Search
The Newspaperman: The Life and Times of Ben Bradlee
TV Show Watch
Sometimes referred to as the country’s “most dangerous editor,” Washington Post executive...
documentary
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated 22 July (2018) in Movies
Oct 22, 2018 (Updated Oct 22, 2018)
Good Direction (1 more)
Well Acted
An Important, If Terrifying Recent Tragedy
22 July is a Netflix film directed by Paul Greengrass about a brutal 2011 terrorist attack in Oslo.
This film is hard to watch.
I'm a guy that loves gory action flicks and intense horror movies, but something like this is far more disturbing to me. The film is so well made on a technical level, that at some points it actually feels like you are watching the real life massacre play out, which to me felt a little bit too real. Thankfully, I have never been affected by an act of terrorism, nor has anyone that I know, but if I had, I'm not sure how I would feel about someone making a movie like this retelling the trauma that those people went through.
I appreciate that this is an important event in recent history and shouldn't be something that is easily forgotten, but the brutal realism of this film is hard to stomach at times. It really puts you in the shoes of the victims and let's you imagine the terror and crippling fear that they must have felt.
The actor that plays the perpetrator of the attack, Anders Behring Breivik, (played by Anders Danielsen Lie,) has to be commended. He was so believable in the role that I ended up getting really angry every time that he appeared in a scene. I don't even want to know what an actor has to do to get into that headspace, but he put in an absolutely sublime performance as a deplorable scumbag.
The other standout role was Jonas Strand Gravli as Viljar Hanssen, one of the victims of the attack. He is the audience's main conduit into this horrific event and he is brilliant throughout the film.
The main criticism that I have is that we are shown this horrific attack in brutal detail and the aftermath of the event, with no real purpose. I am not sure what the point of this movie was other than to retell a gut wrenching, terrifying story of a real life terrorist attack. I guess, if you were to do some reaching, you could say that the fact that the film has no point echoes the fact that this brutal act of mass violence also had no point and sometimes these horrific things just happen with no real reason.
Overall, this is a very well made movie. It is full of heavy emotions and will make you think about the nature of the human mind. This is if you can get through it though, the movie is very hard to watch and I can see a good amount of folks turning off because they can't handle it, which I can totally understand.
This film is hard to watch.
I'm a guy that loves gory action flicks and intense horror movies, but something like this is far more disturbing to me. The film is so well made on a technical level, that at some points it actually feels like you are watching the real life massacre play out, which to me felt a little bit too real. Thankfully, I have never been affected by an act of terrorism, nor has anyone that I know, but if I had, I'm not sure how I would feel about someone making a movie like this retelling the trauma that those people went through.
I appreciate that this is an important event in recent history and shouldn't be something that is easily forgotten, but the brutal realism of this film is hard to stomach at times. It really puts you in the shoes of the victims and let's you imagine the terror and crippling fear that they must have felt.
The actor that plays the perpetrator of the attack, Anders Behring Breivik, (played by Anders Danielsen Lie,) has to be commended. He was so believable in the role that I ended up getting really angry every time that he appeared in a scene. I don't even want to know what an actor has to do to get into that headspace, but he put in an absolutely sublime performance as a deplorable scumbag.
The other standout role was Jonas Strand Gravli as Viljar Hanssen, one of the victims of the attack. He is the audience's main conduit into this horrific event and he is brilliant throughout the film.
The main criticism that I have is that we are shown this horrific attack in brutal detail and the aftermath of the event, with no real purpose. I am not sure what the point of this movie was other than to retell a gut wrenching, terrifying story of a real life terrorist attack. I guess, if you were to do some reaching, you could say that the fact that the film has no point echoes the fact that this brutal act of mass violence also had no point and sometimes these horrific things just happen with no real reason.
Overall, this is a very well made movie. It is full of heavy emotions and will make you think about the nature of the human mind. This is if you can get through it though, the movie is very hard to watch and I can see a good amount of folks turning off because they can't handle it, which I can totally understand.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated What Light in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
Almost a decade after Jay Asher wowed readers with his debut novel, he returns to the literary scene with a brand new young adult romance. <i>What Light</i> focuses on the life of a good-natured girl living a complicated life. It is almost as if the teenaged Sierra is living two lives: eleven months on a Christmas tree farm in Oregon, followed by a month selling them in California. Due to the struggling business, this year may be the last time Sierra spends Christmas in California; however it is also the first year she meets the boy of her dreams.
Knowing that a romantic relationship is unlikely to survive the long distance between the two states, Sierra cannot help her developing feelings towards the handsome Caleb. Using his own money to purchase Christmas trees for families who cannot afford them, Caleb seems like the perfect guy; however rumours suggest he has a rather dubious history. Struggling to convince everyone that Caleb is a good person, Sierra suffers the consequences of strained relationships with her friends back home. The big issue is: should she continue to support Caleb even though in a couple of weeks she may never see him again?
As young adult romance novels go, <i>What Light</i> is fairly typical. Girl and boy meet; there are various issues to resolve; but things turn out all right in the end. If you are into those types of stories then this is the book for you, sadly, Asher does not bring anything new to the genre.
After reading several of these types of predictable novels, it becomes noticeable how unrealistic they are. The amount of youngsters in committed relationships is rather suspicious, especially the ones that seems to happen as if by accident or fate – although, from the readers perspective, are so obvious from the very beginning.
There is nothing deep or meaningful within this narrative – not a criticism of <i>What Light</i>, rather an observation of the genre – but it is sufficient for a quick read to pass the time, particularly over the upcoming Christmas period. There is nothing to disappoint the reader in terms of conclusion – it could be described as what some would call a “fluffy read”.
Overall, <i>What Light</i> is a novel that maintains the status quo of young adult romance, providing brief entertainment for those seeking a happy love story. With beautiful (in terms of personality) characters and settings, Jay Asher is likely to win back all the fans that had given up waiting for his next book to be written.
Almost a decade after Jay Asher wowed readers with his debut novel, he returns to the literary scene with a brand new young adult romance. <i>What Light</i> focuses on the life of a good-natured girl living a complicated life. It is almost as if the teenaged Sierra is living two lives: eleven months on a Christmas tree farm in Oregon, followed by a month selling them in California. Due to the struggling business, this year may be the last time Sierra spends Christmas in California; however it is also the first year she meets the boy of her dreams.
Knowing that a romantic relationship is unlikely to survive the long distance between the two states, Sierra cannot help her developing feelings towards the handsome Caleb. Using his own money to purchase Christmas trees for families who cannot afford them, Caleb seems like the perfect guy; however rumours suggest he has a rather dubious history. Struggling to convince everyone that Caleb is a good person, Sierra suffers the consequences of strained relationships with her friends back home. The big issue is: should she continue to support Caleb even though in a couple of weeks she may never see him again?
As young adult romance novels go, <i>What Light</i> is fairly typical. Girl and boy meet; there are various issues to resolve; but things turn out all right in the end. If you are into those types of stories then this is the book for you, sadly, Asher does not bring anything new to the genre.
After reading several of these types of predictable novels, it becomes noticeable how unrealistic they are. The amount of youngsters in committed relationships is rather suspicious, especially the ones that seems to happen as if by accident or fate – although, from the readers perspective, are so obvious from the very beginning.
There is nothing deep or meaningful within this narrative – not a criticism of <i>What Light</i>, rather an observation of the genre – but it is sufficient for a quick read to pass the time, particularly over the upcoming Christmas period. There is nothing to disappoint the reader in terms of conclusion – it could be described as what some would call a “fluffy read”.
Overall, <i>What Light</i> is a novel that maintains the status quo of young adult romance, providing brief entertainment for those seeking a happy love story. With beautiful (in terms of personality) characters and settings, Jay Asher is likely to win back all the fans that had given up waiting for his next book to be written.
AA
Aesthetics: A Reader in Philosophy of the Arts
Book
Aesthetics: A Reader in Philosophy of the Arts, 4th Edition contains an extensive selection of...
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Official Secrets (2019) in Movies
Oct 16, 2019
Should this tense, dramatic thriller remain a Secret?
I was lucky enough to be invited to an advanced screening of this film, ahead of it's general release.
"Official Secrets (2019)" is a tense and clever thriller based on real events that occurred during the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003. Keira Knightley plays Katherine Gun, a British spy-turned-whistleblower who worked for GCHQ at the time. She leaked confidential information to the press, exposing illegal activities at the highest levels of government intended to falsely justify the invasion of Iraq. Backed by a high-calibre support cast, which includes Matt Smith and Ralph Fiennes, this film serves to show you the true story of what happened during this shadowy and questionable chapter in our history.
The film uses actual news footage from the time to great effect, making you feel as if you're watching a biographical documentary on the History Channel. Knightley is captivating as the Robin Hood-esque lead, delivering a truly believable and heartfelt performance throughout. It wasn't until the credits began to roll and they showed you footage of the real Katherine Gun from news reels at the time that you realise just how good Knightley's performance really was. From the way she dressed to the tone in which she spoke and the small mannerisms of her personality, it was a very, very good portrayal.
As with most films like this, I imagine certain events and aspects of the story were dramatised or exaggerated for the purposes of cinema, but at no point did it ever feel like it. Any changes to real events were subtle enough that you couldn't spot them without detailed knowledge of what really happened at the time - something, it turns out, very few people actually had.
Matt Smith is both charming and uncompromising as the stubborn reporter who champions Gun's crusade for the truth, giving her support and a platform to get her message out to the world. Similarly, Ralph Fiennes looks right at home as the lawyer who defends her in the public eye.
I admit that certain aspects and legalities within the plot felt, at times, a little far-fetched, but honestly, the film did such a good job of telling this story, I'm inclined to think that's still how things actually happened.
Spoilers aren't as much of an issue for films like this, as you already know the outcome. But this film isn't about the destination, it's about the journey. It shines a spotlight on the down-and-dirty world of global politics, as well as how difficult it can sometimes be to choose to do the right thing.
The film moves along at a slow yet perfect pace. It doesn't look or feel like a Hollywood movie, which I think is a very good thing. Instead, it feels like a BBC drama, similar to Line of Duty or Luther or Spooks, and that's exactly the kind of approach this film needed to work.
I went into this admittedly understanding very little of what went on back in 2003. I was much younger and wasn't interested in geopolitics, or even the news in general. But seeing this film piqued my interest, and after a few hours of Googling the events depicted in the film, I'm even more in awe of just how well made this was. Kudos to everyone involved.
My only criticism, if I had to give one, would be the number of times people had to say "Official Secrets Act"... I get that's what the film is about, but it seemed like every character had a quota for the number of times they had to mention it! But that's just nit-picking for nit-picking's sake. This truly is a cracking film. One of the gems of the year that's not to be missed!
"Official Secrets (2019)" is a tense and clever thriller based on real events that occurred during the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003. Keira Knightley plays Katherine Gun, a British spy-turned-whistleblower who worked for GCHQ at the time. She leaked confidential information to the press, exposing illegal activities at the highest levels of government intended to falsely justify the invasion of Iraq. Backed by a high-calibre support cast, which includes Matt Smith and Ralph Fiennes, this film serves to show you the true story of what happened during this shadowy and questionable chapter in our history.
The film uses actual news footage from the time to great effect, making you feel as if you're watching a biographical documentary on the History Channel. Knightley is captivating as the Robin Hood-esque lead, delivering a truly believable and heartfelt performance throughout. It wasn't until the credits began to roll and they showed you footage of the real Katherine Gun from news reels at the time that you realise just how good Knightley's performance really was. From the way she dressed to the tone in which she spoke and the small mannerisms of her personality, it was a very, very good portrayal.
As with most films like this, I imagine certain events and aspects of the story were dramatised or exaggerated for the purposes of cinema, but at no point did it ever feel like it. Any changes to real events were subtle enough that you couldn't spot them without detailed knowledge of what really happened at the time - something, it turns out, very few people actually had.
Matt Smith is both charming and uncompromising as the stubborn reporter who champions Gun's crusade for the truth, giving her support and a platform to get her message out to the world. Similarly, Ralph Fiennes looks right at home as the lawyer who defends her in the public eye.
I admit that certain aspects and legalities within the plot felt, at times, a little far-fetched, but honestly, the film did such a good job of telling this story, I'm inclined to think that's still how things actually happened.
Spoilers aren't as much of an issue for films like this, as you already know the outcome. But this film isn't about the destination, it's about the journey. It shines a spotlight on the down-and-dirty world of global politics, as well as how difficult it can sometimes be to choose to do the right thing.
The film moves along at a slow yet perfect pace. It doesn't look or feel like a Hollywood movie, which I think is a very good thing. Instead, it feels like a BBC drama, similar to Line of Duty or Luther or Spooks, and that's exactly the kind of approach this film needed to work.
I went into this admittedly understanding very little of what went on back in 2003. I was much younger and wasn't interested in geopolitics, or even the news in general. But seeing this film piqued my interest, and after a few hours of Googling the events depicted in the film, I'm even more in awe of just how well made this was. Kudos to everyone involved.
My only criticism, if I had to give one, would be the number of times people had to say "Official Secrets Act"... I get that's what the film is about, but it seemed like every character had a quota for the number of times they had to mention it! But that's just nit-picking for nit-picking's sake. This truly is a cracking film. One of the gems of the year that's not to be missed!
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Game Of Thrones in TV
Jul 1, 2019
Winter has come and gone... and there won't ever be anything like it again!
Contains spoilers, click to show
Game of Thrones. The only show that drove people to brag on social media about the fact they've never seen it every time a new series came out!
I watched this from Season 3, quickly binging the first two seasons about a week before it aired. I'm not a huge Fantasy fan, but this show really was something else. Despite the setting, it gave us everything - blood, guts, drama, sex... even comedy. It gave us some of the most vile and hated antagonists to ever grace the screen, and it made heroes out of the unlikeliest of people.
Watching it week-to-week was difficult for a couple of reasons. One, so much is going on (especially in the earlier seasons) that you can forget a lot in a week, and you find yourself questioning everything. Two, it's so bloody good, you didn't want to wait a whole week to get your fix! Obviously, now it's finished, the second issue is no longer relevant - it's available to binge to your heart's content, which you absolutely should do.
I want to address the recent criticism of the eighth and final season. We waited over two years for it, and many people felt it was rushed, too short and too shallow. I would say 75% of people who watched the last season were left disappointed. Myself included.
But a few days after it had finished, I found myself thinking about the series as a whole more and more. I was reading articles online, theories and arguments about how and why the story played out the way it did. I realised I had felt somewhat detached watching Season 8 because it HAD been two years since I watched Season 7. It's as if I'd forgotten what it was like to watch it.
So, having never seen any episode more than once, I went back to the beginning and watched all eight seasons in a little under three weeks...
SO MUCH BETTER the second time around!
For two reasons. Firstly, there was no break in the story at all. Watching it as it aired meant you had a 12-month break every 10 hours, basically. Easy to lose your thread. Easy to forget things. When that doesn't happen, it's much more enjoyable and actually makes a lot more sense. There was so much I'd forgotten over the course of the nine years it was on, I kind of felt like I'd cheated myself, in a way, by not watching Seasons 1-7 before Season 8 aired.
Second, much in the way that Star Wars Episodes 1-3 work better if you've seen 4-6 first, Game of Thrones was actually much more enjoyable having seen the ending, because things make a lot more sense in retrospect.
***This is where it gets spoilery***
It becomes evident early on, even in the first season, that Jon Snow is one to watch. His shocking death at the end of Season 5 caused much confusion and debate. Obviously, his resurrection early in Season 6 put an end to that, and when the secret about his true identity is finally revealed in Season 8, it was a shocking moment, as everything started to fall into place and the true threat became evident.
However...
Having now done Seasons 1-8 back-to-back, the revelation that Jon Snow is, in fact, a Targaryen is far from surprising, given they've been dropping clues about it since back in the first few episodes. Obviously, at the time, these seemingly throwaway comments meant nothing, but now we know, there are numerous conversations throughout the show that border on being spoilers themselves.
Same with Arya Stark and her storyline. Second time around, even from Season 1, it's evident she was destined to slay The Night King. And as with Jon Snow, you never would've picked up on it at the time, but in hindsight it's been obvious for years.
Now, the major criticism about Season 8 was that it felt rushed and that it sacrificed too many characters arcs for the sake of finishing inside of six episodes. Watching it as it aired, I completely agreed. Jon Snow "suddenly" went from a brooding hero to a pointless extra. Daenerys Targaryen "suddenly" went from the freer of slaves and saviour of Westeros to an insane despot who slaughtered half the world because someone took her toys away.
Not true.
It seemed like that after two years of forgetting almost everything that had happened previously, but watching it from start to finish in one go, those things make perfect sense, and aren't actually that sudden. The Mother of Dragons showed clear and obvious signs of becoming The Mad Queen of Ashes very early on in the show. She was always kind and fair and just... but my goodness, did you get it if you pissed her off! Let's not forget she crucified almost 200 slave-owners long after they surrendered to prove a point. And poor Sam Tarly's father and brother! She had a mean streak, and she lived on a knife's edge. At any point since she married Khal Drogo back at the beginning of Season 1, the slightest push and she would snap. Fast forward to Season 8 and, after many years of fighting to fulfil her birthright and take the Iron Throne, she finds out she's not actually the heir to it at all... that's a pretty big push to a woman with a history of losing her shit when things don't go her way. So not much of a surprise at all, really.
And to address the criticism further, I'll analyse this as a writer. I tell stories for a living. When you're writing a novel, you look at it as a triangle, of sorts. It starts off wide and gradually gets to a point. Game of Thrones began very wide, with lots of characters and subplots. But as time goes on, it narrows and becomes more focused on the main threat... the main storylines - the battle against The Night King and the fight for the Iron Throne. Those two things are what nine years of storytelling were working towards, so yes, when you get to the final season and you have to wrap things up, it makes sense that you're going to focus on the big finish - the point of the series.
Not only that, for the first six seasons, the shows writers and creators had their hands held by George R. R. Martin and his source material. But then the TV show caught up with the books, which meant they suddenly had nothing more than a handful of bullet points to work off instead. Not easy to go from one to the other. They can't embellish things too much, because they run the risk of contradicting and undermining future books, which Mr. Martin wouldn't allow them to do. So they had to keep it simple, stick to the point and finish the job they started - nothing more.
Ultimately, no one likes to see their favourite show end. In hindsight, I think a lot of the criticism the final season received was because the audience forgot what came before it, and because they didn't want it to end.
If you're reading this having never watched it before.... first of all, sorry for ruining the story for you (but I did say it contained spoilers, in my defence). But you have the benefit of being able to binge through this, which means you'll get the full, uninterrupted experience, which is well worth the investment of your time to do.
If you HAVE watched the show before, I strongly suggest re-watching it from the beginning, because I enjoyed it far more the second time around.
This is the kind of show that comes along once a generation. The kind of show people talk about daily long after it finished. It redefines TV drama and I can promise you, you'll never see anything like it again.
That said, don't watch it if you're easily offended or grossed out. Or if you like animals. Oh, and don't watch Season 4, Episode 8 whilst you're eating. And don't watch Season 3, Episode 9 if you believe in the afterlife and have your heart set on getting into Heaven. And it's perfectly acceptable to watch Season 6, Episode 9 and feel like that's what you would do if faced with certain death.
Just perfect.
I watched this from Season 3, quickly binging the first two seasons about a week before it aired. I'm not a huge Fantasy fan, but this show really was something else. Despite the setting, it gave us everything - blood, guts, drama, sex... even comedy. It gave us some of the most vile and hated antagonists to ever grace the screen, and it made heroes out of the unlikeliest of people.
Watching it week-to-week was difficult for a couple of reasons. One, so much is going on (especially in the earlier seasons) that you can forget a lot in a week, and you find yourself questioning everything. Two, it's so bloody good, you didn't want to wait a whole week to get your fix! Obviously, now it's finished, the second issue is no longer relevant - it's available to binge to your heart's content, which you absolutely should do.
I want to address the recent criticism of the eighth and final season. We waited over two years for it, and many people felt it was rushed, too short and too shallow. I would say 75% of people who watched the last season were left disappointed. Myself included.
But a few days after it had finished, I found myself thinking about the series as a whole more and more. I was reading articles online, theories and arguments about how and why the story played out the way it did. I realised I had felt somewhat detached watching Season 8 because it HAD been two years since I watched Season 7. It's as if I'd forgotten what it was like to watch it.
So, having never seen any episode more than once, I went back to the beginning and watched all eight seasons in a little under three weeks...
SO MUCH BETTER the second time around!
For two reasons. Firstly, there was no break in the story at all. Watching it as it aired meant you had a 12-month break every 10 hours, basically. Easy to lose your thread. Easy to forget things. When that doesn't happen, it's much more enjoyable and actually makes a lot more sense. There was so much I'd forgotten over the course of the nine years it was on, I kind of felt like I'd cheated myself, in a way, by not watching Seasons 1-7 before Season 8 aired.
Second, much in the way that Star Wars Episodes 1-3 work better if you've seen 4-6 first, Game of Thrones was actually much more enjoyable having seen the ending, because things make a lot more sense in retrospect.
***This is where it gets spoilery***
It becomes evident early on, even in the first season, that Jon Snow is one to watch. His shocking death at the end of Season 5 caused much confusion and debate. Obviously, his resurrection early in Season 6 put an end to that, and when the secret about his true identity is finally revealed in Season 8, it was a shocking moment, as everything started to fall into place and the true threat became evident.
However...
Having now done Seasons 1-8 back-to-back, the revelation that Jon Snow is, in fact, a Targaryen is far from surprising, given they've been dropping clues about it since back in the first few episodes. Obviously, at the time, these seemingly throwaway comments meant nothing, but now we know, there are numerous conversations throughout the show that border on being spoilers themselves.
Same with Arya Stark and her storyline. Second time around, even from Season 1, it's evident she was destined to slay The Night King. And as with Jon Snow, you never would've picked up on it at the time, but in hindsight it's been obvious for years.
Now, the major criticism about Season 8 was that it felt rushed and that it sacrificed too many characters arcs for the sake of finishing inside of six episodes. Watching it as it aired, I completely agreed. Jon Snow "suddenly" went from a brooding hero to a pointless extra. Daenerys Targaryen "suddenly" went from the freer of slaves and saviour of Westeros to an insane despot who slaughtered half the world because someone took her toys away.
Not true.
It seemed like that after two years of forgetting almost everything that had happened previously, but watching it from start to finish in one go, those things make perfect sense, and aren't actually that sudden. The Mother of Dragons showed clear and obvious signs of becoming The Mad Queen of Ashes very early on in the show. She was always kind and fair and just... but my goodness, did you get it if you pissed her off! Let's not forget she crucified almost 200 slave-owners long after they surrendered to prove a point. And poor Sam Tarly's father and brother! She had a mean streak, and she lived on a knife's edge. At any point since she married Khal Drogo back at the beginning of Season 1, the slightest push and she would snap. Fast forward to Season 8 and, after many years of fighting to fulfil her birthright and take the Iron Throne, she finds out she's not actually the heir to it at all... that's a pretty big push to a woman with a history of losing her shit when things don't go her way. So not much of a surprise at all, really.
And to address the criticism further, I'll analyse this as a writer. I tell stories for a living. When you're writing a novel, you look at it as a triangle, of sorts. It starts off wide and gradually gets to a point. Game of Thrones began very wide, with lots of characters and subplots. But as time goes on, it narrows and becomes more focused on the main threat... the main storylines - the battle against The Night King and the fight for the Iron Throne. Those two things are what nine years of storytelling were working towards, so yes, when you get to the final season and you have to wrap things up, it makes sense that you're going to focus on the big finish - the point of the series.
Not only that, for the first six seasons, the shows writers and creators had their hands held by George R. R. Martin and his source material. But then the TV show caught up with the books, which meant they suddenly had nothing more than a handful of bullet points to work off instead. Not easy to go from one to the other. They can't embellish things too much, because they run the risk of contradicting and undermining future books, which Mr. Martin wouldn't allow them to do. So they had to keep it simple, stick to the point and finish the job they started - nothing more.
Ultimately, no one likes to see their favourite show end. In hindsight, I think a lot of the criticism the final season received was because the audience forgot what came before it, and because they didn't want it to end.
If you're reading this having never watched it before.... first of all, sorry for ruining the story for you (but I did say it contained spoilers, in my defence). But you have the benefit of being able to binge through this, which means you'll get the full, uninterrupted experience, which is well worth the investment of your time to do.
If you HAVE watched the show before, I strongly suggest re-watching it from the beginning, because I enjoyed it far more the second time around.
This is the kind of show that comes along once a generation. The kind of show people talk about daily long after it finished. It redefines TV drama and I can promise you, you'll never see anything like it again.
That said, don't watch it if you're easily offended or grossed out. Or if you like animals. Oh, and don't watch Season 4, Episode 8 whilst you're eating. And don't watch Season 3, Episode 9 if you believe in the afterlife and have your heart set on getting into Heaven. And it's perfectly acceptable to watch Season 6, Episode 9 and feel like that's what you would do if faced with certain death.
Just perfect.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Written (Emaneska #1) in Books
Nov 29, 2019
Ben Galley is a fantasy author and staunch defender of independent publishing. The Written is his first book, and the first in The Emaneska trilogy.
I have to say I was expecting some fairly standard sword and sorcery tale here, a bit of magic, a few fabulous beasts slain, the usual wise grey beards and prophecies. As a first book that would have definitely been the safe option, and would still have been a good read.
Needless to say this isn't what you get. You get a slew of mythical creatures - dragons (I suspect only the Pern novels exceed the sheer number in this book), werewolves and more besides. You get heroes and villains. You get magic. You get sword fights. But all of these are put together in a way that's different from the norm. Rather than trying to subvert all the fantasy tropes it is as if Galley dropped them and they smashed and in putting them back together they aren't quite the same as they were before.
The basic story concerns the theft of a spell book which, in the wrong hands, can be used to summon a mighty and powerful evil. Farden, one of the Written (a sort of magic user that has spells tattooed onto his back) has to try to prevent this happening. I won't give any more details as there are many twists and turns as the story unfolds.
Farden is a powerful mage and a tough fighter and although he is heoric he also has personal demons that could cause his mission to fail. He is a loner with little patience for others. He doubts his own abilities and judgement. As the reader you feel you want to give him a good shaking sometimes to get him to act. This makes him a very complex character, realistic and interesting to follow. The other main characters are also fully realised with their own mannerisms and momentum.
Galley takes his time describing the world and there is a feeling of real depth and history, perhaps not on the same scale as Tolkien but the comparison is apt. Clearly Galley has spent considerable time putting this world together and is rightly proud of the results.
He takes his time with descriptions, each of the many locations vividly worded and memorable. The action scenes (of which there are a fair number) crack along at a breathless pace although possibly a little overwritten at times (allowable when there is so much to try to convey to the reader I think).
As the first of a trilogy of books this obviously leaves the story open for the sequel at the end, but it is a satisfying conclusion and there is no doubt that the first part of Farden's journey is complete but that there is much more - and probably harder - to come.
Really the only criticism I have is that occasionally - at the start and then a small part about half way through - the writing perhaps isn't up to the standard of the rest, which I think is because this is a first novel. And the standard of the rest of the writing to so high this really is a niggle.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who likes their fantasy fast and interesting. It's a long book and a good book. And even better, it's free to download so what is stopping you?
I have to say I was expecting some fairly standard sword and sorcery tale here, a bit of magic, a few fabulous beasts slain, the usual wise grey beards and prophecies. As a first book that would have definitely been the safe option, and would still have been a good read.
Needless to say this isn't what you get. You get a slew of mythical creatures - dragons (I suspect only the Pern novels exceed the sheer number in this book), werewolves and more besides. You get heroes and villains. You get magic. You get sword fights. But all of these are put together in a way that's different from the norm. Rather than trying to subvert all the fantasy tropes it is as if Galley dropped them and they smashed and in putting them back together they aren't quite the same as they were before.
The basic story concerns the theft of a spell book which, in the wrong hands, can be used to summon a mighty and powerful evil. Farden, one of the Written (a sort of magic user that has spells tattooed onto his back) has to try to prevent this happening. I won't give any more details as there are many twists and turns as the story unfolds.
Farden is a powerful mage and a tough fighter and although he is heoric he also has personal demons that could cause his mission to fail. He is a loner with little patience for others. He doubts his own abilities and judgement. As the reader you feel you want to give him a good shaking sometimes to get him to act. This makes him a very complex character, realistic and interesting to follow. The other main characters are also fully realised with their own mannerisms and momentum.
Galley takes his time describing the world and there is a feeling of real depth and history, perhaps not on the same scale as Tolkien but the comparison is apt. Clearly Galley has spent considerable time putting this world together and is rightly proud of the results.
He takes his time with descriptions, each of the many locations vividly worded and memorable. The action scenes (of which there are a fair number) crack along at a breathless pace although possibly a little overwritten at times (allowable when there is so much to try to convey to the reader I think).
As the first of a trilogy of books this obviously leaves the story open for the sequel at the end, but it is a satisfying conclusion and there is no doubt that the first part of Farden's journey is complete but that there is much more - and probably harder - to come.
Really the only criticism I have is that occasionally - at the start and then a small part about half way through - the writing perhaps isn't up to the standard of the rest, which I think is because this is a first novel. And the standard of the rest of the writing to so high this really is a niggle.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who likes their fantasy fast and interesting. It's a long book and a good book. And even better, it's free to download so what is stopping you?
KalJ95 (25 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Doom Eternal in Video Games
May 6, 2020
Fast, free flowing combat is adrenaline pumping. (2 more)
One of the best FPS' of all time.
The sheer variety of Demons, Guns and Arenas is staggering.
Multiplayer is a bit...meh. (1 more)
Frequent crashes.
First person shooters have lost their touch. For a long time, the market has been utterly saturated with same annual game, like Call of Duty and Battlefield, and they play the same every time. Go back to the rise in the FPS genre, you'll see the likes of Wolfenstein 3D and DOOM revolutionise the genre forever. At the time, they were fast, weighty and satisfying to control. Fast forward to 2016, DOOM returns and ignites a brutal and bloody comeback for the FPS genre. A combination of fast paced gunplay, a killer soundtrack and over the top gore made this the best FPS to date.
Until now.
DOOM Eternal is the best FPS ever made. There, I said it. Eternal is blistering, adrenaline fuelled slingshot into your bloodstream, cranking the notches consistently to eleven, and it never let's up.
The core of Eternal is in its gameplay. The best way to describe the gunplay is a juggling of instruments that make up an orchestra, whilst you're conductor...and you're running mercilessly for your life and ammo. Its massively overwhelming to begin with, and you'll die often, but once you gather the rhythm of the dance of the Doom Slayer, it's a sight of awe, followed by psychotic grin on your face. Following in the footsteps and benchmarks that DOOM 2016 cemented, Eternal improves upon everything. The gunplay is meaty and brass, the platforming is fluid and easy to pick up, the demons and monsters all provide a challenge from the explosive beginning, to the equally as explosive finale, and when all of this is accompanied by the killer soundtrack cheering you on, Eternal is bulletproof.
Whilst DOOM 2016 feels dark in colour and tone, Eternal embraces the ridiculous and runs with it. Levels burst with bright and bonkers imagination, the effect of that first chainsaw kill where ammo flies out like confetti, and the endless ways to glory kill never gets tiresome. Add in the arsenal the Doom Slayer carries with him, it becomes a game of what gun is best for each demon. Although, the Double Barrel Shotgun is just magnificent to shoot with.
When it comes to DOOM, the narrative takes the backseat over its core idea of free movement to kill, and that's the only criticism I can give this franchise. Eternal does provide a planet hopping path of destruction through the Slayer's history, but you never feel invested in the narrative as much as you want to kill everything you see. I didn't need to know anything at all from the Slayers past, the mystery serves the narrative more not knowing. Also, I must note the amount of times my Playstation 4 has crashed due to DOOM Eternal. It really brings you out of the experience when you're almost finished on level, only to start again level all over again. I think this is however a minor fault in an otherwise superb game, and problems like this will hopefully be fixed in further patches.
I can't recommend DOOM Eternal enough. If video games were made singularly for fun, you have found the answer. I can't wait to see what id Software and Bethesda do next with this franchise.
Until now.
DOOM Eternal is the best FPS ever made. There, I said it. Eternal is blistering, adrenaline fuelled slingshot into your bloodstream, cranking the notches consistently to eleven, and it never let's up.
The core of Eternal is in its gameplay. The best way to describe the gunplay is a juggling of instruments that make up an orchestra, whilst you're conductor...and you're running mercilessly for your life and ammo. Its massively overwhelming to begin with, and you'll die often, but once you gather the rhythm of the dance of the Doom Slayer, it's a sight of awe, followed by psychotic grin on your face. Following in the footsteps and benchmarks that DOOM 2016 cemented, Eternal improves upon everything. The gunplay is meaty and brass, the platforming is fluid and easy to pick up, the demons and monsters all provide a challenge from the explosive beginning, to the equally as explosive finale, and when all of this is accompanied by the killer soundtrack cheering you on, Eternal is bulletproof.
Whilst DOOM 2016 feels dark in colour and tone, Eternal embraces the ridiculous and runs with it. Levels burst with bright and bonkers imagination, the effect of that first chainsaw kill where ammo flies out like confetti, and the endless ways to glory kill never gets tiresome. Add in the arsenal the Doom Slayer carries with him, it becomes a game of what gun is best for each demon. Although, the Double Barrel Shotgun is just magnificent to shoot with.
When it comes to DOOM, the narrative takes the backseat over its core idea of free movement to kill, and that's the only criticism I can give this franchise. Eternal does provide a planet hopping path of destruction through the Slayer's history, but you never feel invested in the narrative as much as you want to kill everything you see. I didn't need to know anything at all from the Slayers past, the mystery serves the narrative more not knowing. Also, I must note the amount of times my Playstation 4 has crashed due to DOOM Eternal. It really brings you out of the experience when you're almost finished on level, only to start again level all over again. I think this is however a minor fault in an otherwise superb game, and problems like this will hopefully be fixed in further patches.
I can't recommend DOOM Eternal enough. If video games were made singularly for fun, you have found the answer. I can't wait to see what id Software and Bethesda do next with this franchise.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Hummingbird Project (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Contemporary technology drama comes to the silver screen in the form of The Hummingbird Project starring Jesse Eisenberg, Alexander Skarsgård, and Salma Hayek. The film’s premise is realistic enough: A pair of insiders at a big Wall Street company defect to start a project for a rival firm – to built a single fiber optic connection between a stock exchange in Kansas City and the New York Stock Exchange. This was realistic enough that my lack of knowledge on the history of Wall Street’s networking had me looking up later to see if there was any truth or basis to portions of the plot. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to find anything referencing a Kansas City Stock Exchange. Unless they were referring to livestock? Because there was a Kansas City Livestock Exchange. Anyway, my biases up front – despite my clear lacking of aforementioned knowledge, I am a tech geek with experience in networking and related technology fields. So, a premise like this has a lot to attract my attention. There is admittedly much to enjoy about dramas regarding our contemporary plights in the realm of technology, because that’s where a lot of work is centered. Gone are the days of building railroads. But our internet infrastructure…
The film does a fairly good job representing the intense difficulty of such a project: it’s something like one thousand miles of straight line to run one fiber optic connection without obstruction. Most people would not think about what goes into making that into reality, which is the draw for most of the film’s conflict. I do however recognize that centering the plot on a large scale construction job of an internet cable doesn’t exactly scream excitement for most people; and this is especially true when the end goal is to shave off one millisecond from their current transaction times. Yet, this arguably ironic dynamic actually ended up being somewhat of a draw for me. Halfway through the film the question arises, “All this for just a millisecond of increased speed?” That’s the point though, and I wish the film would have delved deeper into these kinds of themes. This represents my chief criticism: all of the elements are here for a truly stellar drama but everything is explored at only a shallow or moderate depth. The characters have decent arcs, thrown some difficult challenges and curveballs to overcome, but Jesse Eisenberg’s character only briefly touches on the back-story that truly drives him, and while Alexander Skarsgård‘s character is more fully fleshed out his arc is essentially basic. I do enjoy the role reversal as one would usually expect to see Jesse Eisenberg playing the socially awkward genius programmer and Alexander Skarsgård to play the ambitious go-getter who runs the project, but they take opposite roles to great effect. The actors all do great here for the most part, including the excellent Michael Mando in a supporting role. My only complaint here is the acting dips a bit into melodrama later in the film, but this is mostly attributed to subplots that edge into the unbelievable.
Ironically Hummingbird Project works best at representing its core premise of what most would consider a mundane construction project. The actors do well, and I especially enjoy Alexander Skarsgård‘s portrayal of the lonely genius, but their underlying drama and back-stories are a bit of a mixed bag. Some of it works decently well while other elements do not – particularly late in the film. Sadly the themes at play are a bit too obvious and underexplored, but it is an appreciated attempt to represent a seldom explored aspect of contemporary industry.
The film does a fairly good job representing the intense difficulty of such a project: it’s something like one thousand miles of straight line to run one fiber optic connection without obstruction. Most people would not think about what goes into making that into reality, which is the draw for most of the film’s conflict. I do however recognize that centering the plot on a large scale construction job of an internet cable doesn’t exactly scream excitement for most people; and this is especially true when the end goal is to shave off one millisecond from their current transaction times. Yet, this arguably ironic dynamic actually ended up being somewhat of a draw for me. Halfway through the film the question arises, “All this for just a millisecond of increased speed?” That’s the point though, and I wish the film would have delved deeper into these kinds of themes. This represents my chief criticism: all of the elements are here for a truly stellar drama but everything is explored at only a shallow or moderate depth. The characters have decent arcs, thrown some difficult challenges and curveballs to overcome, but Jesse Eisenberg’s character only briefly touches on the back-story that truly drives him, and while Alexander Skarsgård‘s character is more fully fleshed out his arc is essentially basic. I do enjoy the role reversal as one would usually expect to see Jesse Eisenberg playing the socially awkward genius programmer and Alexander Skarsgård to play the ambitious go-getter who runs the project, but they take opposite roles to great effect. The actors all do great here for the most part, including the excellent Michael Mando in a supporting role. My only complaint here is the acting dips a bit into melodrama later in the film, but this is mostly attributed to subplots that edge into the unbelievable.
Ironically Hummingbird Project works best at representing its core premise of what most would consider a mundane construction project. The actors do well, and I especially enjoy Alexander Skarsgård‘s portrayal of the lonely genius, but their underlying drama and back-stories are a bit of a mixed bag. Some of it works decently well while other elements do not – particularly late in the film. Sadly the themes at play are a bit too obvious and underexplored, but it is an appreciated attempt to represent a seldom explored aspect of contemporary industry.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Free Fire (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A movie with more than a whiff of cordite about it
As I write this, I’m really struggling to evaluate whether the latest film of Ben Wheatley (“High Rise”) is a masterpiece or just pulp trash. It’s certainly a brave and highly distinctive venture, with that you can’t argue.
Set in Boston in 1978, an arms deal is going down in a deserted warehouse. Brokered by Justine (Brie Larson, “Room”) an IRA team headed by Frank (Michael Smiley, “The World’s End“) with his business guy Chris (Cillian Murphy, “Inception”, “Batman Begins”) are on the buying side. As ‘roadies’ they’ve brought with them a couple of crack-head friends Stevo (Sam Riley, “Brighton Rock”, “Maleficent“) and Bernie (Enzo Cilenti, “The Martian“) who are far from stable.
On the selling side is South African dealer and “international asshole” Vern (Sharlto Copley, “Elysium“), his suave and wisecracking protector Ord (Armie Hammer, “The Man From Uncle”) and Vern’s right hand man Martin (Babou Ceesay, “Eye in the Sky“). What connects all of these individuals is that no-one likes or trusts anyone else.
Unfortunately, one of Vern’s van drivers is John Denver-lover Harry (the excellent Jack Treynor, “Sing Street”) who has very recent personal history with Stevo. The fuse is lit, and when the two meet chaos ensues: in the words of Anchorman’s Ron Burgundy, “That escalated quickly”!
And, for a 90 minute film, that’s basically it. If you think after viewing the trailer “there must be more to the film than this”…. you’re wrong!
However, what there is of it is enormously entertaining. Played ostensibly for laughs, with very very black humour and an F-word and a gunshot in every other sentence, some of the characters – notably those played by Sharlto Copley, Arnie Hammer and Brie Larson – have some hilarious dialogue. The star turn for me though was Jack Treynor who was just so impressive as the ‘lost at sea’ brother in the delightful “Sing Street” and here delivers a stand-out performance as another brother on a mission… this time a mission of vengeance. You are waiting throughout the film for the inevitable showdown between Harry and Stevo – – and when it comes it is both bloody and memorable.
A cracking 70’ soundtrack, put together by the Portishead duo of Geoff Barrow and Ben Salisbury, involves 70’s classics by Credence Clearwater Revival, John Denver and The Real Kids and it’s hammered out at top volume over the action. The downside of this effect is that – for my old ears at least – it sometimes make some of the dialogue hard to follow.
As a policing exercise, the film clearly has merit. In the same manner as Schwarzenegger’s “Running Man” put criminals in an arena to cull them, so this must have reduced the crime rates in both Boston and Belfast no end! While some may not approve of the levels of violence on show, it is all done in a highly cartoonish way: like a “Tom and Jerry” cartoon, or “Home Alone”, everyone seems to get shot multiple times and yet (in the main) is still active and mobile. All of this makes criticism of the performances something of a waste of time, but I would comment that some of the acting is of the “over the top” variety: surprisingly, I found some of Oscar winner Brie Larson’s scenes falling into this category and snapping me out of the narrative at times.
But overall, my evaluation is now done and I am rooting on the side of it being a brash and exhilarating minor masterpiece. Yes, it’s one-dimensional. Yes, it is virtually impossible to feel any empathy with any of the characters, as they are all universally loathsome. But it’s a movie whose flaws are forgivable based on the characterisation and the cracking good script by long-term collaborators Ben Wheatley and Amy Jump.
Tight as it is within its 90 minute running time, I very much doubt you will be bored.
Set in Boston in 1978, an arms deal is going down in a deserted warehouse. Brokered by Justine (Brie Larson, “Room”) an IRA team headed by Frank (Michael Smiley, “The World’s End“) with his business guy Chris (Cillian Murphy, “Inception”, “Batman Begins”) are on the buying side. As ‘roadies’ they’ve brought with them a couple of crack-head friends Stevo (Sam Riley, “Brighton Rock”, “Maleficent“) and Bernie (Enzo Cilenti, “The Martian“) who are far from stable.
On the selling side is South African dealer and “international asshole” Vern (Sharlto Copley, “Elysium“), his suave and wisecracking protector Ord (Armie Hammer, “The Man From Uncle”) and Vern’s right hand man Martin (Babou Ceesay, “Eye in the Sky“). What connects all of these individuals is that no-one likes or trusts anyone else.
Unfortunately, one of Vern’s van drivers is John Denver-lover Harry (the excellent Jack Treynor, “Sing Street”) who has very recent personal history with Stevo. The fuse is lit, and when the two meet chaos ensues: in the words of Anchorman’s Ron Burgundy, “That escalated quickly”!
And, for a 90 minute film, that’s basically it. If you think after viewing the trailer “there must be more to the film than this”…. you’re wrong!
However, what there is of it is enormously entertaining. Played ostensibly for laughs, with very very black humour and an F-word and a gunshot in every other sentence, some of the characters – notably those played by Sharlto Copley, Arnie Hammer and Brie Larson – have some hilarious dialogue. The star turn for me though was Jack Treynor who was just so impressive as the ‘lost at sea’ brother in the delightful “Sing Street” and here delivers a stand-out performance as another brother on a mission… this time a mission of vengeance. You are waiting throughout the film for the inevitable showdown between Harry and Stevo – – and when it comes it is both bloody and memorable.
A cracking 70’ soundtrack, put together by the Portishead duo of Geoff Barrow and Ben Salisbury, involves 70’s classics by Credence Clearwater Revival, John Denver and The Real Kids and it’s hammered out at top volume over the action. The downside of this effect is that – for my old ears at least – it sometimes make some of the dialogue hard to follow.
As a policing exercise, the film clearly has merit. In the same manner as Schwarzenegger’s “Running Man” put criminals in an arena to cull them, so this must have reduced the crime rates in both Boston and Belfast no end! While some may not approve of the levels of violence on show, it is all done in a highly cartoonish way: like a “Tom and Jerry” cartoon, or “Home Alone”, everyone seems to get shot multiple times and yet (in the main) is still active and mobile. All of this makes criticism of the performances something of a waste of time, but I would comment that some of the acting is of the “over the top” variety: surprisingly, I found some of Oscar winner Brie Larson’s scenes falling into this category and snapping me out of the narrative at times.
But overall, my evaluation is now done and I am rooting on the side of it being a brash and exhilarating minor masterpiece. Yes, it’s one-dimensional. Yes, it is virtually impossible to feel any empathy with any of the characters, as they are all universally loathsome. But it’s a movie whose flaws are forgivable based on the characterisation and the cracking good script by long-term collaborators Ben Wheatley and Amy Jump.
Tight as it is within its 90 minute running time, I very much doubt you will be bored.