Cascadia

Today's review is of the 2021 release, Cascadia. For 1-4 players, it takes 30-45 minutes.

Overview

Can you create the most harmonious ecosystem? In Cascadia, you build out your terrain by placing tiles and place wildlife tokens smartly on those tiles to score the most points. There are five types of terrain and five wildlife species; each terrain tile pictures 1-3 species tokens that can be placed there. 

Each player starts with a base habitat tile. The other tiles are shuffled and place in stacks facedown. Four are turned faceup and paired randomly with wildlife tokens drawn from a bag. On your turn, you choose a tile/token combo and place both in your ecosystem. (You can place the wildlife token on a tile previously in your layout- it needn't be placed on the tile you just laid.) Flip a tile and token to replace what you took; turns proceed clockwise until the tile supply is exhausted. If you don't like a given combo, you can spend a leaf token (earned by using tiles with its symbol) to choose them independently.

At game's end, you score points for your wildlife based on placement rules (which differ for each species- some profit from long chains; others want to be separated) and the largest amounts of contiguous terrain. Do you have what it takes to win?

game in progress; image from here

Review

This is a simple concept done well. It has strong similarities to Carcassonne and Kingdomino, but enough changes to be a different experience. The tile/token combo is fun, and you can vary the scoring method for the wildlife using different scoring cards. Overall, this is a winner.

Rating: A

Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell (Susanna Clarke)

The first practical English magician in centuries, Gilbert Norrell is determined to 'make England magical again.' He does a number of impressive feats, to include a resurrection. But he is his own worst enemy; self-centered and leary of others, he seeks to bring magic back on his own, doing what he can to horde magic books and deter other aspirants- until Jonathan Strange.

Jonathan Strange has an aptitude for magic and is soon taken on as Norrell's apprentice, though the teacher is careful to limit the information conveyed. Strange & Norrell help the British government in their struggle against Napoleon, natural disasters, and other things. But they soon clash on a number of topics, to include the importance of John Uskglass- the Raven King of ancient days who ruled the North- and his importance to modern magic. They eventually part ways, enmeshed in an unspoken competition to rule as England's top magician.

The Faerie realm once existed plainly and alongside 'typical' England, but centuries of English magic decline have hidden the kingdom from most. Three people will eventually be imprisoned in this realm, though, and forced to coexist in two realities and submit to the will of a wicked fairy ruler.

As the magicians strive both with each other and to increase magic awareness in the land, they will soon awaken forces well outside their understanding and control, getting more than they bargained for from the Faerie realm. Who will pay the dearest price for their aspirations?

--------------

A tale of impressive wit and originality, I was enchanted by this novel. It is hard to classify, being considered fantasy, alternative history, or 'other.' The writing style hearkens back to nineteenth century British writers like Austen or Dickens. Wikipedia has a nice overview.

I liked how there were not clear protagonists here; the two main characters have notable gifts, strengths, and flaws. Strength, selfishness, and folly abound. Good and evil. They may mean well but make quite a mess of things. It's hard to know if you should root for them or not- or, perhaps, you want to root for them sometimes and against them others. This may be an exploration of our ultimate aim- it is clear they care about magic above everything (and everyone) else- and some critics talk of this work being a look at reason vs. unreason. I wasn't always clear on the point of the book, which dings it a bit in my mind, but the overall enjoyment I experienced warrants a high rating.

Rating: A

Gravwell

Today's review is of the 2013 release, Gravwell*. For 1-4 players, it takes 30 minutes.

Overview

Escape the singularity before it's too late! Your spaceship- along with other players' and two 'generic' ships- are trying to escape a gravity well. Starting in the center, you must play your fuel cards wisely to be the first to get to the warp gate. But beware- though you choose the card, the direction you move is dictated by the location of the other ships! The nearest ship to you- in front or behind- dictates the direction you will go. Position yourself wisely and you just might prevail.

Gravwell is played over a series of rounds. Each round starts with a card draft phase- the dealer creates 3[x] piles of fuel cards, where [x] = the number of players. The piles have two cards each: the bottom one face-down and top one face-up, and players choose piles (in order from last to first place as rounds progress) until all piles are taken. Once each player has their hand of six cards, proceed to the next phase.

The components; image from here

In the movement phase, players simultaneously and secretly choose one of their fuel cards. These cards have:

- a number, which dictates the number of spaces moved (of your ship, or in some cases your opponents')

- an element, which dictates order (cards are resolved alphabetically)

- a color/symbol, which dictates whether it is a 'standard' fuel card or has a special ability:

-- yellow/green cards are standard. you move [x] squares towards the nearest ship, wherever that may be.

-- purple cards are 'repulsors.' You move [x] squares away from the nearest ship.

-- teal cards are tractor beams. You move everyone else's ship (to include the generic ships) [x] squares towards you.

In all cases, if a ship would land on the same square as another, they continue in the same direction and move one (or more) squares past the ship(s) until they land on an empty space.

After all choices are made, all are flipped up and the cards are played in alphabetical order. Then you choose another card in your hand and repeat the process. The phase continues until all cards have been played. If there is no winner, the cards are shuffled, and a new draft/round begins.

game in progress; image from here. In this snapshot of time, playing a standard fuel card would see black move backward, blue forward, yellow backward, and red forward. All based on the nearest ship. 

Once during each the movement round, you have an 'emergency stop' card you can play to prevent catastrophe. But only once per round, so use it wisely.

Review

This is a fun game! It's a race where relative positioning matters . . . a lot. As you approach the finish, you want to be right behind the leader and 'slingshot' by them. But of course they can have tricks up their sleeve, so don't hang too far behind . . . if you even have a choice. The card you choose could be perfect based on your positioning at the start of a round, but depending on when your card it resolved, it could be catastrophe.

The generic ships (placed at intervals during setup and don't move unless acted upon by tractor beams) help (literally) drive things forward at the start, but then can have the opposite effect towards the end. 

The only ding I'll give this is finishing. That first place ship, unless it has a repulsor card, will always be drawn backwards. That creates suspense and fun, but can also make the game drag on forever. The ending reminded me of Sorry!, whose rules made ending games the matter of drawing the perfect card at the perfect time. To that end, my friend made some house rules to speed the ending along. And I wonder if they addressed that in the second edition. That aside, this is solid.

Rating: A-

*A second edition, for 2-6 players, was released in 2021.

Tomb Raider

Today's review is of the 2018 film, Tomb Raider. (Not to be confused with the 2001 film starring Angelina Jolie.)

Lara Croft is an orphan and heir to a vast fortune- if she would only have her father legally declared dead. He vanished years ago when he went in search of an ancient tomb on a mythical island, and now Lara is determined to find it. Will she prevail- or find much more than she bargained for?

I'm not familiar with the video game franchise, nor the 2001 film, so I was heading into this as a blank slate. It was . . . okay. Panned by critics and audiences alike, I most resonated with one's comment on Rotten Tomatoes: the "work feels derivative of Steven Spielberg's first two Indiana Jones movies, though not half as entertaining." That's fair. The potential was there, but good casting/acting couldn't negate the poor writing.

Rating: C

The Rings of Power, so far

It is finally here! One week ago, Amazon released its much-anticipated, much-feared series The Rings of Power, a sort of prequel to The Lord of the Rings movies. We are three episodes in to an eight-chapter first season. I don't normally review things before completion, but this is getting enough attention that I thought some words were warranted.

When Amazon paid a bajillion dollars* in 2017 for the rights to produce shows set in Tolkien's world, fans held their breath. Would Amazon be faithful to Tolkien's material, worldview, and vision? Or would this become yet another vehicle to push present-day agendas? When trailers started releasing months ago, there was an outcry that elves, dwarves, and other races all included minority actors- seeing a black elf, dwarf, and harfoot** didn't sit well with some, who claimed that didn't fit Tolkien's vision. That initially surprised me, to be honest, but ultimately didn't bother me- though I did wonder what else would be in store. So I awaited the show with bated breath, trying not to get my hopes up, yet cautiously optimistic. 

Here is my opinion through three episodes: the show isn't bad. I have some criticisms, but on the whole, I think they are doing a good job. Keeping it as spoiler-free as possible, here is what I liked:

- The visuals are stunning. The production value here is sky-high. 

- Exploring other areas of Middle Earth not previously seen in film is exciting.

- Exploring other times- before the events in the books- is also great.

- The overall story seems good enough.

- It maintains Tolkien's sense of an epic good vs. evil battle. And of 'the good guys' grappling with how they should act in that moment of time. I like David French's article contrasting this to (say) A Game of Thrones, which is effectively an amoral power struggle.

Here's what I criticize, though I add a caveat afterwards:

- Galadriel never struck me as a warrior type. Seeing her portrayed as such seems to reinforce this idea in my mind that American filmmakers feel the need to show strength through physical, and not mental or spiritual, characteristics. 

- Halbrand seems too Aragorn-like.

- Oddly, I was bothered that most elves do not have long hair. Isn't that a requirement or something?

- One story arc in particular seems bizarre. So far.

My caveat to my criticisms: I am not sure if my criticisms are founded in Tolkien's vision or just me complaining. Though I've read a fair amount of Tolkien, I've never studied his universe critically; I enjoyed the stories for their adventure and wisdom. I haven't paid close attention to Galadriel's early days or Halbrand or the Elves' hairstyles. So though I have images in my mind of what they should be, those impressions are likely tied more to Peter Jackson's movies than Tolkien's works as a whole.

On the whole, so far I'm pleased. I look forward to what's coming.

*okay, is was $250 million for the rights, plus $750 million invested to produce the first six series.

**precursors to hobbits. They are in Tolkien's work.

The Weight of Memory

Fountains Abbey in August 2022

Conflicting emotions wash over me as I trot down the path. I'm about to see Fountains Abbey again for the first time in eight years. I love those glorious ruins- the abbeys of England and Scotland. I'm excited. The weather is perfect, and a flapjack (this one was filled with berry jam) is contentedly digesting. I have no obligations or time constraints on the horizon; I can wander at my leisure. This is going to be amazing.

I wander amongst the ruins. I had forgotten how much there was to explore here. I love this. This chamber is familiar; that one is not. Oooh, I remember this vantage point; a great photo spot. I ask two hikers to take my picture. We strike up a conversation, covering the typical topics. "You look like you're not from here." "That's true," I admit. "I grew up near York, but not the one in England." I explain the Pennsylvania counties of Lancaster and York, named for their English counterparts, and we enjoy the cultural tie. I hasten to add: "I did used to live here, too." And I'm reminded: This was once home. It no longer is. 

Visiting towns I once called home is bittersweet for me. Of course I love it- seeing familiar sights and enjoying favorite activities (and foods). Getting to experience again things I had remembered (and missed dearly), and things I had forgotten (flapjacks . . . how did I forget about those?!). But I am here by myself, and though the peace is delighftul, the silence is deafening. I feel the weight of memory, and am reminded of what makes a home.

'Home' is so much more than the building you sleep in. It is a combination of familiarities:

- of place: you know where the shops and relevant buildings (house, work, school, etc.) are. How to navigate the streets.

- of culture: you know how to fit in and navigate life.

- of people: you have a 'tribe'- communities of which you are a part. 

Visiting old haunts hits on two of the three areas. But the third . . . my family is not with me. Most of my friends have long since moved away. A few are still around- and joyful indeed were those reunions- but the bulk have left. And so I feel a sort of hollowness inside me, even as I enjoy these favored activities. It turns out that seeing familiar streets is fun; walking them alone is not.

Ultimately, such things make me reflect. And I (we?) don't do that enough. Appropriately (and providentially), my pastor in church that week spoke to this very thing. We live in an age of frenetic activity and instant gratification. A 'what's next' mentality pervades. Our lives are packed, and we rush along with occasional weekend breathers as we gear up for the next week. We live for pleasure, comfort, and experiences, looking to maximize them all. To what end?

My pastor encourages us to reflect. I do so as I walk the town we called home. I feel the weight of memory, realizing that mine are tied to places and people, and the latter is the more important of the two. Seeing old friends in a new setting? Delightful. Seeing a familiar setting without the people who made it home? Bittersweet at best. 

So often I hear myself and others long for other locations. "I can't wait to see _____." "I miss living in ______." Our focus is off. It is totally fine to enjoy locations . . . but better to enjoy (and yearn for) the people. We see this in the Bible- the apostle Paul talks several times of longing to see people in Thessalonica (here), Rome (here), Philippi (here), and others. Note his focus. It should be ours.

This hits home as I wandered through Germany and England last week. I enjoyed the sights, but the real gem of the trip was seeing family and friends in both locations. Though few remain, as I mention above, it was a joy to see those who were still there- far better than the ice cream or chocolate. Or even the ruins. 

As I returned home, I realized that I'd much rather be with my family and friends sitting in my house, than alone exploring some magical land. It's not the place . . . it's the people. We don't need extravagant experiences to enjoy and strengthen each other. We just need . . . well, each other.

The French Dispatch

The French Dispatch is a Wes Anderson film. It tells three stories (with some extra material) based on the writings in the final edition of the title periodical. 

This is what I consider a typical Anderson offering: quirky, colorful, amusing dialogue, bizarre yet oddly compelling. I wasn't quite sure what the point of the movie was, other than some odd (and amusing) stories and characters. Perhaps this is a celebration of journalism in general, with no other point? Some call it the movie form of a magazine, jumping from 'article' to 'article' with no apparent (or necessary) connection. Perhaps this review on Screen Rant hits it:

The French Dispatch Is A Nostalgic Love Letter To Journalism, Artistry, & Their Intersection . . . Overall, Wes Anderson is paying tribute to a bygone era of journalism and the art of crafting such a lovable publication. Anderson gives equal focus to the writers of the articles and the artists they’re profiling. Each figure the journalists are writing about is considered an artist, and Anderson paints them each as the heroes of their own stories.

Overall, I enjoyed the ride, even if I wasn't quite sure what ride I was on at times. But viewer beware: there are a few scenes of nudity (in the non-sexual Anderson style, but nudity nonetheless).

Rating: B-