The game is played in 9 quick rounds. Every player is given a simple puzzle board (you may play the 3 or 4 piece sides depending on how challenging you want it to be) and the starting player rolls the picture die and turns the sand timer. The race begins! Each player must match the rolled picture to the picture on their board and use the pieces indicated to fit into the board’s puzzle box. Whoever does so first proclaims “Ubongo!” (note: the game will not work if you do not shout this!:) and may move their pawn up to 3 spaces sideways and collect the next two gems in that lane available. Meanwhile the other players continue to work, each shouting “Ubongo!” when they complete their puzzle and taking 2 gems. The 2nd player may move up to 2 spaces, the 3rd one and the 4th none. Anyone not finished with all of these tasks when the timer runs out receives no gems.

After 9 rounds of this frenzy, the winner is decided by whomever has the most gems of one color.

Very simple rules, but surprisingly challenging game. I don’t usually do well with timed problem solving (and those who get particularly frustrated with such things probably shouldn’t play this game. Although if it is a child, I insist they play and grow some patience and restraint before they develop these bad hindrances that could last throughout their adult life!:) but this is designed in a way to make it light and fun while retaining that challenge.

So, if you’re looking for some way to show off your superior cognitive and spatial reasoning skills or want an enjoyable, pleasant way to increase you and/or your family’s abilities of that nature, try it and make sure to incorporate as much “Ubongo!” shouting as possible.

Number of players: 2-4

Suggested ages: 8 and up

Playing time: 30 minutes

All pictures courtesy of Boargamegeek.com

I’m in the middle of getting ready to move, so I will only say a few things here about this game and some of the runners up I’ve played. (For full, easy to understand review of this game in video, go here)

This really is a great party game. It’s especially great for artistic people and those who like to think abstractly. The colorful, surrealist pictures are fun to look at. It’s even more fun to create themes for as this is what you do on your turn. Everyone else tries to pick a card of theirs they think matches that theme. Then everyone (besides the person who’s turn it is) tries to pick the current player’s card using number chips. Scores are divvied out from there. The scoring system is the trickiest part because the player who’s turn it is wants some people to pick their card but not everyone while everyone else wants everyone to pick their card. Because you can come up with any theme you want on your turn, the game has massive reply value and can lead to some very creative and sometimes hilarious games!

number of players: 3-6 (I suggest the more the merrier. It is a party game)

Playing time: 30 minutes

Suggested ages: 8 and up

The Runners Up

Portrayal–Haven’t played yet

A la Carte–Haven’t played yet

Roll Through the Ages: The Bronze Age–On my wishlist. If you like Yahtzee, this is the next step up. Quick civilization building type game with specially marked dice, pad of paper and pencil. Great fun for a building game without the deep concentration and over analysis of many building games.

Fresco–Played this just last Saturday and liked it. Another worker placement type game where you’re trying to balance your mood by not getting up too early yet early enough to buy the right paints first so you can mix them and complete a section of the ceiling fresco the bishop ordered. Enjoyable but nothing terribly new and exciting here and certainly a lot more complex than the other nominees.

Photos from Boardgamegeek.com

Oh, how apt.

First, the good about Robin Hood: Cate Blanchett (an Australian) is excellent as Marian, transforming her beyond Token Woman status. She lights up every scene, as they say. Also, Blanchett nails the East Midlands accent. More on that in a sec.

The fight scenes are decent and King John (played by Oscar Issac, a Guatemalan) is suitably decadent.

Other than yet, it…well, it stinks. Or stinketh if you prefer your English ye olde style, although one need not worry about historical credibility when watching this film. After all, we are to believe that Robin Hood had a hand in Magna Carta.

There are two problems with Robin Hood, one of which an American audience might be able to forgive but which for British audiences is a hammer to the head: the accents, oh the accents!

Crowe’s is simply awful, ranging from Irish to Australian to vaguely northern English. What’s worse is that it seems to switch half way through the film. To an ear that can hear these accents, it’s simply too distracting. Rather than enjoy Robin’s rousing speech to the barons, all I could hear was Crowe’s weird accent. It’s embarrassing, something I think Crowe knows hence his rude behaviour in a recent BBC interview.

Given that this film was made in the UK by a British director and crew, one wonders why someone didn’t tell Crowe how awful he was. Or were they afraid he’d throw a telephone at them? Probably. But then again, if Locksley can be Swedish and Little John Scottish, I suppose no-one noticed. Kudos to Blanchett for being the only one who bothered to get the voice right.

All of that may fall on deaf ears outside of the UK, so let’s consider how else the film fails. Ridley Scott’s Gladiator worked so well because beyond the swords and togas there was a compelling personal tragedy which made us root for Maximus. This is simply not the case for Robin Hood: we don’t care about Robin, we don’t care if the French conquer King John’s England, we don’t believe that Robin’s father was a 12th century MLK, we’re not interested in the feral children of Sherwood Forest, and sorry, but RUSSELL CROWE’S ACCENT IS AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL.

Robin Hood is set up for a sequel. The legend is interesting enough to offer hope, but not unless Crowe gets a new voice coach and Scott finds some way for us to care about Robin. Having the Sheriff of Nottingham crucify Marian and sell him into slavery might work.

As we’ve previously discussed, there are a lot of new albums by great artists coming out this year, and the best of the current crop that just hit the pavement may be the new album High Violet by The National.

The National have never been accused of being overly cheerful. Rather, they follow the trail of woe blazed by bands like The Cure, Joy Division and Interpol in which melancholy and dolor are understood as the expected state of being. 

Because of this, such bands, and The National in particular, sometimes are victims of their own somberness, in that it makes them less accessible to the insufficiently medicated.  So much so that in one early performance of “Terrible Love” from this album, the band felt it necessary to explain to their audience that “Terrible Love is actually a good thing… it doesn’t mean we’re depressed.” 

But with this band, persistence yields great rewards.  Their last two albums, Alligator (2005) and Boxer (2007) were amazing, especially when you focused on the standout singles:

The new album doesn’t appear to have a standout single per se, and it never seems to reach the climax that the others did, which is a disappointment until you go back and realize that the whole album is a standout. Some songs are better than others, of course but there is not a weak song on the album and the songs seem to stand together better than most any album in recent memory. The lyrics, in particular, bear repeated hearings, especially since lead singer Matt Berninger’s vocals sometimes seem to seep directly out of his subconscious. And how can you argue with the romantic tenderness of a ballad that ends like this:

I was afraid I’d eat your brains
I was afraid I’d eat your brains

Cause I’m evil
Cause I’m evil
Cause I’m evil

We’ve talked about the new FX show “Justified” a little bit already, but now that I’m addicted to it like hillbilly heroin I thought I’d try to justify my obsession (so to speak). As has been said, there’s the great writing, which infuses all aspects of the show, but there are other appealing elements as well. To enumerate just a few:

1. The theme song: There haven’t been many great TV theme songs lately (I guess they waste precious advertising minutes), but this is definitely an instant classic:

This comment, from a YouTube user who was apparently frightened by the new genre that this song seems to spring from, is priceless:

Holy fat hogs in the sun! I am going to start drinking right now and it’s only 8:40 in the morning. Please tell me this won’t be the new wave. Gangstagrass? If? ol Snoop starts ta playing a banjer (not banjo) I will start drooling from my feeble brain. The banjer is a deadly instrument that causes mind rot and soul shivers. Run for the hills when you hear the plinky plink.

Awesome.

2. The villain: Boyd Crowder has to be the most intensely bizarre villain ever created since Jason Compson (for evidence, see the clip at the top). It’s still not clear exactly what his game is, but there are some twisted things going on in his brain, you can bet your pick-up truck.

3. The women: Joelle Carter and Natalie Zea as Ava and Winona are smokin’ hot, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. These women are deeply complicated, intelligent and interesting characters with plenty their own plans and they’re only telling the guys about half of it. The start of the series roughly coincides with Ava’s decision to end her abusive marriage via deer rifle just in time to meet up with Raylan, newly reassigned back to the place of his youth. Winona is Raylan’s ex-wife, whom he met in a bar in Salt Lake City, and who is now a court reporter in the same town. Unresolved feelings and crossed motivations abound.

4. Tim Olyphant: There are a lot of great members to this cast, but Olyphant, as Deputy Marshall Raylan Givens, pretty much needs to carry the show on his shoulders if it’s going to have much success. Luckily, he’s up to the job. He’s a little bit of Nathan Fillion in Firefly and a little bit of James Garner in the Rockford files and a little bit of James Arness in Gunsmoke and a whole lot of his very own thang. Bottom line: he’s in no hurry, he’s not scared of much, and he makes it fun to watch.

Let me know what you think.

A good family board game can be particularly difficult. It needs to be complex and difficult enough to hold the attention of teenagers and adults yet simple and easy enough for young children to grasp and have a chance at. (Basically not Scrabble, but not Candyland, either) If this includes preschoolers, it helps if the game has no reading requirements (i.e. language independent. Which, coincidentally, also helps a game be published in many different countries when only the rules need to be translated:) Rattlesnake is just such a game

Rattlesnake is a dexterity game (meaning the main device driving the game is somehow manipulating it physically) comprised of a small board with numerous cartoon snakes on it in five different colors, a six sided die with a snake of each color on each side (blue being doubled) and twelve very powerful oval shaped magnets (rattlesnake eggs!). The magnets are divided evenly between the players and on their turn a player rolls the die and places one of their eggs on the corresponding colored snake rolled.  Once this is successfully done, their turn is over. If at any time during their turn they cause an egg to roll off the board or clash together, they must pick those up and add them to their allotment. The player who gets rid of all their eggs first is the winner.

That’s it. That’s all their is to it! However, because the magnets are so potent, the snakes are so well strategically placed and the board is so small, it makes for a challenging and very entertaining time. You’ll end up laughing most of the time as you watch aecen magnets shift and waddle as someone tries to insert their eggs ever so carefully. A full game can take up to 15-20 minutes but most are under 10 and many are under 5. The great part is I have yet to find any hardcore complex gamer or 3 year old kid who doesn’t enjoy a round or two of this game. It also makes for a good filler between longer, weightier games to mix things up or when you’re waiting fr more players to show up. So, if you’re for a goofy game for the whole family, just for the kids or to play between your rounds of Settlers of Catan, get Rattlesnake. It’s allure is magnetic!

Number of players: 2-4 (or possibly teams)

Playing Time: 15 minutes

Suggested Ages: 5 and up (Publisher says 8 and up)

All images courtesy of Boardgamegeek’s database

Wits and Wagers is the trivia game that makes trivia fun for everyone no matter how much you know or even how much you care about the trivia itself.How is this accomplished? Well, it’s in the game’s title; through crafty wagering. Everyone (or every team) picks a color and receives corresponding dry erase board, two bidding tokens, and a marker. Someone reads the first question and all players are given 30 seconds to write and submit their answer on their boards. All the questions are statistical (In feet, how tall is the Empire State Building? Out of 300 million Americans, what percentage have red hair? etc etc) so everyone can give some sort of answer (and usually it’s something no one is going to know the exact number to anyway). Next, the answers are arranged on the board in order from lowest to highest and everyone is then given the opportunity to bet on up to two of the answers.

Once you start winning some chips you can stack as much or as little or none of them under any of your bets as shown in the picture. The closest answer without going over (yup, just like being in the 1st round of The Price is Right) is the winner who gets a chip and everyone who bet on that answer is awarded chips according to the payout odds the answer lies on. So if you bet 2 chips on a 3 to 1 payout you’ll receive 6 chips. All other bets are put back in the bank and the next question is read.

A complete game is only 7 questions and the person/team with most chips at the end of the game is the winner. You can learn everything in 2 minutes and (unlike most trivia games) finish a whole game in less than a half hour. Plus, it plays up to 21 people.

So, do you have the wits to make the right wagers? This is where the strategy and most of the fun is. “Who is the most likely to know the right answer?” “Why did he bet there?” “Why did she put her bets out so quickly? Does she know something or just trying to trick us?” It’s the meta game and intrigue along with the interesting questions that make this game so enjoyable. I’ll sometimes switch my bets at the last moment before time is up just to throw people off. It really is a trivia game that everyone can enjoy and that has been my experience every time I’ve pulled it out no matter what group of people it is. Gamer, non gamer, trivia hater or Ken Jennings, everyone will have a chance at winning and enjoy this game regardless. The only complaint I’ve had is that the markers tend to dry up rather quickly. However, I’ve been assured by North Star Games that they have switched marker manufacturers and will happily replace any markers, game components or help in any other way you may need.

Wits and Wagers is already the most awarded trivia game ever and is widely available. It’s even available on the Xbox. So, whether you like questions and answers or not, if you’re looking for a fun Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, New Year’s Eve, or any other day to party, Wits and Wagers will leave everyone having a good time.

Number of players: 3-21

Playing Time: 25 minutes

Suggested Ages: 8 and up (Publisher says 10 and up)

All images courtesy of Boardgamegeek’s database (which, coincidentally, were provided by the game’s designer, Dominic Crapuchettes, who visited us here in my last posting and is a regular over at Boardgamegeek.com)

The Gathering Storm, Book 12 of the successful Wheel of Time series was recently released, which is a neat trick, considering the fact that the author of the series, Robert Jordan, passed on some time ago. Jordan’s widow asked Brandon Sanderson, a successful author in his own right, to complete the series. Sanderson intends that the series will be complete with book 14.

I have mixed feelings about The Wheel of Time series. I have by turns been a big fan and completely frustrated by the ever-expanding, often-rambling nature of the story and cast of characters. I despaired of ever seeing a satisfactory end to it in my lifetime long before Jordan died. Turns out, however, that Sanderson is a steady hand on the tiller and may actually be able to see this bloated ship safely into the harbor. If you haven’t ever read any portion of this series, don’t expect me to summarize it here. for that, the best place to go is one of the many fansites, like this one, or this one  or the wiki page. 

The best things about this book are that it’s entertaining in a way that this series has always been when it was at its best, and it cuts out a lot of the agonizing dross that had come to characterize the series at its worst.  Sanderson has shown himself to be well in control of the characters and plot of the series, which is saying a lot.  The only negatives are that we are now at book 12 and the end is still two (large) books away.  Book 13 is due sometime late in 2010 and book 14 the following year.  My guess is that those projections are optimistic.  Still, if you’re looking for an entertaining, engrossing read and you have some free time on your hands, the world of this series can be a fun place to hang out.

I just got back from viewing New Moon with the world’s leading Twilight experts: my 13 yr old daughter and her friends.  If you go, I recommend going with them.  You’ll need them to explain the dialogue (I know teenagers mumble a bit in real life but the characters in this movie make it an art form).  And the raging debate in the car on the way home is fascinating and instructive (the most burning question: did Bella kiss Jacob or not?!?!?!   My answer: lips touched.  It was a kiss).

Ok, here’s the deal:

The good: Um, the cast is very pretty.  And there’s some clever lines where you might find yourself laughing.  The special effects are good (especially compared with the first movie) but not great–the wolves look a bit fake.  The main actors are, once again, quite believable and do a creditable job in what is (let’s face it) a really difficult task to pull off.

The bad: The plot is generally non-existent or completely un-buyable unless you’re 13 or on drugs (or both).  There are a couple of scenes which are meant to be serious but end up being laugh-out-loud mawkish (look for the flash-forward scene in the second reel where Bella and Edward are running in slow motion together through the forest–what the hell are those outfits?).  I thought the music would be good, but it really wasn’t much of a factor.

The worst part: The pacing. In places, this movie drags like a bum with his last cigarette.

The bottom line:  Despite its flaws, it’s still a relatively inoffensive and mildly entertaining way to spend a couple of hours. If you or your family members are fans of the books, you’re probably going to see this movie regardless of what I say. If not, you’re probably not going to get it, so stay home.

If you know anything about a Judd Apatow movie, you probably know that it is rated R, and that it is rated R for good reason.  These are not movies you take your kids to.  Even if your kids are 35.  You don’t take your mom or your grandmother.  You might be well advised to leave your wife home.  These movies are raunchy to a level that is somewhat unprecedented and even off-putting if you don’t know what you’re getting into.  They are not for everyone and I wouldn’t blame you if you never watched one for that reason alone.  I sometimes wonder about the level of raunchiness:  is it really necessary?  The answer is, it depends on what you think Apatow is trying to achieve.

Allow me to explain.  First of all, the raunchiness is mostly related to language.  There is little actual sex or nudity in these movies, but you might be excused for not realizing that because the characters talk about sex of every sort in the most graphic terms imaginable.  The language is deplorable.  So why would Apatow make movies like that?  What is he trying to accomplish?  I can’t say for certain, but it reminds me of a literature professor I had in college.  On the first day of class he would always drop several f-bombs and other profanities during the course of his lecture.  His lectures were always funny, entertaining, insightful and often profound and meaningful, but they were only laced with profanity on the first day.  After this first day, invariably, several students would drop the class.  The professor would then proceed with the class, knowing that the remaining students were serious enough about the material not to be put off by a few shocking words.  It was like a test you had to pass before being admitted to the rest of the term.  Apatow is like that.  You have to be serious enough about what he is doing to see past the raunchiness on the surface.  If you’re not interested in making that kind of commitment, he’s probably not interested in talking to you.   

But really, why would you want to subject yourself to that?  Well, you would be right to question whether it’s worth it, but from my perspective it is, for two reasons:  (1) these movies are very, very funny, and (2) they are very, very good.  I have to admit that the raunchiness of the language is part of what makes it funny, and there are moments in these movies that are laugh-until-you-cry funny.  But that’s not really the most important thing about Apatow’s movies.  The most important thing about them is that he’s one of the few people in Hollywood making movies that are about real people confronting real-life situations and figuring out how good people are supposed to react to them.  In other words, underneath all the raunchy humor, these are serious movies about good people.  Want examples?

What about a movie where the main character discovers that, despite what everyone in his life, every TV show, movie and advertisement has always said, it really is a very important and wonderful thing to fall in love and get married before having sex.  Any major Hollywood movies made after 1950 sending that message?  Only one: The 40-Year-Old Virgin, which not only sends that message loud and clear, it does it in a way that guys might actually listen to.

What about a boy-meets-girl movie where the girl ends up pregnant?  How can that possibly be a good thing?  Well you might have heard that it’s a problem that actually does occur occasionally in real life and the odd thing is that neither the boy nor the girl in this movie is interested in taking the easy way out.  No, despite the fact that they just met, both opt to pursue a real relationship, complete with a proposal of marriage, real jobs and lots of hard work because (are you ready for this?) it’s the right thing for the baby.  In one of the few totally serious exchanges in Knocked Up, the main characters actually say those words and mean them.  No, really.

How about a movie where one of the main characters confronts the very real and imminent possibility of his own death, then gets a reprieve.  How would a real person deal with that?  Well, you could do worse than Adam Sandler’s character in Funny People.  He reconnects with his profession, his old friends, his family, and tries to make amends with people he has wronged, all while generally acting like a cantankerous fathead.  After a long journey, however, you’ll be surprised at the outcome.  The decisions made before the credits roll by the characters in this movie reflect serious consideration of the long-term consequences of their choices on both themselves and others, including most importantly, children.  These characters are people who have serious flaws and are beset with temptations and desires but who also really, really deep down actually want to do (wait for it) the right thing.

These are difficult concepts for any filmmaker to pull off, but the fact that there’s a filmmaker who is willing to tackle them in a serious way in the context of a raunchy comedy makes Judd Apatow an artist worthy of some respect, as well as possibly one of the better filmmakers working today.