Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Colette (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“The hand that holds the pen writes history”.
Colette is yet another tale of female empowerment: a woman with real talent trying to break out of the gilded cage she finds herself trapped in.
The plot
This is a true story, set in Paris in the late 19th Century. Colette (Keira Knightley), a beautiful country girl living in Burgundy is seduced by and then married to the much older Parisian ‘literary entrepreneur’ Willy (Dominic West). Willy is a “brand” in Paris: a well-known critic turned author. The only problem being that he does virtually no writing of his own but ghosts work out to his team. Colette exhibits a gift for writing slightly lascivious tales of her life (under the pseudonym Claudine) at her girl’s school, where clearly nighttime swimming lessons taught more than back stroke! As a result, Willy fills a financial hole by publishing Colette’s work in his name. The books fly off the shelves faster than the publishers can print them. But Willy has expensive habits and Colette gets locked into writing an ever-popular series but without a voice of her own.
Bohemian Rhapsodies
If the swinging 60’s started anywhere, it was probably in Paris during this time period! While Victorian England was staid and conservative, Paris – home of the Moulin Rouge – was a hot-bed of liberation. As a result, Colette and Willy’s marital affairs are – erm – sexually ‘fluid’. While Colette has to learn to live with her philandering ‘Free Willy’, he positively encourages the bi-sexual Colette to explore the other camp, as it were.
The turns
Keira Knightley turns in a truly cracking performance in the titular lead. No-one does ‘brooding’ better than Knightley, and she gets ample chance here to exercise that look, most notably in a train scene near the end of the film: if looks could kill.
Dominic West delivers as reliably a solid performance as you would expect from him, but he is such a despicable and loathsome character that it is difficult to warm to him.
Driving me mad (not sexually you understand…. although…) was the girl playing the American double-dip love interest Georgie: I knew her so well but just couldn’t place her. It was the American accent that threw me: she is of course Eleanor Tomlinson, Demelza from TV’s “Poldark”, here showing a lot more flesh than she can get away with on a Sunday night on BBC1!
An interesting choice of language
The film is obviously in English about one of France’s literary greats (although curiously Colette writes in French). My guess is that the film will go down like a lead balloon in France as a result. A part of me would have liked this to be French language with subtitles, but maybe that’s just me.
When you look at it objectively, Colette’s story is quite remarkable: what a clever and determined woman.
Gorgeous to look at
Aside from Knightley, the other star turn in the film comes from cinematographer Giles Nuttgens (who also did “Hell or High Water“). The scenes, particularly the bucolic ones set in the French countryside, are simply gorgeously photographed. The framing of the shots is also exquisite with an impressive shot of the slog up a spiral staircase to the couple’s flat being repeatedly used.
Sex vs violence – still not on a par in 2019
It remains curious to me how prudish both the UK and the US are still about sex on screen. In the UK the film is a 15 certificate; in the US the film is R-rated! Yes, there are some breasts on show, and a few mixed- and same-sex couplings (particularly during a frenetic 5 minute period in the middle of the film!), but they are artfully done and you don’t get to see much more than the breasts. In comparison, the violence that would get meted out during a 15/R action thriller would typically makes my eyes water.
But is it any good?
This is one of those films that is worthy, beautifully done, well acted but for some reason it felt to me like a bit of a slog. At 111 minutes it certainly felt a lot longer than it was. The middle reel of the film in particular is rather pedestrian (and yes, I recognise the irony of the fact that I just said there was the frenetic 5 minutes of sex during that part!). Maybe on the night I was just not in the mood for this type of film.
The director is Englishman Wash Westmoreland, whose last film back in 2014 was the impressive “Still Alice”.
I’m glad I’ve seen it, and it is a lot better than many films I saw last year. But in terms of my “re-watchability” quotient, its not going to rate that highly.
The plot
This is a true story, set in Paris in the late 19th Century. Colette (Keira Knightley), a beautiful country girl living in Burgundy is seduced by and then married to the much older Parisian ‘literary entrepreneur’ Willy (Dominic West). Willy is a “brand” in Paris: a well-known critic turned author. The only problem being that he does virtually no writing of his own but ghosts work out to his team. Colette exhibits a gift for writing slightly lascivious tales of her life (under the pseudonym Claudine) at her girl’s school, where clearly nighttime swimming lessons taught more than back stroke! As a result, Willy fills a financial hole by publishing Colette’s work in his name. The books fly off the shelves faster than the publishers can print them. But Willy has expensive habits and Colette gets locked into writing an ever-popular series but without a voice of her own.
Bohemian Rhapsodies
If the swinging 60’s started anywhere, it was probably in Paris during this time period! While Victorian England was staid and conservative, Paris – home of the Moulin Rouge – was a hot-bed of liberation. As a result, Colette and Willy’s marital affairs are – erm – sexually ‘fluid’. While Colette has to learn to live with her philandering ‘Free Willy’, he positively encourages the bi-sexual Colette to explore the other camp, as it were.
The turns
Keira Knightley turns in a truly cracking performance in the titular lead. No-one does ‘brooding’ better than Knightley, and she gets ample chance here to exercise that look, most notably in a train scene near the end of the film: if looks could kill.
Dominic West delivers as reliably a solid performance as you would expect from him, but he is such a despicable and loathsome character that it is difficult to warm to him.
Driving me mad (not sexually you understand…. although…) was the girl playing the American double-dip love interest Georgie: I knew her so well but just couldn’t place her. It was the American accent that threw me: she is of course Eleanor Tomlinson, Demelza from TV’s “Poldark”, here showing a lot more flesh than she can get away with on a Sunday night on BBC1!
An interesting choice of language
The film is obviously in English about one of France’s literary greats (although curiously Colette writes in French). My guess is that the film will go down like a lead balloon in France as a result. A part of me would have liked this to be French language with subtitles, but maybe that’s just me.
When you look at it objectively, Colette’s story is quite remarkable: what a clever and determined woman.
Gorgeous to look at
Aside from Knightley, the other star turn in the film comes from cinematographer Giles Nuttgens (who also did “Hell or High Water“). The scenes, particularly the bucolic ones set in the French countryside, are simply gorgeously photographed. The framing of the shots is also exquisite with an impressive shot of the slog up a spiral staircase to the couple’s flat being repeatedly used.
Sex vs violence – still not on a par in 2019
It remains curious to me how prudish both the UK and the US are still about sex on screen. In the UK the film is a 15 certificate; in the US the film is R-rated! Yes, there are some breasts on show, and a few mixed- and same-sex couplings (particularly during a frenetic 5 minute period in the middle of the film!), but they are artfully done and you don’t get to see much more than the breasts. In comparison, the violence that would get meted out during a 15/R action thriller would typically makes my eyes water.
But is it any good?
This is one of those films that is worthy, beautifully done, well acted but for some reason it felt to me like a bit of a slog. At 111 minutes it certainly felt a lot longer than it was. The middle reel of the film in particular is rather pedestrian (and yes, I recognise the irony of the fact that I just said there was the frenetic 5 minutes of sex during that part!). Maybe on the night I was just not in the mood for this type of film.
The director is Englishman Wash Westmoreland, whose last film back in 2014 was the impressive “Still Alice”.
I’m glad I’ve seen it, and it is a lot better than many films I saw last year. But in terms of my “re-watchability” quotient, its not going to rate that highly.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Skyscraper (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
As sponsored by Duck Tape.
I have a fundamental problem with this film. And it’s not that it’s an irrevocably cheesy and derivative action movie, since you could automatically assume that by watching the ridiculously over-the-top trailer. But more on that later.
Dwayne Johnson plays Will Sawyer, a security expert left one-legged after a disastrous FBI operation 10 years previously. Now Will has moved with his wife Sarah (Neve Campbell, “Scream”, “House of Cards”) and two young kids into “The Pearl” in Hong Kong, the tallest building – by several Shards – in the world, designed and constructed by tech billionaire Zhao Long Ji (Chin Han, “Independence Day: Resurgence“). As the first residents, the family live in isolated splendour on a high floor. But in true “Die Hard” fashion, baddies, led by a the unconvincingly evil “Scandinavian” Kores Botha (Roland Møller, “The Commuter“), are intent on controlling and then destroying the high-rise. As fire races up towards his family, Will has to use all his physical capabilities to re-enter the building and save his family.
Now, there are implausible leaps in films and then there are IMPLAUSIBLE leaps!
As a story it’s well-crafted but completely bonkers. There are more ludicrous plot holes than muscles on Johnson’s well-crafted body. Why exactly does Botha needs to implement such a ridiculously convoluted plot to secure his goal? Why wasn’t the lift drop delayed by two minutes? Why don’t critical access controls have two-factor authentication? And – most perplexing of all – why don’t the “heaven cameras” show the building below?!!
Big, bigger, biggest!
Both “Die Hard” and “The Towering Inferno”, of which this is an unsubtle blend, could both be similarly accused of lacking credibility but were fun rides. This is not in the same league as either, but has its moments of vertiginous excitement. Johnson is suitably energetic in the muscular lead but lacks acting nuance. I was trying to analyse why this is, and I came down to his eyeballs! In conversation with Campbell, his eyes dart from left to right and back again, as if an army of ants are running over her face. He needs to take lessons on fixed stares from Michael Caine!
Duck tape! Anyone knows if you put two bits together you never get them apart again!
As the title of this review implies, Duck Tape also plays a key role: not for Johnson the fancy blue light/red light gloves of Tom Cruise! It also derives one of the best of a series of quotable lines from the film: “If it can’t be fixed with Duck Tape, you’re not using enough Duck Tape!”.
Neve Campbell is actually the best actor in the film, proving to be suitably kick-ass in her own right. It’s a shame she’s been rather tagged as ‘the screaming girl from “Scream”… no, not Barrymore, the other one’: she deserves more feature film opportunities like this one.
The best acting in the movie from Neve Campbell, here with a Noah Cottrell and a supremely confident performance by McKenna Roberts.
Rawson Marshall Thurber (“Central Intelligence“, “Dodgeball”) keeps the action to a tight 102 minutes, but needs to keep more control over his Hong Kong extras: there is far too much ‘twenty-second-pointing’ and over exuberant jumping up and down going on that draws the attention away from the principals. This is particularly the case in the Die-Hard rip-off of an ending (“HOOOLLLLLLYYYYYY!!!”).
As a popcorn piece of escapist nonsense, it’s serviceable and delivers as a B-grade movie… it’s not good enough to be a “Die Hard” classic, and not bad enough to be a “so bad it’s good” disaster like “Into the Storm“.
Taiwanese actress Hannah Quinlivan as Xia, the ruthless hit-girl.
You’ll note that I haven’t rubbished the film per se. So why then do I hold a negative view of the flick, and indeed somewhat regret going to see it?
One word – – Grenfell.
I knew the plot on going in, but didn’t equate just how damaging the mental effects of that dreadful night of 14th June 2017 were on my soul. Traumatic incendiary scenes together with some insensitive dialogue (“We’re going to turn that tower into a chimney”) broke through the wall of “entertainment” and left just a sick feeling in my stomach. And my wife had exactly the same feelings as we debriefed afterwards. This is a film that might have benefited from sitting on the shelf for a couple of years before release.
If you can separate in your mind the movie story from the shocking reality of one of life’s most unpleasant recent twists, then good for you: go and enjoy the movie. But I wasn’t so lucky so on a purely personal basis this is one occasion when I will give a film two ratings.
Dwayne Johnson plays Will Sawyer, a security expert left one-legged after a disastrous FBI operation 10 years previously. Now Will has moved with his wife Sarah (Neve Campbell, “Scream”, “House of Cards”) and two young kids into “The Pearl” in Hong Kong, the tallest building – by several Shards – in the world, designed and constructed by tech billionaire Zhao Long Ji (Chin Han, “Independence Day: Resurgence“). As the first residents, the family live in isolated splendour on a high floor. But in true “Die Hard” fashion, baddies, led by a the unconvincingly evil “Scandinavian” Kores Botha (Roland Møller, “The Commuter“), are intent on controlling and then destroying the high-rise. As fire races up towards his family, Will has to use all his physical capabilities to re-enter the building and save his family.
Now, there are implausible leaps in films and then there are IMPLAUSIBLE leaps!
As a story it’s well-crafted but completely bonkers. There are more ludicrous plot holes than muscles on Johnson’s well-crafted body. Why exactly does Botha needs to implement such a ridiculously convoluted plot to secure his goal? Why wasn’t the lift drop delayed by two minutes? Why don’t critical access controls have two-factor authentication? And – most perplexing of all – why don’t the “heaven cameras” show the building below?!!
Big, bigger, biggest!
Both “Die Hard” and “The Towering Inferno”, of which this is an unsubtle blend, could both be similarly accused of lacking credibility but were fun rides. This is not in the same league as either, but has its moments of vertiginous excitement. Johnson is suitably energetic in the muscular lead but lacks acting nuance. I was trying to analyse why this is, and I came down to his eyeballs! In conversation with Campbell, his eyes dart from left to right and back again, as if an army of ants are running over her face. He needs to take lessons on fixed stares from Michael Caine!
Duck tape! Anyone knows if you put two bits together you never get them apart again!
As the title of this review implies, Duck Tape also plays a key role: not for Johnson the fancy blue light/red light gloves of Tom Cruise! It also derives one of the best of a series of quotable lines from the film: “If it can’t be fixed with Duck Tape, you’re not using enough Duck Tape!”.
Neve Campbell is actually the best actor in the film, proving to be suitably kick-ass in her own right. It’s a shame she’s been rather tagged as ‘the screaming girl from “Scream”… no, not Barrymore, the other one’: she deserves more feature film opportunities like this one.
The best acting in the movie from Neve Campbell, here with a Noah Cottrell and a supremely confident performance by McKenna Roberts.
Rawson Marshall Thurber (“Central Intelligence“, “Dodgeball”) keeps the action to a tight 102 minutes, but needs to keep more control over his Hong Kong extras: there is far too much ‘twenty-second-pointing’ and over exuberant jumping up and down going on that draws the attention away from the principals. This is particularly the case in the Die-Hard rip-off of an ending (“HOOOLLLLLLYYYYYY!!!”).
As a popcorn piece of escapist nonsense, it’s serviceable and delivers as a B-grade movie… it’s not good enough to be a “Die Hard” classic, and not bad enough to be a “so bad it’s good” disaster like “Into the Storm“.
Taiwanese actress Hannah Quinlivan as Xia, the ruthless hit-girl.
You’ll note that I haven’t rubbished the film per se. So why then do I hold a negative view of the flick, and indeed somewhat regret going to see it?
One word – – Grenfell.
I knew the plot on going in, but didn’t equate just how damaging the mental effects of that dreadful night of 14th June 2017 were on my soul. Traumatic incendiary scenes together with some insensitive dialogue (“We’re going to turn that tower into a chimney”) broke through the wall of “entertainment” and left just a sick feeling in my stomach. And my wife had exactly the same feelings as we debriefed afterwards. This is a film that might have benefited from sitting on the shelf for a couple of years before release.
If you can separate in your mind the movie story from the shocking reality of one of life’s most unpleasant recent twists, then good for you: go and enjoy the movie. But I wasn’t so lucky so on a purely personal basis this is one occasion when I will give a film two ratings.
Ande Thomas (69 KP) rated The Time Traveler's Wife in Books
May 30, 2019
I've been thinking a lot about what I would write about <i>The Time Traveler's Wife,</i> partly because it seems one usually falls into one of two camps: Love it, hate it. It turns out, I belong to the latter. I won't bother with the sci-fi elements, the could he/couldn't he, the exploration of time travel as a plot device - I'm always willing to engage with a story as long as it follows it's own rules. My problems run deeper.
Spoilers abound.
<spoiler>
First, I'd be remiss not to at least acknowledge the creepy factor of a 40 year old naked man befriending a 6 year old girl. It's been discussed ad nauseum, but I've got to put my two cents in.
The whole experience reeks of grooming. Henry shows up, naked, in a young girl's life and (although true) casually explains that he's a <i>time traveler</i>. Her imagination is hooked. Her very own secret Magic Man. Over the following years, their friendship blossoms, and Henry refuses to tell her anything about the future. He is friendly, charming even, and always respectful. But he remains an enigma. Clare is pulled in by the mystery of the Magic Man. All she knows are the dates of his future arrivals. Until one day he begins to break his rule and tell her that they will be together. They'll get married and be in love and have a life. What changed? Why is he suddenly willing to tell her snippets of her future life? Puberty. She admits her desire to be with him and he basically says "keep waiting, it'll happen."
From that moment, her life has been decided - by Henry, and for Henry. Clare spends the entirety of her teenage existence (and beyond) waiting on Henry. The whole of her character arc is basically one big middle finger to the Bechdel test. Henry leads her by a leash with clues and vague promises of the future. We'll be together when you're older (we're destined). We'll have sex on your 18th birthday (wait for me). We'll meet in Chicago (move to Chicago). Even after his dying breath, he subtly slides direction her way. "I hope you move on, but by the way, I'll drop by when you're EIGHTY. But by all means...move on." Is it coincidence that Henry's time traveling mimics an emotionally abusive relationship? Clare tells us, "Henry is an artist of another sort, a disappearing artist. Our life together in this too-small apartment is punctuated by Henry’s small absences. Sometimes he disappears unobtrusively . . . Sometimes it’s frightening." Sure, you say, but he can't help it. He wants to be there for her. <i>It's just the way he is.</i> It's not even hinted at. Multiple people tell Clare <b>to her face</b> that Henry is bad news. But she won't hear it, because he spent her entire childhood molding her into his wife.
The author doesn't hide the allusion to Homer. Rather, she beats us over the head with it. And sure, it makes sense; Clare is the patiently waiting wife, Henry the distant traveler. Even Alba takes up her role as Telemachus, going on her own journeys in search of her father. But do we need both main characters referring to Henry by name, as Odysseus? We get it, girl. You want to write your own romantic Odyssey. Ease up.
Oh, and by the way - Clare's quote above? That's one of her first comments on married life. Her first thoughts after the wedding are "Why is my husband always gone? Why am I always afraid for him?" Henry's first thoughts? "How can Clare listen to Cheap Trick?" Let me remind you that this is the guy who's willing to rattle off a comprehensive list of early punk before jumping up to join in singing a Prince song, but he's upset that his wife listens to The Eagles instead of some obscure as hell French punk band. Also, this man who is thrilled to share musical tastes with a young teen with a mohawk then laments that the kid can't find his own music and has to take his? He preaches the meaning of punk before privately questioning why those kids want to be punk? Here's a guy who's entire life was shaped by music - both of his parents made livings playing music written before they were even born, yet he can't comprehend why two preteens could (or should) like The Clash, or why Clare would like The Beatles. <i>Stay in your own time,</i> he is essentially saying, <i>leave the time traveling to me.</i>
The guy doesn't even realize the pain he causes. Ingrid asks him "Why were you so mean to me?" "Was I," he says, "I didn't want to be." I know, I know. Everyone around her didn't want him to see her or speak to her. But need I remind you - dude time travels and frequently gives himself tips from the future. "Hey pal, take it easy on Ingrid," or "Bro, Ingrid is really shaken up, don't listen to her family or doctor, she needs some closure." But of course, nothing can really change, everything is the way it is.
This is all before I even begin to mention how much Niffenegger LOVES to name-drop. Of course there's the aforementioned punk band name-vomit, mentions of Henry's parents' work can't go by without naming a specific piece, despite adding nothing to the story or our understanding of the characters, there are two separate references to Claude Levi-Strauss (why?), and various other casual mentions of figures that seem to serve no purpose other than to prove that Henry is smart, and knows smart people things.
</spoiler>
I wanted to like this book more, I thought it had a fascinating premise and an interesting perspective. Obviously, I'm not a regular consumer of romance, and I realize that the problems I have with this book are problems shared by a large portion of the genre. But I am positive that we can have a love story that isn't mired by (at best) morally ambiguous relationships. I understand it was a different world when it was published, and that's not directly anyone's fault. Questions of consent and power and respect have been thrust into the spotlight in the short years since this book was published, but that's the lens with which I have to peer through. Stop glorifying these vapid, and frankly, abusive relationships as the paragon of romance. We're better than this. We need to be.
Spoilers abound.
<spoiler>
First, I'd be remiss not to at least acknowledge the creepy factor of a 40 year old naked man befriending a 6 year old girl. It's been discussed ad nauseum, but I've got to put my two cents in.
The whole experience reeks of grooming. Henry shows up, naked, in a young girl's life and (although true) casually explains that he's a <i>time traveler</i>. Her imagination is hooked. Her very own secret Magic Man. Over the following years, their friendship blossoms, and Henry refuses to tell her anything about the future. He is friendly, charming even, and always respectful. But he remains an enigma. Clare is pulled in by the mystery of the Magic Man. All she knows are the dates of his future arrivals. Until one day he begins to break his rule and tell her that they will be together. They'll get married and be in love and have a life. What changed? Why is he suddenly willing to tell her snippets of her future life? Puberty. She admits her desire to be with him and he basically says "keep waiting, it'll happen."
From that moment, her life has been decided - by Henry, and for Henry. Clare spends the entirety of her teenage existence (and beyond) waiting on Henry. The whole of her character arc is basically one big middle finger to the Bechdel test. Henry leads her by a leash with clues and vague promises of the future. We'll be together when you're older (we're destined). We'll have sex on your 18th birthday (wait for me). We'll meet in Chicago (move to Chicago). Even after his dying breath, he subtly slides direction her way. "I hope you move on, but by the way, I'll drop by when you're EIGHTY. But by all means...move on." Is it coincidence that Henry's time traveling mimics an emotionally abusive relationship? Clare tells us, "Henry is an artist of another sort, a disappearing artist. Our life together in this too-small apartment is punctuated by Henry’s small absences. Sometimes he disappears unobtrusively . . . Sometimes it’s frightening." Sure, you say, but he can't help it. He wants to be there for her. <i>It's just the way he is.</i> It's not even hinted at. Multiple people tell Clare <b>to her face</b> that Henry is bad news. But she won't hear it, because he spent her entire childhood molding her into his wife.
The author doesn't hide the allusion to Homer. Rather, she beats us over the head with it. And sure, it makes sense; Clare is the patiently waiting wife, Henry the distant traveler. Even Alba takes up her role as Telemachus, going on her own journeys in search of her father. But do we need both main characters referring to Henry by name, as Odysseus? We get it, girl. You want to write your own romantic Odyssey. Ease up.
Oh, and by the way - Clare's quote above? That's one of her first comments on married life. Her first thoughts after the wedding are "Why is my husband always gone? Why am I always afraid for him?" Henry's first thoughts? "How can Clare listen to Cheap Trick?" Let me remind you that this is the guy who's willing to rattle off a comprehensive list of early punk before jumping up to join in singing a Prince song, but he's upset that his wife listens to The Eagles instead of some obscure as hell French punk band. Also, this man who is thrilled to share musical tastes with a young teen with a mohawk then laments that the kid can't find his own music and has to take his? He preaches the meaning of punk before privately questioning why those kids want to be punk? Here's a guy who's entire life was shaped by music - both of his parents made livings playing music written before they were even born, yet he can't comprehend why two preteens could (or should) like The Clash, or why Clare would like The Beatles. <i>Stay in your own time,</i> he is essentially saying, <i>leave the time traveling to me.</i>
The guy doesn't even realize the pain he causes. Ingrid asks him "Why were you so mean to me?" "Was I," he says, "I didn't want to be." I know, I know. Everyone around her didn't want him to see her or speak to her. But need I remind you - dude time travels and frequently gives himself tips from the future. "Hey pal, take it easy on Ingrid," or "Bro, Ingrid is really shaken up, don't listen to her family or doctor, she needs some closure." But of course, nothing can really change, everything is the way it is.
This is all before I even begin to mention how much Niffenegger LOVES to name-drop. Of course there's the aforementioned punk band name-vomit, mentions of Henry's parents' work can't go by without naming a specific piece, despite adding nothing to the story or our understanding of the characters, there are two separate references to Claude Levi-Strauss (why?), and various other casual mentions of figures that seem to serve no purpose other than to prove that Henry is smart, and knows smart people things.
</spoiler>
I wanted to like this book more, I thought it had a fascinating premise and an interesting perspective. Obviously, I'm not a regular consumer of romance, and I realize that the problems I have with this book are problems shared by a large portion of the genre. But I am positive that we can have a love story that isn't mired by (at best) morally ambiguous relationships. I understand it was a different world when it was published, and that's not directly anyone's fault. Questions of consent and power and respect have been thrust into the spotlight in the short years since this book was published, but that's the lens with which I have to peer through. Stop glorifying these vapid, and frankly, abusive relationships as the paragon of romance. We're better than this. We need to be.
Fred (860 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Red Dead Redemption 2 in Video Games
Dec 4, 2018
Beautiful humongous world (5 more)
Tons to do. Hours & hours of stuff.
Great acting and characters
Lots of Easter eggs
Wonderful music
Great story
That feckin robin (2 more)
Big world means lots of riding
New Austin is kind of dead
Rockstar let my mama's baby grow up to be a cowboy
Yes, I'm a little late to this party, but I wanted to play until I completed the game & today, I finally did. I've also played a few hours of the online beta, but I'll get to that later.
Let's start with what this game is about. It's an open world game, set in the old west. It's set before the events of Red Dead Redemption. In that game, you played as John Marston. In that game, John was a man trying to change his life. He was a criminal, a thief, a murderer, but he's gone straight In this game, you play as Arthur Morgan. A criminal in the same gang with John. He is a bad guy, no doubt. But throughout the game, he has many opportunities to do good. Of course, you can play him that way, or you can play him as a heartless bastard. This will effect some of the story, the dialogue & the ending of the game. I played the game as if Arthur was a good guy inside & the ending I got was very satisfying, very emotional.
For most of the story, you're on the run with your gang, setting up different camps throughout the map, evading rival gangs & the law. This is a great way to get to know the world, however, you're free to explore most of the map freely. It is enormous & gorgeous. Some of the best scenery I've seen in a game. Sometimes you will really feel you're living in a real world. And that's the greatest thing about this game. The immersion. You really feel like you're living the life of your character. And Rockstar did that by making you take care of your character. You shave, bathe, eat & take care of your horse. Yes, you name your horse, feed it, brush it, pet it. You get very attached to it, as it is your main way of getting around. If your horse dies, it's gone. And believe me, it hurts to lose your horse.
Rockstar fills the game with so many missions, side activities, random encounters & hidden Easter eggs that it will take you weeks to do them all. I've been playing since day one, an average of 6 to 7 hours a day, & today, 5 & a half weeks later, I finally got 100% in the game. To be honest, when I first started, I spent lots of time just riding around, finding activities & hidden goodies & enjoying the scenery. Like most of their games, there's a supernatural element to some things as well as supernatural encounters. Steampunk, monsters, etc... a little bit of everything. Some encounters are funny, some terrifying, all of them cool.
I think what makes this game different & better than it's predecessor is the characters themselves. I'm not talking about the main characters alone, I'm talking about the people who litter the world. In RDR, some of the characters were silly, off-the-wall & unnatural. They were cartoonish. In RDR2, the people are real. Some may be weird and a bit crazy, but they never feel fake. They never feel like a character. Because of this, the world lives. They breathe life into it with every interaction. From the
Civil War veterans to the blind beggar, to the racist jackass standing on the corner in Saint Denis handing out pro-white pamphlets. They really make you feel like you're there. Again, immersion.
Some of the things you can do besides the missions are rob people, trains, coaches, banks. Another thing is hunting. Hunting can be a great way to make money. During the game, there are many challenges that you can undertake as well. There's are 9 categories with 10 challenges to each that can be done at your leisure. I left a lot of these to do last. I honestly didn't think I'd be able to do some of them. They just seemed ridiculous. But funny enough, I did about 50 of the last challenges within 2 days. And when I finished, I expected my 100% trophy to pop up. But it didn't. I was at 99%. What the? Looking at my completion list, there was something under the collections section that said unknown collection. Searching the internet, I found that most sites didn't have it listed. But I finally found a site that did. The last collection was the hunting challenge. And this brings us to that feckin robin.
Okay, let me explain. The hunting challenge you are given is to kill 5 different lists of animals. Each animal must be a perfect carcass. Which means, they have to be of perfect quality before you kill them & you must not damage them while killing them. Well, all of these animals are small animals. And most of them are small birds. It was fairly easy to get most of these animals. But there was one that was a huge pain in the ass. Can you guess what it was? Yes, a robin. A small, fast bird that is so rare, there are pages & videos galore on finding one. Most of which as total bollocks. How do I know? I spent over 7 hours trying to find one. Going to all these spots, seeing 3 of them total, shooting one & ruining it's carcass, & missing the other 2 based on their disappearance through the trees. I was really going to give up. So close, but so far. Luckily, using some people's hints & coming up with my own, I finally figured out how to get him. And it then took me 15 minutes. Yes, 15 minutes with 7 hours of wasted time. I am putting this as a negative, because it was really ridiculous to try to hunt this thing. So aggrivating. I understand if they want to make something rare, but it's just not nice. I felt like Rockstar was pulling a joke on it's players.
But anyway, this still doesn't bring down my score of the game. It's one of the greatest games I've ever played. But Rockstar has many perfect 10 games under it's belt in my opinion, including RDR. Is this game better. Yes, I think so. But it's oh so close.
A quick word on RDR online. It's only in beta, so I can't give a true review yet. However, I'm finding it so much fun doing missions with other people. Of course, there are jackasses going around shooting people for no reason. It gives no benefit to do so. Not all of the features are in there yet, but I will be playing when it goes to full online & will giv an update.
Let's start with what this game is about. It's an open world game, set in the old west. It's set before the events of Red Dead Redemption. In that game, you played as John Marston. In that game, John was a man trying to change his life. He was a criminal, a thief, a murderer, but he's gone straight In this game, you play as Arthur Morgan. A criminal in the same gang with John. He is a bad guy, no doubt. But throughout the game, he has many opportunities to do good. Of course, you can play him that way, or you can play him as a heartless bastard. This will effect some of the story, the dialogue & the ending of the game. I played the game as if Arthur was a good guy inside & the ending I got was very satisfying, very emotional.
For most of the story, you're on the run with your gang, setting up different camps throughout the map, evading rival gangs & the law. This is a great way to get to know the world, however, you're free to explore most of the map freely. It is enormous & gorgeous. Some of the best scenery I've seen in a game. Sometimes you will really feel you're living in a real world. And that's the greatest thing about this game. The immersion. You really feel like you're living the life of your character. And Rockstar did that by making you take care of your character. You shave, bathe, eat & take care of your horse. Yes, you name your horse, feed it, brush it, pet it. You get very attached to it, as it is your main way of getting around. If your horse dies, it's gone. And believe me, it hurts to lose your horse.
Rockstar fills the game with so many missions, side activities, random encounters & hidden Easter eggs that it will take you weeks to do them all. I've been playing since day one, an average of 6 to 7 hours a day, & today, 5 & a half weeks later, I finally got 100% in the game. To be honest, when I first started, I spent lots of time just riding around, finding activities & hidden goodies & enjoying the scenery. Like most of their games, there's a supernatural element to some things as well as supernatural encounters. Steampunk, monsters, etc... a little bit of everything. Some encounters are funny, some terrifying, all of them cool.
I think what makes this game different & better than it's predecessor is the characters themselves. I'm not talking about the main characters alone, I'm talking about the people who litter the world. In RDR, some of the characters were silly, off-the-wall & unnatural. They were cartoonish. In RDR2, the people are real. Some may be weird and a bit crazy, but they never feel fake. They never feel like a character. Because of this, the world lives. They breathe life into it with every interaction. From the
Civil War veterans to the blind beggar, to the racist jackass standing on the corner in Saint Denis handing out pro-white pamphlets. They really make you feel like you're there. Again, immersion.
Some of the things you can do besides the missions are rob people, trains, coaches, banks. Another thing is hunting. Hunting can be a great way to make money. During the game, there are many challenges that you can undertake as well. There's are 9 categories with 10 challenges to each that can be done at your leisure. I left a lot of these to do last. I honestly didn't think I'd be able to do some of them. They just seemed ridiculous. But funny enough, I did about 50 of the last challenges within 2 days. And when I finished, I expected my 100% trophy to pop up. But it didn't. I was at 99%. What the? Looking at my completion list, there was something under the collections section that said unknown collection. Searching the internet, I found that most sites didn't have it listed. But I finally found a site that did. The last collection was the hunting challenge. And this brings us to that feckin robin.
Okay, let me explain. The hunting challenge you are given is to kill 5 different lists of animals. Each animal must be a perfect carcass. Which means, they have to be of perfect quality before you kill them & you must not damage them while killing them. Well, all of these animals are small animals. And most of them are small birds. It was fairly easy to get most of these animals. But there was one that was a huge pain in the ass. Can you guess what it was? Yes, a robin. A small, fast bird that is so rare, there are pages & videos galore on finding one. Most of which as total bollocks. How do I know? I spent over 7 hours trying to find one. Going to all these spots, seeing 3 of them total, shooting one & ruining it's carcass, & missing the other 2 based on their disappearance through the trees. I was really going to give up. So close, but so far. Luckily, using some people's hints & coming up with my own, I finally figured out how to get him. And it then took me 15 minutes. Yes, 15 minutes with 7 hours of wasted time. I am putting this as a negative, because it was really ridiculous to try to hunt this thing. So aggrivating. I understand if they want to make something rare, but it's just not nice. I felt like Rockstar was pulling a joke on it's players.
But anyway, this still doesn't bring down my score of the game. It's one of the greatest games I've ever played. But Rockstar has many perfect 10 games under it's belt in my opinion, including RDR. Is this game better. Yes, I think so. But it's oh so close.
A quick word on RDR online. It's only in beta, so I can't give a true review yet. However, I'm finding it so much fun doing missions with other people. Of course, there are jackasses going around shooting people for no reason. It gives no benefit to do so. Not all of the features are in there yet, but I will be playing when it goes to full online & will giv an update.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Stepsister in Books
Aug 16, 2019
Review by Disney Bookworm
I took a break from the Disney Twisted Tales collection to check out a new novel by the New York Times best-selling author Jennifer Donnelly and wow am I glad I did!
Judging purely by the title of the book: the cynical side of me expected this to be a retelling of the traditional fairy tale from the viewpoint of the “ugly stepsisters”. Perhaps with a remorseful twist and a concluding reconciliation. I could not have been more wrong.
This is possibly the first time I should have judged a book by its cover: the iconic glass slipper casting fragmented shards across the jacket should have certainly forewarned me that this will not be just another Cinderella story.
Unlike the twisted tales and the villain series, Step Sister is, as far as I know, not connected to the Disney enterprise at all. This makes it an edgier read by far but also allows the novel to lean as far away from the traditional fairy tale as it dares: smashing just a couple of stereotypes along the way.
Oh, and just a quick point: the novel opens on Isabelle and Octavia disfiguring their own feet, at the command of their mother, with the aim to fit into the glass slipper and marry the Prince. See what I mean- edgy right?
Stepsister is told from the viewpoint of Isabelle: a headstrong girl with an ambitious mother, an intelligent sister Octavia and a kind, sweet sister, Ella. Isabelle is a disappointment to her mother: a plain girl who prefers riding and fencing to corsets and suitors. A number of flashbacks to the girls’ childhood also suggests that Isabelle, Octavia and Ella were once very close, leading the reader to wonder how the relationship became the poisonous one we are so familiar with.
Unsurprisingly, their Maman’s plan to mutilate her way to the palace does not succeed and Ella takes her rightful place by the Prince’s side, claiming her ‘happily ever after’. But what is to become of the family she leaves behind? Maimed and outcast, Isabelle and Octavia struggle to carry on once their actions are brought to light and they are promptly labelled the “ugly stepsisters” by all around them.
Desolate and lost, Isabelle mistakenly believes that her life would improve if she were more attractive and makes a wish to the fairy queen Tanaquill, who promises to grant her desire when Isabelle finds the three missing parts of her heart.
Thus, begins Isabelle’s mission to reclaim her heart and turn her life around. The stepsister’s road of discovery is a bumpy one however, and is not made any easier by an old crone named Fate and a young man named Chance, both of whom seem to have an unhealthy obsession with her progress and a strange, almost friendly rivalry over the possession of Isabelle’s life map.
Jennifer Donnelly introduces us to a number of characters throughout Isabelle’s journey, all of whom are exquisite: Chance is an eccentric debonair with an entourage that may have just stepped out of The Greatest Showman; Octavia is every nerdy, sarcastic girl’s dream and even Fate is strangely likeable. It is truly impressive how Donnelly can make us feel like we know these people within the space of 470 pages.
I was also impressed with how different Jennifer Donnelly’s characters are from everything I have read before. Even Tanaquill is not the fairy godmother we all know and love. She isn’t even the slightly bonkers Helena Bonham-Carter version! There isn’t a bibbidi bobbidi boo in sight for this talon-fingered shapeshifter and she certainly does not grant wishes easily.
As a result, the reader does not quite trust the fairy queen: there is always an aspect of her that seems evil. Alas, this is another stroke of genius by Donnelly: the fairy queen doesn’t look like Tinkerbell or the Blue Fairy and so we don’t trust her- even when she is helping Isabelle and why is that? Because of her appearance? Well that makes us just as bad as those who persecute Isabelle!
Ella features very little in the novel. This is not wholly unexpected: it is not her story after all. She is frequently referred to and heavily present in Isabelle’s evolution but, out of all the characters, we know Ella the least. This is not to say that Donnelly presents Ella as a 2D character in order to prevent us from preferring her to our feistier protagonist: in fact, Ella slowly reveals a darker side to her own tale. Simply put, she does not have the depth and human rawness that Isabelle has. Isabelle appeals to the insecure teenager in us all: never believing that she is good enough, focusing on her flaws and judging herself based on the opinions of others.
When Isabelle finally finds the pieces of her heart and has to literally fight to achieve her happy ending, she automatically looks to one of the male characters to lead. After all, it has always been instilled into her that she is “just a girl”. However, Chance and his entourage have educated Isabelle as to the potential of her sex and it is through this inspiration that Isabelle and the reader realise that the answer has been there all along: the answer is Isabelle. All the childhood flashbacks of riding and fighting have been breadcrumbs for the reader: Isabelle is a warrior- her life is not mapped out by Fate or Chance anymore; she can decide her own path.
Step Sister holds up a gigantic mirror to the way we judge beauty and shows us what it really means to be a girl. Jennifer Donnelly proves that being strong, brave and, most importantly, true to yourself is what makes you beautiful. In fact, it is not until Isabelle accepts herself that she is described as beautiful and, by standing up for what she believes in, everyone achieves their own happy endings. As a mum of two young boys I really appreciated how Octavia’s love of science and math and Felix’s creativity and love of art directly contrasted with Maman’s old-fashioned desire to “marry off” her daughters. This story is no fairy tale: it is real, it is edgy and it is telling all generations that life is what you make it.
Judging purely by the title of the book: the cynical side of me expected this to be a retelling of the traditional fairy tale from the viewpoint of the “ugly stepsisters”. Perhaps with a remorseful twist and a concluding reconciliation. I could not have been more wrong.
This is possibly the first time I should have judged a book by its cover: the iconic glass slipper casting fragmented shards across the jacket should have certainly forewarned me that this will not be just another Cinderella story.
Unlike the twisted tales and the villain series, Step Sister is, as far as I know, not connected to the Disney enterprise at all. This makes it an edgier read by far but also allows the novel to lean as far away from the traditional fairy tale as it dares: smashing just a couple of stereotypes along the way.
Oh, and just a quick point: the novel opens on Isabelle and Octavia disfiguring their own feet, at the command of their mother, with the aim to fit into the glass slipper and marry the Prince. See what I mean- edgy right?
Stepsister is told from the viewpoint of Isabelle: a headstrong girl with an ambitious mother, an intelligent sister Octavia and a kind, sweet sister, Ella. Isabelle is a disappointment to her mother: a plain girl who prefers riding and fencing to corsets and suitors. A number of flashbacks to the girls’ childhood also suggests that Isabelle, Octavia and Ella were once very close, leading the reader to wonder how the relationship became the poisonous one we are so familiar with.
Unsurprisingly, their Maman’s plan to mutilate her way to the palace does not succeed and Ella takes her rightful place by the Prince’s side, claiming her ‘happily ever after’. But what is to become of the family she leaves behind? Maimed and outcast, Isabelle and Octavia struggle to carry on once their actions are brought to light and they are promptly labelled the “ugly stepsisters” by all around them.
Desolate and lost, Isabelle mistakenly believes that her life would improve if she were more attractive and makes a wish to the fairy queen Tanaquill, who promises to grant her desire when Isabelle finds the three missing parts of her heart.
Thus, begins Isabelle’s mission to reclaim her heart and turn her life around. The stepsister’s road of discovery is a bumpy one however, and is not made any easier by an old crone named Fate and a young man named Chance, both of whom seem to have an unhealthy obsession with her progress and a strange, almost friendly rivalry over the possession of Isabelle’s life map.
Jennifer Donnelly introduces us to a number of characters throughout Isabelle’s journey, all of whom are exquisite: Chance is an eccentric debonair with an entourage that may have just stepped out of The Greatest Showman; Octavia is every nerdy, sarcastic girl’s dream and even Fate is strangely likeable. It is truly impressive how Donnelly can make us feel like we know these people within the space of 470 pages.
I was also impressed with how different Jennifer Donnelly’s characters are from everything I have read before. Even Tanaquill is not the fairy godmother we all know and love. She isn’t even the slightly bonkers Helena Bonham-Carter version! There isn’t a bibbidi bobbidi boo in sight for this talon-fingered shapeshifter and she certainly does not grant wishes easily.
As a result, the reader does not quite trust the fairy queen: there is always an aspect of her that seems evil. Alas, this is another stroke of genius by Donnelly: the fairy queen doesn’t look like Tinkerbell or the Blue Fairy and so we don’t trust her- even when she is helping Isabelle and why is that? Because of her appearance? Well that makes us just as bad as those who persecute Isabelle!
Ella features very little in the novel. This is not wholly unexpected: it is not her story after all. She is frequently referred to and heavily present in Isabelle’s evolution but, out of all the characters, we know Ella the least. This is not to say that Donnelly presents Ella as a 2D character in order to prevent us from preferring her to our feistier protagonist: in fact, Ella slowly reveals a darker side to her own tale. Simply put, she does not have the depth and human rawness that Isabelle has. Isabelle appeals to the insecure teenager in us all: never believing that she is good enough, focusing on her flaws and judging herself based on the opinions of others.
When Isabelle finally finds the pieces of her heart and has to literally fight to achieve her happy ending, she automatically looks to one of the male characters to lead. After all, it has always been instilled into her that she is “just a girl”. However, Chance and his entourage have educated Isabelle as to the potential of her sex and it is through this inspiration that Isabelle and the reader realise that the answer has been there all along: the answer is Isabelle. All the childhood flashbacks of riding and fighting have been breadcrumbs for the reader: Isabelle is a warrior- her life is not mapped out by Fate or Chance anymore; she can decide her own path.
Step Sister holds up a gigantic mirror to the way we judge beauty and shows us what it really means to be a girl. Jennifer Donnelly proves that being strong, brave and, most importantly, true to yourself is what makes you beautiful. In fact, it is not until Isabelle accepts herself that she is described as beautiful and, by standing up for what she believes in, everyone achieves their own happy endings. As a mum of two young boys I really appreciated how Octavia’s love of science and math and Felix’s creativity and love of art directly contrasted with Maman’s old-fashioned desire to “marry off” her daughters. This story is no fairy tale: it is real, it is edgy and it is telling all generations that life is what you make it.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Institute in Books
Oct 24, 2019
Likable characters (1 more)
Paranormal
Sexualizing children (1 more)
Not a regular King story
At around 95 novels, Stephen King, who is one of the most well-known authors of our time, debuts a possible new novel series about psychic children. 'The Institute' mostly takes place in a hidden facility located in a wooded area of Maine,where readers follow a kidnapped child prodigy named Luke Ellis, and the government experiments that are inflicted on him to heighten his psychic powers.
So why is the government kidnapping children to conduct psychic research on them? At first, it may seem just that: psychic research, because psychic powers seem to be more powerful in young children than adults, but nothing is what it seems. As the boss of this Institute says to the children: " ' There's a war going on, and you have been called upon to serve your country.' " A few sentences later, and she explains it a little more in depth for Ellis: " ' This is not an arms race but a mind race, and if we lose, the consequences would be more than dire; they would be unimaginable. You may only be twelve, but you are a soldier in an undeclared war. The same is true of Kalisha and the others. Do you like it? Of course not. Draftees never do, and draftees sometimes need to be taught that there are consequences for not following orders. I believe you've already had one lesson in that regard. If you're as bright as your records say you are, perhaps you won't need another. If you do, however, you'll get it. This is not your home. This is not your school. You will not simply be given an extra chore or sent to the principal's office or given detention; you will be punished. Clear? ' "
King writes in a third-person point-of-view, which makes it a little disturbing that when any female character he introduces (including girls as young as 11-years-old) are usually introduced by their breast size. It's not uncommon for male writers to introduce female characters this way, but when most of them are children, it can be very off putting for readers. One scene, King makes Ellis notice that Kalisha has 'her hands on her mostly nonexistent hips,' then writes about the character Helen in the same scene: " Another door opened and Helen Simms appeared, clad - - - sort of - - - in what Luke believed were called babydoll pajamas. She had hips, plus other interesting equipment. " Both of these characters are only twelve-years-old.
Aside from the children, King also introduces an important character named Tim Jamieson. This character starts the novel off before readers meet Ellis; we learn that he is a former cop who is traveling to New York while taking odd jobs on his way there, including a night knocker job in DuPray, South Carolina (which becomes very important later on in the story) .
Avery, my personal favorite character in the book, is a ten-year-old who acts like a five-year-old, " The screamer was a little boy in Star Wars pajamas, hammering on doors with small fists that went up and down like pistons. Ten? Avery Dixon looked six, seven at most. The crotch and one leg of his pajama pants were wet and sticking to him. " Dixon and Kalisha are both in the Institute for telepathy. " 'You know so,' Kalisha said, and began to stroke the little boy's [Dixon] hair again. Like had a sense - - - maybe bullshit, maybe not - - - that a lot was going on between them. Inside traffic. " And quickly, the group of children become protective of Dixon, " 'But you need to take care of this one for as long as you can. When I think of Tony or Zeke or that bitch Winona hitting Avery, it makes me want to cry. ' " Kalisha confides in Ellis.
Kalisha, one of the other children that has been kidnapped, is another very likable character that seems to keep all of the other kids' spirits up by either keeping them out of trouble with advice or stopping small fights between them. Another kid named Nicky, the troublemaker of the group, is the stereo-typical bad boy. He gets involved in fistfights with the orderlies that work at the Institute, taking quite a bit of abuse in return. But eventually, the rebelliousness catches up with him, leading him to be moved from Front Half to the dreaded Back Half.
Readers later learn that Back Half is worse than Front Half. Most questions we may have about why the Institute is abusing these children are all answered when readers get to see into Back Half from Kalisha's point-of-view. But what is left unanswered is exactly how many children have been through the Institute? From the amount of children seen just in this story, the numbers could be in the hundreds of thousands!
But, as expected, the children come up with a plan to escape - - - with giving as little detail as possible, an orderlie at the Institute is helped by one of the children with a personal problem, and in return, this orderlie decides to help one of them escape and reveal everything that is the Institute. The instance the escape starts being discussed is when the book really picks up.
King's writing of the abuse our characters sustain is very real (" When Stevie Whipple asked where he'd been and what was wrong, Luke just shook his head. He didn't want to talk about the tank. Not now, not ever. He supposed it was like being in a war. You got drafted, you went, but you didn't want to talk about what you'd seen, or what had happened to you there." ) The scene in which Ellis refuses to speak of is where the orderlie Zeke is trying to make Ellis confess that he is not only telekinesis, but also telepathic: "Zeke hauled him up by the hair. His white tunic was soaked. He looked fixedly at Luke. 'I'm going to put you down again, Luke. Again and again and again. I'll put you down until you drown and then we'll resuscitate you and drown you again and resuscitate you again. Last chance: what number am I thinking of?' "
King brings up a fictional belief that strikes fear in parents everywhere: children being kidnapped for government experiments. Readers witness Ellis' parents being killed, Kalisha being a surrogate mother to kids she barely knows, Nicky being beaten by adults when he refuses to get 'shots for dots,' night terrors, suicide, zap sticks and murder.
This book doesn't read like a regular King book; even with the paranormal aspects occurring in it, it doesn't add up to much. The horror aspect is more in the form of child abuse then paranormal moments. I would only recommend this book to fans of Netflix's 'Stranger Things' and Patterson's 'Maximum Ride.' I don't think I would read this again.
So why is the government kidnapping children to conduct psychic research on them? At first, it may seem just that: psychic research, because psychic powers seem to be more powerful in young children than adults, but nothing is what it seems. As the boss of this Institute says to the children: " ' There's a war going on, and you have been called upon to serve your country.' " A few sentences later, and she explains it a little more in depth for Ellis: " ' This is not an arms race but a mind race, and if we lose, the consequences would be more than dire; they would be unimaginable. You may only be twelve, but you are a soldier in an undeclared war. The same is true of Kalisha and the others. Do you like it? Of course not. Draftees never do, and draftees sometimes need to be taught that there are consequences for not following orders. I believe you've already had one lesson in that regard. If you're as bright as your records say you are, perhaps you won't need another. If you do, however, you'll get it. This is not your home. This is not your school. You will not simply be given an extra chore or sent to the principal's office or given detention; you will be punished. Clear? ' "
King writes in a third-person point-of-view, which makes it a little disturbing that when any female character he introduces (including girls as young as 11-years-old) are usually introduced by their breast size. It's not uncommon for male writers to introduce female characters this way, but when most of them are children, it can be very off putting for readers. One scene, King makes Ellis notice that Kalisha has 'her hands on her mostly nonexistent hips,' then writes about the character Helen in the same scene: " Another door opened and Helen Simms appeared, clad - - - sort of - - - in what Luke believed were called babydoll pajamas. She had hips, plus other interesting equipment. " Both of these characters are only twelve-years-old.
Aside from the children, King also introduces an important character named Tim Jamieson. This character starts the novel off before readers meet Ellis; we learn that he is a former cop who is traveling to New York while taking odd jobs on his way there, including a night knocker job in DuPray, South Carolina (which becomes very important later on in the story) .
Avery, my personal favorite character in the book, is a ten-year-old who acts like a five-year-old, " The screamer was a little boy in Star Wars pajamas, hammering on doors with small fists that went up and down like pistons. Ten? Avery Dixon looked six, seven at most. The crotch and one leg of his pajama pants were wet and sticking to him. " Dixon and Kalisha are both in the Institute for telepathy. " 'You know so,' Kalisha said, and began to stroke the little boy's [Dixon] hair again. Like had a sense - - - maybe bullshit, maybe not - - - that a lot was going on between them. Inside traffic. " And quickly, the group of children become protective of Dixon, " 'But you need to take care of this one for as long as you can. When I think of Tony or Zeke or that bitch Winona hitting Avery, it makes me want to cry. ' " Kalisha confides in Ellis.
Kalisha, one of the other children that has been kidnapped, is another very likable character that seems to keep all of the other kids' spirits up by either keeping them out of trouble with advice or stopping small fights between them. Another kid named Nicky, the troublemaker of the group, is the stereo-typical bad boy. He gets involved in fistfights with the orderlies that work at the Institute, taking quite a bit of abuse in return. But eventually, the rebelliousness catches up with him, leading him to be moved from Front Half to the dreaded Back Half.
Readers later learn that Back Half is worse than Front Half. Most questions we may have about why the Institute is abusing these children are all answered when readers get to see into Back Half from Kalisha's point-of-view. But what is left unanswered is exactly how many children have been through the Institute? From the amount of children seen just in this story, the numbers could be in the hundreds of thousands!
But, as expected, the children come up with a plan to escape - - - with giving as little detail as possible, an orderlie at the Institute is helped by one of the children with a personal problem, and in return, this orderlie decides to help one of them escape and reveal everything that is the Institute. The instance the escape starts being discussed is when the book really picks up.
King's writing of the abuse our characters sustain is very real (" When Stevie Whipple asked where he'd been and what was wrong, Luke just shook his head. He didn't want to talk about the tank. Not now, not ever. He supposed it was like being in a war. You got drafted, you went, but you didn't want to talk about what you'd seen, or what had happened to you there." ) The scene in which Ellis refuses to speak of is where the orderlie Zeke is trying to make Ellis confess that he is not only telekinesis, but also telepathic: "Zeke hauled him up by the hair. His white tunic was soaked. He looked fixedly at Luke. 'I'm going to put you down again, Luke. Again and again and again. I'll put you down until you drown and then we'll resuscitate you and drown you again and resuscitate you again. Last chance: what number am I thinking of?' "
King brings up a fictional belief that strikes fear in parents everywhere: children being kidnapped for government experiments. Readers witness Ellis' parents being killed, Kalisha being a surrogate mother to kids she barely knows, Nicky being beaten by adults when he refuses to get 'shots for dots,' night terrors, suicide, zap sticks and murder.
This book doesn't read like a regular King book; even with the paranormal aspects occurring in it, it doesn't add up to much. The horror aspect is more in the form of child abuse then paranormal moments. I would only recommend this book to fans of Netflix's 'Stranger Things' and Patterson's 'Maximum Ride.' I don't think I would read this again.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator in Books
Apr 2, 2020
If you've followed my blog for awhile, you know I have a thing for middle grade fiction. There's something so refreshing that I just love. When the chance to read Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator arose, I couldn't say no. The synopsis sucked me right in, and I figured I'd be in for a great adventure. I wasn't wrong.
Edison Jones is a 12 year old seventh grader. After a car accident (that really wasn't an accident) left him paralyzed from the waist down and killed his parents, he's been living a very sheltered life with his grandpa. Edison isn't like most 12 year olds though. He's highly intelligent and has come up with a way to invent a anti-gravity space elevator. He's just go to prove to NASA that it works. Oh, and he's also being enrolled into the local public junior high school for the first time which also presents problems of its own. Edison will have to prove his space elevator has what it takes while also navigating the new realm of school and friendship if he's going to make his dreams come true.
The plot for Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator definitely was an interesting one for sure. While there are similar books out there, Michael Scott Clifton really made his book stand out. I liked how the main character had a disability which made it harder for him when it came to everything. It's refreshing to see a main character that's different from the mainstream. There is a bunch of science speak and terminology which can be a little overwhelming for the average person, but eventually, you get used to it. Plus, you don't need to know all of the terminology to enjoy this book. Context clues are also available to help make the terminology a bit more understandable. Descriptive scenes abound throughout this novel which makes it very easy to get lost in this book. In fact, many times I forgot where I was because I was so focused on this novel. The anticipation that Clifton sets up for major events throughout Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator is done brilliantly. I was definitely holding my breath and turning the page quickly to find out what would happen next especially when it came to scenes with the Breakstone twins, the robotics competition, the last junior high football game, and the launching of Edison's space elevator! The build up in those scenes was amazing! The ending does leave the possibility of another Edison Jones story being released in the future.
One thing that did irk me quite a bit was the stereotype that all of those who live in mobile homes are trashy. I felt like the author played into that a bit too much during one chapter. Here's one example which can be found at the end of chapter 26 when discussing Markie Franks who is a bully and Hondo's house (Hondo, Edison's friend, comes from a home where his mom chooses her boyfriend over him, and the boyfriend and Hondo don't get along.): "Markie's house surprised Edison. Although more modest than Bree's, it was also a brick home with an immaculate yard and appearance. He wasn't sure what he expected--maybe a mobile home with rusting cars on blocks in the yard--not the tidy home the bully lived in. Hondo...did live in a mobile home complete with a yard full of foot-high weeds. The only light came from the blue flicker of a TV through a grimy window next to the front door. With a grimace, Hondo got out and waved, his shoes pushing a path through the brown weeds and grass." It's stereotypes like this that make those who live in mobile homes easy targets for bullying as well as making those that live in mobile homes feel horrible about their life. It really shouldn't have been discussed like this at all. Not everyone who lives in a mobile home is trailer trash which is what I felt this book was implying.
I did feel like all the characters in Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator where very fleshed out and realistic. Edison is extremely intelligent when it comes to science, but he struggles with fitting in as he's been sheltered his whole life. Even though Edison isn't your average 12 year old when it comes to smarts, it was refreshing to see just how average he was when it came to navigating friendships and romance. I loved reading about Edison's thought process when it came to his crush on Carly as well as his friendship between Bree, Hondo, and Carly. I liked how Edison, for the most part, wouldn't give that bully, Markie Franks, the satisfaction of knowing that he bothered him. I admired Hondo after all he had been through. Throughout most of the book, I was trying to figure out if Hondo was a genuine person or if he would end up double crossing Edison. Bree and Carly were great friends to Edison, and it was obvious how much they admired Edison. I liked how they would stand up for him. The Breakstone Twins were also very interesting. I can't wait to see more of them in future books (if the author chooses to make this a series). I liked how cunning and calculated they both were.
Trigger warnings for Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator include some profanity, name calling including using the word pussy which I didn't like, some stereotyping, some violence, bullying, attempted murder, murder, a mention of drugs (being stoned), some underage smoking, and a mention of beer.
All in all, Edison Jones and The Anti-GRAV Elevator is a fantastic story that straps you in for a very exciting adventure throughout its pages. The plot is fantastic, the characters are diverse, and the action abounds. I would definitely recommend Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator by Michael Scott Clifton to those aged 13+ who seek adventure in their life. This would appeal mostly to those interested in science, but I think everyone who enjoys a solid story would like it.
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life for the tour and to Michael Scott Clifton for sending me a paperback of Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Edison Jones is a 12 year old seventh grader. After a car accident (that really wasn't an accident) left him paralyzed from the waist down and killed his parents, he's been living a very sheltered life with his grandpa. Edison isn't like most 12 year olds though. He's highly intelligent and has come up with a way to invent a anti-gravity space elevator. He's just go to prove to NASA that it works. Oh, and he's also being enrolled into the local public junior high school for the first time which also presents problems of its own. Edison will have to prove his space elevator has what it takes while also navigating the new realm of school and friendship if he's going to make his dreams come true.
The plot for Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator definitely was an interesting one for sure. While there are similar books out there, Michael Scott Clifton really made his book stand out. I liked how the main character had a disability which made it harder for him when it came to everything. It's refreshing to see a main character that's different from the mainstream. There is a bunch of science speak and terminology which can be a little overwhelming for the average person, but eventually, you get used to it. Plus, you don't need to know all of the terminology to enjoy this book. Context clues are also available to help make the terminology a bit more understandable. Descriptive scenes abound throughout this novel which makes it very easy to get lost in this book. In fact, many times I forgot where I was because I was so focused on this novel. The anticipation that Clifton sets up for major events throughout Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator is done brilliantly. I was definitely holding my breath and turning the page quickly to find out what would happen next especially when it came to scenes with the Breakstone twins, the robotics competition, the last junior high football game, and the launching of Edison's space elevator! The build up in those scenes was amazing! The ending does leave the possibility of another Edison Jones story being released in the future.
One thing that did irk me quite a bit was the stereotype that all of those who live in mobile homes are trashy. I felt like the author played into that a bit too much during one chapter. Here's one example which can be found at the end of chapter 26 when discussing Markie Franks who is a bully and Hondo's house (Hondo, Edison's friend, comes from a home where his mom chooses her boyfriend over him, and the boyfriend and Hondo don't get along.): "Markie's house surprised Edison. Although more modest than Bree's, it was also a brick home with an immaculate yard and appearance. He wasn't sure what he expected--maybe a mobile home with rusting cars on blocks in the yard--not the tidy home the bully lived in. Hondo...did live in a mobile home complete with a yard full of foot-high weeds. The only light came from the blue flicker of a TV through a grimy window next to the front door. With a grimace, Hondo got out and waved, his shoes pushing a path through the brown weeds and grass." It's stereotypes like this that make those who live in mobile homes easy targets for bullying as well as making those that live in mobile homes feel horrible about their life. It really shouldn't have been discussed like this at all. Not everyone who lives in a mobile home is trailer trash which is what I felt this book was implying.
I did feel like all the characters in Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator where very fleshed out and realistic. Edison is extremely intelligent when it comes to science, but he struggles with fitting in as he's been sheltered his whole life. Even though Edison isn't your average 12 year old when it comes to smarts, it was refreshing to see just how average he was when it came to navigating friendships and romance. I loved reading about Edison's thought process when it came to his crush on Carly as well as his friendship between Bree, Hondo, and Carly. I liked how Edison, for the most part, wouldn't give that bully, Markie Franks, the satisfaction of knowing that he bothered him. I admired Hondo after all he had been through. Throughout most of the book, I was trying to figure out if Hondo was a genuine person or if he would end up double crossing Edison. Bree and Carly were great friends to Edison, and it was obvious how much they admired Edison. I liked how they would stand up for him. The Breakstone Twins were also very interesting. I can't wait to see more of them in future books (if the author chooses to make this a series). I liked how cunning and calculated they both were.
Trigger warnings for Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator include some profanity, name calling including using the word pussy which I didn't like, some stereotyping, some violence, bullying, attempted murder, murder, a mention of drugs (being stoned), some underage smoking, and a mention of beer.
All in all, Edison Jones and The Anti-GRAV Elevator is a fantastic story that straps you in for a very exciting adventure throughout its pages. The plot is fantastic, the characters are diverse, and the action abounds. I would definitely recommend Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator by Michael Scott Clifton to those aged 13+ who seek adventure in their life. This would appeal mostly to those interested in science, but I think everyone who enjoys a solid story would like it.
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life for the tour and to Michael Scott Clifton for sending me a paperback of Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Not buggering it up.
As Doctor Who repeatedly points out, time is most definitely a tricksy thing. As I think I’ve commented on before, the events of 1940-45 are not in my lifetime but were sufficiently fresh to my parents that they were still actively talked about… so they still appear “current” to me. But I find it astonishing to realize that to a teen viewer this film is equivalent in timeframe to the sinking of the Titanic! #ancienthistory! So I suspect your connection to this film will be strongly affected by your age, and that was definitely reflected in the average age at my showing which must have been at least 60.
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated the PlayStation 3 version of Star Trek in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
Director JJ Abrams him breathes life into a stagnating Star Trek franchise with his daring reimagining of the franchise as currently gearing up to release the much anticipated “Star Trek: Into Darkness”, later this summer. With franchise awareness and popularity at a level not seen in over a decade, Digital Extremes has released Star Trek: The Video Game to the delight of Trek fans everywhere. Not only is the game the first one said JJ Abrams universe, but it is also the first game to allow players to play as either Kirk or Spock in both solo or co-op play. The game features Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto as Kirk and Spock and also features other voices from the film. During our preview for the game at the 2012 E3 convention in Los Angeles, it was revealed to me that the filmmakers were consulted during the development of the game as it was designed to be a bridge between the first and the second of the JJ Abrams films.
Answering a distress signal, the Enterprise crew finds himself set the center of a crisis with galactic repercussions. An evil reptilian race known as the Gorn have stolen the device of immense power and also have unleashed attacks on a Federation station as well as the new Vulcan colony. Not only is the attacking race deadly but they also are employing a technology that allows them to infect and control Federation citizens and officers which doubles the threat posed to the Federation. When the Gorn escape with an extremely powerful device and Vulcan scientists in tow, Kirk and Spock are tasked with saving the day.
The gameplay is similar to that of the Mass Effect series in that it is done from a third person perspective. Players have the ability to use a Tricorder to scan enemies and objects, pathways, and electronic devices such as doors and security systems which often have to be hacked or manipulated to allow gameplay to progress. Players are allowed to primary weapons into grenade types and have to recharge at various centers throughout the game or swap a spent weapon for weapons they find laying about. This is at a nice new wrinkle to the game is not only are Federation and Gorn weapons available players, but having things ranging from sniper rifles to arc guns makes a nice mix from the standard Phaser weapons. There are also various grenades it can be used by the players.
One of the more frustrating aspects of a game for me for the numerous puzzle sequences where systems had to be hacked or otherwise manipulated. While some could be done by ordering Spock or Kirk depending on which player you were controlling to handle it themselves, some had to be done in conjunction with another player. While this was a nice touch to the game, during the final parts they were too frequent and for me undercut the drama and the urgency of the story.
There were also numerous jumping puzzles where players had to hang from ledges and you carefully timed jumps from one obstacle to another. This became frustrating on the PC version as the control system often was very temperamental and allowed access only at certain points of the map. During one co-op session, both live-action players were unable to complete a puzzle, and it required one of us dropping out of the game so that they could rejoin once the remaining player completed the obstacle course.
I appreciate the deviation from standard run and gun and how the developers were attempting to incorporate a true sense of co-op play by requiring the other player to be little more than backup firepower. However, it does get a bit frustrating when somebody is unable to complete a jump and you are forced to repeat a segment over and over until it is done correctly thanks to the games checkpoint save system.
I really enjoyed the detail levels of the game especially being able to explore the Enterprise and other environments in great detail. One segment required us to use limited range portable transporters to tag and transport one another to various spots on a damage space station. This this was lots of fun and in my opinion really captured the essence of Star Trek as did the brash and bold gameplay style of Kirk compared to the methodical and efficient gameplay style of Spock.
While there were some frustrating moments the game was very enjoyable and with over 10 hours of gameplay did offer a very rewarding experience for Star Trek fans. I do think that gamers who are more casual fans of the series may not be as forgiving with some of the issues I noted in the game but as franchise games go this was a very enjoyable effort.
Graphically the facial animation and lip-synch of the characters was a bit off and dated but elements of the ship and locales were extremely detailed and very enjoyable to look at and interact with. There are some fantastic lines in the game especially some of the clips by Scotty and Dr. McCoy which really showed the effort the game designers talk to capture the essence of the game and its characters and to do their best to put players inside a true Star Trek adventure.
While it is not a perfect game and does have some flaws from the technical and gameplay side of things, it is one of the better Star Trek games ever released and does offer a very enjoyable experience for Star Trek fans as long as they are willing to temper their expectations going in.
http://sknr.net/2013/04/29/star-trek-the-video-game/
Answering a distress signal, the Enterprise crew finds himself set the center of a crisis with galactic repercussions. An evil reptilian race known as the Gorn have stolen the device of immense power and also have unleashed attacks on a Federation station as well as the new Vulcan colony. Not only is the attacking race deadly but they also are employing a technology that allows them to infect and control Federation citizens and officers which doubles the threat posed to the Federation. When the Gorn escape with an extremely powerful device and Vulcan scientists in tow, Kirk and Spock are tasked with saving the day.
The gameplay is similar to that of the Mass Effect series in that it is done from a third person perspective. Players have the ability to use a Tricorder to scan enemies and objects, pathways, and electronic devices such as doors and security systems which often have to be hacked or manipulated to allow gameplay to progress. Players are allowed to primary weapons into grenade types and have to recharge at various centers throughout the game or swap a spent weapon for weapons they find laying about. This is at a nice new wrinkle to the game is not only are Federation and Gorn weapons available players, but having things ranging from sniper rifles to arc guns makes a nice mix from the standard Phaser weapons. There are also various grenades it can be used by the players.
One of the more frustrating aspects of a game for me for the numerous puzzle sequences where systems had to be hacked or otherwise manipulated. While some could be done by ordering Spock or Kirk depending on which player you were controlling to handle it themselves, some had to be done in conjunction with another player. While this was a nice touch to the game, during the final parts they were too frequent and for me undercut the drama and the urgency of the story.
There were also numerous jumping puzzles where players had to hang from ledges and you carefully timed jumps from one obstacle to another. This became frustrating on the PC version as the control system often was very temperamental and allowed access only at certain points of the map. During one co-op session, both live-action players were unable to complete a puzzle, and it required one of us dropping out of the game so that they could rejoin once the remaining player completed the obstacle course.
I appreciate the deviation from standard run and gun and how the developers were attempting to incorporate a true sense of co-op play by requiring the other player to be little more than backup firepower. However, it does get a bit frustrating when somebody is unable to complete a jump and you are forced to repeat a segment over and over until it is done correctly thanks to the games checkpoint save system.
I really enjoyed the detail levels of the game especially being able to explore the Enterprise and other environments in great detail. One segment required us to use limited range portable transporters to tag and transport one another to various spots on a damage space station. This this was lots of fun and in my opinion really captured the essence of Star Trek as did the brash and bold gameplay style of Kirk compared to the methodical and efficient gameplay style of Spock.
While there were some frustrating moments the game was very enjoyable and with over 10 hours of gameplay did offer a very rewarding experience for Star Trek fans. I do think that gamers who are more casual fans of the series may not be as forgiving with some of the issues I noted in the game but as franchise games go this was a very enjoyable effort.
Graphically the facial animation and lip-synch of the characters was a bit off and dated but elements of the ship and locales were extremely detailed and very enjoyable to look at and interact with. There are some fantastic lines in the game especially some of the clips by Scotty and Dr. McCoy which really showed the effort the game designers talk to capture the essence of the game and its characters and to do their best to put players inside a true Star Trek adventure.
While it is not a perfect game and does have some flaws from the technical and gameplay side of things, it is one of the better Star Trek games ever released and does offer a very enjoyable experience for Star Trek fans as long as they are willing to temper their expectations going in.
http://sknr.net/2013/04/29/star-trek-the-video-game/
The Boy Who Drew Monsters
7.0
Rate It
Book
From the New York Times bestselling author of The Stolen Child comes a hypnotic literary horror...