Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Fans all around the world have been waiting for the fifth and final installment of the film adaption of Stephanie Meyer’s best selling book series, “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part 2” and without skipping a beat, part two begins right where its predecessor left off.
Bella opens her eyes with heightened vampire senses and embraces her new life as a wife, a mother and more importantly as a vampire. With her uncontrollable thirst she and Edward go for a run in the woods so that she can learn to hunt. She suddenly becomes enamored with her sudden speed and amazing strength. There certainly is no need for Edward to show her the tools of the trade as with Bella’s new found strength she is able to do that on her own.
Another perk to being vampire newlyweds who for that matter don’t have to rest or eat certainly leaves room for only one other thing to do and they sure love doing it! This finally provides the audience with a much steamier scene then in the last installment and in my opinion exactly how the writer intended it to be.
When Renesmee is born she is half vampire and half human and therefore poses no risk to anybody. Unfortunately for the Cullen family, she is mistaken to be one of the “immortal children”. In the past the “immortal children” were done away with by the Volturi as they posed a huge risk because being children they had no self control and posed a risk of showing humans that there were in fact monsters that had been living among them. This leads to a massive showdown with the leader of the Volturi, Aro and his cohorts against the Cullens and other clans who have come to their aid along with Jacob and his wolf pack. Will Bella and Edward get the “happily ever after” they so desire?
This is probably the hardest review that I have had to write and I say that because I am as a lot of you already know one of the biggest Twilight fans out there. This installment, film wise, is my favorite one because of all of the action and suspense. Parts of the film will surprise you and parts will tug on your heart strings but all in all, it is the best film of all of them by far.
You would at least need to know the back story before getting in to it or you will be completely lost! The cinematography and colors against the Northwest backdrops are beautiful. Bill Condon did a great job! I am not a fan by any means of computer generated humans, especially babies so I could have done without that but honestly how else could they have portrayed little Renesmee as she grew at such a fast rate?
This film is worth seeing and the guys will get at least some really cool fighting scenes and pretty ladies to look at while taking there girlfriends to see this film. All joking aside it is a fantastic story and should be not be missed. There is a reason why they bring in the big bucks and its not just because of teen girls going to see Jacob taking his shirt off.
Bella opens her eyes with heightened vampire senses and embraces her new life as a wife, a mother and more importantly as a vampire. With her uncontrollable thirst she and Edward go for a run in the woods so that she can learn to hunt. She suddenly becomes enamored with her sudden speed and amazing strength. There certainly is no need for Edward to show her the tools of the trade as with Bella’s new found strength she is able to do that on her own.
Another perk to being vampire newlyweds who for that matter don’t have to rest or eat certainly leaves room for only one other thing to do and they sure love doing it! This finally provides the audience with a much steamier scene then in the last installment and in my opinion exactly how the writer intended it to be.
When Renesmee is born she is half vampire and half human and therefore poses no risk to anybody. Unfortunately for the Cullen family, she is mistaken to be one of the “immortal children”. In the past the “immortal children” were done away with by the Volturi as they posed a huge risk because being children they had no self control and posed a risk of showing humans that there were in fact monsters that had been living among them. This leads to a massive showdown with the leader of the Volturi, Aro and his cohorts against the Cullens and other clans who have come to their aid along with Jacob and his wolf pack. Will Bella and Edward get the “happily ever after” they so desire?
This is probably the hardest review that I have had to write and I say that because I am as a lot of you already know one of the biggest Twilight fans out there. This installment, film wise, is my favorite one because of all of the action and suspense. Parts of the film will surprise you and parts will tug on your heart strings but all in all, it is the best film of all of them by far.
You would at least need to know the back story before getting in to it or you will be completely lost! The cinematography and colors against the Northwest backdrops are beautiful. Bill Condon did a great job! I am not a fan by any means of computer generated humans, especially babies so I could have done without that but honestly how else could they have portrayed little Renesmee as she grew at such a fast rate?
This film is worth seeing and the guys will get at least some really cool fighting scenes and pretty ladies to look at while taking there girlfriends to see this film. All joking aside it is a fantastic story and should be not be missed. There is a reason why they bring in the big bucks and its not just because of teen girls going to see Jacob taking his shirt off.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs Evil (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Does anyone remember the original Hoodwinked movie? Nobody else does, either. Blue Yonder Films, the studio that brought you Doogal tries to pull another rabbit out of their hat by releasing a sequel to the twisted fairy-tale movie titled Hoodwinked Too: Hood vs. Evil. All of the original voice characters are present from the first film, except for Red (Anne Hathaway was replaced by Hayden Panettiere), and Kirk the Woodsman (Jim Belushi , who was replaced by Martin Short).
It doesn’t really matter if you’ve seen the first movie, as a storybook opening catches the audience up on the current situation. A short intro introduces the HEA (Happily Ever After Agency; shouldn’t that be HEAA?) staking out a Wicked Witch who is holding Hansel & Gretel (Bill Hader & Amy Poehler) hostage in her Gingerbread House. The main protagonist, Red Riding Hood (Panettiere) is off on training, and her former partner, The Big Bad Wolf (Patrick Warburton) is handling the situation with Granny (Glen Close).
Of course, the seemingly simple scenario changes to a conspiracy which has actually been masterminded by the hostages, in order to drag a secret from Granny. Granny is a part of the Sisterhood of Kung-Fu Bakers (the “Hood” in the film’s title), and possesses the recipe of a secret weapon known as the Super Truffle, which supposedly makes those who consume it invincible. The movie has a small army of all-star cast members, and each one makes the most of their parts.
Unfortunately nearly everything else in the film misses the mark, from the writing, direction, and even the animation. Many other computer-animated movies today feel a lot more organic, and although the visuals of this sequel are better than the first there are times when character movements appear more programmed than motion-captured. Most of the jokes in the movie require one to have lived during the 70s or 80s, and nearly all of them are groaners. Jokes like “Dog is your co-pilot”, and a backwards sign where “dyslexic” is clearly visible are just too obscure even for the average adult. Sure, this is a family movie that should have something for everyone, but the preview theater I was in had a large mix of children and their parents, and there was only one time when the audience laughed as a whole.
There are a few running gags that did receive a positive audience response. Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong play two of the Three Little Pigs (hitmen for hire), and they received most of the genuine laughs. Another running gag was of a banjo-playing goat, who is constantly being fallen upon by other characters. This gag did get some chuckles, particularly from children, but was an obvious rip-off of “Scrat” from the Ice Age series, but just didn’t have the same charm. Most animated films either have amazing visuals, humor or heart, and the best ones blend these essentials together. Unfortunately none of these elements are present in Hoodwinked Too to make the audience feel for Red’s story, and the semi-warm victory at the end is simply “meh”.
You won’t be missing anything by skipping this film at the box office. It might be worth a rental when it comes out on DVD, but you and your family can still live a full and satisfying life without it.
It doesn’t really matter if you’ve seen the first movie, as a storybook opening catches the audience up on the current situation. A short intro introduces the HEA (Happily Ever After Agency; shouldn’t that be HEAA?) staking out a Wicked Witch who is holding Hansel & Gretel (Bill Hader & Amy Poehler) hostage in her Gingerbread House. The main protagonist, Red Riding Hood (Panettiere) is off on training, and her former partner, The Big Bad Wolf (Patrick Warburton) is handling the situation with Granny (Glen Close).
Of course, the seemingly simple scenario changes to a conspiracy which has actually been masterminded by the hostages, in order to drag a secret from Granny. Granny is a part of the Sisterhood of Kung-Fu Bakers (the “Hood” in the film’s title), and possesses the recipe of a secret weapon known as the Super Truffle, which supposedly makes those who consume it invincible. The movie has a small army of all-star cast members, and each one makes the most of their parts.
Unfortunately nearly everything else in the film misses the mark, from the writing, direction, and even the animation. Many other computer-animated movies today feel a lot more organic, and although the visuals of this sequel are better than the first there are times when character movements appear more programmed than motion-captured. Most of the jokes in the movie require one to have lived during the 70s or 80s, and nearly all of them are groaners. Jokes like “Dog is your co-pilot”, and a backwards sign where “dyslexic” is clearly visible are just too obscure even for the average adult. Sure, this is a family movie that should have something for everyone, but the preview theater I was in had a large mix of children and their parents, and there was only one time when the audience laughed as a whole.
There are a few running gags that did receive a positive audience response. Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong play two of the Three Little Pigs (hitmen for hire), and they received most of the genuine laughs. Another running gag was of a banjo-playing goat, who is constantly being fallen upon by other characters. This gag did get some chuckles, particularly from children, but was an obvious rip-off of “Scrat” from the Ice Age series, but just didn’t have the same charm. Most animated films either have amazing visuals, humor or heart, and the best ones blend these essentials together. Unfortunately none of these elements are present in Hoodwinked Too to make the audience feel for Red’s story, and the semi-warm victory at the end is simply “meh”.
You won’t be missing anything by skipping this film at the box office. It might be worth a rental when it comes out on DVD, but you and your family can still live a full and satisfying life without it.
Debbiereadsbook (1197 KP) rated Charles (Learning to Love #1) in Books
Jul 28, 2021
deep and complex emotions involved, but I loved it!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarain, I was gifted my copy of this book.
Once upon a time, there was a reader much like yourself. She read for pleasure, but also had fallen down the slippery slope of reading to review, so every book she read needed a review written. Fun, but hard work sometimes, especially when said reader found herself in a book funk of EPIC proportions, and that almost every book she read, was dumped.
Then THIS book landed in her queue to read and review. There had been lots of books dumped this past week, and there weren't many review books in her queue, but this one was asked for ages ago, and so she wanted to read it. So on a quiet evening at work, she jumped in.
And she was pulled back into the small Cornish village that this book is set, the same one that feature in the HIS series, and she was pulled deeper and deeper and she did not stop reading! Well, she did, but only because she was at work! Going home, and she finished this book, staying up waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay past her bedtime, and she loved it!
She loved Charles. Charles is the third son of an Earl, but he just wants to use his degree to help children who might slip through the net, much like he did. His undiagnosed dyslexia meant he did not get the help he needed as a child, and he doesn't want that for another child. He sees the world differently and wants to help. Applying for the teachers job for a group of 4/5 year olds is his dream job. But the head doesn't think Charles is qualified enough but offers Charles a different sort of job. To bring a smile to his friend's face again.
The reader loved Hugo too. Even though Hugo isn't given a voice, the reader heard him good and well when he speaks. When he touches Charles, when Charles touches him. Hugo was HEARD. Hugo's calling is questioned but his faith is not. He needs to make a decision about fully committing to the church, but he also needs to heal first. Charles helps him to heal, inside and out.
The reader loved that Hugo doesn't hold Charles' history against him. Loved the fact that Hugo almost embraced it. The reader was made to cry. Charles has a deep soul, and he wears his emotions on his face and Hugo sees Charles, really SEES him.
The reader loved that Kier and Mitch, from His Haven. Charles and Kier are best friends. Loved that Kier saw Charles too, just in a different way to Hugo. The reader loved that Charles and his brother George got on soooooooooo much better towards the end of the book than the beginning!
The reader found this a very emotional book. Whether that was because of Charles, or Hugo or them both together, she wasn't quite sure, but she loved that it was. There are deep and complex emotions in this book, and it made the reader slow her reading down, to fully appreciate them.
And the epilogue?? Oh, the reader bawled her heart out at that, she really did!
So, all in all, the reader LOVED this book! The reader wants more of this author!
And the reader lived happily ever after, because lots of this author's books are now settled on her kindle!
The end, with 5 full and shiny stars!
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Once upon a time, there was a reader much like yourself. She read for pleasure, but also had fallen down the slippery slope of reading to review, so every book she read needed a review written. Fun, but hard work sometimes, especially when said reader found herself in a book funk of EPIC proportions, and that almost every book she read, was dumped.
Then THIS book landed in her queue to read and review. There had been lots of books dumped this past week, and there weren't many review books in her queue, but this one was asked for ages ago, and so she wanted to read it. So on a quiet evening at work, she jumped in.
And she was pulled back into the small Cornish village that this book is set, the same one that feature in the HIS series, and she was pulled deeper and deeper and she did not stop reading! Well, she did, but only because she was at work! Going home, and she finished this book, staying up waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay past her bedtime, and she loved it!
She loved Charles. Charles is the third son of an Earl, but he just wants to use his degree to help children who might slip through the net, much like he did. His undiagnosed dyslexia meant he did not get the help he needed as a child, and he doesn't want that for another child. He sees the world differently and wants to help. Applying for the teachers job for a group of 4/5 year olds is his dream job. But the head doesn't think Charles is qualified enough but offers Charles a different sort of job. To bring a smile to his friend's face again.
The reader loved Hugo too. Even though Hugo isn't given a voice, the reader heard him good and well when he speaks. When he touches Charles, when Charles touches him. Hugo was HEARD. Hugo's calling is questioned but his faith is not. He needs to make a decision about fully committing to the church, but he also needs to heal first. Charles helps him to heal, inside and out.
The reader loved that Hugo doesn't hold Charles' history against him. Loved the fact that Hugo almost embraced it. The reader was made to cry. Charles has a deep soul, and he wears his emotions on his face and Hugo sees Charles, really SEES him.
The reader loved that Kier and Mitch, from His Haven. Charles and Kier are best friends. Loved that Kier saw Charles too, just in a different way to Hugo. The reader loved that Charles and his brother George got on soooooooooo much better towards the end of the book than the beginning!
The reader found this a very emotional book. Whether that was because of Charles, or Hugo or them both together, she wasn't quite sure, but she loved that it was. There are deep and complex emotions in this book, and it made the reader slow her reading down, to fully appreciate them.
And the epilogue?? Oh, the reader bawled her heart out at that, she really did!
So, all in all, the reader LOVED this book! The reader wants more of this author!
And the reader lived happily ever after, because lots of this author's books are now settled on her kindle!
The end, with 5 full and shiny stars!
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Curiosity Quills: Chronology
Richard Roberts, Tony Healey, Piers Anthony, J.R. Rain, Jordan Elizabeth Mierek, James Wymore, Stan Swanson, Darin Kennedy , Julie Frost , Andrew Buckley , J.P. Moynahan, B. C. Johnson, J. P. Sloan, Andrew J. Rausch, Katie Young , Scott Nicholson, Wilbert Stanton, Tara Tyler, Mark W. Woodring, J. E. Anckorn, Nathan L. Yocum, G. Miki Hayden, Matthew S. Cox and Matthew Graybosch
6.0
Rate It
Book
It's time... for time! Embark on a literary journey through the ages with Curiosity Quills Press in...
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Who thought it was a good idea to remake Ben-Hur? Well, on paper, it would seem to be a possibility. Ben-Hur has been hitting our cinema screens since 1907, with three other theatrical versions before this one; a short silent effort in 1907, the 1925 silent epic and the blockbusting MGM epic from 1959.
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Antikörper (Antibodies) (2007) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
A serial killer named Gabriel Engel (André Hennicke, Pandorum) that the police have been after for months has finally been captured. This is where most stories would end happily ever after, but instead this is how Antibodies begins. Michael Martens (Wotan Wilke Möhring, Valkyrie), a cop from a small, rural town had an unsolved case from a year ago concerning a 12-year-old girl named Lucia Flieder and Michael intends to interrogate Gabriel in hopes of a confession for her murder.
Gabriel already admitted to being in the area around the time of Lucia’s death, but her murder doesn’t entirely fit his M.O. But Michael plays right into Gabriel’s hands and becomes the pawn in his sick, psychological game as he’s able to get into Michael’s head from the moment they meet and remains there until the credits roll. The question isn’t, “Will Michael be able to find what he’s looking for?” but is instead, “Will Michael be able to survive the cerebral hedge maze Gabriel has thrown him into?”
Written and directed by Christian Alvart (Case 39, Pandorum), Antibodies is a German crime drama thriller that is worth seeing for André Hennicke’s performance alone. His portrayal of Gabriel is psychotic, disturbing, and extraordinarily mesmerizing as he steals nearly every scene he’s in. Hennicke embodies Gabriel and brings the character to life in all of his monstrously disquieting glory. There’s a brief sequence where Gabriel is drawing in his cell and he slowly starts pulling out his hair. There’s no dialogue, but Hennicke is able to pull it off with such terrifying elegance that it is incredible to witness.
Wotan Wilke Möhring is also quite impressive as Michael Martens. Michael struggles with the mental obstacles Gabriel throws at him throughout the film. Möhring is fantastically efficient at portraying a man who devoted his life to being an abiding citizen that is also committed to his religion. He cares deeply about his family and is now slowly losing his grip on his so-called perfect life. The interrogation scenes between Michael and Gabriel seem to simultaneously be homage to The Silence of the Lambs while also offering something different with its complete mastery of tension and Gabriel’s ulterior motives ring loudly upon the audience yet fall on deaf ears to a gullible Michael.
The religious parallels are incredibly interesting and deserve recognition, as well. The film has a tendency to not only reveal these parallels, but dives into them in a way that is easy to understand for the audience; the similarities between Michael and the archangel Gabriel are uncanny. The ending involving the test Gabriel gives Michael is all a part of a twisted game Gabriel plays and the web he’s spun has managed to get Michael tangled up in it. The film makes you think you know where it’s headed before it takes an unexpected detour and ends up going in the opposite direction.
Perhaps the most unusual aspect of the film is the involvement of Norman Reedus. The Wikipedia entry for Antibodies is still so bare, but apparently Reedus did his part in the film for free. Before The Walking Dead came along, Reedus was known best for his roles in The Boondock Saints, 8MM, Blade II, and the John Carpenter directed Masters of Horror episode, “Cigarette Burns.” Reedus has always taken part in projects that are unusual, but typically turn out to be fairly awesome. It was a great change of pace to see him show up and speak a few lines of German without a crossbow or a motorcycle.
Antibodies isn’t without its flaws as its script is often juvenile with the way it references sex and pleasuring yourself way more often than it should. The German thriller is still able to capitalize on a wonderfully tense and magnificently unsettling atmosphere with two incredibly strong leads that make the whole journey worthwhile. The story is riveting despite a few hiccups, the cast is top notch, the cinematography is excellent, and its unpredictable outcome is brilliant.
Antibodies is currently streaming on Amazon Video and Vudu for $2.99. The 2-disc special edition DVD is available for $24.98 on Amazon while the standard DVD is between $19.99 and $43.41. The film is available on DVD for various prices on eBay with the best offers being a pre-owned version of the single disc edition for $5.39 (10% off its normal $5.99 price) and the two-disc edition for $18.24; both have free shipping.
Gabriel already admitted to being in the area around the time of Lucia’s death, but her murder doesn’t entirely fit his M.O. But Michael plays right into Gabriel’s hands and becomes the pawn in his sick, psychological game as he’s able to get into Michael’s head from the moment they meet and remains there until the credits roll. The question isn’t, “Will Michael be able to find what he’s looking for?” but is instead, “Will Michael be able to survive the cerebral hedge maze Gabriel has thrown him into?”
Written and directed by Christian Alvart (Case 39, Pandorum), Antibodies is a German crime drama thriller that is worth seeing for André Hennicke’s performance alone. His portrayal of Gabriel is psychotic, disturbing, and extraordinarily mesmerizing as he steals nearly every scene he’s in. Hennicke embodies Gabriel and brings the character to life in all of his monstrously disquieting glory. There’s a brief sequence where Gabriel is drawing in his cell and he slowly starts pulling out his hair. There’s no dialogue, but Hennicke is able to pull it off with such terrifying elegance that it is incredible to witness.
Wotan Wilke Möhring is also quite impressive as Michael Martens. Michael struggles with the mental obstacles Gabriel throws at him throughout the film. Möhring is fantastically efficient at portraying a man who devoted his life to being an abiding citizen that is also committed to his religion. He cares deeply about his family and is now slowly losing his grip on his so-called perfect life. The interrogation scenes between Michael and Gabriel seem to simultaneously be homage to The Silence of the Lambs while also offering something different with its complete mastery of tension and Gabriel’s ulterior motives ring loudly upon the audience yet fall on deaf ears to a gullible Michael.
The religious parallels are incredibly interesting and deserve recognition, as well. The film has a tendency to not only reveal these parallels, but dives into them in a way that is easy to understand for the audience; the similarities between Michael and the archangel Gabriel are uncanny. The ending involving the test Gabriel gives Michael is all a part of a twisted game Gabriel plays and the web he’s spun has managed to get Michael tangled up in it. The film makes you think you know where it’s headed before it takes an unexpected detour and ends up going in the opposite direction.
Perhaps the most unusual aspect of the film is the involvement of Norman Reedus. The Wikipedia entry for Antibodies is still so bare, but apparently Reedus did his part in the film for free. Before The Walking Dead came along, Reedus was known best for his roles in The Boondock Saints, 8MM, Blade II, and the John Carpenter directed Masters of Horror episode, “Cigarette Burns.” Reedus has always taken part in projects that are unusual, but typically turn out to be fairly awesome. It was a great change of pace to see him show up and speak a few lines of German without a crossbow or a motorcycle.
Antibodies isn’t without its flaws as its script is often juvenile with the way it references sex and pleasuring yourself way more often than it should. The German thriller is still able to capitalize on a wonderfully tense and magnificently unsettling atmosphere with two incredibly strong leads that make the whole journey worthwhile. The story is riveting despite a few hiccups, the cast is top notch, the cinematography is excellent, and its unpredictable outcome is brilliant.
Antibodies is currently streaming on Amazon Video and Vudu for $2.99. The 2-disc special edition DVD is available for $24.98 on Amazon while the standard DVD is between $19.99 and $43.41. The film is available on DVD for various prices on eBay with the best offers being a pre-owned version of the single disc edition for $5.39 (10% off its normal $5.99 price) and the two-disc edition for $18.24; both have free shipping.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated American Reunion (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
It has often been said that you cannot turn back the hands of time, but thankfully Hollywood is a place where magical things happen. In the case of the gang from American Pie and the creative talents of writer directors Jon Hurwitz Hayden Schlossberg, the gang is back, better than ever, for another slice if pie. Hurwitz and Schlossberg are the creative team behind the ” Harold and Kumar” series and have been entrusted by Universal to carry on the American Pie series which had recently been relegated to four direct-to-DVD releases.
The new film reunites the entire cast from the original three films and centers around the gang’s 13 year high school reunion. Life has definitely taken them all in some unexpected directions. Jim (Jason Biggs) is married to Michelle (Alyson Hannigan), and are now parents to a little boy and enjoying a comfortable, if a tad uneventful, suburban lifestyle.
Oz (Chris Klein), is a successful Los Angeles sportscaster as well as a recent contestant on a popular national dance show. He spends his time mixing with celebrities and indulging a girlfriend who loves to party just a bit too much. Meanwhile, Kevin (Thomas Ian Nicholas), is happily married but needs an escape from a domestic routine that includes watching reality shows with his wife.
Finch (Eddie Kaye Thomas) fancies himself a nomadic spirit who wanders the globe from one esoteric adventure to another, still looking for his true love while Stiffler (Seann William Scott), works at a prestigious firm and remains the guy who never misses an opportunity to wisecrack or sexually harass any female who crosses his path.
As reunion-type movies go, there are the expected moments of awkwardness and hilarity. And of course, it wouldn’t be an American Pie movie without moments of ridiculously crude antics, mainly from Stifler. What separates the film from the bevy of raunchy comedies that flooded the market after the success of the initial film, is that there is some maturity amongst the mayhem.
In between the outrageous antics, the various characters are forced to take deep examinations of their lives since graduation and in some cases grow up for the first time in their lives. Oz must comes to grips with his feelings for his former girlfriend Heather (Mena Suvari), as does Kevin when his former flame Vicky (Tara Reid), returns to town for the reunion. Jim and Michelle have to find a way to bring some sexual spark back into their lives while Finch needs to accept the mundane reality of his. And Stifler. Well, let’s just say he needs to find his true calling.
What really sold the film for me was not just the great chemistry between the cast but the way the script deftly moved the raunchy comedy along while combining character development and depth that is not normally found in films of this type. As I watched, I found that I had really missed this crew of unlikely friends, and really enjoyed catching up with them even when they were not extricating themselves from one over-the-top situation after another.
While the film did drag a bit slightly there was always an outrageous moment right around the corner that had the theater errupting in laughter or shrieking in disbelief. This film is rated R for good reason. The cast worked really great together and it was especially nice to see Klein back in the mix, as he had been noticeably absent from the last film in no small part due to his offscreen issues.
Eugene Levy and Jennifer Coolidge (Stifler’s mom) have some absolutely hysterical moments in film especially when Mr. Levenstein, widowed now for three years, decides to cut loose at a party and we get to see has wild side. I would also encourage viewers to make sure to stay through the credits as there is more comedy from this pair that must not be missed.
The supporting characters from the previous films were all given their moments to shine even if it is just in a small cameo. Shannon Elizabeth, Natasha Lyonne, John Cho, and of course, the Sherminator were all given a chance to bring back some memories, making this film is welcome and enjoyably nostalgic trip. It proves that there’s still some life and good times left in the series, and if the creative talents can keep quality to this level I, for one, would certainly welcome another slice of pie in the future.
The new film reunites the entire cast from the original three films and centers around the gang’s 13 year high school reunion. Life has definitely taken them all in some unexpected directions. Jim (Jason Biggs) is married to Michelle (Alyson Hannigan), and are now parents to a little boy and enjoying a comfortable, if a tad uneventful, suburban lifestyle.
Oz (Chris Klein), is a successful Los Angeles sportscaster as well as a recent contestant on a popular national dance show. He spends his time mixing with celebrities and indulging a girlfriend who loves to party just a bit too much. Meanwhile, Kevin (Thomas Ian Nicholas), is happily married but needs an escape from a domestic routine that includes watching reality shows with his wife.
Finch (Eddie Kaye Thomas) fancies himself a nomadic spirit who wanders the globe from one esoteric adventure to another, still looking for his true love while Stiffler (Seann William Scott), works at a prestigious firm and remains the guy who never misses an opportunity to wisecrack or sexually harass any female who crosses his path.
As reunion-type movies go, there are the expected moments of awkwardness and hilarity. And of course, it wouldn’t be an American Pie movie without moments of ridiculously crude antics, mainly from Stifler. What separates the film from the bevy of raunchy comedies that flooded the market after the success of the initial film, is that there is some maturity amongst the mayhem.
In between the outrageous antics, the various characters are forced to take deep examinations of their lives since graduation and in some cases grow up for the first time in their lives. Oz must comes to grips with his feelings for his former girlfriend Heather (Mena Suvari), as does Kevin when his former flame Vicky (Tara Reid), returns to town for the reunion. Jim and Michelle have to find a way to bring some sexual spark back into their lives while Finch needs to accept the mundane reality of his. And Stifler. Well, let’s just say he needs to find his true calling.
What really sold the film for me was not just the great chemistry between the cast but the way the script deftly moved the raunchy comedy along while combining character development and depth that is not normally found in films of this type. As I watched, I found that I had really missed this crew of unlikely friends, and really enjoyed catching up with them even when they were not extricating themselves from one over-the-top situation after another.
While the film did drag a bit slightly there was always an outrageous moment right around the corner that had the theater errupting in laughter or shrieking in disbelief. This film is rated R for good reason. The cast worked really great together and it was especially nice to see Klein back in the mix, as he had been noticeably absent from the last film in no small part due to his offscreen issues.
Eugene Levy and Jennifer Coolidge (Stifler’s mom) have some absolutely hysterical moments in film especially when Mr. Levenstein, widowed now for three years, decides to cut loose at a party and we get to see has wild side. I would also encourage viewers to make sure to stay through the credits as there is more comedy from this pair that must not be missed.
The supporting characters from the previous films were all given their moments to shine even if it is just in a small cameo. Shannon Elizabeth, Natasha Lyonne, John Cho, and of course, the Sherminator were all given a chance to bring back some memories, making this film is welcome and enjoyably nostalgic trip. It proves that there’s still some life and good times left in the series, and if the creative talents can keep quality to this level I, for one, would certainly welcome another slice of pie in the future.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Lost At Christmas (2020) in Movies
Nov 24, 2020
Lacking in Christmas spirit
Lost at Christmas is a Scottish romantic comedy following two strangers that team up to try and get home for Christmas after finding themselves stranded in the Scottish highlands on Christmas Eve.
As a disclaimer, I am a major cynic when it comes to Christmas films and rarely ever find myself getting into the Christmas spirit, unless it’s in the company of a bonafide Christmas classic (think Home Alone or Muppets Christmas Carol). And I’m afraid to say that Lost at Christmas is definitely not a Christmas classic.
Rob (Kenny Boyle) and Jen (Natalie Clark) have a horrific time on Christmas Eve as their respective relationships come to a rather unexpected end, and find themselves stranded at a train station in the Scottish highlands. One of the few things this film does well is the setting. It is without a doubt a beautiful looking film set in some amazing Scottish scenery and director Ryan Hendrick knows how to showcase the sheer beauty that’s on offer and does this very well. It’s just a shame the rest of the film doesn’t match up this. There are some (thankfully infrequent) attempts at CGI that are very poor, and there are some unusually shot scenes, the most notably being the bathroom scene and from outside of a car windscreen, that don’t really work. In addition to the landscapes, Hendrick seems to love arty closeups on the actors faces and I’m afraid these don’t work either.
The plot is your stereotypical Christmas romantic film – it is the only time of year where strangers would happily travel together through the middle of nowhere. Any other time of year and this would be a horror film. This isn’t the only unfathomable action either, there’s a lot of things that happen that seem completely bizarre and out of place. This may be because this is obviously a home grown low budget offering that doesn’t have the Hollywood finances to make the bizarre seem a lot more believable. In Scotland, two strangers hating each other one minute and liking each other the next seems very out of place. Although the bickering between them in the first half an hour gets very tiresome very quickly, so it may have been for the best that they started liking each other quickly! There are at least a few laughs, although nowhere near what you’d expect from a film categorised as a romantic comedy.
One of the biggest issues with Lost at Christmas is the acting. I hate to be so cruel when it’s obviously a Scottish made film with local talent, but the acting on offer here is quite poor. There are some fairly heartwarming moments that are spoilt by a cliched script and some horrific acting. It seems to vary between overly exaggerated to having no feeling or emotion whatsoever, and it leaves you feeling unconvinced about any of the relationships that evolve. Sylvester McCoy is the only one who does well, as even Clare Grogan is hindered by some ridiculously overlarge glasses that are far too prominent in nearly every scene that she’s in.
Sadly though, Lost at Christmas’s biggest flaw is that for a Christmas film, it doesn’t feel very Christmassy. Despite being set at Christmas, with snow and mentions of Christmas at every opportunity, it is severely lacking in any Christmas spirit or emotions. Christmas films are meant to be overall a rather happy and festive experience, but Lost at Christmas feels rather dull and quite low spirited. And the music, whilst good, only serves to exacerbate the lack of Christmas spirit.
Anyone who likes Christmas films no matter what will likely find Lost at Christmas fairly enjoyable. However to me it was just a bit lost.
As a disclaimer, I am a major cynic when it comes to Christmas films and rarely ever find myself getting into the Christmas spirit, unless it’s in the company of a bonafide Christmas classic (think Home Alone or Muppets Christmas Carol). And I’m afraid to say that Lost at Christmas is definitely not a Christmas classic.
Rob (Kenny Boyle) and Jen (Natalie Clark) have a horrific time on Christmas Eve as their respective relationships come to a rather unexpected end, and find themselves stranded at a train station in the Scottish highlands. One of the few things this film does well is the setting. It is without a doubt a beautiful looking film set in some amazing Scottish scenery and director Ryan Hendrick knows how to showcase the sheer beauty that’s on offer and does this very well. It’s just a shame the rest of the film doesn’t match up this. There are some (thankfully infrequent) attempts at CGI that are very poor, and there are some unusually shot scenes, the most notably being the bathroom scene and from outside of a car windscreen, that don’t really work. In addition to the landscapes, Hendrick seems to love arty closeups on the actors faces and I’m afraid these don’t work either.
The plot is your stereotypical Christmas romantic film – it is the only time of year where strangers would happily travel together through the middle of nowhere. Any other time of year and this would be a horror film. This isn’t the only unfathomable action either, there’s a lot of things that happen that seem completely bizarre and out of place. This may be because this is obviously a home grown low budget offering that doesn’t have the Hollywood finances to make the bizarre seem a lot more believable. In Scotland, two strangers hating each other one minute and liking each other the next seems very out of place. Although the bickering between them in the first half an hour gets very tiresome very quickly, so it may have been for the best that they started liking each other quickly! There are at least a few laughs, although nowhere near what you’d expect from a film categorised as a romantic comedy.
One of the biggest issues with Lost at Christmas is the acting. I hate to be so cruel when it’s obviously a Scottish made film with local talent, but the acting on offer here is quite poor. There are some fairly heartwarming moments that are spoilt by a cliched script and some horrific acting. It seems to vary between overly exaggerated to having no feeling or emotion whatsoever, and it leaves you feeling unconvinced about any of the relationships that evolve. Sylvester McCoy is the only one who does well, as even Clare Grogan is hindered by some ridiculously overlarge glasses that are far too prominent in nearly every scene that she’s in.
Sadly though, Lost at Christmas’s biggest flaw is that for a Christmas film, it doesn’t feel very Christmassy. Despite being set at Christmas, with snow and mentions of Christmas at every opportunity, it is severely lacking in any Christmas spirit or emotions. Christmas films are meant to be overall a rather happy and festive experience, but Lost at Christmas feels rather dull and quite low spirited. And the music, whilst good, only serves to exacerbate the lack of Christmas spirit.
Anyone who likes Christmas films no matter what will likely find Lost at Christmas fairly enjoyable. However to me it was just a bit lost.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Half Sister in Books
Oct 5, 2020
I am so happy to have the opportunity to be part of the blog tour for The Half Sister by Sandie Jones. Thank you to the team at Pan Macmillan, for sending me a copy in exchange for an honest review.
About The Author:
I have heard a lot about Sandie Jones, but I haven’t read any books by her prior to The Half Sister. Sandie Jones has worked as a freelance journalist for over twenty years, and has written for publications including the Sunday Times, Woman’s Weekly and the Daily Mail. She lives in London with her husband and three children. The Other Woman is her debut novel.
Synopsis:
I need to mention that the original synopsis of the book may be a bit misleading. Lauren and Kate are two sisters, but they don’t get along too well and their relationship is complicated.
Kate is a reporter, married to lovely Mark, and going through many rounds of IVF treatment, hoping to start a family. Kate had a very close relationship with her father until the day he died, but was never too close to her sister Lauren and their mother, Rose.
Lauren, on the other hand, is a full time mom of three, with a demanding and overprotective husband. She is very close to her mum, and had a complicated relationship with her father, never forgiving him for understanding her in the past.
One day, while Kate, Lauren and their mum are having their usual Sunday roast, a woman knocks on their door and drops a bombshell. Jess claims to be their half-sister.
This allegation is met with denial - how could she be a secret daughter of their father. Their mother is devastated, Lauren is not surprised, and Kate doesn’t believe Jess at all. But as more secrets start to unravel, no one can know who to trust anymore…
My Thoughts:
I loved the idea of this book, even though I am not too big of a fan of domestic mysteries and drama. My impressions were that this would’ve been more psychological thriller, but I was in the wrong. However, despite this, the book is really surprisingly well-written and kept me on my toes until the very end.
The lives of Lauren and Kate in particular were very well written. I can imagine people being able to easily relate to their struggles. The difference between the two sisters is like night and day. I loved the fact that this book was not sugar coating this, and it didn’t end it with a “happily ever after”. Instead, it ended with “we know we are different, and we are working to fix our relationship in its natural course”.
The story about how Jess comes into their lives, and the whole DNA situation was extremely not believable. As well as the fact that doing another DNA test at the beginning of the novel would have solved all assumptions, rather than people believing hearsay and creating more drama. However, I am also aware that drama was needed to keep the story going, so I can’t hold a grudge.
The ending was predictable half-way through the book. Some scenes are completely unnecessary and make the story more complicated. There are many triggering moments in this book. Cheating, domestic violence and abuse, both physical and emotional and abortion. This book may also trigger people that have had difficult relationships with their parents and/or siblings.<br/><br/>Even though not a favorite thriller, I enjoyed this book and recommend it to everyone that loves domestic thrillers. It is a fast-paced read, and the plot twists are juicy.
About The Author:
I have heard a lot about Sandie Jones, but I haven’t read any books by her prior to The Half Sister. Sandie Jones has worked as a freelance journalist for over twenty years, and has written for publications including the Sunday Times, Woman’s Weekly and the Daily Mail. She lives in London with her husband and three children. The Other Woman is her debut novel.
Synopsis:
I need to mention that the original synopsis of the book may be a bit misleading. Lauren and Kate are two sisters, but they don’t get along too well and their relationship is complicated.
Kate is a reporter, married to lovely Mark, and going through many rounds of IVF treatment, hoping to start a family. Kate had a very close relationship with her father until the day he died, but was never too close to her sister Lauren and their mother, Rose.
Lauren, on the other hand, is a full time mom of three, with a demanding and overprotective husband. She is very close to her mum, and had a complicated relationship with her father, never forgiving him for understanding her in the past.
One day, while Kate, Lauren and their mum are having their usual Sunday roast, a woman knocks on their door and drops a bombshell. Jess claims to be their half-sister.
This allegation is met with denial - how could she be a secret daughter of their father. Their mother is devastated, Lauren is not surprised, and Kate doesn’t believe Jess at all. But as more secrets start to unravel, no one can know who to trust anymore…
My Thoughts:
I loved the idea of this book, even though I am not too big of a fan of domestic mysteries and drama. My impressions were that this would’ve been more psychological thriller, but I was in the wrong. However, despite this, the book is really surprisingly well-written and kept me on my toes until the very end.
The lives of Lauren and Kate in particular were very well written. I can imagine people being able to easily relate to their struggles. The difference between the two sisters is like night and day. I loved the fact that this book was not sugar coating this, and it didn’t end it with a “happily ever after”. Instead, it ended with “we know we are different, and we are working to fix our relationship in its natural course”.
The story about how Jess comes into their lives, and the whole DNA situation was extremely not believable. As well as the fact that doing another DNA test at the beginning of the novel would have solved all assumptions, rather than people believing hearsay and creating more drama. However, I am also aware that drama was needed to keep the story going, so I can’t hold a grudge.
The ending was predictable half-way through the book. Some scenes are completely unnecessary and make the story more complicated. There are many triggering moments in this book. Cheating, domestic violence and abuse, both physical and emotional and abortion. This book may also trigger people that have had difficult relationships with their parents and/or siblings.<br/><br/>Even though not a favorite thriller, I enjoyed this book and recommend it to everyone that loves domestic thrillers. It is a fast-paced read, and the plot twists are juicy.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Fallout 76 in Video Games
Feb 27, 2019 (Updated Feb 27, 2019)
A Grotesque Atrocity of Modern Gaming and an Abhorrent Insult to it's Audience
When Fallout 76 was announced last summer, I was initially intrigued. Not knowing anything about it, I was surprised that we were getting this before Starfield, (which wasn't announced at the time but was heavily rumoured,) or the next entry in the Elder Scrolls series, but I hoped it would be on par with the Fallout series last fantastic interim game; New Vegas. Then at Bethesda's E3 conference, we were given the bad news that this was going to be an always online experience with an open world online hub and some light PvP elements.
Fast forward to November 2018 and the game launches to hugely negative reviews. The majority of online reviewers are pounding the thing into the ground and criticising the barrage of issues present in the game. Connection issues, sub par graphics, a vast assortment of glitches, a distinct lack of human NPC's, weird lighting and pop in and so on and so forth. I am quite happily playing through Red Dead Redemption 2 at this point and leaving Fallout 76 indefinitely on the backburner. The following week, the game is on sale for half of it's RRP, then as the weeks go on the price continues to drop.
Then, at the start of February, I am looking for a new game to stick my teeth into and I see a pre-owned copy of Fallout 76 on sale for only 20 quid. I think to myself, what the hell and give it a go. I had heard that a few patches had been put out to fix various issues and so I thought how bad can it be?
I have been playing video games for the last 20 years and I don't think that I have ever seen a more egregious assault on my principles as a consumer. There isn't even a game here.
If you have played any of the other Fallout games since 3, you will know that you suffer through the more grindy RPG elements of the game because the progression mechanics are married well enough with the games other systems that they aren't too noticeable or invasive. The characters, the locations, the quests and the story elements make up for the lacking gameplay and overall the games are enjoyable enough that the dated gameplay systems usually aren't penalised too hard in reviews.
Well imagine any of the other previous Fallout games, but with all of the reasons to play through it that I mentioned above stripped away, leaving only the annoying grindy bullshit that you normally put up with. Except here, there is simply no reason to put up with it.
This is the realisation that I came to last night after putting about 7 hours into the game and I decided to switch it off and never pick it up again.
There is no plot, there are no characters, there is absolutely nothing to see that you haven't already seen in previous Fallout games with more meat to them and there is simply no reason to play this game.
If past Fallout games are a big meaty, juicy leg of lamb, then this is nothing but the dry bone that is left after all of the good stuff has been ripped away.
This is nothing but a quick cash grab. I'm not even talking specifically about the disgusting micro-transactions present in the game such as making players pay £10+ to change the colour of their power armour. No, I'm just talking about the game as a whole as there is absolutely no other merit to it or reason for it to exist or be played other than to make Bethesda some easy money.
This thing shouldn't exist and the fact that it does is a huge slap on the face to the consumer and it pretty much encapsulates everything that is wrong with the mind-set of modern publishers. This game should be boycotted and if you have to pick it up out of morbid curiosity, do what I did and buy it used.
I have heard a few industry experts say that this could be the game that ends Bethesda, the final nail in the coffin after the let-downs of Fallout 4 and ESO. Although don't want this to happen as I never like to see a gaming company go out of business, to be honest I can't say that they wouldn't deserve it for the below the belt bullshit that they are trying to pull on their audience. As a consumer and a fan of this franchise as well as the studio that produced it, I feel betrayed on a personal level and it really is going to take something extraordinary to put them back in my good graces and the good graces of their audience.
The Witcher 3 came out 4 years ago this year and it still looks and plays better than anything Bethesda studios has developed, (and I'm not even a big fan of The Witcher.) Bethesda really needs to pull their finger out if they want to compete with their peers going forwards. Starfield better be running on a brank new slick engine and contain story and gameplay elements that are nothing short of spectacular if they are to redeem themselves from this disaster.
I was hesitant to score this a 1/10, as it is not the worst game of the generation, however in the context of the rest of the series and the motive behind this particular sorry excuse for an entry in the series, it is such an insult that my conscience would not let me award it as anything more than the lowest possible score.
Fast forward to November 2018 and the game launches to hugely negative reviews. The majority of online reviewers are pounding the thing into the ground and criticising the barrage of issues present in the game. Connection issues, sub par graphics, a vast assortment of glitches, a distinct lack of human NPC's, weird lighting and pop in and so on and so forth. I am quite happily playing through Red Dead Redemption 2 at this point and leaving Fallout 76 indefinitely on the backburner. The following week, the game is on sale for half of it's RRP, then as the weeks go on the price continues to drop.
Then, at the start of February, I am looking for a new game to stick my teeth into and I see a pre-owned copy of Fallout 76 on sale for only 20 quid. I think to myself, what the hell and give it a go. I had heard that a few patches had been put out to fix various issues and so I thought how bad can it be?
I have been playing video games for the last 20 years and I don't think that I have ever seen a more egregious assault on my principles as a consumer. There isn't even a game here.
If you have played any of the other Fallout games since 3, you will know that you suffer through the more grindy RPG elements of the game because the progression mechanics are married well enough with the games other systems that they aren't too noticeable or invasive. The characters, the locations, the quests and the story elements make up for the lacking gameplay and overall the games are enjoyable enough that the dated gameplay systems usually aren't penalised too hard in reviews.
Well imagine any of the other previous Fallout games, but with all of the reasons to play through it that I mentioned above stripped away, leaving only the annoying grindy bullshit that you normally put up with. Except here, there is simply no reason to put up with it.
This is the realisation that I came to last night after putting about 7 hours into the game and I decided to switch it off and never pick it up again.
There is no plot, there are no characters, there is absolutely nothing to see that you haven't already seen in previous Fallout games with more meat to them and there is simply no reason to play this game.
If past Fallout games are a big meaty, juicy leg of lamb, then this is nothing but the dry bone that is left after all of the good stuff has been ripped away.
This is nothing but a quick cash grab. I'm not even talking specifically about the disgusting micro-transactions present in the game such as making players pay £10+ to change the colour of their power armour. No, I'm just talking about the game as a whole as there is absolutely no other merit to it or reason for it to exist or be played other than to make Bethesda some easy money.
This thing shouldn't exist and the fact that it does is a huge slap on the face to the consumer and it pretty much encapsulates everything that is wrong with the mind-set of modern publishers. This game should be boycotted and if you have to pick it up out of morbid curiosity, do what I did and buy it used.
I have heard a few industry experts say that this could be the game that ends Bethesda, the final nail in the coffin after the let-downs of Fallout 4 and ESO. Although don't want this to happen as I never like to see a gaming company go out of business, to be honest I can't say that they wouldn't deserve it for the below the belt bullshit that they are trying to pull on their audience. As a consumer and a fan of this franchise as well as the studio that produced it, I feel betrayed on a personal level and it really is going to take something extraordinary to put them back in my good graces and the good graces of their audience.
The Witcher 3 came out 4 years ago this year and it still looks and plays better than anything Bethesda studios has developed, (and I'm not even a big fan of The Witcher.) Bethesda really needs to pull their finger out if they want to compete with their peers going forwards. Starfield better be running on a brank new slick engine and contain story and gameplay elements that are nothing short of spectacular if they are to redeem themselves from this disaster.
I was hesitant to score this a 1/10, as it is not the worst game of the generation, however in the context of the rest of the series and the motive behind this particular sorry excuse for an entry in the series, it is such an insult that my conscience would not let me award it as anything more than the lowest possible score.