had a great time playing this one. We all like Munchkin, and though it is NOT Munchkin, Cooking Customers delivers a take-that dice and card game that really is worth checking out. If you are looking for something with a new theme that plays quickly and has some meat on its bones (and there), then we certainly recommend Cooking Customers. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a hearty (food puns are too easy) 13 / 18. You can purchase a copy at goodenoughgames.com currently. While you’re there please watch the video.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Black Mirror - Season 3 in TV
Mar 3, 2020
Nosedive - 8
We had to wait almost another 2 years for the Netflix investment to show a product, and in time for Halloween 2016 we got the super-glossy re-boot of Nosedive, with a big name up front and lots of anticipation. The tone was instantly more playful; less British, more inclusive to a world audience. It tackled with a wry humour the universal phenomenon of popularity and everything being rated, most notably, people themselves. In a future world of sunshine and pastel shades it has become the norm to rate every interaction, from buying coffee to buying a house, in the hope of becoming one of the beautiful people rated above a 4.5. It cleverly questions the motivations for that desire, and the pitfalls of false behaviour and the manipulation from an elite standpoint. It isn’t necessary to imagine this future, as we are virtually there already, and all this episode does is heighten the idea to hyperbolic proportions. Rated down by many viewers because it is “annoying”, but that is entirely the point: the whole thing makes you want to scream!
Playtest - 6.5
Also available for Halloween (as was the whole season, in standard Netflix style) came a chance to explore what really scares us! And… they blew it. Sure, the idea that gaming and VR becomes so photo realistic it seems entirely real isn’t far away. But, making it personal to a very annoying character dissolves all tension quite early on. Some mild jump scares aside, this has to go down as a missed opportunity. Notable only for the re-occurance of the White Bear symbol.
Shut Up and Dance - 7
This is the one most likely to make you think, hmm, that is too far! An uncomfortable episode, not only because of the subject matter and ultimate revelation, but because of the intense nastiness that pervades it. No doubt that tension is intentional, and therefore effective to a degree, but for me it crosses the line of entertainment and becomes simply nasty. Being unafraid to tackle controversial subjects is to be applauded, but the execution has to be note perfect, or the risk is the backlash this episode received. A cautionary tale about surveillance, data theft, blackmail and our personal online responsibility. Not a bad piece, just a slight misjudgment on tone and delivery.
San Junipero - 9.5
Just when critics were sharpening their pens that Netflix had ruined the potential of Black Mirror in its first phase, comes an almost perfect piece of TV that is literally heavenly! Everything about San Junipero is a work of art! Another “blind” episode that takes a while to unravel; the pacing and realisation of which is so beautifully judged that, from a writing point of view, this has to be seen as the pinnacle of the show to date. Mackenzie Davis is extraordinary as the vulnerable, shy and naive Yorkie, looking for a connection in an 80s nightclub, filled with nostalgia and cultural memes galore. The music alone is not only sing aloud perfect, but chosen for storytelling reasons so clever it raises goosebumps! The relationship between Yorkie and Kelly, an equally great Gugu Mbatha-Raw, is filled with chemistry and nuance, drawing us in to a place so deep that when the penny drops on what is really going on it draws a gasp and then possibly tears – I know it did for me! The mechanics of the technology that would make this story possible does raise a lot of questions, but in the end it is better to accept it as an allegory for love, life and our ideas of “eternity”. Don’t look too deeply at the how, but marvel at the why, and this could be the best hour of TV you will ever see! So rewatchable, rich and rewarding; the only reason not to make this a feature length big budget film is that how could it possibly be improved?
Men Against Fire - 7
Revisiting yet again the technology of a brain implant that affects our vision of the world, literally and figuratively, this episode explores indoctrination and brainwashing, with the underlying themes of racism and basic human compassion. It is a fine analogy of how the media and governments would have us think of immigrants and the “dangers” of anything “not us”. A tad obvious, and doesn’t really go anywhere new once the twist is revealed. Visually quite stunning, but not as strong as other episodes that cover similar ground.
Hated in the Nation - 8.5
With a running time of 89 minutes, this is essentially what happens when Black Mirror pushes an idea to feature length. Allowing more time for character development does make a difference, and the tension build in this fine concept for a thriller also benefits from a few extra minutes. The ever reliable Kelly MacDonald is the cornerstone of a strong cast, on the hunt for the mind behind a series of killings by killer bee drones, targeted at a democratically elected “most hated” person every day, based on a public vote. An exploration of media vilification and how easy it can be to manipulate our idea of someone’s identity and judge their actions and even personalities based on one wrong thing they may have said or done. The episode is a who-dunnit? A why-doit? And, framed, with the backdrop of the inquest surrounding events, both a good cop movie and a courtroom drama. Charlie Brooker has hinted that some of these characters may return at some point. I’m all for it.
We had to wait almost another 2 years for the Netflix investment to show a product, and in time for Halloween 2016 we got the super-glossy re-boot of Nosedive, with a big name up front and lots of anticipation. The tone was instantly more playful; less British, more inclusive to a world audience. It tackled with a wry humour the universal phenomenon of popularity and everything being rated, most notably, people themselves. In a future world of sunshine and pastel shades it has become the norm to rate every interaction, from buying coffee to buying a house, in the hope of becoming one of the beautiful people rated above a 4.5. It cleverly questions the motivations for that desire, and the pitfalls of false behaviour and the manipulation from an elite standpoint. It isn’t necessary to imagine this future, as we are virtually there already, and all this episode does is heighten the idea to hyperbolic proportions. Rated down by many viewers because it is “annoying”, but that is entirely the point: the whole thing makes you want to scream!
Playtest - 6.5
Also available for Halloween (as was the whole season, in standard Netflix style) came a chance to explore what really scares us! And… they blew it. Sure, the idea that gaming and VR becomes so photo realistic it seems entirely real isn’t far away. But, making it personal to a very annoying character dissolves all tension quite early on. Some mild jump scares aside, this has to go down as a missed opportunity. Notable only for the re-occurance of the White Bear symbol.
Shut Up and Dance - 7
This is the one most likely to make you think, hmm, that is too far! An uncomfortable episode, not only because of the subject matter and ultimate revelation, but because of the intense nastiness that pervades it. No doubt that tension is intentional, and therefore effective to a degree, but for me it crosses the line of entertainment and becomes simply nasty. Being unafraid to tackle controversial subjects is to be applauded, but the execution has to be note perfect, or the risk is the backlash this episode received. A cautionary tale about surveillance, data theft, blackmail and our personal online responsibility. Not a bad piece, just a slight misjudgment on tone and delivery.
San Junipero - 9.5
Just when critics were sharpening their pens that Netflix had ruined the potential of Black Mirror in its first phase, comes an almost perfect piece of TV that is literally heavenly! Everything about San Junipero is a work of art! Another “blind” episode that takes a while to unravel; the pacing and realisation of which is so beautifully judged that, from a writing point of view, this has to be seen as the pinnacle of the show to date. Mackenzie Davis is extraordinary as the vulnerable, shy and naive Yorkie, looking for a connection in an 80s nightclub, filled with nostalgia and cultural memes galore. The music alone is not only sing aloud perfect, but chosen for storytelling reasons so clever it raises goosebumps! The relationship between Yorkie and Kelly, an equally great Gugu Mbatha-Raw, is filled with chemistry and nuance, drawing us in to a place so deep that when the penny drops on what is really going on it draws a gasp and then possibly tears – I know it did for me! The mechanics of the technology that would make this story possible does raise a lot of questions, but in the end it is better to accept it as an allegory for love, life and our ideas of “eternity”. Don’t look too deeply at the how, but marvel at the why, and this could be the best hour of TV you will ever see! So rewatchable, rich and rewarding; the only reason not to make this a feature length big budget film is that how could it possibly be improved?
Men Against Fire - 7
Revisiting yet again the technology of a brain implant that affects our vision of the world, literally and figuratively, this episode explores indoctrination and brainwashing, with the underlying themes of racism and basic human compassion. It is a fine analogy of how the media and governments would have us think of immigrants and the “dangers” of anything “not us”. A tad obvious, and doesn’t really go anywhere new once the twist is revealed. Visually quite stunning, but not as strong as other episodes that cover similar ground.
Hated in the Nation - 8.5
With a running time of 89 minutes, this is essentially what happens when Black Mirror pushes an idea to feature length. Allowing more time for character development does make a difference, and the tension build in this fine concept for a thriller also benefits from a few extra minutes. The ever reliable Kelly MacDonald is the cornerstone of a strong cast, on the hunt for the mind behind a series of killings by killer bee drones, targeted at a democratically elected “most hated” person every day, based on a public vote. An exploration of media vilification and how easy it can be to manipulate our idea of someone’s identity and judge their actions and even personalities based on one wrong thing they may have said or done. The episode is a who-dunnit? A why-doit? And, framed, with the backdrop of the inquest surrounding events, both a good cop movie and a courtroom drama. Charlie Brooker has hinted that some of these characters may return at some point. I’m all for it.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Bandada in Tabletop Games
Jan 19, 2021
Though I may not look it, I am indeed half Mexican. That said, the word, “Bandada,” means, “Flock.” I don’t really get to flex my Spanish skills often, and it shows. I definitely looked up the word Bandada before reading the rules this time. In any case, as gamers we all belong to the same nerdy flock of people who just like to have a great time with friends, family, and some colorful cardboard and plastic. Birds and other flying creatures have been all the rage recently, but will I be adding this one to my flock of gems?
In Bandada players are attempting to catch and return birds that have escaped from the local zoo. These birds are attracted to different food morsels (namely black, blue, and yellow dice) and by manipulating the food source players may be able to catch all the right birdies and score tons of points.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
Disclaimer the second: I am previewing this using the Solo Adventure Variant, which uses many of the same rules as the main multiplayer rules with a few twists.
To setup the solo player will roll all 12 dice and sort them by color. Shuffle the bird cards and reveal three cards face-up in a market row. Grab a scoring cube for the score card, and choose which location card to play. Select (randomly or not) a bonus scoring card and the game may begin!
There are other optional variant rules that can be added to the adventure, but I will not be detailing those here.
Turns are divided into two phases: the Drafting phase and the Cleanup phase. During the Drafting phase the player will choose one of the face-up bird cards to be added to their personal bandada, perform the action described on the top of the card, and then add it to their bandada (personal tableau).
After drafting and bandada-ing the player will perform the Cleanup phase by scoring points based on the bird card abilities printed on the bottom, discarding the remaining face-up cards, and then adding three new birds cards to that market row. This phase differs from the multiplayer rules in that birds are scored once added to the bandada in multiplayer and then again during the Cleanup phase. In the solo mode they are scored only once at the end of the Cleanup phase.
The bird cards all have actions printed at the top that will manipulate the food dice in some way. Actions could simply give the birds a specific number of colored dice and adjust the value up or down. Some abilities will have the player flipping the dice to the opposite side, or adjusting multiple dice by splitting a positive or negative value. Of note in this game is that dice values wrap around the die. For example to increase the value of a 6 die it then wraps around to become a value 1. Manipulation of these food dice will make or break the game success, as I found in all my plays.
The game continues in this fashion until after the fourth full round. The player then totals their score on the score card, adds the points from the bonus card chosen at the beginning, and checks for the victory condition on the location card (the rules suggest starting in Africa). If the player has met the victory condition, the trip was a success! If, like me, the player fails to make 35 points in Africa every time, they must play again!
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, but I have to say that this is a beautiful minimalistic game. It consists of primarily dice and cards. The dice are translucent and good quality, though translucent yellow with white pips can be hard to read at times. The cards are good quality as well and feature breathtaking avian art. It really does look great on the table and doesn’t take up a ton of room, so I have very few negatives here.
Gameplay is super speedy and agonizing for a solo player. Maximizing points on every turn and having to consider specific win conditions makes for a crunchy little card game that takes about 10 minutes to play. It is definitely something I will be reaching for whenever I have a spare 15 minutes. With setup and teardown I am looking at a fulfilling, if not frustrating, card game experience that can be both anxiety-triggering and also quite calming. I was not sure what to expect when I opened the box, but boy am I glad I have this little gem.
If you are in the market for a great little solo game that can also play multiplayer, looks amazing, and is quick to complete, then look no further. If you are an avian aficionado and need your board and card game collection to reflect this, check out Bandada. I need you all to also promise to write me back once you figure out how to succeed in Africa, as I just plum can’t do it. But I am going to keep trying. As I always say, a game that makes you want to play it more is a mark of a great game, and I think a great game comes in this little box.
In Bandada players are attempting to catch and return birds that have escaped from the local zoo. These birds are attracted to different food morsels (namely black, blue, and yellow dice) and by manipulating the food source players may be able to catch all the right birdies and score tons of points.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
Disclaimer the second: I am previewing this using the Solo Adventure Variant, which uses many of the same rules as the main multiplayer rules with a few twists.
To setup the solo player will roll all 12 dice and sort them by color. Shuffle the bird cards and reveal three cards face-up in a market row. Grab a scoring cube for the score card, and choose which location card to play. Select (randomly or not) a bonus scoring card and the game may begin!
There are other optional variant rules that can be added to the adventure, but I will not be detailing those here.
Turns are divided into two phases: the Drafting phase and the Cleanup phase. During the Drafting phase the player will choose one of the face-up bird cards to be added to their personal bandada, perform the action described on the top of the card, and then add it to their bandada (personal tableau).
After drafting and bandada-ing the player will perform the Cleanup phase by scoring points based on the bird card abilities printed on the bottom, discarding the remaining face-up cards, and then adding three new birds cards to that market row. This phase differs from the multiplayer rules in that birds are scored once added to the bandada in multiplayer and then again during the Cleanup phase. In the solo mode they are scored only once at the end of the Cleanup phase.
The bird cards all have actions printed at the top that will manipulate the food dice in some way. Actions could simply give the birds a specific number of colored dice and adjust the value up or down. Some abilities will have the player flipping the dice to the opposite side, or adjusting multiple dice by splitting a positive or negative value. Of note in this game is that dice values wrap around the die. For example to increase the value of a 6 die it then wraps around to become a value 1. Manipulation of these food dice will make or break the game success, as I found in all my plays.
The game continues in this fashion until after the fourth full round. The player then totals their score on the score card, adds the points from the bonus card chosen at the beginning, and checks for the victory condition on the location card (the rules suggest starting in Africa). If the player has met the victory condition, the trip was a success! If, like me, the player fails to make 35 points in Africa every time, they must play again!
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, but I have to say that this is a beautiful minimalistic game. It consists of primarily dice and cards. The dice are translucent and good quality, though translucent yellow with white pips can be hard to read at times. The cards are good quality as well and feature breathtaking avian art. It really does look great on the table and doesn’t take up a ton of room, so I have very few negatives here.
Gameplay is super speedy and agonizing for a solo player. Maximizing points on every turn and having to consider specific win conditions makes for a crunchy little card game that takes about 10 minutes to play. It is definitely something I will be reaching for whenever I have a spare 15 minutes. With setup and teardown I am looking at a fulfilling, if not frustrating, card game experience that can be both anxiety-triggering and also quite calming. I was not sure what to expect when I opened the box, but boy am I glad I have this little gem.
If you are in the market for a great little solo game that can also play multiplayer, looks amazing, and is quick to complete, then look no further. If you are an avian aficionado and need your board and card game collection to reflect this, check out Bandada. I need you all to also promise to write me back once you figure out how to succeed in Africa, as I just plum can’t do it. But I am going to keep trying. As I always say, a game that makes you want to play it more is a mark of a great game, and I think a great game comes in this little box.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra in Tabletop Games
Oct 15, 2019
Sometimes, finding a game that the entire group loves can be extremely difficult. Such was not the case when Purple Phoenix Games played Azul. We immediately fell in love with it, as you can see by its well-earned Golden Feather Award. So when Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra was released, we knew we had to try it! A reimplementation of a game we all loved – we were so stoked to get it to the table. How does this ‘sequel’ hold up to the OG Azul? Keep reading to find out!
For many years you have worked as a tile layer, creating uniquely beautiful mosaics that adorn walls all around the world. Taking your expert skills, you’ve decided to hone your talent into a new form of mosaic decoration – stained glass windows. Select the most colorful glass combinations to create elaborate and beautiful designs, all while being careful not to waste or break any of your supplies in the process! Years of tile-laying have resulted in a steady hand, but glass is a different story. Does your talent and eye for design transcend materials, or are you better left to your familiar ceramic tiles?
Disclaimer: I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook in this review. I will briefly go over the turn order, but will leave the specifics for you to discover in the rulebook! – L
Like Azul, Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra is a game of pattern building, set collection, and tile placement. To set up, each player receives a palace board, 8 double-sided pattern strips, and glazier (pawn) in their chosen color. All players need to select the same side, A or B, for their palace boards, but the pattern strips can be placed with either side face-up. Place your glazier above the left-most pattern strip, and you are ready to go! The designated score-keeper sets up the score board – placing each players’ scoring cube on the score track and broken glass track, as well as randomly placing 1 tile of each color on the round tracker. Much like OG Azul, a certain number of factories are in play, each populated with 4 pane tiles. Now the game can begin!
On your turn, you may do one of two things – Advance a pattern, or Move your glazier to the left-most pattern strip. If you choose to advance a pattern, you complete these three steps: Select pane pieces of one color from a factory or the middle of the table, place the pieces on one of your pattern strips, and check to see if the pattern is complete. Easy enough! There are a few placement restrictions to keep in mind, and they are detailed in the rulebook. Moving on, after placing your tiles, if the pattern strip is not yet full, your turn is over and play continues with the next player. If you have successfully filled the entire pattern strip, you get to immediately score that window, and then your turn ends. Specific steps for scoring are found in the rulebook. The other action available to you on your turn is to move your glazier back to the left-most pattern strip. Once you do this, your turn is over. Play continues over six rounds, and the player at the end of the game with the most points is the winner!
So how does Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra hold up? I think it’s a pretty great game. It’s very mechanically and thematically similar to the original Azul, but there is enough of a difference in gameplay that keeps it interesting. It doesn’t just feel like the exact same game to me, even if there are many similarities between the two. There definitely is a good amount of strategy involved, and I think the addition of the glazier (which can sorta restrict your placement options) adds a new level of complexity to the game. Do you dare ‘waste’ a turn to reset your glazier, or do you risk the points and try to complete your current pattern strip?
Another great thing about this game is the variability of it. Each player receives 8 double-sided pattern strips to begin the game. The strips can be placed with whichever face up or down that you want. So no two players will ever have the same setup, just as you will probably never have the same setup yourself between plays. One wrong placement could maybe end up costing you the game! There is no ‘right’ setup, and the fact that everyone’s setup will be different makes the game a little more unique.
Of course, the components are great and the tiles are so much fun to handle. Unlike OG Azul, these tiles are semi-transparent and crystalline, giving them the semblance of actual glass. The pattern strips/palace boards are good, sturdy cardboard, and can definitely withstand the amount of manipulation they see each game. My one qualm is with the score tracker. Instead of moving linearly, the score tracker moves kind of zig-zag-y around the board, and it takes me a minute sometimes to read the points and move my marker quickly because my eyes have to figure out the score line. Yeah, it looks cool, but its just a little inconvenient for me while playing.
Overall, I think Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra is a great ‘sequel’ to Azul. It feels familiar in mechanics and theme, but different enough in overall gameplay that I think it is a good stand-alone reimplementation. And guess what? Another Azul game is in the works! Titled Azul: Summer Pavilion, it is yet another game of tile drafting/placement and set collection. Since I have high praise for Stained Glass of Sintra, I am definitely looking forward to this newest version of Azul, coming soon! Purple Phoenix Games gives Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra, a colorful 9 / 12.
For many years you have worked as a tile layer, creating uniquely beautiful mosaics that adorn walls all around the world. Taking your expert skills, you’ve decided to hone your talent into a new form of mosaic decoration – stained glass windows. Select the most colorful glass combinations to create elaborate and beautiful designs, all while being careful not to waste or break any of your supplies in the process! Years of tile-laying have resulted in a steady hand, but glass is a different story. Does your talent and eye for design transcend materials, or are you better left to your familiar ceramic tiles?
Disclaimer: I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook in this review. I will briefly go over the turn order, but will leave the specifics for you to discover in the rulebook! – L
Like Azul, Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra is a game of pattern building, set collection, and tile placement. To set up, each player receives a palace board, 8 double-sided pattern strips, and glazier (pawn) in their chosen color. All players need to select the same side, A or B, for their palace boards, but the pattern strips can be placed with either side face-up. Place your glazier above the left-most pattern strip, and you are ready to go! The designated score-keeper sets up the score board – placing each players’ scoring cube on the score track and broken glass track, as well as randomly placing 1 tile of each color on the round tracker. Much like OG Azul, a certain number of factories are in play, each populated with 4 pane tiles. Now the game can begin!
On your turn, you may do one of two things – Advance a pattern, or Move your glazier to the left-most pattern strip. If you choose to advance a pattern, you complete these three steps: Select pane pieces of one color from a factory or the middle of the table, place the pieces on one of your pattern strips, and check to see if the pattern is complete. Easy enough! There are a few placement restrictions to keep in mind, and they are detailed in the rulebook. Moving on, after placing your tiles, if the pattern strip is not yet full, your turn is over and play continues with the next player. If you have successfully filled the entire pattern strip, you get to immediately score that window, and then your turn ends. Specific steps for scoring are found in the rulebook. The other action available to you on your turn is to move your glazier back to the left-most pattern strip. Once you do this, your turn is over. Play continues over six rounds, and the player at the end of the game with the most points is the winner!
So how does Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra hold up? I think it’s a pretty great game. It’s very mechanically and thematically similar to the original Azul, but there is enough of a difference in gameplay that keeps it interesting. It doesn’t just feel like the exact same game to me, even if there are many similarities between the two. There definitely is a good amount of strategy involved, and I think the addition of the glazier (which can sorta restrict your placement options) adds a new level of complexity to the game. Do you dare ‘waste’ a turn to reset your glazier, or do you risk the points and try to complete your current pattern strip?
Another great thing about this game is the variability of it. Each player receives 8 double-sided pattern strips to begin the game. The strips can be placed with whichever face up or down that you want. So no two players will ever have the same setup, just as you will probably never have the same setup yourself between plays. One wrong placement could maybe end up costing you the game! There is no ‘right’ setup, and the fact that everyone’s setup will be different makes the game a little more unique.
Of course, the components are great and the tiles are so much fun to handle. Unlike OG Azul, these tiles are semi-transparent and crystalline, giving them the semblance of actual glass. The pattern strips/palace boards are good, sturdy cardboard, and can definitely withstand the amount of manipulation they see each game. My one qualm is with the score tracker. Instead of moving linearly, the score tracker moves kind of zig-zag-y around the board, and it takes me a minute sometimes to read the points and move my marker quickly because my eyes have to figure out the score line. Yeah, it looks cool, but its just a little inconvenient for me while playing.
Overall, I think Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra is a great ‘sequel’ to Azul. It feels familiar in mechanics and theme, but different enough in overall gameplay that I think it is a good stand-alone reimplementation. And guess what? Another Azul game is in the works! Titled Azul: Summer Pavilion, it is yet another game of tile drafting/placement and set collection. Since I have high praise for Stained Glass of Sintra, I am definitely looking forward to this newest version of Azul, coming soon! Purple Phoenix Games gives Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra, a colorful 9 / 12.