Search
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Last of Us Part II in Video Games
Jun 30, 2020 (Updated Jul 1, 2020)
Gameplay (2 more)
Graphics
Sound
I'm Not Mad, I'm Just Disappointed
Contains spoilers, click to show
It's been a while since I've written anything, but I couldn't let this one go by without saying anything about it.
The Last Of Us Part 2 is the biggest disappointment of 2020.
I finished the game a few days ago and have been letting it process in my mind in the hopes that it will somehow make more sense to me. So far that hasn't been the case.
Let me provide you with some context, I wanted to like this game more than anyone. The first Last Of Us is one of my favourite games of all time and because of the spectacular writing and performances in that first game, I was really excited to see what would happen to these characters. This was definitely one of my most anticipated releases in recent years and I'm genuinely in awe at how much of a let down it was, especially after the 10/10 reviews I had been reading leading up to the game's release.
Spoilers will follow from this point on as it's pretty difficult to discuss my reasoning for being let down by the game without getting in depth, so please tread carefully if you have yet to play through the game.
First off, I don't normally like to bring up my personal politics when discussing fictional media, but I do feel that it's necessary to mention that I am pro LGBTQ+ and none of my issues with this game stem from any sort of political bias that I may have.
The game opens slowly, juxtaposing the intense opening of the first game. However these slow opening few hours really allow you to drink in the breathtaking visuals and fantastic sound design. These elements really help to sell the cinematic nature of the game, along with consistently stellar performances.
Then we are shown the main conflict that will propel the story for the sequel. Joel is unceremoniosly murdered by Abby, a new character that we know nothing about at this point.
Now I don't have a problem with main characters being killed off in a story, in fact as a Tarantino fan, I relish it when it's done properly. The problem with Joel's death is the way that it was executed. First off, Joel and Tommy would never in a million years have blindly trusted this random faction that they've just bumped into enough to give them their names so quickly. They've both survived 25 years in the apocalypse and yet the writers still expect you to believe that they would be this naïve and stupid. Then, there's the fact that this is how they choose to introduce this new group that you are later expected to sympathize with and this character that they will later force you to play as for half the game. Why would anyone who is a fan of this world and these characters want to play and learn about this random ruthless killer?
Now, what you might be asking is "aren't Joel and Ellie ruthless killers at this point?" And you would be right, they are. However the point is that we were already invested in these characters before we seen them ruthlessly murdering infected and humans alike and therefore are able to put it down to them having to do what they had to in order to survive. With Abby you are introduced to her killing a beloved character from the first game for the sake of pure shock value.
The first game came out during an oversaturation period of zombie stories across media and yet because of it's stellar writing, it managed to stand out from the crowd and actually become one of the most unique games of the last generation in terms of the story it told. The story in this game feels so generic by comparison. I remember watching interviews with Neil Druckman in the lead up to the game's release where he would talk about how the main hurdle of writing this game was justifying it's existence after the first one ended so well. Really? You had seven years and another generic revenge plot was the best thing that you could come up with?
Another highlight from the first game was the fleshed out side characters that all felt deep and like they really existed in the world. Characters like Tess, Bill and Marlene all naturally fitted into the plot and felt necessary to the overall story being told. The same cannot be said for the side characters in this game. I have already mentioned how it is made impossible to sympathize with Abby and her crew after seeing what they did to Joel. There are two other new characters introduced called Yara and Lev. They are siblings, which put me in mind of Henry and Sam from the first game, but where Henry and Sam felt layered and genuine, Yara and Lev feel shallow and shoehorned in to give Abby's plotline some narrative weight.
Then there is the strange pacing of the story. I feel like I must reiterate, they introduce a character that murders the beloved protagonist from the first game and later expect you to sympathize with her. Then there is the fact that you play as Ellie for the next 8 hours or so before they present you with a shocking cliffhanger, only to then force you to play as Abby for the next 10 hours. Not only are they making you play as the character that murdered Joel and Jessie in cold blood, but every extra hour that they unsuccessfully attempt to make you feel sorry for Abby is another hour before you can get back to see how the cliffhanger, (that was introduced 10 hours ago,) is resolved. And then, they bafflingly make you fight Ellie while playing as Abby. Why would the game expect me to want to hurt this character that I care about as this brand new random stranger?
You are then eventually given control back as Ellie and the game lulls you into a false sense of thinking that you are finally done playing as Abby. Then Ellie makes the totally nonsensical decision to abandon a nice, cushty, quiet farm life that she's carved out for herself, to go after Abby yet again.
After that, you guessed it! You are forced to play as Abby yet again. Thankfully it's only briefly as we then at long last get to properly play as Ellie again. Not sure if you remember her at this point, she's the one that's in all of the trailers and posters and on the cover of the damn game?
Then we get what is probably the most anticlimactic ending in the history of gaming. Ellie lets Abby go. After Abby killed Joel and Jessie and crippled Tommy and after Ellie murdered all of Abby's friends and after Ellie abandoned her girlfriend and step-son and had her fingers bitten off, she's just like, "nah fam, I'm good."
I'm sorry, what?
You are going to break your promise to Tommy and let the person that murdered your father figure get away? Why?
If getting your revenge wasn't worth it, you should have really realized that back on the farm when you were surrounded by people you love and a chance at a family life. If you chose to leave that behind you must be committed enough to see it through, otherwise it is all for nothing. There is subverting audience expectations and then there is having your characters make nonsensical decisions and I feel like TLOU2 was full of the latter.
On a positive note, the gameplay is extremely fun and satisfying. Every blow lands with more force and every bullet seems to strike even harder than in the first game. It does get a bit repetitive after a while and the actual function of taking out a group of enemies hasn't evolved a great deal since the first game, but I still really enjoyed it. The upgrading and crafting systems have also been fleshed out. This, along with the immaculate graphical presentation, tight, fluid animations, brilliant audio and expectedly phenomenal performances make for something with so much potential, with only the writing and direction letting it down. Unfortunately, writing and directing are both pretty essential in a story driven game.
Before I summarise, I'd like to highlight that I am not against stories that explore the moral grey area and don't have clear heroes and villains. For example, Metal Gear Solid is my favourite franchise in gaming and the whole point of that series is to show that there is no black and white, but we all do things for our own reasons. A good story should be able to make you see the things from the "villain's" point of view without being like, "look see what you did to them? That is why they are the way they are! Look see, she is a good person because she plays fetch with dogs!" In TLOU2 it all just feels so forced and unnatural. A good storyteller should show a character's motivations and then show their actions and leave it up to audience to decide if it's justified, instead of strictly saying, "this character is 100% justified in the heinous act that you just seen her commit, now you must be on her side!"
I think that's all that I've got to say and I guess at the very least, this game has got people talking. You cannot accuse it of playing it safe, but there are a ton of different ways that the plot could have went that probably would have been a lot more satisfying for fans of the series like myself. 6/10
The Last Of Us Part 2 is the biggest disappointment of 2020.
I finished the game a few days ago and have been letting it process in my mind in the hopes that it will somehow make more sense to me. So far that hasn't been the case.
Let me provide you with some context, I wanted to like this game more than anyone. The first Last Of Us is one of my favourite games of all time and because of the spectacular writing and performances in that first game, I was really excited to see what would happen to these characters. This was definitely one of my most anticipated releases in recent years and I'm genuinely in awe at how much of a let down it was, especially after the 10/10 reviews I had been reading leading up to the game's release.
Spoilers will follow from this point on as it's pretty difficult to discuss my reasoning for being let down by the game without getting in depth, so please tread carefully if you have yet to play through the game.
First off, I don't normally like to bring up my personal politics when discussing fictional media, but I do feel that it's necessary to mention that I am pro LGBTQ+ and none of my issues with this game stem from any sort of political bias that I may have.
The game opens slowly, juxtaposing the intense opening of the first game. However these slow opening few hours really allow you to drink in the breathtaking visuals and fantastic sound design. These elements really help to sell the cinematic nature of the game, along with consistently stellar performances.
Then we are shown the main conflict that will propel the story for the sequel. Joel is unceremoniosly murdered by Abby, a new character that we know nothing about at this point.
Now I don't have a problem with main characters being killed off in a story, in fact as a Tarantino fan, I relish it when it's done properly. The problem with Joel's death is the way that it was executed. First off, Joel and Tommy would never in a million years have blindly trusted this random faction that they've just bumped into enough to give them their names so quickly. They've both survived 25 years in the apocalypse and yet the writers still expect you to believe that they would be this naïve and stupid. Then, there's the fact that this is how they choose to introduce this new group that you are later expected to sympathize with and this character that they will later force you to play as for half the game. Why would anyone who is a fan of this world and these characters want to play and learn about this random ruthless killer?
Now, what you might be asking is "aren't Joel and Ellie ruthless killers at this point?" And you would be right, they are. However the point is that we were already invested in these characters before we seen them ruthlessly murdering infected and humans alike and therefore are able to put it down to them having to do what they had to in order to survive. With Abby you are introduced to her killing a beloved character from the first game for the sake of pure shock value.
The first game came out during an oversaturation period of zombie stories across media and yet because of it's stellar writing, it managed to stand out from the crowd and actually become one of the most unique games of the last generation in terms of the story it told. The story in this game feels so generic by comparison. I remember watching interviews with Neil Druckman in the lead up to the game's release where he would talk about how the main hurdle of writing this game was justifying it's existence after the first one ended so well. Really? You had seven years and another generic revenge plot was the best thing that you could come up with?
Another highlight from the first game was the fleshed out side characters that all felt deep and like they really existed in the world. Characters like Tess, Bill and Marlene all naturally fitted into the plot and felt necessary to the overall story being told. The same cannot be said for the side characters in this game. I have already mentioned how it is made impossible to sympathize with Abby and her crew after seeing what they did to Joel. There are two other new characters introduced called Yara and Lev. They are siblings, which put me in mind of Henry and Sam from the first game, but where Henry and Sam felt layered and genuine, Yara and Lev feel shallow and shoehorned in to give Abby's plotline some narrative weight.
Then there is the strange pacing of the story. I feel like I must reiterate, they introduce a character that murders the beloved protagonist from the first game and later expect you to sympathize with her. Then there is the fact that you play as Ellie for the next 8 hours or so before they present you with a shocking cliffhanger, only to then force you to play as Abby for the next 10 hours. Not only are they making you play as the character that murdered Joel and Jessie in cold blood, but every extra hour that they unsuccessfully attempt to make you feel sorry for Abby is another hour before you can get back to see how the cliffhanger, (that was introduced 10 hours ago,) is resolved. And then, they bafflingly make you fight Ellie while playing as Abby. Why would the game expect me to want to hurt this character that I care about as this brand new random stranger?
You are then eventually given control back as Ellie and the game lulls you into a false sense of thinking that you are finally done playing as Abby. Then Ellie makes the totally nonsensical decision to abandon a nice, cushty, quiet farm life that she's carved out for herself, to go after Abby yet again.
After that, you guessed it! You are forced to play as Abby yet again. Thankfully it's only briefly as we then at long last get to properly play as Ellie again. Not sure if you remember her at this point, she's the one that's in all of the trailers and posters and on the cover of the damn game?
Then we get what is probably the most anticlimactic ending in the history of gaming. Ellie lets Abby go. After Abby killed Joel and Jessie and crippled Tommy and after Ellie murdered all of Abby's friends and after Ellie abandoned her girlfriend and step-son and had her fingers bitten off, she's just like, "nah fam, I'm good."
I'm sorry, what?
You are going to break your promise to Tommy and let the person that murdered your father figure get away? Why?
If getting your revenge wasn't worth it, you should have really realized that back on the farm when you were surrounded by people you love and a chance at a family life. If you chose to leave that behind you must be committed enough to see it through, otherwise it is all for nothing. There is subverting audience expectations and then there is having your characters make nonsensical decisions and I feel like TLOU2 was full of the latter.
On a positive note, the gameplay is extremely fun and satisfying. Every blow lands with more force and every bullet seems to strike even harder than in the first game. It does get a bit repetitive after a while and the actual function of taking out a group of enemies hasn't evolved a great deal since the first game, but I still really enjoyed it. The upgrading and crafting systems have also been fleshed out. This, along with the immaculate graphical presentation, tight, fluid animations, brilliant audio and expectedly phenomenal performances make for something with so much potential, with only the writing and direction letting it down. Unfortunately, writing and directing are both pretty essential in a story driven game.
Before I summarise, I'd like to highlight that I am not against stories that explore the moral grey area and don't have clear heroes and villains. For example, Metal Gear Solid is my favourite franchise in gaming and the whole point of that series is to show that there is no black and white, but we all do things for our own reasons. A good story should be able to make you see the things from the "villain's" point of view without being like, "look see what you did to them? That is why they are the way they are! Look see, she is a good person because she plays fetch with dogs!" In TLOU2 it all just feels so forced and unnatural. A good storyteller should show a character's motivations and then show their actions and leave it up to audience to decide if it's justified, instead of strictly saying, "this character is 100% justified in the heinous act that you just seen her commit, now you must be on her side!"
I think that's all that I've got to say and I guess at the very least, this game has got people talking. You cannot accuse it of playing it safe, but there are a ton of different ways that the plot could have went that probably would have been a lot more satisfying for fans of the series like myself. 6/10
Vocabulary.com
Education and Reference
App
With its uniquely effective word learning system, the Vocabulary.com app helps you master words...
I am honestly not completely sure about my thoughts on this play. I was so excited when it was announced that they would be releasing the script, especially since I will most likely not be able to see the stage production any time soon, but it left me in a weird mental state after reading it. Warning, there may be plot spoilers in this review, so read at your own peril. If you do not want to be spoiled, read the play first, then come back to my review.
I know that a play will never really be the same as reading a novel by good old JK, but it still felt so different from the rest of the Harry Potter series. I found myself wanting more out of it than I got. There was a lot of nostalgia for the other books that I felt when I was reading it. And I loved this play for that reason.
Now don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the play. It was different, we got to see our Golden Trio all grown up, and see their interactions with other characters, including their children. I did, however, find myself getting angry at the characters--Harry and Ginny in particular. These two characters know, probably more than anyone else in this series, what it is like to be an outsider and to feel ostracized from other people. Yet they let their son feel the same way they did. To me, that sucks. They gave him huge shoes to fill in naming Albus what they did, but it seems that they never explained to him the meaning behind it. They let him hear all of the glorious stories of Dumbledore and Snape, but never let him in on the truth that both of those men were flawed individuals who messed up a lot. In not knowing that truth, Albus was made to think that he was not good enough. Again, super crappy thing to do to a child. Harry, you should know this!!
The plot itself was interesting. I think having to look at the past and see what changing any part of it could do to the future is something Albus, and even Harry, needed to understand. They must acknowledge the past, but still have the hope to look at the future. (Boom. Dumbledore style wisdom right there.) Even Scorpius needed to see what could happen. (By the way, I love Scorpius. I think he is my favorite of all of the children characters because he is adorable and so sassy.)
Just one question: WHERE WAS MY BOY TEDDY LUPIN?!?!?!?! I was looking for him the whole freaking play because I needed to see some of Remus and Tonks in another form, but we got NOTHING and I am upset. I was thinking of taking off another half star just for that fact alone, but I need to be not as bitter about it.
I cried while reading this. Whenever Albus was being self-deprecating, my heart broke even more. And Act 4 killed me. (SPOILERS) I sobbed when they were watching Voldy kill Lily and James. Straight up sobbed like a child.
I loved all of the stage directions and I think it would be very interesting to see how it all plays out on the stage. I honestly have no idea how they would do some of the effects.
Overall, it was a good addition to the Harry Potter novels. Was it as good or give me as many emotions as the novels did? No. But I enjoyed it for what it was.
I know that a play will never really be the same as reading a novel by good old JK, but it still felt so different from the rest of the Harry Potter series. I found myself wanting more out of it than I got. There was a lot of nostalgia for the other books that I felt when I was reading it. And I loved this play for that reason.
Now don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the play. It was different, we got to see our Golden Trio all grown up, and see their interactions with other characters, including their children. I did, however, find myself getting angry at the characters--Harry and Ginny in particular. These two characters know, probably more than anyone else in this series, what it is like to be an outsider and to feel ostracized from other people. Yet they let their son feel the same way they did. To me, that sucks. They gave him huge shoes to fill in naming Albus what they did, but it seems that they never explained to him the meaning behind it. They let him hear all of the glorious stories of Dumbledore and Snape, but never let him in on the truth that both of those men were flawed individuals who messed up a lot. In not knowing that truth, Albus was made to think that he was not good enough. Again, super crappy thing to do to a child. Harry, you should know this!!
The plot itself was interesting. I think having to look at the past and see what changing any part of it could do to the future is something Albus, and even Harry, needed to understand. They must acknowledge the past, but still have the hope to look at the future. (Boom. Dumbledore style wisdom right there.) Even Scorpius needed to see what could happen. (By the way, I love Scorpius. I think he is my favorite of all of the children characters because he is adorable and so sassy.)
Just one question: WHERE WAS MY BOY TEDDY LUPIN?!?!?!?! I was looking for him the whole freaking play because I needed to see some of Remus and Tonks in another form, but we got NOTHING and I am upset. I was thinking of taking off another half star just for that fact alone, but I need to be not as bitter about it.
I cried while reading this. Whenever Albus was being self-deprecating, my heart broke even more. And Act 4 killed me. (SPOILERS) I sobbed when they were watching Voldy kill Lily and James. Straight up sobbed like a child.
I loved all of the stage directions and I think it would be very interesting to see how it all plays out on the stage. I honestly have no idea how they would do some of the effects.
Overall, it was a good addition to the Harry Potter novels. Was it as good or give me as many emotions as the novels did? No. But I enjoyed it for what it was.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Spirits of the Wild in Tabletop Games
Aug 15, 2019
You know how some games just look… delicious? Take Azul’s tiles that remind us of a yummy burst of sugary goodness. Or all the cutie little bits in Everdell. Well, the components in this game are really stellar and are just a joy to play with. Yes, I am jumping the gun with the formula I typically use for my reviews, but just scroll down for a sec and check out the play photo. Just those juicy little stones, the awesome bowl, the nice little coyote mini. They’re great! Anyway, having great components doesn’t necessarily mean that the game will be good. Add to that the fact that I picked this up from Target AND it’s published by Mattel and I really wasn’t expecting much from Spirits of the Wild. I’ll admit I was wrong. This is a great game. This is why –
This is a game about resource management, set collection and a hint of take that. The winner of the game is the player who can most efficiently use the stones they choose from the bowl during the game by assigning them to areas on their player mat. Each area scores points differently, and the game ends at the end of the player’s turn once at least five clear stones have left the provided bag. Let me explain.
DISCLAIMER: I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly, from Target, or from your FLGS. -T
To setup the game, place all the stones in the bag. Place the bowl in the middle of the players, and set aside the coyote mini. Place the two stacks of Spirit Cards in the middle of the table. Each player receives a play mat and the same set of cards that indicates an action that can be taken on a turn. Draw out four stones from the bag and place them in the bowl. You are ready to begin.
On a player’s turn, they choose a face up card from the collection in front of them which tells them what to do on their turn. Such actions include take a stone, take two stones, or place some stones in the bowl and take one. Once an action card has been chosen and followed, the player flips it over and it cannot be used on the next turn. One card that can be used at any time instructs the player to take a Spirit Card action and refresh their cards by flipping them all face-up. The cards drive the actions to be made throughout the game, but the game really hinges on the stones and the coyote.
When you take actions to choose stones from the bowl you then have to assign those stones to spots on your play mat. These areas score differently and deciding which stones to grab and where to place them can be agonizing, but only because you can see what your opponent is doing and you really need to set yourself up to score points before the game suddenly has to end and you are stuck unfinished and will be unscoring. Unscoring? You’re welcome, Webster’s Dictionary. The coyote, when placed on an opponent’s play mat prevents stones from being added to that area and can really throw an ACME wrench into your plans. So determining when to move the coyote from your mat onto your opponent’s may really be the difference between sweet, tasty victory and bitter, yucky defeat. Again, play continues until the end of the turn when the fifth clear stone leaves the bag. Oh those clear ones? When placed, you can no longer place stones in that area but will also double that area’s score at the end of the game. So there’s quite a bit going on in your head throughout the game. Delicious!
Components. Well, I kinda already professed my love for them in the intro, so I’ll do it again here. They are wonderful components! I want to just be fidgeting with them all the time.
So is this good? Verily!! The constant struggle between deciding your action card based on the stones in the bowl or refreshing your cards or just going for broke and taking a chance on unscoring an area because there are already three clear stones out but you know at any time three more can make an appearance and end the game is just so satisfying. The components are amazing, the game play is fast and furious (not a sponsor), and you just want to play it again right afterward. Those are my favorite kind of games. If this all sounds like your kind of game, definitely check it out. You won’t be disappointed. I believe anyone would like this one. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an enthusiastic, but temptation-to-eat-the-stones-resisting 10 / 12.
This is a game about resource management, set collection and a hint of take that. The winner of the game is the player who can most efficiently use the stones they choose from the bowl during the game by assigning them to areas on their player mat. Each area scores points differently, and the game ends at the end of the player’s turn once at least five clear stones have left the provided bag. Let me explain.
DISCLAIMER: I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly, from Target, or from your FLGS. -T
To setup the game, place all the stones in the bag. Place the bowl in the middle of the players, and set aside the coyote mini. Place the two stacks of Spirit Cards in the middle of the table. Each player receives a play mat and the same set of cards that indicates an action that can be taken on a turn. Draw out four stones from the bag and place them in the bowl. You are ready to begin.
On a player’s turn, they choose a face up card from the collection in front of them which tells them what to do on their turn. Such actions include take a stone, take two stones, or place some stones in the bowl and take one. Once an action card has been chosen and followed, the player flips it over and it cannot be used on the next turn. One card that can be used at any time instructs the player to take a Spirit Card action and refresh their cards by flipping them all face-up. The cards drive the actions to be made throughout the game, but the game really hinges on the stones and the coyote.
When you take actions to choose stones from the bowl you then have to assign those stones to spots on your play mat. These areas score differently and deciding which stones to grab and where to place them can be agonizing, but only because you can see what your opponent is doing and you really need to set yourself up to score points before the game suddenly has to end and you are stuck unfinished and will be unscoring. Unscoring? You’re welcome, Webster’s Dictionary. The coyote, when placed on an opponent’s play mat prevents stones from being added to that area and can really throw an ACME wrench into your plans. So determining when to move the coyote from your mat onto your opponent’s may really be the difference between sweet, tasty victory and bitter, yucky defeat. Again, play continues until the end of the turn when the fifth clear stone leaves the bag. Oh those clear ones? When placed, you can no longer place stones in that area but will also double that area’s score at the end of the game. So there’s quite a bit going on in your head throughout the game. Delicious!
Components. Well, I kinda already professed my love for them in the intro, so I’ll do it again here. They are wonderful components! I want to just be fidgeting with them all the time.
So is this good? Verily!! The constant struggle between deciding your action card based on the stones in the bowl or refreshing your cards or just going for broke and taking a chance on unscoring an area because there are already three clear stones out but you know at any time three more can make an appearance and end the game is just so satisfying. The components are amazing, the game play is fast and furious (not a sponsor), and you just want to play it again right afterward. Those are my favorite kind of games. If this all sounds like your kind of game, definitely check it out. You won’t be disappointed. I believe anyone would like this one. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an enthusiastic, but temptation-to-eat-the-stones-resisting 10 / 12.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Anatomy of Innocence: Testimonies of the Wrongfully Convicted in Books
Mar 15, 2018
With movements like Black Lives Matter at the forefront of society right now, and multiple documentaries about wrongful convictions such as Steven Avery and The West Memphis Three out, there has never been a better time for this book to come out and be read. This topic is <i><b>so important.</i></b>
Reading about the lives of these poor, innocent human beings being treated like theyre dirt, like theyre less than dirt, is devastating. A number of these stories actually brought tears to my eyes. How this injustice goes on, I cant fathom. In many of these stories we hear how there are alibis that prove the person wasnt there to commit the crime, but they convict them anyway. There are confessions from other people to crimes, yet they will convict someone else. There is someone elses DNA on a victim's body but they will commit someone whose DNA is not on the body. And possibly the worst one of them all, there are statements from VICTIMS that the person they have arrested is not the right person, yet they will still convict them. How can a legal system, thats supposed to protect us and who were supposed to trust, let this happen? It makes my blood boil.
In this book, each persons story is written by a prolific crime writer, so all of these accounts are really well written and they really bring out raw emotions in you because theyre so well presented and you can feel the exonerees pain.
Many of these people spent over a decade, if not over <b>two decades</b> of their life trapped in the walls of dirty prisons for crimes they were innocent of, such as murder, child murder, rape and GBH. The brutality of the officers arresting these people makes me sick. <b>Literal</b> torture is used on innocent people, as young as 17, to coax a <b>false confession</b> out of them, all because they want to be able to arrest someone. What makes me sicker is that these officers and the higher powers who turn(ed) a blind eye to this kind of abuse are never charged or made to own up to their brutalities AND because of the idiocy of these *insert the worst possible swear word and insults here* policemen, real child sex offenders and heartless murderers are <b>NEVER CAUGHT.</b>
This book is hopeful, but it is also heart breaking and while I could go on forever talking about the hatred and rage that this book makes me feel, but Im going to end it with this instead.
<b><blockquote>GLORIA KILLIAN
DAVID BATES
RAY TOWLER
MICHAEL EVANS
KEN WYNIEMKO
KIRK BLOODWORTH
AUDREY EDMUNDS
ALTON LOGAN
PETER REILLY
GINNY LEFEVER
BILL DILLON
JEFF DESKOVIC
ANTOINE DAY
JERRY MILLER
JUAN RIVERA</blockquote></b>
<b>You are brave and you are strong. Thank you for sharing your stories with us and shining a light on a subject so often ignored. I hope the world does nothing but right by you from here on in. You, over anyone, deserve it.</b>
I have been inspired. I am now going to look into the UKs own Innocence Group and see what I can do to help those 10% who are wrongly convicted and being left to rot in prison.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and W. W. Norton & Company for giving me the opportunity to read this book in exchange for an honest review.</i>
Reading about the lives of these poor, innocent human beings being treated like theyre dirt, like theyre less than dirt, is devastating. A number of these stories actually brought tears to my eyes. How this injustice goes on, I cant fathom. In many of these stories we hear how there are alibis that prove the person wasnt there to commit the crime, but they convict them anyway. There are confessions from other people to crimes, yet they will convict someone else. There is someone elses DNA on a victim's body but they will commit someone whose DNA is not on the body. And possibly the worst one of them all, there are statements from VICTIMS that the person they have arrested is not the right person, yet they will still convict them. How can a legal system, thats supposed to protect us and who were supposed to trust, let this happen? It makes my blood boil.
In this book, each persons story is written by a prolific crime writer, so all of these accounts are really well written and they really bring out raw emotions in you because theyre so well presented and you can feel the exonerees pain.
Many of these people spent over a decade, if not over <b>two decades</b> of their life trapped in the walls of dirty prisons for crimes they were innocent of, such as murder, child murder, rape and GBH. The brutality of the officers arresting these people makes me sick. <b>Literal</b> torture is used on innocent people, as young as 17, to coax a <b>false confession</b> out of them, all because they want to be able to arrest someone. What makes me sicker is that these officers and the higher powers who turn(ed) a blind eye to this kind of abuse are never charged or made to own up to their brutalities AND because of the idiocy of these *insert the worst possible swear word and insults here* policemen, real child sex offenders and heartless murderers are <b>NEVER CAUGHT.</b>
This book is hopeful, but it is also heart breaking and while I could go on forever talking about the hatred and rage that this book makes me feel, but Im going to end it with this instead.
<b><blockquote>GLORIA KILLIAN
DAVID BATES
RAY TOWLER
MICHAEL EVANS
KEN WYNIEMKO
KIRK BLOODWORTH
AUDREY EDMUNDS
ALTON LOGAN
PETER REILLY
GINNY LEFEVER
BILL DILLON
JEFF DESKOVIC
ANTOINE DAY
JERRY MILLER
JUAN RIVERA</blockquote></b>
<b>You are brave and you are strong. Thank you for sharing your stories with us and shining a light on a subject so often ignored. I hope the world does nothing but right by you from here on in. You, over anyone, deserve it.</b>
I have been inspired. I am now going to look into the UKs own Innocence Group and see what I can do to help those 10% who are wrongly convicted and being left to rot in prison.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and W. W. Norton & Company for giving me the opportunity to read this book in exchange for an honest review.</i>
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Overlord (2018) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Overbored
#overlord is overlong, #boring, repetitive dross with no #soul of its own.
I was looking forward to this #film walking in, it looked like a throw back to 2002 #action horror films like #DogSoldiers, #Deathwatch & #28dayslater but it couldnt be any further from any of them if it tried. When Overlord is a #war film its passable enough (mainly because it outright steals all the best bits from #savingprivateryan & #bandofbrothers) but its when it tries its hand at horror it becomes down right #embarrassing. We know whats lurking in the basement going into the film but for some reason it keeps it a mystery for far to long instead feeding us this dull recycled generic plot we've seen a million times before we get to 'what we came to see'. Once the horror hits its done extremely poorly, lacking in suspense, quality & grittiness. I get they were going for a kid of #grindhouse sort of style but it takes itself far to seriously losing the fun of such a film. Acting is as painful as the dialog which is delivered by most of the cast as if you gave a script to someone on the street & asked them to read it. Not one character is likable & they all seem to be un phased by wounds or the horrors they witness. #Creature design is unimaginative, cgi is #poor & set pieces are dull however there are some great tracking shots at times & a bit of nice imagery but its to few & far between. Its nice to see an 18 certificate film like this for a change but I found Overlord to be a huge let down & a big wasted opportunity. Pitty. #odeon #odeonlimitless #horror #gore #scary #natzi #war #worldwar #thursdaythoughts #filmbuff #filmcritic #ww2 #nasty #zombies #halloween #callofduty
I was looking forward to this #film walking in, it looked like a throw back to 2002 #action horror films like #DogSoldiers, #Deathwatch & #28dayslater but it couldnt be any further from any of them if it tried. When Overlord is a #war film its passable enough (mainly because it outright steals all the best bits from #savingprivateryan & #bandofbrothers) but its when it tries its hand at horror it becomes down right #embarrassing. We know whats lurking in the basement going into the film but for some reason it keeps it a mystery for far to long instead feeding us this dull recycled generic plot we've seen a million times before we get to 'what we came to see'. Once the horror hits its done extremely poorly, lacking in suspense, quality & grittiness. I get they were going for a kid of #grindhouse sort of style but it takes itself far to seriously losing the fun of such a film. Acting is as painful as the dialog which is delivered by most of the cast as if you gave a script to someone on the street & asked them to read it. Not one character is likable & they all seem to be un phased by wounds or the horrors they witness. #Creature design is unimaginative, cgi is #poor & set pieces are dull however there are some great tracking shots at times & a bit of nice imagery but its to few & far between. Its nice to see an 18 certificate film like this for a change but I found Overlord to be a huge let down & a big wasted opportunity. Pitty. #odeon #odeonlimitless #horror #gore #scary #natzi #war #worldwar #thursdaythoughts #filmbuff #filmcritic #ww2 #nasty #zombies #halloween #callofduty
Norway Marco Polo Travel Handbook
Book
For advice you can trust, look no further than Marco Polo.The Norway Marco Polo Handbook offers...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Guilt trip.
“Passengers” is not a film that you can really talk about in much depth without straying into spoiler territory, so I will break my normal tradition of my reviews being entirely “Spoiler Free” and add a further discussion (but below the Fad Rating, so you are safe ‘til there).
The backdrop for “Passengers” is the spaceship “Avalon”, on a 120 year trip taking Earth colonists to the new world of “Homestead 2”. Following an ‘incident’ the story finds two individuals – Jim Preston, played by Chris “Jurassic World” Pratt, and Jennifer “Joy” Lawrence – as the only passengers awake on the automated ship among 5000+ other slumbering souls. It rather goes without saying that with two attractive and bankable Hollywood stars and nothing else to do, the two ‘get it on’. With things on the ship going from bad to worse, the two must work as a team to try to save the ship, crew and fellow passengers from disaster.
As a fan of sci-fi, I’ll start with a positive that the Avalon is a gloriously rendered spacecraft, and many of the scenes of space walking present beautiful cinematography (by Rodrigo Prieto of “The Wolf of Wall Street” and “Argo”). Many of the other special effects in the film – led by special effects supervisor Daniel Sudick, of the Marvel franchise – are spectacularly good, especially one which demonstrates why the lifeguards closed the pool on the International Space Station!
The overall premise of the film is also original and well-conceived, setting up the backdrop for some serious post-watch ethical debate (see spoiler section).
Where the wheels came off for me though is with the script by Jon Spaihts (“Prometheus”, “Doctor Strange”). Some of the dialogue is just appallingly trite, and some of the supposed capabilities of our hero, Preston, are laughable. For example, he possesses an uncanny ability as “an engineer” to open a cabinet of electronics, scan the circuits and say “Nope – that all looks fine”: the next time my washing machine controller packs in, he’s going to be on my speed-dial for sure! And (cue trite line – “every component on the ship has a spare”) Preston immediately finds the required part (curiously, it’s right next to the failing component and not in Bay 67 on cargo deck 327!) and knows how to plug and play it as required.
Chris Pratt; Jennifer Lawrence
Pratt and Lawrence, with Pratt about to debug my washing machine controller just by looking at it.
But, for me, there was one particularly dire point in the script where Spaihts obviously forgets which film he’s writing the scene for and ‘goes superhero’: oh, hang on, Preston doesn’t HAVE any superhero powers! For me, any goodwill the story had built up through to that point get vented into space.
The director is Morten Tyldum, whose “Headhunters” I really enjoyed but who is probably more famous for “The Imitation Game”. Not overawed by the production’s scale, he does a great job of getting good performances out of the rather wooden action hunk that is Chris Pratt and the reliable Oscar-winner Jennifer Lawrence who (apart from one dramatic and emotional scene) the script doesn’t really stretch. Michael Sheen is also a great watch as the witty and dry android bar-tender.
In summary, this was a nice premise with great special effects and gorgeous production design, but frustratingly let down with a weak screenplay. With a better script and another 10% of tweaking, this could have been a real sci-fi classic.
The backdrop for “Passengers” is the spaceship “Avalon”, on a 120 year trip taking Earth colonists to the new world of “Homestead 2”. Following an ‘incident’ the story finds two individuals – Jim Preston, played by Chris “Jurassic World” Pratt, and Jennifer “Joy” Lawrence – as the only passengers awake on the automated ship among 5000+ other slumbering souls. It rather goes without saying that with two attractive and bankable Hollywood stars and nothing else to do, the two ‘get it on’. With things on the ship going from bad to worse, the two must work as a team to try to save the ship, crew and fellow passengers from disaster.
As a fan of sci-fi, I’ll start with a positive that the Avalon is a gloriously rendered spacecraft, and many of the scenes of space walking present beautiful cinematography (by Rodrigo Prieto of “The Wolf of Wall Street” and “Argo”). Many of the other special effects in the film – led by special effects supervisor Daniel Sudick, of the Marvel franchise – are spectacularly good, especially one which demonstrates why the lifeguards closed the pool on the International Space Station!
The overall premise of the film is also original and well-conceived, setting up the backdrop for some serious post-watch ethical debate (see spoiler section).
Where the wheels came off for me though is with the script by Jon Spaihts (“Prometheus”, “Doctor Strange”). Some of the dialogue is just appallingly trite, and some of the supposed capabilities of our hero, Preston, are laughable. For example, he possesses an uncanny ability as “an engineer” to open a cabinet of electronics, scan the circuits and say “Nope – that all looks fine”: the next time my washing machine controller packs in, he’s going to be on my speed-dial for sure! And (cue trite line – “every component on the ship has a spare”) Preston immediately finds the required part (curiously, it’s right next to the failing component and not in Bay 67 on cargo deck 327!) and knows how to plug and play it as required.
Chris Pratt; Jennifer Lawrence
Pratt and Lawrence, with Pratt about to debug my washing machine controller just by looking at it.
But, for me, there was one particularly dire point in the script where Spaihts obviously forgets which film he’s writing the scene for and ‘goes superhero’: oh, hang on, Preston doesn’t HAVE any superhero powers! For me, any goodwill the story had built up through to that point get vented into space.
The director is Morten Tyldum, whose “Headhunters” I really enjoyed but who is probably more famous for “The Imitation Game”. Not overawed by the production’s scale, he does a great job of getting good performances out of the rather wooden action hunk that is Chris Pratt and the reliable Oscar-winner Jennifer Lawrence who (apart from one dramatic and emotional scene) the script doesn’t really stretch. Michael Sheen is also a great watch as the witty and dry android bar-tender.
In summary, this was a nice premise with great special effects and gorgeous production design, but frustratingly let down with a weak screenplay. With a better script and another 10% of tweaking, this could have been a real sci-fi classic.
Kane Hodder recommended Monster (2003) in Movies (curated)
PhotoPills
Photo & Video and Education
App
Unlock your creative potential! Discover how to easily turn any Sun, Moon and Milky Way scene you...