Search
Search results
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Arrow in TV
May 13, 2018
Closer to the comics than people think (5 more)
Great cast
Intriguing characters
Brilliant character development
Great drama
Great references to the comics
Some characters become annoying (1 more)
Not all seasons are consistent with quality
You Have (not) failed this series!
First of all I should tell you that Green Arrow is my all time favourite comic character so this review might have some bias but I'll keep it to a minimum because I am not blinded by this shows faults of which it's had quite a few.
When I first saw the trailer for Arrow I was hooked. Finally, a show about Green Arrow, one of the less popular heroes these days and one of the many heroes that makes the people who only watch comic book films, say "Who the hell is that?".
Series one had me hooked with great drama, and incredible action that made the week long wait for each episode painful. The drama was intense as we watch Oliver Queen trying to juggle his two lives as both Oliver Queen and Arrow (currently called the Vigilante or The Hood during season 1), as he tries to keep his night time activities as a vigilante a secret.
The faults of this series reside in some of the dialogue and characters who I won't name because it's not really down to one particular character as others do the same though some get more blame than others. The point is, some of the drama in the show is unnecessary and sometimes it's all over the place going from "I love you" to "never talk to me again" within seconds for very stupid reasons. If you can get past that though, you'll see a lot more of Green Arrow in the show than you realise.
One of the main things I love about this show is seeing Oliver Queen take on real life issues as well as comic book villains. Issues such as his sister taking drugs which, due to her childhood nickname being 'Speedy', is a reference to Green Lantern/Green Arrow #85 and #86 where Green Arrow finds out that Roy Harper is a drug addict. By making the series version about his sister however, makes the situation more personal which means it messes with Olivers head when he's out hunting the drug suppliers.
The villains have all been great in the series, even though not all have been praised. Malcom Merlyn as the first villain was a good choice because he's one of the few original Green Arrow Villains from comics and John Barrowman was a brilliant choice of casting. Deathstroke then took it up a notch and really made the series great, and his season is possibly still one of the best seasons (season 2). Ras Al Ghul was a very intense series and although everyone moaned that Arrow had become too much like Batman, but Arrow made it their own and made a brilliantly intense series with some great twists that at the time I was like "please don't end it like this...." Or... "Where do they go from here?" And Everytime I thought they might have made a mistake with a certain plot point, they proved me wrong.
Damien Darkh was probably one of the lesser great villains. The casting was perfect, because Damien Darkh was so menacing and so brilliantly evil with a human side to him at certain points, but I don't think personally, they should have brought magic into Arrow, because it added too many scenes where you thought "why would you even try this?" Or "why did he not do this and this moment". But unlike many I actually enjoyed Damien Darkh as a villain because the characters and intense story were brilliantly chosen and executed.
The last two seasons (5 & 6) have been really intense and incredibly action packed as Green Arrow and Team Arrow try to take on what feels like the world.
The downfalls of the series include some of the drama being not entirely necessary. We understand as an audience that tensions build and everyone has a thousand and one problems that they have to deal with, but everyone seems to unleash them all at once. I understand wanting to build the feeling that everything is falling apart, but it happens soooo much, and it's hard to sympathise with certain scenarios because of it.
Another slight issue is the love interests. If you know Green Arrow, then you know he's a bit of a ladies man and that he can often be caught flirting and more with many women, in the show, we see this done well but at the end of the day it aaaallllwaayyyss comes back to Olicity. Oliver and Felicity's love story has had so many ups and downs and they've fallen in and out of love so many times and whilst I love Felicity as a character and a member of the team, the love rollercoaster she is on with Oliver reaaalllyyy annoys me at times, but I try to look past it and everything's seems to be okay.
Overall though this is one of my favourite shows and I prefer it to The Flash though The Flash has had some better seasons than Arrow has. I can't wait to see what else the show brings to the screen as it has already brought many obscure characters such as Cupid, Vigilante, Prometheus, Bronze Tiger and more!
When I first saw the trailer for Arrow I was hooked. Finally, a show about Green Arrow, one of the less popular heroes these days and one of the many heroes that makes the people who only watch comic book films, say "Who the hell is that?".
Series one had me hooked with great drama, and incredible action that made the week long wait for each episode painful. The drama was intense as we watch Oliver Queen trying to juggle his two lives as both Oliver Queen and Arrow (currently called the Vigilante or The Hood during season 1), as he tries to keep his night time activities as a vigilante a secret.
The faults of this series reside in some of the dialogue and characters who I won't name because it's not really down to one particular character as others do the same though some get more blame than others. The point is, some of the drama in the show is unnecessary and sometimes it's all over the place going from "I love you" to "never talk to me again" within seconds for very stupid reasons. If you can get past that though, you'll see a lot more of Green Arrow in the show than you realise.
One of the main things I love about this show is seeing Oliver Queen take on real life issues as well as comic book villains. Issues such as his sister taking drugs which, due to her childhood nickname being 'Speedy', is a reference to Green Lantern/Green Arrow #85 and #86 where Green Arrow finds out that Roy Harper is a drug addict. By making the series version about his sister however, makes the situation more personal which means it messes with Olivers head when he's out hunting the drug suppliers.
The villains have all been great in the series, even though not all have been praised. Malcom Merlyn as the first villain was a good choice because he's one of the few original Green Arrow Villains from comics and John Barrowman was a brilliant choice of casting. Deathstroke then took it up a notch and really made the series great, and his season is possibly still one of the best seasons (season 2). Ras Al Ghul was a very intense series and although everyone moaned that Arrow had become too much like Batman, but Arrow made it their own and made a brilliantly intense series with some great twists that at the time I was like "please don't end it like this...." Or... "Where do they go from here?" And Everytime I thought they might have made a mistake with a certain plot point, they proved me wrong.
Damien Darkh was probably one of the lesser great villains. The casting was perfect, because Damien Darkh was so menacing and so brilliantly evil with a human side to him at certain points, but I don't think personally, they should have brought magic into Arrow, because it added too many scenes where you thought "why would you even try this?" Or "why did he not do this and this moment". But unlike many I actually enjoyed Damien Darkh as a villain because the characters and intense story were brilliantly chosen and executed.
The last two seasons (5 & 6) have been really intense and incredibly action packed as Green Arrow and Team Arrow try to take on what feels like the world.
The downfalls of the series include some of the drama being not entirely necessary. We understand as an audience that tensions build and everyone has a thousand and one problems that they have to deal with, but everyone seems to unleash them all at once. I understand wanting to build the feeling that everything is falling apart, but it happens soooo much, and it's hard to sympathise with certain scenarios because of it.
Another slight issue is the love interests. If you know Green Arrow, then you know he's a bit of a ladies man and that he can often be caught flirting and more with many women, in the show, we see this done well but at the end of the day it aaaallllwaayyyss comes back to Olicity. Oliver and Felicity's love story has had so many ups and downs and they've fallen in and out of love so many times and whilst I love Felicity as a character and a member of the team, the love rollercoaster she is on with Oliver reaaalllyyy annoys me at times, but I try to look past it and everything's seems to be okay.
Overall though this is one of my favourite shows and I prefer it to The Flash though The Flash has had some better seasons than Arrow has. I can't wait to see what else the show brings to the screen as it has already brought many obscure characters such as Cupid, Vigilante, Prometheus, Bronze Tiger and more!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Passion of the Christ (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Perhaps the most controversial film of our time “The Passion of the Christ” has arrived amidst much speculation and controversy. Not since “The Last Temptation of Christ” has a film garnered so much controversy and that film did not have a mega-star like Mel Gibson attached to it nor a wide-release reported to reach 2500 screens in the U.S. alone.
The film shows the final hours of Jesus leading to his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. The film opens with Jesus (Jim Caviezel), and some of his Disciples in the garden as Jesus contemplates what is to come and prays that this burden be passed from him if it is Gods will. Jesus is visibly afraid and is unsure of what to do, as he knows Judas has betrayed him and that troops are on the way to arrest him.
Jesus is soon arrested and is beaten and taken before the Jewish elders to be accused of heresy for teaching beliefs which contradict the locale doctrine and for encouraging others to follow his teachings.
Jesus is soon taken before the Roman consul who decides to punish not execute Jesus, as he does not believe his crimes are worthy of death. Politics soon envelope the situation as the Romans fear an uprising if the wishes of the council are not followed forcing Jesus to be ordered for crucifixion.
While I am not one to give away vital parts to a films story, I take it that the majority of readers will know at least this much of the story. The emphasis on the film is on what Jesus had to endure during the final hours of his life and the untold suffering and brutality that were put upon him for his beliefs.
Much has been made of the films intense and graphic violence and I am not going to sugar coat this. The film is very intense and very violent and on more than once occasion caused me to start tearing as the film is very emotional and it is hard to watch a person suffer especially one who many believe devoted his life for the betterment of all of us regardless of faith. I have always been one that believes that all people are entitled to their beliefs and that no group has the right to say that there way is the only way and that others are wrong for not following them.
In many ways, the film drives this point home as Jesus prays for the forgiveness of those who are killing him even though they do not share his faith. The man who was killed as a threat to the society and doctrines of the community never wavered in his love for his fellow man and retained his compassion to the very end.
Gibson is to be commended for making a powerful and emotional film that can be enjoyed by people of all faiths. The film is a visual masterpiece that is highly detailed and is the most accurate depiction of the final hours of Christ ever committed to film. The use of Latin and Aramaic in combination with subtitles underscores attention to detail that Gibson put into his labor of love and as such, he deserves praise for crafting this film regardless of your opinion on the films content. This is a bold and passionate film that attempts to tell the story in the way that it happened as accurately as possible. While some of the scenes may be very difficult to watch, you will not soon forget the images and will have a hard time not being emotionally moved by the work. This is not a film that blames any group for the death of Jesus; it is simply an account as to how and why it happened. The film also serves as a message that we should all embrace and tolerate the differences in our neighbors as when we do not, atrocities can happen. As a student of history, I found myself pondering during the film in regards to what would happen if a figure arrived today that encouraged others to follow a new path and not those of the traditional religions. If said person were to become widely know and develop a large following what would happen? Would they be called a cult and prosecuted, would they be ridiculed, or would they be killed? This troubled me as I think that despite nearly 2000 years of progress there are those who would resort to violence. Such is the case of the film. The majority did not want to see Jesus killed; it was a strong and vocal minority of the population who wanted to protect their interests. The film is not anti-Semitic and does not blame any group for the death of Jesus and emphasizes that his death was in order to absolve sin and blame.
The film makes you think and in this day of disposable films, it is nice to see that despite the controversy and lack of commercial nature of the film, Gibson put his heart into the production and created one of the best films of the decade. Gibson is a master storyteller and shows that he is a gifted director and producer and should be praised for his craft.
The film shows the final hours of Jesus leading to his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. The film opens with Jesus (Jim Caviezel), and some of his Disciples in the garden as Jesus contemplates what is to come and prays that this burden be passed from him if it is Gods will. Jesus is visibly afraid and is unsure of what to do, as he knows Judas has betrayed him and that troops are on the way to arrest him.
Jesus is soon arrested and is beaten and taken before the Jewish elders to be accused of heresy for teaching beliefs which contradict the locale doctrine and for encouraging others to follow his teachings.
Jesus is soon taken before the Roman consul who decides to punish not execute Jesus, as he does not believe his crimes are worthy of death. Politics soon envelope the situation as the Romans fear an uprising if the wishes of the council are not followed forcing Jesus to be ordered for crucifixion.
While I am not one to give away vital parts to a films story, I take it that the majority of readers will know at least this much of the story. The emphasis on the film is on what Jesus had to endure during the final hours of his life and the untold suffering and brutality that were put upon him for his beliefs.
Much has been made of the films intense and graphic violence and I am not going to sugar coat this. The film is very intense and very violent and on more than once occasion caused me to start tearing as the film is very emotional and it is hard to watch a person suffer especially one who many believe devoted his life for the betterment of all of us regardless of faith. I have always been one that believes that all people are entitled to their beliefs and that no group has the right to say that there way is the only way and that others are wrong for not following them.
In many ways, the film drives this point home as Jesus prays for the forgiveness of those who are killing him even though they do not share his faith. The man who was killed as a threat to the society and doctrines of the community never wavered in his love for his fellow man and retained his compassion to the very end.
Gibson is to be commended for making a powerful and emotional film that can be enjoyed by people of all faiths. The film is a visual masterpiece that is highly detailed and is the most accurate depiction of the final hours of Christ ever committed to film. The use of Latin and Aramaic in combination with subtitles underscores attention to detail that Gibson put into his labor of love and as such, he deserves praise for crafting this film regardless of your opinion on the films content. This is a bold and passionate film that attempts to tell the story in the way that it happened as accurately as possible. While some of the scenes may be very difficult to watch, you will not soon forget the images and will have a hard time not being emotionally moved by the work. This is not a film that blames any group for the death of Jesus; it is simply an account as to how and why it happened. The film also serves as a message that we should all embrace and tolerate the differences in our neighbors as when we do not, atrocities can happen. As a student of history, I found myself pondering during the film in regards to what would happen if a figure arrived today that encouraged others to follow a new path and not those of the traditional religions. If said person were to become widely know and develop a large following what would happen? Would they be called a cult and prosecuted, would they be ridiculed, or would they be killed? This troubled me as I think that despite nearly 2000 years of progress there are those who would resort to violence. Such is the case of the film. The majority did not want to see Jesus killed; it was a strong and vocal minority of the population who wanted to protect their interests. The film is not anti-Semitic and does not blame any group for the death of Jesus and emphasizes that his death was in order to absolve sin and blame.
The film makes you think and in this day of disposable films, it is nice to see that despite the controversy and lack of commercial nature of the film, Gibson put his heart into the production and created one of the best films of the decade. Gibson is a master storyteller and shows that he is a gifted director and producer and should be praised for his craft.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated End of Watch (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Director/Writer David Ayer (Street Kings, Training day) once again takes us into the world of the Los Angeles police department in the new movie End of Watch. Only this time rather than go in the corrupt police officer direction he has gone before, Ayer instead takes audiences on a honest and somewhat realistic emotionally charged ride along with two young and confident LAPD patrolmen.
While the story in this film is as simple as two cops over reaching their pay grades causing them to get on a drug cartels hit list. The film is more like an unrated extended episode of the TV series Cops, focusing on the everyday encounters of our heroes as they patrol south central LA. These encounters range from calls for lost children, domestic disturbance, and noise violations, albeit a bit exaggerated in these and several other incidents. Still the various types of encounters cause the film to feel like a true ride along into the lives of these LAPD cops. Additionally the use of the handheld “found footage” film style works surprisingly well at giving the movie that TV episodic style that makes the overall experience feel realistic. That being said, there are a few scenes where it is not clear who is holding the camera or where the shot is coming from, however these scenes are barely noticeable because of the excellent performances by our protagonists that keeps our interest on what they are saying and doing on screen rather than who is holding the camera.
Officer Bryan Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal, Source Code) is our main protagonist of this movie. The ex-marine turned cop has to take an art elective in his pre-law studies and decides to take a documentary film class and take us on the inside of the LAPD. Gyllenhaal ‘s performance embodies Taylor as the good natured ambitious officer wanting more in his life of relationships and career. It would be easy for this character to be the traditional good cop in movies like this however given the found footage film style we instead find that Taylor, while good, can also be a complete “jerk” cop who is quick to anger and use brutish force when he deems necessary. This only helps solidify the rawness and reality of this film which pays a nod to the difficult nature of this job for real life police officers. Gyllenhaal gives yet another outstanding performance in his career causing us to grow attached to his character and respect him.
In addition Michel Pena (Crash) delivers a fantastic performance as Taylor’s partner and best friend Officer Mike Zavala. Pena embodies the other side to Gyllenhaal’s “jerk” cop by with his own good natured, simple man who is quick to become a bull when pushed. No more is this better shown in a scene where Zavala and a gang member get into a war of words and caused Zavala to drop his gun and badge and fight man to man to settle their dispute in the “street” way. Thus earning respect from that particular gang member.
Together Gyllenhaal and Pena share the screen wonderfully. Their relationship seems effortless and natural as if they were actually partners and best friends. You can tell they are having fun on set working together and it shows in their performance together as they really get a sense that they are more than partners and friends but are in fact, brothers. Their relationship and characters are only developed further as we watch Taylor pursue a deeper intellectual relationship with scientist Janet (Anna Kendrick, Up In The Air) and Zavala through the birth of his first born from wife Gabby (Natalie Martinez, Death Race). Kendrick and Martinez give believable performances as love interests to our heroes that show us a more human and softer side of these testosterone filled officers who will do whatever it takes to uphold the law. Throw in a strong supporting cast of other police officers led by Frank Grillo (Warrior) who plays the LAPD’s sergeant and you have a performance where we not only care about our heroes but we see the brotherhood of the police force in general.
One thing that I was not expecting from the film is the amount of moments where the audience literally laughed out loud. That is not to say that this is a comedy, in fact it is far from it. But the quick witted jokes and verbal jabs by our onscreen partners help alleviate some of the heavy emotional scenes of the movie. I felt that these characters used that good natured humor to keep themselves from going off of the deep end in handling all of the gruesome encounters they witness. These well placed laughs helped the audience deal with these gruesome scenes as well and helped strengthen our bond with these brothers.
All in all, this movie is a buddy cop film on steroids. While there is not much of a traditional story arch, this helps develop the realistic feel more like an unrated extended episode of Cops. That being said Gyllenhaal and Pena deliver a fantastic performance together. They have a real connection that makes you believe they have been partners for years and consider each other brothers. Add in a solid ensemble cast and the overall experience is worth the price of admission. However those who grow motion sick from found footage films may want to stay clear as there is a definite lack of steady cam
While the story in this film is as simple as two cops over reaching their pay grades causing them to get on a drug cartels hit list. The film is more like an unrated extended episode of the TV series Cops, focusing on the everyday encounters of our heroes as they patrol south central LA. These encounters range from calls for lost children, domestic disturbance, and noise violations, albeit a bit exaggerated in these and several other incidents. Still the various types of encounters cause the film to feel like a true ride along into the lives of these LAPD cops. Additionally the use of the handheld “found footage” film style works surprisingly well at giving the movie that TV episodic style that makes the overall experience feel realistic. That being said, there are a few scenes where it is not clear who is holding the camera or where the shot is coming from, however these scenes are barely noticeable because of the excellent performances by our protagonists that keeps our interest on what they are saying and doing on screen rather than who is holding the camera.
Officer Bryan Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal, Source Code) is our main protagonist of this movie. The ex-marine turned cop has to take an art elective in his pre-law studies and decides to take a documentary film class and take us on the inside of the LAPD. Gyllenhaal ‘s performance embodies Taylor as the good natured ambitious officer wanting more in his life of relationships and career. It would be easy for this character to be the traditional good cop in movies like this however given the found footage film style we instead find that Taylor, while good, can also be a complete “jerk” cop who is quick to anger and use brutish force when he deems necessary. This only helps solidify the rawness and reality of this film which pays a nod to the difficult nature of this job for real life police officers. Gyllenhaal gives yet another outstanding performance in his career causing us to grow attached to his character and respect him.
In addition Michel Pena (Crash) delivers a fantastic performance as Taylor’s partner and best friend Officer Mike Zavala. Pena embodies the other side to Gyllenhaal’s “jerk” cop by with his own good natured, simple man who is quick to become a bull when pushed. No more is this better shown in a scene where Zavala and a gang member get into a war of words and caused Zavala to drop his gun and badge and fight man to man to settle their dispute in the “street” way. Thus earning respect from that particular gang member.
Together Gyllenhaal and Pena share the screen wonderfully. Their relationship seems effortless and natural as if they were actually partners and best friends. You can tell they are having fun on set working together and it shows in their performance together as they really get a sense that they are more than partners and friends but are in fact, brothers. Their relationship and characters are only developed further as we watch Taylor pursue a deeper intellectual relationship with scientist Janet (Anna Kendrick, Up In The Air) and Zavala through the birth of his first born from wife Gabby (Natalie Martinez, Death Race). Kendrick and Martinez give believable performances as love interests to our heroes that show us a more human and softer side of these testosterone filled officers who will do whatever it takes to uphold the law. Throw in a strong supporting cast of other police officers led by Frank Grillo (Warrior) who plays the LAPD’s sergeant and you have a performance where we not only care about our heroes but we see the brotherhood of the police force in general.
One thing that I was not expecting from the film is the amount of moments where the audience literally laughed out loud. That is not to say that this is a comedy, in fact it is far from it. But the quick witted jokes and verbal jabs by our onscreen partners help alleviate some of the heavy emotional scenes of the movie. I felt that these characters used that good natured humor to keep themselves from going off of the deep end in handling all of the gruesome encounters they witness. These well placed laughs helped the audience deal with these gruesome scenes as well and helped strengthen our bond with these brothers.
All in all, this movie is a buddy cop film on steroids. While there is not much of a traditional story arch, this helps develop the realistic feel more like an unrated extended episode of Cops. That being said Gyllenhaal and Pena deliver a fantastic performance together. They have a real connection that makes you believe they have been partners for years and consider each other brothers. Add in a solid ensemble cast and the overall experience is worth the price of admission. However those who grow motion sick from found footage films may want to stay clear as there is a definite lack of steady cam
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mortal Engines (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
At last, the hilarious Brexit comedy we’ve all been waiting for.
As comedy goes it’s classic gold! London has been transferred, presumably via a futuristic big-arsed forklift truck of some kind, onto a huge chassis and is now chugging its way across mainland Europe. Needing fuel, it has the capability to gobble-up other roving towns and cities (take that Barnier!) which London ‘digests’ (smoke that Tusk!). Curiously, the captured cities’ inhabitants are not exterminated but integrated into the City’s population: so much for any anti-immigration policy! (LOL).
But all doesn’t go entirely smoothly for the UK capital. The Lord Mayor of London (Patrick Malahide) declares “We should never have gone into Europe. It’s the biggest mistake we ever made”. (Classic: how we SNORTED with laughter!)
Cities on wheels. London in hot pursuit of a Bavarian mining town. (Some things you just write, and then have to do a double take!). (Source: Universal Pictures International).
Stuffing it squarely to the ‘remainers’, London makes its own future. “It’s time to show the world how strong London can be”. Having conquered most of Europe, it’s time to set its sights on new markets to conquer: so London takes the Chinese on! (Now the tears of laughter are flowing freely!) Trade deals have never been more entertaining since “Star Wars: The Phantom Menace”!
Well, perhaps not
OK, so in the interests of ‘advertising standards’, I’d better make clear before you rush out to the cinema expecting a comedy feature that my tongue is firmly in my cheek here. For “Mortal Engines” is the latest sci-fi feature from Peter Jackson. But when viewed from a Brexit perspective, it’s friggin’ hilarious!
In terms of plot, this (like “Waterworld”) makes clever use of the Universal logo to set the agenda. The world has been decimated with a worldwide war – though clearly one that selectively destroyed bits of London and not others! – and the survivors must try to survive in any way they can. Settlements are divided between those that are ‘static’ and those (like London) that are mobile and constantly evolving: “Municipal Darwinism” as it is hysterically described. But London, or rather the power-crazed Londoner Thaddeus Valentine (Hugo Weaving), wants revolution rather than evolution and he is working on development of one of the super-weapons that started the world’s demise in the first place.
But Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar), separated when young from her mother Pandora (yes, she has a box and we’ve seen it: wink, wink) is intent on stopping him, since she is on a personal path of vengence. Teaming up with Londoner Tom (Robert Sheehan) and activist Anna Fang (Jihae) they must face both Thaddeus and the ever-relentless Shrike (Stephen Lang) to try to derail the destructive plan.
“I’m not subtle”
So says Anna Fang, but then neither is this movie. The film is loud and action-filled and (as a significant plus) visually extremely impressive with it. I’m not a great fan of excessive CGI but here it is essential, and the special-effects team do a great job. The production design is tremendous – a lot of money has been thrown at this – and the costume design inventive, a high-spot (again snortworthy) being the Beefeater guards costumes!
Where the film really crashes, like a post-Brexit stock market, is with the dialogue. The screenplay by Jackson himself, with his regular writers Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens contains some absolute clunkers, notwithstanding the unintended LOL-worthy Brexit irony. It’s jaw-droppingly bad, believe me.
The turns
The only real “name” in the whole film is Jackson-favourite Hugo Weaving. Just about everyone else in the cast is pretty well unknown, and in many cases it shows. Standing head and shoulders though for me over the rest of the cast was Icelandic actress Hera Hilmar, who strikes a splendidly feisty pose as the mentally and physically scarred Hester. I look forward to seeing what she does next.
Plagerism: the movie
Story-wise, there’s not a sci-fi film that’s not been looted, and a number of other films seem to be plundered too. (I can’t comment on how much of this comes from the source book by Philip Reeve). The Londonmobile looks for all the world like Monty Python’s “Crimson Permanent Assurance Company”; the teenage female lead is Sarah Connors, relentlessly pursued by The Terminator; the male lead is archaologist cum hot-shot pilot Indiana Solo, leather jacket and all; there is a Blade Runner moment; a battle that is a meld of “The Great Wall” and Morannon from “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers”; a less sophisticated aerial location from “The Empire Strikes Back”; and another classic Star Wars moment (without the words being actually said!).
A case of the Jackson Pollocks
Now I’m loathe to say anything bad about director Peter Jackson, after his breathtakingly memorable “They Shall Not Grown Old“. And the film has its moments of flair, most memorably a “life flashing before your eyes scene” that I found genuinely moving. But overall, as an actioner, it’s a bit of a mess.
It’s a long way from being the worse film I’ve seen this year by a long stroke – it kept me interested and amused in equal measure for the running time. But I think given it’s initially bombed at the Box Office, any plans Jackson had to deliver a series of these movies might need to be self-funded.
But all doesn’t go entirely smoothly for the UK capital. The Lord Mayor of London (Patrick Malahide) declares “We should never have gone into Europe. It’s the biggest mistake we ever made”. (Classic: how we SNORTED with laughter!)
Cities on wheels. London in hot pursuit of a Bavarian mining town. (Some things you just write, and then have to do a double take!). (Source: Universal Pictures International).
Stuffing it squarely to the ‘remainers’, London makes its own future. “It’s time to show the world how strong London can be”. Having conquered most of Europe, it’s time to set its sights on new markets to conquer: so London takes the Chinese on! (Now the tears of laughter are flowing freely!) Trade deals have never been more entertaining since “Star Wars: The Phantom Menace”!
Well, perhaps not
OK, so in the interests of ‘advertising standards’, I’d better make clear before you rush out to the cinema expecting a comedy feature that my tongue is firmly in my cheek here. For “Mortal Engines” is the latest sci-fi feature from Peter Jackson. But when viewed from a Brexit perspective, it’s friggin’ hilarious!
In terms of plot, this (like “Waterworld”) makes clever use of the Universal logo to set the agenda. The world has been decimated with a worldwide war – though clearly one that selectively destroyed bits of London and not others! – and the survivors must try to survive in any way they can. Settlements are divided between those that are ‘static’ and those (like London) that are mobile and constantly evolving: “Municipal Darwinism” as it is hysterically described. But London, or rather the power-crazed Londoner Thaddeus Valentine (Hugo Weaving), wants revolution rather than evolution and he is working on development of one of the super-weapons that started the world’s demise in the first place.
But Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar), separated when young from her mother Pandora (yes, she has a box and we’ve seen it: wink, wink) is intent on stopping him, since she is on a personal path of vengence. Teaming up with Londoner Tom (Robert Sheehan) and activist Anna Fang (Jihae) they must face both Thaddeus and the ever-relentless Shrike (Stephen Lang) to try to derail the destructive plan.
“I’m not subtle”
So says Anna Fang, but then neither is this movie. The film is loud and action-filled and (as a significant plus) visually extremely impressive with it. I’m not a great fan of excessive CGI but here it is essential, and the special-effects team do a great job. The production design is tremendous – a lot of money has been thrown at this – and the costume design inventive, a high-spot (again snortworthy) being the Beefeater guards costumes!
Where the film really crashes, like a post-Brexit stock market, is with the dialogue. The screenplay by Jackson himself, with his regular writers Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens contains some absolute clunkers, notwithstanding the unintended LOL-worthy Brexit irony. It’s jaw-droppingly bad, believe me.
The turns
The only real “name” in the whole film is Jackson-favourite Hugo Weaving. Just about everyone else in the cast is pretty well unknown, and in many cases it shows. Standing head and shoulders though for me over the rest of the cast was Icelandic actress Hera Hilmar, who strikes a splendidly feisty pose as the mentally and physically scarred Hester. I look forward to seeing what she does next.
Plagerism: the movie
Story-wise, there’s not a sci-fi film that’s not been looted, and a number of other films seem to be plundered too. (I can’t comment on how much of this comes from the source book by Philip Reeve). The Londonmobile looks for all the world like Monty Python’s “Crimson Permanent Assurance Company”; the teenage female lead is Sarah Connors, relentlessly pursued by The Terminator; the male lead is archaologist cum hot-shot pilot Indiana Solo, leather jacket and all; there is a Blade Runner moment; a battle that is a meld of “The Great Wall” and Morannon from “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers”; a less sophisticated aerial location from “The Empire Strikes Back”; and another classic Star Wars moment (without the words being actually said!).
A case of the Jackson Pollocks
Now I’m loathe to say anything bad about director Peter Jackson, after his breathtakingly memorable “They Shall Not Grown Old“. And the film has its moments of flair, most memorably a “life flashing before your eyes scene” that I found genuinely moving. But overall, as an actioner, it’s a bit of a mess.
It’s a long way from being the worse film I’ve seen this year by a long stroke – it kept me interested and amused in equal measure for the running time. But I think given it’s initially bombed at the Box Office, any plans Jackson had to deliver a series of these movies might need to be self-funded.
BookblogbyCari (345 KP) rated The Naked Future in Books
Aug 5, 2018
Book Review by Cari Mayhew. Rating 7.5/10
This is a book about how the digital footprint we leave behind us can be used to make predictions about our future in all aspects of our lives. But are we seeing the coming to being of a dystopian science fiction, or are we tapping into a new superpower?
Every app on every device we use leaves a digital trail about us, and this has implications in the fields of medicine and the spread of infections, education and learning, and crime prediction, through to movie preference and dating.
The book predominantly examines the value to society in general but also looks at the benefits to the individual. Of course, these benefits come at a cost to our privacy, which the book also briefly addresses. Each chapter is centered on its own topic. I will mention each but in the interests of brevity won’t go into detail on each topic.
Chapter 1 begins by describing how certain apps can be extremely useful warning providers, but by the end of the chapter, we are looking at how your smartphone apps can be used to locate you, even when your GPS is turned off and you’re not geo-tagging posts or tweets. With modern statistical models and enough data points, it’s possible to predict where you will be down to the hour and within a square block one and a half years from now. Turning off your GPS doesn't actually make you less predictable, it just makes your predictability level harder to detect - your future remains naked.
Similarly, in Chapter 2 which examines deliberate self-tracking, Tucker notes that Fitbit users who are confused or ignorant of the device’s privacy settings are inadvertently sharing the data details of their sexual activity.
This seems like frightening stuff, but then the conversation turns to more benevolent uses of such technology. Chapter 3, by way of an imagined story, examines how such technology can be used to predict the spread of dangerous infections, including the identification of new strains of virus as new mutations occur.
Chapter 4 looks at the use of such technology in weather forecasting, and how it’s been used to make way for insurance against the effects of the weather for affected businesses. Chapter 5 explores how movie/book choice and ratings can be used to predict what makes a good movie/book.
We go back to the frightening stuff in Chapter 6. Here Tucker talks about how the smartphone has become the ultimate shopping accessory. Knowing what habitual time an individual wants a coffee, cig, or beer, is ideal for online advertisers, who will be able to send you a voucher/coupon or a mere suggestion right there on the spot. There could also be surveillance systems examining what you pick up and consider buying but don't put into basket /trolley. Tucker goes on to describe how data brokers such as Acxiom have begun selling on to advertisers access to not only your data to also to your future decisions.
Chapter 7 looks at education and learning, and makes the following good points: “What telemetric education offers is the chance for all students to raise their hands and be heard, without fear of confirming some unflattering, broadly held perception about their social group.” And “Imagine for a moment the power of knowing beforehand how well you would perform on a test but how disempowered you would feel if that same future was naked to your competition, or to your future potential employers.”
I like the title of chapter 8 “When Your Phone Says You’re In Love”. Here Tucker tells how online dating sites have become a living social science lab. Again here your personal details can be sold on. In the future, you could be rating your actual get-togethers on the app. Already invented is a “sociometer” which detects unconscious biological signals which show what role you’re taking in a conversation, and can then produce predictions on how the rest of the conversation will go.
Chapters 9 and 10 look at predictions in the where, when and who of acts of crime. He discusses where it has worked so far. But on this Tucker says “Predictive policing in the wrong hands looks less like a boon to public safety and more like a totalitarian hammer.”
The book concludes with Chapter 11, titled “The World That Anticipates Your Every Move”. Here one interviewee said as “Privacy is a blip on the radar of history.” Indeed the chapter ends with an obituary to privacy, where Tucker says “we will feel increasingly powerless against the tide of transparency rendering this planet in a new form as surely as the movement of glaciers carved our canyons and valleys.”
I’ve highlighted here the more worrisome aspects of the topics, but it’s important to note that Tucker does aim to offer a prescription for the situation, though it’s spread out in occasional paragraphs here and there rather than as a useful reference at the end. That said I found the actionable advice was rather brief and unoriginal.
Tucker presents a fair and balanced view of this important and highly relevant topic of our times, and the book is clearly well-researched. Some chapters show a little humor which was fun, but although the book is aimed at the layman, I often felt like I was reading a science textbook. The book is a real eye-opener, especially if it’s something you hadn’t given much thought to. The overall message of the book is clear: our data is already out there, but it’s ours first and foremost, and we can be savvy and use it to our advantage.
This is a book about how the digital footprint we leave behind us can be used to make predictions about our future in all aspects of our lives. But are we seeing the coming to being of a dystopian science fiction, or are we tapping into a new superpower?
Every app on every device we use leaves a digital trail about us, and this has implications in the fields of medicine and the spread of infections, education and learning, and crime prediction, through to movie preference and dating.
The book predominantly examines the value to society in general but also looks at the benefits to the individual. Of course, these benefits come at a cost to our privacy, which the book also briefly addresses. Each chapter is centered on its own topic. I will mention each but in the interests of brevity won’t go into detail on each topic.
Chapter 1 begins by describing how certain apps can be extremely useful warning providers, but by the end of the chapter, we are looking at how your smartphone apps can be used to locate you, even when your GPS is turned off and you’re not geo-tagging posts or tweets. With modern statistical models and enough data points, it’s possible to predict where you will be down to the hour and within a square block one and a half years from now. Turning off your GPS doesn't actually make you less predictable, it just makes your predictability level harder to detect - your future remains naked.
Similarly, in Chapter 2 which examines deliberate self-tracking, Tucker notes that Fitbit users who are confused or ignorant of the device’s privacy settings are inadvertently sharing the data details of their sexual activity.
This seems like frightening stuff, but then the conversation turns to more benevolent uses of such technology. Chapter 3, by way of an imagined story, examines how such technology can be used to predict the spread of dangerous infections, including the identification of new strains of virus as new mutations occur.
Chapter 4 looks at the use of such technology in weather forecasting, and how it’s been used to make way for insurance against the effects of the weather for affected businesses. Chapter 5 explores how movie/book choice and ratings can be used to predict what makes a good movie/book.
We go back to the frightening stuff in Chapter 6. Here Tucker talks about how the smartphone has become the ultimate shopping accessory. Knowing what habitual time an individual wants a coffee, cig, or beer, is ideal for online advertisers, who will be able to send you a voucher/coupon or a mere suggestion right there on the spot. There could also be surveillance systems examining what you pick up and consider buying but don't put into basket /trolley. Tucker goes on to describe how data brokers such as Acxiom have begun selling on to advertisers access to not only your data to also to your future decisions.
Chapter 7 looks at education and learning, and makes the following good points: “What telemetric education offers is the chance for all students to raise their hands and be heard, without fear of confirming some unflattering, broadly held perception about their social group.” And “Imagine for a moment the power of knowing beforehand how well you would perform on a test but how disempowered you would feel if that same future was naked to your competition, or to your future potential employers.”
I like the title of chapter 8 “When Your Phone Says You’re In Love”. Here Tucker tells how online dating sites have become a living social science lab. Again here your personal details can be sold on. In the future, you could be rating your actual get-togethers on the app. Already invented is a “sociometer” which detects unconscious biological signals which show what role you’re taking in a conversation, and can then produce predictions on how the rest of the conversation will go.
Chapters 9 and 10 look at predictions in the where, when and who of acts of crime. He discusses where it has worked so far. But on this Tucker says “Predictive policing in the wrong hands looks less like a boon to public safety and more like a totalitarian hammer.”
The book concludes with Chapter 11, titled “The World That Anticipates Your Every Move”. Here one interviewee said as “Privacy is a blip on the radar of history.” Indeed the chapter ends with an obituary to privacy, where Tucker says “we will feel increasingly powerless against the tide of transparency rendering this planet in a new form as surely as the movement of glaciers carved our canyons and valleys.”
I’ve highlighted here the more worrisome aspects of the topics, but it’s important to note that Tucker does aim to offer a prescription for the situation, though it’s spread out in occasional paragraphs here and there rather than as a useful reference at the end. That said I found the actionable advice was rather brief and unoriginal.
Tucker presents a fair and balanced view of this important and highly relevant topic of our times, and the book is clearly well-researched. Some chapters show a little humor which was fun, but although the book is aimed at the layman, I often felt like I was reading a science textbook. The book is a real eye-opener, especially if it’s something you hadn’t given much thought to. The overall message of the book is clear: our data is already out there, but it’s ours first and foremost, and we can be savvy and use it to our advantage.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A League of Their Own (1992) in Movies
May 26, 2020
My Favorite Baseball Movie of All Time
I am a big fan of movies. I am a big fan of baseball. So, inevitably, I get asked what my favorite baseball movie is - and my answer surprises many. Beyond a doubt, my favorite baseball movie is the 1992 comedy A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN, directed by Penny Marshall and starring Geena Davis and Tom Hanks.
I just rewatched this film (for the umpteenth time) and it still works very, very well.
Set during WWII, A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN tells the story of the All American Girls Professional Baseball League - set up by owners of Major League baseball as many, many of the male professional baseball players were overseas fighting in the war.
Set up as a sibling rivalry story between star player Dottie Henson (Geena Davis) and her kid sister Kit (Lori Petty) who is always in Dottie's shadow, ALOTO shows the start-up of the league, the initial reluctance of the general public to embrace it and the eventual winning over of those that mocked it by actually playing good, hard-nosed ball.
This indifference (turned to acceptance) of this league is shown through the eyes of alcoholic, former Major League star Jimmy Dugan (a pre-Oscars Tom Hanks). After a strong 1980's in film, the first part of the 1990's was not kind to Hanks (JOE vs. THE VOLCANO tanked and the less that can be said about BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES the better). This film was considered a bit of a "comeback" film for him and he came back very, very well. His Jimmy Dugan is irascible, vulgar and angry but has a good heart that shines through. It was this role that would catapult Hanks into SuperStardom later in this decade (with films like PHILADELPHIA, FOREST GUMP, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE, APOLLO 13 and THE GREEN MILE). So, remember, without Jimmy Duggan, their probably would not be a Woody from TOY STORY (at least not a Woody voiced by Hanks).
Geena Davis is strong in the lead role of Dottie. Davis is a natural athlete and a very intelligent individual (she was a semi-finalist for the U.S. Olympic Archery team and is a member of MENSA) and both attributes shine through in her portrayal of Dottie. She is strong, graceful and sure-headed in her approach to her goal - to be the best at what she is currently doing. The pairing of Davis and Hanks is interesting for you see great chemistry between these two characters - 2 characters that are compatriots and, perhaps, friends, but...which is unusual in a film such as this...NOT love interests for each other.
Faring less well in this film is Lori Petty as kid sister Kit who just wants a chance to get out from under her sister's shadow. I don't blame Petty's performance - she does the best she can with the material she is given, but her character is "whiny, pouty and shouty" throughout the film and was just not someone I cared about.
That cannot be said for the strong list of actresses that were cast as members of the Rockford Peaches - the team that Dottie and Kit play for (and that Jimmy Dugan manages). Director Penny Marshall insisted that all of the women cast actually be able to play baseball, so cut many, many good actresses that just couldn't be believed as baseball players. Madonna (of all people) shows a passable ability to play ball - as well as a winning personality as "All the Way" Mae, the team's centerfielder. In her first film role, Rosie O'Donnell almost steals the film as loud Long Island 3b Doris Murphy. Megan Cavanagh (2b Marla Hooch), Tracy Reiner (LF/P Betty "Spaghetti" Horn), Bitty Schram (RF Evelyn Gardner who was the cryer in the "there's no crying in baseball" scene), Ann Cusack (illiterate OF Shirley Baker), Anne Ramsey (1B Helen Haley) and Freddie Simpson (SS/P Ellen Sue Gotlander) all make a believably passable group of ballplayers that you want to spend time with.
Special notice needs to be made to the always dependable David Strathairn (as Ira Lowenstein - the guiding light to this league) and Jon Lovitz (who is the star of the first 1/4 of this film as Scout Ernie Capadino). They both bring needed life to moments of the film when it need it the most.
All of these elements are brought together wonderfully by the smart, thoughtful and emotionally rich direction of Penny Marshall. She was on a bit of a roll in this part of her career, having helmed BIG (1988) and AWAKENINGS (1990 - with Robin Williams and Robert DeNiro) previously. She went "3 for 3" as a Director with this one. She keeps the film moving along smartly, pausing just long enough at times to bring in some emotion and then follows it right up with some gut-busting laughs.
While I am not thrilled by the events of the final game (I think it is a little contrived and one of the principal characters gets a reward they don't deserve) but that is a "nit" on this film, for it is the journey - with characters that are fun to spend some time with - that makes this film works.
Oh...and Marshall also puts in some of the real players from the league in a finale that serves as a well-deserved salute to these womeon
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I just rewatched this film (for the umpteenth time) and it still works very, very well.
Set during WWII, A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN tells the story of the All American Girls Professional Baseball League - set up by owners of Major League baseball as many, many of the male professional baseball players were overseas fighting in the war.
Set up as a sibling rivalry story between star player Dottie Henson (Geena Davis) and her kid sister Kit (Lori Petty) who is always in Dottie's shadow, ALOTO shows the start-up of the league, the initial reluctance of the general public to embrace it and the eventual winning over of those that mocked it by actually playing good, hard-nosed ball.
This indifference (turned to acceptance) of this league is shown through the eyes of alcoholic, former Major League star Jimmy Dugan (a pre-Oscars Tom Hanks). After a strong 1980's in film, the first part of the 1990's was not kind to Hanks (JOE vs. THE VOLCANO tanked and the less that can be said about BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES the better). This film was considered a bit of a "comeback" film for him and he came back very, very well. His Jimmy Dugan is irascible, vulgar and angry but has a good heart that shines through. It was this role that would catapult Hanks into SuperStardom later in this decade (with films like PHILADELPHIA, FOREST GUMP, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE, APOLLO 13 and THE GREEN MILE). So, remember, without Jimmy Duggan, their probably would not be a Woody from TOY STORY (at least not a Woody voiced by Hanks).
Geena Davis is strong in the lead role of Dottie. Davis is a natural athlete and a very intelligent individual (she was a semi-finalist for the U.S. Olympic Archery team and is a member of MENSA) and both attributes shine through in her portrayal of Dottie. She is strong, graceful and sure-headed in her approach to her goal - to be the best at what she is currently doing. The pairing of Davis and Hanks is interesting for you see great chemistry between these two characters - 2 characters that are compatriots and, perhaps, friends, but...which is unusual in a film such as this...NOT love interests for each other.
Faring less well in this film is Lori Petty as kid sister Kit who just wants a chance to get out from under her sister's shadow. I don't blame Petty's performance - she does the best she can with the material she is given, but her character is "whiny, pouty and shouty" throughout the film and was just not someone I cared about.
That cannot be said for the strong list of actresses that were cast as members of the Rockford Peaches - the team that Dottie and Kit play for (and that Jimmy Dugan manages). Director Penny Marshall insisted that all of the women cast actually be able to play baseball, so cut many, many good actresses that just couldn't be believed as baseball players. Madonna (of all people) shows a passable ability to play ball - as well as a winning personality as "All the Way" Mae, the team's centerfielder. In her first film role, Rosie O'Donnell almost steals the film as loud Long Island 3b Doris Murphy. Megan Cavanagh (2b Marla Hooch), Tracy Reiner (LF/P Betty "Spaghetti" Horn), Bitty Schram (RF Evelyn Gardner who was the cryer in the "there's no crying in baseball" scene), Ann Cusack (illiterate OF Shirley Baker), Anne Ramsey (1B Helen Haley) and Freddie Simpson (SS/P Ellen Sue Gotlander) all make a believably passable group of ballplayers that you want to spend time with.
Special notice needs to be made to the always dependable David Strathairn (as Ira Lowenstein - the guiding light to this league) and Jon Lovitz (who is the star of the first 1/4 of this film as Scout Ernie Capadino). They both bring needed life to moments of the film when it need it the most.
All of these elements are brought together wonderfully by the smart, thoughtful and emotionally rich direction of Penny Marshall. She was on a bit of a roll in this part of her career, having helmed BIG (1988) and AWAKENINGS (1990 - with Robin Williams and Robert DeNiro) previously. She went "3 for 3" as a Director with this one. She keeps the film moving along smartly, pausing just long enough at times to bring in some emotion and then follows it right up with some gut-busting laughs.
While I am not thrilled by the events of the final game (I think it is a little contrived and one of the principal characters gets a reward they don't deserve) but that is a "nit" on this film, for it is the journey - with characters that are fun to spend some time with - that makes this film works.
Oh...and Marshall also puts in some of the real players from the league in a finale that serves as a well-deserved salute to these womeon
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A valiant attempt to recreate a masterpiece.
How do you repaint a masterpiece: the Mona Lisa of children’s fantasy cinema? Some would say “You shouldn’t try”.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
Mandy and G.D. Burkhead (26 KP) rated Hottest Blood: The Ultimate in Erotic Horror in Books
May 20, 2018
Shelf Life – Hottest Blood: The Ultimate in Erotic Horror is Neither of Those Things
(I’m gonna go ahead and throw a disclaimer on up here: You are about to read something that deals with purportedly “erotic” subject matter. If you don’t like the sound of that word, you might wanna go elsewhere. If it’s actually-erotic things that offend you, though, you’ll be fine.)
I like short story compilations because you get a variety of content that’s just as easy to breeze through if you have the time as it is to get to a stopping point and put down if you don’t. I like horror fiction because it usually involves the super-natural, which interests me, and intense emotional responses, which are almost always a good thing in writing. And I like eroticism because I am a warm-blooded human being with a pulse. However, on the whole, I do not like Hottest Blood.
I wanted to, I did. Look at that cover. It’s equal amounts scary and sexy, both in completely safe, PG-13-at-most kind of ways. Unfortunately, Softcore Succubus here is both the scariest and the sexiest thing about this book
Bluntly analogized, you know that feeling you get when you come across something on the internet that disturbs and/or disgusts you, and then you learn that there’s a dedicated group of people that gets off on it? Most of the stories in this book are that feeling captured in words.
Case in point, the story “Damaged Goods” by Elizabeth Massie, which as far as I can tell is about a couple of physically abused, emotionally damaged, developmentally stunted kids somewhere around their early teens who live with a religious fringe cult being led out to a field to have sex with each other while a nameless U.S. President watches and masturbates before both kids are drowned in a river by their preacher/pimp caretaker.
Or there’s “Mr. Right” by Chris Lacher, which tells the story of a college student named Russ who has a secret fetish for the deformed women in the freak show at a nearby carnival – a fascination which leads to him getting held down and forcibly raped by a group of unwashed subhuman mutants, which the detailed descriptions make sure you understand are completely revolting to all five senses. The story ends with him being dumped out behind the fairgrounds while a small, legless girl happily informs him that this is how all carnival workers reproduce, and he can look forward to seeing his own mutant rape-spawn in the show next year.
Or there’s “Abuse” by Matthew Costello, which simply shows us how the arrest of a Peewee Herman surrogate goes down in an adult movie theater before ending with another man jerking off with the cold, dry, severed hand in his pocket as he contemplates getting a new one to replace it.
The tone of these three are pretty much par for the course for the rest of the book: thoroughly disturbing, and sex is involved, but the disturbing feeling stems from revulsion rather than fear, and the sex bits are so far on the other end of the spectrum from erotic that it feels like the authors are trying to punish their readers for even expecting to be aroused in any way.
Of course, I said myself earlier that intense emotional responses are “almost always a good thing in writing.” By that merit alone, this book technically succeeds; in fact, if it had billed itself as shock fiction instead of erotic horror, I’d begrudgingly give it a medal in its class. The “aw, what the hell?!” moments are not as artistically executed as, say, a Chuck Palahniuk read, and they tend not to have as much depth to them, but strictly in terms of making you wish that you could unread words, they get the job done.
But that isn’t the job that Hottest Blood was hired to do, and that’s not what it put on its resume. It said it was going to “heat the blood and chill the mind,” and promised that “terror never felt this sexy!” It would have been more appropriate to say that “sex never felt this terrible.”
All of that said, if you abandon any hope of seeing anything resembling erotica or horror (scary horror, anyway), there are a few stories in here that are decent reads – mostly because they try to say something with their subject matter rather than use it to see how thoroughly they can ruin the idea of sex for the reader. To give a few quick nods of approval:
Nancy Holder’s “I Hear the Mermaids Singing,” which opens the anthology, is a dark and modern re-imagining of “The Little Mermaid” that brutally points up the drawbacks to throwing away your whole life and family in order to pursue someone that you know nothing about outside of a few fleeting glimpses and lustful inner fantasies.
J.L. Comeau’s “Black Cars” is the narrative of a high-class chauffeur as he tells his passenger an increasingly mysterious story about a couple of his regular customers, culminating in a creepy twist payoff that, in retrospect, actually makes it count as a legitimate horror story, and a decently gripping one at that.
And “Safe at Home” by Steve and Melanie Tem, while decidedly and disturbingly unsexy, at least has good reason to be; it’s a short character study of a young woman who’d been molested as a child, and the lasting and complex psychological damage resulting thereof that prevents her from having any normal social life or relationships, even with someone whom she legitimately likes, someone who knows what’s happened and sincerely cares for her.
So for the handful of intriguing stories that don’t make you quit (or wish you had) mid-read out of revolted disappointment, I can’t completely condemn Hottest Blood. If you want to test your own threshold for repulsion but are understandably hesitant to use online image searches to this end, I heartily recommend it.
If you are legitimately turned on by the idea of a man eating a woman alive and then gestating her alien spawn inside his own bloated body until his head detaches and crawls away (“How Deep the Taste of Love,” John Shirley), I suppose I still heartily recommend it, though I do so from a safe distance.
If you want to read one of the few stories involved that aren’t horrible, I heartily recommend trying to find them on their own somewhere else first.
But if you want “the ultimate in erotic horror,” stay the hell away. Softcore Succubus is a trap.
I like short story compilations because you get a variety of content that’s just as easy to breeze through if you have the time as it is to get to a stopping point and put down if you don’t. I like horror fiction because it usually involves the super-natural, which interests me, and intense emotional responses, which are almost always a good thing in writing. And I like eroticism because I am a warm-blooded human being with a pulse. However, on the whole, I do not like Hottest Blood.
I wanted to, I did. Look at that cover. It’s equal amounts scary and sexy, both in completely safe, PG-13-at-most kind of ways. Unfortunately, Softcore Succubus here is both the scariest and the sexiest thing about this book
Bluntly analogized, you know that feeling you get when you come across something on the internet that disturbs and/or disgusts you, and then you learn that there’s a dedicated group of people that gets off on it? Most of the stories in this book are that feeling captured in words.
Case in point, the story “Damaged Goods” by Elizabeth Massie, which as far as I can tell is about a couple of physically abused, emotionally damaged, developmentally stunted kids somewhere around their early teens who live with a religious fringe cult being led out to a field to have sex with each other while a nameless U.S. President watches and masturbates before both kids are drowned in a river by their preacher/pimp caretaker.
Or there’s “Mr. Right” by Chris Lacher, which tells the story of a college student named Russ who has a secret fetish for the deformed women in the freak show at a nearby carnival – a fascination which leads to him getting held down and forcibly raped by a group of unwashed subhuman mutants, which the detailed descriptions make sure you understand are completely revolting to all five senses. The story ends with him being dumped out behind the fairgrounds while a small, legless girl happily informs him that this is how all carnival workers reproduce, and he can look forward to seeing his own mutant rape-spawn in the show next year.
Or there’s “Abuse” by Matthew Costello, which simply shows us how the arrest of a Peewee Herman surrogate goes down in an adult movie theater before ending with another man jerking off with the cold, dry, severed hand in his pocket as he contemplates getting a new one to replace it.
The tone of these three are pretty much par for the course for the rest of the book: thoroughly disturbing, and sex is involved, but the disturbing feeling stems from revulsion rather than fear, and the sex bits are so far on the other end of the spectrum from erotic that it feels like the authors are trying to punish their readers for even expecting to be aroused in any way.
Of course, I said myself earlier that intense emotional responses are “almost always a good thing in writing.” By that merit alone, this book technically succeeds; in fact, if it had billed itself as shock fiction instead of erotic horror, I’d begrudgingly give it a medal in its class. The “aw, what the hell?!” moments are not as artistically executed as, say, a Chuck Palahniuk read, and they tend not to have as much depth to them, but strictly in terms of making you wish that you could unread words, they get the job done.
But that isn’t the job that Hottest Blood was hired to do, and that’s not what it put on its resume. It said it was going to “heat the blood and chill the mind,” and promised that “terror never felt this sexy!” It would have been more appropriate to say that “sex never felt this terrible.”
All of that said, if you abandon any hope of seeing anything resembling erotica or horror (scary horror, anyway), there are a few stories in here that are decent reads – mostly because they try to say something with their subject matter rather than use it to see how thoroughly they can ruin the idea of sex for the reader. To give a few quick nods of approval:
Nancy Holder’s “I Hear the Mermaids Singing,” which opens the anthology, is a dark and modern re-imagining of “The Little Mermaid” that brutally points up the drawbacks to throwing away your whole life and family in order to pursue someone that you know nothing about outside of a few fleeting glimpses and lustful inner fantasies.
J.L. Comeau’s “Black Cars” is the narrative of a high-class chauffeur as he tells his passenger an increasingly mysterious story about a couple of his regular customers, culminating in a creepy twist payoff that, in retrospect, actually makes it count as a legitimate horror story, and a decently gripping one at that.
And “Safe at Home” by Steve and Melanie Tem, while decidedly and disturbingly unsexy, at least has good reason to be; it’s a short character study of a young woman who’d been molested as a child, and the lasting and complex psychological damage resulting thereof that prevents her from having any normal social life or relationships, even with someone whom she legitimately likes, someone who knows what’s happened and sincerely cares for her.
So for the handful of intriguing stories that don’t make you quit (or wish you had) mid-read out of revolted disappointment, I can’t completely condemn Hottest Blood. If you want to test your own threshold for repulsion but are understandably hesitant to use online image searches to this end, I heartily recommend it.
If you are legitimately turned on by the idea of a man eating a woman alive and then gestating her alien spawn inside his own bloated body until his head detaches and crawls away (“How Deep the Taste of Love,” John Shirley), I suppose I still heartily recommend it, though I do so from a safe distance.
If you want to read one of the few stories involved that aren’t horrible, I heartily recommend trying to find them on their own somewhere else first.
But if you want “the ultimate in erotic horror,” stay the hell away. Softcore Succubus is a trap.
Mothergamer (1555 KP) rated the PC version of Assassin's Creed: Origins in Video Games
Apr 3, 2019
I have been excited about Assassin's Creed Origins since I first heard about it so when I got my copy I began playing right away. The opening for the game is intense and introduces you to Bayek of Siwa, a Medjay (essentially a protector for the people of Egypt sanctioned by the Pharoh) and a bit later his wife Aya. The story starts with a sad event, but it clearly explains in that moment why and how the Brotherhood of Assassins were created. Playing as Bayek, there is an initial tutorial for what the game controls are and they're pretty great. The controls seem more streamlined to the point where my biggest complaint of getting stuck on things during parkour runs and jumps did not happen at all. It was a very welcome change.
Bayek of Siwa.
I did get the season pass and this is truly worth it because you get access to some great weapons, gear, and mounts. Having the season pass will also give you access to the two DLC chapters, The Hidden Ones and The Curse Of The Pharohs on their release dates. If you're part of the Ubisoft Club, you also get some cool rewards ranging from crafting materials to legendary weapons. This also includes the Altair and Ezio outfits. You can also earn a lot of the weapons and gear from doing side quests and daily quests.
Some of the rewards you get with Ubisoft Club.
Ancient Egypt is huge. This is truly an open world game and it is definitely in your interests to explore everything because there are a lot of interesting things to see and do. I took a long time getting to the main story because I was having fun just exploring and doing all the side quests. There are a ton of side quests which give you the needed experience points and give rewards ranging from weapons to mounts. It is a grind to a soft level cap of 40, but because the game is fun to play I never really noticed and I got to level 40 fairly quickly.
One of many great views in the game.
One of my favorite things in the game was the symbiotic relationship Bayek had with his eagle, Senu. When doing missions where you needed to locate a target you could call Senu and with the ability of eagle vision have Senu search the area and seeing the world from her perspective until you find the target. This was a very useful thing to have especially when scouting enemy forts so I could see how many people there actually were.
Senu scouting an area.
The skill tree for Bayek is easy to navigate and there are three sections to unlock skills; Hunter, Warrior, and Seer. Even after you hit the level cap you can still build up these skills as the experience points then go into the meter and when maxed each time, it rewards you with ability points which can be used to unlock skills. Bow Bearer is incredibly useful for the Hunter because it allows you to carry a bow for stealth and one for melee battles. Chain assassination is also useful because it can get you out of a sticky situation.
The skill map is easy to navigate.
You do get to play as Aya for some missions and it is fun to play as her because there are some ship battles with her as well. The ship battles controls are well done and I wish there had been a few more of them because they were exciting and I enjoyed them. I also wish there were more missions with Aya because she was a smart and brave woman and she was just as interesting a character as Bayek. There is normal sailing also and this helps with getting to other areas or finding a spot where treasure is hidden. You can dive into the water and find those treasures as well as other secrets like tunnels leading into hidden temples.
Sailing in the game is great fun.
The main story is excellent. I really liked Bayek and Aya because they were such interesting characters. I felt sad for their pain and a sense of vindication for them when they accomplished their goal. There are of course real historical people in the game like Cleopatra and they are involved in the story. I did feel the main story was a bit short, but I still enjoyed it a great deal. It answered a lot of the big questions such as how the Brotherhood was started and also gave hints about some of the assassins that followed after Bayek and Aya.
Once you're done with the main game, there are still things you can do. There are mini game events like chariot races at the Hippodrome or gladiator fights at the Cyrene Arena. Both are fun to do and give you a break from the main story and side quests in the game. The chariot controls do have a bit of a learning curve, but once you get the hang of them it's a breeze. The gladiator fights have three rounds and then you unlock an elite mode which is just one challenging boss fight with the champion of each of those rounds. You can also compete with your friends for the best score.
Racing at the Hippodrome.
There are daily quests as well which you get from an NPC named Reda. The quests range from rescuing people to recovering stolen merchandise. When these are done, you get a reward from Reda usually a rare or legendary weapon. Sometimes you get a rare mount which comes in handy. You can take photos and share them with the photo share feature. This is a cool thing where you can use the controls to take a photo and share it with other players in the game. You can also avenge other players. If you find a fellow assassin that has been killed, it gives you a quest to find the perpetrators and you can exact revenge on them.
There is also the event Trial Of The Gods. Currently you can fight Anubis, the god of the dead. You should be level 40 for this fight because it's difficult otherwise. This is a great battle and once you defeat Anubis you get rewarded with a spiffy item. If you missed it, don't worry. There will be another chance to fight him and you will be able to fight other gods later on.
Battling the god Anubis.
Assassin's Creed Origins is an amazing adventure. The story is excellent, the side quests are fun, and there are so many beautiful things to see in this game. There is so much wonderful variety in the people, the voice acting, and the music. It is a joy to play and even after you're finished, there's still a lot of things you can do. I loved the game and and I can't wait to play more.
Bayek of Siwa.
I did get the season pass and this is truly worth it because you get access to some great weapons, gear, and mounts. Having the season pass will also give you access to the two DLC chapters, The Hidden Ones and The Curse Of The Pharohs on their release dates. If you're part of the Ubisoft Club, you also get some cool rewards ranging from crafting materials to legendary weapons. This also includes the Altair and Ezio outfits. You can also earn a lot of the weapons and gear from doing side quests and daily quests.
Some of the rewards you get with Ubisoft Club.
Ancient Egypt is huge. This is truly an open world game and it is definitely in your interests to explore everything because there are a lot of interesting things to see and do. I took a long time getting to the main story because I was having fun just exploring and doing all the side quests. There are a ton of side quests which give you the needed experience points and give rewards ranging from weapons to mounts. It is a grind to a soft level cap of 40, but because the game is fun to play I never really noticed and I got to level 40 fairly quickly.
One of many great views in the game.
One of my favorite things in the game was the symbiotic relationship Bayek had with his eagle, Senu. When doing missions where you needed to locate a target you could call Senu and with the ability of eagle vision have Senu search the area and seeing the world from her perspective until you find the target. This was a very useful thing to have especially when scouting enemy forts so I could see how many people there actually were.
Senu scouting an area.
The skill tree for Bayek is easy to navigate and there are three sections to unlock skills; Hunter, Warrior, and Seer. Even after you hit the level cap you can still build up these skills as the experience points then go into the meter and when maxed each time, it rewards you with ability points which can be used to unlock skills. Bow Bearer is incredibly useful for the Hunter because it allows you to carry a bow for stealth and one for melee battles. Chain assassination is also useful because it can get you out of a sticky situation.
The skill map is easy to navigate.
You do get to play as Aya for some missions and it is fun to play as her because there are some ship battles with her as well. The ship battles controls are well done and I wish there had been a few more of them because they were exciting and I enjoyed them. I also wish there were more missions with Aya because she was a smart and brave woman and she was just as interesting a character as Bayek. There is normal sailing also and this helps with getting to other areas or finding a spot where treasure is hidden. You can dive into the water and find those treasures as well as other secrets like tunnels leading into hidden temples.
Sailing in the game is great fun.
The main story is excellent. I really liked Bayek and Aya because they were such interesting characters. I felt sad for their pain and a sense of vindication for them when they accomplished their goal. There are of course real historical people in the game like Cleopatra and they are involved in the story. I did feel the main story was a bit short, but I still enjoyed it a great deal. It answered a lot of the big questions such as how the Brotherhood was started and also gave hints about some of the assassins that followed after Bayek and Aya.
Once you're done with the main game, there are still things you can do. There are mini game events like chariot races at the Hippodrome or gladiator fights at the Cyrene Arena. Both are fun to do and give you a break from the main story and side quests in the game. The chariot controls do have a bit of a learning curve, but once you get the hang of them it's a breeze. The gladiator fights have three rounds and then you unlock an elite mode which is just one challenging boss fight with the champion of each of those rounds. You can also compete with your friends for the best score.
Racing at the Hippodrome.
There are daily quests as well which you get from an NPC named Reda. The quests range from rescuing people to recovering stolen merchandise. When these are done, you get a reward from Reda usually a rare or legendary weapon. Sometimes you get a rare mount which comes in handy. You can take photos and share them with the photo share feature. This is a cool thing where you can use the controls to take a photo and share it with other players in the game. You can also avenge other players. If you find a fellow assassin that has been killed, it gives you a quest to find the perpetrators and you can exact revenge on them.
There is also the event Trial Of The Gods. Currently you can fight Anubis, the god of the dead. You should be level 40 for this fight because it's difficult otherwise. This is a great battle and once you defeat Anubis you get rewarded with a spiffy item. If you missed it, don't worry. There will be another chance to fight him and you will be able to fight other gods later on.
Battling the god Anubis.
Assassin's Creed Origins is an amazing adventure. The story is excellent, the side quests are fun, and there are so many beautiful things to see in this game. There is so much wonderful variety in the people, the voice acting, and the music. It is a joy to play and even after you're finished, there's still a lot of things you can do. I loved the game and and I can't wait to play more.
Breathtaking Historical Fiction; Must Read!
You can also find this review on my blog: bookingwayreads.wordpress.com
TRIGGER WARNINGS: rape, domestic violence, death, affairs, miscarriage
"You can only go so long pretending, acting as if you're someone you're not. Eventually you must return to who you are, who you were born to be. You can stray from it, try on other roles, other personalities, other beliefs, other lives, but eventually it will catch up with you and you have to return to the only person you can be."
Main Characters:
Beatrice Bordeaux - the main character, married to Harry Bordeaux. A bit of a feminist but it doesn't start showing until the middle to end of the novel. She's got a strong, compassionate, sweet personality. Her development was major and not at all what I was expecting.
Thomas - the lighthouse keeper. He's a simple man, compassionate and patient. Also unbelievably kind to all, no matter ethnicity, class, or gender.
Harry Bordeaux - cocky, self-conceded. Honestly, the most horrible person ever.
Dolly - hat maker who befriends Bea. She's sweet, independent, and an all around feminist.
Elizabeth - laundress for the Montauk Manor, befriends Bea. She's down-to-earth and a loving mother and wife.
"I felt rage and a hot determination side by side and that was something. That alone gave me hope. Something was better than numbness. Something was better than not caring, not dreaming, not daring."
Review:
**Possible spoilers ahead**
The story starts off in the year of 1938. The wealthy from New York City always head to the East Coast to an up and coming town called Montauk for the summer. Here, the wives stay in the luxurious Montauk Manor during the weekdays with their children and nannies, planning social events and relaxing, while the men head back to the city to work - only coming back to visit on the weekends.
Beatrice Bordeaux is one of the wives who ends up staying in Montauk for the summer. But she soon learns that her husband, Harry, would actually be leaving with the rest of the men during the week. Beatrice is taken aback, as the main reason why the couple took this vacation was to rekindle their cracking marriage. She was also hoping that the vacation would allow her and Harry to have alone time as she craved being a mother but has been eluded by pregnancy for the past five years.
Beatrice is forced to socialize with the other wives, even though she just wants to relax and read, so that Harry can gain a foothold for his investment interests. He thinks that if Beatrice can become buddy buddy with some of the more known in society women, that he can sizzle his way up to their husbands to get some funds to invest into Montauk. But, Beatrice quickly grows bored of the woman's talk of events that are more self-serving than they are generous. This is where Elizabeth, the Manor's laundress enters.
Elizabeth's down-to-earth nature gives Beatrice nostalgia of her life prior to meeting Harry. The two women befriend each other, even though it would be looked down upon if the other wives of the Manor found out. This doesn't stop Beatrice though.
As the novel progresses, Beatrice becomes disillusioned with her marriage and even finds out that Harry was not being the faithful husband he promised in his vows. The reader can see Harry's regression of interest towards Beatrice throughout the novel, and how he only seems to care about her when she is beside him at social gatherings. This causes Beatrice to start doing the things that she wants. Enter the handsome yet sensitive lighthouse keeper, Thomas.
Thomas is the complete opposite of Harry and as Beatrice's marriage drifts more and more apart, she takes her life into her own hands where she follows what her heart wants. But with the risk she's taking, major consequences that could take lives and ruin social standings follow. This is when Beatrice must decide whether to follow her heart or do what is right according to society.
Montauk is an interesting and beautifully written look back into history when women were expected to do what society told her to do. Questions were not asked, and one must be "happy" that she's being cared for by her husband, because "good wives" waited for orders from their husbands and always did what they wished. The author, Nicola Harrison, does an excellent job with captivating the history and superficial feel of society back in the late 30's. Even the descriptions of the lighthouse, manor, and fishing village created vivid images that circulated within my mind as I read.
Usually, when it comes to Historical Fiction novels, I've found that they can be very predictable. Montauk was not your average Historical Fiction novel, that's for sure. There were twists and turns that I was not expecting and the ending twist threw me for a major loop. The one problem that I do have with the overall story, was the last chapter and epilogue. It lacked the depth and detail that was interwoven throughout the rest of the story. But overall, I was fascinated and enthralled in the story of Montauk.
Character/ Story background and development -
It's there, one hundred percent there. The main character's and the side characters all have the development and background interwoven into the story, waiting to be dug out as you read. All of the development and background that took place within Montauk, actually made this novel great!
Plot -
At first, the plot and story was slow. It could have just been my skewed perspective of not liking Historical Fiction novels, but it eventually picked up; allowing the like/dislike scales to flip. I was really worried that I would DNF Montauk, but once the story started to get more in depth with the characters and background, I was taken on an emotional roller coaster of feels. And I will happily take that ride over and over again.
Spelling/ Grammatical errors -
I did not notice any spelling or grammatical errors that took away from the overall story. There were a slight few littered throughout, but they were so minor and hardly noticeable that it did no harm to count it against the author or publisher.
Enjoyment -
I can for sure say, that I 100% enjoyed every second I spent on Montauk. I don't typically like Historical Fiction novels, but Nicola Harrison does an amazing job not only making sure the information is correct, but the writing is well-thought out.
Overall -
This novel is a sucker punch to the emotions; it's honestly one of those novels that will be cherished forever because the story, the development, the plot, the background, the heartache and pain, it was all there. And it made this a breathtaking novel to read.
Do I recommend? -
159% yes! I highly recommend Montauk by Nicola Harrison.
"With the ocean surrounding me, I feel free and at peace with the world."
TRIGGER WARNINGS: rape, domestic violence, death, affairs, miscarriage
"You can only go so long pretending, acting as if you're someone you're not. Eventually you must return to who you are, who you were born to be. You can stray from it, try on other roles, other personalities, other beliefs, other lives, but eventually it will catch up with you and you have to return to the only person you can be."
Main Characters:
Beatrice Bordeaux - the main character, married to Harry Bordeaux. A bit of a feminist but it doesn't start showing until the middle to end of the novel. She's got a strong, compassionate, sweet personality. Her development was major and not at all what I was expecting.
Thomas - the lighthouse keeper. He's a simple man, compassionate and patient. Also unbelievably kind to all, no matter ethnicity, class, or gender.
Harry Bordeaux - cocky, self-conceded. Honestly, the most horrible person ever.
Dolly - hat maker who befriends Bea. She's sweet, independent, and an all around feminist.
Elizabeth - laundress for the Montauk Manor, befriends Bea. She's down-to-earth and a loving mother and wife.
"I felt rage and a hot determination side by side and that was something. That alone gave me hope. Something was better than numbness. Something was better than not caring, not dreaming, not daring."
Review:
**Possible spoilers ahead**
The story starts off in the year of 1938. The wealthy from New York City always head to the East Coast to an up and coming town called Montauk for the summer. Here, the wives stay in the luxurious Montauk Manor during the weekdays with their children and nannies, planning social events and relaxing, while the men head back to the city to work - only coming back to visit on the weekends.
Beatrice Bordeaux is one of the wives who ends up staying in Montauk for the summer. But she soon learns that her husband, Harry, would actually be leaving with the rest of the men during the week. Beatrice is taken aback, as the main reason why the couple took this vacation was to rekindle their cracking marriage. She was also hoping that the vacation would allow her and Harry to have alone time as she craved being a mother but has been eluded by pregnancy for the past five years.
Beatrice is forced to socialize with the other wives, even though she just wants to relax and read, so that Harry can gain a foothold for his investment interests. He thinks that if Beatrice can become buddy buddy with some of the more known in society women, that he can sizzle his way up to their husbands to get some funds to invest into Montauk. But, Beatrice quickly grows bored of the woman's talk of events that are more self-serving than they are generous. This is where Elizabeth, the Manor's laundress enters.
Elizabeth's down-to-earth nature gives Beatrice nostalgia of her life prior to meeting Harry. The two women befriend each other, even though it would be looked down upon if the other wives of the Manor found out. This doesn't stop Beatrice though.
As the novel progresses, Beatrice becomes disillusioned with her marriage and even finds out that Harry was not being the faithful husband he promised in his vows. The reader can see Harry's regression of interest towards Beatrice throughout the novel, and how he only seems to care about her when she is beside him at social gatherings. This causes Beatrice to start doing the things that she wants. Enter the handsome yet sensitive lighthouse keeper, Thomas.
Thomas is the complete opposite of Harry and as Beatrice's marriage drifts more and more apart, she takes her life into her own hands where she follows what her heart wants. But with the risk she's taking, major consequences that could take lives and ruin social standings follow. This is when Beatrice must decide whether to follow her heart or do what is right according to society.
Montauk is an interesting and beautifully written look back into history when women were expected to do what society told her to do. Questions were not asked, and one must be "happy" that she's being cared for by her husband, because "good wives" waited for orders from their husbands and always did what they wished. The author, Nicola Harrison, does an excellent job with captivating the history and superficial feel of society back in the late 30's. Even the descriptions of the lighthouse, manor, and fishing village created vivid images that circulated within my mind as I read.
Usually, when it comes to Historical Fiction novels, I've found that they can be very predictable. Montauk was not your average Historical Fiction novel, that's for sure. There were twists and turns that I was not expecting and the ending twist threw me for a major loop. The one problem that I do have with the overall story, was the last chapter and epilogue. It lacked the depth and detail that was interwoven throughout the rest of the story. But overall, I was fascinated and enthralled in the story of Montauk.
Character/ Story background and development -
It's there, one hundred percent there. The main character's and the side characters all have the development and background interwoven into the story, waiting to be dug out as you read. All of the development and background that took place within Montauk, actually made this novel great!
Plot -
At first, the plot and story was slow. It could have just been my skewed perspective of not liking Historical Fiction novels, but it eventually picked up; allowing the like/dislike scales to flip. I was really worried that I would DNF Montauk, but once the story started to get more in depth with the characters and background, I was taken on an emotional roller coaster of feels. And I will happily take that ride over and over again.
Spelling/ Grammatical errors -
I did not notice any spelling or grammatical errors that took away from the overall story. There were a slight few littered throughout, but they were so minor and hardly noticeable that it did no harm to count it against the author or publisher.
Enjoyment -
I can for sure say, that I 100% enjoyed every second I spent on Montauk. I don't typically like Historical Fiction novels, but Nicola Harrison does an amazing job not only making sure the information is correct, but the writing is well-thought out.
Overall -
This novel is a sucker punch to the emotions; it's honestly one of those novels that will be cherished forever because the story, the development, the plot, the background, the heartache and pain, it was all there. And it made this a breathtaking novel to read.
Do I recommend? -
159% yes! I highly recommend Montauk by Nicola Harrison.
"With the ocean surrounding me, I feel free and at peace with the world."