Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Before you read this review of Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw, I just want you to know that I can’t stand this franchise. I gave up keeping up with them after Furious 7 and felt like the Fast & Furious franchise peaked/was tolerable around Fast Five and never really went anywhere worthwhile before or since. I have not seen all the films and really only seemed to watch every other entry, but whether you’re in a heist or a drag race that lethal dose of masculinity being projectile vomited all over you by an entire cast (women included) for two hours straight is dull and tiresome. In fact, just call this franchise “Dull & Tiresome” from here on out and I doubt anyone would notice. It’s even got “tire” in there for car…stuff.
Ignoring the fact that screenwriters Chris Morgan (writer of every Fast and Furious entry since Tokyo Drift) and Drew Pearce (writer and director of the flop known as Hotel Artemis) were involved, I actually like David Leitch’s work (co-director of John Wick, director of Deadpool 2 and Atomic Blonde) even if he is probably going to screw up that Enter the Dragon remake. The trailers also made Hobbs & Shaw look like the stupid kind of action film I might enjoy; a bunch of fight scenes and chase sequences that give the middle finger to physics. But when a big moment in the film is a group of the good guys willingly bringing a bunch of sharp sticks to a battle where the villains are loaded to the teeth with highly advanced firearms, then you know you’ve jumped headfirst into the deep end of ridiculous without a special needs helmet.
The film is quick to point out that even though Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) is in Los Angeles and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is in London, they’re essentially similar characters. Hobbs is a big dude who likes to Hulk smash everything while Shaw likes to think he has more class and finesse to his ass beatings and exaggerated torture devices. Despite their different cultures and supposedly unique way of approaching their work, they do nothing but talk trash, jack things up, simultaneously kick unsuspecting guys in the balls, and track stuff that needs tracking because that’s what trackers do. They reluctantly join forces and are in constant competition with one another to find some CT17 virus, which is currently inside Shaw’s MI6 operative sister Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby) and is being hunted by formerly dead, cyber genetically altered, and current superhuman criminal mastermind Brixton Lore (Idris Elba). Don’t get too attached to the whole virus thing since even the film can’t keep up with what the hell it’s supposed to be.
The highlight of Hobbs & Shaw is the amount of cameos it’s able to squeeze into its excruciating two-hour-and-fifteen-minute runtime. The film utilizes about a third of the cast of a certain sequel to a certain film starring a certain Regenerating Degenerate and that cast is responsible for the humor that works best in whatever this spinoff is supposed to accomplish. Idris Elba is unbelievably cool as Brixton Lore. He’s this cocky and unstoppable bad ass who has a history with Shaw and his car chase on his self-driving motorcycle where he slides under a bus in slow motion is too sick for words. Vanessa Kirby has this on-screen presence that outshines the consistent bickering between Hobbs and Shaw. She’s the one capable female character in the film (Helen Mirren sitting behind glass doesn’t count) who seems to be the only one thinking logically, but it took her doing the dumbest thing imaginable at the beginning of the film to get that way.
This action film smorgasbord rides on the chemistry between Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham, but that gets old as soon as they start sort-of working together. Their incessant ribbing of each other, desire to always outdo one another, and nonstop unfiltered machismo being this palpable elephant in the room leads to nothing but verbal dick size comparisons and leaves you thinking that maybe they’ll make out or grope each other by the end of the film. Spoiler alert: maybe they’re saving that for the sequel.
There isn’t enough of a differentiation between action sequences in Hobbs & Shaw to make it feel worthwhile. There’s chemistry between the cast that is undeniable and some of its outrageousness is entertaining, but it all begins to feel similar and falls apart far sooner than it should. For those who care, there is a mid-credits and after-credits scene but neither is surprising. The cheesy motivational speeches, forced heartfelt stories, and, “all technology in the world doesn’t beat heart,” mumbo jumbo doesn’t help matters. The supposed story for this film is basically a dunce cap disguised as a pocket protector. There are intelligent elements used in ludicrous ways and maybe that’s what could describe the Fast & Furious franchise as a whole. You can bury a diamond in a dog turd and say it’s extravagant and that it’s valuable, but it’s still a dog turd that smells awful and lingers long after it’s been flushed away.
Ignoring the fact that screenwriters Chris Morgan (writer of every Fast and Furious entry since Tokyo Drift) and Drew Pearce (writer and director of the flop known as Hotel Artemis) were involved, I actually like David Leitch’s work (co-director of John Wick, director of Deadpool 2 and Atomic Blonde) even if he is probably going to screw up that Enter the Dragon remake. The trailers also made Hobbs & Shaw look like the stupid kind of action film I might enjoy; a bunch of fight scenes and chase sequences that give the middle finger to physics. But when a big moment in the film is a group of the good guys willingly bringing a bunch of sharp sticks to a battle where the villains are loaded to the teeth with highly advanced firearms, then you know you’ve jumped headfirst into the deep end of ridiculous without a special needs helmet.
The film is quick to point out that even though Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) is in Los Angeles and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is in London, they’re essentially similar characters. Hobbs is a big dude who likes to Hulk smash everything while Shaw likes to think he has more class and finesse to his ass beatings and exaggerated torture devices. Despite their different cultures and supposedly unique way of approaching their work, they do nothing but talk trash, jack things up, simultaneously kick unsuspecting guys in the balls, and track stuff that needs tracking because that’s what trackers do. They reluctantly join forces and are in constant competition with one another to find some CT17 virus, which is currently inside Shaw’s MI6 operative sister Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby) and is being hunted by formerly dead, cyber genetically altered, and current superhuman criminal mastermind Brixton Lore (Idris Elba). Don’t get too attached to the whole virus thing since even the film can’t keep up with what the hell it’s supposed to be.
The highlight of Hobbs & Shaw is the amount of cameos it’s able to squeeze into its excruciating two-hour-and-fifteen-minute runtime. The film utilizes about a third of the cast of a certain sequel to a certain film starring a certain Regenerating Degenerate and that cast is responsible for the humor that works best in whatever this spinoff is supposed to accomplish. Idris Elba is unbelievably cool as Brixton Lore. He’s this cocky and unstoppable bad ass who has a history with Shaw and his car chase on his self-driving motorcycle where he slides under a bus in slow motion is too sick for words. Vanessa Kirby has this on-screen presence that outshines the consistent bickering between Hobbs and Shaw. She’s the one capable female character in the film (Helen Mirren sitting behind glass doesn’t count) who seems to be the only one thinking logically, but it took her doing the dumbest thing imaginable at the beginning of the film to get that way.
This action film smorgasbord rides on the chemistry between Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham, but that gets old as soon as they start sort-of working together. Their incessant ribbing of each other, desire to always outdo one another, and nonstop unfiltered machismo being this palpable elephant in the room leads to nothing but verbal dick size comparisons and leaves you thinking that maybe they’ll make out or grope each other by the end of the film. Spoiler alert: maybe they’re saving that for the sequel.
There isn’t enough of a differentiation between action sequences in Hobbs & Shaw to make it feel worthwhile. There’s chemistry between the cast that is undeniable and some of its outrageousness is entertaining, but it all begins to feel similar and falls apart far sooner than it should. For those who care, there is a mid-credits and after-credits scene but neither is surprising. The cheesy motivational speeches, forced heartfelt stories, and, “all technology in the world doesn’t beat heart,” mumbo jumbo doesn’t help matters. The supposed story for this film is basically a dunce cap disguised as a pocket protector. There are intelligent elements used in ludicrous ways and maybe that’s what could describe the Fast & Furious franchise as a whole. You can bury a diamond in a dog turd and say it’s extravagant and that it’s valuable, but it’s still a dog turd that smells awful and lingers long after it’s been flushed away.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) in Movies
Jul 3, 2020
Introduce a horror icon (3 more)
Robert Englund
Freddy
Wes Craven
Whatever you do, don’t fall asleep!
Contains spoilers, click to show
A Nightmare on Elm Street- is one of my all time favorite horror films. Its also one of the greatest horror movies of all time. That being said, the ending sucks and i will get to that, but first lets talk more about the film.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
I can’t claim to know much about musicals. I don’t actively avoid them, but I don’t go out of my way to see them either. The few that I have seen and liked don’t seem to sit well with the musical theater crowd either. For instance, recently in conversation my defense of Russell Crowe as Javert in the latest adaptation of Les Misérables was shot down in a matter of seconds. My wife, with some frequency, reminds me that my (until now) secret admiration of Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd is something that should never be declared in a public forum. For me, one of the best achievements in musical film will always be South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut; and though there is a general positivity about it, I’ve never seen it taken all that seriously as a contemporary musical (it was certainly a hell of a lot more memorable than 2003’s Best Picture winner, Chicago). So, if you haven’t already decided my opinion will be moot and stopped reading, I will, with the limited appreciation I have for this genre, give The Greatest Showman the fairest shake I can.
At a surprisingly short hour and forty-five minutes, this high-concept imagining of the meteoric rise of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), from the impoverished son of a tailor to one of the biggest names in the history of entertainment, should absolutely fly by. Tragically, it doesn’t. Beginning with an irresponsibly rushed first act that condenses decades of backstory into a few minutes, it dramatically stops dead between its second and third acts as we’re subjected to three songs in a row that not all that subtly beat us over the head with the inevitably that our leads are going to have to face some predictable, life-changing conflict before the big finale. Showman also suffers from the delusion that period pieces will be more engaging and relatable with a modern-inspired soundtrack, à la Baz Luhrmann’s misguided attempt at The Great Gatsby. The idea being that the music of the time, though antiquated to us now, would have sounded modern to people then, so why not put modern music, whether original or sourced, over period images in an attempt to bridge the gap between their world and ours? It’s a concept that might sound great on paper, but as Luhrmann already proved, the final results don’t so much complement each other as they expose each other’s weaknesses.
Its major flaw though, and why The Greatest Showman fails to be a great anything, is the insistence on force-feeding moments of attempted catharsis every 15-20 minutes, having earned almost none of them. A great many of the numbers are presented as such grand, climactic set pieces that they don’t feel as though they are working to serve a cohesive, larger whole. We are inundated with a blur of crescendo after crescendo and left little time to reflect on what we have just seen and heard before the film clumsily bounds off to the next song-and-dance laden plot point; and if you asked me to name any of the individual tunes now three days later, I’d be hard-pressed to do so. It’s an odd juxtaposition, and one I’ve very rarely experienced, wanting so badly for a film to end and at the same time wishing it had been given more time to fully realize its scope. Keep your ears open as well for an ill-advised line in which Barnum proudly compares himself to Napoleon. Isn’t Barnum supposed to be the “hero” of this piece, someone we are supposed to identify with and for whom we want to find success? Somebody please provide Showman’s writers a history lesson that didn’t just come off a Wikipedia page (for Barnum and Napoleon’s sakes).
With any negative criticism, I do like to try and go out on something positive, and if I have to concede anything to this movie, it’s that it finds its footing, albeit temporarily, while addressing issues of equality. Showman shines in the few moments where the supporting players portraying Barnum’s “oddities”, Keala Settle as Lettie Lutz in particular, are given the opportunity to stand toe-to-toe with the leads and, in many of these scenes, they rise above even the likes of Hugh Jackman. Another member of the cast who merits a little bit of praise (and I reserve the right to retract this at any time of my choosing, more than likely with whatever juvenile comedy he’ll be seen in next) is Zac Efron. Exposure to the likes of Nicole Kidman and John Cusack in 2012’s sadly overlooked The Paperboy, may finally be yielding results as he is the only lead who leaves an impression. Though his journey as a high society playwright begrudgingly brought into Barnum’s world definitely leans heavily on the saccharine side, it does provide a break of plausibility in amongst the unbridled chaos of the rest of the picture. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a much better movie that could have been made from expanding into its own feature the subplot of his character bucking the expectations of his status to fall in love with a circus performer.
At a surprisingly short hour and forty-five minutes, this high-concept imagining of the meteoric rise of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), from the impoverished son of a tailor to one of the biggest names in the history of entertainment, should absolutely fly by. Tragically, it doesn’t. Beginning with an irresponsibly rushed first act that condenses decades of backstory into a few minutes, it dramatically stops dead between its second and third acts as we’re subjected to three songs in a row that not all that subtly beat us over the head with the inevitably that our leads are going to have to face some predictable, life-changing conflict before the big finale. Showman also suffers from the delusion that period pieces will be more engaging and relatable with a modern-inspired soundtrack, à la Baz Luhrmann’s misguided attempt at The Great Gatsby. The idea being that the music of the time, though antiquated to us now, would have sounded modern to people then, so why not put modern music, whether original or sourced, over period images in an attempt to bridge the gap between their world and ours? It’s a concept that might sound great on paper, but as Luhrmann already proved, the final results don’t so much complement each other as they expose each other’s weaknesses.
Its major flaw though, and why The Greatest Showman fails to be a great anything, is the insistence on force-feeding moments of attempted catharsis every 15-20 minutes, having earned almost none of them. A great many of the numbers are presented as such grand, climactic set pieces that they don’t feel as though they are working to serve a cohesive, larger whole. We are inundated with a blur of crescendo after crescendo and left little time to reflect on what we have just seen and heard before the film clumsily bounds off to the next song-and-dance laden plot point; and if you asked me to name any of the individual tunes now three days later, I’d be hard-pressed to do so. It’s an odd juxtaposition, and one I’ve very rarely experienced, wanting so badly for a film to end and at the same time wishing it had been given more time to fully realize its scope. Keep your ears open as well for an ill-advised line in which Barnum proudly compares himself to Napoleon. Isn’t Barnum supposed to be the “hero” of this piece, someone we are supposed to identify with and for whom we want to find success? Somebody please provide Showman’s writers a history lesson that didn’t just come off a Wikipedia page (for Barnum and Napoleon’s sakes).
With any negative criticism, I do like to try and go out on something positive, and if I have to concede anything to this movie, it’s that it finds its footing, albeit temporarily, while addressing issues of equality. Showman shines in the few moments where the supporting players portraying Barnum’s “oddities”, Keala Settle as Lettie Lutz in particular, are given the opportunity to stand toe-to-toe with the leads and, in many of these scenes, they rise above even the likes of Hugh Jackman. Another member of the cast who merits a little bit of praise (and I reserve the right to retract this at any time of my choosing, more than likely with whatever juvenile comedy he’ll be seen in next) is Zac Efron. Exposure to the likes of Nicole Kidman and John Cusack in 2012’s sadly overlooked The Paperboy, may finally be yielding results as he is the only lead who leaves an impression. Though his journey as a high society playwright begrudgingly brought into Barnum’s world definitely leans heavily on the saccharine side, it does provide a break of plausibility in amongst the unbridled chaos of the rest of the picture. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a much better movie that could have been made from expanding into its own feature the subplot of his character bucking the expectations of his status to fall in love with a circus performer.
Ari Augustine (10 KP) rated Crave (Crave, #1) in Books
May 4, 2020
I am super torn about CRAVE by Tracy Wolff.
First off, the world is kind of amazing. I did love the Hogwarts-Vampire Academy-Narnia-in-Alaska vibes I was getting from the setting. It was beautiful, secluded, and totally magical. Grace is hilarious most of the time, filled with snark and near corny knock knock jokes, but I also enjoyed how she called characters out on their crap. She wasn't always a reckless mess, which was nice, and I readily felt for her grief over the death of her parents. From the beginning, I was there for her pain, her panic attacks, her bravery, her wit, and this new adventure before her. Second to Grace is Jaxon, who I adored in so many ways. Perfection and arrogance aside, he's totally a broody vampire, but this isn't the ONLY side to his character we get, and unlike so many other characters we could compare him to, he does change throughout the course of the book. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that maybe Jaxon, not Grace, is the main lead of this story. They had amazing chemistry, sexy banter, and I deeply enjoyed the tug o' war between them.
Okay. Now for the....not so great. For one, while the setting is so magical and new, we don't really get to explore it much. Yes, we get the AMAZING library filled with witches, unusual tomes, and gargoyles, but I would have loved to hear more about the classes, the different cliques, the way this new place functioned. Unfortunately, because Grace was left out of the loop for pretty much the whole book, we were, too. So we end up not really getting to explore this new place much and that really sucked. This brings us to a second thing I struggled with: Grace.
While I absolutely adored her character, I also kind of wanted to smack her and scream "OPEN YOUR EYES". Even with Macy (her cousin) half spelling it out and with all the impossibilities going on (like students standing outside in below 0 weather without jackets), Grace just sort of files it away as odd, but shrugs. Meh. So that guy wanted to murder me? Meh. So these beads shock everyone but me? Meh. So I fell from a tree and somehow this hot guy caught me midair? Double meh. The list goes on. This went on for the ENTIRE BOOK. And while it was all painfully obvious to us, it sailed over her head like an invisible wind. This really bothered me. Just like the instalove with Jaxon bothered me. Look, I believe in instant attraction. I know a hottie when I see one and, yeah, there's always that little phase of infatuation and attraction, but this started intense and just sort of ended with love bombs. The chemistry, as I said before, was amazing, but I wished we could have had more to go on. It bothered me that Grace was constantly throwing herself at Jaxon, forcing herself on him and forcing him to open on. She also made so many assumptions about Jaxon and I was waiting for her rationale, which never really came. It's like meeting a feral dog in the tundra and believing it wont harm you because it's one of God's creatures or something. She totally idolized him, and I think that, more than anything, kept preventing me from fully loving her as a character.
Odd things I don't know how to feel about: I can totally see where people here are comparing it to Twilight. It pretty much follows the same Vampire Romance formula. Human girl meets broody vampire boy who has a dark past, a set of fangs, and, of course, many enemies. The girl almost always sacrifices herself for love and that happens here, too. I will argue that these characters had WAY MORE personality than Bella and Edward, though. In fact, I FUCKING LOVES all the scenes where Grace handed Jaxon his ass. In fact, this is pretty much why I was unable to put the book down despite all the issues I had with it later. What struck me, though, was I couldn't shake the feeling that the book was either laughing at Twilight (by being a better version of it) or if it was laughing at itself....as if Twilight were the inside joke. This was actually the most entertaining part of the book, and I was unable to figure out if this was meant to be comedic or if I was just reading it that way. Does this make sense? There were so many Twilight references and at one point, Grace event comments to herself about how she wasn't going to be like those female heroines in YA fantasy novels. I don't know. I read this alongside a friend who also felt like the book wasn't taking itself seriously, but neither of us could tell if this was deliberate or not.
Overall, it was a light and entertaining read. Was it perfect? No. Is it funny? Hell yes. Lots of delicious fangy hotness? Um...YEAH. And despite all the problems I had with it, it was still a fun book to setting into during midterms week.
First off, the world is kind of amazing. I did love the Hogwarts-Vampire Academy-Narnia-in-Alaska vibes I was getting from the setting. It was beautiful, secluded, and totally magical. Grace is hilarious most of the time, filled with snark and near corny knock knock jokes, but I also enjoyed how she called characters out on their crap. She wasn't always a reckless mess, which was nice, and I readily felt for her grief over the death of her parents. From the beginning, I was there for her pain, her panic attacks, her bravery, her wit, and this new adventure before her. Second to Grace is Jaxon, who I adored in so many ways. Perfection and arrogance aside, he's totally a broody vampire, but this isn't the ONLY side to his character we get, and unlike so many other characters we could compare him to, he does change throughout the course of the book. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that maybe Jaxon, not Grace, is the main lead of this story. They had amazing chemistry, sexy banter, and I deeply enjoyed the tug o' war between them.
Okay. Now for the....not so great. For one, while the setting is so magical and new, we don't really get to explore it much. Yes, we get the AMAZING library filled with witches, unusual tomes, and gargoyles, but I would have loved to hear more about the classes, the different cliques, the way this new place functioned. Unfortunately, because Grace was left out of the loop for pretty much the whole book, we were, too. So we end up not really getting to explore this new place much and that really sucked. This brings us to a second thing I struggled with: Grace.
While I absolutely adored her character, I also kind of wanted to smack her and scream "OPEN YOUR EYES". Even with Macy (her cousin) half spelling it out and with all the impossibilities going on (like students standing outside in below 0 weather without jackets), Grace just sort of files it away as odd, but shrugs. Meh. So that guy wanted to murder me? Meh. So these beads shock everyone but me? Meh. So I fell from a tree and somehow this hot guy caught me midair? Double meh. The list goes on. This went on for the ENTIRE BOOK. And while it was all painfully obvious to us, it sailed over her head like an invisible wind. This really bothered me. Just like the instalove with Jaxon bothered me. Look, I believe in instant attraction. I know a hottie when I see one and, yeah, there's always that little phase of infatuation and attraction, but this started intense and just sort of ended with love bombs. The chemistry, as I said before, was amazing, but I wished we could have had more to go on. It bothered me that Grace was constantly throwing herself at Jaxon, forcing herself on him and forcing him to open on. She also made so many assumptions about Jaxon and I was waiting for her rationale, which never really came. It's like meeting a feral dog in the tundra and believing it wont harm you because it's one of God's creatures or something. She totally idolized him, and I think that, more than anything, kept preventing me from fully loving her as a character.
Odd things I don't know how to feel about: I can totally see where people here are comparing it to Twilight. It pretty much follows the same Vampire Romance formula. Human girl meets broody vampire boy who has a dark past, a set of fangs, and, of course, many enemies. The girl almost always sacrifices herself for love and that happens here, too. I will argue that these characters had WAY MORE personality than Bella and Edward, though. In fact, I FUCKING LOVES all the scenes where Grace handed Jaxon his ass. In fact, this is pretty much why I was unable to put the book down despite all the issues I had with it later. What struck me, though, was I couldn't shake the feeling that the book was either laughing at Twilight (by being a better version of it) or if it was laughing at itself....as if Twilight were the inside joke. This was actually the most entertaining part of the book, and I was unable to figure out if this was meant to be comedic or if I was just reading it that way. Does this make sense? There were so many Twilight references and at one point, Grace event comments to herself about how she wasn't going to be like those female heroines in YA fantasy novels. I don't know. I read this alongside a friend who also felt like the book wasn't taking itself seriously, but neither of us could tell if this was deliberate or not.
Overall, it was a light and entertaining read. Was it perfect? No. Is it funny? Hell yes. Lots of delicious fangy hotness? Um...YEAH. And despite all the problems I had with it, it was still a fun book to setting into during midterms week.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Captain Marvel (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Women: Be the Best Version of Yourselves!
So, after much brouhaha and trolling – probably mostly from woman-hating teenage nerds who can’t get laid – Brie Larson‘s hyper-hero barrels onto our cinema screens.
Stan Lee tribute.
First off, what a Marvel-lous idea to pay tribute to Stan Lee in the Marvel production logo for this film. Michael Giacchino‘s rousing Marvel anthem leads to a simple title card: “Thanks Stan”. Poignant and touching.
Lee makes another cameo in this film. I wonder how many more of these they have in the can? Will they “do a Princess Leia” in future films and CGI in his cameos? I’m not a great fan of this, but he’s such a staple part of the show that – with his family’s permission of course – I would actually welcome having that happen in this specific case.
The Plot.
The movie opens on the Kree home world of Hala where Vers, a member of Starforce (“a race of noble warrior heroes”), is being put through her paces by her mentor Yon-Rogg (Jude Law). But she is one mixed up lady, having some exceptional powers but no memory of her past. As an example of this, when she communes with the ‘Supreme Intelligence’ (who looks different to everyone) she sees a woman (Annette Bening) who she clearly admires but she has no idea why.
The Kree are at war against the race of terrorist thugs known as the Skrulls. (Their name reminds me of a classic Mitchell and Webb Nazi SS sketch – “We have skulls on our caps…. does that mean we’re the baddies?”). After a Skrull ambush and some judicious brain-delving, Vers surfaces memories that leads her back to the Terran home world and a past that is set to redefine her future.
What’s good.
A lot. I really enjoyed this Marvel outing. With all the nay-sayers, I went in with low expectations, but the story actually built well and Brie Larson makes the role her own. It goes without saying that she looks gorgeous and fills out that costume very nicely! (The zero gravity ‘hair scene’ is spectacular). But she manages to convey with that style superhero grit with an essence of quirky humour running underneath it. In doing so she holds the whole film together.
Also spectacular were the ‘youngified’ Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson) and Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg). The effect could have been ‘uncanny valley’ with knobs on, but is actually done so well I didn’t even notice. The chemistry between Jackson and Larson is great.
In the strong supporting cast Annette Bening is pure class, and a well-toned Jude Law seems to be having enormous fun. Elsewhere, Ben Mendelsohn (of “Rogue One” fame) is the leader of the Krulls and “Goose” is played by Reggie, Gonzo, Archie and Rizzo! (Flerkin hell!)
The Marvel/DC Laff-ometer.
A key characteristic of the Marvel/DC films is the humour injected (more it has to be said in Marvel than DC), and in terms of the Marvel/DC-laffometer, this film probably lies fairly in the middle of the range. It’s not the snort-fest of Ragnarok or GotG, but neither is it at the po-faced Man of Steel end. Much fun is made of the 1995 setting with gags from Arnie in “True Lies” to computer loading times being well-exploited.
There are also lots of great Marvel in-jokes, not least of which is the story behind Fury losing his eye: hilarious!
What’s not so good.
The problem I have with “Transformers” films is that there is little tension for me in seeing robots hitting ten-bells out of each other. I’ve similarly commented that many superhero movies have the same flaw that (Thanos aside, as things stand) they are pretty much indestructible and there is little threat implied. Captain Marvel however takes this to entirely different levels: the Hulk smash is a mere gnat-bite compared to what Carol Danvers can deliver; storming through planet-busting nuclear weapons and starships without a scratch. It’s so over-the-top that a showdown scene in the finale, although played for a laugh, also becomes laughable in the wrong way.
The film also ladles on female empowerment as if it was gravy in an Australian chip shop! (I bet Theresa May has the film on permanent loop in the Downing Street home cinema). Don’t get me wrong, I am a big supporter of #MeToo (and indeed #SheDo), but the film is a bit too heavy handed in its messaging in this area.
A troop of monkeys.
There are two extra scenes in the end titles (“monkeys“) and they are both corkers. The first bridges directly from “Infinity War” to “Endgame”, picking up (literally) that pager that Nick Fury was no longer able to hang onto; the second a nice sight gag featuring Goose that links the end of this film to the “monkey” at the end of Thor! Well worth waiting for!
Final Thoughts.
This was a Marvel film I really enjoyed, and which I would definitely re-watch. It’s been written and directed by ‘indie’ writing duo Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck (with Geneva Robertson-Dworet also contributing to the screenplay), and very well done it is in my view. Not everyone seems to have liked it: but I did!
On April 25th, the Danvers vs Thanos match is going to be a bout that will be worth buying tickets to see!
Stan Lee tribute.
First off, what a Marvel-lous idea to pay tribute to Stan Lee in the Marvel production logo for this film. Michael Giacchino‘s rousing Marvel anthem leads to a simple title card: “Thanks Stan”. Poignant and touching.
Lee makes another cameo in this film. I wonder how many more of these they have in the can? Will they “do a Princess Leia” in future films and CGI in his cameos? I’m not a great fan of this, but he’s such a staple part of the show that – with his family’s permission of course – I would actually welcome having that happen in this specific case.
The Plot.
The movie opens on the Kree home world of Hala where Vers, a member of Starforce (“a race of noble warrior heroes”), is being put through her paces by her mentor Yon-Rogg (Jude Law). But she is one mixed up lady, having some exceptional powers but no memory of her past. As an example of this, when she communes with the ‘Supreme Intelligence’ (who looks different to everyone) she sees a woman (Annette Bening) who she clearly admires but she has no idea why.
The Kree are at war against the race of terrorist thugs known as the Skrulls. (Their name reminds me of a classic Mitchell and Webb Nazi SS sketch – “We have skulls on our caps…. does that mean we’re the baddies?”). After a Skrull ambush and some judicious brain-delving, Vers surfaces memories that leads her back to the Terran home world and a past that is set to redefine her future.
What’s good.
A lot. I really enjoyed this Marvel outing. With all the nay-sayers, I went in with low expectations, but the story actually built well and Brie Larson makes the role her own. It goes without saying that she looks gorgeous and fills out that costume very nicely! (The zero gravity ‘hair scene’ is spectacular). But she manages to convey with that style superhero grit with an essence of quirky humour running underneath it. In doing so she holds the whole film together.
Also spectacular were the ‘youngified’ Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson) and Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg). The effect could have been ‘uncanny valley’ with knobs on, but is actually done so well I didn’t even notice. The chemistry between Jackson and Larson is great.
In the strong supporting cast Annette Bening is pure class, and a well-toned Jude Law seems to be having enormous fun. Elsewhere, Ben Mendelsohn (of “Rogue One” fame) is the leader of the Krulls and “Goose” is played by Reggie, Gonzo, Archie and Rizzo! (Flerkin hell!)
The Marvel/DC Laff-ometer.
A key characteristic of the Marvel/DC films is the humour injected (more it has to be said in Marvel than DC), and in terms of the Marvel/DC-laffometer, this film probably lies fairly in the middle of the range. It’s not the snort-fest of Ragnarok or GotG, but neither is it at the po-faced Man of Steel end. Much fun is made of the 1995 setting with gags from Arnie in “True Lies” to computer loading times being well-exploited.
There are also lots of great Marvel in-jokes, not least of which is the story behind Fury losing his eye: hilarious!
What’s not so good.
The problem I have with “Transformers” films is that there is little tension for me in seeing robots hitting ten-bells out of each other. I’ve similarly commented that many superhero movies have the same flaw that (Thanos aside, as things stand) they are pretty much indestructible and there is little threat implied. Captain Marvel however takes this to entirely different levels: the Hulk smash is a mere gnat-bite compared to what Carol Danvers can deliver; storming through planet-busting nuclear weapons and starships without a scratch. It’s so over-the-top that a showdown scene in the finale, although played for a laugh, also becomes laughable in the wrong way.
The film also ladles on female empowerment as if it was gravy in an Australian chip shop! (I bet Theresa May has the film on permanent loop in the Downing Street home cinema). Don’t get me wrong, I am a big supporter of #MeToo (and indeed #SheDo), but the film is a bit too heavy handed in its messaging in this area.
A troop of monkeys.
There are two extra scenes in the end titles (“monkeys“) and they are both corkers. The first bridges directly from “Infinity War” to “Endgame”, picking up (literally) that pager that Nick Fury was no longer able to hang onto; the second a nice sight gag featuring Goose that links the end of this film to the “monkey” at the end of Thor! Well worth waiting for!
Final Thoughts.
This was a Marvel film I really enjoyed, and which I would definitely re-watch. It’s been written and directed by ‘indie’ writing duo Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck (with Geneva Robertson-Dworet also contributing to the screenplay), and very well done it is in my view. Not everyone seems to have liked it: but I did!
On April 25th, the Danvers vs Thanos match is going to be a bout that will be worth buying tickets to see!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Miss Sloane (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“I never know where the line is”.
In a roller-coaster year for political intrigue on both sides of the Atlantic, and with all hell breaking loose again between Trump and ‘The Hill’, here comes “Miss Sloane”.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Luke (12 KP) rated Bloodborne in Video Games
Oct 2, 2017
Strategic, challenging, and rewarding combat (6 more)
Excellent orchestrated soundtrack
Great aesthetic and visual design
Cool boss designs
Old Hunters expansion adds extra challenge
30-40 hour campaign with loads of content
Lovecraftian horror at its finest
Bloodborne is an action RPG developed by From Software and directed by Hidetaka Miyazaki, creator of the Dark Souls series. Bloodborne takes elements from the Dark Souls games and mixes in elements of Gothic and Lovecraftian horror to make one truly unique experience exclusively for the Playstation 4.
You play as a Hunter and you have come to the city of Yharnam on the night of the Hunt where the lines between man and beast are blurred. Initially, your goal is quite simple: just go out and kill some beasts of all manner. Everything from werewolves to madmen to even other NPC Hunters. But as you progress through the game, you begin to unravel a conspiracy involving ancient gods from the cosmos coming down to incite this madness upon the townsfolk. Souls games aren't really known for their stories. Most of the game's backstory can often be found in item descriptions. However, Bloodborne differentiates itself by having one of the most fleshed out and intriguing plots of the entire Soulsborne series.
The presentation here is breathtaking. It evokes the style of olden Gothic horror tales from days long past. Towering spires line the horizon clearly inspired by Victorian and Gothic style architecture of Romania and this is reflected in the games level design. Blood spills out in a vibrant crimson color. Most of the game is completely silent save for the excellent sound design. The soundtrack only kicks in during boss fights and other key moments in the game making it even more special.
If you are familiar with any of the Dark Souls games, then you pretty much know what to expect from Bloodborne's combat. Bloodborne emphasizes speed and aggression with its combat system, but it is still quite strategic and very challenging. Don't go in thinking you can just rush through this in a weekend. This game takes patience and effort from the player to be rewarded. The weapon variety is significantly smaller than that of the Dark Souls games, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Each weapon feels unique, and each one will cater to a specific play style. And since you can transform almost all the weapons in the game, they almost feel like two weapons in one. For example, a shortsword can be transformed into a greatsword and so on. Instead of giving you a shield, Bloodborne instead gives you a wide variety of firearms, from pistols and shotguns, to a flamesprayer and a cannon. You can use these guns on enemies to riposte and perform a visceral attack for massive damage, even on some of the bosses. Armor sets are all really cool, reflecting the games Gothic design. The good thing is that you don't need to worry about upgrading armor sets like in previous Souls games. And the boss designs here are great, some of the hardest and most challenging fights in any game. You have to learn and figure out the timings of their attacks in order to know when best to strike. And if you ever feel like you're getting stuck, you can always bring in a friend with the game's co-op system. The side characters are also great, some of them giving you optional quests that you can carry out if you choose to do so.
There are optional chalice dungeons that you can complete should you choose to do so. The good thing is that they aren't required to finish the game. The bad thing is that these aren't designed as well as the main game. These dungeons are randomly generated and it certainly feels that way as rooms are often copy pasted together to the point where you feel like you're going in circles. Enemy designs are also lazy as hell here, some of them being reused as bosses. It feels like these chalice dungeons were thrown in at the last minute to offer some kind of replay value when they clearly weren't needed in the first place. I'm baffled by their inclusion as some trophies are linked to the completion of these optional missions. But since these are completely optional, they don't take away from the overall score.
There are also a few more minor gripes that I have with Bloodborne. The camera can often get in the way of the surrounding architecture at times. The framerate dips during some instances, even after several patches. Fortunately, these things don't happen all that often. And why can't I warp between lanterns? This doesn't make much sense as if you want to get to a new area, you have to warp to the hub zone and then warp to the area you want to go to. I feel like this would save a lot of load times if you are going back and forth for farming runs. Oh well.
Bloodborne is never impossibly hard. It does have a high learning curve for new players, but if you keep at it and if you are patient enough, you will discover just how rewarding this experience can be. This was my first foray into the Souls series and I am so looking forward to going back in to Bloodborne to try out new builds, new play styles, new weapons, and even greater challenge in New Game Plus mode. Bloodborne is now one of my all time favorite games ever made.
You play as a Hunter and you have come to the city of Yharnam on the night of the Hunt where the lines between man and beast are blurred. Initially, your goal is quite simple: just go out and kill some beasts of all manner. Everything from werewolves to madmen to even other NPC Hunters. But as you progress through the game, you begin to unravel a conspiracy involving ancient gods from the cosmos coming down to incite this madness upon the townsfolk. Souls games aren't really known for their stories. Most of the game's backstory can often be found in item descriptions. However, Bloodborne differentiates itself by having one of the most fleshed out and intriguing plots of the entire Soulsborne series.
The presentation here is breathtaking. It evokes the style of olden Gothic horror tales from days long past. Towering spires line the horizon clearly inspired by Victorian and Gothic style architecture of Romania and this is reflected in the games level design. Blood spills out in a vibrant crimson color. Most of the game is completely silent save for the excellent sound design. The soundtrack only kicks in during boss fights and other key moments in the game making it even more special.
If you are familiar with any of the Dark Souls games, then you pretty much know what to expect from Bloodborne's combat. Bloodborne emphasizes speed and aggression with its combat system, but it is still quite strategic and very challenging. Don't go in thinking you can just rush through this in a weekend. This game takes patience and effort from the player to be rewarded. The weapon variety is significantly smaller than that of the Dark Souls games, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Each weapon feels unique, and each one will cater to a specific play style. And since you can transform almost all the weapons in the game, they almost feel like two weapons in one. For example, a shortsword can be transformed into a greatsword and so on. Instead of giving you a shield, Bloodborne instead gives you a wide variety of firearms, from pistols and shotguns, to a flamesprayer and a cannon. You can use these guns on enemies to riposte and perform a visceral attack for massive damage, even on some of the bosses. Armor sets are all really cool, reflecting the games Gothic design. The good thing is that you don't need to worry about upgrading armor sets like in previous Souls games. And the boss designs here are great, some of the hardest and most challenging fights in any game. You have to learn and figure out the timings of their attacks in order to know when best to strike. And if you ever feel like you're getting stuck, you can always bring in a friend with the game's co-op system. The side characters are also great, some of them giving you optional quests that you can carry out if you choose to do so.
There are optional chalice dungeons that you can complete should you choose to do so. The good thing is that they aren't required to finish the game. The bad thing is that these aren't designed as well as the main game. These dungeons are randomly generated and it certainly feels that way as rooms are often copy pasted together to the point where you feel like you're going in circles. Enemy designs are also lazy as hell here, some of them being reused as bosses. It feels like these chalice dungeons were thrown in at the last minute to offer some kind of replay value when they clearly weren't needed in the first place. I'm baffled by their inclusion as some trophies are linked to the completion of these optional missions. But since these are completely optional, they don't take away from the overall score.
There are also a few more minor gripes that I have with Bloodborne. The camera can often get in the way of the surrounding architecture at times. The framerate dips during some instances, even after several patches. Fortunately, these things don't happen all that often. And why can't I warp between lanterns? This doesn't make much sense as if you want to get to a new area, you have to warp to the hub zone and then warp to the area you want to go to. I feel like this would save a lot of load times if you are going back and forth for farming runs. Oh well.
Bloodborne is never impossibly hard. It does have a high learning curve for new players, but if you keep at it and if you are patient enough, you will discover just how rewarding this experience can be. This was my first foray into the Souls series and I am so looking forward to going back in to Bloodborne to try out new builds, new play styles, new weapons, and even greater challenge in New Game Plus mode. Bloodborne is now one of my all time favorite games ever made.
okletmereviewit (4 KP) rated Doctor Strange (2016) in Movies
May 11, 2018
One heck of a ride
Contains spoilers, click to show
I went to see Doctor Strange last night and let me tell you, it was one hell of a ride. I saw it in 3D which is the only way I will watch movies nowadays, because its so immersive and makes the movie really come alive, at least in my opinion. Marvel Studios did a really amazing job on capturing the essence of this movie. If you want a good idea on how it is, think The Matrix meets Inception, meets Harry Potter.
If you don't know the story of Doctor Strange, well let me fill you in. Dr. Steven Strange was a brilliant neurosurgeon, and an egotist. In the movie, we find Doctor Strange (played by Benedict Cumberbatch) washing up to perform brain surgery. His prideful, ways have him showboating the surgery by not waiting for any imaging equipment and dislodging a bullet from the brain of a person who was thought to be dead.
After he has preformed a miracle surgery, he is rushing through traffic to go to a gala, when he hits another car, and crashes. In the process of crashing he crushes his hands, the very tools to which he was made famous for. After countless surgeries and experimental procedures he is left in destitute.
He then begins to wander the city and comes across a man who had sever spinal cord injury and was supposed to never walk again, but was and playing basketball, who tells him of a spiritual retreat that he went on in order to heal himself. Using what money he has left Dr. Strange flies to Kathmandu to search out this mystical temple and its healer.
He wanders the streets of Kathmandu, looking for any signs of where this holy temple may be. Getting desperate, and weary of looking. He makes a fated turn down a back alley street, where he is assaulted by a group of Pick Pockets, who target him as easy prey. They are quickly dispatched as Mordo (played by Chiwetel Ejiofor) beats them down, thus saving Strange from certain death by the hands of petty thugs.
Mordo takes Dr. Strange to the temple, explaining that The Ancient One (played by Tilda Swinton) may be able to help him, but that he would have to be very humble in asking for help. Dr. Strange with his medical, and scientific knowledge, begins to dismiss the teachings and workings of The Ancient One, as no more than metaphysical BS. The Ancient One then sends Dr. Strange on a quick out of body journey throughout the multiverse the whole time narrating the journey with deep wisdom. And then quickly after he is brought back from this journey he is banished to the streets and the doors locked behind him. Begging and pleading for hours, Mordo convinces The Ancient One to accept him for training.
Through what can be assumed as months of training, Dr. Steven Strange begins learning the mystical arts and excelling at a phenomenal rate. While studying he discovers The Eye of Agamotto. A powerful talisman capable of augmenting time and space. He then uses it to reveal the missing pages of a manuscript, and discovers that The Ancient One has been harnessing energies from a dark dimension to prolong her life, and a realm of a dimensional being known as Dormammu. Dormammu wants nothing else than to absorb the Earth into his being and make it part of the dark dimension. Doctor Strange then learns that Dormammu's henchmen are devising a plot to overtake 3 power houses throughout the world, in order to allow his reign of power to be complete.
Doctor Strange then must battle Kaecilius (played by Mads Mikkelsen) a former student of The Ancient One, and top disciple of Dormammu, for control of the Sanctum's (three mystical power houses that create a magical shield that protects the earth). This is the point in the movie where Steven begins to really take point and understand the extent of the power that he has learned. An epic magical battle of the wills ensues where Dr. Strange, Mordo, and Kaecillius, all take the the streets of New York in 'Mirror Dimension' where Kaecillius bends space and time to create an augmented reality (if you have seen Inception this is where they flip the world upside down and sideways and things get really visually intense), The battle of wills continues until finally The Ancient One joins the fight and battles her former pupil in a no holds battle. She is then critically injured and all of reality returns to normal. As she lays dying in a hospital room, she and Strange exchange an emotional yet sagely goodbye on the Astral Plane.
Doctor Strange returns to the New York Sanctum only to find that it had been destroyed. He and Mordo go to Hong Kong, the where they discover that the last Sanctum has fallen and that Dormammu is in the process of over taking the Earth with help from his lackey Kaecillius. Acting on instinct and whim, Doctor Strange uses The Eye of Agamotto to turn back time and restore the city and Sanctum back to its original form, when Kaecillius breaks the spell and concentration of Doctor Strange. DS then flies into the heart of the dark dimension bringing along with him The Eye of Agamotto, where he then traps Dormammu and himself in an endless time loop. Driving Dormammu mad realizing that he is trapped inside of time and no longer existing outside of time. Strange strikes a bargain that Dormammu will retreat from the Earth and take with him all of his followers never to return again, to which a defeated and angry Dormammu agrees and calls back his forces. The movie ends with Doctor Strange taking up the mantel of Sorcerer Supreme.
If you don't know the story of Doctor Strange, well let me fill you in. Dr. Steven Strange was a brilliant neurosurgeon, and an egotist. In the movie, we find Doctor Strange (played by Benedict Cumberbatch) washing up to perform brain surgery. His prideful, ways have him showboating the surgery by not waiting for any imaging equipment and dislodging a bullet from the brain of a person who was thought to be dead.
After he has preformed a miracle surgery, he is rushing through traffic to go to a gala, when he hits another car, and crashes. In the process of crashing he crushes his hands, the very tools to which he was made famous for. After countless surgeries and experimental procedures he is left in destitute.
He then begins to wander the city and comes across a man who had sever spinal cord injury and was supposed to never walk again, but was and playing basketball, who tells him of a spiritual retreat that he went on in order to heal himself. Using what money he has left Dr. Strange flies to Kathmandu to search out this mystical temple and its healer.
He wanders the streets of Kathmandu, looking for any signs of where this holy temple may be. Getting desperate, and weary of looking. He makes a fated turn down a back alley street, where he is assaulted by a group of Pick Pockets, who target him as easy prey. They are quickly dispatched as Mordo (played by Chiwetel Ejiofor) beats them down, thus saving Strange from certain death by the hands of petty thugs.
Mordo takes Dr. Strange to the temple, explaining that The Ancient One (played by Tilda Swinton) may be able to help him, but that he would have to be very humble in asking for help. Dr. Strange with his medical, and scientific knowledge, begins to dismiss the teachings and workings of The Ancient One, as no more than metaphysical BS. The Ancient One then sends Dr. Strange on a quick out of body journey throughout the multiverse the whole time narrating the journey with deep wisdom. And then quickly after he is brought back from this journey he is banished to the streets and the doors locked behind him. Begging and pleading for hours, Mordo convinces The Ancient One to accept him for training.
Through what can be assumed as months of training, Dr. Steven Strange begins learning the mystical arts and excelling at a phenomenal rate. While studying he discovers The Eye of Agamotto. A powerful talisman capable of augmenting time and space. He then uses it to reveal the missing pages of a manuscript, and discovers that The Ancient One has been harnessing energies from a dark dimension to prolong her life, and a realm of a dimensional being known as Dormammu. Dormammu wants nothing else than to absorb the Earth into his being and make it part of the dark dimension. Doctor Strange then learns that Dormammu's henchmen are devising a plot to overtake 3 power houses throughout the world, in order to allow his reign of power to be complete.
Doctor Strange then must battle Kaecilius (played by Mads Mikkelsen) a former student of The Ancient One, and top disciple of Dormammu, for control of the Sanctum's (three mystical power houses that create a magical shield that protects the earth). This is the point in the movie where Steven begins to really take point and understand the extent of the power that he has learned. An epic magical battle of the wills ensues where Dr. Strange, Mordo, and Kaecillius, all take the the streets of New York in 'Mirror Dimension' where Kaecillius bends space and time to create an augmented reality (if you have seen Inception this is where they flip the world upside down and sideways and things get really visually intense), The battle of wills continues until finally The Ancient One joins the fight and battles her former pupil in a no holds battle. She is then critically injured and all of reality returns to normal. As she lays dying in a hospital room, she and Strange exchange an emotional yet sagely goodbye on the Astral Plane.
Doctor Strange returns to the New York Sanctum only to find that it had been destroyed. He and Mordo go to Hong Kong, the where they discover that the last Sanctum has fallen and that Dormammu is in the process of over taking the Earth with help from his lackey Kaecillius. Acting on instinct and whim, Doctor Strange uses The Eye of Agamotto to turn back time and restore the city and Sanctum back to its original form, when Kaecillius breaks the spell and concentration of Doctor Strange. DS then flies into the heart of the dark dimension bringing along with him The Eye of Agamotto, where he then traps Dormammu and himself in an endless time loop. Driving Dormammu mad realizing that he is trapped inside of time and no longer existing outside of time. Strange strikes a bargain that Dormammu will retreat from the Earth and take with him all of his followers never to return again, to which a defeated and angry Dormammu agrees and calls back his forces. The movie ends with Doctor Strange taking up the mantel of Sorcerer Supreme.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Fallout 76 in Video Games
Feb 27, 2019 (Updated Feb 27, 2019)
A Grotesque Atrocity of Modern Gaming and an Abhorrent Insult to it's Audience
When Fallout 76 was announced last summer, I was initially intrigued. Not knowing anything about it, I was surprised that we were getting this before Starfield, (which wasn't announced at the time but was heavily rumoured,) or the next entry in the Elder Scrolls series, but I hoped it would be on par with the Fallout series last fantastic interim game; New Vegas. Then at Bethesda's E3 conference, we were given the bad news that this was going to be an always online experience with an open world online hub and some light PvP elements.
Fast forward to November 2018 and the game launches to hugely negative reviews. The majority of online reviewers are pounding the thing into the ground and criticising the barrage of issues present in the game. Connection issues, sub par graphics, a vast assortment of glitches, a distinct lack of human NPC's, weird lighting and pop in and so on and so forth. I am quite happily playing through Red Dead Redemption 2 at this point and leaving Fallout 76 indefinitely on the backburner. The following week, the game is on sale for half of it's RRP, then as the weeks go on the price continues to drop.
Then, at the start of February, I am looking for a new game to stick my teeth into and I see a pre-owned copy of Fallout 76 on sale for only 20 quid. I think to myself, what the hell and give it a go. I had heard that a few patches had been put out to fix various issues and so I thought how bad can it be?
I have been playing video games for the last 20 years and I don't think that I have ever seen a more egregious assault on my principles as a consumer. There isn't even a game here.
If you have played any of the other Fallout games since 3, you will know that you suffer through the more grindy RPG elements of the game because the progression mechanics are married well enough with the games other systems that they aren't too noticeable or invasive. The characters, the locations, the quests and the story elements make up for the lacking gameplay and overall the games are enjoyable enough that the dated gameplay systems usually aren't penalised too hard in reviews.
Well imagine any of the other previous Fallout games, but with all of the reasons to play through it that I mentioned above stripped away, leaving only the annoying grindy bullshit that you normally put up with. Except here, there is simply no reason to put up with it.
This is the realisation that I came to last night after putting about 7 hours into the game and I decided to switch it off and never pick it up again.
There is no plot, there are no characters, there is absolutely nothing to see that you haven't already seen in previous Fallout games with more meat to them and there is simply no reason to play this game.
If past Fallout games are a big meaty, juicy leg of lamb, then this is nothing but the dry bone that is left after all of the good stuff has been ripped away.
This is nothing but a quick cash grab. I'm not even talking specifically about the disgusting micro-transactions present in the game such as making players pay £10+ to change the colour of their power armour. No, I'm just talking about the game as a whole as there is absolutely no other merit to it or reason for it to exist or be played other than to make Bethesda some easy money.
This thing shouldn't exist and the fact that it does is a huge slap on the face to the consumer and it pretty much encapsulates everything that is wrong with the mind-set of modern publishers. This game should be boycotted and if you have to pick it up out of morbid curiosity, do what I did and buy it used.
I have heard a few industry experts say that this could be the game that ends Bethesda, the final nail in the coffin after the let-downs of Fallout 4 and ESO. Although don't want this to happen as I never like to see a gaming company go out of business, to be honest I can't say that they wouldn't deserve it for the below the belt bullshit that they are trying to pull on their audience. As a consumer and a fan of this franchise as well as the studio that produced it, I feel betrayed on a personal level and it really is going to take something extraordinary to put them back in my good graces and the good graces of their audience.
The Witcher 3 came out 4 years ago this year and it still looks and plays better than anything Bethesda studios has developed, (and I'm not even a big fan of The Witcher.) Bethesda really needs to pull their finger out if they want to compete with their peers going forwards. Starfield better be running on a brank new slick engine and contain story and gameplay elements that are nothing short of spectacular if they are to redeem themselves from this disaster.
I was hesitant to score this a 1/10, as it is not the worst game of the generation, however in the context of the rest of the series and the motive behind this particular sorry excuse for an entry in the series, it is such an insult that my conscience would not let me award it as anything more than the lowest possible score.
Fast forward to November 2018 and the game launches to hugely negative reviews. The majority of online reviewers are pounding the thing into the ground and criticising the barrage of issues present in the game. Connection issues, sub par graphics, a vast assortment of glitches, a distinct lack of human NPC's, weird lighting and pop in and so on and so forth. I am quite happily playing through Red Dead Redemption 2 at this point and leaving Fallout 76 indefinitely on the backburner. The following week, the game is on sale for half of it's RRP, then as the weeks go on the price continues to drop.
Then, at the start of February, I am looking for a new game to stick my teeth into and I see a pre-owned copy of Fallout 76 on sale for only 20 quid. I think to myself, what the hell and give it a go. I had heard that a few patches had been put out to fix various issues and so I thought how bad can it be?
I have been playing video games for the last 20 years and I don't think that I have ever seen a more egregious assault on my principles as a consumer. There isn't even a game here.
If you have played any of the other Fallout games since 3, you will know that you suffer through the more grindy RPG elements of the game because the progression mechanics are married well enough with the games other systems that they aren't too noticeable or invasive. The characters, the locations, the quests and the story elements make up for the lacking gameplay and overall the games are enjoyable enough that the dated gameplay systems usually aren't penalised too hard in reviews.
Well imagine any of the other previous Fallout games, but with all of the reasons to play through it that I mentioned above stripped away, leaving only the annoying grindy bullshit that you normally put up with. Except here, there is simply no reason to put up with it.
This is the realisation that I came to last night after putting about 7 hours into the game and I decided to switch it off and never pick it up again.
There is no plot, there are no characters, there is absolutely nothing to see that you haven't already seen in previous Fallout games with more meat to them and there is simply no reason to play this game.
If past Fallout games are a big meaty, juicy leg of lamb, then this is nothing but the dry bone that is left after all of the good stuff has been ripped away.
This is nothing but a quick cash grab. I'm not even talking specifically about the disgusting micro-transactions present in the game such as making players pay £10+ to change the colour of their power armour. No, I'm just talking about the game as a whole as there is absolutely no other merit to it or reason for it to exist or be played other than to make Bethesda some easy money.
This thing shouldn't exist and the fact that it does is a huge slap on the face to the consumer and it pretty much encapsulates everything that is wrong with the mind-set of modern publishers. This game should be boycotted and if you have to pick it up out of morbid curiosity, do what I did and buy it used.
I have heard a few industry experts say that this could be the game that ends Bethesda, the final nail in the coffin after the let-downs of Fallout 4 and ESO. Although don't want this to happen as I never like to see a gaming company go out of business, to be honest I can't say that they wouldn't deserve it for the below the belt bullshit that they are trying to pull on their audience. As a consumer and a fan of this franchise as well as the studio that produced it, I feel betrayed on a personal level and it really is going to take something extraordinary to put them back in my good graces and the good graces of their audience.
The Witcher 3 came out 4 years ago this year and it still looks and plays better than anything Bethesda studios has developed, (and I'm not even a big fan of The Witcher.) Bethesda really needs to pull their finger out if they want to compete with their peers going forwards. Starfield better be running on a brank new slick engine and contain story and gameplay elements that are nothing short of spectacular if they are to redeem themselves from this disaster.
I was hesitant to score this a 1/10, as it is not the worst game of the generation, however in the context of the rest of the series and the motive behind this particular sorry excuse for an entry in the series, it is such an insult that my conscience would not let me award it as anything more than the lowest possible score.
Mothergamer (1521 KP) rated the PC version of Dragon Age II in Video Games
Apr 3, 2019
I finished Dragon Age 2 and let's just say I am feeling conflicted. I absolutely loved Origins and Awakening. The story was well thought out and throw in the factor of every choice you made had a consequence of being good, evil, or in a gray area, it really made you pay attention and think about what you wanted to do throughout the story line. There was also more to explore on the map, and there was some depth to the design, such as the forests of Ferelden, the Dalish elves camp, and Orzammar.
I was extremely excited about Dragon Age 2 and even got the signature edition. You get a lot of great items and cool downloadable content like The Black Emporium shop and The Exiled Prince quest. However, playing Dragon Age 2 I couldn't help but notice a lot of glaring flaws throughout it with the battle system and with some of the map designs. There are also for me, some issues with parts of the story and this does include some of Hawke's story.
First, let me start with why I had a problem with Hawke's story. There are parts of it that seem rather pointless, as if Hawke is going through the motions and not really driven the way the hero was in Origins and Awakening. There's a lack of intensity. There is also a glaring lack of tough choices. I love a great story and with Origins and Awakening, there were choices that could be made that would affect the story, take it down a different path, and everything you decided had consequences. With Dragon Age 2, it seems the story was only written one way and no matter what the player does or decides, they become the Champion the same way and go through the same events. It falls flat when you think about the intricacies and plot twists of the previous two games.
I did like the interactions with the members of your party and there were even characters I genuinely liked. I found that my top three were Varric, Fenris, and Isabela. Hawke has a voice, so some of these interactions had a little more emotion to them, but frankly it seemed like the companions were far more interesting and witty. Even their quests and stories were more interesting to me. There was one part of Hawke's story that really had me going and to the person who wrote that, I say great job. As for the rest, it just felt dull. Sure, the ending has a fantastic pivotal point to the story line, but it felt like a chore to get to it at certain points in the game.
Overall, I had no problem with the battle system. It was much easier to navigate, the action is fast and fluid, and the AI is pretty spot on when it comes to the other party members, making for a pretty exciting furious battle. Yet, there was a problem. Let me be clear with all my friends who told me I could change the difficulty setting to casual if a battle was too hard, I DID. I then tried various tactics and party set ups and got annihilated eight times or more. I'll give everyone a moment to let that sink in. Now, maybe it's a crazy concept, but the casual setting on a video game means you don't have lots of dead party members and game over screens. Yes, it's still a battle, but not quite so difficult. When a battle is hard on the EASY setting, that's a huge problem for me. Factor in the 30 second cool down timer for healing potions, and healing spells, it borders on ridiculous.
While I understand that the gist of this idea was it makes you plan out and think carefully about strategies for quests, boss battles, and random fights a 30 second heal timer does not work. I could understand having a timer, but 30 seconds can make or break a quest or story oriented battle in Dragon Age 2. I played as a rogue for the first play through, and I found myself kiting things a hell of a lot waiting for the timer to be up and hoping I wouldn't die before I could heal. Needless to say, it got incredibly frustrating quite a few times!
Finally, we have the sheer laziness of the map and dungeon designs. It was as if there was just one prototype for everything when it came to the buildings in Kirkwall. The "poor house" design, and the "rich mansion" design came across as bland and was a telling sign of how rushed this game was. There's also one map for the sewers, the Deep Roads, one mine, one mountain, and one cave. You basically go back and forth with five different locations on the world map. Compared to the other maps in the Dragon Age games, this is shameful. The map is ridiculously tiny, but it's as if they were lazy and couldn't be bothered with making the locations stand out and be unique from each other.
I liked Dragon Age 2, but I didn't love it the way I did Origins and Awakening. I can honestly say, it's a good game, but not a great one. There's too many predictable points in some of the story telling and it's quite obvious to see where certain things were rushed especially with certain cut scenes where the characters were blinking in and out of frame. I can not in good conscience give Dragon Age 2 a stellar review as an amazing game, because it isn't. Believe me, that kills me because I absolutely love the Dragon Age series, but with that many flaws, it's not worth full price.
I was extremely excited about Dragon Age 2 and even got the signature edition. You get a lot of great items and cool downloadable content like The Black Emporium shop and The Exiled Prince quest. However, playing Dragon Age 2 I couldn't help but notice a lot of glaring flaws throughout it with the battle system and with some of the map designs. There are also for me, some issues with parts of the story and this does include some of Hawke's story.
First, let me start with why I had a problem with Hawke's story. There are parts of it that seem rather pointless, as if Hawke is going through the motions and not really driven the way the hero was in Origins and Awakening. There's a lack of intensity. There is also a glaring lack of tough choices. I love a great story and with Origins and Awakening, there were choices that could be made that would affect the story, take it down a different path, and everything you decided had consequences. With Dragon Age 2, it seems the story was only written one way and no matter what the player does or decides, they become the Champion the same way and go through the same events. It falls flat when you think about the intricacies and plot twists of the previous two games.
I did like the interactions with the members of your party and there were even characters I genuinely liked. I found that my top three were Varric, Fenris, and Isabela. Hawke has a voice, so some of these interactions had a little more emotion to them, but frankly it seemed like the companions were far more interesting and witty. Even their quests and stories were more interesting to me. There was one part of Hawke's story that really had me going and to the person who wrote that, I say great job. As for the rest, it just felt dull. Sure, the ending has a fantastic pivotal point to the story line, but it felt like a chore to get to it at certain points in the game.
Overall, I had no problem with the battle system. It was much easier to navigate, the action is fast and fluid, and the AI is pretty spot on when it comes to the other party members, making for a pretty exciting furious battle. Yet, there was a problem. Let me be clear with all my friends who told me I could change the difficulty setting to casual if a battle was too hard, I DID. I then tried various tactics and party set ups and got annihilated eight times or more. I'll give everyone a moment to let that sink in. Now, maybe it's a crazy concept, but the casual setting on a video game means you don't have lots of dead party members and game over screens. Yes, it's still a battle, but not quite so difficult. When a battle is hard on the EASY setting, that's a huge problem for me. Factor in the 30 second cool down timer for healing potions, and healing spells, it borders on ridiculous.
While I understand that the gist of this idea was it makes you plan out and think carefully about strategies for quests, boss battles, and random fights a 30 second heal timer does not work. I could understand having a timer, but 30 seconds can make or break a quest or story oriented battle in Dragon Age 2. I played as a rogue for the first play through, and I found myself kiting things a hell of a lot waiting for the timer to be up and hoping I wouldn't die before I could heal. Needless to say, it got incredibly frustrating quite a few times!
Finally, we have the sheer laziness of the map and dungeon designs. It was as if there was just one prototype for everything when it came to the buildings in Kirkwall. The "poor house" design, and the "rich mansion" design came across as bland and was a telling sign of how rushed this game was. There's also one map for the sewers, the Deep Roads, one mine, one mountain, and one cave. You basically go back and forth with five different locations on the world map. Compared to the other maps in the Dragon Age games, this is shameful. The map is ridiculously tiny, but it's as if they were lazy and couldn't be bothered with making the locations stand out and be unique from each other.
I liked Dragon Age 2, but I didn't love it the way I did Origins and Awakening. I can honestly say, it's a good game, but not a great one. There's too many predictable points in some of the story telling and it's quite obvious to see where certain things were rushed especially with certain cut scenes where the characters were blinking in and out of frame. I can not in good conscience give Dragon Age 2 a stellar review as an amazing game, because it isn't. Believe me, that kills me because I absolutely love the Dragon Age series, but with that many flaws, it's not worth full price.