Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Good popcorn nonsense.
“Remember who we are. The Shaw family. We never, never, never give up.”
(That title is especially for my friends the Shaw family!).
Well, the patchy British summer’s just about up, and autumn’s chilly fingers are touching up the UK. And yet I still hadn’t seen the summer hit “Hobbs and Shaw”! Until last night.
It’s utter nonsense of course, like most of the “Fast and Furious” films, but I have to admit it’s done with some tongue in cheek style.
The plot
A vicious cyber-soldier, Brixton (Idris Elba) tries to steal a deadly virus but is thwarted by brave MI6 agent Hattie (Vanessa Kirby). To help recover the virus, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is recruited in London by CIA agent Loeb (Rob Delaney, the “non-super” hero Peter in “Deadpool 2“). In an interesting piece of related casting, the Eteon Director (Champ Nightengale – LoL, a cameo for someone far more famous) recruits Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) in LA as a part of the team.
Both agents know they are heading for trouble… but do they really appreciate how much the pair hate each other’s guts?
The trail leads from London to the Ukraine to (a very picturesque) Samoa in a race against time to both defeat the undefeatable Brixton and save Hattie: now a ticking time bomb of global destruction. And Hattie has relations!
Absurd stunts.
As a “Fast and Furious” film there are of course some truly absurd car stunts involved and – unlike the Mission Impossible films – you are never quite sure what is “real” and what is CGI generated. Which is a shame.
For me, the gold standard for chases remains Tom Cruise‘s chase through Paris in “Mission Impossible: Fallout“. Here, the car chase through London – whilst impressive – never quite reaches the seat clenching tension of MI6.
And a final stunt with a helicopter is – I’m sorry – just plain ridiculous. If a chopper can partially lift 5 x load then why can’t it completely lift 1 x load. Give me a break!
To round things off, there is one of the most unbelievable “100% survival of a car crashing off a cliff” scenes in movie history!
Acting
The acting is largely from the Arnie Swartzenegger school, with Johnson and Statham giving it the old shtick. Dwayne Johnson may be one of Hollywood’s most bankable stars (the boy has done REAL good for himself), but he can’t do serious acting. His “pathos” scenes with his daughter (a vibrant Eliana Sua) are excruciating.
Dropping in as class acts are Helen Mirren as the elder Shaw and the excellent Vanessa Kirby as Hattie. Kirby gets a lot more to get her teeth into than in the last Mission Impossible movie, and is really very good. Mirren is rather too posh to be the incarcerated East End con, but is a fun turn nevertheless.
Also excellent, as always, is Eddie Marsan as the key scientist. Marsan really turns in a splendid performance in every film he’s in. He’s top of “Division 2” in my books. Never the star, but always starring.
Mexican actress Eiza González (from “Baby Driver“) also crops up as an unfeasibly good-looking Russian femme fatale.
“I hate you”. “No, I hate you”. Blah, blah, blah.
Writers Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce do a good job at keeping the script light and fluffy. The animosity between Hobbs and Shaw is played to 110%, and for me the interplay frankly became a bit tiresome. But it’s a fun-enough film to entertain, although it’s bladder-testing running time of 2 hours 17 minutes is at least 30 minutes too long. There is a natural Ukraine-based finale, but it’s not taken, and the film goes on… and on… and on…. and on. Enough already.
I’ve said many times before that comedies shouldn’t last more than 90 minutes, and although an “action film” this is fundamentally a comedy and the rule should apply. It would have been a much better film if it was compacted.
Sexism diverted.
I did criticize “Fast and Furious 8” for scenes that brazenly objectified women. And there was a moment – just one, fortunately – with a gyrating bikini-clad beauty – where I thought “uh, oh” – this franchise has not moved with the times.
But actually, this was the only scene where I thought that. Cinema has moved along massively in the last two years, driven by the “Times Up” movement. Here the women are all given pretty leading “kick-ass” roles, and they generally show the muscle-bound morons up, often saving their arses.
Final Thoughts.
It’s summer popcorn nonsense, but its well done popcorn nonsense. Probably not a film high on my list of films I want to see again, but as an entertainment vehicle it was not too shabby.
(That title is especially for my friends the Shaw family!).
Well, the patchy British summer’s just about up, and autumn’s chilly fingers are touching up the UK. And yet I still hadn’t seen the summer hit “Hobbs and Shaw”! Until last night.
It’s utter nonsense of course, like most of the “Fast and Furious” films, but I have to admit it’s done with some tongue in cheek style.
The plot
A vicious cyber-soldier, Brixton (Idris Elba) tries to steal a deadly virus but is thwarted by brave MI6 agent Hattie (Vanessa Kirby). To help recover the virus, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is recruited in London by CIA agent Loeb (Rob Delaney, the “non-super” hero Peter in “Deadpool 2“). In an interesting piece of related casting, the Eteon Director (Champ Nightengale – LoL, a cameo for someone far more famous) recruits Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) in LA as a part of the team.
Both agents know they are heading for trouble… but do they really appreciate how much the pair hate each other’s guts?
The trail leads from London to the Ukraine to (a very picturesque) Samoa in a race against time to both defeat the undefeatable Brixton and save Hattie: now a ticking time bomb of global destruction. And Hattie has relations!
Absurd stunts.
As a “Fast and Furious” film there are of course some truly absurd car stunts involved and – unlike the Mission Impossible films – you are never quite sure what is “real” and what is CGI generated. Which is a shame.
For me, the gold standard for chases remains Tom Cruise‘s chase through Paris in “Mission Impossible: Fallout“. Here, the car chase through London – whilst impressive – never quite reaches the seat clenching tension of MI6.
And a final stunt with a helicopter is – I’m sorry – just plain ridiculous. If a chopper can partially lift 5 x load then why can’t it completely lift 1 x load. Give me a break!
To round things off, there is one of the most unbelievable “100% survival of a car crashing off a cliff” scenes in movie history!
Acting
The acting is largely from the Arnie Swartzenegger school, with Johnson and Statham giving it the old shtick. Dwayne Johnson may be one of Hollywood’s most bankable stars (the boy has done REAL good for himself), but he can’t do serious acting. His “pathos” scenes with his daughter (a vibrant Eliana Sua) are excruciating.
Dropping in as class acts are Helen Mirren as the elder Shaw and the excellent Vanessa Kirby as Hattie. Kirby gets a lot more to get her teeth into than in the last Mission Impossible movie, and is really very good. Mirren is rather too posh to be the incarcerated East End con, but is a fun turn nevertheless.
Also excellent, as always, is Eddie Marsan as the key scientist. Marsan really turns in a splendid performance in every film he’s in. He’s top of “Division 2” in my books. Never the star, but always starring.
Mexican actress Eiza González (from “Baby Driver“) also crops up as an unfeasibly good-looking Russian femme fatale.
“I hate you”. “No, I hate you”. Blah, blah, blah.
Writers Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce do a good job at keeping the script light and fluffy. The animosity between Hobbs and Shaw is played to 110%, and for me the interplay frankly became a bit tiresome. But it’s a fun-enough film to entertain, although it’s bladder-testing running time of 2 hours 17 minutes is at least 30 minutes too long. There is a natural Ukraine-based finale, but it’s not taken, and the film goes on… and on… and on…. and on. Enough already.
I’ve said many times before that comedies shouldn’t last more than 90 minutes, and although an “action film” this is fundamentally a comedy and the rule should apply. It would have been a much better film if it was compacted.
Sexism diverted.
I did criticize “Fast and Furious 8” for scenes that brazenly objectified women. And there was a moment – just one, fortunately – with a gyrating bikini-clad beauty – where I thought “uh, oh” – this franchise has not moved with the times.
But actually, this was the only scene where I thought that. Cinema has moved along massively in the last two years, driven by the “Times Up” movement. Here the women are all given pretty leading “kick-ass” roles, and they generally show the muscle-bound morons up, often saving their arses.
Final Thoughts.
It’s summer popcorn nonsense, but its well done popcorn nonsense. Probably not a film high on my list of films I want to see again, but as an entertainment vehicle it was not too shabby.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A stunning visual triumph.
I was a sufficient nerd to buy a “Back to the Future” T-shirt to celebrate “future day” from “Back to the Future 2” two-years ago, and I will probably be a sufficient nerd to buy a “Blade Runner” T-shirt in two-years time to celebrate the setting-date for the original film. One thing’s for sure… 2049 is never going to be long enough away to see the world of the new Blade Runner movie come to fruition: so I look forward to ironically buying that T-shirt too (assuming I make it to 88!). But I digress.
I lived in fear of this film since it was announced… having loved the original, a sequel was always going to be a risky prospect. But my fears were slightly quelled when I learned that Denis Villeneuve (“Arrival“) was at the helm. And having now seen it I am pleasantly relieved: this is a memorable film.
In 2049 the first-generation Nexus replicants of the original film are still causing problems, and Ryan Gosling is ‘K’ – a blade runner employed by LAPD lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright, “Wonder Woman“, “House of Cards”) to track them down and liquidate them. On one of these missions, K uncovers a buried secret that brings the LAPD into a desperate race for a pivotal prize, against replicant-builder Niander Wallace (Jared Leto, “Dallas Buyer’s Club“) and his henchwoman Luv (Sylvia Hoeks). The mission leads to K searching out his illustrious predecessor Deckard (Harrison Ford), who is not keen to be found.
Firstly (and most impressively) this is a spectacle to watch…. “I’ve seen things…”! The visuals are just gorgeous, from the junk-yards of Greater Los Angeles to the radioactive ruins of Las Vegas, vividly glowing amber to glorious effect. Hardly a surprise with Roger Deakins (“Hail Caesar“, “Sicario“) behind the camera, but Adam Heinis (“Rogue One“) and the rest of his special effects team deserve kudos for the effects never feeling overly “CGI-like”.
The music (by Benjamin Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer, via a replaced Johann Johannsson) pays suitable tribute to the spirit of the original Vangelis soundtrack. (It’s curious though that “Tears in the Rain” from the soundtrack is a reworking of the Vangelis original, but Vangelis doesn’t seem to be credited anywhere! Vangelis and Ridley Scott clearly had a SERIOUS falling out!).
On the acting front, Ryan Gosling is his dynamic self as usual! (But here, somewhat justified). Harrison Ford is given very little screen time, but what he does do he does exceptionally well – his best performance in years. It’s some of the supporting parts though that really appeal: Dave Bautista (“Spectre“) is just superb in the opening scenes of the film, and I particularly enjoyed Ana de Armas’s portrayal of K’s holographic girlfriend Joi. I’ve seen comment in other reviews that described this relationship as “laughable” and a downward step for “woman’s rights” compared to Villeneuve’s previous strong female characters (of Louise from “Arrival” and Kate from “Sicario“). But I disagree! I found the relationship truly touching, with Joi’s procurement of a prostitute (Mackenzie Davis) to act as a surrogate body being both loving and giving. And as regards ‘woman’s rights’, come on! Get serious! This is a holographic commercial male companion…. the “Alexa” of the future…. I’m quite sure the male version looks like Ryan Reynolds! Sex still sells, even in 2049!!
My favourite character though was a cameo by Barkhad Abdi (“Captain Phillips“) luxoriating under the name of Doctor Badger!
I was less comfortable with Jared Leto’s dialogue which – for me at least – was barely audible. In general this film is both a challenge for those aurally challenged (with some fuzzy dialogue/effects/music mixes) and those visually challenged (with 8 point font for the on-screen text that was almost impossible to see on the cinema screen, so good luck with the DVD!).
I really wanted to give this film 5-Fads. But I can’t quite get there. The story – while interesting and having emotional depth – is lightweight for a film of this length (a butt-numbing 163 minutes!) and it moves at such a glacial pace that I’m ashamed to say that my mind wandered at times. (Specifically to how many different ways I could imagine harm being done to the American guy in front of me, who was constantly turning on his Apple watch and at one point (to whisperings of very British outrage!) his full-brightness iPhone!) The screenplay was by Hampton Fancher (one of the original Blade Runner writers) and Michael Green (“Logan“, “Alien: Covenant“) but even with this track record, it’s the film’s Achilles heel.
It’s a relief that Blade Runner revisited is not a complete disaster: quite the opposite in fact. It doesn’t quite match C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate (what could)… but its a damned good attempt.
I lived in fear of this film since it was announced… having loved the original, a sequel was always going to be a risky prospect. But my fears were slightly quelled when I learned that Denis Villeneuve (“Arrival“) was at the helm. And having now seen it I am pleasantly relieved: this is a memorable film.
In 2049 the first-generation Nexus replicants of the original film are still causing problems, and Ryan Gosling is ‘K’ – a blade runner employed by LAPD lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright, “Wonder Woman“, “House of Cards”) to track them down and liquidate them. On one of these missions, K uncovers a buried secret that brings the LAPD into a desperate race for a pivotal prize, against replicant-builder Niander Wallace (Jared Leto, “Dallas Buyer’s Club“) and his henchwoman Luv (Sylvia Hoeks). The mission leads to K searching out his illustrious predecessor Deckard (Harrison Ford), who is not keen to be found.
Firstly (and most impressively) this is a spectacle to watch…. “I’ve seen things…”! The visuals are just gorgeous, from the junk-yards of Greater Los Angeles to the radioactive ruins of Las Vegas, vividly glowing amber to glorious effect. Hardly a surprise with Roger Deakins (“Hail Caesar“, “Sicario“) behind the camera, but Adam Heinis (“Rogue One“) and the rest of his special effects team deserve kudos for the effects never feeling overly “CGI-like”.
The music (by Benjamin Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer, via a replaced Johann Johannsson) pays suitable tribute to the spirit of the original Vangelis soundtrack. (It’s curious though that “Tears in the Rain” from the soundtrack is a reworking of the Vangelis original, but Vangelis doesn’t seem to be credited anywhere! Vangelis and Ridley Scott clearly had a SERIOUS falling out!).
On the acting front, Ryan Gosling is his dynamic self as usual! (But here, somewhat justified). Harrison Ford is given very little screen time, but what he does do he does exceptionally well – his best performance in years. It’s some of the supporting parts though that really appeal: Dave Bautista (“Spectre“) is just superb in the opening scenes of the film, and I particularly enjoyed Ana de Armas’s portrayal of K’s holographic girlfriend Joi. I’ve seen comment in other reviews that described this relationship as “laughable” and a downward step for “woman’s rights” compared to Villeneuve’s previous strong female characters (of Louise from “Arrival” and Kate from “Sicario“). But I disagree! I found the relationship truly touching, with Joi’s procurement of a prostitute (Mackenzie Davis) to act as a surrogate body being both loving and giving. And as regards ‘woman’s rights’, come on! Get serious! This is a holographic commercial male companion…. the “Alexa” of the future…. I’m quite sure the male version looks like Ryan Reynolds! Sex still sells, even in 2049!!
My favourite character though was a cameo by Barkhad Abdi (“Captain Phillips“) luxoriating under the name of Doctor Badger!
I was less comfortable with Jared Leto’s dialogue which – for me at least – was barely audible. In general this film is both a challenge for those aurally challenged (with some fuzzy dialogue/effects/music mixes) and those visually challenged (with 8 point font for the on-screen text that was almost impossible to see on the cinema screen, so good luck with the DVD!).
I really wanted to give this film 5-Fads. But I can’t quite get there. The story – while interesting and having emotional depth – is lightweight for a film of this length (a butt-numbing 163 minutes!) and it moves at such a glacial pace that I’m ashamed to say that my mind wandered at times. (Specifically to how many different ways I could imagine harm being done to the American guy in front of me, who was constantly turning on his Apple watch and at one point (to whisperings of very British outrage!) his full-brightness iPhone!) The screenplay was by Hampton Fancher (one of the original Blade Runner writers) and Michael Green (“Logan“, “Alien: Covenant“) but even with this track record, it’s the film’s Achilles heel.
It’s a relief that Blade Runner revisited is not a complete disaster: quite the opposite in fact. It doesn’t quite match C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate (what could)… but its a damned good attempt.
Beckie Shelton (40 KP) rated The Roanoke Girls in Books
Oct 6, 2017
This review may be a bit spoilery concerning the theme of this novel, this couldn't be helped but I've tried to be as vague as possible.
"Roanoke girls never last long around here. In the end, we either run or we die."
These were the words that originally captivated me, pulling me in and compelling me to pick up The Roanoke Girls by Amy Engel.
This was quite a read, an unusual one, reminiscent of bygone authors, setting a stage of intrigue, mystery and dysfunctional family dynamics.
The secrets surrounding Roanoke are subtlely revealed early on leaving the reader highly aware of what flows beneath the seemingly normal surface.
This is a definite page-turner despite the exploration of (view spoiler)
This tale is told in two parts "Now and Then" and the storyline seamlessly hops between these two timelines.
We also get to jump briefly into the heads of each Roanoke girl that came before, which I found very enlightening, I really loved this touch and it greatly added to the storyline giving the reader an insight into what each girl was feeling deep inside her own skin.
Jane, Sophia, Penelope, Eleanor, Camilla, Allegra, Lane there is also little Emmaline but she died of a crib death as a baby.
All Roanoke girls, all carrying the same secrets down through the years, messed up heads and lives affected tragically.
The echoes of this rebounding out through each new generation.
This story is told through Lane Roanoke's point of view after her mother commits suicide and Lane comes to live with her Rich grandparents and cousin Allegra on the family estate.
This is the "THEN" portrayed in the narrative.
The "NOW" is Eleven years later when Lane returns to the family home after a frantic call from her granddad informing her that her cousin Allegra is missing.
After vowing never to return, Lane reluctantly returns home confronting secrets shes buried deep down inside.
I loved Lane as a character, she was a bit of a messed up headcase, but who can blame her.
It's obvious Lane Loved Allegra so deeply and this was the only thing, I think, her disappearing, that could have dragged her back to the bowels of Roanoke.
It was also very thought-provoking to observe Lane's former teenage toxic relationship with cooper rekindled as adults and I really did like him he had his own past baggage but really seemed to have evolved from this, unlike Lane.
I was so rooting for these two and I thought they made a great match, neither party having had it easy in life, they both deserved a bit of stability in the now.
Now Lanes connection with her grandad this was a strange one, confusing even I think to lane herself she really seemed to feel equal measures hate and love towards him.
Struggling with her mixed up emotions, greatly wanting to loathe him but feeling a strange pull, maybe because Lane feels he was the first person to actually seem to want and love her after enduring a lifetime of apathy from her mother.
As for the gran, well, What a cold selfish bitch she was.
I felt she herself held a huge role in what had been allowed to transpire, isn't it a mothers job to protect her daughters.
In this Lillian Roanoke has failed epically actually blaming her daughters instead of shielding them, she was such a cold fish only seeming to feel any affection towards her twisted husband.
Turning a blind eye and looking the other way is her game.
Surprisingly she was my least favourite character even over Myles Roanoke himself.
I think it was the whole lack of maternal anything that contributed to my dislike of her immensely.
The Roanoke Girls has so many diverse flawed individuals that all do their part in making this an enthralling page-turner.
This is a portrayal of a family that is so not right and has not been for a very long time.
It is Love expressed so wrongly and out of context that it has become a sickness consuming from the inside out devouring till nothing remains standing.
A Dysfunctional family with dark concealed secrets at his core.
So I felt the author Amy Engel did an amazing job of dealing with such an explosive subject matter. she has handled it beautifully with finesse and a great understanding of such a delicate topic. Not everyone could have done this so sensitively and without sensationalising it so Really well done.
So that's it from me folk's, I could waffle on all day about this fascinating story, but I'm going to leave it here, but before I go a trigger warning The Roanoke Girls deals with themes of incest, but bar the one small kiss it is only referred to in words not actions and it is really not graphic in its content at all, but if this is a trigger for you please do avoid.
So all that's left is for me to say Thank you to NetGalley, the publisher and the author Amy Engel herself for providing me with an arc of The Roanoke Girls this is my own honest unbiased opinion.
Arc Reviewed By BeckieBookworm
https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
https://www.facebook.com/beckiebookworm/
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/9460945-bex-beckie-bookworm
"Roanoke girls never last long around here. In the end, we either run or we die."
These were the words that originally captivated me, pulling me in and compelling me to pick up The Roanoke Girls by Amy Engel.
This was quite a read, an unusual one, reminiscent of bygone authors, setting a stage of intrigue, mystery and dysfunctional family dynamics.
The secrets surrounding Roanoke are subtlely revealed early on leaving the reader highly aware of what flows beneath the seemingly normal surface.
This is a definite page-turner despite the exploration of (view spoiler)
This tale is told in two parts "Now and Then" and the storyline seamlessly hops between these two timelines.
We also get to jump briefly into the heads of each Roanoke girl that came before, which I found very enlightening, I really loved this touch and it greatly added to the storyline giving the reader an insight into what each girl was feeling deep inside her own skin.
Jane, Sophia, Penelope, Eleanor, Camilla, Allegra, Lane there is also little Emmaline but she died of a crib death as a baby.
All Roanoke girls, all carrying the same secrets down through the years, messed up heads and lives affected tragically.
The echoes of this rebounding out through each new generation.
This story is told through Lane Roanoke's point of view after her mother commits suicide and Lane comes to live with her Rich grandparents and cousin Allegra on the family estate.
This is the "THEN" portrayed in the narrative.
The "NOW" is Eleven years later when Lane returns to the family home after a frantic call from her granddad informing her that her cousin Allegra is missing.
After vowing never to return, Lane reluctantly returns home confronting secrets shes buried deep down inside.
I loved Lane as a character, she was a bit of a messed up headcase, but who can blame her.
It's obvious Lane Loved Allegra so deeply and this was the only thing, I think, her disappearing, that could have dragged her back to the bowels of Roanoke.
It was also very thought-provoking to observe Lane's former teenage toxic relationship with cooper rekindled as adults and I really did like him he had his own past baggage but really seemed to have evolved from this, unlike Lane.
I was so rooting for these two and I thought they made a great match, neither party having had it easy in life, they both deserved a bit of stability in the now.
Now Lanes connection with her grandad this was a strange one, confusing even I think to lane herself she really seemed to feel equal measures hate and love towards him.
Struggling with her mixed up emotions, greatly wanting to loathe him but feeling a strange pull, maybe because Lane feels he was the first person to actually seem to want and love her after enduring a lifetime of apathy from her mother.
As for the gran, well, What a cold selfish bitch she was.
I felt she herself held a huge role in what had been allowed to transpire, isn't it a mothers job to protect her daughters.
In this Lillian Roanoke has failed epically actually blaming her daughters instead of shielding them, she was such a cold fish only seeming to feel any affection towards her twisted husband.
Turning a blind eye and looking the other way is her game.
Surprisingly she was my least favourite character even over Myles Roanoke himself.
I think it was the whole lack of maternal anything that contributed to my dislike of her immensely.
The Roanoke Girls has so many diverse flawed individuals that all do their part in making this an enthralling page-turner.
This is a portrayal of a family that is so not right and has not been for a very long time.
It is Love expressed so wrongly and out of context that it has become a sickness consuming from the inside out devouring till nothing remains standing.
A Dysfunctional family with dark concealed secrets at his core.
So I felt the author Amy Engel did an amazing job of dealing with such an explosive subject matter. she has handled it beautifully with finesse and a great understanding of such a delicate topic. Not everyone could have done this so sensitively and without sensationalising it so Really well done.
So that's it from me folk's, I could waffle on all day about this fascinating story, but I'm going to leave it here, but before I go a trigger warning The Roanoke Girls deals with themes of incest, but bar the one small kiss it is only referred to in words not actions and it is really not graphic in its content at all, but if this is a trigger for you please do avoid.
So all that's left is for me to say Thank you to NetGalley, the publisher and the author Amy Engel herself for providing me with an arc of The Roanoke Girls this is my own honest unbiased opinion.
Arc Reviewed By BeckieBookworm
https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
https://www.facebook.com/beckiebookworm/
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/9460945-bex-beckie-bookworm
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Fallout 4 in Video Games
Jul 20, 2017
More Fallout (1 more)
Crafting system
It's Good To Be Back
To be honest, I thought I would have a lot more to talk about in my review. I was prepared to write a War and Peace style essay on how great Fallout 4 was and yet I find myself struggling to live up to that notion. Not because the game isn’t good, Fallout 4 is exactly what we have been waiting all these years for, but that’s just it. This game is exactly what we were hoping for and nothing more, which is more than fine with me. Playing this game for the first time feels like slipping on an old pair of comfortable slippers, the controls all come back to you immediately, the charm of a Fallout game is immediately present and it feels like you are right back at home. The world is vast, beautiful in parts and grotesque in others and I’m not just talking about the intentional aesthetic ugliness of the game’s world. Streched textures, dated character models, stiff animation loops, clipping, short draw distance and technical glitches are just some of the problems that come with Bethesda using the dated Creation Engine to create their first ‘next gen’ open world game. The best thing graphically in this game is the lighting effects and the more vibrant colour pallet. When the rays of sunshine hit the trees of Sanctuary Hills at the right moment this game can actually look quite beautiful, but that is immediately lost when you turn around and see the eerie face of Mama Murphy. So the presentation could be better, but I feel that’s to be expected from a Bethesda game and that is the problem. This shouldn’t be ‘expected’ from any game in 2015, if CD Projekt Red and Kojima Productions can produce large scale open world games that actually look like they were made this year and not a decade ago, then there is no real reason that Bethesda can’t. However even with all of these flaws and complaints that we really shouldn’t have to continually endure, Fallout 4 is still my GOTY. I mean all Fallout 4 had to do to be my GOTY was to be more of Fallout 3 and that is exactly what it is. The shooting is still clunky but I am a big fan of the VATS system and I’m really glad that they decided to keep the feature and it feels good to get back to being the loot addict that I am. Now, even the junk has a significant use! The crafting system in this game is such an awesome addition, I mean it obviously has its flaws as it isn’t the smoothest crafting system I have ever used, but in a game like fallout it just makes so much sense. I’m not really into the weapon, armour, chemistry or cooking crafting stations, but the ability to build your own settlements is awesome. It genuinely has stopped me from progressing the main quest. No spoilers, but I am at the part where you have to choose a faction to side with in the run up to the end of the game, but I couldn’t care less about any of that, I’m quite happy to just keep building up my settlements. That’s not to say that the quests and characters in this game aren’t interesting, because they are. The companions are all quite interesting, even if there is a strange lack of female options for a companion. The worst companion though, by far, is Dogmeat. He is the worst programmed and therefore the most broken. Constantly blocking corridors and doorways, not fetching items for you when they are within reaching distance and just being a general annoyance, he goes from being cute to irritant in a couple of short hours. The voice acting is also something that varies like crazy. Both the male and female protagonists are voiced excellently, (even if it is a Caucasian man and woman doing the voices, which means if your character is any other ethnicity, they will still sound white,) but the other voices of NPC’s etc are wooden and downright awful in places. The areas in this game are cool, they add to the tone and the immersion, as do the sound effects and score, but there is a level of polish that is absent here and there is no reason for it, it just lets the game down and prevents reviewers from giving that perfect 10 score. People on the internet have gave the dialogue system a lot of hate and while I can see where that is coming from, I personally think it functions fine.
Fallout 4 isn’t going to break any major grounds, it isn’t going to change the gaming landscape on any grand scale and it does feel like an old game and I’m okay with all of that. This is my GOTY because it’s more Fallout and that was all that I needed it to be. Sure it would have been nicer if the game looked a bit prettier and some of the systems were a bit smoother, but to be back in the wasteland, taking part in random battles that break out beside you as you wander through this dead world and looting until you can’t walk properly, it brings the feelings out in me that I haven’t felt since Fallout 3.
Fallout 4 isn’t going to break any major grounds, it isn’t going to change the gaming landscape on any grand scale and it does feel like an old game and I’m okay with all of that. This is my GOTY because it’s more Fallout and that was all that I needed it to be. Sure it would have been nicer if the game looked a bit prettier and some of the systems were a bit smoother, but to be back in the wasteland, taking part in random battles that break out beside you as you wander through this dead world and looting until you can’t walk properly, it brings the feelings out in me that I haven’t felt since Fallout 3.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Mass Effect: Andromeda in Video Games
Jul 25, 2017
An Example Of Why There Is No Longer A Place For Mediocrity In The Video Game Industry
For those of you that are Mass Effect fans and are worried after reading the title of the essay that I am going to spend the rest of the essay bashing the game, you can rest easy put your pitchfork down. The only reason that Mass Effect is on the receiving end of my criticism today, is because it is simply the most recent example of a major game being released that doesn’t meet the high standard that we have come to expect from videogames in 2017. Don’t get me wrong though, I think that we should expect a high level of production standard in our games and frankly I think the fact that Bioware have released this game in this abysmal state is nothing less than unacceptable.
If you have been generous enough to read any of my other stuff, you may have seen a piece I wrote around a year ago, where I loosely reviewed the Amazing Spiderman 2 on PS4, but really I just used the review as an excuse to talk about the place for mediocrity in the modern gaming landscape. This essay will essentially be an updated version of that piece, because every now and again something comes along and reminds me that mediocrity is still a present factor in modern gaming. I am aware that not every game released can be a 10/10 masterpiece at the level of The Last Of Us, but gaming has came such a long way in the last few decades that in my eyes there is a standard that must be met at this point and there is no room for mediocrity anymore.
As a quick disclaimer, let me say that I love and miss the mid tier section of the video game market. I love so many Codemasters, Midway and THQ games and the mid tier is the main reason that the PS2 is my favourite console. With that out of the way; in theory, mediocrity in gaming should have went away altogether when the mid tier crumbled in the dying days of the PS2. What we should have been left with is incredible AAA experiences and smaller, innovative indie experiences.
Excuses can be made for some examples of recent mediocre games. Liquid Entertainment and Beenox games are mostly movie tie ins, developed quickly and released to make a fast buck off of the back of another property. Hello Games were a small studio that bit off more than they could chew. Sega is a big studio, but they have been slowly going downhill and losing respect at a steady rate for a while now. Bioware aren’t a mid tier developer, they are one of the biggest game developers on the planet. Mass Effect Andromeda had a budget of 40 million dollars and a five year development cycle, that is where most of the shock regarding the state of this game comes from.
Nonetheless, Andromeda will still go on to sell millions of copies, EA will make their money back and more games will be developed in the series. This is because the majority of fans of the previous Mass Effect games will have already pre ordered the newest entry and hype alone with carry this game through any turmoil it faces. Frankly I don’t specifically care about the future of Mass Effect as I have never really been a fan of that series, but if you are a Mass Effect fan this should concern you greatly. If you are unhappy with the state that this game has been released in, don’t buy it and if you really can’t resist playing it at some point, wait a while and buy it used from a Mom and Grop Shop. That way you aren’t giving EA your money and you aren’t allowing them to continue to rely on reaching their profit goals via a lackluster game. That is how you change the future of your favourite franchise; never underestimate the power that you possess as a consumer.
Like I said though, Mass Effect has never been my thing, my concern lies more on the overall gaming market and the worry that this will bleed out and affect the mindset of other developers. Using a big franchise name alone to sell your game and forfeiting any attempt at creating a well made experience for your audience.
This is an issue that we have to stamp out now, it may sound petty or harsh, but this is how we make gaming better for all of us. There is no longer a place in the industry for mediocrity and it is up to us, the consumers to prove that to developers.
The message that I keep reiterating is backed up again by this topic, stop being an apologist, stop settling for less, don’t be afraid to demand a higher standard. Spreading negativity isn’t necessarily a bad thing if it has a legitimate basis. This is how we push mediocrity out of gaming. Playstation’s best slogan is still, ‘Expect Greatness,’ because we should expect greatness from developers; don’t be afraid to call a spade a spade. The most powerful voice of all lives in your back pocket; your hard earned cash and that is what gives you the right to call for better experiences.
If you have been generous enough to read any of my other stuff, you may have seen a piece I wrote around a year ago, where I loosely reviewed the Amazing Spiderman 2 on PS4, but really I just used the review as an excuse to talk about the place for mediocrity in the modern gaming landscape. This essay will essentially be an updated version of that piece, because every now and again something comes along and reminds me that mediocrity is still a present factor in modern gaming. I am aware that not every game released can be a 10/10 masterpiece at the level of The Last Of Us, but gaming has came such a long way in the last few decades that in my eyes there is a standard that must be met at this point and there is no room for mediocrity anymore.
As a quick disclaimer, let me say that I love and miss the mid tier section of the video game market. I love so many Codemasters, Midway and THQ games and the mid tier is the main reason that the PS2 is my favourite console. With that out of the way; in theory, mediocrity in gaming should have went away altogether when the mid tier crumbled in the dying days of the PS2. What we should have been left with is incredible AAA experiences and smaller, innovative indie experiences.
Excuses can be made for some examples of recent mediocre games. Liquid Entertainment and Beenox games are mostly movie tie ins, developed quickly and released to make a fast buck off of the back of another property. Hello Games were a small studio that bit off more than they could chew. Sega is a big studio, but they have been slowly going downhill and losing respect at a steady rate for a while now. Bioware aren’t a mid tier developer, they are one of the biggest game developers on the planet. Mass Effect Andromeda had a budget of 40 million dollars and a five year development cycle, that is where most of the shock regarding the state of this game comes from.
Nonetheless, Andromeda will still go on to sell millions of copies, EA will make their money back and more games will be developed in the series. This is because the majority of fans of the previous Mass Effect games will have already pre ordered the newest entry and hype alone with carry this game through any turmoil it faces. Frankly I don’t specifically care about the future of Mass Effect as I have never really been a fan of that series, but if you are a Mass Effect fan this should concern you greatly. If you are unhappy with the state that this game has been released in, don’t buy it and if you really can’t resist playing it at some point, wait a while and buy it used from a Mom and Grop Shop. That way you aren’t giving EA your money and you aren’t allowing them to continue to rely on reaching their profit goals via a lackluster game. That is how you change the future of your favourite franchise; never underestimate the power that you possess as a consumer.
Like I said though, Mass Effect has never been my thing, my concern lies more on the overall gaming market and the worry that this will bleed out and affect the mindset of other developers. Using a big franchise name alone to sell your game and forfeiting any attempt at creating a well made experience for your audience.
This is an issue that we have to stamp out now, it may sound petty or harsh, but this is how we make gaming better for all of us. There is no longer a place in the industry for mediocrity and it is up to us, the consumers to prove that to developers.
The message that I keep reiterating is backed up again by this topic, stop being an apologist, stop settling for less, don’t be afraid to demand a higher standard. Spreading negativity isn’t necessarily a bad thing if it has a legitimate basis. This is how we push mediocrity out of gaming. Playstation’s best slogan is still, ‘Expect Greatness,’ because we should expect greatness from developers; don’t be afraid to call a spade a spade. The most powerful voice of all lives in your back pocket; your hard earned cash and that is what gives you the right to call for better experiences.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Big Little Lies - Season 1 in TV
Feb 8, 2019 (Updated Feb 8, 2019)
Rich White People Problems: The Show
As more news of Season 2 of this show seeps out, I decided to eventually get around to catching the first season of this highly praised and seemingly universally lauded show. I went in expecting greatness from this thing after reading all of the glowing critic's reviews. I am also a huge fan of many of the cast members involved in this project, so knowing nothing about the plot or subject matter the show is based on, I went in blind; excited to see what this series had in store.
The series opens with some ominous editing and vague hints that a major crime has been committed, which we eventually realise to be a murder. Then we are taken backwards tin time and are introduced to Reese Witherspoon's character Madeline, whom initially comes off as entitled and annoying, but you assume that this is going to have a purpose in her character's arc and she will grow on you. You are wrong to assume that as she is extremely irritating throughout the entire duration of the series, constantly interrupting other characters lines and sticking her oar in during group situations, just for the sake of clinging on to the spotlight and keeping herself at the centre of attention.
Thankfully, Nicole Kidman's character Celeste is less annoying and instead just a bit strange. We see pretty early on that she is a victim of domestic abuse at the hands of her much younger husband played by Alexander Skarsgard. At first this is pretty harrowing and sad to see, but for some reason, - and I don't want to kink shame anyone, - but it seems like she kind of likes it. The third main character we are introduced to is Jane, played by Shailene Woodley who immediately seems like damaged goods.
The "conflict," is then set up. After the first day at school we see a highly unrealistic scene play out as the most insensitive teacher in the world with zero foresight gathers all of the children in her class along with their parents outside the school gates. A girl has marks on her neck from being choked by one of the other kids. The teacher then asks the girl to point out the kid that did this to her (in front of the entire class and their parents!) and she points to Jane's son Ziggy. The boy denies any wrongdoing, but the girl who has been hurt's mother, (played by Laura Dern, whom I normally really like,) is a horrible, bitter bitch who responds to the situation by berating the accused boy in front of everyone, degrading his mother in the process for defending her child and not "making," him apologise.
*Insert Peter Griffin "Oh my God, who the hell cares?" meme here.*
Yeah, this is the kind of schoolyard bullshit that this show expects us to treat as a life or death issue. The whole thing is full of non-issues and petty whines centred around 'he said/she said,' nonsense. Then we are supposed to relate to these immature, venomous parents who don't do anything to help the situation whatsoever. Meanwhile the show treats domestic abuse, - something that is a very real and threatening issue, - as just a weird kink in this oddball couple's relationship.
It is clear that all of these parents clearly care far more about self-image than they do about their own children, which makes all of them extremely gross and off putting as characters. They constantly make up excuses as if to try and justify themselves and claim that the bitchy, conniving choices that they make towards each other is for the sake of their kids, when it is clearly just to one up each other in pathetic, petty social warfare and childish beefs.
Website theodysseyonline.com has an article called, '13 Reasons Why Big Little Lies Is So Powerful.' I truly fail to see what is apparently so powerful and ground-breaking about this series. I'm not even sure what it is trying to say; that domestic abuse and rape are bad things done by evil people? Wow, what a brave and unique stance to take! I also resent the idea that everyone that says anything remotely negative about this show is a women-hating misogynist. I consider myself a left-leaning liberal and a feminist, I am a strong supporter of equal rights amongst all genders and races and I do regular work for a women's mental health charity, but I can still spot an overrated, hollow waste of 7 hours when I see one.
Overall, even though this season only last 7 episodes, it is not worth your time. After watching the first 2 episodes I thought about giving up on it, but then I thought about all of the glowing reviews and thought, 'no, surely this must get better.' Let me save you seven hours of your time; it doesn't. This is a melodramatic glorified soap opera that doesn't handle any of the issues that it tries to tackle well and it is filled, - to the point it is bursting at the seams, - with small scope issues and minor annoyances treated as life threatening scenarios, all the while brushing off the genuinely scary and potentially life threatening scenario of domestic abuse.
The series opens with some ominous editing and vague hints that a major crime has been committed, which we eventually realise to be a murder. Then we are taken backwards tin time and are introduced to Reese Witherspoon's character Madeline, whom initially comes off as entitled and annoying, but you assume that this is going to have a purpose in her character's arc and she will grow on you. You are wrong to assume that as she is extremely irritating throughout the entire duration of the series, constantly interrupting other characters lines and sticking her oar in during group situations, just for the sake of clinging on to the spotlight and keeping herself at the centre of attention.
Thankfully, Nicole Kidman's character Celeste is less annoying and instead just a bit strange. We see pretty early on that she is a victim of domestic abuse at the hands of her much younger husband played by Alexander Skarsgard. At first this is pretty harrowing and sad to see, but for some reason, - and I don't want to kink shame anyone, - but it seems like she kind of likes it. The third main character we are introduced to is Jane, played by Shailene Woodley who immediately seems like damaged goods.
The "conflict," is then set up. After the first day at school we see a highly unrealistic scene play out as the most insensitive teacher in the world with zero foresight gathers all of the children in her class along with their parents outside the school gates. A girl has marks on her neck from being choked by one of the other kids. The teacher then asks the girl to point out the kid that did this to her (in front of the entire class and their parents!) and she points to Jane's son Ziggy. The boy denies any wrongdoing, but the girl who has been hurt's mother, (played by Laura Dern, whom I normally really like,) is a horrible, bitter bitch who responds to the situation by berating the accused boy in front of everyone, degrading his mother in the process for defending her child and not "making," him apologise.
*Insert Peter Griffin "Oh my God, who the hell cares?" meme here.*
Yeah, this is the kind of schoolyard bullshit that this show expects us to treat as a life or death issue. The whole thing is full of non-issues and petty whines centred around 'he said/she said,' nonsense. Then we are supposed to relate to these immature, venomous parents who don't do anything to help the situation whatsoever. Meanwhile the show treats domestic abuse, - something that is a very real and threatening issue, - as just a weird kink in this oddball couple's relationship.
It is clear that all of these parents clearly care far more about self-image than they do about their own children, which makes all of them extremely gross and off putting as characters. They constantly make up excuses as if to try and justify themselves and claim that the bitchy, conniving choices that they make towards each other is for the sake of their kids, when it is clearly just to one up each other in pathetic, petty social warfare and childish beefs.
Website theodysseyonline.com has an article called, '13 Reasons Why Big Little Lies Is So Powerful.' I truly fail to see what is apparently so powerful and ground-breaking about this series. I'm not even sure what it is trying to say; that domestic abuse and rape are bad things done by evil people? Wow, what a brave and unique stance to take! I also resent the idea that everyone that says anything remotely negative about this show is a women-hating misogynist. I consider myself a left-leaning liberal and a feminist, I am a strong supporter of equal rights amongst all genders and races and I do regular work for a women's mental health charity, but I can still spot an overrated, hollow waste of 7 hours when I see one.
Overall, even though this season only last 7 episodes, it is not worth your time. After watching the first 2 episodes I thought about giving up on it, but then I thought about all of the glowing reviews and thought, 'no, surely this must get better.' Let me save you seven hours of your time; it doesn't. This is a melodramatic glorified soap opera that doesn't handle any of the issues that it tries to tackle well and it is filled, - to the point it is bursting at the seams, - with small scope issues and minor annoyances treated as life threatening scenarios, all the while brushing off the genuinely scary and potentially life threatening scenario of domestic abuse.
Justin Patchett (42 KP) rated The Trump Prophecy (2018) in Movies
Mar 9, 2019 (Updated Mar 24, 2019)
My prophetic vision of how bad it could get
Contains spoilers, click to show
Part of my bill-paying job is managing our store’s DVD section. This past Tuesday, I opened our new release boxes to find a number of copies of a movie called "The Trump Prophecy." I got physically ill. Not ill enough to go home, but I could feel my stomach turn. It wasn’t because I was holding in my hands a movie about Donald Trump, though, because I can make it through many a title about the Bedswerver-in-Chief. There’s something worse: Associating support of him with Christian faith.
Now, ordinarily, I do movie reviews. That’s where I have to watch a movie, first, before writing about it. This time, though, I feel obligated to attempt my own sort of prophecy and write a review of a movie before I see it. I'll take a bit of research on the subject of the film, but until the final paragraph, I'm not actually going to watch this film. Here goes nothing.
"The Trump Prophecy" follows a self-proclaimed prophet, Mark Taylor, as he and a pseudo-publicist, Mary Colbert, spread the word of his vision: That Trump will become President of the United States. They lead a prayer movement to try to see it through, and lo and behold, it works. Sort of. You see, Taylor first put pen to paper to write out his vision in April of 2011, stating that while “they will spend billions to keep this president in,” “the next election will be a clean sweep for the man [Trump] I have chosen.” Clearly, this can only refer to the 2012 election, the very next presidential election in which Barack Obama would end up successfully keeping the presidency for one more term. An election in which Donald Trump did not even run. With that in mind, Taylor’s self-glorification film glosses over the fact that he was completely wrong about that prophecy out of necessity, instead focusing on his rehash of the prophecy going into 2016.
This movie lazily creeps into both the political propaganda and faith-based film genres. Faith-based films generally serve as evangelistic tools. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as its characters are already faithful Christians prior to the events of the film, providing no real evangelistic moments for its unsaved audience. It's almost like they know nobody is coming to this film for that. Political propaganda films, on the other hand, intend to indoctrinate in a certain belief. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as well. In fact, it has to actively avoid political discussion at all. Could you imagine a movie like this having to make a failing attempt to reconcile Christian faith against supporting Donald Trump?
The cinematography looks like it was shot as a bootleg of "The Room." The leads act with a flatness on par with their cardboard cutouts. Its lone redeeming quality is not tricking you into anything other than what it is: A schlocky puff piece intended to associate Christianity with support of the President, as Trump was God’s chosen man. Allegedly.
Get past its worst cinematic qualities and you’re left with even more problems. "The Trump Prophecy" insults its target audience by minimizing God. It suggests God can't enact his will unless people pray for the things He reveals to them as visions of the future. It paradoxically says God is either not omnipotent to make Trump president, not omniscient to know whether or not Trump would be made president, or both. It also suggests gullibility being the key to godliness, urging the viewer not to question the source of a grammatically incorrect prophecy. (Seriously. Taylor confuses the homophones “waste” and “waist” in his 2011 "Commander in Chief" prophecy). This call to gullibility is precisely why Jerry Falwell Jr.'s Liberty University got itself involved in this mess. If you weren’t a fan of Trump before, you should be one because God said so. To a provably false prophet.
Which leads me to the point where I actually have to subject myself to this nonsense and tell you just how right I was about it.
And dear gosh, was I right. In fact, it’s stranger than I might have though. Remember how I mentioned Taylor’s false prophecy? The opening narration directly quotes from it, giving you the chance, if you haven’t already looked into it, to see exactly where he went from potential prophet to false prophet. And if you missed it the first time, you'll have it repeated twice more. Finally, I'll admit the fault to my prophetic review: Cinematically, "The Trump Prophecy" is closer to a bootleg of a movie produced by The Asylum, but Asylum films are actually enjoyable. But as a bonus, though, combine it with the special effects work of "Birdemic." The film "ends" with an embedded music video and a series of so-called reflective conversations--monologues by demagogues. I can't remember much about these because I had already tuned out. The only fairness I'll give is that "The Trump Prophecy" may be unintentionally hilarious on occasion, but it’s mostly cringe-worthy. The biggest cringe, though is when you realize how many people actually believe this film as fact.
Now, ordinarily, I do movie reviews. That’s where I have to watch a movie, first, before writing about it. This time, though, I feel obligated to attempt my own sort of prophecy and write a review of a movie before I see it. I'll take a bit of research on the subject of the film, but until the final paragraph, I'm not actually going to watch this film. Here goes nothing.
"The Trump Prophecy" follows a self-proclaimed prophet, Mark Taylor, as he and a pseudo-publicist, Mary Colbert, spread the word of his vision: That Trump will become President of the United States. They lead a prayer movement to try to see it through, and lo and behold, it works. Sort of. You see, Taylor first put pen to paper to write out his vision in April of 2011, stating that while “they will spend billions to keep this president in,” “the next election will be a clean sweep for the man [Trump] I have chosen.” Clearly, this can only refer to the 2012 election, the very next presidential election in which Barack Obama would end up successfully keeping the presidency for one more term. An election in which Donald Trump did not even run. With that in mind, Taylor’s self-glorification film glosses over the fact that he was completely wrong about that prophecy out of necessity, instead focusing on his rehash of the prophecy going into 2016.
This movie lazily creeps into both the political propaganda and faith-based film genres. Faith-based films generally serve as evangelistic tools. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as its characters are already faithful Christians prior to the events of the film, providing no real evangelistic moments for its unsaved audience. It's almost like they know nobody is coming to this film for that. Political propaganda films, on the other hand, intend to indoctrinate in a certain belief. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as well. In fact, it has to actively avoid political discussion at all. Could you imagine a movie like this having to make a failing attempt to reconcile Christian faith against supporting Donald Trump?
The cinematography looks like it was shot as a bootleg of "The Room." The leads act with a flatness on par with their cardboard cutouts. Its lone redeeming quality is not tricking you into anything other than what it is: A schlocky puff piece intended to associate Christianity with support of the President, as Trump was God’s chosen man. Allegedly.
Get past its worst cinematic qualities and you’re left with even more problems. "The Trump Prophecy" insults its target audience by minimizing God. It suggests God can't enact his will unless people pray for the things He reveals to them as visions of the future. It paradoxically says God is either not omnipotent to make Trump president, not omniscient to know whether or not Trump would be made president, or both. It also suggests gullibility being the key to godliness, urging the viewer not to question the source of a grammatically incorrect prophecy. (Seriously. Taylor confuses the homophones “waste” and “waist” in his 2011 "Commander in Chief" prophecy). This call to gullibility is precisely why Jerry Falwell Jr.'s Liberty University got itself involved in this mess. If you weren’t a fan of Trump before, you should be one because God said so. To a provably false prophet.
Which leads me to the point where I actually have to subject myself to this nonsense and tell you just how right I was about it.
And dear gosh, was I right. In fact, it’s stranger than I might have though. Remember how I mentioned Taylor’s false prophecy? The opening narration directly quotes from it, giving you the chance, if you haven’t already looked into it, to see exactly where he went from potential prophet to false prophet. And if you missed it the first time, you'll have it repeated twice more. Finally, I'll admit the fault to my prophetic review: Cinematically, "The Trump Prophecy" is closer to a bootleg of a movie produced by The Asylum, but Asylum films are actually enjoyable. But as a bonus, though, combine it with the special effects work of "Birdemic." The film "ends" with an embedded music video and a series of so-called reflective conversations--monologues by demagogues. I can't remember much about these because I had already tuned out. The only fairness I'll give is that "The Trump Prophecy" may be unintentionally hilarious on occasion, but it’s mostly cringe-worthy. The biggest cringe, though is when you realize how many people actually believe this film as fact.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014) in Movies
May 10, 2019
Chris Evan as Steve Rogers/Captain America
Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow
Sebastian stan as Bucky Barnes/The winter soldier
The rest of the cast
Fury's car chase
The elevator scene (1 more)
The highway fight scene
Cap and Bucky's final fight
Cap and Bucky's relationship
The political intrigue
Antony Mackie as Falcon
"i'm with you till the end of the line"
Man 2014 sure was a fantastic year for Marvel! Not only did we get Guardians of the Galaxy, but also Captain America the Winter Soldier, a film that I honestly didn’t really appreciate all that much when I first saw it, as back then I wasn’t all that interested in the plots of these films more then I was just seeing the cool characters and fight scenes. But upon rewatching this I was legitimately blown away by how jaw dropping good this was, because not only is this an amazing movie that completely surpasses the first film on every level with it’s excellent story and standout action sequences, but also serves as a great action thriller, and surprisingly, a political satire that reflects the corruption that lies in our very own government. And sure Jon Favreau and Joss Whedon did great jobs with their inclusions in the franchise, but the Russo brothers just absolutely nailed it with this film.
And what makes Winter Soldier so good and entertaining, is it’s extremely captivating story. I was so invested in it that I couldn’t take my eyes off of the screen, I focused and paid attention to every line of dialogue that was said by these characters, as well as every easter egg and reference, which trust me, there are a lot of! This film also features a ton of different twists and turns which on my first viewing way back in 2014, really had me shocked, and though rewatching it five years later doesn’t at all have the same impact on me that it once did, it still is highly entertaining, and some scenes do actually still hold that element of surprise with their abrupt sequences. And while technically they’re not in that jump scare category, the were some parts of the movie that really caught me off guard and made my heart stop for a moment. One aspect about this movie that I thought was very interesting and added a sense of realism to the plot, was the political satire that was excellently interwoven into the storyline of the movie, and like I said, really made the film feel very grounded because it reflects all of the corruption lying within our very own government, and for Captain America to want to expose that and put a stop to it really when you think about it lines up perfectly with Steve’s very patriotic attitude and outlook. I mean he’s Captain America for crying out loud!
All of the performances in this film are absolutely phenomenal! Chris Evans, Scarlet Johansson, Robert Redford, Sebastian Stan, as well as Anthony Mackie. And if that’s not good enough we’ve got freaking Samuel L. Jackson reprising he role as Nick Fury. What more could you possibly ask for in terms of casting, I mean seriously! There is not a single bad or bland performance, and everyone gets to shine with their own great and memorable moments. But for me the standout of this movie is Sebastian Stan as the Winter Soldier. Holy crap! This is the definition of a badass villain, and he owns every scene he is in. Whenever he shows up on screen and starts taking down guys your heart just starts beating faster and faster, and I was on the edge of my seat when watching the nail biting action scenes he shows up in. So gold star to the Russo brothers for not giving us another two dimensional baddie just there to be evil, as well as being a typical MCU villain. Yeah I’m looking at you Darren Cross! Overall just fantastic performances.
The action scenes in this movie are amazing, and you can really tell that the filmmakers as well as the Russos really put a lot of effort in these sequences, as they are choreographed and shot so well, and the way the directors move the camera really adds a whole other intense and exhilarating edge to these already intense scenes. The highway scene in particular is probably one of, if not the best part of the movie, I mean it’s just perfection, and that’s mainly because of the excellent choreography and directing, that Joe and Anthony Russo definitely put a lot of time into getting just right. And they not only did it right, they did it masterfully! Henry Jackman’s score for the film is so good as well, and it may just be in my top ten favorite soundtracks of all time. And the Winter Soldier’s theme is just downright fantastic as well as absolutely terrifying!
So that’s my review. This is a film that really surpassed my low expectations when rewatching this for the first time in a few years. And with it’s great storyline and characters, as well as it’s amazing performances and action sequences, which kept me enthralled and entertained the entire time, Winter Soldier proves that it is not just a great Captain America movie, or MCU addition, and that it is just an amazing film in general.
And what makes Winter Soldier so good and entertaining, is it’s extremely captivating story. I was so invested in it that I couldn’t take my eyes off of the screen, I focused and paid attention to every line of dialogue that was said by these characters, as well as every easter egg and reference, which trust me, there are a lot of! This film also features a ton of different twists and turns which on my first viewing way back in 2014, really had me shocked, and though rewatching it five years later doesn’t at all have the same impact on me that it once did, it still is highly entertaining, and some scenes do actually still hold that element of surprise with their abrupt sequences. And while technically they’re not in that jump scare category, the were some parts of the movie that really caught me off guard and made my heart stop for a moment. One aspect about this movie that I thought was very interesting and added a sense of realism to the plot, was the political satire that was excellently interwoven into the storyline of the movie, and like I said, really made the film feel very grounded because it reflects all of the corruption lying within our very own government, and for Captain America to want to expose that and put a stop to it really when you think about it lines up perfectly with Steve’s very patriotic attitude and outlook. I mean he’s Captain America for crying out loud!
All of the performances in this film are absolutely phenomenal! Chris Evans, Scarlet Johansson, Robert Redford, Sebastian Stan, as well as Anthony Mackie. And if that’s not good enough we’ve got freaking Samuel L. Jackson reprising he role as Nick Fury. What more could you possibly ask for in terms of casting, I mean seriously! There is not a single bad or bland performance, and everyone gets to shine with their own great and memorable moments. But for me the standout of this movie is Sebastian Stan as the Winter Soldier. Holy crap! This is the definition of a badass villain, and he owns every scene he is in. Whenever he shows up on screen and starts taking down guys your heart just starts beating faster and faster, and I was on the edge of my seat when watching the nail biting action scenes he shows up in. So gold star to the Russo brothers for not giving us another two dimensional baddie just there to be evil, as well as being a typical MCU villain. Yeah I’m looking at you Darren Cross! Overall just fantastic performances.
The action scenes in this movie are amazing, and you can really tell that the filmmakers as well as the Russos really put a lot of effort in these sequences, as they are choreographed and shot so well, and the way the directors move the camera really adds a whole other intense and exhilarating edge to these already intense scenes. The highway scene in particular is probably one of, if not the best part of the movie, I mean it’s just perfection, and that’s mainly because of the excellent choreography and directing, that Joe and Anthony Russo definitely put a lot of time into getting just right. And they not only did it right, they did it masterfully! Henry Jackman’s score for the film is so good as well, and it may just be in my top ten favorite soundtracks of all time. And the Winter Soldier’s theme is just downright fantastic as well as absolutely terrifying!
So that’s my review. This is a film that really surpassed my low expectations when rewatching this for the first time in a few years. And with it’s great storyline and characters, as well as it’s amazing performances and action sequences, which kept me enthralled and entertained the entire time, Winter Soldier proves that it is not just a great Captain America movie, or MCU addition, and that it is just an amazing film in general.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Psycho (1960) in Movies
Oct 29, 2018
An all-time great performance by Anthony Perkins
I'm sure all of you have (at least) heard of the 1960 Alfred Hitchcock film, PSYCHO. And I'm sure most of you have seen (at least in part) the famous "shower scene". But when was the last time you really sat down and watched this film? It had been awhile for me and I walked away with the following impression:
PSYCHO is not all that scary, but it is suspenseful as heck with strong Direction by the "Master of Suspense" and very strong performances anchoring the front and back end of the film.
PSYCHO was billed when it came out as a "Janet Leigh Film". So, to give this review context, let's look at who Janet Leigh was at the time. Before shooting PSYCHO, Leigh was generally cast as the ingenue and/or love interest in mainstream fair such as LITTLE WOMEN, ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD and HOUDINI (a modern "comp" to her might be someone like Anne Hathaway before she started doing "edgier" work). Leigh did show that there was more to her than just being an ingenue when she played the morally ambiguous wife of Charlton Heston's character in Orson Welles' TOUCH OF EVIL. This film (probably) gave Hitchcock the idea to cast Leigh in PSYCHO.
When 1960's audiences first saw Leigh on screen in PSYCHO, I'm sure that most of them were shocked for, instead of being the pure and wholesome ingenue and wife, she plays the entire first scene in a bra and slip. Her character, Marion Crane, is not morally ambiguous, she is morally corrupt - and when Leigh's character has a chance to act on her moral corruptness, she jumps at the chance. The rest of the first half of this film is Leigh trying to get away with her "crime". She is quite good in this part of the film and was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress (deservedly so).
And then...Anthony Perkins shows up.
We are about 45 minutes into the 1 hour and 49 minute film when Perkins' Norman Bates first appears on screen and an interesting thing happened - I couldn't take my eyes off of him. I was enjoying Leigh's performance but instantly pushed her aside (and to the background) when Perkins shows up. Without giving plot away, let me say that there is much, much going behind Norman's eyes and the performance by Perkins strongly suggests this, without going over-the-top or being melodramatic. It is a perfect blend of actor, character and performance and I was shocked that he was not even NOMINATED for an Oscar (Peter Ustinov would win for SPARTACUS). Perkins performance is one of the all-time greats with one of the most interesting and unusual characters - and portrayals - of all time.
Much of the credit for Perkins' and Leigh's strong performances have to go to Director Hitchcock who was at the height of his Directing powers (and power). From the "get go", you can feel the Director's hand in this film, building suspense from scene to scene and shot to shot, first with Leigh's character and, later, with Perkins. Both characters are trying to get away with something and Hitchcock pulls his camera in close to make a point - from a distance all seems good, but when you get up close, you can tell that things are very bad, indeed.
The filming of the famous "shower scene" is well documented and is a Master Class in film and editing. It is worth the price of admission on it's own - as is a scene on a staircase with Private Detective Arbogast, played by Martin Balsam. Hitchcock chooses to heighten the realism in this scene on the staircase by going a more esoteric route (rather than traditional filming of the events) and, one can argue, it doesn't belong in this film. Until, that is, you think about it and then it makes great sense and absolutely, positively has to be in this film in that way.
Another aspect of this film that begs to be mentioned is the Film Score by the great Bernard Herrmann - Hitchcock's regular collaborator. The music in this film punctuates the action on the screen - from the persistent beat and pacing of the opening credits music - driving the audience forward into the action - that does not let go, reaching it's peak and crescendo in the shower scene and then floating down gently like an animal catching it's breath after great activity.
Does the entire film hold up almost 60 years later? Almost...but not quite. Most annoying to me was the "wrap-up" scene at the end where a character spells out everything for the audience. As if we are not smart enough to "get it" - and perhaps the audiences in 1960 weren't.
But that is a quibble for a film that is a classic and is one that, if you have not seen (or seen for awhile), begs to be seen. Check out this film, not for the scares, but rather, the suspense that is generated by Hitchcock and his performers throughout. A GREAT entree into the world of Alfred Hitchcock films.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
PSYCHO is not all that scary, but it is suspenseful as heck with strong Direction by the "Master of Suspense" and very strong performances anchoring the front and back end of the film.
PSYCHO was billed when it came out as a "Janet Leigh Film". So, to give this review context, let's look at who Janet Leigh was at the time. Before shooting PSYCHO, Leigh was generally cast as the ingenue and/or love interest in mainstream fair such as LITTLE WOMEN, ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD and HOUDINI (a modern "comp" to her might be someone like Anne Hathaway before she started doing "edgier" work). Leigh did show that there was more to her than just being an ingenue when she played the morally ambiguous wife of Charlton Heston's character in Orson Welles' TOUCH OF EVIL. This film (probably) gave Hitchcock the idea to cast Leigh in PSYCHO.
When 1960's audiences first saw Leigh on screen in PSYCHO, I'm sure that most of them were shocked for, instead of being the pure and wholesome ingenue and wife, she plays the entire first scene in a bra and slip. Her character, Marion Crane, is not morally ambiguous, she is morally corrupt - and when Leigh's character has a chance to act on her moral corruptness, she jumps at the chance. The rest of the first half of this film is Leigh trying to get away with her "crime". She is quite good in this part of the film and was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress (deservedly so).
And then...Anthony Perkins shows up.
We are about 45 minutes into the 1 hour and 49 minute film when Perkins' Norman Bates first appears on screen and an interesting thing happened - I couldn't take my eyes off of him. I was enjoying Leigh's performance but instantly pushed her aside (and to the background) when Perkins shows up. Without giving plot away, let me say that there is much, much going behind Norman's eyes and the performance by Perkins strongly suggests this, without going over-the-top or being melodramatic. It is a perfect blend of actor, character and performance and I was shocked that he was not even NOMINATED for an Oscar (Peter Ustinov would win for SPARTACUS). Perkins performance is one of the all-time greats with one of the most interesting and unusual characters - and portrayals - of all time.
Much of the credit for Perkins' and Leigh's strong performances have to go to Director Hitchcock who was at the height of his Directing powers (and power). From the "get go", you can feel the Director's hand in this film, building suspense from scene to scene and shot to shot, first with Leigh's character and, later, with Perkins. Both characters are trying to get away with something and Hitchcock pulls his camera in close to make a point - from a distance all seems good, but when you get up close, you can tell that things are very bad, indeed.
The filming of the famous "shower scene" is well documented and is a Master Class in film and editing. It is worth the price of admission on it's own - as is a scene on a staircase with Private Detective Arbogast, played by Martin Balsam. Hitchcock chooses to heighten the realism in this scene on the staircase by going a more esoteric route (rather than traditional filming of the events) and, one can argue, it doesn't belong in this film. Until, that is, you think about it and then it makes great sense and absolutely, positively has to be in this film in that way.
Another aspect of this film that begs to be mentioned is the Film Score by the great Bernard Herrmann - Hitchcock's regular collaborator. The music in this film punctuates the action on the screen - from the persistent beat and pacing of the opening credits music - driving the audience forward into the action - that does not let go, reaching it's peak and crescendo in the shower scene and then floating down gently like an animal catching it's breath after great activity.
Does the entire film hold up almost 60 years later? Almost...but not quite. Most annoying to me was the "wrap-up" scene at the end where a character spells out everything for the audience. As if we are not smart enough to "get it" - and perhaps the audiences in 1960 weren't.
But that is a quibble for a film that is a classic and is one that, if you have not seen (or seen for awhile), begs to be seen. Check out this film, not for the scares, but rather, the suspense that is generated by Hitchcock and his performers throughout. A GREAT entree into the world of Alfred Hitchcock films.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Hadley (567 KP) rated Heart-Shaped Box in Books
Jun 18, 2019
Unlikable characters (1 more)
Parts that weren't needed
Which one of us hasn't imagined being a successful rock star? The main character of this novel is an aging one, who has become the stereo-typical hard-ass that is expected of a death metal rock star. We begin with Judas Coyne, who hasn't made an album in years, and who is constantly running from his past- - -a habit he acquired when he ran away from home in Louisiana at the age of 19, and this is the problem that permeates Hill's 'Heart-Shaped Box.'
'Heart-Shaped Box' does a successful job of not only painting a picture of ghosts, but also of the spirits that reside in animals (like a witch's familiar), but the likable characters in this book are few and far between. Coyne treats women as objects(he literally only calls them by the State name they are from,such as Florida), and also ended his own marriage by refusing to throw away a snuff film he had obtained from a police. When the story begins, Coyne is shacked up with a young woman (nearly 30 years younger) he calls Georgia; she is described as a stereo-typical goth: black hair, black nail polish, pale white skin. This description of the women Coyne has been with seem to be about the same, but maybe a different hair color, but any other woman that is ever mentioned in the book is either very old or very overweight.
Coyne, a collector of all things dark, buys a dead man's suit that is supposedly haunted by a woman's deceased stepfather. Quite quickly things begin to happen after the suit arrives, including a decaying smell, first noticed by Coyne's 'girlfriend,' Georgia: " I know. I was wondering if there was something in one of the pockets. Something going bad. Old food." She makes Coyne take a look at the suit to see if there is something dead inside of it, but he never finds the source of the smell. Instead, he finds a picture of a young girl in one of the pockets, a girl that is very familiar to Coyne, a girl he once called 'Florida.'
Coyne doesn't seem to take any of the signs seriously that he may be haunted by a ghost that wants to harm him and anyone who comes in contact with him. Until Coyne finds himself sitting inside his restored vintage Mustang in a closed-off barn: " He snorted softly to himself. It wasn't selling souls that got you into trouble, it was buying them. Next time he would have to make sure there was a return policy. He laughed, opened his eyes a little. The dead man, Craddock, sat in the passenger seat next to him. He smiled at Jude, to show stained teeth and a black tongue. He smelled of death, also of car exhaust. His eyes were hidden behind those odd, continuously moving black brushstrokes."
Craddock turns out to be, without giving too much away, a man who was a spiritualist in his living life. He wants nothing but pain and misery for Coyne, who happened to kick his young step daughter to the curb a year before. The parts of the story that deal with both Coyne and Craddock interacting are the most interesting ones. Without these interactions, the story would have fallen very short.
That said, 'Heart-Shaped Box' had quite a few faults to it. Readers may notice that some pages contradict themselves on the very next page, Hill's overuse of Georgia's bangs (hair) as a description for all of her facial expressions, also Hill's habit of being repetitive with words that he uses to describe most things, the unbelievable part where Coyne- - - a collector of occult items- - - claims he has never used a Ouija board before (and lacks the knowledge of how to use one), and last but not least, chapter 34, a chapter that was not needed and completely stopped the story in it's tracks.
And speaking of things that were not needed in the story- - - a part where Georgia has a gun in her mouth, ready to commit suicide, Coyne can only think to remove the gun and replace it with his penis. I understand that Hill may have been going for unlikable characters from the beginning, to really have Coyne play the part of a jaded man, but sometimes Hill seems to go too far. Every book has to have a character to root for, otherwise your readers will put the book down, luckily, this book has Bammy; she is Georgia's grandmother, unfortunately, in less than 15 pages, she never appears in the story again. "You strung out? Christ. You smell like a dog." Bammy says to Georgia after she and Coyne show up at her home.
Is this book a good ghost story, yes, is this story a great horror story, no. Hill lacks on likable characters enough that I don't think a lot of people could enjoy this book. If I were to recommend it, I wouldn't recommend it to teenagers because of a much talked about snuff film, drugs and suicide. I don't think I would read this again.
'Heart-Shaped Box' does a successful job of not only painting a picture of ghosts, but also of the spirits that reside in animals (like a witch's familiar), but the likable characters in this book are few and far between. Coyne treats women as objects(he literally only calls them by the State name they are from,such as Florida), and also ended his own marriage by refusing to throw away a snuff film he had obtained from a police. When the story begins, Coyne is shacked up with a young woman (nearly 30 years younger) he calls Georgia; she is described as a stereo-typical goth: black hair, black nail polish, pale white skin. This description of the women Coyne has been with seem to be about the same, but maybe a different hair color, but any other woman that is ever mentioned in the book is either very old or very overweight.
Coyne, a collector of all things dark, buys a dead man's suit that is supposedly haunted by a woman's deceased stepfather. Quite quickly things begin to happen after the suit arrives, including a decaying smell, first noticed by Coyne's 'girlfriend,' Georgia: " I know. I was wondering if there was something in one of the pockets. Something going bad. Old food." She makes Coyne take a look at the suit to see if there is something dead inside of it, but he never finds the source of the smell. Instead, he finds a picture of a young girl in one of the pockets, a girl that is very familiar to Coyne, a girl he once called 'Florida.'
Coyne doesn't seem to take any of the signs seriously that he may be haunted by a ghost that wants to harm him and anyone who comes in contact with him. Until Coyne finds himself sitting inside his restored vintage Mustang in a closed-off barn: " He snorted softly to himself. It wasn't selling souls that got you into trouble, it was buying them. Next time he would have to make sure there was a return policy. He laughed, opened his eyes a little. The dead man, Craddock, sat in the passenger seat next to him. He smiled at Jude, to show stained teeth and a black tongue. He smelled of death, also of car exhaust. His eyes were hidden behind those odd, continuously moving black brushstrokes."
Craddock turns out to be, without giving too much away, a man who was a spiritualist in his living life. He wants nothing but pain and misery for Coyne, who happened to kick his young step daughter to the curb a year before. The parts of the story that deal with both Coyne and Craddock interacting are the most interesting ones. Without these interactions, the story would have fallen very short.
That said, 'Heart-Shaped Box' had quite a few faults to it. Readers may notice that some pages contradict themselves on the very next page, Hill's overuse of Georgia's bangs (hair) as a description for all of her facial expressions, also Hill's habit of being repetitive with words that he uses to describe most things, the unbelievable part where Coyne- - - a collector of occult items- - - claims he has never used a Ouija board before (and lacks the knowledge of how to use one), and last but not least, chapter 34, a chapter that was not needed and completely stopped the story in it's tracks.
And speaking of things that were not needed in the story- - - a part where Georgia has a gun in her mouth, ready to commit suicide, Coyne can only think to remove the gun and replace it with his penis. I understand that Hill may have been going for unlikable characters from the beginning, to really have Coyne play the part of a jaded man, but sometimes Hill seems to go too far. Every book has to have a character to root for, otherwise your readers will put the book down, luckily, this book has Bammy; she is Georgia's grandmother, unfortunately, in less than 15 pages, she never appears in the story again. "You strung out? Christ. You smell like a dog." Bammy says to Georgia after she and Coyne show up at her home.
Is this book a good ghost story, yes, is this story a great horror story, no. Hill lacks on likable characters enough that I don't think a lot of people could enjoy this book. If I were to recommend it, I wouldn't recommend it to teenagers because of a much talked about snuff film, drugs and suicide. I don't think I would read this again.