Search
Search results
Christine A. (965 KP) rated Press Here! Massage for Beginners: A Simple Route to Relaxation and Releasing Tension in Books
Mar 13, 2019 (Updated Mar 13, 2019)
Colorful illustrations (1 more)
Shows proper technique
Informative book on how to give a massage to others and to yourself
I was provided with a complimentary copy of this book so I could give an honest review.
Press Here! Massage for Beginners: A Simple Route to Relaxation and Releasing Tension by Rachel Beider is an informative book on how to give a massage to others and to yourself. It provides clear instructions on how to massage different parts of the body. It also includes sections for specific issues that may need special attention. Also shown are the proper techniques and strokes to use. It is full of colorful and detailed illustrations that show the basics of a massage.
I found the book informative and well written but two sections stand out to me. The first is on how to give yourself a massage. Beider shows how to use either your hand or a tennis ball to self massage. The other is a section on how to treat headaches and sinus congestion. As a sufferer of chronic sinus problems this was the most useful.
One thing I had never considered was you need to take care and look after your own body before you massage someone. Stretches are shown on how to prepare your hands so you do not damage them.
The book is easily labeled to find the exact section on which you want to focus.
Review published on Philomathinphila.com, Smashbomb, Goodreads, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, and Barnes and Noble on 3/13/19.
Press Here! Massage for Beginners: A Simple Route to Relaxation and Releasing Tension by Rachel Beider is an informative book on how to give a massage to others and to yourself. It provides clear instructions on how to massage different parts of the body. It also includes sections for specific issues that may need special attention. Also shown are the proper techniques and strokes to use. It is full of colorful and detailed illustrations that show the basics of a massage.
I found the book informative and well written but two sections stand out to me. The first is on how to give yourself a massage. Beider shows how to use either your hand or a tennis ball to self massage. The other is a section on how to treat headaches and sinus congestion. As a sufferer of chronic sinus problems this was the most useful.
One thing I had never considered was you need to take care and look after your own body before you massage someone. Stretches are shown on how to prepare your hands so you do not damage them.
The book is easily labeled to find the exact section on which you want to focus.
Review published on Philomathinphila.com, Smashbomb, Goodreads, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, and Barnes and Noble on 3/13/19.
Isabel Smith (34 KP) rated Our Kind of Cruelty: A Novel in Books
Jun 22, 2018
Our Kind of Cruelty is an engrossing, in-depth case study of the weirdly obsessive and detrimental love story between Mike Hayes and Verity Walton. Author Araminta Hall only provides readers with Mike’s point of view, so there are some limitations into what we can glean about Verity’s thoughts, motivations, and behaviors. Nevertheless, seeds of doubt are sown from the beginning of the story about both characters’ integrity and reliability.
Mike and Verity have been inseparable since meeting at university and starting up their one-of-a-kind relationship. During their early years they established a disturbing game which they referred to as the Crave, in which they always benefited at the expense of others. It is unclear who started the game, as Verity will say Mike did and vice versa. Similarly, a number of other relevant events in their tumultuous relationship are clouded with duplicity, right down to the moment when one of their so-called Crave victims ends up dead. What ensues is a riveting trial in which a jury (and readers) must navigate through the he-said/she-said testimonies and decide who the guilty party is.
In the ever-growing mound of psychological thrillers that have skyrocketed since the release of Gillian Flynn’s Gone Girl, Araminta Hall’s latest work really stands out due to the fact that she’s changed up the ever popular unreliable narrator trope. In Our Kind of Cruelty, the central unreliable narrator is a male; typically readers have been treated to unpredictable and untrustworthy females. Needless to say, I really enjoyed this twist. I also really enjoyed the court procedural part of the book; reading the conflicting accounts between Mike and Verity was like watching a riveting tennis match where the ball is whacked mercilessly back and forth between both parties. Check this book out today if you’re in the mood for something dark yet intriguing, something that will leave you thinking and wondering long after you’ve finished the book.
Mike and Verity have been inseparable since meeting at university and starting up their one-of-a-kind relationship. During their early years they established a disturbing game which they referred to as the Crave, in which they always benefited at the expense of others. It is unclear who started the game, as Verity will say Mike did and vice versa. Similarly, a number of other relevant events in their tumultuous relationship are clouded with duplicity, right down to the moment when one of their so-called Crave victims ends up dead. What ensues is a riveting trial in which a jury (and readers) must navigate through the he-said/she-said testimonies and decide who the guilty party is.
In the ever-growing mound of psychological thrillers that have skyrocketed since the release of Gillian Flynn’s Gone Girl, Araminta Hall’s latest work really stands out due to the fact that she’s changed up the ever popular unreliable narrator trope. In Our Kind of Cruelty, the central unreliable narrator is a male; typically readers have been treated to unpredictable and untrustworthy females. Needless to say, I really enjoyed this twist. I also really enjoyed the court procedural part of the book; reading the conflicting accounts between Mike and Verity was like watching a riveting tennis match where the ball is whacked mercilessly back and forth between both parties. Check this book out today if you’re in the mood for something dark yet intriguing, something that will leave you thinking and wondering long after you’ve finished the book.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Danny The Dragon "Meets Jimmy" in Books
Feb 11, 2019
The first thing I noticed about the book when I picked it up was the gold sticker on the cover that stated "Best Books AWARD FINALIST- USA Book News," and my first thoughts were, "Wow, this book must be really something." The picture on the cover featured a detailed illustration of a dragon, a boy, and smaller creature that looked vaguely like a frog. The illustration of the dragon is quite unique in that it is covered in multi-colored spots and mismatched stripes and wears a yellow-and-blue backpack and red tennis shoes. One of the opening pages shows two quotes, one from the author and one from the illustrator, discussing briefly how they both came to put together this book. The illustrations for the story itself are large, colorful, and fill the wide two-page spread, providing plenty for my two-year-old daughter to stare at and study. I did find it strange that there was no actual title page, but I suppose that would have been redundant.
The boy's name is Jimmy, and his sister's name is Sally, and both children and the dragon are polite and well-mannered throughout the story, using "Please" and "Thankyou" and helping Mom and Dad clean up both the beach supplies at the beginning of the story and the dishes after supper. The smaller green creature from the cover pops out of the green and white seashell with Danny the Dragon, and we are informed his name is Skipper and that he is Danny's navigator, but not what kind of creature he is. Danny explains that water will make him shrink back to fit inside the shell, and a lack of water causes him to come out of the shell as he grows big, which brings to mind the small toys that expand when placed in water (only opposite). All of the characters in the story are articulate and kind to each other, and there is nothing about the story that would be considered scary or bad, which is quite appropriate for the 4 to 8 year-old age group that the book is intended for. The story even promotes healthy eating, as the family has homemade vegetable soup for supper. The book is quite obviously set up for at least one sequel, as at the ending when Jimmy asks Danny where he came from and where has he been, Danny politely answers, "I will tell you some other time. For now it is bedtime. Goodnight - pleasant dreams."
The boy's name is Jimmy, and his sister's name is Sally, and both children and the dragon are polite and well-mannered throughout the story, using "Please" and "Thankyou" and helping Mom and Dad clean up both the beach supplies at the beginning of the story and the dishes after supper. The smaller green creature from the cover pops out of the green and white seashell with Danny the Dragon, and we are informed his name is Skipper and that he is Danny's navigator, but not what kind of creature he is. Danny explains that water will make him shrink back to fit inside the shell, and a lack of water causes him to come out of the shell as he grows big, which brings to mind the small toys that expand when placed in water (only opposite). All of the characters in the story are articulate and kind to each other, and there is nothing about the story that would be considered scary or bad, which is quite appropriate for the 4 to 8 year-old age group that the book is intended for. The story even promotes healthy eating, as the family has homemade vegetable soup for supper. The book is quite obviously set up for at least one sequel, as at the ending when Jimmy asks Danny where he came from and where has he been, Danny politely answers, "I will tell you some other time. For now it is bedtime. Goodnight - pleasant dreams."
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated The Mayo Clinic Diet Journal: A handy companion journal in Books
Apr 27, 2018
The Mayo Clinic Diet (and journal)
by the weight loss experts at Mayo Clinic
Genre: Health, self-help
Rating: 5
The Mayo Clinic Diet is a great book that guides you through a healthy way to loose weight. They focus on changing your eating habits, eating the right amount of the right thing, self control, self motivation, and staying healthy.
The word “Diet” has a bad reputation. People hear it and shutter. I don’t think Diet was the right word to use in the title of this book, I think they could have used something like “Health guide” or “lifestyle” because it’s not really a diet. Sure there are guides on what to eat, but there aren’t any super strict guidelines saying “don’t eat this” or “you must eat this.” This book is all about loosing weight right, and doing it healthfully.
The Mayo Clinic Diet asks some basic questions that get the reader thinking, like “why do you want to loose weight,” “what are your goals” etc. and the reason behind them. You really get down in to why you are bothering to change your body. Sure it’s good for you. But there are other reasons why people want to shape up. The Mayo Clinic Diet asks the right questions and gets you thinking so you can find your reasons, so you can find your motivation.
The actual “diet” part of this book is great. It talks about which foods to eat, which things to eat more of, which to eat less of, how to pick the right meat/cheese/milk etc. (note, for the sake of sharing with you a quick opinion, that the only thing I don’t agree with in the book is their view on skim milk. They recommend it. I don’t. It has no nutritional value, and you need whole milk, or low-fat at the least.). It talks about portion control (the key of weight loss!) and offers visual cues for identifying the right serving size, like “hockey puck” and “tennis ball” and “deck of cards” serving size, explains how to eat healthfully (yes there is a special way to eat!), gives advice on what to eat for snacks, lists exercise tips for beginners (easy to follow, not complicated or requiring equipment), and even identifies obstacles you may come across (excuses, habits, depressed thoughts etc.) , and strategies to get through them.
The journal is not necessary for the diet, but is a helpful tool that will guide you through the program. It follows the timeline given in the book, includes space for meal plans, weekly weigh-in, a section for goals and notes for the day, places to record what you ate, and habit tracker, and even a daily food pyramid checklist. It could even be used independently of the diet book, but I recommend using both together because the book has a lot of helpful information, and the journal is a motivating way to put it into action.
Recommendation: Anyone who needs to loose weight but is afraid of “another diet.” This is not the same diet you’re used to. Again, I think “diet” is the wrong word. This is a new lifestyle.
by the weight loss experts at Mayo Clinic
Genre: Health, self-help
Rating: 5
The Mayo Clinic Diet is a great book that guides you through a healthy way to loose weight. They focus on changing your eating habits, eating the right amount of the right thing, self control, self motivation, and staying healthy.
The word “Diet” has a bad reputation. People hear it and shutter. I don’t think Diet was the right word to use in the title of this book, I think they could have used something like “Health guide” or “lifestyle” because it’s not really a diet. Sure there are guides on what to eat, but there aren’t any super strict guidelines saying “don’t eat this” or “you must eat this.” This book is all about loosing weight right, and doing it healthfully.
The Mayo Clinic Diet asks some basic questions that get the reader thinking, like “why do you want to loose weight,” “what are your goals” etc. and the reason behind them. You really get down in to why you are bothering to change your body. Sure it’s good for you. But there are other reasons why people want to shape up. The Mayo Clinic Diet asks the right questions and gets you thinking so you can find your reasons, so you can find your motivation.
The actual “diet” part of this book is great. It talks about which foods to eat, which things to eat more of, which to eat less of, how to pick the right meat/cheese/milk etc. (note, for the sake of sharing with you a quick opinion, that the only thing I don’t agree with in the book is their view on skim milk. They recommend it. I don’t. It has no nutritional value, and you need whole milk, or low-fat at the least.). It talks about portion control (the key of weight loss!) and offers visual cues for identifying the right serving size, like “hockey puck” and “tennis ball” and “deck of cards” serving size, explains how to eat healthfully (yes there is a special way to eat!), gives advice on what to eat for snacks, lists exercise tips for beginners (easy to follow, not complicated or requiring equipment), and even identifies obstacles you may come across (excuses, habits, depressed thoughts etc.) , and strategies to get through them.
The journal is not necessary for the diet, but is a helpful tool that will guide you through the program. It follows the timeline given in the book, includes space for meal plans, weekly weigh-in, a section for goals and notes for the day, places to record what you ate, and habit tracker, and even a daily food pyramid checklist. It could even be used independently of the diet book, but I recommend using both together because the book has a lot of helpful information, and the journal is a motivating way to put it into action.
Recommendation: Anyone who needs to loose weight but is afraid of “another diet.” This is not the same diet you’re used to. Again, I think “diet” is the wrong word. This is a new lifestyle.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated The Mayo Clinic Diet: Eat well. Enjoy life. Lose weight. in Books
Apr 27, 2018
The Mayo Clinic Diet (and journal)
by the weight loss experts at Mayo Clinic
Genre: Health, self-help
Rating: 5
The Mayo Clinic Diet is a great book that guides you through a healthy way to loose weight. They focus on changing your eating habits, eating the right amount of the right thing, self control, self motivation, and staying healthy.
The word “Diet” has a bad reputation. People hear it and shutter. I don’t think Diet was the right word to use in the title of this book, I think they could have used something like “Health guide” or “lifestyle” because it’s not really a diet. Sure there are guides on what to eat, but there aren’t any super strict guidelines saying “don’t eat this” or “you must eat this.” This book is all about loosing weight right, and doing it healthfully.
The Mayo Clinic Diet asks some basic questions that get the reader thinking, like “why do you want to loose weight,” “what are your goals” etc. and the reason behind them. You really get down in to why you are bothering to change your body. Sure it’s good for you. But there are other reasons why people want to shape up. The Mayo Clinic Diet asks the right questions and gets you thinking so you can find your reasons, so you can find your motivation.
The actual “diet” part of this book is great. It talks about which foods to eat, which things to eat more of, which to eat less of, how to pick the right meat/cheese/milk etc. (note, for the sake of sharing with you a quick opinion, that the only thing I don’t agree with in the book is their view on skim milk. They recommend it. I don’t. It has no nutritional value, and you need whole milk, or low-fat at the least.). It talks about portion control (the key of weight loss!) and offers visual cues for identifying the right serving size, like “hockey puck” and “tennis ball” and “deck of cards” serving size, explains how to eat healthfully (yes there is a special way to eat!), gives advice on what to eat for snacks, lists exercise tips for beginners (easy to follow, not complicated or requiring equipment), and even identifies obstacles you may come across (excuses, habits, depressed thoughts etc.) , and strategies to get through them.
The journal is not necessary for the diet, but is a helpful tool that will guide you through the program. It follows the timeline given in the book, includes space for meal plans, weekly weigh-in, a section for goals and notes for the day, places to record what you ate, and habit tracker, and even a daily food pyramid checklist. It could even be used independently of the diet book, but I recommend using both together because the book has a lot of helpful information, and the journal is a motivating way to put it into action.
Recommendation: Anyone who needs to loose weight but is afraid of “another diet.” This is not the same diet you’re used to. Again, I think “diet” is the wrong word. This is a new lifestyle.
by the weight loss experts at Mayo Clinic
Genre: Health, self-help
Rating: 5
The Mayo Clinic Diet is a great book that guides you through a healthy way to loose weight. They focus on changing your eating habits, eating the right amount of the right thing, self control, self motivation, and staying healthy.
The word “Diet” has a bad reputation. People hear it and shutter. I don’t think Diet was the right word to use in the title of this book, I think they could have used something like “Health guide” or “lifestyle” because it’s not really a diet. Sure there are guides on what to eat, but there aren’t any super strict guidelines saying “don’t eat this” or “you must eat this.” This book is all about loosing weight right, and doing it healthfully.
The Mayo Clinic Diet asks some basic questions that get the reader thinking, like “why do you want to loose weight,” “what are your goals” etc. and the reason behind them. You really get down in to why you are bothering to change your body. Sure it’s good for you. But there are other reasons why people want to shape up. The Mayo Clinic Diet asks the right questions and gets you thinking so you can find your reasons, so you can find your motivation.
The actual “diet” part of this book is great. It talks about which foods to eat, which things to eat more of, which to eat less of, how to pick the right meat/cheese/milk etc. (note, for the sake of sharing with you a quick opinion, that the only thing I don’t agree with in the book is their view on skim milk. They recommend it. I don’t. It has no nutritional value, and you need whole milk, or low-fat at the least.). It talks about portion control (the key of weight loss!) and offers visual cues for identifying the right serving size, like “hockey puck” and “tennis ball” and “deck of cards” serving size, explains how to eat healthfully (yes there is a special way to eat!), gives advice on what to eat for snacks, lists exercise tips for beginners (easy to follow, not complicated or requiring equipment), and even identifies obstacles you may come across (excuses, habits, depressed thoughts etc.) , and strategies to get through them.
The journal is not necessary for the diet, but is a helpful tool that will guide you through the program. It follows the timeline given in the book, includes space for meal plans, weekly weigh-in, a section for goals and notes for the day, places to record what you ate, and habit tracker, and even a daily food pyramid checklist. It could even be used independently of the diet book, but I recommend using both together because the book has a lot of helpful information, and the journal is a motivating way to put it into action.
Recommendation: Anyone who needs to loose weight but is afraid of “another diet.” This is not the same diet you’re used to. Again, I think “diet” is the wrong word. This is a new lifestyle.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Dial M for Murder (1954) in Movies
Sep 15, 2019
An unsavory proposition
When ranking Hitchcock's elite films, Dial M For Murder doesn't usually get mentioned in the top 5 including Psycho, Rear Window, Vertigo North By Northwest and maybe The Birds, but it should be. I went through a Hitchcock phase myself a few years back (I would think most serious film fans would at some point). Although, I still have several to go, most still hold up as suspense/thriller classics definitely including this film.
Ex tennis pro Tony Wendice, now married to beautiful and wealthy Margot, has discovered her secret, she's been seeing another man. Months earlier he discovered a love letter from her lover in her handbag and secretly blackmailed for with this information.
Tony decides to invite an old college acquaintance, currently an unsavory character over to their home to explain his plot for this man killing his wife. He would then stand to inherit her fortunes as he is the beneficiary of her will. The man agrees so the plot is set.
The next evening, Tony is out with friends (to ensure his alibi) and phones Margot late in the evening so she rises to answer with the perpetrator waiting for her. After he slips a stocking around her neck to strangle her, a struggle ensues. Instead of her murder, Margot manages to stab the assailant in the back with a pair of nearby scissors. The man falls to the ground in pain driving the scissors deeper within finishing the job for him instead.
The ensuing police investigation initially feels the facts just don't add up since there was no break in and the man did not have a key on him, but he did have the love letter Tony planted on him before the police initially arrived. Fingers eventually point toward Margot as the killer since the facts seem to lead that way.
The 3rd act is brilliant in the way the eventual plot is discovered and how the police ensure Tony incriminates himself as the true antagonist.
Hitchcock's use of camera framing and movement to reveal certain scene elements only when he wants you to see them is one of my favorite elements of his films. He obviously chose source materials which suited his natural abilities to tell sinister or suspenseful stories and this one works just as well as some of his more famous classics.
Ray Milland is charming and diabolical as Tony, never letting on to his beautiful wife (the gorgeous Princess Grace Kelly) the dastardly scheme he has cooked up for her demise or his initial deeds of blackmail. The reveal at the beginning of the murder plot takes the audience on maybe a typical Hitchcock suspense route, but you never know where or when the twists are going to come, but you are willing to go along for the ride.
Your emotions turn from shock having seen the murder to disgust when Margot is eventually blamed for it and then finally to delight when Tony performs just as the police want him to in the end.
Ex tennis pro Tony Wendice, now married to beautiful and wealthy Margot, has discovered her secret, she's been seeing another man. Months earlier he discovered a love letter from her lover in her handbag and secretly blackmailed for with this information.
Tony decides to invite an old college acquaintance, currently an unsavory character over to their home to explain his plot for this man killing his wife. He would then stand to inherit her fortunes as he is the beneficiary of her will. The man agrees so the plot is set.
The next evening, Tony is out with friends (to ensure his alibi) and phones Margot late in the evening so she rises to answer with the perpetrator waiting for her. After he slips a stocking around her neck to strangle her, a struggle ensues. Instead of her murder, Margot manages to stab the assailant in the back with a pair of nearby scissors. The man falls to the ground in pain driving the scissors deeper within finishing the job for him instead.
The ensuing police investigation initially feels the facts just don't add up since there was no break in and the man did not have a key on him, but he did have the love letter Tony planted on him before the police initially arrived. Fingers eventually point toward Margot as the killer since the facts seem to lead that way.
The 3rd act is brilliant in the way the eventual plot is discovered and how the police ensure Tony incriminates himself as the true antagonist.
Hitchcock's use of camera framing and movement to reveal certain scene elements only when he wants you to see them is one of my favorite elements of his films. He obviously chose source materials which suited his natural abilities to tell sinister or suspenseful stories and this one works just as well as some of his more famous classics.
Ray Milland is charming and diabolical as Tony, never letting on to his beautiful wife (the gorgeous Princess Grace Kelly) the dastardly scheme he has cooked up for her demise or his initial deeds of blackmail. The reveal at the beginning of the murder plot takes the audience on maybe a typical Hitchcock suspense route, but you never know where or when the twists are going to come, but you are willing to go along for the ride.
Your emotions turn from shock having seen the murder to disgust when Margot is eventually blamed for it and then finally to delight when Tony performs just as the police want him to in the end.
The best Pixar film?
I have recently purchased a ‘100 Movies Bucket List’ scratch off poster, with the intention of finally crossing off all of the classic films I’ve never seen before. However with the current and ongoing COVID lockdowns, now seemed like a perfect time to watch all of the 100 films on this list including those I know and love. These will be watched in no particular order, and will be highly dependent on my mood and film availability. First on my list is Up.
Up (2009) is a Disney/Pixar animation that follows widower Carl, as he, his house and intrepid wilderness explorer Russell go on an adventure to Paradise Falls.
Up is definitely “up” there as one of the best ever Disney/Pixar films, if not THE best. It has all of the hallmarks that you’d come to expect from such a film and they are executed to perfection. From the opening sequence, which is by far one of the most heartwarming and heart-wrenching things you will ever watch (and this is coming from a studio that killed Bambi’s mother). If you’re not bawling your eyes out after the first 15 minutes, there is something seriously wrong with you.
Once we’ve recovered from the opening scenes, we’re introduced to Carl the widower (Ed Asher) and he’s still tugging on the old heart strings as he goes about his life on his own. He’s your typical grouchy old man, in a rather funny and adorable way, and watching his interactions with others is both sad and entertaining to watch. After a rather unfortunate event, Carl takes his house to the skies and it’s here where the film really starts to get going with stowaway Russell, as they arrive in Paradise Falls and encounter mysterious bird of paradise Kevin, Charles Muntz and his dogs.
As soon as Carl sets off on his journey, this becomes a spirited and fun adventure film. There is never a dull moment and is full of wonder, joy and a fair few laughs, as well as a surprising amount of dark tension generated by famous explorer Muntz (Christopher Plummer). For a kids film, Muntz is an unusually threatening figure and the fear of him is only exacerbated by the fact that half of this film is set at a quite a scary height. Even during the fight scene with Carl towards the end of the movie, Muntz is still intimidating despite the very amusing nods to old age that are thrown in.
For me though, the star (and stars) of Up are Dug and Muntz’s pack of dogs. Disney/Pixar have this amazing knack of writing funny sidekick animals, with the majority of laughs coming from simple observations about how these animals behave in real life (something The Secret Life of Pets should have take more notice of). Up so easily works dogs being dogs into the narrative of this story with ease, and talking dogs are just so funny. From the cone of shame to their attitude towards squirrels and tennis balls, and the fact that they refer to Russell as “the small mailman” – this is pure genius and makes me laugh no matter how many times I see it.
Disney/Pixar films fall into two categories: Very Good and Brilliant. Up has what all Disney/Pixar films have – a wonderfully balanced story full of adult and child appropriate laughs and heartwarming emotional ‘feels’, and some top notch animation. But what brings Up into the “Brilliant” category is it is a beautiful tale of love and friendship, with a touching and rather moving message about life. This is a classic tale that is done flawlessly in a way that only Disney/Pixar can.
Note: whilst I love the film, I’m so far not impressed with my poster itself. Scratched it as you would a scratch card and part of the picture has come off (see attached evidence)… best be more careful next time.
Up (2009) is a Disney/Pixar animation that follows widower Carl, as he, his house and intrepid wilderness explorer Russell go on an adventure to Paradise Falls.
Up is definitely “up” there as one of the best ever Disney/Pixar films, if not THE best. It has all of the hallmarks that you’d come to expect from such a film and they are executed to perfection. From the opening sequence, which is by far one of the most heartwarming and heart-wrenching things you will ever watch (and this is coming from a studio that killed Bambi’s mother). If you’re not bawling your eyes out after the first 15 minutes, there is something seriously wrong with you.
Once we’ve recovered from the opening scenes, we’re introduced to Carl the widower (Ed Asher) and he’s still tugging on the old heart strings as he goes about his life on his own. He’s your typical grouchy old man, in a rather funny and adorable way, and watching his interactions with others is both sad and entertaining to watch. After a rather unfortunate event, Carl takes his house to the skies and it’s here where the film really starts to get going with stowaway Russell, as they arrive in Paradise Falls and encounter mysterious bird of paradise Kevin, Charles Muntz and his dogs.
As soon as Carl sets off on his journey, this becomes a spirited and fun adventure film. There is never a dull moment and is full of wonder, joy and a fair few laughs, as well as a surprising amount of dark tension generated by famous explorer Muntz (Christopher Plummer). For a kids film, Muntz is an unusually threatening figure and the fear of him is only exacerbated by the fact that half of this film is set at a quite a scary height. Even during the fight scene with Carl towards the end of the movie, Muntz is still intimidating despite the very amusing nods to old age that are thrown in.
For me though, the star (and stars) of Up are Dug and Muntz’s pack of dogs. Disney/Pixar have this amazing knack of writing funny sidekick animals, with the majority of laughs coming from simple observations about how these animals behave in real life (something The Secret Life of Pets should have take more notice of). Up so easily works dogs being dogs into the narrative of this story with ease, and talking dogs are just so funny. From the cone of shame to their attitude towards squirrels and tennis balls, and the fact that they refer to Russell as “the small mailman” – this is pure genius and makes me laugh no matter how many times I see it.
Disney/Pixar films fall into two categories: Very Good and Brilliant. Up has what all Disney/Pixar films have – a wonderfully balanced story full of adult and child appropriate laughs and heartwarming emotional ‘feels’, and some top notch animation. But what brings Up into the “Brilliant” category is it is a beautiful tale of love and friendship, with a touching and rather moving message about life. This is a classic tale that is done flawlessly in a way that only Disney/Pixar can.
Note: whilst I love the film, I’m so far not impressed with my poster itself. Scratched it as you would a scratch card and part of the picture has come off (see attached evidence)… best be more careful next time.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Finding your feet (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Foot tapping and Tear Jerking.
There are some films whose trailers really don’t properly represent their contents. The trailer for the new ‘grey-pound’ film “Finding Your Feet” promised a light hearted and witty foray into an elderly dance-club. And, yes, you get some laughs. But it’s very much a bitter sweet comedy, and the bitterness is ladled on by the bucketload leading to more tears than smiles through the majority of the running time.
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Founder (2017) in Movies
Jul 26, 2017
These days McDonalds is everywhere. You don’t have to travel too far before you see those familiar golden arches – in fact, there are three of them within a two mile radius of my home! I’m not personally a big fan of them, but that’s not to say I haven’t enjoyed the odd meal occasionally when in a hurry. It’s one of those things that’s just always been there in life, taken for granted without much of a thought as to how it all came to be so huge. Turns out there’s a pretty interesting story to be told involving a couple of pioneering brothers, and the guy who eventually completely screwed them over…
Michael Keaton is Ray Kroc, a hardworking salesman who always seems to be on the road while his bored wife (Laura Dern) is at home. Repeatedly getting the brush off from restaurant owners who don’t want to buy his amazing new five-spindled milkshake machine and frustrated by the slow, unreliable service from the drive-ins where he goes to get his lunch. For this part of the movie, we’re actually pretty sympathetic with Ray as he struggles in his lonely, boring, unfullfilling job, listening to motivational records in motel rooms as he drifts off to sleep. And then he gets a call from two brothers, Dick and Mac McDonald. They don’t just want to buy one of his milkshake machines, they want to buy at least six in order to cope with demand in their restaurant. Ray puts down the phone and his mind immediately goes into overdrive – what kind of restaurant have these guys got that’s producing this kind of demand? He pulls out a map and looks them up – they’re in San Bernadino California, so he heads off in his car to pay them a visit.
When he arrives, the place is packed with customers queuing for food. As Ray joins the queue a woman assures him that he won’t have to wait long and sure enough, after placing his 15 cent order for a burger, fries and soft drink (bargain!), he promptly gets his order within 30 seconds – served in a paper bag, no plates, no cutlery. He thinks there must be some mistake and it’s pretty amusing to see the bemused look on his face as he struggles to accept the concept that we now all take for granted. Fast, cheap food that you can eat absolutely anywhere you want – in your car, at the park, it’s up to you.
Ray offers to take the brothers out to dinner so that he can hear their story. It’s a wonderful, captivating story too, one that could so easily have been the entire movie. The brothers have such a good rapport as they passionately talk about what they’ve worked to achieve. Moving their restaurant to where it is now, developing their own machines for applying perfect amounts of ketchup and mustard into each bun and spending six hours sketching out potential restaurant layouts on a tennis court while their restaurant staff choreograph their optimised cooking routines. Everything has been tweaked to perfection, even down to the exact cooking time and temperature for their fries. After sleeping on all this information, Ray goes back to the brothers early the next morning and offers them the idea of franchising. But, it’s something they’ve dabbled in before and gave up on, having felt that they had no control over the quality and attention to detail that they pride themselves on in their own restaurant. Eventually Ray wins them over though and a contract is drawn up. The brothers get final say on everything and get half a percent of the profits but it’s up to Ray to setup the franchises and find the people to run them.
It’s a slow, hard process though and although Ray does setup a few successful restaurants, he soon becomes frustrated at the lack of money he seems to be making and the lack of control he has on the decision making process whenever he wants to save costs. The McDonald brothers just seem to keep saying ‘no’! But after he receives some business advice, telling him he should be concentrating on buying the land that the restaurants are on rather than the burgers being cooked, the tide begins to turn. He eventually becomes powerful enough to overpower the brothers, trademark their name, and generally take credit for everything the brothers worked for and built, eventually putting them out of business.
Kroc becomes ruthless, and a complete arsehole. The brothers did eventually make some decent money out of their final deal with Ray, but it certainly wasn’t the 100 million dollars a year they could have been making if they’d been treated right. You really feel for them, as they completely lose control of everything. But you can’t help wondering if things would have worked out that much different for them if they had never met Ray at all. Their restaurant will certainly have continued to do well for a while, but by focusing on just their one restaurant, how long before somebody else stole their idea and ran with it, somebody with the drive and vision to make real money like Ray, leaving them with no money settlement at all? After all, as the motivational LP that Ray listens to clearly pointed out at the start of the movie, “Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence, talent will not, nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent …”.
Michael Keaton is Ray Kroc, a hardworking salesman who always seems to be on the road while his bored wife (Laura Dern) is at home. Repeatedly getting the brush off from restaurant owners who don’t want to buy his amazing new five-spindled milkshake machine and frustrated by the slow, unreliable service from the drive-ins where he goes to get his lunch. For this part of the movie, we’re actually pretty sympathetic with Ray as he struggles in his lonely, boring, unfullfilling job, listening to motivational records in motel rooms as he drifts off to sleep. And then he gets a call from two brothers, Dick and Mac McDonald. They don’t just want to buy one of his milkshake machines, they want to buy at least six in order to cope with demand in their restaurant. Ray puts down the phone and his mind immediately goes into overdrive – what kind of restaurant have these guys got that’s producing this kind of demand? He pulls out a map and looks them up – they’re in San Bernadino California, so he heads off in his car to pay them a visit.
When he arrives, the place is packed with customers queuing for food. As Ray joins the queue a woman assures him that he won’t have to wait long and sure enough, after placing his 15 cent order for a burger, fries and soft drink (bargain!), he promptly gets his order within 30 seconds – served in a paper bag, no plates, no cutlery. He thinks there must be some mistake and it’s pretty amusing to see the bemused look on his face as he struggles to accept the concept that we now all take for granted. Fast, cheap food that you can eat absolutely anywhere you want – in your car, at the park, it’s up to you.
Ray offers to take the brothers out to dinner so that he can hear their story. It’s a wonderful, captivating story too, one that could so easily have been the entire movie. The brothers have such a good rapport as they passionately talk about what they’ve worked to achieve. Moving their restaurant to where it is now, developing their own machines for applying perfect amounts of ketchup and mustard into each bun and spending six hours sketching out potential restaurant layouts on a tennis court while their restaurant staff choreograph their optimised cooking routines. Everything has been tweaked to perfection, even down to the exact cooking time and temperature for their fries. After sleeping on all this information, Ray goes back to the brothers early the next morning and offers them the idea of franchising. But, it’s something they’ve dabbled in before and gave up on, having felt that they had no control over the quality and attention to detail that they pride themselves on in their own restaurant. Eventually Ray wins them over though and a contract is drawn up. The brothers get final say on everything and get half a percent of the profits but it’s up to Ray to setup the franchises and find the people to run them.
It’s a slow, hard process though and although Ray does setup a few successful restaurants, he soon becomes frustrated at the lack of money he seems to be making and the lack of control he has on the decision making process whenever he wants to save costs. The McDonald brothers just seem to keep saying ‘no’! But after he receives some business advice, telling him he should be concentrating on buying the land that the restaurants are on rather than the burgers being cooked, the tide begins to turn. He eventually becomes powerful enough to overpower the brothers, trademark their name, and generally take credit for everything the brothers worked for and built, eventually putting them out of business.
Kroc becomes ruthless, and a complete arsehole. The brothers did eventually make some decent money out of their final deal with Ray, but it certainly wasn’t the 100 million dollars a year they could have been making if they’d been treated right. You really feel for them, as they completely lose control of everything. But you can’t help wondering if things would have worked out that much different for them if they had never met Ray at all. Their restaurant will certainly have continued to do well for a while, but by focusing on just their one restaurant, how long before somebody else stole their idea and ran with it, somebody with the drive and vision to make real money like Ray, leaving them with no money settlement at all? After all, as the motivational LP that Ray listens to clearly pointed out at the start of the movie, “Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence, talent will not, nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent …”.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Injustice 2 in Video Games
Oct 17, 2017 (Updated Oct 3, 2018)
Technically sound (1 more)
Good online functionality
Naff character redesigns (1 more)
Lack of character motivations
Gods & Monsters
Quick disclaimer before I start the review, I am not a huge online gamer. Whilst playing through Injustice 2, I dabbled in a few online fights and played a few co op games with my better half, but for the most part, this is a review of the single player story portion of the game.
I was so pleasantly surprised when I played the first Injustice game. I am a big DC fan, but fighting games aren’t one of my preferred genres in gaming, yet this fighting game set in the DC universe blew me away. The story was intriguing, the characters were diverse and it was a unique taste on a beloved universe. Therefore, the sequel had a fair amount to live up to and while it is still a fun fighting game with a multitude of colourful characters, it doesn’t feel anywhere near as special as Gods Among Us did.
The setup this time around revolves around Brainiac descending upon the earth in search of Kal-El and Kara, the last two remaining Kryptonians and eliminating them. Since the events of the last game, Batman has been keeping Superman in a special prison that suppresses his powers and the world has remained relatively free of crime, however Brainaic’s arrival changes all this. From here onwards we have our superhero story, which sees epic battles occur and mortal enemies being forced to work together against a common evil.
Most importantly, the game is fun. Gameplay feels pretty tight, which is both a positive and a negative when compared to Gods Among Us. The controls feel more solid and purposeful, but also feel more restrictive and less forgiving since the last time. This makes button bashing a void method and forces you to learn intricate button sequences if you want to pull off a decent combo. Thankfully, the super-moves are really fun to watch and make you feel awesome when you manage to successfully pull them off.
I’m going to delve deeper into the game’s story mode, so if you want to avoid spoilers, I would skip this paragraph. I was so looking forward to the story mode in this game, I loved the story mode in the first game and was relying on this one to deliver also, unfortunately I found it jarring and hard to swallow, even as a lifelong comic book fan. The story in Gods Among Us was controversial amongst DC fans, as it turned a number of iconic characters on their head, causing them to fight on the opposing side from what we are used to seeing. In that game though, I thought it worked, character motivations were clear and there was context given for the heroes and villains who switched sides. This time around, characters switch sides faster than a tennis ball at Wimbledon and half the time, there is no apparent reason for it. The most jarring moment came when Wonder Woman turned on Kara. In the mission that preceded it, Wonder Woman inhales Scarecrow’s toxin and through a hallucination and it is revealed that her worst fear is turning on her friends, yet in the mission immediately after this sequence, she turns on her friends in reality! With no apparent motive to do so other than she is unconditionally on Superman’s side, making no moral decisions for herself. It came across so awkwardly and felt lazy, it’s as if the writers totally forgot about the last scene that illustrated that the last thing that Wonder Woman wants to do is turn on her friends.
I did appreciate the graphics in the game. Netherealm have really stepped up their game since the first Injustice and there are some truly stunning moments throughout Injustice 2 and I don’t just mean the cut-scenes. The area transitions are gorgeous to look at, the super-moves are very visually impressive and the detailed locations where the fights take place are also effective. The multiple unique environmental hazards present in each environment add an extra layer of unpredictability and opportunity to the fights and they do a good job of helping a player on the back foot start a comeback against their opponent. Facial animations and voice acting across the stable of characters are also solid.
Although the game is technically sound and the graphics are good looking, I wasn’t a fan of the character design overall this time around. The last game updated a few character designs, but for the most part followed the traditional style that the characters are portrayed in. This time, a lot of the character’s costumes look goofy and come off looking like toy armour rather than something a superhero would realistically wear. Also the redesign of the Joker makes no sense. Not only did it look like they were trying too hard to make him look edgy, but in this universe, Joker was killed at the beginning of the first Injustice game and he didn’t look like that when he died. In this game he appears to Harley through one of Scarecrow’s hallucinations and looks similar to the Jared Leto version of the character, but why? As far as we know, he has never looked like that in this universe during the time he was alive and if you are going to redesign him, don’t base it on Leto’s Joker, (AKA the worst version of the character.)
The co-op is as much fun as you would expect and certain matchups are more interesting than others. As with the first Injustice, pulling off combos and super-moves on someone that is physically sitting next to you is a lot more satisfying than doing it to some AI or an online player thousands of miles away. There is nothing quite like the couch co-op experience when it comes to a fighting game. Injustice 2 is a lot of fun to play in a group as well, setting up a tournament and throwing in real life forfeits also makes things more interesting.
As for the online play, the few matches I did play ran pretty well, there were no sudden glitches present throughout my time, the lag time between the player pressing a button and the character executing the corresponding move wasn’t that noticeable and matchmaking was fairly quick.
In summary, other than some jarring moments in the story, unclear character motivations and some naff character redesigns, there is a fun fighting game here buried underneath all of the nonsense, it’s just a pity that you have to put up with all of these hindrances to get to it. If you are a fan of the first game, then sure, I would recommend you picking this up and playing through it, but if you aren’t familiar with the series and are looking to jump into it and are considering grabbing the latest entry, I would highly encourage you to avoid it. You would be much better served picking up the first game. It will be a great deal cheaper than the latest version, the character designs are better and it’s a lot simpler and more fun overall.
I was so pleasantly surprised when I played the first Injustice game. I am a big DC fan, but fighting games aren’t one of my preferred genres in gaming, yet this fighting game set in the DC universe blew me away. The story was intriguing, the characters were diverse and it was a unique taste on a beloved universe. Therefore, the sequel had a fair amount to live up to and while it is still a fun fighting game with a multitude of colourful characters, it doesn’t feel anywhere near as special as Gods Among Us did.
The setup this time around revolves around Brainiac descending upon the earth in search of Kal-El and Kara, the last two remaining Kryptonians and eliminating them. Since the events of the last game, Batman has been keeping Superman in a special prison that suppresses his powers and the world has remained relatively free of crime, however Brainaic’s arrival changes all this. From here onwards we have our superhero story, which sees epic battles occur and mortal enemies being forced to work together against a common evil.
Most importantly, the game is fun. Gameplay feels pretty tight, which is both a positive and a negative when compared to Gods Among Us. The controls feel more solid and purposeful, but also feel more restrictive and less forgiving since the last time. This makes button bashing a void method and forces you to learn intricate button sequences if you want to pull off a decent combo. Thankfully, the super-moves are really fun to watch and make you feel awesome when you manage to successfully pull them off.
I’m going to delve deeper into the game’s story mode, so if you want to avoid spoilers, I would skip this paragraph. I was so looking forward to the story mode in this game, I loved the story mode in the first game and was relying on this one to deliver also, unfortunately I found it jarring and hard to swallow, even as a lifelong comic book fan. The story in Gods Among Us was controversial amongst DC fans, as it turned a number of iconic characters on their head, causing them to fight on the opposing side from what we are used to seeing. In that game though, I thought it worked, character motivations were clear and there was context given for the heroes and villains who switched sides. This time around, characters switch sides faster than a tennis ball at Wimbledon and half the time, there is no apparent reason for it. The most jarring moment came when Wonder Woman turned on Kara. In the mission that preceded it, Wonder Woman inhales Scarecrow’s toxin and through a hallucination and it is revealed that her worst fear is turning on her friends, yet in the mission immediately after this sequence, she turns on her friends in reality! With no apparent motive to do so other than she is unconditionally on Superman’s side, making no moral decisions for herself. It came across so awkwardly and felt lazy, it’s as if the writers totally forgot about the last scene that illustrated that the last thing that Wonder Woman wants to do is turn on her friends.
I did appreciate the graphics in the game. Netherealm have really stepped up their game since the first Injustice and there are some truly stunning moments throughout Injustice 2 and I don’t just mean the cut-scenes. The area transitions are gorgeous to look at, the super-moves are very visually impressive and the detailed locations where the fights take place are also effective. The multiple unique environmental hazards present in each environment add an extra layer of unpredictability and opportunity to the fights and they do a good job of helping a player on the back foot start a comeback against their opponent. Facial animations and voice acting across the stable of characters are also solid.
Although the game is technically sound and the graphics are good looking, I wasn’t a fan of the character design overall this time around. The last game updated a few character designs, but for the most part followed the traditional style that the characters are portrayed in. This time, a lot of the character’s costumes look goofy and come off looking like toy armour rather than something a superhero would realistically wear. Also the redesign of the Joker makes no sense. Not only did it look like they were trying too hard to make him look edgy, but in this universe, Joker was killed at the beginning of the first Injustice game and he didn’t look like that when he died. In this game he appears to Harley through one of Scarecrow’s hallucinations and looks similar to the Jared Leto version of the character, but why? As far as we know, he has never looked like that in this universe during the time he was alive and if you are going to redesign him, don’t base it on Leto’s Joker, (AKA the worst version of the character.)
The co-op is as much fun as you would expect and certain matchups are more interesting than others. As with the first Injustice, pulling off combos and super-moves on someone that is physically sitting next to you is a lot more satisfying than doing it to some AI or an online player thousands of miles away. There is nothing quite like the couch co-op experience when it comes to a fighting game. Injustice 2 is a lot of fun to play in a group as well, setting up a tournament and throwing in real life forfeits also makes things more interesting.
As for the online play, the few matches I did play ran pretty well, there were no sudden glitches present throughout my time, the lag time between the player pressing a button and the character executing the corresponding move wasn’t that noticeable and matchmaking was fairly quick.
In summary, other than some jarring moments in the story, unclear character motivations and some naff character redesigns, there is a fun fighting game here buried underneath all of the nonsense, it’s just a pity that you have to put up with all of these hindrances to get to it. If you are a fan of the first game, then sure, I would recommend you picking this up and playing through it, but if you aren’t familiar with the series and are looking to jump into it and are considering grabbing the latest entry, I would highly encourage you to avoid it. You would be much better served picking up the first game. It will be a great deal cheaper than the latest version, the character designs are better and it’s a lot simpler and more fun overall.