Search
Search results
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm (2020) in Movies
Oct 24, 2020
As good as the first - just not my thing
Borat Subsequent Moviefilm: Delivery of Prodigious Bribe to American Regime for Make Benefit Once Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan sees Borat return to the USA after the humiliation he caused his country in the first movie.
This time Borat is returning to America to get “Mac”Donald Trump to acknowledge the Premier of Kazakhstan as his friend and ally, and it couldn’t be more different than the first film. Borat is now a recognisable face across the globe so Sacha Baron Cohen can no longer parade around the streets and dupe unsuspecting members of the public. Instead he has to don ridiculously terrible disguises that surprisingly still fool people, and also put Maria Bakalova as his daughter Tutar front and centre with a large portion of the scenes.
For the most part, this works as Bakalova is a fantastic actress and she’s a delight to watch. Alongside Cohen who works his magic yet again, you can’t help but marvel at their guts and acting prowess at pulling off these stunts with a straight face. And not only this, but they excel just as well at the sweet and heartwarming side of this film that focuses on the father daughter relationship and female empowerment.
My biggest issues with this film (and it’s predecessor) probably come down to personal taste. I laughed a fair amount watching this and there are some crazy scenes that you can’t help but chuckle at – the synagogue and cosmetic surgery clinic to name a couple. I also thought the twist ending was absolute genius. However I’m not a huge fan of hidden camera type comedy that goes beyond humour and into cringeworthy and embarrassing, and sadly Borat does this a lot, even to the point where it’s crude and disgusting. This is just my personal view, as I just don’t find comedy funny if it’s making me cringe. There’s bad taste that’s funny and bad taste that goes too far, and for me Borat features both of these. Fortunately the former just about prevails and doesn’t make the film too uncomfortable. What helps is the political themes and motivations that are so ably managed and highlighted, and the fact that they’ve managed to seamlessly integrate the COVID-19 pandemic into the filming which is pretty impressive.
Cohen has been very smart when it comes to releasing this film, in the hope that it may have some impact on the upcoming election. Frankly after watching this, I’d be surprised if it didn’t. The scene featuring Rudy Giuliani, which has been very well publicised over the past few weeks, is both fascinating and creepily disturbing in equal parts and if this doesn’t hamper the public’s opinion of him, I don’t know what will.
Overall this is a very smart and daring film with two fantastic actors. There has been a lot of debate over whether this is better or worse than the original, but for me it’s just more of the same. But if you loved the first one, you’ll love this.
This time Borat is returning to America to get “Mac”Donald Trump to acknowledge the Premier of Kazakhstan as his friend and ally, and it couldn’t be more different than the first film. Borat is now a recognisable face across the globe so Sacha Baron Cohen can no longer parade around the streets and dupe unsuspecting members of the public. Instead he has to don ridiculously terrible disguises that surprisingly still fool people, and also put Maria Bakalova as his daughter Tutar front and centre with a large portion of the scenes.
For the most part, this works as Bakalova is a fantastic actress and she’s a delight to watch. Alongside Cohen who works his magic yet again, you can’t help but marvel at their guts and acting prowess at pulling off these stunts with a straight face. And not only this, but they excel just as well at the sweet and heartwarming side of this film that focuses on the father daughter relationship and female empowerment.
My biggest issues with this film (and it’s predecessor) probably come down to personal taste. I laughed a fair amount watching this and there are some crazy scenes that you can’t help but chuckle at – the synagogue and cosmetic surgery clinic to name a couple. I also thought the twist ending was absolute genius. However I’m not a huge fan of hidden camera type comedy that goes beyond humour and into cringeworthy and embarrassing, and sadly Borat does this a lot, even to the point where it’s crude and disgusting. This is just my personal view, as I just don’t find comedy funny if it’s making me cringe. There’s bad taste that’s funny and bad taste that goes too far, and for me Borat features both of these. Fortunately the former just about prevails and doesn’t make the film too uncomfortable. What helps is the political themes and motivations that are so ably managed and highlighted, and the fact that they’ve managed to seamlessly integrate the COVID-19 pandemic into the filming which is pretty impressive.
Cohen has been very smart when it comes to releasing this film, in the hope that it may have some impact on the upcoming election. Frankly after watching this, I’d be surprised if it didn’t. The scene featuring Rudy Giuliani, which has been very well publicised over the past few weeks, is both fascinating and creepily disturbing in equal parts and if this doesn’t hamper the public’s opinion of him, I don’t know what will.
Overall this is a very smart and daring film with two fantastic actors. There has been a lot of debate over whether this is better or worse than the original, but for me it’s just more of the same. But if you loved the first one, you’ll love this.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Last Breath (The Morganville Vampires, #11) in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I always crack open the next Morganville book knowing that I will love it before I read a single word. Rachel Caine is a writer I can depend on. In this book, she takes the concept that she used in the previous book of sharing the P.O.V. with another character and multiplies it. In other words, while Claire still gets the most narration, the reader also gets to read a bit of narration by Amelie, Shane, Michael, and Eve. Shane's thought process is familiar from the previous book, and Eve's reminds me of her diary entries from the early books in the series. Michael's are interesting because I got to see some of the darkness that he struggles with on a daily basis, while trying to hide it from the other members of the Glass House. I enjoy Amelie's P.O.V. the most because she obviously has the most secrets and history to reveal. Caine could easily make Amelie the main character of a prequel series about the founding of Morganville (how I wish!).
Claire is in top form as usual, as she has the unique -- and unexplained -- ability to see Magnus before anyone else, or before Magnus even wants to be seen. Magnus is quite the horror-movie creature, the draug, whom even the local vamps fear. Reading the detailed descriptions of what he can do with water gives me goosebumps. As for how Magnus retaliates against Claire, I simply refused to believe that Claire's state was permanent -- she is simply too essential to the series. Now I am wondering, though, how the series would fare if Claire went vamp -- but that's all up to Rachel Caine.
The one thing I really disliked, of course, was how the book ended -- the first cliff-hanger of the series. There was just way too big of a loose end hanging to leave me feeling satisfied. The rest of the book was still fabulous, though, and I can't wait for Black Dawn to hit the shelves.
Claire is in top form as usual, as she has the unique -- and unexplained -- ability to see Magnus before anyone else, or before Magnus even wants to be seen. Magnus is quite the horror-movie creature, the draug, whom even the local vamps fear. Reading the detailed descriptions of what he can do with water gives me goosebumps. As for how Magnus retaliates against Claire, I simply refused to believe that Claire's state was permanent -- she is simply too essential to the series. Now I am wondering, though, how the series would fare if Claire went vamp -- but that's all up to Rachel Caine.
The one thing I really disliked, of course, was how the book ended -- the first cliff-hanger of the series. There was just way too big of a loose end hanging to leave me feeling satisfied. The rest of the book was still fabulous, though, and I can't wait for Black Dawn to hit the shelves.
BookInspector (124 KP) rated Madam Tulip and the Bones of Chance (Madam Tulip #3) in Books
Sep 24, 2020
This novel is the third book in Madam Tulip Mystery series, and overall, it left me longing for the mystery and Madam Tulip herself. In this novel, Derry and Bruce have to travel to Scotland to shoot a movie, where they meet and befriend some rich people. The shooting doesn’t go as well as planned, and like always, Derry is left empty-handed and involved in some serious criminal activities.
Through the pages of this novel, we not only, once again meet Derry’s closest friends and her eccentric parents, but also some new, quite strong characters. From a wide variety to choose, in this book, my favourite was personal assistant Jessica. Ambitious, career-oriented and overall strong character. That is what I liked about this novel, that author portrayed females as independent and powerful creations, who are not afraid to fight for what they want. #GirlPower
I don’t know, was it the Scottish moors or the stone castles that left me quite gloomy with the plot of this book. Like in previous books, the narrative is told from a single perspective, sharing only Derry’s point of view. There were some action and interesting nuances, but I missed Madam Tulip’s mystery and persona in this novel.(She showed up only once) For me, half of the book really dragged, and another half, was more interesting, but it felt very rushed. There are some of the things mentioned from the previous book so, I would recommend reading other parts before digging into this one.
The writing style was pleasant to read, and the language used was easily understandable. The chapters of this book were a decent length and didn’t bore me. The ending felt pleasant, and for me, concluded the story nicely. So, to conclude, even though I missed more mystery and more spice, it was an interesting experience, where I had a great insight into behind the scenes of film shooting and sets, so if you into this kind of thing, give this book a try, and hopefully, you will enjoy it
Through the pages of this novel, we not only, once again meet Derry’s closest friends and her eccentric parents, but also some new, quite strong characters. From a wide variety to choose, in this book, my favourite was personal assistant Jessica. Ambitious, career-oriented and overall strong character. That is what I liked about this novel, that author portrayed females as independent and powerful creations, who are not afraid to fight for what they want. #GirlPower
I don’t know, was it the Scottish moors or the stone castles that left me quite gloomy with the plot of this book. Like in previous books, the narrative is told from a single perspective, sharing only Derry’s point of view. There were some action and interesting nuances, but I missed Madam Tulip’s mystery and persona in this novel.(She showed up only once) For me, half of the book really dragged, and another half, was more interesting, but it felt very rushed. There are some of the things mentioned from the previous book so, I would recommend reading other parts before digging into this one.
The writing style was pleasant to read, and the language used was easily understandable. The chapters of this book were a decent length and didn’t bore me. The ending felt pleasant, and for me, concluded the story nicely. So, to conclude, even though I missed more mystery and more spice, it was an interesting experience, where I had a great insight into behind the scenes of film shooting and sets, so if you into this kind of thing, give this book a try, and hopefully, you will enjoy it
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated American Assassin (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Great, another terrorism thriller
Just what the world needs, another ill-timed terrorism-based thriller – you can almost hear the groans can’t you? It seems the movie-going public just can’t get enough of these accounts of urban terrorism.
Last year’s diabolical London Has Fallen inexplicably took over $200million at the box office and the better-received Unlocked also performed well commercially. All of this in spite of the constant threat posed by terrorism across the globe.
Now, there’s a new kid on the block. American Assassin. But does this film based on the novel of the same name do enough to be different?
When Cold War veteran Stan Hurley (Michael Keaton) takes CIA black ops recruit Mitch Rapp (Dylan O’Brien) under his wing, they receive an assignment to investigate a wave of random attacks on both military and civilian targets. After discovering a pattern of violence, Hurley and Rapp join forces with a lethal Turkish agent to stop a mysterious operative who wants to start a global war.
Michael Cuesta’s film is propped up by a nicely shot opening in which Dylan O’Brien’s Mitch comes up against Islamic terrorists while on holiday with his fiancé. Naturally, she’s brutally murdered and it becomes Mitch’s life-ambition to hunt down terrorist cells across the world.
Yes, you heard me right. That’s the plot. Ridiculous in every way and frankly, a little boring, American Assassin is a poor excuse for a film riddled with dreadful dialogue, phoned-in performances and uninspiring camerawork.
What makes it worse is that Maze Runner rising star Dylan O’Brien thought it would be a good idea to helm such a vehicle. He performs well but feels at odds with the film’s dark tone and is in serious danger of doing a post-Abduction Taylor Lautner and tanking his promising career. Michael Keaton’s bizarre effort here is the polar opposite of his genuinely menacing turn in Spider-Man: Homecoming only two months ago.
The rest of the cast might as well be made of cardboard they’re that uninteresting and while globe-trotting should evoke some visual joy, the scenery feels flat, hampered by a dull colour palette and the fact it’s been done to death already.
As American Assassin steamrolls to a 70s-esque Bond finale, we’re subjected to some torturous CGI, though Cuesta does well to ramp up the tension a little, but it’s the subject matter once again that proves a sticking point.
In a world where our fears of urban terrorism are greater than ever, should we be classing films like this as ‘entertainment’? Take the opening sequence for example, as nicely choreographed as it is, the parallels to the dreadful Tunisian beach attack of 2015 linger in the back of my mind and I find it all very much in poor taste.
Overall, American Assassin is yet another addition to the already overstuffed terrorism thriller genre that adds absolutely nothing new. The performances are dull, the story is flat and the cinematography is uninspired. Poor Dylan O’Brien left the Maze for this?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/15/american-assassin-review/
Last year’s diabolical London Has Fallen inexplicably took over $200million at the box office and the better-received Unlocked also performed well commercially. All of this in spite of the constant threat posed by terrorism across the globe.
Now, there’s a new kid on the block. American Assassin. But does this film based on the novel of the same name do enough to be different?
When Cold War veteran Stan Hurley (Michael Keaton) takes CIA black ops recruit Mitch Rapp (Dylan O’Brien) under his wing, they receive an assignment to investigate a wave of random attacks on both military and civilian targets. After discovering a pattern of violence, Hurley and Rapp join forces with a lethal Turkish agent to stop a mysterious operative who wants to start a global war.
Michael Cuesta’s film is propped up by a nicely shot opening in which Dylan O’Brien’s Mitch comes up against Islamic terrorists while on holiday with his fiancé. Naturally, she’s brutally murdered and it becomes Mitch’s life-ambition to hunt down terrorist cells across the world.
Yes, you heard me right. That’s the plot. Ridiculous in every way and frankly, a little boring, American Assassin is a poor excuse for a film riddled with dreadful dialogue, phoned-in performances and uninspiring camerawork.
What makes it worse is that Maze Runner rising star Dylan O’Brien thought it would be a good idea to helm such a vehicle. He performs well but feels at odds with the film’s dark tone and is in serious danger of doing a post-Abduction Taylor Lautner and tanking his promising career. Michael Keaton’s bizarre effort here is the polar opposite of his genuinely menacing turn in Spider-Man: Homecoming only two months ago.
The rest of the cast might as well be made of cardboard they’re that uninteresting and while globe-trotting should evoke some visual joy, the scenery feels flat, hampered by a dull colour palette and the fact it’s been done to death already.
As American Assassin steamrolls to a 70s-esque Bond finale, we’re subjected to some torturous CGI, though Cuesta does well to ramp up the tension a little, but it’s the subject matter once again that proves a sticking point.
In a world where our fears of urban terrorism are greater than ever, should we be classing films like this as ‘entertainment’? Take the opening sequence for example, as nicely choreographed as it is, the parallels to the dreadful Tunisian beach attack of 2015 linger in the back of my mind and I find it all very much in poor taste.
Overall, American Assassin is yet another addition to the already overstuffed terrorism thriller genre that adds absolutely nothing new. The performances are dull, the story is flat and the cinematography is uninspired. Poor Dylan O’Brien left the Maze for this?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/15/american-assassin-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Sausage Party (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Utterly Ridiculous
Just when Sharknado: the 4th Awakens made you think film-making couldn’t get any more ridiculous, a movie like Sausage Party comes along to remind you that Hollywood can always go that one step further to mind-boggling peculiarity.
Of course, that’s not always a bad thing, there have been countless weird and wacky films over the years that have gone on to become cult classics – look at Kick-Ass or even Pulp Fiction for examples of that. But for every Pulp Fiction there’s a Sharknado. So is Sausage Party good weird or as stale as a month-old bagel?
From the mind of Seth Rogen, Sausage Party is a strictly adults only animation that combines hugely offensive language and racial stereotypes with surprisingly meaningful religious undertones. And do you know what? It’s a breath of fresh air.
Life is good for all the food items that occupy the shelves at the local supermarket. Frank (Seth Rogen) the sausage, Brenda (Kristen Wiig) the hot dog bun, Teresa Taco and Sammy Bagel Jr. (Edward Norton) can’t wait to go home with a happy customer. Soon, their world comes crashing down as poor Frank learns the horrifying truth that he will eventually become a meal. After warning his pals about their similar fate, the panicked perishables devise a plan to escape from their human enemies.
Directors Conrad Vernon and Greg Tiernan take Rogen’s intriguing premise and inject a warmly familiar animation style, distancing itself just enough to make any comparisons simply inconceivable. Sausage Party is like nothing you will have ever seen.
The voice-acting is great too. Rogen plays his usual film staple – in sausage form – with the spicy Salma Hayek outdoing everyone else as a lustful taco. Kristen Wiig, Bill Hader, Michael Cera and Jonah Hill also lend their familiar voices to a hot-dog bun, a bottle of spirit and two other frankfurters respectively.
Elsewhere, the comedy, for the most part, hits the spot. As dreadful as it sounds, the racial stereotyping works incredibly well in food form. British tea, Mexican taco shells and German sauerkraut will have you rolling about the aisles with their outrageous vulgarity, but everyone needs to release their inner teenager once in a while.
Unfortunately, the films standout sequence has already been shown in the trailer – a side-splitting food-eye view of a normal kitchen, before every edible item is butchered; that poor Irish potato didn’t stand a chance. This is a real shame as the rest of the film doesn’t quite match up to the standard of that scene.
Nevertheless, there’ll be chuckles throughout as numerous celebrities are parodied in food form. One in particular, immortalised in chewing gum, is incredibly well thought out.
And that’s where Sausage Party succeeds the most. Underneath the polished animation and crude humour, this film is actually kind of clever. It tackles religion, war, race, sexuality and food waste very well indeed and that’s something the genre doesn’t ask for. It’s just unfortunate that it’s not quite as funny as the trailer would have you believe.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/03/utterly-ridiculous-sausage-party-review/
Of course, that’s not always a bad thing, there have been countless weird and wacky films over the years that have gone on to become cult classics – look at Kick-Ass or even Pulp Fiction for examples of that. But for every Pulp Fiction there’s a Sharknado. So is Sausage Party good weird or as stale as a month-old bagel?
From the mind of Seth Rogen, Sausage Party is a strictly adults only animation that combines hugely offensive language and racial stereotypes with surprisingly meaningful religious undertones. And do you know what? It’s a breath of fresh air.
Life is good for all the food items that occupy the shelves at the local supermarket. Frank (Seth Rogen) the sausage, Brenda (Kristen Wiig) the hot dog bun, Teresa Taco and Sammy Bagel Jr. (Edward Norton) can’t wait to go home with a happy customer. Soon, their world comes crashing down as poor Frank learns the horrifying truth that he will eventually become a meal. After warning his pals about their similar fate, the panicked perishables devise a plan to escape from their human enemies.
Directors Conrad Vernon and Greg Tiernan take Rogen’s intriguing premise and inject a warmly familiar animation style, distancing itself just enough to make any comparisons simply inconceivable. Sausage Party is like nothing you will have ever seen.
The voice-acting is great too. Rogen plays his usual film staple – in sausage form – with the spicy Salma Hayek outdoing everyone else as a lustful taco. Kristen Wiig, Bill Hader, Michael Cera and Jonah Hill also lend their familiar voices to a hot-dog bun, a bottle of spirit and two other frankfurters respectively.
Elsewhere, the comedy, for the most part, hits the spot. As dreadful as it sounds, the racial stereotyping works incredibly well in food form. British tea, Mexican taco shells and German sauerkraut will have you rolling about the aisles with their outrageous vulgarity, but everyone needs to release their inner teenager once in a while.
Unfortunately, the films standout sequence has already been shown in the trailer – a side-splitting food-eye view of a normal kitchen, before every edible item is butchered; that poor Irish potato didn’t stand a chance. This is a real shame as the rest of the film doesn’t quite match up to the standard of that scene.
Nevertheless, there’ll be chuckles throughout as numerous celebrities are parodied in food form. One in particular, immortalised in chewing gum, is incredibly well thought out.
And that’s where Sausage Party succeeds the most. Underneath the polished animation and crude humour, this film is actually kind of clever. It tackles religion, war, race, sexuality and food waste very well indeed and that’s something the genre doesn’t ask for. It’s just unfortunate that it’s not quite as funny as the trailer would have you believe.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/03/utterly-ridiculous-sausage-party-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Looper (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In the world of 2072, it is learned that time travel has been invented and is declared illegal by all the governments of the world. Naturally, the criminal elements of the future embrace the technology. Apparently getting rid of bodies and people in the future is tricky because of innovative tagging and tracking technology.
The criminal bosses of the future send a man named Abe (Jeff Bridges) 30 years into the past to serve the criminals of the future with a new type of hit man called a Looper. In the new film “Looper” Joseph Gordon-Levitt stars as Joe, a Looper who never lets morals get in the way of his job. He is happy to promptly dispatch anyone sent from the future without a second thought.
Joe is well paid for his work, and is happy to enjoy the drugs and women that come with his job. Yet Joe desires to leave it all one day and travel to France. For a Looper to be retired, he is forced to kill a future version of himself, and in doing so, gets a fantastic retirement payout and 30 years to live it up since that is how long it will take for time travel to be invented. Naturally an older version of yourself cannot be sent back to be killed by your younger self for at least 30 years. But the increase in retirements is a bit disconcerting for Joe.
Things change drastically for Joe when his older self (Bruce Willis), appears and manages to escape before he can be killed by his younger self. For a Looper to have his target escape is a serious infraction, and in no time, Joe finds himself not only hunting his older self, but also on the run from his former friends and allies who have made him both older and younger a priority.
At this point in the film, I was hooked, as my mind raced with twists, possibilities, and the promise of the film. Sadly the momentum grinds to a halt in the second half as the older Joe attempts to ally with his younger self to stop a future crime boss while he is a child. This quickly becomes a very blatant “Terminator” rip off as older Joe attempts to locate and kill children who may be the future crime lord while younger Joe is biding his time hiding from his former associates while protecting a young child and his mother from his older self.
It does not take much thought to see where this is going but sadly the remainder of the movie is underwhelming and disappointing as the film recycles scenarios that we have seen many times before in better movies. The second half lacks any real action and climactic finale to give the audience the well-deserved payoff they waited for.
Willis, Bridges, and Gordon-Levitt do solid work but seem to be going through the motions as they never really earn any sympathy from the audience. Much like last year’s “In Time”, “Looper” has a great premise that starts well and then fails to live up to its potential.
The criminal bosses of the future send a man named Abe (Jeff Bridges) 30 years into the past to serve the criminals of the future with a new type of hit man called a Looper. In the new film “Looper” Joseph Gordon-Levitt stars as Joe, a Looper who never lets morals get in the way of his job. He is happy to promptly dispatch anyone sent from the future without a second thought.
Joe is well paid for his work, and is happy to enjoy the drugs and women that come with his job. Yet Joe desires to leave it all one day and travel to France. For a Looper to be retired, he is forced to kill a future version of himself, and in doing so, gets a fantastic retirement payout and 30 years to live it up since that is how long it will take for time travel to be invented. Naturally an older version of yourself cannot be sent back to be killed by your younger self for at least 30 years. But the increase in retirements is a bit disconcerting for Joe.
Things change drastically for Joe when his older self (Bruce Willis), appears and manages to escape before he can be killed by his younger self. For a Looper to have his target escape is a serious infraction, and in no time, Joe finds himself not only hunting his older self, but also on the run from his former friends and allies who have made him both older and younger a priority.
At this point in the film, I was hooked, as my mind raced with twists, possibilities, and the promise of the film. Sadly the momentum grinds to a halt in the second half as the older Joe attempts to ally with his younger self to stop a future crime boss while he is a child. This quickly becomes a very blatant “Terminator” rip off as older Joe attempts to locate and kill children who may be the future crime lord while younger Joe is biding his time hiding from his former associates while protecting a young child and his mother from his older self.
It does not take much thought to see where this is going but sadly the remainder of the movie is underwhelming and disappointing as the film recycles scenarios that we have seen many times before in better movies. The second half lacks any real action and climactic finale to give the audience the well-deserved payoff they waited for.
Willis, Bridges, and Gordon-Levitt do solid work but seem to be going through the motions as they never really earn any sympathy from the audience. Much like last year’s “In Time”, “Looper” has a great premise that starts well and then fails to live up to its potential.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated the PC version of Call of Duty WWII in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
The long running and very popular Call of Duty series has gone back to where it all began for the latest entry into the series. Call of Duty: WW2 returns the series to where the early games in the series were set and looks to restore its legacy as the best-selling series on the planet in doing so.
Last year’s Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare did not sell as well as other in the series had in recent years, and many fans were upset or divided over a futuristic setting that involved spaceships, energy weapons, and futuristic locations and technology.
It should be noted that the series has three developers working on games so developer Sledgehammer likely started work on the game before Call of Duty: Black Ops 3, and Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare shipped so the return to WW2 was something long in the planning.
The game opens with D-Day and players play as a young Private who is thrown headfirst into the conflict and learns the horrors of war as well as duty, honor, and sacrifice through his missions and interactions with members of his platoon.
Over the course of the missions, players will battle in highly-detailed maps and locales ranging from forests, bunkers, beaches, and bombed out cities as the Allies advance deeper and deeper into enemy held locales. The various locales for the game are so highly-detailed that they seem right out of a movie and would be a dream come true for location scouts looking for filming locations.
As anyone who has played a call of Duty game knows, they will be faced with waves of enemies to fight off as well as the usual stealth and vehicle missions. This time out there are a couple of driving missions as well as a clever one in a tank and one airborne fighter escort.
The attention to detail is very good as enemy Panzer tanks can take any fire from your tank head on, but have weaker armor in the bank which leads players to have to flank the enemy to survive.
Another new wrinkle is the health system which does not regenerate in the story mode and instead requires players to take cover and use a first aid kit in order to heal. The multiplayer portion does use a regenerative system so players can avoid any major disruptions in battle.
I really liked Josh Duhamel as the rough Sargent with a backstory. He was a very interesting character that kept me guessing as to his motivations and next moves as the story advanced.
Players could also call in ammo, mortar strikes, and health by requesting them from select members of their platoon. This could be tricky as when pinned down, having to move to another character to get needed items added to the challenge.
The weaponry was appropriate for the time and I had to adjust to slower load times, accuracy issues, and such with older tech, but it did give me a much greater level of immersion.
While I did enjoy the solo campaign, it did at times seem very familiar and as if I had seen and played some of it all before. I guess that is the trick with a series that has run as long as Call of Duty has as certain aspects of the gameplay are expected and while locations, weapons, locations, and characters may change, some things are going to be constant throughout the series.
The multiplayer aspects of the game really shine as not only are there numerous multiplayer modes, players can now pick a class such as Airborne, Recon, etc. which each have their own weapons and abilities and allow players to pick a division that best matches their abilities and gameplay style.
This comes in very handy in the new War mode where teams much battle one another to accomplish various objectives. Such as escorting tanks, protecting or stealing gas, and taking or defending key locales. My only issue is that this mode and many maps are camp fests where people with scoped rifles can easily hide in the back part of a map and pick off players as they spawn or enter the map. It seems far more pronounced in this game and leads to some frustrations. There is also the matter of iffy hit detection where players take half a clip from a machine gun point blank and yet can absorb them and one shit kill a player all while you unload on them.
There is also a very good Zombie mode where players take on wave after wave of undead soldiers as they attempt to get power restored and activate technology. The speed of the game is intense, the enemies numerous, and the ability to arm, armor up, and accessories your character is key as is having a good team around you.
As one person said that is Call of Duty and you know what you are in for if you have played any of the prior games. As such Call of Duty: World War 2 is not a radical new direction for the series, but rather a return to what made the series and is like slipping into a comfy pair of slippers after a long day., Familiar and comfortable and is in my opinion what the series needed.
http://sknr.net/2017/11/06/call-duty-ww2/
Last year’s Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare did not sell as well as other in the series had in recent years, and many fans were upset or divided over a futuristic setting that involved spaceships, energy weapons, and futuristic locations and technology.
It should be noted that the series has three developers working on games so developer Sledgehammer likely started work on the game before Call of Duty: Black Ops 3, and Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare shipped so the return to WW2 was something long in the planning.
The game opens with D-Day and players play as a young Private who is thrown headfirst into the conflict and learns the horrors of war as well as duty, honor, and sacrifice through his missions and interactions with members of his platoon.
Over the course of the missions, players will battle in highly-detailed maps and locales ranging from forests, bunkers, beaches, and bombed out cities as the Allies advance deeper and deeper into enemy held locales. The various locales for the game are so highly-detailed that they seem right out of a movie and would be a dream come true for location scouts looking for filming locations.
As anyone who has played a call of Duty game knows, they will be faced with waves of enemies to fight off as well as the usual stealth and vehicle missions. This time out there are a couple of driving missions as well as a clever one in a tank and one airborne fighter escort.
The attention to detail is very good as enemy Panzer tanks can take any fire from your tank head on, but have weaker armor in the bank which leads players to have to flank the enemy to survive.
Another new wrinkle is the health system which does not regenerate in the story mode and instead requires players to take cover and use a first aid kit in order to heal. The multiplayer portion does use a regenerative system so players can avoid any major disruptions in battle.
I really liked Josh Duhamel as the rough Sargent with a backstory. He was a very interesting character that kept me guessing as to his motivations and next moves as the story advanced.
Players could also call in ammo, mortar strikes, and health by requesting them from select members of their platoon. This could be tricky as when pinned down, having to move to another character to get needed items added to the challenge.
The weaponry was appropriate for the time and I had to adjust to slower load times, accuracy issues, and such with older tech, but it did give me a much greater level of immersion.
While I did enjoy the solo campaign, it did at times seem very familiar and as if I had seen and played some of it all before. I guess that is the trick with a series that has run as long as Call of Duty has as certain aspects of the gameplay are expected and while locations, weapons, locations, and characters may change, some things are going to be constant throughout the series.
The multiplayer aspects of the game really shine as not only are there numerous multiplayer modes, players can now pick a class such as Airborne, Recon, etc. which each have their own weapons and abilities and allow players to pick a division that best matches their abilities and gameplay style.
This comes in very handy in the new War mode where teams much battle one another to accomplish various objectives. Such as escorting tanks, protecting or stealing gas, and taking or defending key locales. My only issue is that this mode and many maps are camp fests where people with scoped rifles can easily hide in the back part of a map and pick off players as they spawn or enter the map. It seems far more pronounced in this game and leads to some frustrations. There is also the matter of iffy hit detection where players take half a clip from a machine gun point blank and yet can absorb them and one shit kill a player all while you unload on them.
There is also a very good Zombie mode where players take on wave after wave of undead soldiers as they attempt to get power restored and activate technology. The speed of the game is intense, the enemies numerous, and the ability to arm, armor up, and accessories your character is key as is having a good team around you.
As one person said that is Call of Duty and you know what you are in for if you have played any of the prior games. As such Call of Duty: World War 2 is not a radical new direction for the series, but rather a return to what made the series and is like slipping into a comfy pair of slippers after a long day., Familiar and comfortable and is in my opinion what the series needed.
http://sknr.net/2017/11/06/call-duty-ww2/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Cloud Atlas (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
While I am not familiar with the novel, I was not excited to review the film adaptation of David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas. Though the Screenplay was written and directed by the Wachowskis (The Matrix) and Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) I did not know exactly what I was getting into. The trailer shows it as an epic sci-fi film crossing the time and lives of several stories and how everything and everyone is connected. Needless to say my curiosity was piqued. But I was nervous because I knew it would take a grand effort to keep this epic and ambitious project from falling flat. And well, I can honestly say that I am not quite sure if the combined effort succeeded.
Allow me to explain. About an hour into the film I had a young film reviewer to my left and I noticed he started to nod his head in approval at each new developing story throughout the film. To my right was a friend of mine, I would consider as an average film viewer, who at this same time I could tell was counting the minutes till the lights came up but felt trapped with nowhere to go but forward. And for me, I can see both sides of these reactions.
The plot is comprised of a multi-narrative of six stories, each with a complete beginning, middle and end. These stories are told from different timelines following a group of souls throughout the ages to show how everything is woven together and the connection between them; From the 1849 slave trader, to a young composer in 1936 Britain, to a 1973 journalist attempting to uncover corruption of the big business ruling class, to a 2012 literary publisher who’s life becomes a daring escape from a geriatric home, to a 2144 Neo-Soul synthetic learning to become human, to a post-apocalyptic tribesman trying to save his world and family… Lost yet? Believe me you will want to focus during the first hour of this film as we are introduced to the sudden shift of timelines. All of the main actors appear as varying characters of significance in every narrative, each with different accents and types of language. It is a bit of an unexpected bother to keep everything straight at first, however if you pay attention it is fairly easy to follow. This first hour is where I feel the film becomes a make or break for those actively thinking about what they are watching and the average movie viewer who is just there to be entertained and see the new Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stanger) movie. For those who make it through that first hour still engaged, the film moves along at a steady pace and provides everything from romance to action that keeps you guessing and intrigued at what is next to come.
The Wachowskis and Tykwer do an outstanding job of visually fleshing out each timeline in its own visual style, especially the futuristic ones, which subtlety organize each narrative for the viewer. Additionally, there are so many talented actors in this film and it is somewhat fascinating to try and pick them out throughout the film. It is almost like a giant game of Where’s Waldo on screen as the makeup and special effects artists do a fantastic job of making the actors fit each character in every timeline. In fact, during the fourth or fifth timeline a lady in my row asked her partner if the man on screen was Forrest Gump, which was surprising because Hanks was the easiest character to pick out among them all.
Tom Hanks delivers one of his better performances in years. We watch his character’s soul transition from a sinister and vile doctor to a tribesman making the righteous choice while struggling with that inkling of evil that is the devil within us all. It was refreshing to see Hanks play parts that were not just an “everyman” that he has played in recent years.
Halle Berry’s performance is mostly average in her parts with the exception of 1973 journalist role where she is the main protagonist. Hugo Weaving channels a bit of his Agent Smith role from The Matrix as he plays a villain throughout the timelines. Hugh Grant (Love Actually) makes unexpected soild appearances throughout the timelines. With Jim Sturgess (One Day), James D’Arcy (Mansfield Park) and Ben Whishaw (who is the new Q in the upcoming James Bond film Skyfall) rounding out the cast with a young contrast to the already heavy acting handled by the bigger names of this film. Each of these young actors hold’s their own against their older more notable counterparts. Whishaw’s performance as the lead in the 1936 composer role is especially noteworthy.
The other stand out performance in the film comes from Jim Broadbent best known in the states as Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter Films. His performance in the 1936 composer and 2012 literary publisher are excellent. The Publisher story was my favorite timeline throughout the film. Not only did it deliver some much needed comic relief to an emotionally engaging and heavy film, but it also made me care the most about the elderly characters trying to escape the clutches of the geriatric prison of a nursing home. Unfortunately, other than the aforementioned comic relief this timeline seemed the most unnecessary to the overarching story at hand.
When I left the film and talked it over with my friend I was indifferent to the film. It was not great, it was not bad either. As my friend described it, it was a movie that was trying too hard. We agreed that somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but we were not sure if we watched it.
However as the days have passed I have found myself thinking about the stories constantly. More specifically about how the main protagonist played by a different actor in each narrative has the same birthmark of a shooting star that in some way symbolizes some universal soul encompassing a new shell of a body in each timeline. Like some kind of reincarnation of that soul is fighting the same revolution throughout the ages against the powerful class and illusion of natural order. Additionally how each of the central characters found themselves connected with the main characters in the stories that preceded them through some kind of medium; whether it was by an old journal, or love letters, or a written story, or film, or message of hope. These subtle insights of growth and change for this main soul leaping into a new life in each timeline has caused me to examine our world and how we as people can be truly connected to one another not only today, but throughout the ages. I want to view the film again and am inspired to read the novel in some sort of effort to better understand these concepts.
Nevertheless as a film that is almost three hours long it does its best to be an epic sci-fi film and give something for everyone. And while it succeeds in many aspects of feel, it also falls short in aspects that are probably best accomplished in a literary form. As I said above, somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but I am not sure if I watched it. Or maybe I am not intelligent enough to comprehend it. Because of that I can only give it an average score. Though I believe if you ask me after a second viewing, I may be inclined to raise it.
Allow me to explain. About an hour into the film I had a young film reviewer to my left and I noticed he started to nod his head in approval at each new developing story throughout the film. To my right was a friend of mine, I would consider as an average film viewer, who at this same time I could tell was counting the minutes till the lights came up but felt trapped with nowhere to go but forward. And for me, I can see both sides of these reactions.
The plot is comprised of a multi-narrative of six stories, each with a complete beginning, middle and end. These stories are told from different timelines following a group of souls throughout the ages to show how everything is woven together and the connection between them; From the 1849 slave trader, to a young composer in 1936 Britain, to a 1973 journalist attempting to uncover corruption of the big business ruling class, to a 2012 literary publisher who’s life becomes a daring escape from a geriatric home, to a 2144 Neo-Soul synthetic learning to become human, to a post-apocalyptic tribesman trying to save his world and family… Lost yet? Believe me you will want to focus during the first hour of this film as we are introduced to the sudden shift of timelines. All of the main actors appear as varying characters of significance in every narrative, each with different accents and types of language. It is a bit of an unexpected bother to keep everything straight at first, however if you pay attention it is fairly easy to follow. This first hour is where I feel the film becomes a make or break for those actively thinking about what they are watching and the average movie viewer who is just there to be entertained and see the new Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stanger) movie. For those who make it through that first hour still engaged, the film moves along at a steady pace and provides everything from romance to action that keeps you guessing and intrigued at what is next to come.
The Wachowskis and Tykwer do an outstanding job of visually fleshing out each timeline in its own visual style, especially the futuristic ones, which subtlety organize each narrative for the viewer. Additionally, there are so many talented actors in this film and it is somewhat fascinating to try and pick them out throughout the film. It is almost like a giant game of Where’s Waldo on screen as the makeup and special effects artists do a fantastic job of making the actors fit each character in every timeline. In fact, during the fourth or fifth timeline a lady in my row asked her partner if the man on screen was Forrest Gump, which was surprising because Hanks was the easiest character to pick out among them all.
Tom Hanks delivers one of his better performances in years. We watch his character’s soul transition from a sinister and vile doctor to a tribesman making the righteous choice while struggling with that inkling of evil that is the devil within us all. It was refreshing to see Hanks play parts that were not just an “everyman” that he has played in recent years.
Halle Berry’s performance is mostly average in her parts with the exception of 1973 journalist role where she is the main protagonist. Hugo Weaving channels a bit of his Agent Smith role from The Matrix as he plays a villain throughout the timelines. Hugh Grant (Love Actually) makes unexpected soild appearances throughout the timelines. With Jim Sturgess (One Day), James D’Arcy (Mansfield Park) and Ben Whishaw (who is the new Q in the upcoming James Bond film Skyfall) rounding out the cast with a young contrast to the already heavy acting handled by the bigger names of this film. Each of these young actors hold’s their own against their older more notable counterparts. Whishaw’s performance as the lead in the 1936 composer role is especially noteworthy.
The other stand out performance in the film comes from Jim Broadbent best known in the states as Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter Films. His performance in the 1936 composer and 2012 literary publisher are excellent. The Publisher story was my favorite timeline throughout the film. Not only did it deliver some much needed comic relief to an emotionally engaging and heavy film, but it also made me care the most about the elderly characters trying to escape the clutches of the geriatric prison of a nursing home. Unfortunately, other than the aforementioned comic relief this timeline seemed the most unnecessary to the overarching story at hand.
When I left the film and talked it over with my friend I was indifferent to the film. It was not great, it was not bad either. As my friend described it, it was a movie that was trying too hard. We agreed that somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but we were not sure if we watched it.
However as the days have passed I have found myself thinking about the stories constantly. More specifically about how the main protagonist played by a different actor in each narrative has the same birthmark of a shooting star that in some way symbolizes some universal soul encompassing a new shell of a body in each timeline. Like some kind of reincarnation of that soul is fighting the same revolution throughout the ages against the powerful class and illusion of natural order. Additionally how each of the central characters found themselves connected with the main characters in the stories that preceded them through some kind of medium; whether it was by an old journal, or love letters, or a written story, or film, or message of hope. These subtle insights of growth and change for this main soul leaping into a new life in each timeline has caused me to examine our world and how we as people can be truly connected to one another not only today, but throughout the ages. I want to view the film again and am inspired to read the novel in some sort of effort to better understand these concepts.
Nevertheless as a film that is almost three hours long it does its best to be an epic sci-fi film and give something for everyone. And while it succeeds in many aspects of feel, it also falls short in aspects that are probably best accomplished in a literary form. As I said above, somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but I am not sure if I watched it. Or maybe I am not intelligent enough to comprehend it. Because of that I can only give it an average score. Though I believe if you ask me after a second viewing, I may be inclined to raise it.
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated The Lord of the Rings in Books
Nov 7, 2019
Lord of the rings is written by professor J. R. R. Tolkien and began as a squeal to the Hobbit but evolved over time into its own stand alone book. It was Published by Allen and Unwin (who also produced the hobbit) on July 29th 1954 in three segments; The Fellowship of the Ring, The Towers and The Return of the King. Structurally the book can be separated into six books with an appendices at the end. The book was intended to be one volume of a two volume set (Partnered with The Silmarillion). The title refers to the main antagonist the dark lord Sauron, who had in an earlier age created the one ring to rule them all and use it to conquer and rule Middle-Earth. The story starts in the shire at the 11th birthday of Bilbo Baggins and follows the journey of Frodo Baggins – Bilbos relative and heir as he ranges across middle-earth all the way to the fires of mount doom to destroy the magical ring (which Bilbo found during the Hobbit) during what ended up as the War of the Ring. The story is seen through the eyes of several characters including Frodo, and fellow Hobbits Sam Gamgee, Merry Brandybuck and Pippin Took.
Now I own a copy of the lord of the rings and have done so since I've left school. The copy I own however is the single whole copy as such I've always struggled to read the book in one go. Its always taken me a long time to read it and as such I only re-read it every two years or so. Whilst I'd known of the hobbit and read it numerous times as a child and young adult. I wasn't aware of the Lord of the Rings until the movies came out and as such I came to LoTR through the movies instead of the book. If you want to know a brief history of Professor J.R.R Tolkien and my opinion of him have a look to last weeks book blog on The Hobbit.
The book was turned into the popular movie franchise by Director Peter Jackson, Weta Workshop and New Line Cinema. The movies followed the pattern of the books and were subsequently released under The fellowship of the Ring (2001), The Two Towers (2002) and The return of the King (2003). Lord of the rings is widely regarded as one of the most influential and greatest film trilogies ever created. Its ended up being both a major financial success and is amongst the highest grossing film series of all time (earning over £2.9 billion in worldwide receipts). When award season came around each film was critically acclaimed and heavily awarded they won 17 out of their 30 nominations. An extended copy of each movie was released on DVD after the theatrical release.....I still have my extended copies after 13 years.
I was introduced to the Lord of the Rings Movies during Secondary school and had spent a good chunk of my time out of school watching the movies. By the time I left school a knew a plethora of random knowledge of the Tolkien legendium at large and as I said earlier in this post I saw the movies first before I read the books and as such It does make it harder for me to read the books. Thanks to these movies however I now own several LoTR related books and have a healthy love of Fantasy and fiction at large.
Now I own a copy of the lord of the rings and have done so since I've left school. The copy I own however is the single whole copy as such I've always struggled to read the book in one go. Its always taken me a long time to read it and as such I only re-read it every two years or so. Whilst I'd known of the hobbit and read it numerous times as a child and young adult. I wasn't aware of the Lord of the Rings until the movies came out and as such I came to LoTR through the movies instead of the book. If you want to know a brief history of Professor J.R.R Tolkien and my opinion of him have a look to last weeks book blog on The Hobbit.
The book was turned into the popular movie franchise by Director Peter Jackson, Weta Workshop and New Line Cinema. The movies followed the pattern of the books and were subsequently released under The fellowship of the Ring (2001), The Two Towers (2002) and The return of the King (2003). Lord of the rings is widely regarded as one of the most influential and greatest film trilogies ever created. Its ended up being both a major financial success and is amongst the highest grossing film series of all time (earning over £2.9 billion in worldwide receipts). When award season came around each film was critically acclaimed and heavily awarded they won 17 out of their 30 nominations. An extended copy of each movie was released on DVD after the theatrical release.....I still have my extended copies after 13 years.
I was introduced to the Lord of the Rings Movies during Secondary school and had spent a good chunk of my time out of school watching the movies. By the time I left school a knew a plethora of random knowledge of the Tolkien legendium at large and as I said earlier in this post I saw the movies first before I read the books and as such It does make it harder for me to read the books. Thanks to these movies however I now own several LoTR related books and have a healthy love of Fantasy and fiction at large.
