Search
Search results
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated X-Men: Supernovas in Books
Nov 30, 2020
Holy cow!! I read this back when it originally when it was published, back in '04. Or rather, I didn't read it, as it was at a time where I was starting to tire of the post-MESSIAH COMPLEX/SECOND COMING X-Men world. I felt Utopia was a good idea, but it never truly gelled in the same way that as the Mutant Nation that is Krakoa in Hickman's "Dawn of X". And dear God, I can stand most things to some degree, but I still <u>can not</u> accept Namor as a mutant! So, long story short (really?? now?? after all that??), re-visiting X-MEN: SUPERNOVA was a good read!
First thing I enjoyed was the fact that this was where the Children of the Vault first come into play! Such a cool-assed concept, so cool that, sixteen years later (oh come on, dear man, time doesn't even apply the Children of the Vault!), Jonathan Hickman brought them back in X-MEN #4! Brilliant!! And, seriously? I don't a number of X-fans really <b>abhor</b> the whole concept of the Children of the Vault and any appearances/re-appearances they show up in!
While I was not as much of a fan of Carey's X-Men contributions as I wanted to be (another reason I dropped X-Men in '04), I quite loved this collection, as the first half of the book is the 6-part "Supernovas" story, while the remainder was the next few issues in that run of Carey's that seemed to have nothing whatsoever to do with the Children of the Vault or anything <i>Supernova</i>ish! Yeah, sorry to anyone expecting this review to be about the whole book, but I checked out as soon as "Supernova" ended.
One of the things that really drew me back to this was how tight Chris Bachalo's art was for the "Supernova" story arc! He's one of those artists that I have found people either like or definitely <b>not</b> like his style! Me? I've liked him since his days during GENERATION X (man, I still love the way he drew Emma Frost!!) in the 90's!
I've seen some of his recent work, and while I don't love all of it, I still share a fondness for unique way he draws! And, as I said, I feel that this was some of his best! From his tricked out as hell action scenes to his capturing of the oddness and otherworldliness of the Children of the Vault, these pages do <u>not</u> disappoint visually!
Overall, a good read that was not bogged down by being set in and around Utopia or any of the usual bickering and <i>hot mess</i> was any of the X-books written at that time! Heck, you may enjoy the story in the second half of the book! And best case scenario, if you see it on sale (whether digitally or in print), pick it up for Bachalo's amazingly awesome art!
Ok, gang, Imma done! We can resume the craziness and hard-to-believe-it's-actually-happening that is the COVID-19 pandemic! Oh, and you're welcome for the distraction I provided..! :)
First thing I enjoyed was the fact that this was where the Children of the Vault first come into play! Such a cool-assed concept, so cool that, sixteen years later (oh come on, dear man, time doesn't even apply the Children of the Vault!), Jonathan Hickman brought them back in X-MEN #4! Brilliant!! And, seriously? I don't a number of X-fans really <b>abhor</b> the whole concept of the Children of the Vault and any appearances/re-appearances they show up in!
While I was not as much of a fan of Carey's X-Men contributions as I wanted to be (another reason I dropped X-Men in '04), I quite loved this collection, as the first half of the book is the 6-part "Supernovas" story, while the remainder was the next few issues in that run of Carey's that seemed to have nothing whatsoever to do with the Children of the Vault or anything <i>Supernova</i>ish! Yeah, sorry to anyone expecting this review to be about the whole book, but I checked out as soon as "Supernova" ended.
One of the things that really drew me back to this was how tight Chris Bachalo's art was for the "Supernova" story arc! He's one of those artists that I have found people either like or definitely <b>not</b> like his style! Me? I've liked him since his days during GENERATION X (man, I still love the way he drew Emma Frost!!) in the 90's!
I've seen some of his recent work, and while I don't love all of it, I still share a fondness for unique way he draws! And, as I said, I feel that this was some of his best! From his tricked out as hell action scenes to his capturing of the oddness and otherworldliness of the Children of the Vault, these pages do <u>not</u> disappoint visually!
Overall, a good read that was not bogged down by being set in and around Utopia or any of the usual bickering and <i>hot mess</i> was any of the X-books written at that time! Heck, you may enjoy the story in the second half of the book! And best case scenario, if you see it on sale (whether digitally or in print), pick it up for Bachalo's amazingly awesome art!
Ok, gang, Imma done! We can resume the craziness and hard-to-believe-it's-actually-happening that is the COVID-19 pandemic! Oh, and you're welcome for the distraction I provided..! :)
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Wolf (2019) in Movies
Sep 19, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
A group of Roman legionnaires in Britain are sent on a mission to find a group of missing messengers only to find themselves attacked by something that comes out with the full moon.
So basically it's Roman’s vs werewolves in the woods, a premise with so much potential. However it fails in oh so many ways. I feel a bit bad for this review because I did enjoy the film, admittedly I seemed to be the only one as everyone else left about half way through (ok there were only two other people there but they did leave) but as a film it was quite terrible. First off we have the legionnaires, the group have only been together for a few weeks and don't trust each other, and they consist of:
Shouting guy who has just been sent from Rome who can't seem to decide if he's channelling Nick Frost or Brian Blessed.
Not so shouting guy who is friends with shouting guy and likes to drink
Captain who doesn't seem very effective
Old guy who shouldn't be there, doesn’t get on with the captain
Tall blonde guy who is always on about his wife who about to have a baby
Germanic female scout that no one trusts
Ex slave woman who looks like she should be a witch (she’s not) who is friends with the captain
Black woman who has a brother
And two other guys I can't really remember
So, the film gets points for having a culturally mixed squad which is historically correct but they don’t act as a unit. They are always talking, even when hunting the creatures they never shut up. One of them say “We are Roman we do the hunting.” But they don't seem to know to be quite.
It does strike me that the film is trying to be (Or seem) historically accurate, there are mentions of tactical formations that can be used, everyone uses the names of an appropriate god and there is mention of what certain weapons are made of but all of this just adds to the feeling that the film has been made by a group of Roman reenactor enthusiasts.
I had a friend who said that ‘Cloverfield’ was one of the worst films ever because you never see the monster, we pointed out that you do but acknowledge that 'Cloverfield’ keeps the monster hidden to make it more mysterious and scary. Wolf does this as well, for most of the film all you see of the monsters are pink streaks that seem quite reminiscent of naked people and when you finally see the creatures they look like they could be extras in classic doctor who. The effects in general are a bit rubbish to the point of one the cast walking around with what looks like rice pudding or custard in his beard for ten minutes.
The camera work is sometimes shaky, shots of the sky blind you and there are times when it looks like the actors don't know how to hold a sword.
And the film doesn't end, there's a revelation, the survivors say they will continue the mission then the credits roll. There could be a sequel but if there is it will be because the cast want it and not on reviews (although I think I did enjoy it a bit).
So basically it's Roman’s vs werewolves in the woods, a premise with so much potential. However it fails in oh so many ways. I feel a bit bad for this review because I did enjoy the film, admittedly I seemed to be the only one as everyone else left about half way through (ok there were only two other people there but they did leave) but as a film it was quite terrible. First off we have the legionnaires, the group have only been together for a few weeks and don't trust each other, and they consist of:
Shouting guy who has just been sent from Rome who can't seem to decide if he's channelling Nick Frost or Brian Blessed.
Not so shouting guy who is friends with shouting guy and likes to drink
Captain who doesn't seem very effective
Old guy who shouldn't be there, doesn’t get on with the captain
Tall blonde guy who is always on about his wife who about to have a baby
Germanic female scout that no one trusts
Ex slave woman who looks like she should be a witch (she’s not) who is friends with the captain
Black woman who has a brother
And two other guys I can't really remember
So, the film gets points for having a culturally mixed squad which is historically correct but they don’t act as a unit. They are always talking, even when hunting the creatures they never shut up. One of them say “We are Roman we do the hunting.” But they don't seem to know to be quite.
It does strike me that the film is trying to be (Or seem) historically accurate, there are mentions of tactical formations that can be used, everyone uses the names of an appropriate god and there is mention of what certain weapons are made of but all of this just adds to the feeling that the film has been made by a group of Roman reenactor enthusiasts.
I had a friend who said that ‘Cloverfield’ was one of the worst films ever because you never see the monster, we pointed out that you do but acknowledge that 'Cloverfield’ keeps the monster hidden to make it more mysterious and scary. Wolf does this as well, for most of the film all you see of the monsters are pink streaks that seem quite reminiscent of naked people and when you finally see the creatures they look like they could be extras in classic doctor who. The effects in general are a bit rubbish to the point of one the cast walking around with what looks like rice pudding or custard in his beard for ten minutes.
The camera work is sometimes shaky, shots of the sky blind you and there are times when it looks like the actors don't know how to hold a sword.
And the film doesn't end, there's a revelation, the survivors say they will continue the mission then the credits roll. There could be a sequel but if there is it will be because the cast want it and not on reviews (although I think I did enjoy it a bit).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Last Night in Soho (2021) in Movies
Nov 5, 2021
Unique
Writer/Director Edgar Wright has developed into one of the more unique film makers working today with a stylistic look, feel and sound to all of his films. Long known as the Director of the Simon Pegg/Nick Frost comedies (SHAUN OF THE DEAD, HOT FUZZ and AT WORLD’S EDGE), Wright started coming into his own with the under-rated SCOTT PILGRIM vs. THE WORLD and the marvelous BABY DRIVER and with his latest film, the trippy thriller LAST NIGHT IN SOHO, Wright has graduated - in my eyes - as a Director who’s work is “must watch” whenever they come out.
LAST NIGHT IN SOHO is unique, stylized, stunning - both visually and aurally - mind-bending, tense and satisfying. A truly unique film by a unique filmmaker.
To tell the tale of LAST NIGHT IN SOHO is to spoil it. The less you know about it, the better. But, as the trailers suggest, a modern young fashion student is in London and is transported into the “swinging ‘60’s London and ends up living, vicariously, the life of another. That’s all I’ll say. I would recommend just going in and let the story wash all over you - both through the eyes and through the ears - which is why I would recommend this film been seen in a theater (or, at the very least, on a set-up with a killer sound system).
Because of the highly stylized and “go with it” feel of this film, the performances have a tendency to move to the background, but they are very well done. Thomasin McKenzie (JOJO RABBIT) is a strong choice as the Fashion Student who has this “adventure” (to say more is to spoil), she brings the right amount of reality and “unreality” to her character. Anya Taylor-Joy (THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT) is superb as Sandie, the object of the “adventure”. She isn’t asked to do much more than be mysterious - and she does it well.
Wright, wisely, fills the rest of the film with strong supporting players - Matt Smith (DR. WHO), the great Terence Stamp (THE LIMEY) and, most importantly, Dame Diana Rigg (Emma Peel in THE AVENGERS in the 1960’s, in her final film role before her death in September 2020), all bring their “A” game to the festivities and fill their roles well.
It’s not a perfect film, the beginning drags on a bit before things start to get good (and weird) and their is a superfluous subplot involving some “Mean Girls” at the Fashion School that our heroine attends in today’s world - a subplot that never really goes anywhere. The ending, also, does go “over the top”, but by that time, I was swept up in the style of this film and forgave it it’s flaws.
I ended up having LAST NIGHT IN SOHO-type dreams, and indication that this film struck a chord with me and is going to stay with me for awhile - and is probably worth a re-watch (it certainly is one of those types of films that can be different upon a re-watch).
Well worth the effort to check it out on the Big Screen - certainly the visuals and sound will make it worthwhile.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
LAST NIGHT IN SOHO is unique, stylized, stunning - both visually and aurally - mind-bending, tense and satisfying. A truly unique film by a unique filmmaker.
To tell the tale of LAST NIGHT IN SOHO is to spoil it. The less you know about it, the better. But, as the trailers suggest, a modern young fashion student is in London and is transported into the “swinging ‘60’s London and ends up living, vicariously, the life of another. That’s all I’ll say. I would recommend just going in and let the story wash all over you - both through the eyes and through the ears - which is why I would recommend this film been seen in a theater (or, at the very least, on a set-up with a killer sound system).
Because of the highly stylized and “go with it” feel of this film, the performances have a tendency to move to the background, but they are very well done. Thomasin McKenzie (JOJO RABBIT) is a strong choice as the Fashion Student who has this “adventure” (to say more is to spoil), she brings the right amount of reality and “unreality” to her character. Anya Taylor-Joy (THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT) is superb as Sandie, the object of the “adventure”. She isn’t asked to do much more than be mysterious - and she does it well.
Wright, wisely, fills the rest of the film with strong supporting players - Matt Smith (DR. WHO), the great Terence Stamp (THE LIMEY) and, most importantly, Dame Diana Rigg (Emma Peel in THE AVENGERS in the 1960’s, in her final film role before her death in September 2020), all bring their “A” game to the festivities and fill their roles well.
It’s not a perfect film, the beginning drags on a bit before things start to get good (and weird) and their is a superfluous subplot involving some “Mean Girls” at the Fashion School that our heroine attends in today’s world - a subplot that never really goes anywhere. The ending, also, does go “over the top”, but by that time, I was swept up in the style of this film and forgave it it’s flaws.
I ended up having LAST NIGHT IN SOHO-type dreams, and indication that this film struck a chord with me and is going to stay with me for awhile - and is probably worth a re-watch (it certainly is one of those types of films that can be different upon a re-watch).
Well worth the effort to check it out on the Big Screen - certainly the visuals and sound will make it worthwhile.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Disaster films and Hollywood have enjoyed a long and successful partnership over the years as box office gold has been found in fictional disasters. Irwin Allen had a string of hits such as “The Towering Inferno” and “The Poseidon Adventure” which in turn lead to the films such as “Dante’s Peak”, “Volcano”, “Deep Impact”, and “Armageddon” who kept the tried and true formula of relatable, regular people forced to cope with extraordinary situations where they must battle against all odds to survive.
In the new film “2012” director Roland Emmerich follows up his other end-of-the world epics “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow”, with a story about the total devastation of the earth and all life upon it due to an increase of neutrinos from the sun heating the earth’s core causing the displacement of the Earth’s crust.
Keeping to the established formula of the disaster films, 2012 centers around a struggling writer named Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), who learns of the pending catastrophic events while camping at Yellowstone National Park with his children. The presence of forbidden areas and swarms of soldiers and scientists leads Jackson to believe that the local conspiracy radio host Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson), might be right in his predictions that we are all on borrowed time, and that the increase in earthquakes and fissures along the fault lines are a very bad omen.
Unbeknownst to Jackson, and the majority of the world’s population, U.S. President Wilson (Danny Glover), and his fellow heads of state, are preparing for the coming tragedy. Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt) and a team of geologists lead by Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetal Ojiofore) are trying to determine exactly how much time they have to save what they can of humanity. Unaware that the fate of mankind is being decided by the politicians and those with money, Jackson and his children soon find themselves rushing to stay alive, with his ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet), and her boyfriend in tow. Jackson learns of a plan to save select members of the population and pins their very survival on being able to arrive at what they hope is their salvation before time runs out.
Spectacular effects follow as Los Angeles and other cities are swallowed up by massive sinkholes and buried under collapsing bridges and buildings in some of the most amazing sequences of mayhem and destruction ever captured on film. The movie does an amazing job of showing the absolute calamity and chaos and does a passable job with the relationships between the characters. There are some nice supporting performances from Thandie Newton and George Segal. It is just a shame they were not given a bit more to work with. The cookie cutter scenarios that many characters faced seem to have been lifted from the book of disaster film plots.
I did not go into the film expecting realism, as I fully expect the world will go on as normal on December 22, 2012. However, I did have to note some of the absurd developments that strained any semblance of credibility the film may have had. One such scene had the characters being flooded and trapped for an extended period of time by water. Since their locale was near Mt Everest, I had to assume that it was not warm spring water they were submerged in, and had to wonder if hypothermia just went the way of most of the human populace.
Then again, we were dealing with a heated core that was essentially melting the earth’s crust. So maybe the water was warm.
As with all disaster movies, I do have to remember the audience is asked to suspend all disbelief, at least for 160 minutes. While the film does take some vast leaps of logic, there is enough good action, special effects, and strained levity to make this a good distraction, as long as you are willing to check your brain at the door and just enjoy the ride.
In the new film “2012” director Roland Emmerich follows up his other end-of-the world epics “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow”, with a story about the total devastation of the earth and all life upon it due to an increase of neutrinos from the sun heating the earth’s core causing the displacement of the Earth’s crust.
Keeping to the established formula of the disaster films, 2012 centers around a struggling writer named Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), who learns of the pending catastrophic events while camping at Yellowstone National Park with his children. The presence of forbidden areas and swarms of soldiers and scientists leads Jackson to believe that the local conspiracy radio host Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson), might be right in his predictions that we are all on borrowed time, and that the increase in earthquakes and fissures along the fault lines are a very bad omen.
Unbeknownst to Jackson, and the majority of the world’s population, U.S. President Wilson (Danny Glover), and his fellow heads of state, are preparing for the coming tragedy. Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt) and a team of geologists lead by Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetal Ojiofore) are trying to determine exactly how much time they have to save what they can of humanity. Unaware that the fate of mankind is being decided by the politicians and those with money, Jackson and his children soon find themselves rushing to stay alive, with his ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet), and her boyfriend in tow. Jackson learns of a plan to save select members of the population and pins their very survival on being able to arrive at what they hope is their salvation before time runs out.
Spectacular effects follow as Los Angeles and other cities are swallowed up by massive sinkholes and buried under collapsing bridges and buildings in some of the most amazing sequences of mayhem and destruction ever captured on film. The movie does an amazing job of showing the absolute calamity and chaos and does a passable job with the relationships between the characters. There are some nice supporting performances from Thandie Newton and George Segal. It is just a shame they were not given a bit more to work with. The cookie cutter scenarios that many characters faced seem to have been lifted from the book of disaster film plots.
I did not go into the film expecting realism, as I fully expect the world will go on as normal on December 22, 2012. However, I did have to note some of the absurd developments that strained any semblance of credibility the film may have had. One such scene had the characters being flooded and trapped for an extended period of time by water. Since their locale was near Mt Everest, I had to assume that it was not warm spring water they were submerged in, and had to wonder if hypothermia just went the way of most of the human populace.
Then again, we were dealing with a heated core that was essentially melting the earth’s crust. So maybe the water was warm.
As with all disaster movies, I do have to remember the audience is asked to suspend all disbelief, at least for 160 minutes. While the film does take some vast leaps of logic, there is enough good action, special effects, and strained levity to make this a good distraction, as long as you are willing to check your brain at the door and just enjoy the ride.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Thor (2011) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Action-packed and cracked me up
Thor, the God of Thunder, is about to ascend to his rightful place as King of Asgard and, in the process, will go up against the greatest opposition he has ever faced. While Thor doesn’t quite earn a spot in the upper echelon of Marvel films, it is still quite awesome and pleasing to watch. It’s the fun origin story of how Thor first came to interact with Earthlings.
Acting: 10
Although I cringe when Chris Hemsworth takes his shirt off and my wife is in the room, he plays a damn good Thor. Like Robert Downey’s Tony Stark, you can’t help but fall for Hemsworth’s charisma and how he treats the character. There is one particular moment I think he captured exceptionally well: After tearing through a number of dudes like it’s nothing, he’s staring down at his hammer which is stuck in the mud. He has this confident all-knowing smirk on his face as he prepares to lift it…and the hammer doesn’t budge. The absolute heartbreak he experiences after is definitely felt as you wanted him to succeed. There were a number of other solid performances throughout this film, but Hemsworth steals the show.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
It’s hard choosing a favorite Avenger and characters like Thor make it so. He’s got this flared ego about him that should be annoying but it’s somehow both endearing and funny. In one scene, the guy slams a coffee mug down in the middle of a diner because he demands “Another!” cup of the delicious drink. When love interest Jane Foster (Thor) tells him he could have just simply asked for more, he innocently shrugs it off like that was the only way he knew. It’s hilariously believable and one of many scenes that crack you up.
I’ve talked about Thor a lot, but the movie is packed with a number of other characters that make the film spin successfully. I loved Loki’s character arc and his internal struggles. He terribly wants the throne, but there are moments (albeit brief) where you can see him struggling with the things he is doing. Loki and Thor definitely had more depth to their characters than I expected.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 6
Memorability: 6
It hasn’t been too long since I watched the movie, but I am already starting to forget some of the things that have happened and it’s honestly blending a bit with the second (which was terrible). A film like Iron Man, in comparison, has stuck with me since the first time I watched it in theaters. Thor didn’t blow me away. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t fun, however.
Pace: 8
For the most part, the movie is good about keeping you motivated with consistent conflict. When it does slow down in spots, there are some funny parts (like the scene in the diner) that help maintain the entertainment value. Less than a handful of dead spots kept this category out of the perfect realm.
Plot: 10
I had no issues with the story or found any holes. It would be easy for a movie like this to cut corners, but it allowed itself to play out organically. I appreciated the nice touch of character development for the sake of adding depth and impact.
Resolution: 5
Definitely the weakest part of the movie overall. I hate when movies purposefully leave you hanging for a sequel a la Spider-Man. The best endings are just that: They end the story and provide closure. Missed the mark here.
Overall: 83
There is a really cool part during Thor where the hero and his crew are traveling to Jotunheim, home of the frost giants. I remember having a big grin on my face then which carried me through most of the movie. I won’t call it a classic, but I will say it’s a solid addition in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that should be recognized.
Acting: 10
Although I cringe when Chris Hemsworth takes his shirt off and my wife is in the room, he plays a damn good Thor. Like Robert Downey’s Tony Stark, you can’t help but fall for Hemsworth’s charisma and how he treats the character. There is one particular moment I think he captured exceptionally well: After tearing through a number of dudes like it’s nothing, he’s staring down at his hammer which is stuck in the mud. He has this confident all-knowing smirk on his face as he prepares to lift it…and the hammer doesn’t budge. The absolute heartbreak he experiences after is definitely felt as you wanted him to succeed. There were a number of other solid performances throughout this film, but Hemsworth steals the show.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
It’s hard choosing a favorite Avenger and characters like Thor make it so. He’s got this flared ego about him that should be annoying but it’s somehow both endearing and funny. In one scene, the guy slams a coffee mug down in the middle of a diner because he demands “Another!” cup of the delicious drink. When love interest Jane Foster (Thor) tells him he could have just simply asked for more, he innocently shrugs it off like that was the only way he knew. It’s hilariously believable and one of many scenes that crack you up.
I’ve talked about Thor a lot, but the movie is packed with a number of other characters that make the film spin successfully. I loved Loki’s character arc and his internal struggles. He terribly wants the throne, but there are moments (albeit brief) where you can see him struggling with the things he is doing. Loki and Thor definitely had more depth to their characters than I expected.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 6
Memorability: 6
It hasn’t been too long since I watched the movie, but I am already starting to forget some of the things that have happened and it’s honestly blending a bit with the second (which was terrible). A film like Iron Man, in comparison, has stuck with me since the first time I watched it in theaters. Thor didn’t blow me away. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t fun, however.
Pace: 8
For the most part, the movie is good about keeping you motivated with consistent conflict. When it does slow down in spots, there are some funny parts (like the scene in the diner) that help maintain the entertainment value. Less than a handful of dead spots kept this category out of the perfect realm.
Plot: 10
I had no issues with the story or found any holes. It would be easy for a movie like this to cut corners, but it allowed itself to play out organically. I appreciated the nice touch of character development for the sake of adding depth and impact.
Resolution: 5
Definitely the weakest part of the movie overall. I hate when movies purposefully leave you hanging for a sequel a la Spider-Man. The best endings are just that: They end the story and provide closure. Missed the mark here.
Overall: 83
There is a really cool part during Thor where the hero and his crew are traveling to Jotunheim, home of the frost giants. I remember having a big grin on my face then which carried me through most of the movie. I won’t call it a classic, but I will say it’s a solid addition in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that should be recognized.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Sanctuary in Books
Apr 27, 2018
rating: 3.8/5
My Summary: Lea is a refugee who has survived for the past few months living in the wild and traveling from house to random house, just trying to stay alive. When she is found, ill, by American soldiers and taken care of and healed, she has a choice—leave the soldiers and spend the winter by herself, homeless, with no protection in the middle of a war, or trade sex for protection and safety from Major Russell. She chooses the exchange. But Lea and Russell both are not prepared for the outcome of the bargain—Love. Lea and Russell are married, and try to build a real relationship from their original bargain. Can they make it work…
Thoughts: I really hate it when a book has what I call “happy-land syndrome—” where everything works out nicely, relationships are smooth and when they’re rough their fixed quickly and painlessly, and everyone lives happily ever after. This book does have a happily ever after of some sort, but it most certainly does not have happy-land syndrome. This book was a picture of a real marriage—the ups, the downs, the arguments, the forgiveness. There were clear differences between passion, lust, and love (which is always refreshing), and there were arguments the way real arguments happen. There was pride, there was sympathy, and there was forgiveness.
There was a lot of humor in this book! Now mind you it was not a “funny” book, but there were some very good funny pieces of dialogue.
Plot: This book didn’t have a complicated plot, or any huge unexpected occurrences. It was a “simple” story line—but it was a very addicting read. That’s not to say that everything that happened was dull or boring or expected, it just means it was definitely not a sitting-on-the-edge-of-your-seat kind of romance. It was more like a cuddle-up-with-a-cup-of-tea-and-a-blanket kind of romance. It flowed smoothly, and the pacing was very good—not to fast, not too slow. The only thing about the pacing was that the part where they realized that they’d fallen in love didn’t feel like any kind of climax. Which could have been the point, as it did sort of happen slowly.
Characters: I liked the fact that the characters in this book were like real people—they had their strengths and weaknesses, their qualities and their flaws. Lea was stubborn and rebellious, and not at all submissive to her husband, yet she was a sweet and kind girl, and was willing to make sacrifices for Russell. Russell was a very kind man to Lea, and his protective attitude was appealing, however his language and his anger were his downfalls.
Writing: The writing in this book was good. It wasn’t fantastically breathtaking (J.K. Rowling, Robert Frost, Paolini, Dostoyevsky etc.), it wasn’t mediocre (Stephenie Meyer, Becca Fitzpatrick) and it wasn’t atrocious (Meg Cabot.). I can’t really place it in any of those categories. It sort of fell between the first two. It was very readable, it wasn’t dull and empty of good words with barely acceptable sentence structure, but it wasn’t something that sounded like poetry read aloud either. Again, very readable.
Content: There was a lot of sex in this book. I mean, it’s a romance about a girl who trades her body in exchange for being kept alive by a horny soldier, and I expected it, so I’m not saying I was surprised. I think it could have still been a very good powerful romance without all the details. I skipped a few paragraphs here and there. There was also a lot of language. And yes, it is the military, after all. Soldiers swear. They did in the book, too. I guess some people aren’t bothered by stuff like that in books. It wasn’t so bad that I wanted to stop reading, but I thought some of the words (and again, details) could have been left out and the book would have been just as good.
Recommendation: Ages 16+ at least, and wait until you’re 18 if you are picky about content. I rate high for the wonderfully relatable and realistic characters, high-ish for my enjoyment, and medium for plot and writing.
Click here to read the first chapter of Sanctuary.
My Summary: Lea is a refugee who has survived for the past few months living in the wild and traveling from house to random house, just trying to stay alive. When she is found, ill, by American soldiers and taken care of and healed, she has a choice—leave the soldiers and spend the winter by herself, homeless, with no protection in the middle of a war, or trade sex for protection and safety from Major Russell. She chooses the exchange. But Lea and Russell both are not prepared for the outcome of the bargain—Love. Lea and Russell are married, and try to build a real relationship from their original bargain. Can they make it work…
Thoughts: I really hate it when a book has what I call “happy-land syndrome—” where everything works out nicely, relationships are smooth and when they’re rough their fixed quickly and painlessly, and everyone lives happily ever after. This book does have a happily ever after of some sort, but it most certainly does not have happy-land syndrome. This book was a picture of a real marriage—the ups, the downs, the arguments, the forgiveness. There were clear differences between passion, lust, and love (which is always refreshing), and there were arguments the way real arguments happen. There was pride, there was sympathy, and there was forgiveness.
There was a lot of humor in this book! Now mind you it was not a “funny” book, but there were some very good funny pieces of dialogue.
Plot: This book didn’t have a complicated plot, or any huge unexpected occurrences. It was a “simple” story line—but it was a very addicting read. That’s not to say that everything that happened was dull or boring or expected, it just means it was definitely not a sitting-on-the-edge-of-your-seat kind of romance. It was more like a cuddle-up-with-a-cup-of-tea-and-a-blanket kind of romance. It flowed smoothly, and the pacing was very good—not to fast, not too slow. The only thing about the pacing was that the part where they realized that they’d fallen in love didn’t feel like any kind of climax. Which could have been the point, as it did sort of happen slowly.
Characters: I liked the fact that the characters in this book were like real people—they had their strengths and weaknesses, their qualities and their flaws. Lea was stubborn and rebellious, and not at all submissive to her husband, yet she was a sweet and kind girl, and was willing to make sacrifices for Russell. Russell was a very kind man to Lea, and his protective attitude was appealing, however his language and his anger were his downfalls.
Writing: The writing in this book was good. It wasn’t fantastically breathtaking (J.K. Rowling, Robert Frost, Paolini, Dostoyevsky etc.), it wasn’t mediocre (Stephenie Meyer, Becca Fitzpatrick) and it wasn’t atrocious (Meg Cabot.). I can’t really place it in any of those categories. It sort of fell between the first two. It was very readable, it wasn’t dull and empty of good words with barely acceptable sentence structure, but it wasn’t something that sounded like poetry read aloud either. Again, very readable.
Content: There was a lot of sex in this book. I mean, it’s a romance about a girl who trades her body in exchange for being kept alive by a horny soldier, and I expected it, so I’m not saying I was surprised. I think it could have still been a very good powerful romance without all the details. I skipped a few paragraphs here and there. There was also a lot of language. And yes, it is the military, after all. Soldiers swear. They did in the book, too. I guess some people aren’t bothered by stuff like that in books. It wasn’t so bad that I wanted to stop reading, but I thought some of the words (and again, details) could have been left out and the book would have been just as good.
Recommendation: Ages 16+ at least, and wait until you’re 18 if you are picky about content. I rate high for the wonderfully relatable and realistic characters, high-ish for my enjoyment, and medium for plot and writing.
Click here to read the first chapter of Sanctuary.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Fighting with My Family (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A biopic that’s not just for wrestling fans
Let me make something clear before I dive into my review: I don’t like wrestling. Actually, I hate wrestling. I could barely name another wrestler aside from The Rock and John Cena, so at a glance this film really isn’t marketed towards me. But when we go a little deeper, it becomes clear that this is an incredibly accessible film with a powerful message.
Fighting With My Family tells the story of Norwich-born Saraya “Paige” Bevis. Brought up in a family of wrestlers, Bevis spent her life wrestling alongside her parents, brother and the local community, drawing in small crowds on a regular basis. The family has dreams of making WWE and becoming professional wrestlers, even going as far as sending audition tapes to the company. When Saraya and her brother Zak “Zodiac” are called for an official audition, the family’s lives change for better and for worse.
With an all-star cast including The Rock (obviously), Vince Vaughn, Nick Frost, Lena Headey and Florence Pugh, it’s an incredibly appealing film. Everyone involved takes to their roles effortlessly, bringing all the charm and quirks of the characters to life. It’s so easy to like the Knight family, as they come across as a strange yet passionate family who’d do everything in their power to support the community around them. It’s refreshing to see a depiction of working-class life that doesn’t make the audience sneer or judge. I found myself rooting for the Knights all the way, and wishing them all the best. Pugh embodies Paige so well, to the point where it was easy to believe you were watching the woman herself. She’s so awkward, British and hugely likeable throughout.
I was also surprised to learn that Stephen Merchant (yes, that Stephen Merchant) was at the helm of this film. I adored his direction style and hilarious cameo, making this an unlikely project that worked like a charm. Based off the documentary of the same name, Merchant brings his own unique vision to the project, with the legendary Dwayne Johnson helping out as an an executive producer. It feels like an unlikely duo, but it seriously works.
Fighting With My Family has classic British humour and a familiar grittiness to it, reminding me why I adore British cinema so much. There are clear tonal shifts between the UK and US, emphasising the cultural differences and how out of her depth Bevis felt at first. This is where a lot of the humour comes into play too, as a pale, pierced Norwich girl sticks out like a sore thumb amongst blonde, bronzed models. As Saraya steps into the world of WWE with the ring name “Paige”, she has to face numerous obstacles that are both mentally and physically challenging. As it happens, her identity is one of them, and she soon becomes an outcast.
Yes, this film is about one girl’s rise to the top of the WWE ranks, but it’s also so much more than that. It’s about family, class divide, jealousy, among others. I particularly enjoyed the dynamic between Saraya and Zak, as there’s a clear case of sibling rivalry here. Whilst Saraya succeeds, Zak is dealing with a whole host of personal issues whilst wallowing in his own sadness. This is jealousy on a massive scale, causing a rift between the siblings, and in turn, the rest of the family.
I loved the overall message that the film delivers: that it’s important to always be true to yourself, and do what makes you great. Whether that’s big or small, you can make an impact. This is something that Zak eventually learns whilst he’s feeling jealous of his sister’s success. The familial bond is so strong in this film, and it’s a truly beautiful thing to witness. They might be slightly bonkers, dysfunctional and off the wall, but they’d do anything to support each other. Isn’t that wonderful?
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/21/a-biopic-thats-not-just-for-wrestling-fans-my-thoughts-on-fighting-with-my-family/
Fighting With My Family tells the story of Norwich-born Saraya “Paige” Bevis. Brought up in a family of wrestlers, Bevis spent her life wrestling alongside her parents, brother and the local community, drawing in small crowds on a regular basis. The family has dreams of making WWE and becoming professional wrestlers, even going as far as sending audition tapes to the company. When Saraya and her brother Zak “Zodiac” are called for an official audition, the family’s lives change for better and for worse.
With an all-star cast including The Rock (obviously), Vince Vaughn, Nick Frost, Lena Headey and Florence Pugh, it’s an incredibly appealing film. Everyone involved takes to their roles effortlessly, bringing all the charm and quirks of the characters to life. It’s so easy to like the Knight family, as they come across as a strange yet passionate family who’d do everything in their power to support the community around them. It’s refreshing to see a depiction of working-class life that doesn’t make the audience sneer or judge. I found myself rooting for the Knights all the way, and wishing them all the best. Pugh embodies Paige so well, to the point where it was easy to believe you were watching the woman herself. She’s so awkward, British and hugely likeable throughout.
I was also surprised to learn that Stephen Merchant (yes, that Stephen Merchant) was at the helm of this film. I adored his direction style and hilarious cameo, making this an unlikely project that worked like a charm. Based off the documentary of the same name, Merchant brings his own unique vision to the project, with the legendary Dwayne Johnson helping out as an an executive producer. It feels like an unlikely duo, but it seriously works.
Fighting With My Family has classic British humour and a familiar grittiness to it, reminding me why I adore British cinema so much. There are clear tonal shifts between the UK and US, emphasising the cultural differences and how out of her depth Bevis felt at first. This is where a lot of the humour comes into play too, as a pale, pierced Norwich girl sticks out like a sore thumb amongst blonde, bronzed models. As Saraya steps into the world of WWE with the ring name “Paige”, she has to face numerous obstacles that are both mentally and physically challenging. As it happens, her identity is one of them, and she soon becomes an outcast.
Yes, this film is about one girl’s rise to the top of the WWE ranks, but it’s also so much more than that. It’s about family, class divide, jealousy, among others. I particularly enjoyed the dynamic between Saraya and Zak, as there’s a clear case of sibling rivalry here. Whilst Saraya succeeds, Zak is dealing with a whole host of personal issues whilst wallowing in his own sadness. This is jealousy on a massive scale, causing a rift between the siblings, and in turn, the rest of the family.
I loved the overall message that the film delivers: that it’s important to always be true to yourself, and do what makes you great. Whether that’s big or small, you can make an impact. This is something that Zak eventually learns whilst he’s feeling jealous of his sister’s success. The familial bond is so strong in this film, and it’s a truly beautiful thing to witness. They might be slightly bonkers, dysfunctional and off the wall, but they’d do anything to support each other. Isn’t that wonderful?
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/21/a-biopic-thats-not-just-for-wrestling-fans-my-thoughts-on-fighting-with-my-family/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Fighting with My Family (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Wrestling sure has changed since its heyday back in the 80’s. Believe it or not, back in those days there were many people who believed it was real, the wrestlers themselves would use razor blades to cut their faces to further the illusion. Big names like Andre’ the Giant, Sargent Slaughter and Hulk Hogan dominated the scenes and Hulkamania was all the rage. Wrestling these days still has characters larger than life who wage good versus evil battles against one another. Although now the focus is not only on what happens in the ring, but the characters and personas that present themselves outside the ring. Fighting with My Family, written and directed by Stephen Merchant (writer for The Office and Extras), takes us on a young woman’s rise from a family wrestling league to one of the youngest female stars to be featured in WWE.
Saraya “Paige” Bevis (Florence Pugh) alongside her brother Zak “Zodiac” Bevis (Jack Lowden) and parents (Nick Frost / Lena Headey) are a family run wrestling team. Trying to make a name for themselves they run a small gym in Norwich, England. Training up-and-coming wrestlers and putting on shows for the locals in hopes of a shot at the big time. One fateful evening, while Zak’s far more conservative girlfriend and her parents are over for dinner, a call comes from the WWE that will change both of their lives.
Saraya and Zak are offered an opportunity to compete against others for a chance to join similar hopefuls in Florida for a chance to be the next big thing. As one would expect, the competition is fierce and at the end of the day, only Saraya is chosen for a chance to go to America. The choice to take her and not her brother results in a sibling rivalry that neither would have anticipated when they were both trying out. Ultimately Saraya must choose to go forward with her dream or stay with her family, and while the choice is not easy, there wouldn’t be much of a film if she chose to stay. So, begins Saraya’s journey to show that she has not only the skills and strength, but the heart to succeed.
Fighting with My Family is a movie that has a tremendous amount of heart even if there is little interest in its source material. While it certainly does focus on wrestling as the key component, it could have easily been replaced with any other sport and had the same heart-warming success. This is not a movie only about the wild world of professional wrestling, but about one woman who must overcome her own self-doubts and insecurities to succeed. It’s a film about not only believing in yourself (even when others do not) but pushing yourself to follow your dreams no matter how difficult the road to achieving them turns out to be. The film reminds us that we should not simply take everything at face value, and that sometimes judging a book by it’s cover can prevent us from the magic that is held in the pages underneath.
The superior cast connects with the viewers on many levels. Whether its Jack Lowden’s portrayal of a man who worked hard only to fall short of his dreams, to Florence Pugh’s portrayal of Paige, a woman who constantly struggles with her choice and whether wrestling is her dream or simply the dream her parents pushed upon her. As always Vince Vaughn does an outstanding job delivering not only on the comedic aspects of the film, but also when tasked at delivering a more serious tone. This is a movie that will have you cheering for each character, and even applauding throughout.
Even though wrestling was a huge part of growing up, spanning everything from action figures to video games, I’ve never considered myself to be a wrestling fan. For those of you who are instantly looking to forego this movie because of the wrestling content, I’d ask you to reconsider. Fighting with My Family is so much more than simply a “wrestling movie”, and while it likely won’t convert you into being a die hard wrestling fan at the end, you might just be surprised at how much you take away from it when you leave the theater. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll cheer (at least that’s what all the viewers did at the screening I attended) and can you really say that about many movies these days?
Saraya “Paige” Bevis (Florence Pugh) alongside her brother Zak “Zodiac” Bevis (Jack Lowden) and parents (Nick Frost / Lena Headey) are a family run wrestling team. Trying to make a name for themselves they run a small gym in Norwich, England. Training up-and-coming wrestlers and putting on shows for the locals in hopes of a shot at the big time. One fateful evening, while Zak’s far more conservative girlfriend and her parents are over for dinner, a call comes from the WWE that will change both of their lives.
Saraya and Zak are offered an opportunity to compete against others for a chance to join similar hopefuls in Florida for a chance to be the next big thing. As one would expect, the competition is fierce and at the end of the day, only Saraya is chosen for a chance to go to America. The choice to take her and not her brother results in a sibling rivalry that neither would have anticipated when they were both trying out. Ultimately Saraya must choose to go forward with her dream or stay with her family, and while the choice is not easy, there wouldn’t be much of a film if she chose to stay. So, begins Saraya’s journey to show that she has not only the skills and strength, but the heart to succeed.
Fighting with My Family is a movie that has a tremendous amount of heart even if there is little interest in its source material. While it certainly does focus on wrestling as the key component, it could have easily been replaced with any other sport and had the same heart-warming success. This is not a movie only about the wild world of professional wrestling, but about one woman who must overcome her own self-doubts and insecurities to succeed. It’s a film about not only believing in yourself (even when others do not) but pushing yourself to follow your dreams no matter how difficult the road to achieving them turns out to be. The film reminds us that we should not simply take everything at face value, and that sometimes judging a book by it’s cover can prevent us from the magic that is held in the pages underneath.
The superior cast connects with the viewers on many levels. Whether its Jack Lowden’s portrayal of a man who worked hard only to fall short of his dreams, to Florence Pugh’s portrayal of Paige, a woman who constantly struggles with her choice and whether wrestling is her dream or simply the dream her parents pushed upon her. As always Vince Vaughn does an outstanding job delivering not only on the comedic aspects of the film, but also when tasked at delivering a more serious tone. This is a movie that will have you cheering for each character, and even applauding throughout.
Even though wrestling was a huge part of growing up, spanning everything from action figures to video games, I’ve never considered myself to be a wrestling fan. For those of you who are instantly looking to forego this movie because of the wrestling content, I’d ask you to reconsider. Fighting with My Family is so much more than simply a “wrestling movie”, and while it likely won’t convert you into being a die hard wrestling fan at the end, you might just be surprised at how much you take away from it when you leave the theater. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll cheer (at least that’s what all the viewers did at the screening I attended) and can you really say that about many movies these days?
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Call of Duty: Black Ops II - Apocalypse in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
As we inch closer and closer to the November release of Call of Duty: Ghosts, fans can get a taste of some more maps for Black Ops 2 through the latest DLC.
Apocalypse is the fourth and final set of map packs and is contains some very clever new and reworked offerings which should delight even the most jaded fans, some of whom complain that the DLC is often more of the same.
Like the previous map collections the players are limited to either Mosh pit or Hardcore Moshpit that puts teams of players in a series of online games where the objective is varied. There is the usual mix, Team Deathmatch, Hardpoint, Kill Confirmed, and Demolition modes and the mode as well as your teammates change with each map.
Accessing the new maps is easy as once you start in multiplayer mode; the option to select Apocalypse is shown on your menu. Players who have the previous map packs which are not required to play the new ones, will be able to access them in the game mode of their choice now as they would for the maps that came with the initial release of the game.
As time unfolds the map packs become part of the collection and players will simply select the online game they wish to play and if the server supports the new maps, then they will be included. However for the first few weeks of a DLC release, the option to select it is included.
The first map I played was called POD which is set in Taiwan and is focused on a failed modular community. The map is a tight area set between an ocean, mountains, and an overgrown forest which has sprawled over into the community.
As such the circular and spiral buildings are impressive though snipers will be upset that they cannot scale the buildings to setup kill zones.
The close-quarters will keep your twitch reflex on high alert and enemies can and do appear at a moments notice.
The next map is called “Takeoff” and I had a real blast playing this one, literally. It is set on a Space Shuttle launch site in the Pacific Ocean. The futuristic setting has a great mix of open areas, plenty of cover, and very detailed interiors.
I was tasked to set and diffuse bombs during my early attempts on the map and finding choke points and kill zones early allowed me to not only accomplish my tasks but to setup ambushes and traps along the most likely routes that the enemies would take.
Up next is “Frost” which is set in frozen Amsterdam and challenges players to navigate not only the frozen canals and streets of the city as well as the enemy onslaught. The central bridge of the map is always a point of contention and the ability to use the intersecting canals to get around is also a new dimension to explore.
I took a beating early in playing this map, but by my third time around I was able to rack up some kills by using the canals to get around choke points and lobbing grenades upwards to enemy groups and then emerge guns blazing in the confusion.
The map has many buildings that have a fairly generic look but the focus here is on outdoor combat in the snow rather than battling in building interiors.
The final map is entitled “DIG” and it is a reworking of Courtyard from Call of Duty: World at War: The map is set in a circular manner in an archeological site and contains plenty of open areas and scant cover. Some areas are abundant in walls, debris and other areas ideal to sneak up on an enemy but many others leave you in the open for long moments as you wait for a barrage of gunfire to take you out.
I did well on this one the first time out by locating choke points and using grenades to pin an enemy in and following up with my team as we attacked them in groups of three.
Of course no DLC would be complete without another battle with the Undead and “Origins” delivers in a big way. Set in carnage strewn World War 1 No Man’s Land of trenches, bunkers, and more, the undead are relentless.
Players must work with one another to start up some generators and survive but of course there is more to it than this. For one, the enemies are intense and seeing the zombie masses in spiked helmets and other attire from the era as well as the gigantic robot makes for a very surreal site amongst the trenches.
Origins takes players back to where the first Zombie mode began and is a prequel of a type as it explains where all of the Zombie chaos that has been a fixture of the Treyarch Call of Duty games began.
I loved getting the Zombie Blood Reward which caused the undead to see me as one of their own which was even more rewarding when I opened up amongst them in close quarters.
Even with two of the maps being reworked ones, Apocalypse feels fresher than many of the other DLC maps in that the designers have attempted to give players something new and different. There is only so much that can be down with map packs but the clever mix of locales and features as well as the best Zombie mode to date.
http://sknr.net/2013/10/16/call-of-duty-apocalypse/
Apocalypse is the fourth and final set of map packs and is contains some very clever new and reworked offerings which should delight even the most jaded fans, some of whom complain that the DLC is often more of the same.
Like the previous map collections the players are limited to either Mosh pit or Hardcore Moshpit that puts teams of players in a series of online games where the objective is varied. There is the usual mix, Team Deathmatch, Hardpoint, Kill Confirmed, and Demolition modes and the mode as well as your teammates change with each map.
Accessing the new maps is easy as once you start in multiplayer mode; the option to select Apocalypse is shown on your menu. Players who have the previous map packs which are not required to play the new ones, will be able to access them in the game mode of their choice now as they would for the maps that came with the initial release of the game.
As time unfolds the map packs become part of the collection and players will simply select the online game they wish to play and if the server supports the new maps, then they will be included. However for the first few weeks of a DLC release, the option to select it is included.
The first map I played was called POD which is set in Taiwan and is focused on a failed modular community. The map is a tight area set between an ocean, mountains, and an overgrown forest which has sprawled over into the community.
As such the circular and spiral buildings are impressive though snipers will be upset that they cannot scale the buildings to setup kill zones.
The close-quarters will keep your twitch reflex on high alert and enemies can and do appear at a moments notice.
The next map is called “Takeoff” and I had a real blast playing this one, literally. It is set on a Space Shuttle launch site in the Pacific Ocean. The futuristic setting has a great mix of open areas, plenty of cover, and very detailed interiors.
I was tasked to set and diffuse bombs during my early attempts on the map and finding choke points and kill zones early allowed me to not only accomplish my tasks but to setup ambushes and traps along the most likely routes that the enemies would take.
Up next is “Frost” which is set in frozen Amsterdam and challenges players to navigate not only the frozen canals and streets of the city as well as the enemy onslaught. The central bridge of the map is always a point of contention and the ability to use the intersecting canals to get around is also a new dimension to explore.
I took a beating early in playing this map, but by my third time around I was able to rack up some kills by using the canals to get around choke points and lobbing grenades upwards to enemy groups and then emerge guns blazing in the confusion.
The map has many buildings that have a fairly generic look but the focus here is on outdoor combat in the snow rather than battling in building interiors.
The final map is entitled “DIG” and it is a reworking of Courtyard from Call of Duty: World at War: The map is set in a circular manner in an archeological site and contains plenty of open areas and scant cover. Some areas are abundant in walls, debris and other areas ideal to sneak up on an enemy but many others leave you in the open for long moments as you wait for a barrage of gunfire to take you out.
I did well on this one the first time out by locating choke points and using grenades to pin an enemy in and following up with my team as we attacked them in groups of three.
Of course no DLC would be complete without another battle with the Undead and “Origins” delivers in a big way. Set in carnage strewn World War 1 No Man’s Land of trenches, bunkers, and more, the undead are relentless.
Players must work with one another to start up some generators and survive but of course there is more to it than this. For one, the enemies are intense and seeing the zombie masses in spiked helmets and other attire from the era as well as the gigantic robot makes for a very surreal site amongst the trenches.
Origins takes players back to where the first Zombie mode began and is a prequel of a type as it explains where all of the Zombie chaos that has been a fixture of the Treyarch Call of Duty games began.
I loved getting the Zombie Blood Reward which caused the undead to see me as one of their own which was even more rewarding when I opened up amongst them in close quarters.
Even with two of the maps being reworked ones, Apocalypse feels fresher than many of the other DLC maps in that the designers have attempted to give players something new and different. There is only so much that can be down with map packs but the clever mix of locales and features as well as the best Zombie mode to date.
http://sknr.net/2013/10/16/call-of-duty-apocalypse/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Candidate for a downfall.
We can all probably rattle off some of the classics movies with US politics as their backdrop. For me, “All the President’s Men”; “Primary Colors”; and “Frost/Nixon” might make that list. In the next tier down there are many great drama/thrillers – “Miss Sloane“; “The Post“; “The Ides of March”; “The American President”; “JFK” – and even some pretty funny comedies – “Dave” and “My Fellow Americans” for example. It’s actually quite difficult to think of many films on the subject that are outright dire, proving it remains a fertile ground for film-makers.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.