Search
Search results
Dan Lacey (7 KP) rated the Xbox One version of ARK Survival Evolved in Video Games
Feb 26, 2020
Content (2 more)
General mechanics
Playability
Bugs (2 more)
Community
Developers
Its almost like removing your socks with a chainsaw.
Where does one begin with Ark Survival Evolved?
This is a game I fell in love with and at the very same time detested the game in its entirety. It is a very strange feeling to enjoy a game so so much that you hate it's very existence.
Allow me to explain, Ark is a survival game in case the name didnt give that away in which you start stranded on an island with nothing but your underwear and a dream. The early game very quickly becomes a nightmare comprising of being mauled to death by Raptors or being beaten to a pulp by another player. The aim of the game is to build your base, fortify your base and tame the vast amount of creatures ark has to offer to enable you to progress further in the game by defeating boss monsters and learning the story of the arks.
Taming creatures of the game is so much fun each one has it's own stats abilities and a way to tame it. Most can even be bred to improve its stats via mutations which also can change the colours of the creature. There is a vast interconnected system with all creatures each one is good at something and may lack at something else. There is no better feeling than the very first time you successfully tame a tyranosaurus rex and plop a saddle on it's back, then hop on and March off into battle. The feeling you get when after a few days you place your first set of turrets around your little shack in the hope that when you log on again the next day you will still have everything untouched is a feeling of dread and satisfaction.
There are two game modes pvp (player vs player) and pve (player vs environment) this review will mainly focus on the pvp side as that is the mode I am most familiar with. One of the biggest draws to this game is the amount of content there is available due to the many dlcs. The flipside is that due to the constant need by the developers to sell more digital content they have neglected the many many many many MANY problems the game has which allows players to cheat their way to the top.
The game is riddled with toxic players who will exploit anything on a massive scale if it puts them to the alpha status all players strive to achieve. The game has been plagued by players under meshing (going under the game map) and being able to destroy other players work without worry of being killed by the many forms of defences there are. Players also have various ways in which to duplicate full inventories of items and tames. The developers however turn a blind eye to this at the same time saying they are going to fix it.
Yet here we are in 2020 and I'm some 3.5k hours into the game still complaining still hating the game and at the same time in total love with it. The game is like a drug that you want to give up but at the exact same time you tell yourself you can quit when you want believing the potential this game had and still has will one day shine through and it will all be worth it.
So to sum it up, Ark is like taking a shower in lemon juice while covered in papercuts. It's painful but at the end of the day you smell lemony fresh so the pain is mostly worth it for the pleasures you get in the end.
This is a game I fell in love with and at the very same time detested the game in its entirety. It is a very strange feeling to enjoy a game so so much that you hate it's very existence.
Allow me to explain, Ark is a survival game in case the name didnt give that away in which you start stranded on an island with nothing but your underwear and a dream. The early game very quickly becomes a nightmare comprising of being mauled to death by Raptors or being beaten to a pulp by another player. The aim of the game is to build your base, fortify your base and tame the vast amount of creatures ark has to offer to enable you to progress further in the game by defeating boss monsters and learning the story of the arks.
Taming creatures of the game is so much fun each one has it's own stats abilities and a way to tame it. Most can even be bred to improve its stats via mutations which also can change the colours of the creature. There is a vast interconnected system with all creatures each one is good at something and may lack at something else. There is no better feeling than the very first time you successfully tame a tyranosaurus rex and plop a saddle on it's back, then hop on and March off into battle. The feeling you get when after a few days you place your first set of turrets around your little shack in the hope that when you log on again the next day you will still have everything untouched is a feeling of dread and satisfaction.
There are two game modes pvp (player vs player) and pve (player vs environment) this review will mainly focus on the pvp side as that is the mode I am most familiar with. One of the biggest draws to this game is the amount of content there is available due to the many dlcs. The flipside is that due to the constant need by the developers to sell more digital content they have neglected the many many many many MANY problems the game has which allows players to cheat their way to the top.
The game is riddled with toxic players who will exploit anything on a massive scale if it puts them to the alpha status all players strive to achieve. The game has been plagued by players under meshing (going under the game map) and being able to destroy other players work without worry of being killed by the many forms of defences there are. Players also have various ways in which to duplicate full inventories of items and tames. The developers however turn a blind eye to this at the same time saying they are going to fix it.
Yet here we are in 2020 and I'm some 3.5k hours into the game still complaining still hating the game and at the same time in total love with it. The game is like a drug that you want to give up but at the exact same time you tell yourself you can quit when you want believing the potential this game had and still has will one day shine through and it will all be worth it.
So to sum it up, Ark is like taking a shower in lemon juice while covered in papercuts. It's painful but at the end of the day you smell lemony fresh so the pain is mostly worth it for the pleasures you get in the end.
TF
The Financial Controller and CFO's Toolkit: Lean Practices to Transform Your Finance Team
Book
Simplify and streamline your way to a winning legacy Winning CFOs is a hybrid handbook and toolkit...
Leanne Crabtree (480 KP) rated Pleasure Unbound (Demonica, #1) in Books
Aug 26, 2019 (Updated Sep 3, 2019)
Admittedly it's been a while since I read and enjoyed a paranormal romance but since that's what 75% of my paperbacks are at the minute, I decided to try this series.
And I was pulled in fairly quickly. It was straight into the action at Eidolon's demonic underground hospital in New York dealing with injuries and his brothers. And Tayla--an Aegis, the demons mortal enemy--ends up being one of his patients.
Within the first 25 pages we had a rather steamy sex scene and though I was surprised by the enemies turned lovers actions, I was intrigued on what would end up happening. Would she betray the Aegis for him? Would he defend her against all the demons who wanted her dead?
It was pretty non stop with stuff going on. It wasn't always just from Eidolon and Tayla's POV. We saw the odd scene from someone related to the hospital who was being hunted by the Aegis and I was very anti-Aegis from pretty early on.
"Tayla...she rocked his underworld"
This was a quote from early on in the book but I found it accurate and rather sweet. The romance was rocky, one minute they were all over each other and the next trying to kill each other--literally. I actually really liked the turmoil, the angst, and devoured the book in about two days when I finally just sat down and started it properly.
There is a story arc starting in this one that involves Gem, a half demon, and her want of Kynan, a human, that we see playing out in the occasional scene that has me intrigued and I'm looking forward to seeing how that plays out in the next book.
I have book 2, Desire Unchained, and book 5, Sin Undone, in paperback, too, and look forward to reading them.
And I was pulled in fairly quickly. It was straight into the action at Eidolon's demonic underground hospital in New York dealing with injuries and his brothers. And Tayla--an Aegis, the demons mortal enemy--ends up being one of his patients.
Within the first 25 pages we had a rather steamy sex scene and though I was surprised by the enemies turned lovers actions, I was intrigued on what would end up happening. Would she betray the Aegis for him? Would he defend her against all the demons who wanted her dead?
It was pretty non stop with stuff going on. It wasn't always just from Eidolon and Tayla's POV. We saw the odd scene from someone related to the hospital who was being hunted by the Aegis and I was very anti-Aegis from pretty early on.
"Tayla...she rocked his underworld"
This was a quote from early on in the book but I found it accurate and rather sweet. The romance was rocky, one minute they were all over each other and the next trying to kill each other--literally. I actually really liked the turmoil, the angst, and devoured the book in about two days when I finally just sat down and started it properly.
There is a story arc starting in this one that involves Gem, a half demon, and her want of Kynan, a human, that we see playing out in the occasional scene that has me intrigued and I'm looking forward to seeing how that plays out in the next book.
I have book 2, Desire Unchained, and book 5, Sin Undone, in paperback, too, and look forward to reading them.
Running from My Heart (Rock Bottom #3)
10.0
Rate It
Book
People say six years is long enough to mourn the death of his husband but for Ross Miller, the pain...
Contemporary MM Romance
myPill® Birth Control Reminder
Medical and Health & Fitness
App
It makes sure you'll NEVER miss a pill ever again. With myPill® you can truly be free of worries....
MLB.com At Bat
Sports and Entertainment
App
LIVE. EVERY MOMENT. Follow the 2017 MLB Postseason live through the 113th World Series with MLB.com...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Good Liar (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Mirren and McKellen are acting in 2 different movies
In a time where large comic-book, CGI-infused monster fests are all the rage in the Cineplex, it is a welcome relief to find a cleverly written, acting-rich mystery story featuring two world class actors of "a certain age", defying the odds to make a memorable motion picture.
And...they almost succeeded.
Written by Twin Cities native Jeffrey Hatcher, THE GOOD LIAR tells the tale of a...well...good liar played by Ian McKEllen. His con-man, Roy Courtney, is a roguish scamp, bilking crooks and ne'er do wells out of their money. He then sets his sights on rich Widow Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) and her millions of dollars.
We spend the first 3/4 of this film following Roy - and his con-man ways - and it is a pleasure to spend that time under the twinkling eyes of Sir Ian McKellen. He plays Roy with a bit of a light touch, driving down into the dirty work whenever he needs to, but spending most of his time outsmarting his opponents with a sly grin, a wry comment and a light step. He cares not for his marks, that is...until he meets Betty. And Mirren and McKellen have the ability to play off each other very well and this would have been a more effective film if both of them were acting in the same sort of film.
For, you see, McKellen is playing in a bit of light drama, landing his acting chops in a style reminiscent of con-man films like THE STING and NOW YOU SEE ME. Mirren, however, (who takes over the last 1/4 of the film) seems to be performing in a heavy drama like SOPHIE'S CHOICE or THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and I think it was the tone that each of these actors brought to their roles that drove both of these fine actors to this project.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy of the different acting styles, mood and tone ultimately derails this film and brings it down a peg from the austere heights it aspires to be.
I place the blame on Director Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes) who had two very good actors - and an interesting story - and just couldn't find the correct balance point for these actors, and this story. He also is not helped by Hatcher's script which really takes a dark turn (darker than is necessary for the story) that is a bit jarring. If this film wanted to be heavy and dark, then it shouldn't have been so light and fun at the beginning - and Sir Ian's performance needed to be heavier and darker at the beginning. Or it needed to "lighten up a bit" at the end and push Mirren's performance out of the darkness and a bit more into the light.
All-in-all it's a fine, throwback. A two actor film that is in short supplies these days - so well worth seeing. Though I will always pine for what could have been had the tone been evened out between these two veteran performers.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...they almost succeeded.
Written by Twin Cities native Jeffrey Hatcher, THE GOOD LIAR tells the tale of a...well...good liar played by Ian McKEllen. His con-man, Roy Courtney, is a roguish scamp, bilking crooks and ne'er do wells out of their money. He then sets his sights on rich Widow Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) and her millions of dollars.
We spend the first 3/4 of this film following Roy - and his con-man ways - and it is a pleasure to spend that time under the twinkling eyes of Sir Ian McKellen. He plays Roy with a bit of a light touch, driving down into the dirty work whenever he needs to, but spending most of his time outsmarting his opponents with a sly grin, a wry comment and a light step. He cares not for his marks, that is...until he meets Betty. And Mirren and McKellen have the ability to play off each other very well and this would have been a more effective film if both of them were acting in the same sort of film.
For, you see, McKellen is playing in a bit of light drama, landing his acting chops in a style reminiscent of con-man films like THE STING and NOW YOU SEE ME. Mirren, however, (who takes over the last 1/4 of the film) seems to be performing in a heavy drama like SOPHIE'S CHOICE or THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and I think it was the tone that each of these actors brought to their roles that drove both of these fine actors to this project.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy of the different acting styles, mood and tone ultimately derails this film and brings it down a peg from the austere heights it aspires to be.
I place the blame on Director Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes) who had two very good actors - and an interesting story - and just couldn't find the correct balance point for these actors, and this story. He also is not helped by Hatcher's script which really takes a dark turn (darker than is necessary for the story) that is a bit jarring. If this film wanted to be heavy and dark, then it shouldn't have been so light and fun at the beginning - and Sir Ian's performance needed to be heavier and darker at the beginning. Or it needed to "lighten up a bit" at the end and push Mirren's performance out of the darkness and a bit more into the light.
All-in-all it's a fine, throwback. A two actor film that is in short supplies these days - so well worth seeing. Though I will always pine for what could have been had the tone been evened out between these two veteran performers.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
365Flicks (235 KP) rated Talking Earth (2017) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
There is definitely a lot to be said about the Independent market right now (its bloody exciting). Every now and then you will come across an absolute gem of a movie and other times you will come across an absolute turdfest. I have been pretty lucky as of late that most of my picks are falling into the former. Now, this could be my ex Video Store clerk elitist personality shining through or maybe that clover my daughter shoved in my face along with a handful of grass really did have four leafs.
However Taking Earth has left me wondering (Dumbfounded even). I’m really not sure which bracket to put this flick in because it has all the hallmarks and some of the effects of a big budget summer blockbuster but the execution of a SyFy Sharknado style movie. I guess what i’m trying to say is that while I give this flick more credit than I feel it deserves I cant quite get to grips with how I felt about it.
Taking Earth is a Alien invasion movie set in the beautiful land of South Africa (Awesome accents and all). That’s about it really, all you need to know is that Aliens have invaded earth and they are looking for one boy in particular. We spend the bulk of the movie with David and Cameron two lads brought together after the invasion but Cameron holds a dangerous secret (Could he be the key to all of this) The duo must make there way to a safe zone while avoiding there hunters.
One of the things I liked about this movie was that it jumps straight in on the action, the invasion has happened and the cat and mouse chase is already in progress, this I liked. However I also kind of hated this because by the end of the flick (No spoilers) it felt like they were strongly hinting at a whole extended universe Before, During and After this movie that my guess is… we may not get to see (although the ending Screams sequel). I loved the fact that the movie was reportedly made for 5 million and to be completely fair to this first time Writer/Director/Editor it looks like it cost so much more, in fact I would say this movie looks better than 90% of those B-Movies we all seem to love these days.
The cast are all doing there best with the dialogue they have and delivering the best of it with such passion that it kind of makes it hard for me to shit on the flick. So this time I wont, but cross me agian!!!.
For me Taking Earth is a soft recommend, mostly because it screams expanded universe, this movie needs a prequel and screams for a sequel just to scratch the surface of the story I believe they want to tell… Would I watch either of them??? Probably not. The shining light is the unknown Cast and the Director are all invested and as a movie lover such as I am, I can not only respect them for it but I can also love them for it. There is a definite audience for this low budget movie with great effects and aspirations so like I say I think you should check it out… At your own risk!!!
Not exactly what I would call a Hidden Gem but by no means a Turdfest
However Taking Earth has left me wondering (Dumbfounded even). I’m really not sure which bracket to put this flick in because it has all the hallmarks and some of the effects of a big budget summer blockbuster but the execution of a SyFy Sharknado style movie. I guess what i’m trying to say is that while I give this flick more credit than I feel it deserves I cant quite get to grips with how I felt about it.
Taking Earth is a Alien invasion movie set in the beautiful land of South Africa (Awesome accents and all). That’s about it really, all you need to know is that Aliens have invaded earth and they are looking for one boy in particular. We spend the bulk of the movie with David and Cameron two lads brought together after the invasion but Cameron holds a dangerous secret (Could he be the key to all of this) The duo must make there way to a safe zone while avoiding there hunters.
One of the things I liked about this movie was that it jumps straight in on the action, the invasion has happened and the cat and mouse chase is already in progress, this I liked. However I also kind of hated this because by the end of the flick (No spoilers) it felt like they were strongly hinting at a whole extended universe Before, During and After this movie that my guess is… we may not get to see (although the ending Screams sequel). I loved the fact that the movie was reportedly made for 5 million and to be completely fair to this first time Writer/Director/Editor it looks like it cost so much more, in fact I would say this movie looks better than 90% of those B-Movies we all seem to love these days.
The cast are all doing there best with the dialogue they have and delivering the best of it with such passion that it kind of makes it hard for me to shit on the flick. So this time I wont, but cross me agian!!!.
For me Taking Earth is a soft recommend, mostly because it screams expanded universe, this movie needs a prequel and screams for a sequel just to scratch the surface of the story I believe they want to tell… Would I watch either of them??? Probably not. The shining light is the unknown Cast and the Director are all invested and as a movie lover such as I am, I can not only respect them for it but I can also love them for it. There is a definite audience for this low budget movie with great effects and aspirations so like I say I think you should check it out… At your own risk!!!
Not exactly what I would call a Hidden Gem but by no means a Turdfest
Rachel King (13 KP) rated American Gods in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I have only ever read one other adult book ( I don't count Coraline) by Gaiman, which was vastly different from this book in both style and mood - Stardust. A friend recommended I read this book many years ago since I like mythology. I found this book really had not much to do with mythology in the classic sense. Instead the characters that were pulled from mythology, such as Odin, Anansi, Horus, Bast, and Ganesha, among others, behaved like has-been D-list celebrities that struggle to survive in a country that is repeatedly described as "...a bad land for gods." The powers they rarely put on display were minimal and amounted to the same kind of "magic" as a skilled pick-pocket, con-artist, or amateur magician. The few times any real power is observed is once during the sexual scene of a re-invented Queen of Sheba (I'll spare you the R-rated details) and when the gods travel "behind the scenes," a state of existence that only the gods can enter.
While the names of classical mythology fit into the category of the Old Gods, there are New Gods that have taken root in America, born from cultural obsessions that have evolved and devolved over the years, such as railroads - a man dressed as a railroad conductor, television - a voice talking through Lucille Ball on a rerun of I Love Lucy, vehicles - stocky men that seemed to resemble vehicles themselves, and internet - a short, nerdy, nervous kid, among other American fixations and stereotypes.
In addition, one of the scenic devices used throughout the plot is what Gaiman's characters describe as places of power - side-of-the-road dives that road-trippers visit for no apparent reason, such as a place boasting the largest doll collection in America or the biggest wheel of cheese. And no, Disneyworld is not one of them.
One of the things I found interesting about this Gaiman-born world is that the Old Gods only exist in the New World when regular people travel from other countries and bring their memories and practices with them, even when they don't intend to stay themselves. The gods are "born" from these average people, and even though they can be killed by others, they don't die otherwise, but instead alternately starve or thrive based on the behavior of the people who live and die in the New World. They all have counterpart manifestations of themselves in the countries they are pulled from, but one's existence does not affect the other - though they do seem to be aware of each other.
All of this is merely the background of the main plot, which centers around the activities and travels of a seemingly mortal man with a single name, Shadow. I never did "get" the one-name thing, but whatever. Through Shadow's narration, the reader learns of an impending storm - a battle between the Old Gods and New Gods, the former fighting for survival and the latter fighting for dominance. Shadow works for a mysterious "Mr. Wednesday" and is randomly haunted by his dead wife, Laura, but otherwise seems to have little drive of his own for most of the book. In fitting irony, he has his own brand of "magic" - an obsession for coin tricks to pass the time from his days spent in prison - which I could never really follow the descriptions of.
To be completely honest, I truly did enjoy this book, though I am struggling to say exactly why. Perhaps I was fascinated by the "shadowy" way that Gaiman told the story, or how he developed this over-the-hill world of gods and goddesses that better resembled America's middle and poor classes' struggles for survival, money, and influence. Some of the personal touches that Shadow's character added to the plot made him at times surprisingly endearing. In addition, the way that Shadow seemed to address the reader at the very end of the book was so satisfying that I laughed out loud and had to read it again several times. Something about that just brought the book to life for me and help me to fully appreciate the versatile style of Gaiman. This is one of those books you don't have to fully understand to fully appreciate.
While the names of classical mythology fit into the category of the Old Gods, there are New Gods that have taken root in America, born from cultural obsessions that have evolved and devolved over the years, such as railroads - a man dressed as a railroad conductor, television - a voice talking through Lucille Ball on a rerun of I Love Lucy, vehicles - stocky men that seemed to resemble vehicles themselves, and internet - a short, nerdy, nervous kid, among other American fixations and stereotypes.
In addition, one of the scenic devices used throughout the plot is what Gaiman's characters describe as places of power - side-of-the-road dives that road-trippers visit for no apparent reason, such as a place boasting the largest doll collection in America or the biggest wheel of cheese. And no, Disneyworld is not one of them.
One of the things I found interesting about this Gaiman-born world is that the Old Gods only exist in the New World when regular people travel from other countries and bring their memories and practices with them, even when they don't intend to stay themselves. The gods are "born" from these average people, and even though they can be killed by others, they don't die otherwise, but instead alternately starve or thrive based on the behavior of the people who live and die in the New World. They all have counterpart manifestations of themselves in the countries they are pulled from, but one's existence does not affect the other - though they do seem to be aware of each other.
All of this is merely the background of the main plot, which centers around the activities and travels of a seemingly mortal man with a single name, Shadow. I never did "get" the one-name thing, but whatever. Through Shadow's narration, the reader learns of an impending storm - a battle between the Old Gods and New Gods, the former fighting for survival and the latter fighting for dominance. Shadow works for a mysterious "Mr. Wednesday" and is randomly haunted by his dead wife, Laura, but otherwise seems to have little drive of his own for most of the book. In fitting irony, he has his own brand of "magic" - an obsession for coin tricks to pass the time from his days spent in prison - which I could never really follow the descriptions of.
To be completely honest, I truly did enjoy this book, though I am struggling to say exactly why. Perhaps I was fascinated by the "shadowy" way that Gaiman told the story, or how he developed this over-the-hill world of gods and goddesses that better resembled America's middle and poor classes' struggles for survival, money, and influence. Some of the personal touches that Shadow's character added to the plot made him at times surprisingly endearing. In addition, the way that Shadow seemed to address the reader at the very end of the book was so satisfying that I laughed out loud and had to read it again several times. Something about that just brought the book to life for me and help me to fully appreciate the versatile style of Gaiman. This is one of those books you don't have to fully understand to fully appreciate.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Brightburn (2019) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
What if Clark Kent grew up to be evil? What if, instead of growing up to be this all powerful protector of Earth and humanity, he decided he wanted to take the world, cruelly toying with and destroying humanity in the process? That's the premise behind Brightburn, a superhero horror movie from producer James Gunn, of Guardians of the Galaxy fame. Comic books are littered with plenty of 'what if' story-lines and alternate takes on popular superheroes, but up until now probably the most famous onscreen version of an evil Superman we've seen was in Superman III. And even then we only really got a drunk, unshaven, but still family friendly Superman, who felt a bit mischievous and blew out the Olympic torch for a bit of a laugh. Brightburn goes a lot darker, leaning heavily into horror with some wonderful, wince-inducing gory moments. If you're looking for Dark Phoenix levels of dark - moody, crying in the corner, that kind of thing - then you're going to be disappointed.
Brightburn begins by mirroring the origin story of Superman very closely - even the soundtrack reminded me of the music from 2013 movie Man of Steel on more than one occasion! Tori (Elizabeth Banks) and Kyle Bryer (David Denman) are a happily married couple, living on a farm and longing for a child of their own. And then one night, a meteor crash lands out in the nearby woods, bringing them a baby boy who they adopt as their own. We see home movies of a normal baby/toddler as he grows up as part of a normal, loving family. And then we move forward 10 years to present day.
As an adolescent, Brandon (Jackson A. Dunn) begins to experience some change in his life. His parents put it down to hormones, and attempt to give him the talk on girls and the facts of life, but it's a lot more than that. The rock shaped vessel which carried Brandon to Earth as a baby has been locked away in the family barn all these years, hidden from Brandon, but has now started glowing red. At the same time, something within Brandon appears to have been activated, and a number of small but disturbing incidents that follow leave his parents worried. They also realise that they've never actually seen their son bleed, or even hurt before. From there, the severity of these incidents increases greatly, and it becomes clear that there is definitely something very, very wrong with Brandon.
What I loved about Brightburn was the confined, low key setting of it all. The action is restricted primarily to the town of Brightburn, never really expanding into the worldwide, CGI heavy destruction of other superhero movies. We have an incredibly relatable mother who is out to love and protect her son until the bitter end, a father who becomes scared and horrified by everything that is unfolding, and then this powerful boy tearing the family apart - unpredictable and showing no sign of remorse or inner turmoil over everything that is happening. Outside of that, the action is confined to a relatively small cast - the local police, extended family and some other kids from school who we all follow throughout the movie - there's a lot of character depth to be found in Brightburn, which greatly adds to its overall enjoyment.
As is the norm these days though, the trailer does give away the majority of Brandon's targets and where he attacks them, meaning you kind of know what to expect for a lot of it. However, what the trailer doesn't give away is the atmosphere and the eeriness that builds to each of those shocking (and gory) moments and there are still plenty of jump scares and shocking scenes to keep you on your toes throughout. It builds to a climax which once again isn't a CGI overload, relying on shock and horror to deliver it's interesting conclusion. And, most importantly, it leaves the door open for what could be a very interesting sequel. I'm all up for that, and the direction that hints at, as I found Brightburn to be a very enjoyable and fresh take on the superhero genre.
Brightburn begins by mirroring the origin story of Superman very closely - even the soundtrack reminded me of the music from 2013 movie Man of Steel on more than one occasion! Tori (Elizabeth Banks) and Kyle Bryer (David Denman) are a happily married couple, living on a farm and longing for a child of their own. And then one night, a meteor crash lands out in the nearby woods, bringing them a baby boy who they adopt as their own. We see home movies of a normal baby/toddler as he grows up as part of a normal, loving family. And then we move forward 10 years to present day.
As an adolescent, Brandon (Jackson A. Dunn) begins to experience some change in his life. His parents put it down to hormones, and attempt to give him the talk on girls and the facts of life, but it's a lot more than that. The rock shaped vessel which carried Brandon to Earth as a baby has been locked away in the family barn all these years, hidden from Brandon, but has now started glowing red. At the same time, something within Brandon appears to have been activated, and a number of small but disturbing incidents that follow leave his parents worried. They also realise that they've never actually seen their son bleed, or even hurt before. From there, the severity of these incidents increases greatly, and it becomes clear that there is definitely something very, very wrong with Brandon.
What I loved about Brightburn was the confined, low key setting of it all. The action is restricted primarily to the town of Brightburn, never really expanding into the worldwide, CGI heavy destruction of other superhero movies. We have an incredibly relatable mother who is out to love and protect her son until the bitter end, a father who becomes scared and horrified by everything that is unfolding, and then this powerful boy tearing the family apart - unpredictable and showing no sign of remorse or inner turmoil over everything that is happening. Outside of that, the action is confined to a relatively small cast - the local police, extended family and some other kids from school who we all follow throughout the movie - there's a lot of character depth to be found in Brightburn, which greatly adds to its overall enjoyment.
As is the norm these days though, the trailer does give away the majority of Brandon's targets and where he attacks them, meaning you kind of know what to expect for a lot of it. However, what the trailer doesn't give away is the atmosphere and the eeriness that builds to each of those shocking (and gory) moments and there are still plenty of jump scares and shocking scenes to keep you on your toes throughout. It builds to a climax which once again isn't a CGI overload, relying on shock and horror to deliver it's interesting conclusion. And, most importantly, it leaves the door open for what could be a very interesting sequel. I'm all up for that, and the direction that hints at, as I found Brightburn to be a very enjoyable and fresh take on the superhero genre.