Search
Search results
TapeACall Pro: Call Recorder
Business and Productivity
App
TapeACall lets you record your iPhone's incoming and outgoing phone calls. Includes one year of...
PostureScreen Mobile
Health & Fitness and Medical
7.0
Rate It
App
Posture Analysis / Body Composition / Movement Screening Evaluation Software for Chiropractors,...
PDF Connoisseur – Annotate, Sign & Scan with OCR
Business and Productivity
App
PDF Connoisseur now can open Vitrium* protected PDF format!(Like University of Phoenix Ebooks) PDF...
MyFLO Period Tracker by FLO Living LLC
Health & Fitness and Lifestyle
App
MyFLO is the first-ever period tracker and fertility app that tells you what to do to be...
Packing Pro
Travel and Productivity
App
** Featured in Apple's "10 Essentials," "Traveling Home" & "Staff Favorites" ** ** #1 Travel app in...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2020
It has felt like a long wait to get to this film, there was a lot of talk when Midway was coming out so I was very glad it finally arrived.
Lance Corporal Blake has been told to report with another soldier, the respite from war was short but something important must be afoot. It's more than just important, it's life and death for Blake's older brother. His company have sent word that they're going to advance on the retreating German troops but communications are down and they don't know they're going headfirst into a trap.
Blake and Schofield are tasked with finding a way to their position to stop the advance before they lead 1,600 men into the ambush. Between them and their objective? No man's land, abandoned German trenches and large expanses of open land. One another and vigilance are all they have to get them to their objective.
I ended up seeing this twice on its opening weekend, mainly for technical reasons. When I completed my first watch I saw a lot of tweets about its "one-shot" filming and details of an interview about the filming techniques used, that all made me want to go back and watch for more detail.
If I'm honest with you I didn't notice the "one-shot" filming during my first trip to the cinema. In the interview I saw it said that there were no takes longer than 9 minutes, with its running time that meant that at the very least there were 14 cuts... of course I wanted to go and try to spot them. There were only a few "obvious" ones, but even then some of those felt so seamless that you wouldn't question if they said it was done in one (two) shot(s).
The effects in the film are fantastic, but also one of my only quibbles. There are several video clips with and without effects on floating around the internet and you'll see the massive effort that went into these effects. The major scene that comes to mind is in the trailer, Schofield is running across the field as the regiment is advancing around him. I had just assumed that the shot was aerial, but no, it was filmed from the back of a truck. That doesn't sound all that strange until you see in this video that the truck has a road to drive down that is then CGId out for the final cut. That was incredible to see. But this scene is also the only scene that made me doubt the effects too. When I watched it on the big screen it felt clear that some of the explosions were generated, and watching the clips proved that feeling to be right.
I could ramble on about the effects in this for ages but I need to remember there are other things to talk about... but well, I want to rave a little.
The nighttime scene is truly incredible to watch. It makes you paranoid and scared, you watch the shadows for soldiers and survivors, ugh, gripping and terrifying all at the same time.
Right, come one... move along, Emma!
Not much of a switch but I want to mention what I believe are mainly physical effects. One of the first scenes shows Blake and Schofield going through the trenches and over no man's land, walking through the trenches takes a long time, the fact they dug all of that and decked out the entire length for what is sometimes just a fleeting view. The soldiers as they sleep against the walls blending in like they're not there, the claustrophobic feeling as they walls creep higher and closer around them, and just the sheer volume of people down there. Both fast-paced and drawn out at the same time this whole sequence is complex and important.
After the trenches we see them go over the top into no man's land. The pair of them make an amazing job of playing in the mud. It's another part of the film that makes you look around. What's floating in the water? What's hidden in the mud? Truly spectacular additions and I imagine that on every viewing you'd see something different and horrific appear.
Come on, Emma... acting.
There are a lot of cameos from recognisable talented actors but the nature of the story means they're only the briefest of scenes. Mark Strong was probably my favourite of those, his tone at that critical part of the film was perfect.
To our main duo... Blake is played by Dean-Charles Chapman, a face I recognised but had to look up. I'd seen him most recently in The King and Blinded By The Light but clearly neither of those roles stuck with me. Schofield is played by George MacKay who I haven't seen in anything before. The pair had an interesting dynamic, there was certainly a camaraderie there but I swung between thinking they were good friends and just acquaintances because of their behaviour towards each other. Their characters felt very much at two ends of the scale, Blake optimistic and almost a little green, Schofield, battle-worn and sceptical.
Between the two I can easily say that George MacKay was the better performer. He does get some of the headier scenes to deal with but Chapman felt like he wasn't in a warzone. There were still good moments there but I wasn't as convinced by his performance. MacKay was acting even when he wasn't acting, his moments of silence were just as impressive as his scripted parts.
There is just so much in 1917 to look at, the background is so well thought out that you're drawn to it just as much as the action that's in the foreground. You're scanning everything as they move with them like you're a member of their regiment. It feels like it needs to be watched a couple of times. I watched it to see it, I watched it to watch the techniques and I feel like I want to see it again just to watch that background. None of these watches are for anything other than the technical side of things though. Even though I felt emotional connections with parts of the story it's still a basic quest with obstacles and while it's an interesting look at soldiers and their dedication it's not all that extraordinary.
This truly deserves to win a lot of technical awards. I'm not sure that the acting or script hit the same heights, but as a whole 1917 is definitely something special to see.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/1917-movie-review.html
Lance Corporal Blake has been told to report with another soldier, the respite from war was short but something important must be afoot. It's more than just important, it's life and death for Blake's older brother. His company have sent word that they're going to advance on the retreating German troops but communications are down and they don't know they're going headfirst into a trap.
Blake and Schofield are tasked with finding a way to their position to stop the advance before they lead 1,600 men into the ambush. Between them and their objective? No man's land, abandoned German trenches and large expanses of open land. One another and vigilance are all they have to get them to their objective.
I ended up seeing this twice on its opening weekend, mainly for technical reasons. When I completed my first watch I saw a lot of tweets about its "one-shot" filming and details of an interview about the filming techniques used, that all made me want to go back and watch for more detail.
If I'm honest with you I didn't notice the "one-shot" filming during my first trip to the cinema. In the interview I saw it said that there were no takes longer than 9 minutes, with its running time that meant that at the very least there were 14 cuts... of course I wanted to go and try to spot them. There were only a few "obvious" ones, but even then some of those felt so seamless that you wouldn't question if they said it was done in one (two) shot(s).
The effects in the film are fantastic, but also one of my only quibbles. There are several video clips with and without effects on floating around the internet and you'll see the massive effort that went into these effects. The major scene that comes to mind is in the trailer, Schofield is running across the field as the regiment is advancing around him. I had just assumed that the shot was aerial, but no, it was filmed from the back of a truck. That doesn't sound all that strange until you see in this video that the truck has a road to drive down that is then CGId out for the final cut. That was incredible to see. But this scene is also the only scene that made me doubt the effects too. When I watched it on the big screen it felt clear that some of the explosions were generated, and watching the clips proved that feeling to be right.
I could ramble on about the effects in this for ages but I need to remember there are other things to talk about... but well, I want to rave a little.
The nighttime scene is truly incredible to watch. It makes you paranoid and scared, you watch the shadows for soldiers and survivors, ugh, gripping and terrifying all at the same time.
Right, come one... move along, Emma!
Not much of a switch but I want to mention what I believe are mainly physical effects. One of the first scenes shows Blake and Schofield going through the trenches and over no man's land, walking through the trenches takes a long time, the fact they dug all of that and decked out the entire length for what is sometimes just a fleeting view. The soldiers as they sleep against the walls blending in like they're not there, the claustrophobic feeling as they walls creep higher and closer around them, and just the sheer volume of people down there. Both fast-paced and drawn out at the same time this whole sequence is complex and important.
After the trenches we see them go over the top into no man's land. The pair of them make an amazing job of playing in the mud. It's another part of the film that makes you look around. What's floating in the water? What's hidden in the mud? Truly spectacular additions and I imagine that on every viewing you'd see something different and horrific appear.
Come on, Emma... acting.
There are a lot of cameos from recognisable talented actors but the nature of the story means they're only the briefest of scenes. Mark Strong was probably my favourite of those, his tone at that critical part of the film was perfect.
To our main duo... Blake is played by Dean-Charles Chapman, a face I recognised but had to look up. I'd seen him most recently in The King and Blinded By The Light but clearly neither of those roles stuck with me. Schofield is played by George MacKay who I haven't seen in anything before. The pair had an interesting dynamic, there was certainly a camaraderie there but I swung between thinking they were good friends and just acquaintances because of their behaviour towards each other. Their characters felt very much at two ends of the scale, Blake optimistic and almost a little green, Schofield, battle-worn and sceptical.
Between the two I can easily say that George MacKay was the better performer. He does get some of the headier scenes to deal with but Chapman felt like he wasn't in a warzone. There were still good moments there but I wasn't as convinced by his performance. MacKay was acting even when he wasn't acting, his moments of silence were just as impressive as his scripted parts.
There is just so much in 1917 to look at, the background is so well thought out that you're drawn to it just as much as the action that's in the foreground. You're scanning everything as they move with them like you're a member of their regiment. It feels like it needs to be watched a couple of times. I watched it to see it, I watched it to watch the techniques and I feel like I want to see it again just to watch that background. None of these watches are for anything other than the technical side of things though. Even though I felt emotional connections with parts of the story it's still a basic quest with obstacles and while it's an interesting look at soldiers and their dedication it's not all that extraordinary.
This truly deserves to win a lot of technical awards. I'm not sure that the acting or script hit the same heights, but as a whole 1917 is definitely something special to see.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/1917-movie-review.html
KalJ95 (25 KP) rated The Last of Us Part II in Video Games
Jun 23, 2020
You Won't Find A Better Game In Terms Of Presentation. (4 more)
Level Design Is Astounding.
Like The First Game, This Will Create A Conversation For Years To Come
Sound Design Is Incredible.
Takes Risks, And Some Do Pay Off.
A Flawed Sequel. (4 more)
Awful Pacing.
Structure Of Narrative Is Bad.
Some Terrible Dialogue.
Shoehorned Agenda.
The last of The Last of Us.
The video game industry doesn't get enough credit as a source of entertainment, in my humble opinion. Time and time again, the industry has proven that it can produce something magical, memorable, mesmerising to play, and even more so, something engaging to watch as someone not even holding the controller. Naughty Dog’s 2013 masterpiece, The Last of Us, became an overnight classic game because it was cinematic in presentation, and a rollercoaster of emotions in narrative. I sat and played the remastered version on my PlayStation 4 in 2017, and fell in love with the chemistry, love and heartbreak Joel and Ellie took with them, as they crossed a post-apocalyptic America. I was satisfied with the conclusion, and felt the story of these two characters was finished. I didn't need, or ever want a sequel. Then a few months pass, The Last of Us Part II is announced. Obviously, I was ecstatic, but also concerned. Trailers came and went, delays happened over and over, and leaks began to drip onto the internet. I was even more concerned with the leaks, and how this game was taking shape, but I remained open minded, and began playing the game.
The Last of Us Part II is a strange beast. An ambitious, exquisite experience, mired by multiple flaws in structure, pacing and plot holes. I simultaneously adored and loathed the twenty five hour experience, and I’m ready to do it all again. Ellie’s thirst for revenge deals with many issues of morality and hate, and the consequences of ones actions. To coin a phrase, “violence begets violence”, and this is very violent. A flawed piece of art, that often shoehorns a political tick list so it can cater to a certain demographic of sexuality and gender. Whatever you think about Part II, it will create a conversation for years to come, for better or worse.
Narrative:
Ellie and Joel are settled in Jackson, Wyoming, living a relatively normal existence. Ellie is nineteen, and has a job, like the rest of the fighters in Jackson, by going out into the world on routes to clear out the wondering infected. When Ellie witnesses a violent event, she takes it into her own hands to take bloody revenge on the people responsible.
A big risk was taken by Naughty Dog to decide what they did for the first two hours, even the VP of the company, Neil Druckmann, said himself the game will be “divisive”, and that is probably an understatement judging by the fan backlash. I feel it worked to support the other twenty three hours, and shows the blurry line of being good and bad in this world.
Unfortunately, the narrative slogs through awful structuring and some dreadful, downright cringe-worthy dialogue. The structure goes back and forth from the present day, to months, and sometimes years previous, and this is all to cement the events that keep the narrative flowing. The flashbacks featuring Joel and Ellie give you brief moments of happiness, followed by devastating revelations. They are the best moments of the game, you can feel the warmth the characters have for each other, and the heartbreaking actions they take. It made me wonder why they simply didn't just create a game with these ideas in mind. Other flashbacks create more problems than they solve, particularly in the latter half of the game. The first half, for all its faults, really treats you to a vicious and bloodthirsty ride through Seattle, and you completely feel the motivation and drive Ellie has to complete the mission she's set out to do. Seattle is huge, and the perfect backdrop for this game.
Sadly, the second half of the game is an absolute mess. The whole experience becomes nothing more than “go to this location, collect something, go back” over and over again. Its a lazy trope that causes so much fatigue in terms of pacing, slowing down any momentum gained by the first half. The second half serves the most important purpose too, and while I did grow to understand the intention it was presenting me, I couldn't help but feel frequently bored of doing fetch quests. To remain as spoiler free as possible, the game is split into two perspectives of Ellie, and an entirely new character. Naughty Dog wants you to understand the perspectives of both sides, but the history thats been created with the original game, you cant help but sympathise with Ellie more. The fact that its half the game away from the main protagonist, and starts you fresh with a new character, with new skill sets and weapons, really feels out of place. This could of worked much better as an episodic entry, rather than just two stories, one after the other. I can understand people who love this way of storytelling, but for me it slows the pacing down.
Gameplay:
Part II is the most beautiful game I’ve ever played. Naughty Dog continue to set the bar extremely high in terms of surroundings and facial animations, and the seamless transitions from cutscene to gameplay made my jaw drop. Each facial movement shows the hurt, the honesty, the devastation the characters carry with them. It almost feels more like a film or tv series than a video game, featuring an excellent performance from Troy Baker, and a career defining show from Ashley Johnson. Unfortunately, some of the new cast members don't have enough time on screen to give a full understanding of their personality or perspective. Some are likeable, relatable even, but some are just annoying, saying some of the strangest, out of place dialogue.
In terms of its gameplay, Part II hasn't really changed anything from its predecessor. It feels the same, whether you enjoyed it first time round or not. I personally am in the middle ground, it works for what it is. The Last of Us has always been a game about surviving by any means necessary. Part II feels like multiple ideas all in one, all conflicting themselves. Let me explain:
The game actively tries to twist the act of killing people to make you seem like its an awful thing to do. This is an interesting idea that has been done many times before in games, but it works in the oddest of ways here. I have completed the game twice now, and found it almost impossible to not kill anyone, yet cutscenes display remorse within the characters after they’ve murdered someone. This conflicts the idea of the whole game, where one moment I'm slicing a persons throat with a knife, the next I do the exact same, but this time I regret that decision. Again, its adding less weight to the story, and actively contradicting everything that happens.
Extra Notes:
The environments of Part II are some of the best in a video game. A sandbox of lush greenery and worn down buildings follows the same formula that Naughty Dog designed in Uncharted: The Lost Legacy, where you can explore a massive space to do what you find the objectives, but also see the sights and collect items. The level design of the entire game is absolutely masterful, but this level astounded me graphically and structurally.
By this point, it probably feels like I utterly hated Part II. I did, and didn’t, and thats the line I'm sticking on. The Last of Us always presented a commentary as to the nature of relationships, love, life and death. At the core was Ellie and Joel, two wayward strangers forced together on a journey across America. Everyone has a reason to love that game, for me its their chemistry and progression. Joel was hardened, standoffish, only to warm to Ellie, and love her by the end. Ellie, the immune girl who's humorous, optimistic and full of life, who ultimately becomes cold, quiet and sceptical of Joel.
Part II presents a different commentary, one of revenge and hate. I firmly believe Part II is weak in most areas, a downgrade in fact compared to its counterpart, but its so beautiful and bleak, with so many incapsulated moments of joy, heartbreak, love, shock. Its uncompromising, relentless and essential for anyone with a PS4. This will be a game I will constantly change my opinion on the more I think about it. As I said at the beginning, I never felt a sequel was necessary, and I firmly believe the story must end here.
(P.S. I must mention that Naughty Dog and Sony have only themselves to blame when it comes to the reception Part II has received during its release and promotional material. Early reviewers were told that they could only go into detail about the first ten or so hours, not mentioning the other fifteen. The other fifteen hours are incredibly important to mention, and they either make or break this game, so not letting reviewers do their job feels disingenuous, and from my point of view shows that they had no faith in their product to be criticised. The promotional material is also hugely misleading. The trailers show a completely different game, and characters are swapped for others in key scenes. That is wrong, and once again, shows your audience you had zero faith in your product based on the actual plot of your game.)
The Last of Us Part II is a strange beast. An ambitious, exquisite experience, mired by multiple flaws in structure, pacing and plot holes. I simultaneously adored and loathed the twenty five hour experience, and I’m ready to do it all again. Ellie’s thirst for revenge deals with many issues of morality and hate, and the consequences of ones actions. To coin a phrase, “violence begets violence”, and this is very violent. A flawed piece of art, that often shoehorns a political tick list so it can cater to a certain demographic of sexuality and gender. Whatever you think about Part II, it will create a conversation for years to come, for better or worse.
Narrative:
Ellie and Joel are settled in Jackson, Wyoming, living a relatively normal existence. Ellie is nineteen, and has a job, like the rest of the fighters in Jackson, by going out into the world on routes to clear out the wondering infected. When Ellie witnesses a violent event, she takes it into her own hands to take bloody revenge on the people responsible.
A big risk was taken by Naughty Dog to decide what they did for the first two hours, even the VP of the company, Neil Druckmann, said himself the game will be “divisive”, and that is probably an understatement judging by the fan backlash. I feel it worked to support the other twenty three hours, and shows the blurry line of being good and bad in this world.
Unfortunately, the narrative slogs through awful structuring and some dreadful, downright cringe-worthy dialogue. The structure goes back and forth from the present day, to months, and sometimes years previous, and this is all to cement the events that keep the narrative flowing. The flashbacks featuring Joel and Ellie give you brief moments of happiness, followed by devastating revelations. They are the best moments of the game, you can feel the warmth the characters have for each other, and the heartbreaking actions they take. It made me wonder why they simply didn't just create a game with these ideas in mind. Other flashbacks create more problems than they solve, particularly in the latter half of the game. The first half, for all its faults, really treats you to a vicious and bloodthirsty ride through Seattle, and you completely feel the motivation and drive Ellie has to complete the mission she's set out to do. Seattle is huge, and the perfect backdrop for this game.
Sadly, the second half of the game is an absolute mess. The whole experience becomes nothing more than “go to this location, collect something, go back” over and over again. Its a lazy trope that causes so much fatigue in terms of pacing, slowing down any momentum gained by the first half. The second half serves the most important purpose too, and while I did grow to understand the intention it was presenting me, I couldn't help but feel frequently bored of doing fetch quests. To remain as spoiler free as possible, the game is split into two perspectives of Ellie, and an entirely new character. Naughty Dog wants you to understand the perspectives of both sides, but the history thats been created with the original game, you cant help but sympathise with Ellie more. The fact that its half the game away from the main protagonist, and starts you fresh with a new character, with new skill sets and weapons, really feels out of place. This could of worked much better as an episodic entry, rather than just two stories, one after the other. I can understand people who love this way of storytelling, but for me it slows the pacing down.
Gameplay:
Part II is the most beautiful game I’ve ever played. Naughty Dog continue to set the bar extremely high in terms of surroundings and facial animations, and the seamless transitions from cutscene to gameplay made my jaw drop. Each facial movement shows the hurt, the honesty, the devastation the characters carry with them. It almost feels more like a film or tv series than a video game, featuring an excellent performance from Troy Baker, and a career defining show from Ashley Johnson. Unfortunately, some of the new cast members don't have enough time on screen to give a full understanding of their personality or perspective. Some are likeable, relatable even, but some are just annoying, saying some of the strangest, out of place dialogue.
In terms of its gameplay, Part II hasn't really changed anything from its predecessor. It feels the same, whether you enjoyed it first time round or not. I personally am in the middle ground, it works for what it is. The Last of Us has always been a game about surviving by any means necessary. Part II feels like multiple ideas all in one, all conflicting themselves. Let me explain:
The game actively tries to twist the act of killing people to make you seem like its an awful thing to do. This is an interesting idea that has been done many times before in games, but it works in the oddest of ways here. I have completed the game twice now, and found it almost impossible to not kill anyone, yet cutscenes display remorse within the characters after they’ve murdered someone. This conflicts the idea of the whole game, where one moment I'm slicing a persons throat with a knife, the next I do the exact same, but this time I regret that decision. Again, its adding less weight to the story, and actively contradicting everything that happens.
Extra Notes:
The environments of Part II are some of the best in a video game. A sandbox of lush greenery and worn down buildings follows the same formula that Naughty Dog designed in Uncharted: The Lost Legacy, where you can explore a massive space to do what you find the objectives, but also see the sights and collect items. The level design of the entire game is absolutely masterful, but this level astounded me graphically and structurally.
By this point, it probably feels like I utterly hated Part II. I did, and didn’t, and thats the line I'm sticking on. The Last of Us always presented a commentary as to the nature of relationships, love, life and death. At the core was Ellie and Joel, two wayward strangers forced together on a journey across America. Everyone has a reason to love that game, for me its their chemistry and progression. Joel was hardened, standoffish, only to warm to Ellie, and love her by the end. Ellie, the immune girl who's humorous, optimistic and full of life, who ultimately becomes cold, quiet and sceptical of Joel.
Part II presents a different commentary, one of revenge and hate. I firmly believe Part II is weak in most areas, a downgrade in fact compared to its counterpart, but its so beautiful and bleak, with so many incapsulated moments of joy, heartbreak, love, shock. Its uncompromising, relentless and essential for anyone with a PS4. This will be a game I will constantly change my opinion on the more I think about it. As I said at the beginning, I never felt a sequel was necessary, and I firmly believe the story must end here.
(P.S. I must mention that Naughty Dog and Sony have only themselves to blame when it comes to the reception Part II has received during its release and promotional material. Early reviewers were told that they could only go into detail about the first ten or so hours, not mentioning the other fifteen. The other fifteen hours are incredibly important to mention, and they either make or break this game, so not letting reviewers do their job feels disingenuous, and from my point of view shows that they had no faith in their product to be criticised. The promotional material is also hugely misleading. The trailers show a completely different game, and characters are swapped for others in key scenes. That is wrong, and once again, shows your audience you had zero faith in your product based on the actual plot of your game.)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) created a post
Sep 23, 2020
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Beautiful Disaster (Beautiful, #1) in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can also be found on my blog: <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
A friend of mine had recommended this book back when it first came out. While I was definitely intrigued, I kept putting off buying it. However, with Walking Disaster coming out, I thought I'd give it a read. I'm super happy I did. I loved it!
Abby Abernathy is a reformed good girl. She moved to another state to get away from her horrible past. However, when she meets Travis, a self-professed womanizer, she struggles to continue being that good girl she so desperately wants to be. Travis is violent and sleeps with almost any woman. The more Abby tries to stay away, the more she finds herself drawn to Travis. Will Abby be able to keep up her good girl image or will she succumb to Travis' charms?
I love this title!! It definitely suits this book because it describes, perfectly, the relationship between Travis and Abby. It's even mentioned in the book!
I like the cover. In fact, I think it's really pretty. I'm sure it's symbolic of Travis and Abby with Abby being the butterfly, but I just can't figure it out. I don't see how Abby is a trapped butterfly.
For the most part, the world building was alright. There were times, while reading, were I felt like I was more in a high school setting then a college setting. Also, there was hardly any mention of time going by. For example, Abby and Travis would say about 4 or 5 sentences to each other, and three hours had passed by. That happened quite a few times in the book which I found annoying. Other than that, everything about the world was great.
The pacing was perfect in Beautiful Disaster! I couldn't get enough of the action. The chapters flowed beautifully into each other, and I found that I couldn't read the pages fast enough. Every sentence left me wanting more!
The characters were fantastic and well written! I loved how Abby was trying to turn her life around. I didn't think she had as bad of a life as she let on although I would've loved to learn more about her past. Abby had a sweet vulnerability to her which I liked. I thought Travis was quite romantic, and I loved how crazy he was about Abby. At some points, I felt that he was a little too crazy about Abby, but I still found myself wishing I had someone like Travis to look after me (except not as violent). Like Abby, I would've loved to find out more about Travis' background. I really hope I will learn more about him in Walking Disaster. I loved America although I kept picturing her differently to the blonde girl that she is. Shep is great when it comes to America and his cousin Travis. He's also great to Abby. Shep has a good heart, and I loved how willing he was to help those he loved.
The dialogue was a bit intense but in a good way. I loved reading how Abby and Travis interacted with each other. These two were super funny and at times would drive me crazy with how they acted towards each other when they would argue. As for the language, there is A LOT of swearing so if you don't like cuss words, this isn't your type of book.
Beautiful Disaster by Jamie McGuire was definitely an enjoyable and intense read. I was also appreciative that the sex scenes were done quite tastefully instead of being graphic. I didn't really like the way it ended as I felt it was a rush decision on the characters' part. (Don't worry, I won't go into detail). Other than that, I thoroughly enjoyed this book.
I'd recommend this book to everyone aged 17+ who is seeking a bit of a bad boy or a bit of a thrill. Please be aware that there is a lot of violence and swearing within this book.
Beautiful Disaster (Beautiful #1) by Jamie McGuire gets a 4.25 out of 5 from me.
A friend of mine had recommended this book back when it first came out. While I was definitely intrigued, I kept putting off buying it. However, with Walking Disaster coming out, I thought I'd give it a read. I'm super happy I did. I loved it!
Abby Abernathy is a reformed good girl. She moved to another state to get away from her horrible past. However, when she meets Travis, a self-professed womanizer, she struggles to continue being that good girl she so desperately wants to be. Travis is violent and sleeps with almost any woman. The more Abby tries to stay away, the more she finds herself drawn to Travis. Will Abby be able to keep up her good girl image or will she succumb to Travis' charms?
I love this title!! It definitely suits this book because it describes, perfectly, the relationship between Travis and Abby. It's even mentioned in the book!
I like the cover. In fact, I think it's really pretty. I'm sure it's symbolic of Travis and Abby with Abby being the butterfly, but I just can't figure it out. I don't see how Abby is a trapped butterfly.
For the most part, the world building was alright. There were times, while reading, were I felt like I was more in a high school setting then a college setting. Also, there was hardly any mention of time going by. For example, Abby and Travis would say about 4 or 5 sentences to each other, and three hours had passed by. That happened quite a few times in the book which I found annoying. Other than that, everything about the world was great.
The pacing was perfect in Beautiful Disaster! I couldn't get enough of the action. The chapters flowed beautifully into each other, and I found that I couldn't read the pages fast enough. Every sentence left me wanting more!
The characters were fantastic and well written! I loved how Abby was trying to turn her life around. I didn't think she had as bad of a life as she let on although I would've loved to learn more about her past. Abby had a sweet vulnerability to her which I liked. I thought Travis was quite romantic, and I loved how crazy he was about Abby. At some points, I felt that he was a little too crazy about Abby, but I still found myself wishing I had someone like Travis to look after me (except not as violent). Like Abby, I would've loved to find out more about Travis' background. I really hope I will learn more about him in Walking Disaster. I loved America although I kept picturing her differently to the blonde girl that she is. Shep is great when it comes to America and his cousin Travis. He's also great to Abby. Shep has a good heart, and I loved how willing he was to help those he loved.
The dialogue was a bit intense but in a good way. I loved reading how Abby and Travis interacted with each other. These two were super funny and at times would drive me crazy with how they acted towards each other when they would argue. As for the language, there is A LOT of swearing so if you don't like cuss words, this isn't your type of book.
Beautiful Disaster by Jamie McGuire was definitely an enjoyable and intense read. I was also appreciative that the sex scenes were done quite tastefully instead of being graphic. I didn't really like the way it ended as I felt it was a rush decision on the characters' part. (Don't worry, I won't go into detail). Other than that, I thoroughly enjoyed this book.
I'd recommend this book to everyone aged 17+ who is seeking a bit of a bad boy or a bit of a thrill. Please be aware that there is a lot of violence and swearing within this book.
Beautiful Disaster (Beautiful #1) by Jamie McGuire gets a 4.25 out of 5 from me.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Wildlands in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
The latest game in the Ghost Recon series takes players on a wild adventure across Bolivia as a member of an elite CIA unit tasked with bringing down the Santa Blanca Cartel.
Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Wildlands gives players a very large and diverse open world in which to operate and numerous vehicles in which to move through the massive and highly-detailed gaming maps.
Players start off by customizing their character and they can play with up to three real players or a mix of AI or humans. Missions are available via a map and contain story and side missions which grow as players progress through the game.
A typical mission may entail stopping a convoy, eliminating a target of interest, obtaining information, or disrupting operations for the Cartel.
Players can walk, fly, sail, or drive to the locales as the various provinces of the game are stocked with vehicles. There are also plenty of dangers along the way as random checkpoints, patrols, and other dangers lurk. The Cartel is not the only danger facing players as the local military or Unidad is in the pockets of the Cartel and they have an abundance of gunships, armored vehicles, and well-armed troops to bring to the fight.
The game does lead best to a more stealthy approach but at times run and gun can be effective if you are smart. I have taken at times to blowing up Propane and other explosives to create diversions while members of my team slip in and complete mission objectives.
>
Wildlands also has plenty of side content such as the conversations between the main characters and the constant presence of the Cartel DJ on the radio. While this is a great addition to the game, hearing the same lines repeated the more you play the game can get old.
The graphics and detail level of the game are solid as I really enjoyed the diverse topography of the landscape. From snow covered mountains to rugged jungles and forest, the game offers plenty to look at, and while driving or flying, it is great fun to get caught up in.
Wildlands also has a great day and night cycle as well as dynamic weather as being caught in the rain makes handling vehicles harder and can slow your approach on a target locale. The game has a very deep menu of weapons, skills, and gear that are available and unlock as players gather Skill Points along the way. I recently upgraded my spy drone to have an explosive so I could fly it into an enemy area to scout the locale, and then deliver a nice surprise when needed.
There are some issues that arise from time to time such as clipping issues where a player will merge with a wall or steps and lag can arise with the graphics even when playing on an I7 system with an NVIDIA 1060 Founders Edition card. This was not as common playing on a Playstation 4 Pro system.
The biggest fault I have with Wildlands is the amount of repetition that comes up. I have played the early access and beta versions of the game as well as the launch version and I still keep playing various missions over and over. While I am free to play on my own with AI characters, the most enjoyable way to play for me is with other players, and as such I find myself often playing missions over and over even though I select the option to continue my story. Like Tom Clancy’s The Division, Wildlands offers a very large and immersive world filled with options for players and plenty of customization. The game also offers great replay value as even when the core story mode is completed, there are numerous side missions for players to play and more content is on the way.
If you want a good challenge and a game that will offer you countless hours of solid gameplay and replay value, you will not want to miss this one.
http://sknr.net/2017/03/27/tom-clancys-ghost-recon-wildlands/
Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Wildlands gives players a very large and diverse open world in which to operate and numerous vehicles in which to move through the massive and highly-detailed gaming maps.
Players start off by customizing their character and they can play with up to three real players or a mix of AI or humans. Missions are available via a map and contain story and side missions which grow as players progress through the game.
A typical mission may entail stopping a convoy, eliminating a target of interest, obtaining information, or disrupting operations for the Cartel.
Players can walk, fly, sail, or drive to the locales as the various provinces of the game are stocked with vehicles. There are also plenty of dangers along the way as random checkpoints, patrols, and other dangers lurk. The Cartel is not the only danger facing players as the local military or Unidad is in the pockets of the Cartel and they have an abundance of gunships, armored vehicles, and well-armed troops to bring to the fight.
The game does lead best to a more stealthy approach but at times run and gun can be effective if you are smart. I have taken at times to blowing up Propane and other explosives to create diversions while members of my team slip in and complete mission objectives.
>
Wildlands also has plenty of side content such as the conversations between the main characters and the constant presence of the Cartel DJ on the radio. While this is a great addition to the game, hearing the same lines repeated the more you play the game can get old.
The graphics and detail level of the game are solid as I really enjoyed the diverse topography of the landscape. From snow covered mountains to rugged jungles and forest, the game offers plenty to look at, and while driving or flying, it is great fun to get caught up in.
Wildlands also has a great day and night cycle as well as dynamic weather as being caught in the rain makes handling vehicles harder and can slow your approach on a target locale. The game has a very deep menu of weapons, skills, and gear that are available and unlock as players gather Skill Points along the way. I recently upgraded my spy drone to have an explosive so I could fly it into an enemy area to scout the locale, and then deliver a nice surprise when needed.
There are some issues that arise from time to time such as clipping issues where a player will merge with a wall or steps and lag can arise with the graphics even when playing on an I7 system with an NVIDIA 1060 Founders Edition card. This was not as common playing on a Playstation 4 Pro system.
The biggest fault I have with Wildlands is the amount of repetition that comes up. I have played the early access and beta versions of the game as well as the launch version and I still keep playing various missions over and over. While I am free to play on my own with AI characters, the most enjoyable way to play for me is with other players, and as such I find myself often playing missions over and over even though I select the option to continue my story. Like Tom Clancy’s The Division, Wildlands offers a very large and immersive world filled with options for players and plenty of customization. The game also offers great replay value as even when the core story mode is completed, there are numerous side missions for players to play and more content is on the way.
If you want a good challenge and a game that will offer you countless hours of solid gameplay and replay value, you will not want to miss this one.
http://sknr.net/2017/03/27/tom-clancys-ghost-recon-wildlands/