Search
Search results
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Truth (2015) in Movies
Aug 11, 2019
The truth is out there...
Doubtful anyone from outside the United States (or even many within the US) would remember "Rathergate", the subject this film explores, but I found it fascinating nonetheless.
The US during the 2004 presidential election between George W Bush and John Kerry saw the usual mudslinging back and forth, but this film is not really about that. The film focuses on a news story by CBS news involving then airmen George W Bush and his "attempt" to get out of going to Vietnam and certain important military paper which were supposed to have corroborated these events.
Producer Mary Mapes and then anchor Dan Rather decided to air the story on 60 Minutes before they had flushed out all their sources and may have brushed aside criticism which happened to be against their political beliefs and ran with the story anyways. After airing in the fall of 2004 certain aspects of the documents came into question as to whether they could've been written with typewriters of the time or whether these documents were forgeries made by someone who could've merely used Microsoft Word instead.
Repeated attempts to legitimize their accuracy ended up having the opposite effects having witnesses change their stories, allegiances or even admit they had not been honest when presenting their original facts.
Since this is based on actual events, I can say this ended up costing producer Mapes and Rather their careers and sullied their reputations for the rest of their lives.
Even though the film has a very specific set of facts it has to deal with, I found it just as interesting when the director showed scenes of the audience viewing the story when it aired and then began to think about the state of modern news.
Nowadays, most people get their news cycle from internet headlines, scrolling information at the bottoms of television screens and even siloed one-sided stories that support only their own personal political beliefs
I think the broader message this film is trying to convey is that news organizations have the utmost responsibility to not only the report the news, but to keep their biases out of the mix and to make sure every fact is checked and rechecked to make sure they report accurately. News can change public opinion and even though they mostly get things correct, mostly isn't good enough.
I love Cate Blanchett and the legend Robert Redford and they don't disappoint here. The screenplay by writer and first time director James Vanderbilt is pointed and mostly avoids injecting opinion into the facts and presents an interesting and fascinating film I would easily recommend.
The US during the 2004 presidential election between George W Bush and John Kerry saw the usual mudslinging back and forth, but this film is not really about that. The film focuses on a news story by CBS news involving then airmen George W Bush and his "attempt" to get out of going to Vietnam and certain important military paper which were supposed to have corroborated these events.
Producer Mary Mapes and then anchor Dan Rather decided to air the story on 60 Minutes before they had flushed out all their sources and may have brushed aside criticism which happened to be against their political beliefs and ran with the story anyways. After airing in the fall of 2004 certain aspects of the documents came into question as to whether they could've been written with typewriters of the time or whether these documents were forgeries made by someone who could've merely used Microsoft Word instead.
Repeated attempts to legitimize their accuracy ended up having the opposite effects having witnesses change their stories, allegiances or even admit they had not been honest when presenting their original facts.
Since this is based on actual events, I can say this ended up costing producer Mapes and Rather their careers and sullied their reputations for the rest of their lives.
Even though the film has a very specific set of facts it has to deal with, I found it just as interesting when the director showed scenes of the audience viewing the story when it aired and then began to think about the state of modern news.
Nowadays, most people get their news cycle from internet headlines, scrolling information at the bottoms of television screens and even siloed one-sided stories that support only their own personal political beliefs
I think the broader message this film is trying to convey is that news organizations have the utmost responsibility to not only the report the news, but to keep their biases out of the mix and to make sure every fact is checked and rechecked to make sure they report accurately. News can change public opinion and even though they mostly get things correct, mostly isn't good enough.
I love Cate Blanchett and the legend Robert Redford and they don't disappoint here. The screenplay by writer and first time director James Vanderbilt is pointed and mostly avoids injecting opinion into the facts and presents an interesting and fascinating film I would easily recommend.
Dana (24 KP) rated Vanishing Girls in Books
Mar 23, 2018
I am not sure why I keep being surprised at how good books are, especially since I have read some of these authors before! This book is no different. I was thinking this book would be just okay, nothing too memorable, but I was so wrong! Oh, and I got to meet Lauren Oliver at Yallwest 2015! She was so sweet and signed my book!!
This book is interesting in its set up. It is told in a "Before and After" story line by two characters: Dara and Nick. There are also some photographs and some blog post type pages which were really interesting.
So I am going to try to write whenever there is a large spoiler, but there may be some minor plot points written throughout. So look out for SPOILERS in the review if you want to skip those.
Okay, so I'm going to start off with talking about the three main characters: Dara, Nick, and Parker.
Nick is the main character of this book and, honestly, she was very interesting. She seems quite detached throughout a good part of the book, specifically the first half. I did not like either of the sisters at first, if I am being completely honest. But then I grew to partially understand both of them separately. Nick is emotionally distant because, as seen in the beginning of the book, she sees herself as needing to be the responsible one out of the two sisters. Where Dara is wildness and spontaneity, Nick is the reserved older sister who has to keep her sister in line. Nick, however, is not all she seems. It is known that there was a bad car accident that happened before the book started, but none of the details were really disclosed. Neither person involved really wanted to talk about it. SPOILERS ARE IN THE REST OF THIS PARAGRAPH!! I wasn't a fan of how Nick treated both Dara and Parker. For Dara, it can easily be understood why she wouldn't want to talk to Nick. I would be pretty upset if that was my situation as well, but Nick seemed like she was just being petty. With Parker, she was unfair. Yes, they had been best friends and then he started dating her sister, but they were still best friends. She could have at least tried to talk to him about her feelings, but no. She didn't.
Dara was a very complex character. It seemed as if she would rebel just to do it and to see if she could get a rise out of her sister and/or her parents. She is wild and reckless because she needs to try to distance herself from her sister's shadow. I totally understand that (even if I would not take that path myself). I think her story arc was very interesting, to say the least. I will go more into the plot points a bit later, though.
Parker was just a guy who was caught in a tough situation. Yes, he was dumb in putting himself in that situation, but he seemed like a pretty good guy all in all. I enjoyed his story line because he grounded the other characters in the real world.
Okay, now onto the plot. THERE WILL BE SPOILERS IN THE REST OF THE REVIEW EXCEPT FOR THE LAST PARAGRAPH. IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE SPOILED, SKIP DOWN FOR MY FINAL THOUGHTS ON THE BOOK.
Okay, so the plot. Oh my goodness, that was a good story. I really liked the complexity and all of the little connections throughout the two time lines.
Let's start with the "before." We get to see a lot of how Nick and Dara's relationship had disintegrated the closer to the accident we get. I loved getting it intermittent between the "after" sections because sometimes it made the previous chapter more clear, but a lot of the time, it convoluted it just enough to keep me intrigued. Each moment up to the accident felt like it had more tension because you, as the reader, knew what was coming, but not necessarily when or how. I do wish, however, we got more of the accident itself. That would have been pretty cool.
Now onto the "after." Wow. If you want a really complex story line that you won't see coming, read this book. That freaking plot twist was not something I called, and I am normally really good at calling them! I think I was too preoccupied trying to figure out what happened in the accident to see all of the signs (and there were a lot of them) of the truth of what happened. I loved how Lauren Oliver was able to explore mental health issues that we don't normally get to see in a young adult novel. The post-traumatic stress is usually shown as being withdrawn, not all of the other symptoms that may be possible in the human mind. I don't even necessarily want to touch on the FanLand plot line because it's pretty self explanatory. I did like how those were bright moments in the otherwise very dark story. I could go on and on about this section, but I'll keep it short. If you want to talk to me more about my thoughts on it, then feel free to message me about it!
Madeline Snow's story line was really cool. Not what happened to her, of course, that was super messed up, but the unraveling of what happened was crazy! Oh, and the disappearance actually happened on my birthday. Super random fact, but hey, at least it's interesting? Okay, lets start with the fact that there was a semi-sex trafficking ring going on and that wasn't even the highlight of the book. You know it is an intense book when that happens. I thought it was really interesting that Nick's mom was so enraptured with the case, because instead of noticing her daughter's struggles, she is focused on a stranger. I do like how it ended, us learning about the truth of the accident while learning about the truth of Madeline's disappearance because they were very interconnected! I am very thankful of how it truly ended happily rather than a very horrible possibility.
Overall, I was highly impressed by this book. As I said, this has become one of my favorite books of the year! If you enjoy thriller, suspense, or mystery books, definitely check this one out!
This book is interesting in its set up. It is told in a "Before and After" story line by two characters: Dara and Nick. There are also some photographs and some blog post type pages which were really interesting.
So I am going to try to write whenever there is a large spoiler, but there may be some minor plot points written throughout. So look out for SPOILERS in the review if you want to skip those.
Okay, so I'm going to start off with talking about the three main characters: Dara, Nick, and Parker.
Nick is the main character of this book and, honestly, she was very interesting. She seems quite detached throughout a good part of the book, specifically the first half. I did not like either of the sisters at first, if I am being completely honest. But then I grew to partially understand both of them separately. Nick is emotionally distant because, as seen in the beginning of the book, she sees herself as needing to be the responsible one out of the two sisters. Where Dara is wildness and spontaneity, Nick is the reserved older sister who has to keep her sister in line. Nick, however, is not all she seems. It is known that there was a bad car accident that happened before the book started, but none of the details were really disclosed. Neither person involved really wanted to talk about it. SPOILERS ARE IN THE REST OF THIS PARAGRAPH!! I wasn't a fan of how Nick treated both Dara and Parker. For Dara, it can easily be understood why she wouldn't want to talk to Nick. I would be pretty upset if that was my situation as well, but Nick seemed like she was just being petty. With Parker, she was unfair. Yes, they had been best friends and then he started dating her sister, but they were still best friends. She could have at least tried to talk to him about her feelings, but no. She didn't.
Dara was a very complex character. It seemed as if she would rebel just to do it and to see if she could get a rise out of her sister and/or her parents. She is wild and reckless because she needs to try to distance herself from her sister's shadow. I totally understand that (even if I would not take that path myself). I think her story arc was very interesting, to say the least. I will go more into the plot points a bit later, though.
Parker was just a guy who was caught in a tough situation. Yes, he was dumb in putting himself in that situation, but he seemed like a pretty good guy all in all. I enjoyed his story line because he grounded the other characters in the real world.
Okay, now onto the plot. THERE WILL BE SPOILERS IN THE REST OF THE REVIEW EXCEPT FOR THE LAST PARAGRAPH. IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE SPOILED, SKIP DOWN FOR MY FINAL THOUGHTS ON THE BOOK.
Okay, so the plot. Oh my goodness, that was a good story. I really liked the complexity and all of the little connections throughout the two time lines.
Let's start with the "before." We get to see a lot of how Nick and Dara's relationship had disintegrated the closer to the accident we get. I loved getting it intermittent between the "after" sections because sometimes it made the previous chapter more clear, but a lot of the time, it convoluted it just enough to keep me intrigued. Each moment up to the accident felt like it had more tension because you, as the reader, knew what was coming, but not necessarily when or how. I do wish, however, we got more of the accident itself. That would have been pretty cool.
Now onto the "after." Wow. If you want a really complex story line that you won't see coming, read this book. That freaking plot twist was not something I called, and I am normally really good at calling them! I think I was too preoccupied trying to figure out what happened in the accident to see all of the signs (and there were a lot of them) of the truth of what happened. I loved how Lauren Oliver was able to explore mental health issues that we don't normally get to see in a young adult novel. The post-traumatic stress is usually shown as being withdrawn, not all of the other symptoms that may be possible in the human mind. I don't even necessarily want to touch on the FanLand plot line because it's pretty self explanatory. I did like how those were bright moments in the otherwise very dark story. I could go on and on about this section, but I'll keep it short. If you want to talk to me more about my thoughts on it, then feel free to message me about it!
Madeline Snow's story line was really cool. Not what happened to her, of course, that was super messed up, but the unraveling of what happened was crazy! Oh, and the disappearance actually happened on my birthday. Super random fact, but hey, at least it's interesting? Okay, lets start with the fact that there was a semi-sex trafficking ring going on and that wasn't even the highlight of the book. You know it is an intense book when that happens. I thought it was really interesting that Nick's mom was so enraptured with the case, because instead of noticing her daughter's struggles, she is focused on a stranger. I do like how it ended, us learning about the truth of the accident while learning about the truth of Madeline's disappearance because they were very interconnected! I am very thankful of how it truly ended happily rather than a very horrible possibility.
Overall, I was highly impressed by this book. As I said, this has become one of my favorite books of the year! If you enjoy thriller, suspense, or mystery books, definitely check this one out!
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Godfather (1972) in Movies
Dec 3, 2018
Epic Indeed
What makes a film stand the test of time? How do you create a movie that will have the same impact today as it will fifty years from now? That’s almost how long it’s been since The Godfather was released. Can you believe that? It was a classic then and still remains to be so. It follows the story of the Corleone family, a prominent mob family in New York. Michael (Al Pacino), youngest son of Godfather Vito (Marlon Brando), is trying to stay away from the “family business” but finds himself thrust right in the middle after a mob war erupts.
Acting: 10You couldn’t ask for a better cast than within that of The Godfather. Brando captures your attention from jump, smooth yet broiling with passion. He comes off as the type that can handle any situation but doesn’t need to do so to prove himself.
Pacino is phenomenal in his role as Michael. You can feel the weight of his innocence as he finds himself in the middle of things he vowed to stay away from. One of my favorite scenes involves him having to kill someone in a restaurant. When he goes to the bathroom to grab the gun (where it’s stashed in a stall), he is pacing and nervous. As a viewer, you can sense his struggle. He knows that once he does this, there is no going back. It’s incredible to watch his transformation over time as he ascends to power. You can see him becoming what his father was.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Vito and Michael are just a taste of the rich characters that keep the film fresh even to this day. You’ve got Sonny the firstborn, quick to drop a hit or do whatever it takes to protect his family. You find out exactly what that means when he confronts his sister’s abusive husband in the streets threatening to blow his head off.
Then you have a guy like Tom Hagen, the soft-spoken consigliere of the family. He brings a voice of reason to the chaos surrounding the Corleone family. He wants badly to be an official part of the family but can’t because of his Irish descent. As a result, it makes him work twice as hard.
These characters aren’t just one-dimensional, but they carry enough layers to singlehandedly move their own story. Through each of these characters you understand what it means to be a Corleone and how each of them play a specific part to complete the whole.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
If the characters are what enhance the movie, conflict is what ultimately drives it. Sometimes the intensity is subtle while other times it’s loud and boisterous. It’s always there because you understand as a viewer that lives are always on the line, always at stake. The mafia families are playing for power and, most importantly, they are playing for keeps. There are so many great action sequences that stick out in my mind. There is no shortage of death and every death in this film comes with a meaning and a price.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
When a movie is pushing three hours or goes 3+, I’m usually thinking how they could have shortened things. Not only was the runtime necessary here, but The Godfather runs at a consistent smooth pace. It manages itself by keeping you on high alert in some scenes then reining you back in for the next scene.
I remember watching one intense scene where Michael was protecting his father in the hospital. I remember thinking, “Thank God the entire movie is not like this! I would have a heartattack.” Though the film is long, I would have gladly watched another hour if it had been tacked on.
Plot: 9
Enough of the love fest. Time for my one itty bitty gripe. There were a couple of occasions where I found it difficult to keep up with the families, in some cases the Corleones themselves. The plot tripped me up in spots but it was nothing close to ruining an amazing experience.
Resolution: 10The ending of this film is one for the ages, a powerful scene that will stand out in your mind for a long time. It’s the passing of a torch, but the way is unfolds is just so damn cool! I don’t want to ruin it for those that haven’t seen, but for those that have, you know exactly what I mean.
Overal: 99
Classic. I can’t believe it took me this long to watch it. I have to say, it was well worth the wait.
Acting: 10You couldn’t ask for a better cast than within that of The Godfather. Brando captures your attention from jump, smooth yet broiling with passion. He comes off as the type that can handle any situation but doesn’t need to do so to prove himself.
Pacino is phenomenal in his role as Michael. You can feel the weight of his innocence as he finds himself in the middle of things he vowed to stay away from. One of my favorite scenes involves him having to kill someone in a restaurant. When he goes to the bathroom to grab the gun (where it’s stashed in a stall), he is pacing and nervous. As a viewer, you can sense his struggle. He knows that once he does this, there is no going back. It’s incredible to watch his transformation over time as he ascends to power. You can see him becoming what his father was.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Vito and Michael are just a taste of the rich characters that keep the film fresh even to this day. You’ve got Sonny the firstborn, quick to drop a hit or do whatever it takes to protect his family. You find out exactly what that means when he confronts his sister’s abusive husband in the streets threatening to blow his head off.
Then you have a guy like Tom Hagen, the soft-spoken consigliere of the family. He brings a voice of reason to the chaos surrounding the Corleone family. He wants badly to be an official part of the family but can’t because of his Irish descent. As a result, it makes him work twice as hard.
These characters aren’t just one-dimensional, but they carry enough layers to singlehandedly move their own story. Through each of these characters you understand what it means to be a Corleone and how each of them play a specific part to complete the whole.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
If the characters are what enhance the movie, conflict is what ultimately drives it. Sometimes the intensity is subtle while other times it’s loud and boisterous. It’s always there because you understand as a viewer that lives are always on the line, always at stake. The mafia families are playing for power and, most importantly, they are playing for keeps. There are so many great action sequences that stick out in my mind. There is no shortage of death and every death in this film comes with a meaning and a price.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
When a movie is pushing three hours or goes 3+, I’m usually thinking how they could have shortened things. Not only was the runtime necessary here, but The Godfather runs at a consistent smooth pace. It manages itself by keeping you on high alert in some scenes then reining you back in for the next scene.
I remember watching one intense scene where Michael was protecting his father in the hospital. I remember thinking, “Thank God the entire movie is not like this! I would have a heartattack.” Though the film is long, I would have gladly watched another hour if it had been tacked on.
Plot: 9
Enough of the love fest. Time for my one itty bitty gripe. There were a couple of occasions where I found it difficult to keep up with the families, in some cases the Corleones themselves. The plot tripped me up in spots but it was nothing close to ruining an amazing experience.
Resolution: 10The ending of this film is one for the ages, a powerful scene that will stand out in your mind for a long time. It’s the passing of a torch, but the way is unfolds is just so damn cool! I don’t want to ruin it for those that haven’t seen, but for those that have, you know exactly what I mean.
Overal: 99
Classic. I can’t believe it took me this long to watch it. I have to say, it was well worth the wait.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Fallout 76 in Video Games
Feb 27, 2019 (Updated Feb 27, 2019)
A Grotesque Atrocity of Modern Gaming and an Abhorrent Insult to it's Audience
When Fallout 76 was announced last summer, I was initially intrigued. Not knowing anything about it, I was surprised that we were getting this before Starfield, (which wasn't announced at the time but was heavily rumoured,) or the next entry in the Elder Scrolls series, but I hoped it would be on par with the Fallout series last fantastic interim game; New Vegas. Then at Bethesda's E3 conference, we were given the bad news that this was going to be an always online experience with an open world online hub and some light PvP elements.
Fast forward to November 2018 and the game launches to hugely negative reviews. The majority of online reviewers are pounding the thing into the ground and criticising the barrage of issues present in the game. Connection issues, sub par graphics, a vast assortment of glitches, a distinct lack of human NPC's, weird lighting and pop in and so on and so forth. I am quite happily playing through Red Dead Redemption 2 at this point and leaving Fallout 76 indefinitely on the backburner. The following week, the game is on sale for half of it's RRP, then as the weeks go on the price continues to drop.
Then, at the start of February, I am looking for a new game to stick my teeth into and I see a pre-owned copy of Fallout 76 on sale for only 20 quid. I think to myself, what the hell and give it a go. I had heard that a few patches had been put out to fix various issues and so I thought how bad can it be?
I have been playing video games for the last 20 years and I don't think that I have ever seen a more egregious assault on my principles as a consumer. There isn't even a game here.
If you have played any of the other Fallout games since 3, you will know that you suffer through the more grindy RPG elements of the game because the progression mechanics are married well enough with the games other systems that they aren't too noticeable or invasive. The characters, the locations, the quests and the story elements make up for the lacking gameplay and overall the games are enjoyable enough that the dated gameplay systems usually aren't penalised too hard in reviews.
Well imagine any of the other previous Fallout games, but with all of the reasons to play through it that I mentioned above stripped away, leaving only the annoying grindy bullshit that you normally put up with. Except here, there is simply no reason to put up with it.
This is the realisation that I came to last night after putting about 7 hours into the game and I decided to switch it off and never pick it up again.
There is no plot, there are no characters, there is absolutely nothing to see that you haven't already seen in previous Fallout games with more meat to them and there is simply no reason to play this game.
If past Fallout games are a big meaty, juicy leg of lamb, then this is nothing but the dry bone that is left after all of the good stuff has been ripped away.
This is nothing but a quick cash grab. I'm not even talking specifically about the disgusting micro-transactions present in the game such as making players pay £10+ to change the colour of their power armour. No, I'm just talking about the game as a whole as there is absolutely no other merit to it or reason for it to exist or be played other than to make Bethesda some easy money.
This thing shouldn't exist and the fact that it does is a huge slap on the face to the consumer and it pretty much encapsulates everything that is wrong with the mind-set of modern publishers. This game should be boycotted and if you have to pick it up out of morbid curiosity, do what I did and buy it used.
I have heard a few industry experts say that this could be the game that ends Bethesda, the final nail in the coffin after the let-downs of Fallout 4 and ESO. Although don't want this to happen as I never like to see a gaming company go out of business, to be honest I can't say that they wouldn't deserve it for the below the belt bullshit that they are trying to pull on their audience. As a consumer and a fan of this franchise as well as the studio that produced it, I feel betrayed on a personal level and it really is going to take something extraordinary to put them back in my good graces and the good graces of their audience.
The Witcher 3 came out 4 years ago this year and it still looks and plays better than anything Bethesda studios has developed, (and I'm not even a big fan of The Witcher.) Bethesda really needs to pull their finger out if they want to compete with their peers going forwards. Starfield better be running on a brank new slick engine and contain story and gameplay elements that are nothing short of spectacular if they are to redeem themselves from this disaster.
I was hesitant to score this a 1/10, as it is not the worst game of the generation, however in the context of the rest of the series and the motive behind this particular sorry excuse for an entry in the series, it is such an insult that my conscience would not let me award it as anything more than the lowest possible score.
Fast forward to November 2018 and the game launches to hugely negative reviews. The majority of online reviewers are pounding the thing into the ground and criticising the barrage of issues present in the game. Connection issues, sub par graphics, a vast assortment of glitches, a distinct lack of human NPC's, weird lighting and pop in and so on and so forth. I am quite happily playing through Red Dead Redemption 2 at this point and leaving Fallout 76 indefinitely on the backburner. The following week, the game is on sale for half of it's RRP, then as the weeks go on the price continues to drop.
Then, at the start of February, I am looking for a new game to stick my teeth into and I see a pre-owned copy of Fallout 76 on sale for only 20 quid. I think to myself, what the hell and give it a go. I had heard that a few patches had been put out to fix various issues and so I thought how bad can it be?
I have been playing video games for the last 20 years and I don't think that I have ever seen a more egregious assault on my principles as a consumer. There isn't even a game here.
If you have played any of the other Fallout games since 3, you will know that you suffer through the more grindy RPG elements of the game because the progression mechanics are married well enough with the games other systems that they aren't too noticeable or invasive. The characters, the locations, the quests and the story elements make up for the lacking gameplay and overall the games are enjoyable enough that the dated gameplay systems usually aren't penalised too hard in reviews.
Well imagine any of the other previous Fallout games, but with all of the reasons to play through it that I mentioned above stripped away, leaving only the annoying grindy bullshit that you normally put up with. Except here, there is simply no reason to put up with it.
This is the realisation that I came to last night after putting about 7 hours into the game and I decided to switch it off and never pick it up again.
There is no plot, there are no characters, there is absolutely nothing to see that you haven't already seen in previous Fallout games with more meat to them and there is simply no reason to play this game.
If past Fallout games are a big meaty, juicy leg of lamb, then this is nothing but the dry bone that is left after all of the good stuff has been ripped away.
This is nothing but a quick cash grab. I'm not even talking specifically about the disgusting micro-transactions present in the game such as making players pay £10+ to change the colour of their power armour. No, I'm just talking about the game as a whole as there is absolutely no other merit to it or reason for it to exist or be played other than to make Bethesda some easy money.
This thing shouldn't exist and the fact that it does is a huge slap on the face to the consumer and it pretty much encapsulates everything that is wrong with the mind-set of modern publishers. This game should be boycotted and if you have to pick it up out of morbid curiosity, do what I did and buy it used.
I have heard a few industry experts say that this could be the game that ends Bethesda, the final nail in the coffin after the let-downs of Fallout 4 and ESO. Although don't want this to happen as I never like to see a gaming company go out of business, to be honest I can't say that they wouldn't deserve it for the below the belt bullshit that they are trying to pull on their audience. As a consumer and a fan of this franchise as well as the studio that produced it, I feel betrayed on a personal level and it really is going to take something extraordinary to put them back in my good graces and the good graces of their audience.
The Witcher 3 came out 4 years ago this year and it still looks and plays better than anything Bethesda studios has developed, (and I'm not even a big fan of The Witcher.) Bethesda really needs to pull their finger out if they want to compete with their peers going forwards. Starfield better be running on a brank new slick engine and contain story and gameplay elements that are nothing short of spectacular if they are to redeem themselves from this disaster.
I was hesitant to score this a 1/10, as it is not the worst game of the generation, however in the context of the rest of the series and the motive behind this particular sorry excuse for an entry in the series, it is such an insult that my conscience would not let me award it as anything more than the lowest possible score.
Lee Ronaldo recommended Anthem of the Sun by Grateful Dead in Music (curated)
MegaReader
Book and Education
App
Access over 2 million (and counting) FREE Books, Right From Your iPhone, iPad, or iPod Touch... …...
MelanieTheresa (997 KP) rated The Wife Who Knew Too Much in Books
Mar 10, 2020
From the moment I finished It's Always the Husband, Michele Campbell quickly became one of those authors whose books are added to my TBR pile immediately. The two titles that followed, She Was the Quiet One and A Stranger on the Beach, were similarly excellent. Now, with The Wife Who Knew Too Much, Michele Campbell has solidified her position among my favorite authors.
Rich boy meets middle-class girl at his country club and embarks upon a summer fling that becomes a little more. Rich boy can't bear the thought of giving up his money for the love of the middle-class girl, and so their summer fling is unceremoniously concluded. Some years later, middle-class girl is waitressing when rich boy (now married, still rich, but with his wife's money instead of his grandmother's) pops back up in her life (is this orchestrated somehow, or fate?), and the ride truly begins.
"I'm writing this to raise an alarm in the event of my untimely death. This is hard to admit, even to myself. For obvious reasons. He's in love with someone else. And he wants my money."
Connor's wife, Nina, is a rich widow whose diary entries we are privy to, detailing what she believes to be the plot between her husband and his mistress to kill her and inherit her millions, and this is what immediately sucked me in to the story, because of course I wanted to know if he/they killed her! The author almost manages to make Nina a sympathetic character, but never quite gets there; she's quite unpleasant, but she probably didn't deserve to die.
Tabitha (middle-class girl) can be a semi-annoying character. She makes questionable decisions and justifies them to herself all for her love of Connor (rich boy). Half the time you can almost see the hearts in her eyes. I understand being in love, but being so completely besotted that you disregard some major red flags? That's something else entirely.
And Connor? Well, Connor's kind of a dick, while also being clueless in many ways. As a teen, he "loves" Tabby but gives her up for his grandmother's money. As an adult, he "loves" Tabby but can't quite leave his rich wife just yet. Come ON.
I do have to say that I saw the big reveal coming, so it was a bit predictable in that way, but everything builds to a satisfying conclusion. See for yourself June 9th!
Thank you to St. Martin's Press for the digital ARE!
Rich boy meets middle-class girl at his country club and embarks upon a summer fling that becomes a little more. Rich boy can't bear the thought of giving up his money for the love of the middle-class girl, and so their summer fling is unceremoniously concluded. Some years later, middle-class girl is waitressing when rich boy (now married, still rich, but with his wife's money instead of his grandmother's) pops back up in her life (is this orchestrated somehow, or fate?), and the ride truly begins.
"I'm writing this to raise an alarm in the event of my untimely death. This is hard to admit, even to myself. For obvious reasons. He's in love with someone else. And he wants my money."
Connor's wife, Nina, is a rich widow whose diary entries we are privy to, detailing what she believes to be the plot between her husband and his mistress to kill her and inherit her millions, and this is what immediately sucked me in to the story, because of course I wanted to know if he/they killed her! The author almost manages to make Nina a sympathetic character, but never quite gets there; she's quite unpleasant, but she probably didn't deserve to die.
Tabitha (middle-class girl) can be a semi-annoying character. She makes questionable decisions and justifies them to herself all for her love of Connor (rich boy). Half the time you can almost see the hearts in her eyes. I understand being in love, but being so completely besotted that you disregard some major red flags? That's something else entirely.
And Connor? Well, Connor's kind of a dick, while also being clueless in many ways. As a teen, he "loves" Tabby but gives her up for his grandmother's money. As an adult, he "loves" Tabby but can't quite leave his rich wife just yet. Come ON.
I do have to say that I saw the big reveal coming, so it was a bit predictable in that way, but everything builds to a satisfying conclusion. See for yourself June 9th!
Thank you to St. Martin's Press for the digital ARE!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Free Fire (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
At a rundown warehouse in 1970’s Boston, Justine (Brie Larson) and Ord (Armie Hammer) are brokering a deal between a South African arms dealer (Sharlto Copley) and members of the IRA (Cillian Murphy & Michael Smiley). Tensions flare almost immediately between the two sides and an inevitable battle of wills and gunplay ensues when two members of their entourage take decisive action on a fresh grudge from the night before.
It may say Scorsese’s producing, but Free Fire definitely smacks more of a Tarantino-influenced affair and I can think of no better example, in recent years anyway, that proves the lasting legacy of his still awe-inspiring debut, Reservoir Dogs. After years of making deliberately obtuse films (High Rise, A Field in England), Ben Wheatley has finally made something accessible, but unfortunately, Free Fire can’t pack the same visceral punch and narrative competence as the films that it takes influence from. I’m having flashbacks to about this time last year when I reviewed another film from A24, Green Room. I walked out of Free Fire in much the same manner; on a high, feeling satisfied from what appeared to be something unique and notable. As the hours have passed and I’m preparing my summation, the sentiment has all but vanished and I’m wanting of something with a little more substance. Granted, an 90 minute runtime can only accommodate so much, but I have to ask: could all that time spent crawling around in the dust and the rubble, as realistic a light that it may or may not shine on the authenticity of an actual shootout, have been used instead to get inside our characters motivations, driving us to really care about their fates? There’s no doubt that from its style and attitude, there was the potential for this to be the Reservoir Dogs for a new generation, but ultimately it’s just not a very memorable experience.
What will save Free Fire from obscurity is a cast that, despite having little plot to work with, is firing on all cylinders. An exemplary job is done from Oscar winners on down to character actors whose faces you know, but names you don’t. There isn’t one weak link in the chain and their performances have an excellent balance of toughness and levity that grounds them just enough to allow for suspension of disbelief. I might chastise Ben Wheatley as a storyteller, but there’s no doubt that he has an ear for great dialogue and fine judgement on the performers to deliver it.
It may say Scorsese’s producing, but Free Fire definitely smacks more of a Tarantino-influenced affair and I can think of no better example, in recent years anyway, that proves the lasting legacy of his still awe-inspiring debut, Reservoir Dogs. After years of making deliberately obtuse films (High Rise, A Field in England), Ben Wheatley has finally made something accessible, but unfortunately, Free Fire can’t pack the same visceral punch and narrative competence as the films that it takes influence from. I’m having flashbacks to about this time last year when I reviewed another film from A24, Green Room. I walked out of Free Fire in much the same manner; on a high, feeling satisfied from what appeared to be something unique and notable. As the hours have passed and I’m preparing my summation, the sentiment has all but vanished and I’m wanting of something with a little more substance. Granted, an 90 minute runtime can only accommodate so much, but I have to ask: could all that time spent crawling around in the dust and the rubble, as realistic a light that it may or may not shine on the authenticity of an actual shootout, have been used instead to get inside our characters motivations, driving us to really care about their fates? There’s no doubt that from its style and attitude, there was the potential for this to be the Reservoir Dogs for a new generation, but ultimately it’s just not a very memorable experience.
What will save Free Fire from obscurity is a cast that, despite having little plot to work with, is firing on all cylinders. An exemplary job is done from Oscar winners on down to character actors whose faces you know, but names you don’t. There isn’t one weak link in the chain and their performances have an excellent balance of toughness and levity that grounds them just enough to allow for suspension of disbelief. I might chastise Ben Wheatley as a storyteller, but there’s no doubt that he has an ear for great dialogue and fine judgement on the performers to deliver it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Man Down (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
This Dito Montiel (Fighting, The Son of No One) directed film is a look at mental health and how soldiers returning from war can be affected by the tragedy of war and life.
This film tries to put us inside the mind of a soldier and they lead up to his deployment to war, the trauma that can be suffered at war and the result of seeing things that can’t be unseen. It begins with U.S. Marine Gabriel Drummer (Shia LaBeouf) searching for his son, Johnathan (Charlie Shotwell), and wife, Natalie (Kate Mara), in a post-apocalyptic America.
His only company is his best friend and fellow war veteran Devin Roberts (Jai Courtney). We then flash back to a counseling session between Gabriel and Counselor Peyton (Gary Oldman). They are recounting an incident that happened while Gabriel and Devin were in the field as well as talk about the relationship between the two brothers in arms. Peyton probes Gabriel for answers to what happened in the field and what his life at home will be like when he returns. The story takes us through Gabriel’s journey from boot camp to his search to be reunited with his wife and child.
The beginning of the film is so scattered with flash backs and flash forwards it is not the easiest story to follow. Montiel tries to tie the story all together at the end but it really done quickly and sloppily. There was no really good flow to the film.
The message at the end was really powerful but there execution to get there really didn’t work for me. The cast individual performances were good but I thought that as a whole there was not cohesion.
The relationships between all the characters seemed forced and it was hard to get emotionally invested in what should have been and emotionally compelling story. LaBeouf does commit and his performance I would say the bright spot. I think the intention was that the end of the movie should be a surprise or twist but the ending for me was never really in doubt.
There were points when the film seemed to have momentum but that was stopped by a flash back or forward that would take you out of the moment. All trying to set up a conclusion that seemed inevitable.
The idea of bringing awareness to a real issue in our country, of returning veterans suffering from PTSD, is a noble one and I applaud them for trying. I just wish the execution would have been better overall.
This film tries to put us inside the mind of a soldier and they lead up to his deployment to war, the trauma that can be suffered at war and the result of seeing things that can’t be unseen. It begins with U.S. Marine Gabriel Drummer (Shia LaBeouf) searching for his son, Johnathan (Charlie Shotwell), and wife, Natalie (Kate Mara), in a post-apocalyptic America.
His only company is his best friend and fellow war veteran Devin Roberts (Jai Courtney). We then flash back to a counseling session between Gabriel and Counselor Peyton (Gary Oldman). They are recounting an incident that happened while Gabriel and Devin were in the field as well as talk about the relationship between the two brothers in arms. Peyton probes Gabriel for answers to what happened in the field and what his life at home will be like when he returns. The story takes us through Gabriel’s journey from boot camp to his search to be reunited with his wife and child.
The beginning of the film is so scattered with flash backs and flash forwards it is not the easiest story to follow. Montiel tries to tie the story all together at the end but it really done quickly and sloppily. There was no really good flow to the film.
The message at the end was really powerful but there execution to get there really didn’t work for me. The cast individual performances were good but I thought that as a whole there was not cohesion.
The relationships between all the characters seemed forced and it was hard to get emotionally invested in what should have been and emotionally compelling story. LaBeouf does commit and his performance I would say the bright spot. I think the intention was that the end of the movie should be a surprise or twist but the ending for me was never really in doubt.
There were points when the film seemed to have momentum but that was stopped by a flash back or forward that would take you out of the moment. All trying to set up a conclusion that seemed inevitable.
The idea of bringing awareness to a real issue in our country, of returning veterans suffering from PTSD, is a noble one and I applaud them for trying. I just wish the execution would have been better overall.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated After Life - Season 2 in TV
Aug 6, 2020
It’s difficult not to enjoy or at least admire anything Ricky Gervais writes for TV. His track record now speaks for itself. What you are going to get at the very minimum is a well thought out concept, some odd characters, mostly with their hearts in the right place, and a handful of irreverent jokes that will make you howl out loud and also have a little think.
I loved season one of this show about a man constantly on the edge of wondering whether to bother carrying on with life after the tragically early death of the wife he loved more than life itself. If you want to remind yourself what I said about it, please check the archives. Much of what I had to say then still applies – it is the same show, just six new episodes.
Which is both good and bad, I think. Good because it is good. It makes you think and care and respond humanely, but with lots of chuckles. Bad because it doesn’t do a lot to move things on. Tony, played pitch perfectly by Gervais is still depressed, of course he is, his wife is still dead. He is starting to try a bit more with people around him, and taking more risks with his own life. But the pills are still down the side of the sofa, the red wine is still flowing, and so are the snarky comments.
People like the dog. I can see why. Dog lovers know that bond all too well. The reason to get up in the morning is your best canine pal, and that is sometimes enough. Slowly, Tony is starting to find new reasons to get out of bed though; helping others be happy is given him reason to be. And that is the genius of it really – because he can be a bit of a prick, but you always forgive him when you see the kindness behind the wall of pain.
For me, this season isn’t better than the first one, it is about the same, which is no bad thing. To be at all critical, it seems to be relying too much on the same point being made over and over. Which may be why it wasn’t recently nominated for any Emmys, when it was touted to do quite well. Or is it because of Gervais’ last go at the Golden Globe elite in January?
Watch it. Enjoy it. Recommend it to friends who haven’t seen it. Just don’t get too carried away with it until season 3 proves it goes somewhere new and interesting that it didn’t already go to.
I loved season one of this show about a man constantly on the edge of wondering whether to bother carrying on with life after the tragically early death of the wife he loved more than life itself. If you want to remind yourself what I said about it, please check the archives. Much of what I had to say then still applies – it is the same show, just six new episodes.
Which is both good and bad, I think. Good because it is good. It makes you think and care and respond humanely, but with lots of chuckles. Bad because it doesn’t do a lot to move things on. Tony, played pitch perfectly by Gervais is still depressed, of course he is, his wife is still dead. He is starting to try a bit more with people around him, and taking more risks with his own life. But the pills are still down the side of the sofa, the red wine is still flowing, and so are the snarky comments.
People like the dog. I can see why. Dog lovers know that bond all too well. The reason to get up in the morning is your best canine pal, and that is sometimes enough. Slowly, Tony is starting to find new reasons to get out of bed though; helping others be happy is given him reason to be. And that is the genius of it really – because he can be a bit of a prick, but you always forgive him when you see the kindness behind the wall of pain.
For me, this season isn’t better than the first one, it is about the same, which is no bad thing. To be at all critical, it seems to be relying too much on the same point being made over and over. Which may be why it wasn’t recently nominated for any Emmys, when it was touted to do quite well. Or is it because of Gervais’ last go at the Golden Globe elite in January?
Watch it. Enjoy it. Recommend it to friends who haven’t seen it. Just don’t get too carried away with it until season 3 proves it goes somewhere new and interesting that it didn’t already go to.