Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Captain Marvel (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Women: Be the Best Version of Yourselves!
So, after much brouhaha and trolling – probably mostly from woman-hating teenage nerds who can’t get laid – Brie Larson‘s hyper-hero barrels onto our cinema screens.
Stan Lee tribute.
First off, what a Marvel-lous idea to pay tribute to Stan Lee in the Marvel production logo for this film. Michael Giacchino‘s rousing Marvel anthem leads to a simple title card: “Thanks Stan”. Poignant and touching.
Lee makes another cameo in this film. I wonder how many more of these they have in the can? Will they “do a Princess Leia” in future films and CGI in his cameos? I’m not a great fan of this, but he’s such a staple part of the show that – with his family’s permission of course – I would actually welcome having that happen in this specific case.
The Plot.
The movie opens on the Kree home world of Hala where Vers, a member of Starforce (“a race of noble warrior heroes”), is being put through her paces by her mentor Yon-Rogg (Jude Law). But she is one mixed up lady, having some exceptional powers but no memory of her past. As an example of this, when she communes with the ‘Supreme Intelligence’ (who looks different to everyone) she sees a woman (Annette Bening) who she clearly admires but she has no idea why.
The Kree are at war against the race of terrorist thugs known as the Skrulls. (Their name reminds me of a classic Mitchell and Webb Nazi SS sketch – “We have skulls on our caps…. does that mean we’re the baddies?”). After a Skrull ambush and some judicious brain-delving, Vers surfaces memories that leads her back to the Terran home world and a past that is set to redefine her future.
What’s good.
A lot. I really enjoyed this Marvel outing. With all the nay-sayers, I went in with low expectations, but the story actually built well and Brie Larson makes the role her own. It goes without saying that she looks gorgeous and fills out that costume very nicely! (The zero gravity ‘hair scene’ is spectacular). But she manages to convey with that style superhero grit with an essence of quirky humour running underneath it. In doing so she holds the whole film together.
Also spectacular were the ‘youngified’ Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson) and Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg). The effect could have been ‘uncanny valley’ with knobs on, but is actually done so well I didn’t even notice. The chemistry between Jackson and Larson is great.
In the strong supporting cast Annette Bening is pure class, and a well-toned Jude Law seems to be having enormous fun. Elsewhere, Ben Mendelsohn (of “Rogue One” fame) is the leader of the Krulls and “Goose” is played by Reggie, Gonzo, Archie and Rizzo! (Flerkin hell!)
The Marvel/DC Laff-ometer.
A key characteristic of the Marvel/DC films is the humour injected (more it has to be said in Marvel than DC), and in terms of the Marvel/DC-laffometer, this film probably lies fairly in the middle of the range. It’s not the snort-fest of Ragnarok or GotG, but neither is it at the po-faced Man of Steel end. Much fun is made of the 1995 setting with gags from Arnie in “True Lies” to computer loading times being well-exploited.
There are also lots of great Marvel in-jokes, not least of which is the story behind Fury losing his eye: hilarious!
What’s not so good.
The problem I have with “Transformers” films is that there is little tension for me in seeing robots hitting ten-bells out of each other. I’ve similarly commented that many superhero movies have the same flaw that (Thanos aside, as things stand) they are pretty much indestructible and there is little threat implied. Captain Marvel however takes this to entirely different levels: the Hulk smash is a mere gnat-bite compared to what Carol Danvers can deliver; storming through planet-busting nuclear weapons and starships without a scratch. It’s so over-the-top that a showdown scene in the finale, although played for a laugh, also becomes laughable in the wrong way.
The film also ladles on female empowerment as if it was gravy in an Australian chip shop! (I bet Theresa May has the film on permanent loop in the Downing Street home cinema). Don’t get me wrong, I am a big supporter of #MeToo (and indeed #SheDo), but the film is a bit too heavy handed in its messaging in this area.
A troop of monkeys.
There are two extra scenes in the end titles (“monkeys“) and they are both corkers. The first bridges directly from “Infinity War” to “Endgame”, picking up (literally) that pager that Nick Fury was no longer able to hang onto; the second a nice sight gag featuring Goose that links the end of this film to the “monkey” at the end of Thor! Well worth waiting for!
Final Thoughts.
This was a Marvel film I really enjoyed, and which I would definitely re-watch. It’s been written and directed by ‘indie’ writing duo Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck (with Geneva Robertson-Dworet also contributing to the screenplay), and very well done it is in my view. Not everyone seems to have liked it: but I did!
On April 25th, the Danvers vs Thanos match is going to be a bout that will be worth buying tickets to see!
Stan Lee tribute.
First off, what a Marvel-lous idea to pay tribute to Stan Lee in the Marvel production logo for this film. Michael Giacchino‘s rousing Marvel anthem leads to a simple title card: “Thanks Stan”. Poignant and touching.
Lee makes another cameo in this film. I wonder how many more of these they have in the can? Will they “do a Princess Leia” in future films and CGI in his cameos? I’m not a great fan of this, but he’s such a staple part of the show that – with his family’s permission of course – I would actually welcome having that happen in this specific case.
The Plot.
The movie opens on the Kree home world of Hala where Vers, a member of Starforce (“a race of noble warrior heroes”), is being put through her paces by her mentor Yon-Rogg (Jude Law). But she is one mixed up lady, having some exceptional powers but no memory of her past. As an example of this, when she communes with the ‘Supreme Intelligence’ (who looks different to everyone) she sees a woman (Annette Bening) who she clearly admires but she has no idea why.
The Kree are at war against the race of terrorist thugs known as the Skrulls. (Their name reminds me of a classic Mitchell and Webb Nazi SS sketch – “We have skulls on our caps…. does that mean we’re the baddies?”). After a Skrull ambush and some judicious brain-delving, Vers surfaces memories that leads her back to the Terran home world and a past that is set to redefine her future.
What’s good.
A lot. I really enjoyed this Marvel outing. With all the nay-sayers, I went in with low expectations, but the story actually built well and Brie Larson makes the role her own. It goes without saying that she looks gorgeous and fills out that costume very nicely! (The zero gravity ‘hair scene’ is spectacular). But she manages to convey with that style superhero grit with an essence of quirky humour running underneath it. In doing so she holds the whole film together.
Also spectacular were the ‘youngified’ Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson) and Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg). The effect could have been ‘uncanny valley’ with knobs on, but is actually done so well I didn’t even notice. The chemistry between Jackson and Larson is great.
In the strong supporting cast Annette Bening is pure class, and a well-toned Jude Law seems to be having enormous fun. Elsewhere, Ben Mendelsohn (of “Rogue One” fame) is the leader of the Krulls and “Goose” is played by Reggie, Gonzo, Archie and Rizzo! (Flerkin hell!)
The Marvel/DC Laff-ometer.
A key characteristic of the Marvel/DC films is the humour injected (more it has to be said in Marvel than DC), and in terms of the Marvel/DC-laffometer, this film probably lies fairly in the middle of the range. It’s not the snort-fest of Ragnarok or GotG, but neither is it at the po-faced Man of Steel end. Much fun is made of the 1995 setting with gags from Arnie in “True Lies” to computer loading times being well-exploited.
There are also lots of great Marvel in-jokes, not least of which is the story behind Fury losing his eye: hilarious!
What’s not so good.
The problem I have with “Transformers” films is that there is little tension for me in seeing robots hitting ten-bells out of each other. I’ve similarly commented that many superhero movies have the same flaw that (Thanos aside, as things stand) they are pretty much indestructible and there is little threat implied. Captain Marvel however takes this to entirely different levels: the Hulk smash is a mere gnat-bite compared to what Carol Danvers can deliver; storming through planet-busting nuclear weapons and starships without a scratch. It’s so over-the-top that a showdown scene in the finale, although played for a laugh, also becomes laughable in the wrong way.
The film also ladles on female empowerment as if it was gravy in an Australian chip shop! (I bet Theresa May has the film on permanent loop in the Downing Street home cinema). Don’t get me wrong, I am a big supporter of #MeToo (and indeed #SheDo), but the film is a bit too heavy handed in its messaging in this area.
A troop of monkeys.
There are two extra scenes in the end titles (“monkeys“) and they are both corkers. The first bridges directly from “Infinity War” to “Endgame”, picking up (literally) that pager that Nick Fury was no longer able to hang onto; the second a nice sight gag featuring Goose that links the end of this film to the “monkey” at the end of Thor! Well worth waiting for!
Final Thoughts.
This was a Marvel film I really enjoyed, and which I would definitely re-watch. It’s been written and directed by ‘indie’ writing duo Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck (with Geneva Robertson-Dworet also contributing to the screenplay), and very well done it is in my view. Not everyone seems to have liked it: but I did!
On April 25th, the Danvers vs Thanos match is going to be a bout that will be worth buying tickets to see!
“OMG when is Purple Phoenix Games gonna review another Harry Potter game??” We listened. So here is the next installment of our unofficial Harry Potter games series. In Harry Potter: Hogwarts Battle – Defence Against the Dark Arts (which I will gladly reduce to Defence throughout the review, even though my American English Spidey-Senses are all over that spelling), players will be playing through a duel in the classroom using spells, allies, and items to push back and stun their opponent. Have you got the wand strength to stand up to your rival?
Like I just mentioned, Defence pits two players against each other in a sparring scenario. Players will be drafting cards that represent Spells to sling, Allies to aid, and Items to help knock opponents off their balance. The winner of Defence is the wizard who can stun their opponent three times. Only then will they be able to stand a chance against their dark foes.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, 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 online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup a game, follow the rulebook instructions to lay out the main duel board and its shuffled decks that will surround it. These include the Hogwarts deck (from which players will be purchasing cards to add to their discard piles), the Library deck (which includes only Books cards that add influence or the ability to draw the top card of the player deck), Hexes (which are placed directly in the opponent’s discard pile and must be dealt with first when in hand), and Banished cards. Each player will choose a House card and a matching mover token to be placed on the board. Likewise, each player will have a starting hand of seven Alohomora! cards, one Wand, one Cauldron, and one starter Ally: Owl, Toad, or Cat. Each player will shuffle their starting deck, drawing five for their starting hand. Determine the starting player and the duel may begin!
On a player’s turn they will first deal with any Hex cards they have acquired, following the instructions written on the card. Once cleared, the active player will play cards from their hand in any order they wish to gain Influence to purchase cards from the Classroom (market), Attack points to push back their opponent towards the Stun space, or Health points to move their own mover token one space closer to the Starting space on the board.
Cards that are purchased from the Classroom can be Items, Spells, or even Allies. Items and Spells typically provide Influence, Health, or Attack, and some will have House bonuses in addition to normal effects. In order to take advantage of the House bonus, a player will either need to be from the affiliated House, or have an active Ally belonging to the affiliated House. This is a new mechanic in this game and adds another layer of strategy to a player’s purchasing.
As wizards duel back and forth slinging Spells, recruiting and activating Allies, and using Items to push back their opponent, one wizard will be stunned. When this happens the players will reset their play areas by combining all of their cards they have in their possession. Shuffle the lot of them, draw another hand of five cards and reset their mover token back to the Starting space. The next round is ready to begin and the wizard who stuns their opponent thrice will be crowned champion! Or get an A for the day… or whatever the Common Core equivalent is nowadays.
Components. I have many great things to say about the components in this box and a couple little gripes. Gripelets, really. First gripe: the box comes with a cardstock sleeve. It is very cool and looks great, but it’s unnecessary and I find it keeps snagging on other boxes and such. Not a big deal, as I can always get rid of it, but that’s an opinion. Second, the board is very dark. It features a very dark purple (yay purple!) with black spaces upon which players move their tokens. The colors are very close under certain lighting and I wish there was even just a faint outline of the spaces in a white or gray. Lastly, and probably just me and the way I play, the Attack and Health trackers are almost completely unnecessary. I know you are supposed to take a token every time you “Gain” a Health or Attack point, but I always just keep track in my head thus negating the need for the tokens.
But onto the great. Literally everything else is great. I have always enjoyed the components in the original game, and as this one contains many of the same, I also enjoy these. The art style is interesting and pretty cool, and I really don’t mind screencaps as much as many others do. So for me, overall, I really enjoy the components here.
All in all I truly love this game. I am almost always in the mood to play Harry Potter: Hogwarts Battle, but it is cooperative and my wife doesn’t really enjoy the OG HP game. This one, however, she does enjoy because she can just flex on me and stun me into oblivion with her superior deckbuilding abilities. This one is quicker to setup and play, and holds a much smaller footprint. The mechanics are familiar without being totally duplicating, and I just love deckbuilders in general. So this one was bound to be a big hit with me from the start.
If you are looking for a great Harry Potter-themed deckbuilding game and are not completely sold on the bigger cooperative game, take a look at this much smaller two-player competitive title. Do try to take some of the cards with a grain of salt, as I am sure it is difficult to imagine having both Hermione and Draco as allies simultaneously, but it can happen in the game. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a very enthusiastic 11 / 12. Just a word of caution, try not to Flipendo your table when you lose. It won’t end well.
Like I just mentioned, Defence pits two players against each other in a sparring scenario. Players will be drafting cards that represent Spells to sling, Allies to aid, and Items to help knock opponents off their balance. The winner of Defence is the wizard who can stun their opponent three times. Only then will they be able to stand a chance against their dark foes.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, 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 online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup a game, follow the rulebook instructions to lay out the main duel board and its shuffled decks that will surround it. These include the Hogwarts deck (from which players will be purchasing cards to add to their discard piles), the Library deck (which includes only Books cards that add influence or the ability to draw the top card of the player deck), Hexes (which are placed directly in the opponent’s discard pile and must be dealt with first when in hand), and Banished cards. Each player will choose a House card and a matching mover token to be placed on the board. Likewise, each player will have a starting hand of seven Alohomora! cards, one Wand, one Cauldron, and one starter Ally: Owl, Toad, or Cat. Each player will shuffle their starting deck, drawing five for their starting hand. Determine the starting player and the duel may begin!
On a player’s turn they will first deal with any Hex cards they have acquired, following the instructions written on the card. Once cleared, the active player will play cards from their hand in any order they wish to gain Influence to purchase cards from the Classroom (market), Attack points to push back their opponent towards the Stun space, or Health points to move their own mover token one space closer to the Starting space on the board.
Cards that are purchased from the Classroom can be Items, Spells, or even Allies. Items and Spells typically provide Influence, Health, or Attack, and some will have House bonuses in addition to normal effects. In order to take advantage of the House bonus, a player will either need to be from the affiliated House, or have an active Ally belonging to the affiliated House. This is a new mechanic in this game and adds another layer of strategy to a player’s purchasing.
As wizards duel back and forth slinging Spells, recruiting and activating Allies, and using Items to push back their opponent, one wizard will be stunned. When this happens the players will reset their play areas by combining all of their cards they have in their possession. Shuffle the lot of them, draw another hand of five cards and reset their mover token back to the Starting space. The next round is ready to begin and the wizard who stuns their opponent thrice will be crowned champion! Or get an A for the day… or whatever the Common Core equivalent is nowadays.
Components. I have many great things to say about the components in this box and a couple little gripes. Gripelets, really. First gripe: the box comes with a cardstock sleeve. It is very cool and looks great, but it’s unnecessary and I find it keeps snagging on other boxes and such. Not a big deal, as I can always get rid of it, but that’s an opinion. Second, the board is very dark. It features a very dark purple (yay purple!) with black spaces upon which players move their tokens. The colors are very close under certain lighting and I wish there was even just a faint outline of the spaces in a white or gray. Lastly, and probably just me and the way I play, the Attack and Health trackers are almost completely unnecessary. I know you are supposed to take a token every time you “Gain” a Health or Attack point, but I always just keep track in my head thus negating the need for the tokens.
But onto the great. Literally everything else is great. I have always enjoyed the components in the original game, and as this one contains many of the same, I also enjoy these. The art style is interesting and pretty cool, and I really don’t mind screencaps as much as many others do. So for me, overall, I really enjoy the components here.
All in all I truly love this game. I am almost always in the mood to play Harry Potter: Hogwarts Battle, but it is cooperative and my wife doesn’t really enjoy the OG HP game. This one, however, she does enjoy because she can just flex on me and stun me into oblivion with her superior deckbuilding abilities. This one is quicker to setup and play, and holds a much smaller footprint. The mechanics are familiar without being totally duplicating, and I just love deckbuilders in general. So this one was bound to be a big hit with me from the start.
If you are looking for a great Harry Potter-themed deckbuilding game and are not completely sold on the bigger cooperative game, take a look at this much smaller two-player competitive title. Do try to take some of the cards with a grain of salt, as I am sure it is difficult to imagine having both Hermione and Draco as allies simultaneously, but it can happen in the game. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a very enthusiastic 11 / 12. Just a word of caution, try not to Flipendo your table when you lose. It won’t end well.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 21, 2019)
You probably already know the story of Michael Myers and the horror that took place in Haddonfield, Illinois on Halloween night. How Michael Myers became one of the biggest slasher icons in horror movie history. Now we get to hear the story told by Rob Zombie, the man who brought us House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. He gives us some insight as to why Michael Myers is the way he is by showing us some of his childhood, the environment he grew up in, and how his family was. After he's institutionalized, we see how his progress continues to deteriorate as Dr. Samuel Loomis tries to do everything he can to save this young boy. Fifteen years go by when Loomis finally throws in the towel and Myers escapes Smith's Grove. Now on his way back to Haddonfield, Myers seeks his sister, Laurie, to finish what he started almost two decades ago.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
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
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) in Movies
Mar 26, 2021 (Updated Mar 26, 2021)
The movie as a whole is better than the original. (2 more)
The darker tone, R rating and additional scenes of violence and bloodshed.
The additional scenes for Cyborg's and Flash's story arc were welcome and did their characters justice.
4 hour length was way too long. (2 more)
The aspect ratio being in 4:3 instead of widescreen.
I didn't like certain things about the addition of Darkseid.
This Version Far Surpasses The Original Released
This movie was way better than the one that was released in theaters. I have to say it is a super long movie but honestly the time just flew by while I was watching it. I also broke it up into 2x two hour halves but another way would be to break it into 6 parts like it has been segmented into in the movie already with 5 chapters/parts and an epilogue. I think it helped that I didn't watch the original one right before I saw this one too. I didn't because I didn't want to be too "Justice Leagued" out and because I knew that it was going to be a 4 hour movie already. There were definitely some parts that felt like they needed to be included in the original for the story to make more sense and be more cohesive story-wise but there were more than a couple that were unnecessary and could have still been left on the cutting floor in my opinion. Now people that are expecting this to be a whole new movie will probably feel disappointed and that this movie is very much the same but fans of DC or the DCEU will more than likely enjoy this film over the original. I really like the way that they included more story and scenes for characters like Cyborg and Flash. I feel that they definitely helped in fleshing out their characters who got the short end of the stick the first time around and since their characters didn't have their own stand alone movies. I also feel they fixed the way Wonder Woman was portrayed and the tension between her and Batman in the movie. I know I could bring up more points here in this part of the review and although the movie was released in 2017 and most people have seen it already, I don't want to spoil it for those who might not have seen it and their first time is going to be this version. So with that being said I'll save the rest for the spoiler review section. And now for my score/rating, I'd have to say that this movie still had a lot of issues like unnecessary scenes and a long run time and some of them stick out like a sore thumb but I really liked it and say that this was a great movie, I'm probably a little bias because I generally enjoy comic book movies and like DC as well but I give it a 8/10. And this movie gets my "Must See Seal of Approval" but only if you are a fan of DC, the DC movies or film in general and have what it takes to sit through a 4 hour movie. Also I think it's worth getting a subscription to HBOMax, if only for 1 month at the price of $15 a month because if you sign up now you'll also be able to enjoy all the other content; plus you'll be able to see Godzilla vs Kong when it's released on March 31st and Mortal Kombat on April 16th.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
So I really enjoyed this movie and thought it was great. At 4 hours it was a monster of a film to get through but I'm definitely glad I watched it because it was way better than the first one that came out in theaters. One of the biggest reasons I think I liked it too was that it was rated R instead of PG-13 which is why we hear Batman and Cyborg drop F-bombs in the movie and why there is significantly more violence and bloodshed shown. The beginning was also different and had a different feel to it right away because in the original it had the memorial for Superman and in this one it doesn't. One thing that I didn't care for and thought was really annoying was how the movie wasn't widescreen but the 4:3 ratio but luckily I have a setting on my tv to change it to widescreen and I think that helped a lot. I know the composer was also changed from the original which I think was better but hard to say but the music definitely fit better. A big change was how the movie felt like it had less humor and really felt darker in tone. I think that at 4 hours long though they really added back or too many additional scenes that didn't need to be there and were completely unnecessary. The part after Bruce Wayne tries to recruit Aquaman and the Swedish or Norwegian girls sing that song was pretty unnecessary and could have been taken out as well as when Wonder Woman goes to the fire arrow place of the Amazons and walks down the stairs to look at the ancient murals. I liked how Bruce Wayne/Batman had more scenes with Alfred Pennyworth. The greatest addition to this movie in my opinion were the additional scenes for Cyborg's story arc and for Flash. These really helped flesh out their characters and do them justice especially for them not having had their own individual movies before this movie of forming the Justice League. I like how Flash saved Iris in that one scene in front of the pet shop. The flashbacks for Cyborg were really cool too and how they showed more of his Mom that we never got to see humanized him a lot more. One of my favorite things that they changed was black suit Superman, that was awesome that they added that, straight out of the comics. I liked how they showed more action scenes of Wonder Woman especially the extended version of her fighting off the terrorists in the museum or wherever it was they went to blow up the kids. I also liked how they changed the scenes of Batman and her and instead made it more about the team and them together. Another thing I really liked was how they showed Willem Dafoe's character Vulko and how he talked to Aquaman. That was one thing that really bothered me about the original was how Mera and Aquaman acted like they knew each other already but in Aquaman they barely met for the first time so it just really threw me off. That and how did he know to go to Atlantis right when Steppenwolf was about to attack. It also bothered me how the Amazons had such an epic battle against Steppenwolf to defend him taking the mother box and the Atlanteans didn't even put up a fight. With this correction they added the dialogue that Aquaman's brother Orm (Ocean Master) was already starting to make moves to take over the other kingdoms that he needed all his soldiers and wouldn't spare any to protect the mother box. I had mixed feelings about Steppenwolf's redesign but I think ultimately it was a good thing and you were able to see his motivations better and think he came out more of a badass and better bad guy. It was cool to see him communicate using the mother boxes and talk to Darkseid's other henchmen Desaad. One thing I really didn't like was how they did Darkseid dirty and showed him lose in the past instead of how it was Steppenwolf who lost in the original to the combined armies of Amazons, Greek Gods, humans and a Green Lantern. They didn't even show him use his Omega beams against them but he did use it against the Atlanteans in a vision of the future that Cyborg sees and it was awesome. I felt they watered down Darkseid from how hardcore he's supposed to be in the comics and cartoons, etc... I liked how in the end they showed how he had Desaad with him and Granny Goodness with him on the other side of the boom tube. I really didn't like how they had this whole thing about Darkseid not remembering which planet the mother boxes were on or where he had seen the "anti-life equation". It doesn't make sense to me that he would forget the planet where he got his ass kicked and almost died or at least was defeated. I heard a theory that maybe he didn't forget he just didn't want his followers to know he suffered a defeat and didn't let them know or killed everyone who knew but then it also didn't make sense that Steppenwolf remembered. It also never explained in this version how or why Steppenwolf fell out of favor with Darkseid and why he was trying so desperately to please him and his whole debt of having to conquer 100,000 worlds. I think this movie could have been cut down to 3 hours and been just as good, and think that 4 hours was a bit too much and that's considering 10% is in slow motion scenes (that's 24 minutes give or take). To me it looks like the success of this version of the movie could possibly generate enough buzz to get a sequel but Zack Snyder has already stated that he more than likely wouldn't come back to make it. As I said above I really dug this version and probably am a little biased and should maybe give it a point lower than what I scored/rated it but I give it a 8/10 and it get's my "Must See Seal of Approval".
https://youtu.be/EvpnLXHBYZU
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
So I really enjoyed this movie and thought it was great. At 4 hours it was a monster of a film to get through but I'm definitely glad I watched it because it was way better than the first one that came out in theaters. One of the biggest reasons I think I liked it too was that it was rated R instead of PG-13 which is why we hear Batman and Cyborg drop F-bombs in the movie and why there is significantly more violence and bloodshed shown. The beginning was also different and had a different feel to it right away because in the original it had the memorial for Superman and in this one it doesn't. One thing that I didn't care for and thought was really annoying was how the movie wasn't widescreen but the 4:3 ratio but luckily I have a setting on my tv to change it to widescreen and I think that helped a lot. I know the composer was also changed from the original which I think was better but hard to say but the music definitely fit better. A big change was how the movie felt like it had less humor and really felt darker in tone. I think that at 4 hours long though they really added back or too many additional scenes that didn't need to be there and were completely unnecessary. The part after Bruce Wayne tries to recruit Aquaman and the Swedish or Norwegian girls sing that song was pretty unnecessary and could have been taken out as well as when Wonder Woman goes to the fire arrow place of the Amazons and walks down the stairs to look at the ancient murals. I liked how Bruce Wayne/Batman had more scenes with Alfred Pennyworth. The greatest addition to this movie in my opinion were the additional scenes for Cyborg's story arc and for Flash. These really helped flesh out their characters and do them justice especially for them not having had their own individual movies before this movie of forming the Justice League. I like how Flash saved Iris in that one scene in front of the pet shop. The flashbacks for Cyborg were really cool too and how they showed more of his Mom that we never got to see humanized him a lot more. One of my favorite things that they changed was black suit Superman, that was awesome that they added that, straight out of the comics. I liked how they showed more action scenes of Wonder Woman especially the extended version of her fighting off the terrorists in the museum or wherever it was they went to blow up the kids. I also liked how they changed the scenes of Batman and her and instead made it more about the team and them together. Another thing I really liked was how they showed Willem Dafoe's character Vulko and how he talked to Aquaman. That was one thing that really bothered me about the original was how Mera and Aquaman acted like they knew each other already but in Aquaman they barely met for the first time so it just really threw me off. That and how did he know to go to Atlantis right when Steppenwolf was about to attack. It also bothered me how the Amazons had such an epic battle against Steppenwolf to defend him taking the mother box and the Atlanteans didn't even put up a fight. With this correction they added the dialogue that Aquaman's brother Orm (Ocean Master) was already starting to make moves to take over the other kingdoms that he needed all his soldiers and wouldn't spare any to protect the mother box. I had mixed feelings about Steppenwolf's redesign but I think ultimately it was a good thing and you were able to see his motivations better and think he came out more of a badass and better bad guy. It was cool to see him communicate using the mother boxes and talk to Darkseid's other henchmen Desaad. One thing I really didn't like was how they did Darkseid dirty and showed him lose in the past instead of how it was Steppenwolf who lost in the original to the combined armies of Amazons, Greek Gods, humans and a Green Lantern. They didn't even show him use his Omega beams against them but he did use it against the Atlanteans in a vision of the future that Cyborg sees and it was awesome. I felt they watered down Darkseid from how hardcore he's supposed to be in the comics and cartoons, etc... I liked how in the end they showed how he had Desaad with him and Granny Goodness with him on the other side of the boom tube. I really didn't like how they had this whole thing about Darkseid not remembering which planet the mother boxes were on or where he had seen the "anti-life equation". It doesn't make sense to me that he would forget the planet where he got his ass kicked and almost died or at least was defeated. I heard a theory that maybe he didn't forget he just didn't want his followers to know he suffered a defeat and didn't let them know or killed everyone who knew but then it also didn't make sense that Steppenwolf remembered. It also never explained in this version how or why Steppenwolf fell out of favor with Darkseid and why he was trying so desperately to please him and his whole debt of having to conquer 100,000 worlds. I think this movie could have been cut down to 3 hours and been just as good, and think that 4 hours was a bit too much and that's considering 10% is in slow motion scenes (that's 24 minutes give or take). To me it looks like the success of this version of the movie could possibly generate enough buzz to get a sequel but Zack Snyder has already stated that he more than likely wouldn't come back to make it. As I said above I really dug this version and probably am a little biased and should maybe give it a point lower than what I scored/rated it but I give it a 8/10 and it get's my "Must See Seal of Approval".
https://youtu.be/EvpnLXHBYZU
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Banker's Wife in Books
Mar 6, 2019
Great, exciting, tense novel
Annabel Lerner feels isolated in Geneva: she's not like the other bankers' wives, and she rarely sees her husband Matthew anymore. They moved to Geneva for a fresh start--and yes, to take advantage of the salary Matthew's private banking job at Swiss United offered. But Annabel never realized how stressed Matthew would be or how often he'd travel. And then, suddenly, he's gone: his private plane simply falling off the radar over the French Alps. Before she can even understand what's happening, Annabel is left to deal with the aftermath, including a trail of secrets and the powerful men at Swiss United who don't want them exposed. Meanwhile, Marina Tourneau is a reporter for The Press. Her mentor, Duncan Carr, has been chasing a story involving Morty Reiss, whose hedge fund was one of the largest Ponzi scams of all time. Supposedly, before he could get caught, Morty committed suicide. But Duncan and Marina believe Marty faked his death and Duncan has become obsessed with proving it--to the detriment of his health, his reputation, and his career. But Marina is also engaged to Grant Ellis, whose wealthy father, James, is about to run for President. The plan is for Marina to stop writing and stand by her man. But when she suddenly realizes she's on the trail of the story of her career, what will she do?
Well, this turned out to be a gem of a novel. When I first started reading it, I was a little worried that I wouldn't see what the fuss was all about, but things quickly picked up, and I was hooked. One of the best things about this novel is that it's an old-style thriller--it reminded me of old-school Grisham or Stieg Larsson. It even throws shade at the glutton of Girl books and their (annoying) unreliable narrators, which I love. This is a mystery for folks who love real stories without any fuss or distraction and with strong characters--all of which combine to leave you befuddled and anxious as everything slowly unfurls.
Alger takes us into the complicated and dark world of Swiss banking, where we are introduced to a lot of real bad guys who have no morals. You can't trust them, you know they are bad, and you know your heroes and heroines are in true danger. Rarely do I think this while reading a book (because, face it, the book is always better), but I really think this book would *actually* make a great movie. It's exciting and tense, and the way things are slowly revealed would make for a very effective film.
But, anyway, it's a wonderful novel. You quickly get sucked into Annabel and Marina's worlds--the majority of the story is told from their points of view. There's a decent amount of ancillary characters to keep track of, but it's certainly manageable. The best is not knowing who to trust, what to believe, or how things went down. There's that Girl with a Dragon Tattoo-reporting vibe that I love: the pleasure of solving a case. The story is set in 2015 but is completely timely, yet utterly timeless in its essence of greed, money, and fear--and what people do in the name of all three. I just loved the old-fashioned thrill of it, the long list of suspects, the excitement of trying to work out who did what.
Overall, this is just a great novel. The plot is excellent--tense, exciting, and expertly woven together. The characters are strong, but it's really the story that's the standout here. It truly reminds you of mysteries and thrillers of old (I sound ancient here, but whatever). Don't let the banking theme scare you off: this is a fabulous read, and if you're a mystery or thriller fan, I think you'll really enjoy this one. 4+ stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Well, this turned out to be a gem of a novel. When I first started reading it, I was a little worried that I wouldn't see what the fuss was all about, but things quickly picked up, and I was hooked. One of the best things about this novel is that it's an old-style thriller--it reminded me of old-school Grisham or Stieg Larsson. It even throws shade at the glutton of Girl books and their (annoying) unreliable narrators, which I love. This is a mystery for folks who love real stories without any fuss or distraction and with strong characters--all of which combine to leave you befuddled and anxious as everything slowly unfurls.
Alger takes us into the complicated and dark world of Swiss banking, where we are introduced to a lot of real bad guys who have no morals. You can't trust them, you know they are bad, and you know your heroes and heroines are in true danger. Rarely do I think this while reading a book (because, face it, the book is always better), but I really think this book would *actually* make a great movie. It's exciting and tense, and the way things are slowly revealed would make for a very effective film.
But, anyway, it's a wonderful novel. You quickly get sucked into Annabel and Marina's worlds--the majority of the story is told from their points of view. There's a decent amount of ancillary characters to keep track of, but it's certainly manageable. The best is not knowing who to trust, what to believe, or how things went down. There's that Girl with a Dragon Tattoo-reporting vibe that I love: the pleasure of solving a case. The story is set in 2015 but is completely timely, yet utterly timeless in its essence of greed, money, and fear--and what people do in the name of all three. I just loved the old-fashioned thrill of it, the long list of suspects, the excitement of trying to work out who did what.
Overall, this is just a great novel. The plot is excellent--tense, exciting, and expertly woven together. The characters are strong, but it's really the story that's the standout here. It truly reminds you of mysteries and thrillers of old (I sound ancient here, but whatever). Don't let the banking theme scare you off: this is a fabulous read, and if you're a mystery or thriller fan, I think you'll really enjoy this one. 4+ stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Adventure and Redemption
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Is the Bible really gospel truth? This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, Gospels. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore Gospels is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled Gospels, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, Gospels is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
Is the Bible really gospel truth? This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, Gospels. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore Gospels is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled Gospels, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, Gospels is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Feb 14, 2018
IT is very good
I met the clown and IT is...fascinating, gripping, thrilling, humorous, intense and good.
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Prey in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
Bethesda and Arkane Studios have combined again on another highly successful and deeply compelling game. After the first two Dishonored games the bar was set exceptionally high and when it was announced that they would be rebooting and reimagining PREY, many gamers were curious to see what would come next.
Playing as Morgan Yu, gamers find themselves aboard the massive Talos I space station during an outbreak of a shape changing enemy known as Typhoids.
The typhoid can mimic any object from a coffee mug to a chair which adds to a high degree of peril facing players as they attempt to survive. Along the way players will be free to explore and take on multiple side quests but resources including precious ammunition are in short supply therefore players will have to gather, recycle, and craft needed materials in order to survive.
The lavish and complex details of the station are impressive but what really makes the game stand out is the multiple ways that players can play the game and complete various objectives. Players are also free to ignore various side quests and select multiple paths to an ending which allows for an incredible amount of replay value.
The enemies are numerous and thanks to a limited amount of ammunition, running and gunning will not work as there are times to fight, run, hide, and you should gray matter in order to survive. At times it can be frustratingly difficult but successfully completing the game does give you a sense of accomplishment which made me think of the first two Dead Space games in terms of their difficulty.
Players will also have the opportunity to enhance their weapons and their abilities ranging from strengthening firearms to being able to mimic the morphing abilities of the Typhoid.
One of my favorites was the Kinetic blast which enabled me to send a powerful shock wave into enemies. This is highly effective but limited due to the amount of kinetic shots and power that a player has at any given time.
Over the numerous hours that I played the game I found myself being drawn further and further into the story line. When multiple mission options arose I often had to face moral choices such as helping fellow survivors or leaving them to their fate so that I may live to complete a mission which ultimately would lead toward completion of the game.
PREY is about choices as the game is crafted to allow players to operate in a morally ambiguous area. You are not required to be the matinee hero nor are you required to be the mustache twirling villain; rather you are free to take advantage of situations as they arise.
One such example saw me take several items of food that had been collected by a group of survivors. I rationalize that with a big battle coming most of them would not survive and that it was up to me to prevail so that I may continue on with the numerous objectives I had before me. This may essentially lead to you having to turn and perhaps kill a fellow survivor which indeed was referenced down the road. The numerous and varied enemies complement the incredibly detailed and massive station which allows for players to take advantage of the zero gravity situations and navigate the outside of the station rather than go through the densely populated core of the station. Of course this only works if various airlocks are indeed open for you to access from the exterior of the station, but this is the type of freedom that players have.
While the difficulty of the game can be a bit frustrating players are able to adjust the difficulty settings and with the multiple gameplay options available to them, patience and persistence will pay off in the end.
The game is a real triumph and is already one of the more impressive titles of 2017. I look forward to seeing what is next for the franchise as PREY is an impressive achievement that will provide countless hours of gaming to even the most hard-core gamer.
http://sknr.net/2017/05/10/prey-3/
Playing as Morgan Yu, gamers find themselves aboard the massive Talos I space station during an outbreak of a shape changing enemy known as Typhoids.
The typhoid can mimic any object from a coffee mug to a chair which adds to a high degree of peril facing players as they attempt to survive. Along the way players will be free to explore and take on multiple side quests but resources including precious ammunition are in short supply therefore players will have to gather, recycle, and craft needed materials in order to survive.
The lavish and complex details of the station are impressive but what really makes the game stand out is the multiple ways that players can play the game and complete various objectives. Players are also free to ignore various side quests and select multiple paths to an ending which allows for an incredible amount of replay value.
The enemies are numerous and thanks to a limited amount of ammunition, running and gunning will not work as there are times to fight, run, hide, and you should gray matter in order to survive. At times it can be frustratingly difficult but successfully completing the game does give you a sense of accomplishment which made me think of the first two Dead Space games in terms of their difficulty.
Players will also have the opportunity to enhance their weapons and their abilities ranging from strengthening firearms to being able to mimic the morphing abilities of the Typhoid.
One of my favorites was the Kinetic blast which enabled me to send a powerful shock wave into enemies. This is highly effective but limited due to the amount of kinetic shots and power that a player has at any given time.
Over the numerous hours that I played the game I found myself being drawn further and further into the story line. When multiple mission options arose I often had to face moral choices such as helping fellow survivors or leaving them to their fate so that I may live to complete a mission which ultimately would lead toward completion of the game.
PREY is about choices as the game is crafted to allow players to operate in a morally ambiguous area. You are not required to be the matinee hero nor are you required to be the mustache twirling villain; rather you are free to take advantage of situations as they arise.
One such example saw me take several items of food that had been collected by a group of survivors. I rationalize that with a big battle coming most of them would not survive and that it was up to me to prevail so that I may continue on with the numerous objectives I had before me. This may essentially lead to you having to turn and perhaps kill a fellow survivor which indeed was referenced down the road. The numerous and varied enemies complement the incredibly detailed and massive station which allows for players to take advantage of the zero gravity situations and navigate the outside of the station rather than go through the densely populated core of the station. Of course this only works if various airlocks are indeed open for you to access from the exterior of the station, but this is the type of freedom that players have.
While the difficulty of the game can be a bit frustrating players are able to adjust the difficulty settings and with the multiple gameplay options available to them, patience and persistence will pay off in the end.
The game is a real triumph and is already one of the more impressive titles of 2017. I look forward to seeing what is next for the franchise as PREY is an impressive achievement that will provide countless hours of gaming to even the most hard-core gamer.
http://sknr.net/2017/05/10/prey-3/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The House That Jack Built (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Danish director Lars Von Trier is no stranger to controversy. He has certainly divided film fans with some praising his work and some condemning it. The House That Jack Built is his most recent creation, causing audience members at Cannes to either walk out in disgust or stand up and applaud. This seriously mixed reception caught my interest and I wanted to find out what he’d done to generate such a response.
I’ve only seen two of his previous films; Antichrist and Melancholia, the former being a film that disturbed me so much I haven’t been able to watch it a second time. Its visceral, raw and harrowing portrayal of sex, violence, and self-mutilation is something that is a thoroughly uncomfortable and unpleasant watch. Because of Antichrist, I felt nervous yet strangely excited to see what The House That Jack Built had in store for me. I was surprised, however, to discover that it is arguably his tamest film to date, with a lot of the more graphic content happening off-screen. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its disturbing moments, but it was a lot less visceral than I was expecting based on its recent backlash.
The film is split into five chapters labelled ‘The Incidents’ and an epilogue, detailing some of the murders that Jack carried out over a 12-year span. Two of these incidents include child abuse and female mutilation, but is presented in a much more psychologically disturbing way rather than uncomfortable close-ups and drawn out scenes that you watch from behind your hands. The House That Jack Built spends more time tapping into Jack’s own psyche than it does the atrocities he commits, with Matt Dillon really stealing the show as the titular character.
It’s also darkly funny in places, which I certainly wasn’t expecting. Dillon’s portrayal of a psychotic killer with OCD is both terrifying and amusing. He is simultaneously charming and unhinged, which is a difficult thing to pull off. He was by far my favourite thing about the film, reminiscent of so many iconic serial killers that have fascinated the general public. The film relied heavily on Jack’s character and inner thoughts so it was great to see Dillon pull it off so brilliantly.
Much like Von Trier’s previous work, The House That Jack Built features lots of symbolism throughout the narrative. In this case, it focuses heavily on religion, art and family, with Jack being challenged on all of these as he recounts the incidents. The voice challenging him is a mystery to us until the third act, where Bruno Ganz’s character is finally revealed to us. I found this reveal to be a little jarring and strange, but not unexpected from one of his films. For me, the third act is where it started to go downhill and I lost interest, which is a real shame after the strength of the first two. Despite seeing some really great analyses online, it wasn’t enough to change my own views on the way it ended. It just seemed a little too out of place for my liking.
The visual style is interesting and combines live action with animation and still images. This feels very random but in the context of this particular film, it actually works in its favour. Both Dillon and Ganz narrate over the animation and still images, giving us monologues that act as food for thought and raise questions about morality, life, death and so on. It’s an intense film in that regard and one that you have to really concentrate on in order to enjoy properly.
The House That Jack Built is a depressing, harrowing and strange film. Its blend of sadistic violence and humour makes it a truly unique horror film that seems to appeal to a very specific audience. It’s not for the faint of heart, and Jack’s misogynistic killing sprees teamed with his nihilistic outlook on life is bound to be uncomfortable for many to witness. As a case study on a serial killer it’s a fascinating watch, but out of the three films I’ve seen, this one is unfortunately the weakest in my eyes.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-the-house-that-jack-built-2018/
I’ve only seen two of his previous films; Antichrist and Melancholia, the former being a film that disturbed me so much I haven’t been able to watch it a second time. Its visceral, raw and harrowing portrayal of sex, violence, and self-mutilation is something that is a thoroughly uncomfortable and unpleasant watch. Because of Antichrist, I felt nervous yet strangely excited to see what The House That Jack Built had in store for me. I was surprised, however, to discover that it is arguably his tamest film to date, with a lot of the more graphic content happening off-screen. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its disturbing moments, but it was a lot less visceral than I was expecting based on its recent backlash.
The film is split into five chapters labelled ‘The Incidents’ and an epilogue, detailing some of the murders that Jack carried out over a 12-year span. Two of these incidents include child abuse and female mutilation, but is presented in a much more psychologically disturbing way rather than uncomfortable close-ups and drawn out scenes that you watch from behind your hands. The House That Jack Built spends more time tapping into Jack’s own psyche than it does the atrocities he commits, with Matt Dillon really stealing the show as the titular character.
It’s also darkly funny in places, which I certainly wasn’t expecting. Dillon’s portrayal of a psychotic killer with OCD is both terrifying and amusing. He is simultaneously charming and unhinged, which is a difficult thing to pull off. He was by far my favourite thing about the film, reminiscent of so many iconic serial killers that have fascinated the general public. The film relied heavily on Jack’s character and inner thoughts so it was great to see Dillon pull it off so brilliantly.
Much like Von Trier’s previous work, The House That Jack Built features lots of symbolism throughout the narrative. In this case, it focuses heavily on religion, art and family, with Jack being challenged on all of these as he recounts the incidents. The voice challenging him is a mystery to us until the third act, where Bruno Ganz’s character is finally revealed to us. I found this reveal to be a little jarring and strange, but not unexpected from one of his films. For me, the third act is where it started to go downhill and I lost interest, which is a real shame after the strength of the first two. Despite seeing some really great analyses online, it wasn’t enough to change my own views on the way it ended. It just seemed a little too out of place for my liking.
The visual style is interesting and combines live action with animation and still images. This feels very random but in the context of this particular film, it actually works in its favour. Both Dillon and Ganz narrate over the animation and still images, giving us monologues that act as food for thought and raise questions about morality, life, death and so on. It’s an intense film in that regard and one that you have to really concentrate on in order to enjoy properly.
The House That Jack Built is a depressing, harrowing and strange film. Its blend of sadistic violence and humour makes it a truly unique horror film that seems to appeal to a very specific audience. It’s not for the faint of heart, and Jack’s misogynistic killing sprees teamed with his nihilistic outlook on life is bound to be uncomfortable for many to witness. As a case study on a serial killer it’s a fascinating watch, but out of the three films I’ve seen, this one is unfortunately the weakest in my eyes.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-the-house-that-jack-built-2018/