Search
Search results
After the death of her husband, Jocelyn "Jo" must return home with her ten-year-old daughter, Ruby. His death has left her in financial trouble, and she has no choice but to head back to Lake Hall, the aristocratic home she shared with her parents when growing up. It's a far cry from California where she lived with Chris and Ruby, escaping a stifling childhood with her mother. Jo's happiest childhood memories involve her nanny, Hannah, but Hannah disappeared suddenly one summer when Jo was seven. Her mother blamed Jo, and the two never repaired their relationship. Back now, thirty years later, Jo must deal with her mother and their fractured relationship. And when she and Ruby find a skull in the lake behind the house, she begins to wonder exactly what happened to Hannah. Jo isn't sure of anything anymore, or who she can trust, even her own memories.
"I'll never be able to change this place, but if we stay here long enough, I'm afraid it will change my daughter and me."
I've loved Gilly Macmillan and her books since I won one of them in a Librarything giveaway a few years ago. She's an excellent writer, and I quite enjoy how different each book is from the next. This one was very different and quite unexpected. It's told from a variety of alternating viewpoints--the primary ones being Jocelyn and her mother, Virginia, but we even get a local policeman and a mysterious woman dating back to the 1970s. I liked the way Macmillan wove all of of these perspectives together. At first, it seemed really easy to trust everyone, and then quickly, you realize that you can't be sure if you can believe either Jo or her mother.
I don't want to go too far or reveal too much, because it's probably better to let most of the plot reveal itself organically, but it's definitely easy to say that much of the book is a little befuddling (in a good way). I found myself drawn to Ruby, the young girl, and oddly, Virginia, despite her history as a pretty terrible parent. Jo frustrated me, with her somewhat naive nature. She would trust some things at face value, yet not others, and I wanted to shake her at points.
There are definitely some convoluted plot points in this one--there's quite a saga with the Holt legacy. I didn't really question it while I was reading, but after, I find myself wondering if it was all necessary. Still, I loved reading about the slightly faded grandeur of Lake Hall--it's just not something you get in America, and it's fun to picture when you read these type of novels. Macmillan does an excellent job of portraying her characters and the setting.
I definitely was caught up in the plot. I thought I had it figured out for a while, then I realized I didn't, and then the ending was a little crazy. I'm still not a 100% sure about it, but I appreciate Macmillan for embracing it. Overall, I enjoyed the varying viewpoints and the slightly fusty, aristocratic setting. I was interested in the characters and wondering what happened with Hannah. A few things seemed a little far-fetched, hence my 3.5-star rating, but still a good read.
"I'll never be able to change this place, but if we stay here long enough, I'm afraid it will change my daughter and me."
I've loved Gilly Macmillan and her books since I won one of them in a Librarything giveaway a few years ago. She's an excellent writer, and I quite enjoy how different each book is from the next. This one was very different and quite unexpected. It's told from a variety of alternating viewpoints--the primary ones being Jocelyn and her mother, Virginia, but we even get a local policeman and a mysterious woman dating back to the 1970s. I liked the way Macmillan wove all of of these perspectives together. At first, it seemed really easy to trust everyone, and then quickly, you realize that you can't be sure if you can believe either Jo or her mother.
I don't want to go too far or reveal too much, because it's probably better to let most of the plot reveal itself organically, but it's definitely easy to say that much of the book is a little befuddling (in a good way). I found myself drawn to Ruby, the young girl, and oddly, Virginia, despite her history as a pretty terrible parent. Jo frustrated me, with her somewhat naive nature. She would trust some things at face value, yet not others, and I wanted to shake her at points.
There are definitely some convoluted plot points in this one--there's quite a saga with the Holt legacy. I didn't really question it while I was reading, but after, I find myself wondering if it was all necessary. Still, I loved reading about the slightly faded grandeur of Lake Hall--it's just not something you get in America, and it's fun to picture when you read these type of novels. Macmillan does an excellent job of portraying her characters and the setting.
I definitely was caught up in the plot. I thought I had it figured out for a while, then I realized I didn't, and then the ending was a little crazy. I'm still not a 100% sure about it, but I appreciate Macmillan for embracing it. Overall, I enjoyed the varying viewpoints and the slightly fusty, aristocratic setting. I was interested in the characters and wondering what happened with Hannah. A few things seemed a little far-fetched, hence my 3.5-star rating, but still a good read.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated On the Basis of Sex (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
In the year 2018, it’s easy to forget how much the times have changed over the last century. We now carry computers around in our pockets, have the internet to conduct worldwide business in a matter of seconds and cars that run on electricity. Considering all of these amazing technological advancements you would think something as simple and no-brainer as equal rights must have been around for hundreds and hundreds of years, right? Well, the new movie On the Basis of Sex humbly reminded me that the equal rights movement was not too much longer ago than the invention of the internet and it was just the type of reminder I needed to once again appreciate just how far we have come.
On the Basis of Sex is a biopic detailing Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s (Felicity Jones) rise from one of the first women “invited” to attend Harvard Law School to becoming the 2nd woman nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. The first part of the movie aptly chronicles Mrs. Ginsburg’s experience as a woman at Harvard Law School and then getting her first job as a professor at Rutgers Law School in 1963. Considering she graduated at the top of her class being a professor was not her dream job, but law firms were not looking to hire female lawyers, so she made the best of it. This all leads up to the main focus of the film which is Mrs. Ginsburg representing a Colorado man who has been denied caretaker tax benefits because the tax code specifically applied to women. The movie shows both her struggles and triumphs with the case and why equal rights were so important to her. Although the movie focused on this one case, it was crystal clear that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a force to be reckoned with and this was just one of many cases she would take on to ensure greater equality for woman.
Felicity Jones does an incredible job portraying Mrs. Ginsburg. She brings a swagger to the character and used an authentic sounding Brooklyn accent to boot. Armie Hammer also does a great job playing the ever supportive and unshakable husband Marty Ginsburg. They had great chemistry on screen and did an excellent job showing just how supportive they were to one another. Even though their relationship was not the focus of the film, it was very touching and added a little extra heart to the story. Speaking of the story, it was both engaging and thought provoking, so much so that its effects are still there even after leaving the theater. I enjoyed how the story unfolded and the fact that it never got to preachy or political. As biopics go, there were a few spots that seemed to drag on a bit, but generally the pace never lingered in one spot for too long and it kept my interest the whole time.
On the Basis of Sex was a very good movie and a welcome addition to this year’s holiday movie offerings. If you are looking for something different after a couple of hours with web slinging spider-folk and yellow cars that turn into giant robots then this would be a great movie to check out. With excellent acting, a great inspirational story and even a little bit of heart, I really couldn’t ask for anything more.
On the Basis of Sex is a biopic detailing Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s (Felicity Jones) rise from one of the first women “invited” to attend Harvard Law School to becoming the 2nd woman nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. The first part of the movie aptly chronicles Mrs. Ginsburg’s experience as a woman at Harvard Law School and then getting her first job as a professor at Rutgers Law School in 1963. Considering she graduated at the top of her class being a professor was not her dream job, but law firms were not looking to hire female lawyers, so she made the best of it. This all leads up to the main focus of the film which is Mrs. Ginsburg representing a Colorado man who has been denied caretaker tax benefits because the tax code specifically applied to women. The movie shows both her struggles and triumphs with the case and why equal rights were so important to her. Although the movie focused on this one case, it was crystal clear that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a force to be reckoned with and this was just one of many cases she would take on to ensure greater equality for woman.
Felicity Jones does an incredible job portraying Mrs. Ginsburg. She brings a swagger to the character and used an authentic sounding Brooklyn accent to boot. Armie Hammer also does a great job playing the ever supportive and unshakable husband Marty Ginsburg. They had great chemistry on screen and did an excellent job showing just how supportive they were to one another. Even though their relationship was not the focus of the film, it was very touching and added a little extra heart to the story. Speaking of the story, it was both engaging and thought provoking, so much so that its effects are still there even after leaving the theater. I enjoyed how the story unfolded and the fact that it never got to preachy or political. As biopics go, there were a few spots that seemed to drag on a bit, but generally the pace never lingered in one spot for too long and it kept my interest the whole time.
On the Basis of Sex was a very good movie and a welcome addition to this year’s holiday movie offerings. If you are looking for something different after a couple of hours with web slinging spider-folk and yellow cars that turn into giant robots then this would be a great movie to check out. With excellent acting, a great inspirational story and even a little bit of heart, I really couldn’t ask for anything more.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Doctor Sleep (2019) in Movies
Nov 11, 2019 (Updated Nov 12, 2019)
39 Years Later: Redrum aka Murder
Doctor Sleep- if you dont know is the sequel to the shining. I have been waiting for this movie to come out ever since it got announced. I read the book over two years again and i loved it. I didnt even know their was a sequel to the shining until i read the book. The book is phenomenal, it is acutally my first stephen king novel that i read and finshed, so to say at less, i was hyped and very anticpated, so what did i think. I thought it was good. I liked it alot.
Ewan McGregor was a perfect cast for Danny Torrance and Rebecca Ferguson was excellent as Rose The Hat and newcomer actress Kyliegh Curran was great as Abra Stone. Mike Flanagan was amazing choice for the dirctor. I liked his other movies that he directed and also loved The Haunting of Hill House which he created and directed.
The Recreated sences from the oringal film was intresting, i liked it not to bad. The hotel looks the same, old, crooked, haunted, scary, horrorfying and terrorfying. The replacements for Dick Hallorann, young Danny, Wendy and Llyod/Jack were intresting. I really liked the actress who played Wendy. As for Dick, i liked the actor who played him. As for young Danny he was good and Llyod/Jack the actor who played him was okay/bad, he just did a impression of Jack Nichoslon and looked like a young Jack Nicolson.
This is intresting, i just found this out: Danny Lloyd, who played Danny Torrance in The Shining, makes a cameo appearance as Bradley Trevor's father. Lloyd had been retired from acting for roughly 38 years, and was direct-messaged on Twitter by Flanagan to appear in the film. Producer Trevor Macy said of Lloyd's involvement, "[Lloyd] was excited to do [the cameo]. He hadn't acted since [the original]. He's a schoolteacher, and a very successful one at that, [who] like[s] making the world better. He came back for a day, and we were thrilled to have him." When pressed as to why the filmmakers did not extend the same offer to Jack Nicholson, Macy responded, "With Jack, I knew that they approached him for Ready Player One, and that he seems to be very serious about being retired. I had known that he was supportive [of the sequel] but retired." Flanagan admitted, "I didn't know how that would really work. Even if he were to come back, if he were appearing as a different character, I thought that would set people's hair on fire. He was absolutely a presence on set, though, whether he knew it or not."
So thats intresting. I would of loved to see Jack Nichloson come out of retirement and play old Jack Torrance.
Doctor Sleep was a great/excellent sequel to the shining and what Mike Flanagan did was perfect he toke elements from Stanley Kubrick's film and made it his own. The cast is great, the story is great, the hotel is great.
If you havent seen the shining than watch it and read it. If you havent seen this movie, than go watch it and read it.
Ewan McGregor was a perfect cast for Danny Torrance and Rebecca Ferguson was excellent as Rose The Hat and newcomer actress Kyliegh Curran was great as Abra Stone. Mike Flanagan was amazing choice for the dirctor. I liked his other movies that he directed and also loved The Haunting of Hill House which he created and directed.
The Recreated sences from the oringal film was intresting, i liked it not to bad. The hotel looks the same, old, crooked, haunted, scary, horrorfying and terrorfying. The replacements for Dick Hallorann, young Danny, Wendy and Llyod/Jack were intresting. I really liked the actress who played Wendy. As for Dick, i liked the actor who played him. As for young Danny he was good and Llyod/Jack the actor who played him was okay/bad, he just did a impression of Jack Nichoslon and looked like a young Jack Nicolson.
This is intresting, i just found this out: Danny Lloyd, who played Danny Torrance in The Shining, makes a cameo appearance as Bradley Trevor's father. Lloyd had been retired from acting for roughly 38 years, and was direct-messaged on Twitter by Flanagan to appear in the film. Producer Trevor Macy said of Lloyd's involvement, "[Lloyd] was excited to do [the cameo]. He hadn't acted since [the original]. He's a schoolteacher, and a very successful one at that, [who] like[s] making the world better. He came back for a day, and we were thrilled to have him." When pressed as to why the filmmakers did not extend the same offer to Jack Nicholson, Macy responded, "With Jack, I knew that they approached him for Ready Player One, and that he seems to be very serious about being retired. I had known that he was supportive [of the sequel] but retired." Flanagan admitted, "I didn't know how that would really work. Even if he were to come back, if he were appearing as a different character, I thought that would set people's hair on fire. He was absolutely a presence on set, though, whether he knew it or not."
So thats intresting. I would of loved to see Jack Nichloson come out of retirement and play old Jack Torrance.
Doctor Sleep was a great/excellent sequel to the shining and what Mike Flanagan did was perfect he toke elements from Stanley Kubrick's film and made it his own. The cast is great, the story is great, the hotel is great.
If you havent seen the shining than watch it and read it. If you havent seen this movie, than go watch it and read it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
This is not your father’s Jack Ryan; but it should’ve been.
Chris Pine stars as the famed Jack Ryan in this reboot of the character. We open the movie with Ryan
attending school in London on the day many won’t soon forget: September 11, 2001. The events
this day push Ryan into enlisting in the Marines and we join him 3 years later where we see Ryan in
a helicopter with some brothers-in-arms. It doesn’t take long for the helo to be shot down, but not
without Ryan becoming a hero. After extensive rehab from a broken spine, Mr. Ryan is approached by
Thomas Harper (Kevin Costner) to join the CIA as an analyst.
This intro to the movie was short. But what lacks in length it makes up for in the eloquence in which
it delivers the back story for Jack Ryan, thus setting up a whole new franchise and getting new viewers
ready for the ride. After this intro, we flash forward 10 years later to find Ryan working on Wall Street,
but he’s undercover and is an analyst for the CIA. He is with his one-time physical therapist, Cathy
Muller (Keira Knightley), and he discovers the details of a planned economic attack against the USA.
It isn’t long before he is whisked away to Russia to do some wet work, and he bumbles into the life
of a field agent facing off against the mastermind of the villainy in the film, Viktor Cherevin (Kenneth
Branagh).
Some may find that the movie lacks the quick-paced, non-stop action that we have seen from spy
movies these days (including the famous 007), but it does keep a good pace and puts an intelligent story
line on the screen and actually entices the audience to think, all the while including some action for the
adrenaline-junkies.
Pine plays a very believable Jack Ryan. He portrays a character that is more closely linked to Tom
Clancy’s original stories and vision for the character than even Harrison Ford did in Patriot Games (which
I thought was an excellent movie). He nailed the bumbling analyst-turned-field-agent in such a way that
you’d believe it was really his personality. They explain his ability to handle himself with the military
background so expertly set up at the beginning of the movie. Adding Costner to the cast was a stroke
of genius as he plays the mentor/superior part extremely well, but he wasn’t in the film so much as
to distract from the focus of Ryan. Branagh (who also directed the film) played an excellent Russian
adversary to Ryan, who was nothing short of a genius in the way he delivered his character’s stoic
responses and reactions.
If I had to name one gripe with the movie, which believe me was no small feat, it was the Cathy
Muller character. Don’t get me wrong, the character was amazing and Knightley did an admirable job
portraying her. I just felt that she seemed to accept things that most people would question a little too
quickly, and without any reservation.
Other than that, the movie rocked. The action scenes were gripping and the actual story-line was
intelligent. The best thing is that story was plausible. It was not over the top or wildly impossible in the
real world. The scary part is just that. The plot of this movie could actually happen. I would definitely
recommend checking it out in theaters, and it most certainly made my “gotta buy it on bluray” list.
Chris Pine stars as the famed Jack Ryan in this reboot of the character. We open the movie with Ryan
attending school in London on the day many won’t soon forget: September 11, 2001. The events
this day push Ryan into enlisting in the Marines and we join him 3 years later where we see Ryan in
a helicopter with some brothers-in-arms. It doesn’t take long for the helo to be shot down, but not
without Ryan becoming a hero. After extensive rehab from a broken spine, Mr. Ryan is approached by
Thomas Harper (Kevin Costner) to join the CIA as an analyst.
This intro to the movie was short. But what lacks in length it makes up for in the eloquence in which
it delivers the back story for Jack Ryan, thus setting up a whole new franchise and getting new viewers
ready for the ride. After this intro, we flash forward 10 years later to find Ryan working on Wall Street,
but he’s undercover and is an analyst for the CIA. He is with his one-time physical therapist, Cathy
Muller (Keira Knightley), and he discovers the details of a planned economic attack against the USA.
It isn’t long before he is whisked away to Russia to do some wet work, and he bumbles into the life
of a field agent facing off against the mastermind of the villainy in the film, Viktor Cherevin (Kenneth
Branagh).
Some may find that the movie lacks the quick-paced, non-stop action that we have seen from spy
movies these days (including the famous 007), but it does keep a good pace and puts an intelligent story
line on the screen and actually entices the audience to think, all the while including some action for the
adrenaline-junkies.
Pine plays a very believable Jack Ryan. He portrays a character that is more closely linked to Tom
Clancy’s original stories and vision for the character than even Harrison Ford did in Patriot Games (which
I thought was an excellent movie). He nailed the bumbling analyst-turned-field-agent in such a way that
you’d believe it was really his personality. They explain his ability to handle himself with the military
background so expertly set up at the beginning of the movie. Adding Costner to the cast was a stroke
of genius as he plays the mentor/superior part extremely well, but he wasn’t in the film so much as
to distract from the focus of Ryan. Branagh (who also directed the film) played an excellent Russian
adversary to Ryan, who was nothing short of a genius in the way he delivered his character’s stoic
responses and reactions.
If I had to name one gripe with the movie, which believe me was no small feat, it was the Cathy
Muller character. Don’t get me wrong, the character was amazing and Knightley did an admirable job
portraying her. I just felt that she seemed to accept things that most people would question a little too
quickly, and without any reservation.
Other than that, the movie rocked. The action scenes were gripping and the actual story-line was
intelligent. The best thing is that story was plausible. It was not over the top or wildly impossible in the
real world. The scary part is just that. The plot of this movie could actually happen. I would definitely
recommend checking it out in theaters, and it most certainly made my “gotta buy it on bluray” list.
Flight Review Checkride
Education and Reference
App
All pilots, whether they fly for pleasure, business, or as a career, must take a flight review every...
Radiology Assistant - Medical Imaging Reference
Medical and Reference
App
[ UPDATE ] !! DO NOT BUY !! !! PLEASE DOWNLOAD THE RADIOLOGY ASSISTANT 2.0 !! [ UPDATE ] The...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hamilton (2020) in Movies
Jul 5, 2020
Captures the power of being in "the room where it happens"
I'll just cut to the chase, the filmed version of the mega-hit stage musical HAMILTON (now streaming on Disney+) is terrific. If you are one of the few that have not seen this, check it out - you'll be glad you did.
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?
Dean (6927 KP) rated Forza Motorsport 7 in Video Games
May 16, 2021
Amazing graphics, true 4k racing (2 more)
Weather conditions
100's of cars
Loading times (6 more)
Rewind Button
So many menus
Computer AI
Multiplayer races
Grid position
Endurance races
Technically excellent Racing Simulation
A very good Racing Simulation with amazing graphics, true 4k details but with a lot of flaws.
The graphics are the highlight really so much detail on every car and track. While some of the track circuits are sparse, the city tracks especially Prague and Rio de Janeiro look great. Along with the lighting and weather conditions, including thunderstorms make it very realistic.
There is a huge variety of cars from street to every form of racing thinkable, even truck racing.
Unfortunately there are a lot of minor things that add up which are disappointing. Because of the detail in the graphics and large circuits the loading times for the races can be slow. There are so many menus to go through as well. You need to apply Mod cards before most races, like finish in top 5,3,1st, clean laps, races and turning off assists to gain more credits or xp. I'm not a fan of this system. Even after the race you have a few menus to get your rewards.
This is a tough simulation which is why no doubt there is a rewind button for when you go of track or crash. You will need it especially when the computer drivers ram into you or don't observe the racing line. It feels like cheating though. You will need the braking line on most of the time or you are very likely to overrun corners.
With this largely being track racing these are the same tracks mostly that have featured in so many previous Forza Motorsport games. How about a Monaco track? The few street tracks really do look great.
You can full simulation mode where you can do longer races, look after tyres and pit for petrol if you wish. I can't imagine many choosing this option though.
If you are a completist and want to do every race for the cups, you don't need to in order to win the cup, then prepare for the endurance races. At least 2 taking 2.5 hours and one race lasting almost 3 hours long. Why would anyone want to do one race for that long? Most races are 2-4 laps so doing a 60-80 lap race is a huge jump.
There are a wide range of multiplayer races but you really need to tune your car to the max and hope you don't get rammed off at the 1st corner to do well.
The races are big, up to 24 players or computer drivers. Often you start 12th on the grid in the computer races which can make it hard to win when the race is 2 or 3 laps until you get use to the game.
There are a few events like overtake challenges, cone races, bowling but not enough of these for much variety.
So a technically excellent Racing game which is definitely aimed more at the track racing hardcover gamer. Unfortunately it has many minor flaws that do add up which are a bit annoying. Once you win all the cups it's not one you will take for a spin that often. If you want a fun racer the Horizon series is more enjoyable.
The graphics are the highlight really so much detail on every car and track. While some of the track circuits are sparse, the city tracks especially Prague and Rio de Janeiro look great. Along with the lighting and weather conditions, including thunderstorms make it very realistic.
There is a huge variety of cars from street to every form of racing thinkable, even truck racing.
Unfortunately there are a lot of minor things that add up which are disappointing. Because of the detail in the graphics and large circuits the loading times for the races can be slow. There are so many menus to go through as well. You need to apply Mod cards before most races, like finish in top 5,3,1st, clean laps, races and turning off assists to gain more credits or xp. I'm not a fan of this system. Even after the race you have a few menus to get your rewards.
This is a tough simulation which is why no doubt there is a rewind button for when you go of track or crash. You will need it especially when the computer drivers ram into you or don't observe the racing line. It feels like cheating though. You will need the braking line on most of the time or you are very likely to overrun corners.
With this largely being track racing these are the same tracks mostly that have featured in so many previous Forza Motorsport games. How about a Monaco track? The few street tracks really do look great.
You can full simulation mode where you can do longer races, look after tyres and pit for petrol if you wish. I can't imagine many choosing this option though.
If you are a completist and want to do every race for the cups, you don't need to in order to win the cup, then prepare for the endurance races. At least 2 taking 2.5 hours and one race lasting almost 3 hours long. Why would anyone want to do one race for that long? Most races are 2-4 laps so doing a 60-80 lap race is a huge jump.
There are a wide range of multiplayer races but you really need to tune your car to the max and hope you don't get rammed off at the 1st corner to do well.
The races are big, up to 24 players or computer drivers. Often you start 12th on the grid in the computer races which can make it hard to win when the race is 2 or 3 laps until you get use to the game.
There are a few events like overtake challenges, cone races, bowling but not enough of these for much variety.
So a technically excellent Racing game which is definitely aimed more at the track racing hardcover gamer. Unfortunately it has many minor flaws that do add up which are a bit annoying. Once you win all the cups it's not one you will take for a spin that often. If you want a fun racer the Horizon series is more enjoyable.
Sarah (7799 KP) rated The Boys - Season 2 in TV
Oct 10, 2020
Excellent, but not quite as good as the first
For me, the first series of The Boys was a brilliant surprise and the wait for this second series has been a rather frustrating and impatient experience, especially as Amazon decided not to release the entire series at once. Fortunately by the time the credits rolled on the series 2 finale, it was definitely worth the wait.
This second series follows on from the reveal at the end of the series 1 finale, and features more dodgy supes and the Boys trying to take down both them and Vought.
Series 2 is very similar to the first. It’s just as rude and crude as before, full of dark and often hilarious humour and the blood and gore ante seems to have been upped considerably. It definitely provides a refreshing change to the Marvel universe and the majority of other superheroes that stick to their PG or 12A ratings. This has a very smart and funny take on politics and also on pop culture and the media, and even superhero films don’t escape this unscathed when we see The Seven making their own movie.
The cast are as fantastic as they were in the first series. Antony Starr is outstanding as Homelander, playing the homicidal maniac with some semblance of a heart – after 2 series I think I both love and hate him in equal parts, he’s such a complex character. It was very nice to see Dominique McElligott get more to work with as Maeve as well and to see more depth to her character. The rest of the cast and the new additions do very well too - Goran Visjnic, Shawn Ashmore and Jim Beaver are especially welcome, and it was very clever of Eric Kripke to name Beaver’s character as Robert Singer, the same name as his character from Supernatural.
Despite this, I don’t think this series is perfect and I do think it’s a slight baby step down from the rather excellent first series. Some of the episodes feel like they drag a little, although they do end up picking up towards the end (usually with a bang). The final two episodes definitely try and make up for this and I think the finale itself was especially good as we get to see Stormfront get her much deserved comeuppance. I also think some of the interactions between Starlight and the other characters are slightly badly scripted and feel a little forced and cringeworthy, but I’m not entirely sure if this is on purpose to show how awkwardly Starlight interacts with others.
The Deep has also been done a disservice in this series. He starts off brilliantly and the scene with the whale in the third episode is downright genius, however as the series moves on we see less and less of him and he’s sorely missed. Admittedly when he does pop up in the later episodes he has some cracking lines, but it’s not enough. I also think that Shawn Ashmore as Lamplighter was fantastic for the brief time we saw him, and I really wish he’d been kept around for much longer.
The Boys series 2 is overall a very good series that for the most part lives up to it’s predecessor and after the final few scenes in episode 8, definitely leaves us crying out for more.
This second series follows on from the reveal at the end of the series 1 finale, and features more dodgy supes and the Boys trying to take down both them and Vought.
Series 2 is very similar to the first. It’s just as rude and crude as before, full of dark and often hilarious humour and the blood and gore ante seems to have been upped considerably. It definitely provides a refreshing change to the Marvel universe and the majority of other superheroes that stick to their PG or 12A ratings. This has a very smart and funny take on politics and also on pop culture and the media, and even superhero films don’t escape this unscathed when we see The Seven making their own movie.
The cast are as fantastic as they were in the first series. Antony Starr is outstanding as Homelander, playing the homicidal maniac with some semblance of a heart – after 2 series I think I both love and hate him in equal parts, he’s such a complex character. It was very nice to see Dominique McElligott get more to work with as Maeve as well and to see more depth to her character. The rest of the cast and the new additions do very well too - Goran Visjnic, Shawn Ashmore and Jim Beaver are especially welcome, and it was very clever of Eric Kripke to name Beaver’s character as Robert Singer, the same name as his character from Supernatural.
Despite this, I don’t think this series is perfect and I do think it’s a slight baby step down from the rather excellent first series. Some of the episodes feel like they drag a little, although they do end up picking up towards the end (usually with a bang). The final two episodes definitely try and make up for this and I think the finale itself was especially good as we get to see Stormfront get her much deserved comeuppance. I also think some of the interactions between Starlight and the other characters are slightly badly scripted and feel a little forced and cringeworthy, but I’m not entirely sure if this is on purpose to show how awkwardly Starlight interacts with others.
The Deep has also been done a disservice in this series. He starts off brilliantly and the scene with the whale in the third episode is downright genius, however as the series moves on we see less and less of him and he’s sorely missed. Admittedly when he does pop up in the later episodes he has some cracking lines, but it’s not enough. I also think that Shawn Ashmore as Lamplighter was fantastic for the brief time we saw him, and I really wish he’d been kept around for much longer.
The Boys series 2 is overall a very good series that for the most part lives up to it’s predecessor and after the final few scenes in episode 8, definitely leaves us crying out for more.