Search
Search results
Animated Knots by Grog HD
Reference and Sports
App
Named the best knot-tying app by Outside Magazine! Learn to tie knots the fun and easy way from the...
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009) in Movies
Sep 10, 2020
Beautiful Visuals
A part of being a critic means being able to separate the art from the creator. In my recent review of Swing Time, I came to the conclusion that the movie as a whole was still enjoyable despite their use of blackface in one scene. While I don’t agree with everything JK Rowling is saying at this point in time, I can’t deny the magical world that she has created and the stories that lie within. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, the sixth installment in the franchise, is no exception. In this darker film, Harry is finding himself in preparation of facing off against the evil Lord Voldemort.
Acting: 10
This is my first review of a Harry Potter film. I must say, it has been a pleasure to watch these young actors grow into stars. Daniel Radcliffe was made for the role of Harry Potter and it appears he has matured at the same time his character has. Gone is the young innocence of the first film, replaced by teenage angst and anger. It is hard to imagine anyone else playing the role just as it is hard to imagine anyone but Alan Rickman playing the role of the hard-faced, dark Professor Snape.
Beginning: 10
The mayhem starts almost instantly and wastes no time in getting you sucked into the movie. You know right away what the heroes are up against and it ain’t looking good for the heroes. I appreciated that immediate intensity.
Characters: 10
The gang is all here from the previous five films, the characters we have grown to know and love. I respect the fact that every character continues to grow and mature in their own way, particularly Harry. Thrust into this world of magic and wizardry, becoming an adult becomes ten times more challenging with all the Hogwarts-related biz thrown into the mix.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
At some point in the movie, there is a scene shot in black and white involving Albus Dumbledore that’s super cool to watch unfold. Visually this film is just as strong as the previous ones, if not stronger as it is working with darker tones throughout. With beautiful camerawork, director David Yates makes you feel the tension of each scene as you are taken on this journey.
Conflict: 8
Entertainment Value: 9
Even if you aren’t a die-hard Harry Potter fan, the film takes you on an extremely intense journey. You experience a rollercoaster of emotions, many unexpected if you haven’t read the books. It is a wonderful setup for the film’s final act.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Plot: 10
Resolution: 5
While the ending was necessary, it definitely left a bad taste in my mouth. it also didn’t quite feel complete as it was an obvious setup for things to come. The last ten minutes were mediocre at best for me.
Overall: 87
I could think of worse ways to spend your time than watching Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. The series continues to improve upon itself and this was a worthy installment. It has just the right level of creepiness factor to pique one’s interest.
Acting: 10
This is my first review of a Harry Potter film. I must say, it has been a pleasure to watch these young actors grow into stars. Daniel Radcliffe was made for the role of Harry Potter and it appears he has matured at the same time his character has. Gone is the young innocence of the first film, replaced by teenage angst and anger. It is hard to imagine anyone else playing the role just as it is hard to imagine anyone but Alan Rickman playing the role of the hard-faced, dark Professor Snape.
Beginning: 10
The mayhem starts almost instantly and wastes no time in getting you sucked into the movie. You know right away what the heroes are up against and it ain’t looking good for the heroes. I appreciated that immediate intensity.
Characters: 10
The gang is all here from the previous five films, the characters we have grown to know and love. I respect the fact that every character continues to grow and mature in their own way, particularly Harry. Thrust into this world of magic and wizardry, becoming an adult becomes ten times more challenging with all the Hogwarts-related biz thrown into the mix.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
At some point in the movie, there is a scene shot in black and white involving Albus Dumbledore that’s super cool to watch unfold. Visually this film is just as strong as the previous ones, if not stronger as it is working with darker tones throughout. With beautiful camerawork, director David Yates makes you feel the tension of each scene as you are taken on this journey.
Conflict: 8
Entertainment Value: 9
Even if you aren’t a die-hard Harry Potter fan, the film takes you on an extremely intense journey. You experience a rollercoaster of emotions, many unexpected if you haven’t read the books. It is a wonderful setup for the film’s final act.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Plot: 10
Resolution: 5
While the ending was necessary, it definitely left a bad taste in my mouth. it also didn’t quite feel complete as it was an obvious setup for things to come. The last ten minutes were mediocre at best for me.
Overall: 87
I could think of worse ways to spend your time than watching Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. The series continues to improve upon itself and this was a worthy installment. It has just the right level of creepiness factor to pique one’s interest.
Fibonacci Stock Chart - trading signal in stocks
Finance and Utilities
App
Fibonacci is very powerful. Traders never forget to check Fibonacci retracement chart before any...
Fitness Boot Camp
Health & Fitness and Sports
App
This app has an incredible 368 easy to follow Fitness Workouts including Kettlebell, Resistance...
KORG iMS-20
Music and Entertainment
App
iMS-20 is an analog synth studio; a complete recreation of the Korg MS-20 synth, an analog...
Drum School
Music and Education
App
Advanced groove library and drum learning tool for all levels. Whether you're a beginner or a pro,...
Grand Theft Auto: iFruit
Games
6.7
Rate It
App
PLEASE NOTE: iFruit has been updated for GTAV PC. Please select "Social Club" as the platform for PC...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Apr 14, 2019
Oh...hell, no!
HELLBOY?!? HELL NO!
I would imagine that about 90% of my readership just got what they needed out of my review with that first line and have moved on. For the rest of you, I will now explain why this reboot of HELLBOY is now the "leader in the clubhouse" for worst picture of 2019.
I was pleasantly surprised by the 2004 Guillermo del Toro helmed and written HELLBOY and was even more surprised by how good the del Toro written and helmed HELLBOY II: THE GOLD ARMY (2008) was. I think that this was because there was a driving force - and vision - from a true auteur and was a perfect combination of material and artistic staff - including Ron Perlman in the title role.
This version of HELLBOY has none of that. No vision, no driving force and a "B" performance by David Harbour in the title role. It feels like what it is - a cash grab. I blame the studio who produced this film - Summit Entertainment - for "going on the cheap" on this one.
First off, they tapped a "B Movie" Director, Neil Marshall to Direct this thing. He is known for such artistic successes as DOOMSDAY and THE DESCENT - horror flicks that were heavy on gore, short on characters and plot - and that is what he brought to this film. Why worry about characters, plot or any kind of engaging features (including Special FX) when you can show, yet again, a body getting torn apart and blood spurting all over the screen.
The studio also skimped on the performers. Instead of Perlman, Selma Blair, John Hurt and Doug Jones you get David Harbour, Daniel Dae Kim, Mila Jovovich and a sleep-walking, just give me my paycheck, Ian McShane. It's like watching the "road company" of a Broadway show. While the actors are game (with the notable exception of McShane), they are "B picture" actors, much like the Director.
And...much like the special FX. I knew, going in, that the early word on this film was not good, but that never stops me. I like to make up my own mind, so I thought I'd "pony up" for the IMAX experience to, at least, see the CGI and FX on as large a screen with as good a sound system as possible. I shouldn't have bothered, for the CGI and FX were mediocre (at best) and all the big screen and sound did was emphasize how low quality the CGI was.
And...finally...the pacing of this film is problematic, at best. This is certainly a film that was written and edited within an inch of it's life for the "short attention span" audience of today. The prevailing theory was "why linger on a plot or a character or a moment when we can quick cut to another body getting pulled in two and watch a plume of blood spurt out in a giant arc)."
There are 2 scenes in the end credits to set up the next film(s) in this series. Films that I seriously doubt will be made. If they are, I hope they pump some more money into the budget and get a creative team with some artistic vision.
A swing and a miss.
Letter Grade: C (and I'm being generous)
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I would imagine that about 90% of my readership just got what they needed out of my review with that first line and have moved on. For the rest of you, I will now explain why this reboot of HELLBOY is now the "leader in the clubhouse" for worst picture of 2019.
I was pleasantly surprised by the 2004 Guillermo del Toro helmed and written HELLBOY and was even more surprised by how good the del Toro written and helmed HELLBOY II: THE GOLD ARMY (2008) was. I think that this was because there was a driving force - and vision - from a true auteur and was a perfect combination of material and artistic staff - including Ron Perlman in the title role.
This version of HELLBOY has none of that. No vision, no driving force and a "B" performance by David Harbour in the title role. It feels like what it is - a cash grab. I blame the studio who produced this film - Summit Entertainment - for "going on the cheap" on this one.
First off, they tapped a "B Movie" Director, Neil Marshall to Direct this thing. He is known for such artistic successes as DOOMSDAY and THE DESCENT - horror flicks that were heavy on gore, short on characters and plot - and that is what he brought to this film. Why worry about characters, plot or any kind of engaging features (including Special FX) when you can show, yet again, a body getting torn apart and blood spurting all over the screen.
The studio also skimped on the performers. Instead of Perlman, Selma Blair, John Hurt and Doug Jones you get David Harbour, Daniel Dae Kim, Mila Jovovich and a sleep-walking, just give me my paycheck, Ian McShane. It's like watching the "road company" of a Broadway show. While the actors are game (with the notable exception of McShane), they are "B picture" actors, much like the Director.
And...much like the special FX. I knew, going in, that the early word on this film was not good, but that never stops me. I like to make up my own mind, so I thought I'd "pony up" for the IMAX experience to, at least, see the CGI and FX on as large a screen with as good a sound system as possible. I shouldn't have bothered, for the CGI and FX were mediocre (at best) and all the big screen and sound did was emphasize how low quality the CGI was.
And...finally...the pacing of this film is problematic, at best. This is certainly a film that was written and edited within an inch of it's life for the "short attention span" audience of today. The prevailing theory was "why linger on a plot or a character or a moment when we can quick cut to another body getting pulled in two and watch a plume of blood spurt out in a giant arc)."
There are 2 scenes in the end credits to set up the next film(s) in this series. Films that I seriously doubt will be made. If they are, I hope they pump some more money into the budget and get a creative team with some artistic vision.
A swing and a miss.
Letter Grade: C (and I'm being generous)
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Pumpka (57 KP) rated Cards Against Humanity in Tabletop Games
Aug 15, 2019
Humour (2 more)
player count is high
a game specifically tailored to party people
creativity is limited (2 more)
often a popularity contest
multiple plays decreases the enjoyment of play
Here comes an unpopular opinion - hear me out
now - don't get me wrong, my first time playing Card against Humanity was hilarious! I loved it, I was in. The concept is very simple, you're presented with a silly, funny or rude situation and you have to fill in the blanks using the inappropriate cards from your hand to make the others laugh.
NOW
On MANY plays later, I see the flaw in this design. I've realised this is more of an activity than a game as such. Again, don't go pointing fingers too fast, I did enjoy the game at the start remember? Now, theres an AI built into the game called 'Rando' he can play too for various reasons and he can often win. As suggested, random cards are drawn, and because it usually doesn't make sense, its funny, and therefore wins! This made me realise that I'm not funny. Damn, I've been caught in this web of lies cards against humanity had me caught in. I have very limited choice and often my choices are a result of a card "dump" where really nothing was funny nor fit. A well thought out game might have a mechanic that allows me to do something else with these cards that maybe I don't see use for. So I'm not the one being funny, the predisposed topics and cards are just used as a shock factor -
which promptly brings me to my next point, these things and statements are often funny because you're shocked! THAT is in a card game, woaaah I'm such an adult, wow. No. sadly this may be funny the first time but there's only so many times I can see the "chunks of a dead hooker" card before it looses it's humorous effect. I've played with all of the expansions (which were available before I quit on this game) which was a fair few, and even then it wasn't enough.
The buzz was gone, and I no longer enjoy this game, I've not grown out of it, I'm not a humour buzzkill. There are many other similar style games that provide ample creativity. Now before one of you thinks it, yes, there are blank cards to write on, but it's often not enough to change and sustain the games core.
One more thing before I sign off on this one, it's often a popularity contest. I'm not the most popular in our gaming group, there are certainly people who will favour others and thats normal and fine. BUT when games like this swing around and the winner is essentially cast on a vote of the other players choosing. The winner can often be the same person again, and again and again. Because them putting cards down that were drawn out of a stack randomly and they had no input into the outcome of what those cards says was totally hilarious. They win again.
To summerise, creativity is so limited, it's not YOU being funny, it's the cards. It's not really that re-playable and it's often a popularity contest,
there are many other games of this genre that do it better.
NOW
On MANY plays later, I see the flaw in this design. I've realised this is more of an activity than a game as such. Again, don't go pointing fingers too fast, I did enjoy the game at the start remember? Now, theres an AI built into the game called 'Rando' he can play too for various reasons and he can often win. As suggested, random cards are drawn, and because it usually doesn't make sense, its funny, and therefore wins! This made me realise that I'm not funny. Damn, I've been caught in this web of lies cards against humanity had me caught in. I have very limited choice and often my choices are a result of a card "dump" where really nothing was funny nor fit. A well thought out game might have a mechanic that allows me to do something else with these cards that maybe I don't see use for. So I'm not the one being funny, the predisposed topics and cards are just used as a shock factor -
which promptly brings me to my next point, these things and statements are often funny because you're shocked! THAT is in a card game, woaaah I'm such an adult, wow. No. sadly this may be funny the first time but there's only so many times I can see the "chunks of a dead hooker" card before it looses it's humorous effect. I've played with all of the expansions (which were available before I quit on this game) which was a fair few, and even then it wasn't enough.
The buzz was gone, and I no longer enjoy this game, I've not grown out of it, I'm not a humour buzzkill. There are many other similar style games that provide ample creativity. Now before one of you thinks it, yes, there are blank cards to write on, but it's often not enough to change and sustain the games core.
One more thing before I sign off on this one, it's often a popularity contest. I'm not the most popular in our gaming group, there are certainly people who will favour others and thats normal and fine. BUT when games like this swing around and the winner is essentially cast on a vote of the other players choosing. The winner can often be the same person again, and again and again. Because them putting cards down that were drawn out of a stack randomly and they had no input into the outcome of what those cards says was totally hilarious. They win again.
To summerise, creativity is so limited, it's not YOU being funny, it's the cards. It's not really that re-playable and it's often a popularity contest,
there are many other games of this genre that do it better.