Search
Search results
Alice (12 KP) rated Red Sister in Books
Jul 3, 2018
<i>Many thanks to Mark for providing me a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review </i>
Original review can be found on my blog Raptureinbooks <a href="http://wp.me/p5y0lX-1I9">here</a href>
<blockquote>It is important, when killing a nun, to bring an army of sufficient size.</blockquote>
I know they say to never judge a book by its cover but first impressions are everything. The above quote is the first line written in <i>Red Sister</i> - Mark Lawrence's newest masterpiece. I don't use the term lightly.
For those of you who haven't read his work before - know this: it will change how you read fantasy for the better. There's a really apt line in this book for this sentiment:
<blockquote>...a book is as dangerous as any journey you might take. The person who closes the back cover may not be the same one that opened the front one. </blockquote>
For those of you who have, you know his main characters are the ultimate in anti-heroes. All male, all rough, all the epitome of badassery. <i>Red Sister</i> is the first with a strong - and I mean strong -all female cast.
From the first instance you know this book is going to be top of the scale of epicness, <i>Red Sister</i> will draw you in within moments of opening the pages.
It follows the story of Nona Grey- an eight year old girl saved from the noose by an unlikely saviour - a nun - Abbess Glass, leader of the Sweet Mercy Convent. Nona becomes a novice nun and begins her journey to becoming a Red Sister- a nun skilled in combat. At first the book can feel a little like you've stepped backwards in time to where children are bought and sold on the road, where the Church has almost absolute power and where little girls do not become killer nuns; however as the story progresses and Nona's back story is revealed to us piece by piece I found my original thoughts to be utter bullshit because frankly the plot is outstanding.
I'll hold my hand up and say I've never read a book about nuns before but Red Sister has ruined me for any other.
As signature with Mark's work, Red Sister has the perfect balance between seriousness and humour with some brilliant descriptions of the most simplest of things:
<blockquote>...and a quill. This latter gave the impression that the bird from which it was taken had died of some wasting disease, falling from its perch into a dirty puddle before being run over by several carts and finally thoroughly chewed by a hungry cat.</blockquote>
The dialogue was witty and the right tone for what is ultimately a group of girls in boarding school who both love and hate each other and what they do on a daily basis. The friendships made at Sweet Mercy are friendships built to last through the toughest of scenarios, literally through thick and thin. Nona's past catches up with her frequently and she is tested to her highest limits and on occasion shoved over that limit.
<blockquote>"Trust is the most insidious of poisons." </blockquote>
There are some harsh lessons to be learned in <i>Red Sister</i> and not just the physical ones - of which there are many. The plot is thick with action, betrayal, uncanny abilities and supernatural old world bloodlines that show through in current generations that haven't been seen since the first tribes settled in Abeth; with prophecies galore and the odd psycho, bare knuckle fighting in the pits and justice is wrought.
The revelations are spectacular and revealed in unexpected ways that have totally done them justice. The writing style of Mark Lawrence is once more on point with the right amount of length for each chapter; the supernatural demon element was written in a great way. Overall, it was a masterpiece of the genre and deserves all the stars.
<i>Red Sister</i> has been one of the highlights of my year so far and it is outstanding. I've tried not to give anything away which is hard cause I want to give all the spoilers! I'll leave you with a parting quote that sums up the book nicely.
<blockquote>"Words are steps along a path: The important thing is to get where you're going."</blockquote>
Original review can be found on my blog Raptureinbooks <a href="http://wp.me/p5y0lX-1I9">here</a href>
<blockquote>It is important, when killing a nun, to bring an army of sufficient size.</blockquote>
I know they say to never judge a book by its cover but first impressions are everything. The above quote is the first line written in <i>Red Sister</i> - Mark Lawrence's newest masterpiece. I don't use the term lightly.
For those of you who haven't read his work before - know this: it will change how you read fantasy for the better. There's a really apt line in this book for this sentiment:
<blockquote>...a book is as dangerous as any journey you might take. The person who closes the back cover may not be the same one that opened the front one. </blockquote>
For those of you who have, you know his main characters are the ultimate in anti-heroes. All male, all rough, all the epitome of badassery. <i>Red Sister</i> is the first with a strong - and I mean strong -all female cast.
From the first instance you know this book is going to be top of the scale of epicness, <i>Red Sister</i> will draw you in within moments of opening the pages.
It follows the story of Nona Grey- an eight year old girl saved from the noose by an unlikely saviour - a nun - Abbess Glass, leader of the Sweet Mercy Convent. Nona becomes a novice nun and begins her journey to becoming a Red Sister- a nun skilled in combat. At first the book can feel a little like you've stepped backwards in time to where children are bought and sold on the road, where the Church has almost absolute power and where little girls do not become killer nuns; however as the story progresses and Nona's back story is revealed to us piece by piece I found my original thoughts to be utter bullshit because frankly the plot is outstanding.
I'll hold my hand up and say I've never read a book about nuns before but Red Sister has ruined me for any other.
As signature with Mark's work, Red Sister has the perfect balance between seriousness and humour with some brilliant descriptions of the most simplest of things:
<blockquote>...and a quill. This latter gave the impression that the bird from which it was taken had died of some wasting disease, falling from its perch into a dirty puddle before being run over by several carts and finally thoroughly chewed by a hungry cat.</blockquote>
The dialogue was witty and the right tone for what is ultimately a group of girls in boarding school who both love and hate each other and what they do on a daily basis. The friendships made at Sweet Mercy are friendships built to last through the toughest of scenarios, literally through thick and thin. Nona's past catches up with her frequently and she is tested to her highest limits and on occasion shoved over that limit.
<blockquote>"Trust is the most insidious of poisons." </blockquote>
There are some harsh lessons to be learned in <i>Red Sister</i> and not just the physical ones - of which there are many. The plot is thick with action, betrayal, uncanny abilities and supernatural old world bloodlines that show through in current generations that haven't been seen since the first tribes settled in Abeth; with prophecies galore and the odd psycho, bare knuckle fighting in the pits and justice is wrought.
The revelations are spectacular and revealed in unexpected ways that have totally done them justice. The writing style of Mark Lawrence is once more on point with the right amount of length for each chapter; the supernatural demon element was written in a great way. Overall, it was a masterpiece of the genre and deserves all the stars.
<i>Red Sister</i> has been one of the highlights of my year so far and it is outstanding. I've tried not to give anything away which is hard cause I want to give all the spoilers! I'll leave you with a parting quote that sums up the book nicely.
<blockquote>"Words are steps along a path: The important thing is to get where you're going."</blockquote>
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Twisted Game of War in Tabletop Games
Jun 4, 2021
War. The card game nearly everyone knows how to play. You know, throw a card and your opponent throws a card and the highest number wins the played cards. First one to get all the cards wins. Yeah, there’s another rule, but that’s the gist. Well what if War got a small makeover? Would you be interested in checking it out? Let’s find out together!
In Twisted Game of War players take hold of their army and attempt to defeat their opponents by capturing and converting their entire army. The winner is the player who manages to collect all of the cards in the deck and hold every soldier.
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 give each player a reference card, shuffle the deck of remaining cards, and give each player an equal number of cards. The game may now begin!
On a turn each player will simultaneously blindly draw and play one card from the top of their deck to the table. The cards are compared and the winner of the hand is the card with the higher number value. In Twisted Game of War, however, in addition to gaining the played cards the winner will also consult the chart on the reverse of the reference card. This chart shows additional results based on which suit of card bested the other suit. Possible effects include: a random card from the loser’s deck, a bottom card, the top two cards, or even each card returning to its original owner’s deck. As the game progresses, one player will eventually out-duel their opponent to win the game!
Components. This is a deck of cards in a tuckbox. The cards are normal quality and feature a brown back and numbers with different suit on the fronts. Quality-wise everything is fine. Where I have issues is the artistic design choices made for the game. The suits all suggest medieval-esque weapons and armor, and all utilizing metal as primary materials (save for the bow). However, the card backs and logo for the game seem to feature stitching, as you might find in cloth materials. This mismatch does not affect gameplay at all, but made me do the doggy head-cock motion when I noticed it. Similarly, the cards are all, well, boring to look at. Yes, they give the proper elements that are needed: suit and number. And I suppose players aren’t really looking at them too much anyway, as it’s a slightly fancied-up War and cards are played and discarded almost immediately. In any case, I feel an area of opportunity lies with the aesthetic of the game cards.
All in all this is a decent idea pasted onto a “game” that really is not much fun to play anyway. War takes zero skill and has zero choices. Twisted Game of War plays the exact same way, but has the added bonus of at least DOING something on many hands. So I suppose there is merit to be found.
When all is said and done, I still cannot see this as a “game,” as I happen to define the term personally, but I can see value when playing with children. If used with children, the game introduces the “less than” and “greater than” concepts, and children do not need to be able to read in order to play with the suit effect chart, so long as an adult or older child is able to read the results.
When I am hankering for a good card game, I simply cannot suggest Twisted Game of War with typical adult gamers. However, if I need something that my kids can get into, I may be able to pull this out and help teach them simple math and chaos concepts. I like the idea of trying to improve overly-simple games, but I think a bit more care could have gone into production here and it would have elevated this game for me. If you are searching for such a game as this, please hop over to the publisher’s website at: Mental Eclipse Games and tell them Travis sent ya.
In Twisted Game of War players take hold of their army and attempt to defeat their opponents by capturing and converting their entire army. The winner is the player who manages to collect all of the cards in the deck and hold every soldier.
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 give each player a reference card, shuffle the deck of remaining cards, and give each player an equal number of cards. The game may now begin!
On a turn each player will simultaneously blindly draw and play one card from the top of their deck to the table. The cards are compared and the winner of the hand is the card with the higher number value. In Twisted Game of War, however, in addition to gaining the played cards the winner will also consult the chart on the reverse of the reference card. This chart shows additional results based on which suit of card bested the other suit. Possible effects include: a random card from the loser’s deck, a bottom card, the top two cards, or even each card returning to its original owner’s deck. As the game progresses, one player will eventually out-duel their opponent to win the game!
Components. This is a deck of cards in a tuckbox. The cards are normal quality and feature a brown back and numbers with different suit on the fronts. Quality-wise everything is fine. Where I have issues is the artistic design choices made for the game. The suits all suggest medieval-esque weapons and armor, and all utilizing metal as primary materials (save for the bow). However, the card backs and logo for the game seem to feature stitching, as you might find in cloth materials. This mismatch does not affect gameplay at all, but made me do the doggy head-cock motion when I noticed it. Similarly, the cards are all, well, boring to look at. Yes, they give the proper elements that are needed: suit and number. And I suppose players aren’t really looking at them too much anyway, as it’s a slightly fancied-up War and cards are played and discarded almost immediately. In any case, I feel an area of opportunity lies with the aesthetic of the game cards.
All in all this is a decent idea pasted onto a “game” that really is not much fun to play anyway. War takes zero skill and has zero choices. Twisted Game of War plays the exact same way, but has the added bonus of at least DOING something on many hands. So I suppose there is merit to be found.
When all is said and done, I still cannot see this as a “game,” as I happen to define the term personally, but I can see value when playing with children. If used with children, the game introduces the “less than” and “greater than” concepts, and children do not need to be able to read in order to play with the suit effect chart, so long as an adult or older child is able to read the results.
When I am hankering for a good card game, I simply cannot suggest Twisted Game of War with typical adult gamers. However, if I need something that my kids can get into, I may be able to pull this out and help teach them simple math and chaos concepts. I like the idea of trying to improve overly-simple games, but I think a bit more care could have gone into production here and it would have elevated this game for me. If you are searching for such a game as this, please hop over to the publisher’s website at: Mental Eclipse Games and tell them Travis sent ya.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
McCarthy and Grant in a memorable double act.
I have a big apology to make to Melissa McCarthy. A few months ago, at the excellent Picturehouse Harbour Lights film trivia quiz (every 2nd Tuesday of the month in Southampton… “be there and be… well… a bit of a film geek”!) there was a fun round of suggesting New Year’s resolutions for movie stars. Mine was the rather spiteful and cutting “Melissa McCarthy…. to retire”. In my defence, I did have the truly dreadful “Happytime Murders” fixed in my memory, and McCarthy’s track record since “Bridesmaids” has not exactly been stellar. As the quiz’s host – Stephen ‘Grand Moff’ Sambrook – justly admonished me for at the time “McCarthy is about to come out with a very different role which is supposed to be pretty good”. This film is that role…. and I take it all back.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
KalJ95 (25 KP) rated The Last of Us Part II in Video Games
Jun 23, 2020
You Won't Find A Better Game In Terms Of Presentation. (4 more)
Level Design Is Astounding.
Like The First Game, This Will Create A Conversation For Years To Come
Sound Design Is Incredible.
Takes Risks, And Some Do Pay Off.
A Flawed Sequel. (4 more)
Awful Pacing.
Structure Of Narrative Is Bad.
Some Terrible Dialogue.
Shoehorned Agenda.
The last of The Last of Us.
The video game industry doesn't get enough credit as a source of entertainment, in my humble opinion. Time and time again, the industry has proven that it can produce something magical, memorable, mesmerising to play, and even more so, something engaging to watch as someone not even holding the controller. Naughty Dog’s 2013 masterpiece, The Last of Us, became an overnight classic game because it was cinematic in presentation, and a rollercoaster of emotions in narrative. I sat and played the remastered version on my PlayStation 4 in 2017, and fell in love with the chemistry, love and heartbreak Joel and Ellie took with them, as they crossed a post-apocalyptic America. I was satisfied with the conclusion, and felt the story of these two characters was finished. I didn't need, or ever want a sequel. Then a few months pass, The Last of Us Part II is announced. Obviously, I was ecstatic, but also concerned. Trailers came and went, delays happened over and over, and leaks began to drip onto the internet. I was even more concerned with the leaks, and how this game was taking shape, but I remained open minded, and began playing the game.
The Last of Us Part II is a strange beast. An ambitious, exquisite experience, mired by multiple flaws in structure, pacing and plot holes. I simultaneously adored and loathed the twenty five hour experience, and I’m ready to do it all again. Ellie’s thirst for revenge deals with many issues of morality and hate, and the consequences of ones actions. To coin a phrase, “violence begets violence”, and this is very violent. A flawed piece of art, that often shoehorns a political tick list so it can cater to a certain demographic of sexuality and gender. Whatever you think about Part II, it will create a conversation for years to come, for better or worse.
Narrative:
Ellie and Joel are settled in Jackson, Wyoming, living a relatively normal existence. Ellie is nineteen, and has a job, like the rest of the fighters in Jackson, by going out into the world on routes to clear out the wondering infected. When Ellie witnesses a violent event, she takes it into her own hands to take bloody revenge on the people responsible.
A big risk was taken by Naughty Dog to decide what they did for the first two hours, even the VP of the company, Neil Druckmann, said himself the game will be “divisive”, and that is probably an understatement judging by the fan backlash. I feel it worked to support the other twenty three hours, and shows the blurry line of being good and bad in this world.
Unfortunately, the narrative slogs through awful structuring and some dreadful, downright cringe-worthy dialogue. The structure goes back and forth from the present day, to months, and sometimes years previous, and this is all to cement the events that keep the narrative flowing. The flashbacks featuring Joel and Ellie give you brief moments of happiness, followed by devastating revelations. They are the best moments of the game, you can feel the warmth the characters have for each other, and the heartbreaking actions they take. It made me wonder why they simply didn't just create a game with these ideas in mind. Other flashbacks create more problems than they solve, particularly in the latter half of the game. The first half, for all its faults, really treats you to a vicious and bloodthirsty ride through Seattle, and you completely feel the motivation and drive Ellie has to complete the mission she's set out to do. Seattle is huge, and the perfect backdrop for this game.
Sadly, the second half of the game is an absolute mess. The whole experience becomes nothing more than “go to this location, collect something, go back” over and over again. Its a lazy trope that causes so much fatigue in terms of pacing, slowing down any momentum gained by the first half. The second half serves the most important purpose too, and while I did grow to understand the intention it was presenting me, I couldn't help but feel frequently bored of doing fetch quests. To remain as spoiler free as possible, the game is split into two perspectives of Ellie, and an entirely new character. Naughty Dog wants you to understand the perspectives of both sides, but the history thats been created with the original game, you cant help but sympathise with Ellie more. The fact that its half the game away from the main protagonist, and starts you fresh with a new character, with new skill sets and weapons, really feels out of place. This could of worked much better as an episodic entry, rather than just two stories, one after the other. I can understand people who love this way of storytelling, but for me it slows the pacing down.
Gameplay:
Part II is the most beautiful game I’ve ever played. Naughty Dog continue to set the bar extremely high in terms of surroundings and facial animations, and the seamless transitions from cutscene to gameplay made my jaw drop. Each facial movement shows the hurt, the honesty, the devastation the characters carry with them. It almost feels more like a film or tv series than a video game, featuring an excellent performance from Troy Baker, and a career defining show from Ashley Johnson. Unfortunately, some of the new cast members don't have enough time on screen to give a full understanding of their personality or perspective. Some are likeable, relatable even, but some are just annoying, saying some of the strangest, out of place dialogue.
In terms of its gameplay, Part II hasn't really changed anything from its predecessor. It feels the same, whether you enjoyed it first time round or not. I personally am in the middle ground, it works for what it is. The Last of Us has always been a game about surviving by any means necessary. Part II feels like multiple ideas all in one, all conflicting themselves. Let me explain:
The game actively tries to twist the act of killing people to make you seem like its an awful thing to do. This is an interesting idea that has been done many times before in games, but it works in the oddest of ways here. I have completed the game twice now, and found it almost impossible to not kill anyone, yet cutscenes display remorse within the characters after they’ve murdered someone. This conflicts the idea of the whole game, where one moment I'm slicing a persons throat with a knife, the next I do the exact same, but this time I regret that decision. Again, its adding less weight to the story, and actively contradicting everything that happens.
Extra Notes:
The environments of Part II are some of the best in a video game. A sandbox of lush greenery and worn down buildings follows the same formula that Naughty Dog designed in Uncharted: The Lost Legacy, where you can explore a massive space to do what you find the objectives, but also see the sights and collect items. The level design of the entire game is absolutely masterful, but this level astounded me graphically and structurally.
By this point, it probably feels like I utterly hated Part II. I did, and didn’t, and thats the line I'm sticking on. The Last of Us always presented a commentary as to the nature of relationships, love, life and death. At the core was Ellie and Joel, two wayward strangers forced together on a journey across America. Everyone has a reason to love that game, for me its their chemistry and progression. Joel was hardened, standoffish, only to warm to Ellie, and love her by the end. Ellie, the immune girl who's humorous, optimistic and full of life, who ultimately becomes cold, quiet and sceptical of Joel.
Part II presents a different commentary, one of revenge and hate. I firmly believe Part II is weak in most areas, a downgrade in fact compared to its counterpart, but its so beautiful and bleak, with so many incapsulated moments of joy, heartbreak, love, shock. Its uncompromising, relentless and essential for anyone with a PS4. This will be a game I will constantly change my opinion on the more I think about it. As I said at the beginning, I never felt a sequel was necessary, and I firmly believe the story must end here.
(P.S. I must mention that Naughty Dog and Sony have only themselves to blame when it comes to the reception Part II has received during its release and promotional material. Early reviewers were told that they could only go into detail about the first ten or so hours, not mentioning the other fifteen. The other fifteen hours are incredibly important to mention, and they either make or break this game, so not letting reviewers do their job feels disingenuous, and from my point of view shows that they had no faith in their product to be criticised. The promotional material is also hugely misleading. The trailers show a completely different game, and characters are swapped for others in key scenes. That is wrong, and once again, shows your audience you had zero faith in your product based on the actual plot of your game.)
The Last of Us Part II is a strange beast. An ambitious, exquisite experience, mired by multiple flaws in structure, pacing and plot holes. I simultaneously adored and loathed the twenty five hour experience, and I’m ready to do it all again. Ellie’s thirst for revenge deals with many issues of morality and hate, and the consequences of ones actions. To coin a phrase, “violence begets violence”, and this is very violent. A flawed piece of art, that often shoehorns a political tick list so it can cater to a certain demographic of sexuality and gender. Whatever you think about Part II, it will create a conversation for years to come, for better or worse.
Narrative:
Ellie and Joel are settled in Jackson, Wyoming, living a relatively normal existence. Ellie is nineteen, and has a job, like the rest of the fighters in Jackson, by going out into the world on routes to clear out the wondering infected. When Ellie witnesses a violent event, she takes it into her own hands to take bloody revenge on the people responsible.
A big risk was taken by Naughty Dog to decide what they did for the first two hours, even the VP of the company, Neil Druckmann, said himself the game will be “divisive”, and that is probably an understatement judging by the fan backlash. I feel it worked to support the other twenty three hours, and shows the blurry line of being good and bad in this world.
Unfortunately, the narrative slogs through awful structuring and some dreadful, downright cringe-worthy dialogue. The structure goes back and forth from the present day, to months, and sometimes years previous, and this is all to cement the events that keep the narrative flowing. The flashbacks featuring Joel and Ellie give you brief moments of happiness, followed by devastating revelations. They are the best moments of the game, you can feel the warmth the characters have for each other, and the heartbreaking actions they take. It made me wonder why they simply didn't just create a game with these ideas in mind. Other flashbacks create more problems than they solve, particularly in the latter half of the game. The first half, for all its faults, really treats you to a vicious and bloodthirsty ride through Seattle, and you completely feel the motivation and drive Ellie has to complete the mission she's set out to do. Seattle is huge, and the perfect backdrop for this game.
Sadly, the second half of the game is an absolute mess. The whole experience becomes nothing more than “go to this location, collect something, go back” over and over again. Its a lazy trope that causes so much fatigue in terms of pacing, slowing down any momentum gained by the first half. The second half serves the most important purpose too, and while I did grow to understand the intention it was presenting me, I couldn't help but feel frequently bored of doing fetch quests. To remain as spoiler free as possible, the game is split into two perspectives of Ellie, and an entirely new character. Naughty Dog wants you to understand the perspectives of both sides, but the history thats been created with the original game, you cant help but sympathise with Ellie more. The fact that its half the game away from the main protagonist, and starts you fresh with a new character, with new skill sets and weapons, really feels out of place. This could of worked much better as an episodic entry, rather than just two stories, one after the other. I can understand people who love this way of storytelling, but for me it slows the pacing down.
Gameplay:
Part II is the most beautiful game I’ve ever played. Naughty Dog continue to set the bar extremely high in terms of surroundings and facial animations, and the seamless transitions from cutscene to gameplay made my jaw drop. Each facial movement shows the hurt, the honesty, the devastation the characters carry with them. It almost feels more like a film or tv series than a video game, featuring an excellent performance from Troy Baker, and a career defining show from Ashley Johnson. Unfortunately, some of the new cast members don't have enough time on screen to give a full understanding of their personality or perspective. Some are likeable, relatable even, but some are just annoying, saying some of the strangest, out of place dialogue.
In terms of its gameplay, Part II hasn't really changed anything from its predecessor. It feels the same, whether you enjoyed it first time round or not. I personally am in the middle ground, it works for what it is. The Last of Us has always been a game about surviving by any means necessary. Part II feels like multiple ideas all in one, all conflicting themselves. Let me explain:
The game actively tries to twist the act of killing people to make you seem like its an awful thing to do. This is an interesting idea that has been done many times before in games, but it works in the oddest of ways here. I have completed the game twice now, and found it almost impossible to not kill anyone, yet cutscenes display remorse within the characters after they’ve murdered someone. This conflicts the idea of the whole game, where one moment I'm slicing a persons throat with a knife, the next I do the exact same, but this time I regret that decision. Again, its adding less weight to the story, and actively contradicting everything that happens.
Extra Notes:
The environments of Part II are some of the best in a video game. A sandbox of lush greenery and worn down buildings follows the same formula that Naughty Dog designed in Uncharted: The Lost Legacy, where you can explore a massive space to do what you find the objectives, but also see the sights and collect items. The level design of the entire game is absolutely masterful, but this level astounded me graphically and structurally.
By this point, it probably feels like I utterly hated Part II. I did, and didn’t, and thats the line I'm sticking on. The Last of Us always presented a commentary as to the nature of relationships, love, life and death. At the core was Ellie and Joel, two wayward strangers forced together on a journey across America. Everyone has a reason to love that game, for me its their chemistry and progression. Joel was hardened, standoffish, only to warm to Ellie, and love her by the end. Ellie, the immune girl who's humorous, optimistic and full of life, who ultimately becomes cold, quiet and sceptical of Joel.
Part II presents a different commentary, one of revenge and hate. I firmly believe Part II is weak in most areas, a downgrade in fact compared to its counterpart, but its so beautiful and bleak, with so many incapsulated moments of joy, heartbreak, love, shock. Its uncompromising, relentless and essential for anyone with a PS4. This will be a game I will constantly change my opinion on the more I think about it. As I said at the beginning, I never felt a sequel was necessary, and I firmly believe the story must end here.
(P.S. I must mention that Naughty Dog and Sony have only themselves to blame when it comes to the reception Part II has received during its release and promotional material. Early reviewers were told that they could only go into detail about the first ten or so hours, not mentioning the other fifteen. The other fifteen hours are incredibly important to mention, and they either make or break this game, so not letting reviewers do their job feels disingenuous, and from my point of view shows that they had no faith in their product to be criticised. The promotional material is also hugely misleading. The trailers show a completely different game, and characters are swapped for others in key scenes. That is wrong, and once again, shows your audience you had zero faith in your product based on the actual plot of your game.)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Lords of Chaos (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I saw one trailer for this and at that point I instantly assumed that it wouldn't show at my local Cineworld, but it did, with a surprising amount of showings. The gentleman and I who attended this particular screening really did not look like your typical black metal fans, but then it's always the quiet ones...
In my non-fan status I can't say anything to its accuracy. From what I understand there are disagreements over some of it, the trailer does state "based on truth and lies" so somewhere along the line they know they've taken some necessary artistic license.
Lords Of Chaos is a pretty honest movie, and by that I mean it doesn't sugarcoat anything. There are violent and horrific scenes that any movie looking for a 15 certificate would have looked away at the last minute or done something artistic with the camera angle, but LOC just went "F*** it, zoom in." and I think that was a great benefit to it. I actually found it less shocking for that exact reason. If you can stomach it then seeing what actually happens is a lot less affecting than being left to imagine it. I'm aware that that probably says something horrific about me personally.
I was... put off? by the casting of Rory Culkin as the lead in this. I couldn't honestly tell you why, I've only really seen him in Scream 4 and I love that. His performance from start to finish was incredible, including the voiceovers which were placed in exactly the right places throughout. I was blown away by him when I'd expected to dislike his character. Culkin seems to know exactly where Euronymous is going, he adapts to the changes in him and you see the schemer, the worrier and all the associated emotions that go with them.
Emory Cohen gave an interesting performance as Varg, but I wasn't particularly fond of the character. To see his transformation from almost puppy dog longing to connect before he spirals into paranoia and his ever-expanding need to be the best was intriguing, it ultimately left me with an awkward feeling that I wasn't particularly fond of.
The two of them together made for a good contrast with both characters progressing in opposite directions yet never meeting and being able to connect in the middle. I liked that they both seemed to underestimate the other and that impact brought out very different characteristics in them both. That ultimately led to a strong conclusion to the film and allowed Culkin to really end it with a bang.
The film itself was beautifully shot and many of the shots seemed frivolous at the time but actually allowed for some respite from the carnage and allowed you to take in the gravity of some of the actions.
While Lords Of Chaos is probably not a film I would have ever seen in the past I was actually pleased that I saw it. This regime of seeing (almost) everything that comes out at my cinema has its ups and downs but this was a pretty interesting watch. Culkin performed his socks off and it was a very entertaining surprise. This is a topic that will definitely need some further reading beyond what is portrayed here as I'm certain that to make a film of this suitable for a movie-going audience it would have needed a lot of tweaking from the truth.
What you should do
This is definitely not for the faint hearted, I would absolutely not recommend it to you if you don't like blood, violence or are susceptible to self-harm on screen. If you can stomach all of those things and have an interest in music then I'd say it's worth giving a go.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Running my own record store looks like it migt be fun, but I don't think that my music taste would make it a very popular shop.
In my non-fan status I can't say anything to its accuracy. From what I understand there are disagreements over some of it, the trailer does state "based on truth and lies" so somewhere along the line they know they've taken some necessary artistic license.
Lords Of Chaos is a pretty honest movie, and by that I mean it doesn't sugarcoat anything. There are violent and horrific scenes that any movie looking for a 15 certificate would have looked away at the last minute or done something artistic with the camera angle, but LOC just went "F*** it, zoom in." and I think that was a great benefit to it. I actually found it less shocking for that exact reason. If you can stomach it then seeing what actually happens is a lot less affecting than being left to imagine it. I'm aware that that probably says something horrific about me personally.
I was... put off? by the casting of Rory Culkin as the lead in this. I couldn't honestly tell you why, I've only really seen him in Scream 4 and I love that. His performance from start to finish was incredible, including the voiceovers which were placed in exactly the right places throughout. I was blown away by him when I'd expected to dislike his character. Culkin seems to know exactly where Euronymous is going, he adapts to the changes in him and you see the schemer, the worrier and all the associated emotions that go with them.
Emory Cohen gave an interesting performance as Varg, but I wasn't particularly fond of the character. To see his transformation from almost puppy dog longing to connect before he spirals into paranoia and his ever-expanding need to be the best was intriguing, it ultimately left me with an awkward feeling that I wasn't particularly fond of.
The two of them together made for a good contrast with both characters progressing in opposite directions yet never meeting and being able to connect in the middle. I liked that they both seemed to underestimate the other and that impact brought out very different characteristics in them both. That ultimately led to a strong conclusion to the film and allowed Culkin to really end it with a bang.
The film itself was beautifully shot and many of the shots seemed frivolous at the time but actually allowed for some respite from the carnage and allowed you to take in the gravity of some of the actions.
While Lords Of Chaos is probably not a film I would have ever seen in the past I was actually pleased that I saw it. This regime of seeing (almost) everything that comes out at my cinema has its ups and downs but this was a pretty interesting watch. Culkin performed his socks off and it was a very entertaining surprise. This is a topic that will definitely need some further reading beyond what is portrayed here as I'm certain that to make a film of this suitable for a movie-going audience it would have needed a lot of tweaking from the truth.
What you should do
This is definitely not for the faint hearted, I would absolutely not recommend it to you if you don't like blood, violence or are susceptible to self-harm on screen. If you can stomach all of those things and have an interest in music then I'd say it's worth giving a go.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Running my own record store looks like it migt be fun, but I don't think that my music taste would make it a very popular shop.
MegaReader
Book and Education
App
Access over 2 million (and counting) FREE Books, Right From Your iPhone, iPad, or iPod Touch... …...
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Devil in the White City: Murder, Magic, and Madness in Books
Jan 18, 2021
History (1 more)
Well-written
H.H. Holmes had many aliases and lives.
He's been a doctor and a licensed pharmacist, who then conned an old couple into selling their drug store to him where he preyed on young girls and ignorant customers that would buy whatever Holmes would tell them to buy, whether it were real or fake tonics.
He was a building owner who had a murder hotel secretly built with " a wooden chute that would descend from a secret location on the second floor all the way to the basement... ", "a room next to his office fitted with a large walk-in vault, with airtight seams and asbestos-coated iron walls. A gas jet embedded in one wall would be controlled from his closet...", "a large basement with hidden chambers and a sub-basement for the permanent storage of sensitive material. "
He owned and ran an alcohol-treatment company known as the Silver Ash Institute that claimed to have the cure for alcoholism.
He was a traveling business man, who had two wives and two children. He established the Campbell-Yates Manufacturing Company, which made nothing and sold nothing.
He was also labeled as America's first serial killer. His body count is unknown even today; his victims were frequently young women, which included stenographers and house wives. He was best known for convincing people who trusted him to sign him as the beneficiary of their life insurance policies, only to kill them and make it seem an accident so he could collect the money.
Holmes grew up in a small farming village in New Hampshire, where he briefly spoke about an early fear of a human skeleton that hung in a doctor's office: " 'I had daily to pass the office of one village doctor, the door of which was seldom if ever barred,' he wrote in a later memoir. 'Partly from its being associated in my mind as the source of all the nauseous mixtures that had been my childish terror (for this was before the day of children's medicines), and partly because of vague rumors I had heard regarding its contents, this place was one of peculiar abhorrence to me.' "... "Two children discovered Mudgett's [Holmes' real last name] fear and one day captured him and dragged him 'struggling and shrieking' into the doctor's office. 'Nor did they desist,' Mudgett wrote, 'until I had been brought face to face with one of its grinning skeletons, which, with arms outstretched, seemed ready in its turn to seize me. It was a wicked and dangerous thing to do to a child of tender years and health,' he wrote, ' but it proved an heroic method of treatment, destined ultimately to cure me of my fears, and to inculcate in me, first, a strong feeling of curiosity, and, later, a desire to learn, which resulted years afterwards in my adopting medicine as a profession.' "
Erik Larson's fourth book, the Devil in the White City, is only partly about Holmes and his dark trail of murder and lies. The story told is mostly centered around the planning and building of the 1893 World's Fair. The prologue opens with one of the architects aboard a ship long after the fair has ended - - - 1912 to be exact- - - where he begins to write of the fair in his diary. The next chapter continues on with Chicago competing against other major cities to win the rights to host the World's Fair. Chicago was not the ideal place for the fair because it was known for it's crime and slaughter houses - - - this was exactly why the politicians wanted it so badly there, so it would help to lighten the image of Chicago for the rest of the world. Even the local Whitechapel Club that had sprouted up after the infamous murders by Jack the Ripper, were excited to win the rights to host the fair in their city, and celebrated in a macabre way:
"Upon learning that Chicago had won the fair, the men of the Whitechapel Club composed a telegram to Chauncey Depew, who more than any other man symbolized New York and its campaign to win the fair. Previously Depew had promised the members of the Whitechapel Club that if Chicago prevailed he would present himself at the club's next meeting, to be hacked apart by the Ripper himself - - - metaphorically, he presumed, although at the Whitechapel Club could one ever be certain? The club's coffin, for example, had once been used to transport the body of a member who had committed suicide. After claiming his body, the club hauled it to the Indiana Dunes on Lake Michigan, where members erected an immense pyre. They placed the body on top, then set it alight. Carrying torches and wearing black hooded robes, they circled the fire singing hymns to the dead between sips of whiskey. The club also had a custom of sending robed members to kidnap visiting celebrities and steal them away in a black coach with covered windows, all without saying a word.
The club's telegram reached Depew in Washington twenty minutes after the final ballot, just as Chicago's congressional delegation began celebrating at the Willard Hotel near the White House. The telegram asked, 'When may we see you at our dissecting table?' "
There are chapters in-between, technically reading like a side story, that tell us about Holmes and his misdeeds in Chicago, but there just wasn't enough about Holmes that I could consider this a True Crime book, nor an informative book about Holmes. Unfortunately, when the reader begins to really dwell into the story of Holmes, it's quickly ended by having two or more chapters about the building of the World's Fair. One interesting point about the story is that the reader does get to see how many inventions were brought to light because of the Fair, such as the invention of the Ferris Wheel. Larson's writing is very coherent and the descriptions are so well done that the reader is practically transported back to the late 1800s, yet, before I finished the book, I felt misled by the title... then coming across everything that happened to not only the Fair, but the people who were involved with it, it's hard not to wonder if the whole thing was cursed, thus the Devil being in the White City.
One of the side stories I did really enjoy was the slow unfolding of a man named Prendergast. A delusional young man who ran one of the groups of paperboys in Chicago, who was also obsessed with politics, became a determined supporter of Mayor Harrison; after Harrison was voted into office again, Prendergast believed it was because of him and the letters he sent out to numerous politicians and potential voters. Prendergast also believed he deserved a chair on the council for Harrison's re-election, for which he even showed up at City Hall to take over. This incident was the straw that broke the camel's back for Prendergast - - - he was humiliated when the people there laughed in his face. Prendergast then decided to take matters into his own hands, and bought a revolver. The day before the Fair would end, Prendergast showed up at Harrison's home and shot him. Harrison died minutes later. Prendergast turned himself in for the murder as soon as he left Harrison's residence. When asked why he had done it, Prendergast responded: " ' Because he betrayed my confidence. I supported him through his campaign and he promised to appoint me corporation counsel. He didn't live up to his word.' "
This book has been voted as a top True Crime must-read novel. I don't agree with this. As I said before: Holmes' chapters are few; eighty percent of this book is about the building of the World's Fair. As a True Crime junkie, I didn't enjoy this one, but also as a history junkie, I enjoyed learning about the Fair and everything that happened. I can't recommend this book to TC fans or horror fans. It's mostly history and architecture.
He's been a doctor and a licensed pharmacist, who then conned an old couple into selling their drug store to him where he preyed on young girls and ignorant customers that would buy whatever Holmes would tell them to buy, whether it were real or fake tonics.
He was a building owner who had a murder hotel secretly built with " a wooden chute that would descend from a secret location on the second floor all the way to the basement... ", "a room next to his office fitted with a large walk-in vault, with airtight seams and asbestos-coated iron walls. A gas jet embedded in one wall would be controlled from his closet...", "a large basement with hidden chambers and a sub-basement for the permanent storage of sensitive material. "
He owned and ran an alcohol-treatment company known as the Silver Ash Institute that claimed to have the cure for alcoholism.
He was a traveling business man, who had two wives and two children. He established the Campbell-Yates Manufacturing Company, which made nothing and sold nothing.
He was also labeled as America's first serial killer. His body count is unknown even today; his victims were frequently young women, which included stenographers and house wives. He was best known for convincing people who trusted him to sign him as the beneficiary of their life insurance policies, only to kill them and make it seem an accident so he could collect the money.
Holmes grew up in a small farming village in New Hampshire, where he briefly spoke about an early fear of a human skeleton that hung in a doctor's office: " 'I had daily to pass the office of one village doctor, the door of which was seldom if ever barred,' he wrote in a later memoir. 'Partly from its being associated in my mind as the source of all the nauseous mixtures that had been my childish terror (for this was before the day of children's medicines), and partly because of vague rumors I had heard regarding its contents, this place was one of peculiar abhorrence to me.' "... "Two children discovered Mudgett's [Holmes' real last name] fear and one day captured him and dragged him 'struggling and shrieking' into the doctor's office. 'Nor did they desist,' Mudgett wrote, 'until I had been brought face to face with one of its grinning skeletons, which, with arms outstretched, seemed ready in its turn to seize me. It was a wicked and dangerous thing to do to a child of tender years and health,' he wrote, ' but it proved an heroic method of treatment, destined ultimately to cure me of my fears, and to inculcate in me, first, a strong feeling of curiosity, and, later, a desire to learn, which resulted years afterwards in my adopting medicine as a profession.' "
Erik Larson's fourth book, the Devil in the White City, is only partly about Holmes and his dark trail of murder and lies. The story told is mostly centered around the planning and building of the 1893 World's Fair. The prologue opens with one of the architects aboard a ship long after the fair has ended - - - 1912 to be exact- - - where he begins to write of the fair in his diary. The next chapter continues on with Chicago competing against other major cities to win the rights to host the World's Fair. Chicago was not the ideal place for the fair because it was known for it's crime and slaughter houses - - - this was exactly why the politicians wanted it so badly there, so it would help to lighten the image of Chicago for the rest of the world. Even the local Whitechapel Club that had sprouted up after the infamous murders by Jack the Ripper, were excited to win the rights to host the fair in their city, and celebrated in a macabre way:
"Upon learning that Chicago had won the fair, the men of the Whitechapel Club composed a telegram to Chauncey Depew, who more than any other man symbolized New York and its campaign to win the fair. Previously Depew had promised the members of the Whitechapel Club that if Chicago prevailed he would present himself at the club's next meeting, to be hacked apart by the Ripper himself - - - metaphorically, he presumed, although at the Whitechapel Club could one ever be certain? The club's coffin, for example, had once been used to transport the body of a member who had committed suicide. After claiming his body, the club hauled it to the Indiana Dunes on Lake Michigan, where members erected an immense pyre. They placed the body on top, then set it alight. Carrying torches and wearing black hooded robes, they circled the fire singing hymns to the dead between sips of whiskey. The club also had a custom of sending robed members to kidnap visiting celebrities and steal them away in a black coach with covered windows, all without saying a word.
The club's telegram reached Depew in Washington twenty minutes after the final ballot, just as Chicago's congressional delegation began celebrating at the Willard Hotel near the White House. The telegram asked, 'When may we see you at our dissecting table?' "
There are chapters in-between, technically reading like a side story, that tell us about Holmes and his misdeeds in Chicago, but there just wasn't enough about Holmes that I could consider this a True Crime book, nor an informative book about Holmes. Unfortunately, when the reader begins to really dwell into the story of Holmes, it's quickly ended by having two or more chapters about the building of the World's Fair. One interesting point about the story is that the reader does get to see how many inventions were brought to light because of the Fair, such as the invention of the Ferris Wheel. Larson's writing is very coherent and the descriptions are so well done that the reader is practically transported back to the late 1800s, yet, before I finished the book, I felt misled by the title... then coming across everything that happened to not only the Fair, but the people who were involved with it, it's hard not to wonder if the whole thing was cursed, thus the Devil being in the White City.
One of the side stories I did really enjoy was the slow unfolding of a man named Prendergast. A delusional young man who ran one of the groups of paperboys in Chicago, who was also obsessed with politics, became a determined supporter of Mayor Harrison; after Harrison was voted into office again, Prendergast believed it was because of him and the letters he sent out to numerous politicians and potential voters. Prendergast also believed he deserved a chair on the council for Harrison's re-election, for which he even showed up at City Hall to take over. This incident was the straw that broke the camel's back for Prendergast - - - he was humiliated when the people there laughed in his face. Prendergast then decided to take matters into his own hands, and bought a revolver. The day before the Fair would end, Prendergast showed up at Harrison's home and shot him. Harrison died minutes later. Prendergast turned himself in for the murder as soon as he left Harrison's residence. When asked why he had done it, Prendergast responded: " ' Because he betrayed my confidence. I supported him through his campaign and he promised to appoint me corporation counsel. He didn't live up to his word.' "
This book has been voted as a top True Crime must-read novel. I don't agree with this. As I said before: Holmes' chapters are few; eighty percent of this book is about the building of the World's Fair. As a True Crime junkie, I didn't enjoy this one, but also as a history junkie, I enjoyed learning about the Fair and everything that happened. I can't recommend this book to TC fans or horror fans. It's mostly history and architecture.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Bad Boys II (2003) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
What ya gonna do
this time?
Contains spoilers, click to show
Whilst the first outing of the Bad Boys shocked me by how good it actually was, this one left me a little disappointed. I was hardly expecting an Oscar winning deal here, as this was always going to be a Michael Bay adrenalin rush, but for a film with a two and a half hour running time, the adrenalin came in too short a bursts.
Bad Boys was Bay's first film and was but a taster of his over the top film making, which first arrives in The Rock a year afterwards, but this made eight years later was obviously going to take this to the next level, if not several levels further than that. But to me, it didn't. Granted, the action was thrilling, outrageous and very enjoyable, but the character development was barely visible. They bicker, Lawrence moaned a lot and Smith was cool and likable but there was just a shell of what there should have been. The entire story, including what's left of their character dynamics are only present to set up the next great action sequence.
Then, the was the taste issue. The crux of the plot as it developed was that the drug dealing villains where using corpses to smuggle drugs, and this was used to "Comic Effect" in two major set-pieces. Though in the first, a car chase, it was black comedy as bodies came thick and fast from the back of a van to be run over by the pursuing cars, the second was pushing the boundaries in a to a more disturbing area.
A criticism levied at Michael Bay by British critic Mark Kermode has been that he is a filmmaker with "pornographic sensibilities". Not just in the literal sense, but in the way that he views everything from cars, women and explosions for example. But this was no more clearly re- enforced than in a scene about 90 minutes in, when our two 'bad boys' are searching a morgue and after pulling back the sheets on fat white guys, they reveal a large breasted young woman, who is refer to as "The Bimbo" if my memory serves. It's worrying because I don't know whether this was being played for laughs or was supposed to be a titillating shot of a well endowed woman? Is it right to show a dead woman, who looks to have been strangled to death and referred to a bimbo in a mainstream 15 certificated movie?
I don't want to sound like a prude but the tone of this and pretty much every scene with the bodies being used, seemed to be in plain Bad, BAD taste and though this humour can play well in the right genre of movie, this just simply wasn't the film to do it in, in my opinion. But, that criticism aside, my main issues are the pacing. It was just too hollow to sustain its running time and my mind was beginning to wander from time to time between the spectacular action and the few moments of decent comedy.
It just didn't have the magic of the 90′s actioner, a genre which had faded considerably by the early 2000′s, and without offering anything new besides improved action, which was worth the ticket or DVD price in its own right, or even retaining the original character of the original, this was a sequel failed to hold its own.
Bad Boys was Bay's first film and was but a taster of his over the top film making, which first arrives in The Rock a year afterwards, but this made eight years later was obviously going to take this to the next level, if not several levels further than that. But to me, it didn't. Granted, the action was thrilling, outrageous and very enjoyable, but the character development was barely visible. They bicker, Lawrence moaned a lot and Smith was cool and likable but there was just a shell of what there should have been. The entire story, including what's left of their character dynamics are only present to set up the next great action sequence.
Then, the was the taste issue. The crux of the plot as it developed was that the drug dealing villains where using corpses to smuggle drugs, and this was used to "Comic Effect" in two major set-pieces. Though in the first, a car chase, it was black comedy as bodies came thick and fast from the back of a van to be run over by the pursuing cars, the second was pushing the boundaries in a to a more disturbing area.
A criticism levied at Michael Bay by British critic Mark Kermode has been that he is a filmmaker with "pornographic sensibilities". Not just in the literal sense, but in the way that he views everything from cars, women and explosions for example. But this was no more clearly re- enforced than in a scene about 90 minutes in, when our two 'bad boys' are searching a morgue and after pulling back the sheets on fat white guys, they reveal a large breasted young woman, who is refer to as "The Bimbo" if my memory serves. It's worrying because I don't know whether this was being played for laughs or was supposed to be a titillating shot of a well endowed woman? Is it right to show a dead woman, who looks to have been strangled to death and referred to a bimbo in a mainstream 15 certificated movie?
I don't want to sound like a prude but the tone of this and pretty much every scene with the bodies being used, seemed to be in plain Bad, BAD taste and though this humour can play well in the right genre of movie, this just simply wasn't the film to do it in, in my opinion. But, that criticism aside, my main issues are the pacing. It was just too hollow to sustain its running time and my mind was beginning to wander from time to time between the spectacular action and the few moments of decent comedy.
It just didn't have the magic of the 90′s actioner, a genre which had faded considerably by the early 2000′s, and without offering anything new besides improved action, which was worth the ticket or DVD price in its own right, or even retaining the original character of the original, this was a sequel failed to hold its own.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated I Know You Know in Books
Mar 12, 2019
Fascinating and compelling mystery
For twenty years, Sidney Noyce has claimed his innocence for the murders of Charlie Paige and Scott Ashby. In 1996, their bodies were found dumped by a dog track near the estate where they lived. Their friend, Cody Swift, who was ten like Charlie, lived, and now, twenty years later, is reviving the case via a podcast, It's Time to Tell. He too has his doubts about Sidney's guilt. He returns home to Bristol to start investigating. But not everyone wants this case reopened, including Charlie's mother, Jessica, who has started a new life, with a new family. And then there's the investigating detective, John Fletcher, who found the boys. Charlie died in his arms; you don't forget a case like that. Now, he's investigating another body--found buried in a location near where the boys died. Are the two cases related? Is there a murderer still out there?
I still remember the moment I discovered Gilly Macmillan, and her books are such a treat. This one was no exception. This is a stand-alone novel, or at least not one of her Jim Clemo novels, and I found it to be a highly enjoyable and compelling mystery. When I first realized that part of the book was being told via the podcast format, I felt a bit of deja-vu, as I had just recently finished another book in that structure (Sadie), but have no fear: the organization of this one is fresh and flawless.
The book is told via the podcast; Jessica's point of view; and Fletcher's perspective--both now and back then, when he was a rookie cop, investigating the boys' death. You have to get used to the book swinging back and forth in time with Fletcher, but it doesn't take much, and it's worth it, because Macmillan parallels things so well in time. The juxtaposition of the past and present with the two cases (current body, the boys' case - plus Cody's podcast) is really brilliant. Plus, we get to see the trajectory of Fletcher's life and the many decisions that have led him to where he his today. His character, for me, was fascinating and one of the best surprises of the book.
One of my favorite aspects of any Macmillan novel is her characters. They are always so detailed and fully fleshed out. That is the case here: you will find yourself transported back to the estate twenty years ago, with Charlie, Scott, and Cody running around, and then to the present, with Cody and his podcast, Jessica struggling to keep her new life afloat, and Fletcher, unraveling the details on a new--potentially related--case.
There are multiple mystery threads to keep any detective fan happy: what happened to Charlie and Scott all those years ago? Was it really Sidney Noyce? How about the body Fletcher just discovered nearby? Just a coincidence? I loved the way Macmillan weaved the pieces of all these stories together. There are some wonderful and unexpected turns here. I adore a book that surprises me, and it was great to have some twists and turns that shocked me.
Overall, this is a fascinating and compelling mystery that expertly weaves together the thread of two cases separated by twenty years. The characters are well-detailed and the book is beautifully plotted. It's hard to go wrong with a Macmillan mystery, and this one is no exception.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
I still remember the moment I discovered Gilly Macmillan, and her books are such a treat. This one was no exception. This is a stand-alone novel, or at least not one of her Jim Clemo novels, and I found it to be a highly enjoyable and compelling mystery. When I first realized that part of the book was being told via the podcast format, I felt a bit of deja-vu, as I had just recently finished another book in that structure (Sadie), but have no fear: the organization of this one is fresh and flawless.
The book is told via the podcast; Jessica's point of view; and Fletcher's perspective--both now and back then, when he was a rookie cop, investigating the boys' death. You have to get used to the book swinging back and forth in time with Fletcher, but it doesn't take much, and it's worth it, because Macmillan parallels things so well in time. The juxtaposition of the past and present with the two cases (current body, the boys' case - plus Cody's podcast) is really brilliant. Plus, we get to see the trajectory of Fletcher's life and the many decisions that have led him to where he his today. His character, for me, was fascinating and one of the best surprises of the book.
One of my favorite aspects of any Macmillan novel is her characters. They are always so detailed and fully fleshed out. That is the case here: you will find yourself transported back to the estate twenty years ago, with Charlie, Scott, and Cody running around, and then to the present, with Cody and his podcast, Jessica struggling to keep her new life afloat, and Fletcher, unraveling the details on a new--potentially related--case.
There are multiple mystery threads to keep any detective fan happy: what happened to Charlie and Scott all those years ago? Was it really Sidney Noyce? How about the body Fletcher just discovered nearby? Just a coincidence? I loved the way Macmillan weaved the pieces of all these stories together. There are some wonderful and unexpected turns here. I adore a book that surprises me, and it was great to have some twists and turns that shocked me.
Overall, this is a fascinating and compelling mystery that expertly weaves together the thread of two cases separated by twenty years. The characters are well-detailed and the book is beautifully plotted. It's hard to go wrong with a Macmillan mystery, and this one is no exception.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hereditary (2018) in Movies
Jun 28, 2018
Laughable
For me, the hardest genre of film to get right is horror. In short order the filmmaker needs to set up the premise and "rules of engagement" of the world that is being presented and then execute incredulous situations and predicaments in such a way that are plausible and tense.
Only a small amount (let's say 10% to be generous) gets this balance right. 80% of the time, they fall short and either the film is boring or (more often) turns into a "gore-fest". And...in the bottom 10% are the films where they miss so spectacularly that you are entertained by how ridiculous and over-the-top things are.
Such is the case with Ari Aster's HEREDITARY, a film that was billed as a "tense, thriller with unthinkable family tragedy that veers into the realm of the Supernatural".
I would bill it as "stupid".
Starring the usually reliable Toni Collette as Annie, a miniature-model artist (people in these types of films usually have occupations that make no sense) who's relationship with her mother is strained - at best. She is married to Steve (Gabriel Byrne - far removed from his USUAL SUSPECTS days), and has 2 children, Peter (Alex Wolff) and Charlie (Milly Shapiro). They had another child who has passed away. When Annie's mother dies, Annie starts to discover disturbing secrets about her mother and her family's heritage.
I won't say more - for I would spoil things - but the film starts promisingly enough - and there's an unexpected, tragic death that I thought was handled interestingly enough and I had positive hopes for the rest of the film - but the scenarios and escalating events of this film build on each other from there, one more ridiculous than the other. I kept wanting to scream to the screen - "call the authorities", which would have ended things right there, but this being a film, no one ever does.
As I stated, Toni Collette is, usually, a sign of quality in a movie...but not here. She (and Byrne) are listed as Executive Producers of this film (which means, I think, they gave up parts of their salaries for % points in this film - good luck getting any money out of that). Her Annie is melodramatic and over-the-top - and CRAZY - almost from the start, so when she starts getting REALLY melodramatic and C-R-A-Z-Y, it is laughable. Gabriel Byrne walks through this film looking like he is wondering where the Craft Services truck is, giving a "minimalist" performance (read: he mailed it in). And the two kids are haunting...in their blankness and blandness.
But...it is the ever increasing bizarre events that had me howling with laughter in my seat (as opposed to squirming in terror). I would spoil things if I mentioned them, but I didn't buy any of it. Writer/Director Aster just kept throwing one event even more "weird" and bizarre than preceding one. I actually said to my buddy sitting next to me at one point, "who is that old, fat, naked guy, and where did he come from"?
I think that says it all.
I'm sure there was probably a good movie in here someplace, this wasn't it.
Letter Grade: C (for the opening 1/2 hour or so and the "unexpected death" that was executed well).
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take it - or leave it - to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Only a small amount (let's say 10% to be generous) gets this balance right. 80% of the time, they fall short and either the film is boring or (more often) turns into a "gore-fest". And...in the bottom 10% are the films where they miss so spectacularly that you are entertained by how ridiculous and over-the-top things are.
Such is the case with Ari Aster's HEREDITARY, a film that was billed as a "tense, thriller with unthinkable family tragedy that veers into the realm of the Supernatural".
I would bill it as "stupid".
Starring the usually reliable Toni Collette as Annie, a miniature-model artist (people in these types of films usually have occupations that make no sense) who's relationship with her mother is strained - at best. She is married to Steve (Gabriel Byrne - far removed from his USUAL SUSPECTS days), and has 2 children, Peter (Alex Wolff) and Charlie (Milly Shapiro). They had another child who has passed away. When Annie's mother dies, Annie starts to discover disturbing secrets about her mother and her family's heritage.
I won't say more - for I would spoil things - but the film starts promisingly enough - and there's an unexpected, tragic death that I thought was handled interestingly enough and I had positive hopes for the rest of the film - but the scenarios and escalating events of this film build on each other from there, one more ridiculous than the other. I kept wanting to scream to the screen - "call the authorities", which would have ended things right there, but this being a film, no one ever does.
As I stated, Toni Collette is, usually, a sign of quality in a movie...but not here. She (and Byrne) are listed as Executive Producers of this film (which means, I think, they gave up parts of their salaries for % points in this film - good luck getting any money out of that). Her Annie is melodramatic and over-the-top - and CRAZY - almost from the start, so when she starts getting REALLY melodramatic and C-R-A-Z-Y, it is laughable. Gabriel Byrne walks through this film looking like he is wondering where the Craft Services truck is, giving a "minimalist" performance (read: he mailed it in). And the two kids are haunting...in their blankness and blandness.
But...it is the ever increasing bizarre events that had me howling with laughter in my seat (as opposed to squirming in terror). I would spoil things if I mentioned them, but I didn't buy any of it. Writer/Director Aster just kept throwing one event even more "weird" and bizarre than preceding one. I actually said to my buddy sitting next to me at one point, "who is that old, fat, naked guy, and where did he come from"?
I think that says it all.
I'm sure there was probably a good movie in here someplace, this wasn't it.
Letter Grade: C (for the opening 1/2 hour or so and the "unexpected death" that was executed well).
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take it - or leave it - to the Bank(ofMarquis)