Search
Search results
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Surgeon (Rizzoli & Isles, #1) in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<b>Trigger warning:</b> this book is heavily focused on sexual assault and rape.
This novel is certainly very captivating. I found it difficult to put it down once I had picked it up! I loved the crime and mysterious criminal and I loved the pace of it all. Sometimes, these crime novels can burst with excitement for one second, and then fizzle out until the last few pages, or, completely the opposite of that, be total non-stop action, but feel really over the top and unrealistic. This, on the other hand, had a great mix of action and downtime.
I loved the setting for this, it felt so retro with its mention of floppy disks, pagers, and cassette tapes! This whole book was really well described and brought to life. It felt so real, you completely lost yourselves in the characters worlds. The horror of each murder and plot reveal really grabs you by the throat and give you goosebumps. There’s no escaping the terror in this one.
As for the crime, this one is certainly unique… and gruesome! If you’re like me, and don’t like the thought of surgery or human anatomy, then this will certainly be a struggle to read as it contains many in-depth scenes where we’re walked through what’s happening on the inside of the body. That certainly made it a little hard for me to read because I have this slight fear of our insides and all descriptions of it, but I was too intrigued as to who the killer was, to put it down. While not a particularly twisty turny story, there are plenty of characters in this novel to keep you guessing on who the real killer is.
This always seems to happen to me, but I just can’t seem to get on with female detectives in these kinds of series. Rizzoli wasn’t the worst I have come across, but she still got on my nerves. I’m well aware the message this book was trying to put across was all to do with a “woman in a man’s world”, and I can feel for Rizzoli, it would be hard to be taken seriously in a homicide department in 2001 as a woman… But!!! It was not necessary for her to act as though every single man she encountered was an enemy, needing to be destroyed and put in his place. If she wanted to be taken so seriously as a woman, I’m surprised she couldn’t utter the word “tampon” and described it as being a “disgusting object”. (I have seen this point mentioned by other reviewers and some have said the “fear” of tampons could be a generational thing).
I also wasn’t a fan of the underlying tone this book had, that “all men are capable of evil”. <i>Everyone</i> is capable of evil, why were only men being targeted in this book? Now, I don’t want to sound anti-feminist or something with me saying all this stuff, but I felt the book was a bit radical with some of it’s points about men being raping, murdering bastards. Again, I would like to put my hands up and say I’m <i>really</i> not trying to trivialise or undermine rape “victims” (I prefer the term survivors myself) because I’m close to several, I know how much it fucks them up, but I did feel like this book was a bit heavy hitting towards the male gender as a whole, rather than to the select few scumbags who do that sort of thing <i>(just to rehash this point, I’m not some kind of rape apologist, I just didn’t feel the book needed to be so anti-man).</i>
Another problem I had with this book was sometimes it seemed to have an undermining stance on rape, calling it a woman’s “shameful secret” as though it was their own fault they had been abused in this way. There was also a moment where Rizzoli called herself a “victim of The Surgeon” because she had fucked up part of the investigation, which I thought was completely inappropriate. Comparing a job related incident that was your own fault to being kidnapped and raped is just disgusting. <i>That</i> really got on my nerves. Another thing that grated on me was the overuse of the word “victim” when it came to the rape survivors, but I can imagine that’s more to do with the time this book came out than anything else.
Also!!! (<b>Not a spoiler</b>) There is a disgusting comment on suicide nearer the end of the novel, where Rizzoli calls a man who killed himself a “loser who ate his gun” and “pathetic enough to blow his own brains out”.
Even after having those couple of issues with this novel, I still enjoyed it enough to finish it but I won’t forget the offensiveness of it. I’m going to give myself a break from this series for a month or so, just to really review whether use want to continue with writing I find so problematic. If any of you have gone on to read more of this series, please let me know if it gets any better by not taking digs at traumatised women and mental illness.
This novel is certainly very captivating. I found it difficult to put it down once I had picked it up! I loved the crime and mysterious criminal and I loved the pace of it all. Sometimes, these crime novels can burst with excitement for one second, and then fizzle out until the last few pages, or, completely the opposite of that, be total non-stop action, but feel really over the top and unrealistic. This, on the other hand, had a great mix of action and downtime.
I loved the setting for this, it felt so retro with its mention of floppy disks, pagers, and cassette tapes! This whole book was really well described and brought to life. It felt so real, you completely lost yourselves in the characters worlds. The horror of each murder and plot reveal really grabs you by the throat and give you goosebumps. There’s no escaping the terror in this one.
As for the crime, this one is certainly unique… and gruesome! If you’re like me, and don’t like the thought of surgery or human anatomy, then this will certainly be a struggle to read as it contains many in-depth scenes where we’re walked through what’s happening on the inside of the body. That certainly made it a little hard for me to read because I have this slight fear of our insides and all descriptions of it, but I was too intrigued as to who the killer was, to put it down. While not a particularly twisty turny story, there are plenty of characters in this novel to keep you guessing on who the real killer is.
This always seems to happen to me, but I just can’t seem to get on with female detectives in these kinds of series. Rizzoli wasn’t the worst I have come across, but she still got on my nerves. I’m well aware the message this book was trying to put across was all to do with a “woman in a man’s world”, and I can feel for Rizzoli, it would be hard to be taken seriously in a homicide department in 2001 as a woman… But!!! It was not necessary for her to act as though every single man she encountered was an enemy, needing to be destroyed and put in his place. If she wanted to be taken so seriously as a woman, I’m surprised she couldn’t utter the word “tampon” and described it as being a “disgusting object”. (I have seen this point mentioned by other reviewers and some have said the “fear” of tampons could be a generational thing).
I also wasn’t a fan of the underlying tone this book had, that “all men are capable of evil”. <i>Everyone</i> is capable of evil, why were only men being targeted in this book? Now, I don’t want to sound anti-feminist or something with me saying all this stuff, but I felt the book was a bit radical with some of it’s points about men being raping, murdering bastards. Again, I would like to put my hands up and say I’m <i>really</i> not trying to trivialise or undermine rape “victims” (I prefer the term survivors myself) because I’m close to several, I know how much it fucks them up, but I did feel like this book was a bit heavy hitting towards the male gender as a whole, rather than to the select few scumbags who do that sort of thing <i>(just to rehash this point, I’m not some kind of rape apologist, I just didn’t feel the book needed to be so anti-man).</i>
Another problem I had with this book was sometimes it seemed to have an undermining stance on rape, calling it a woman’s “shameful secret” as though it was their own fault they had been abused in this way. There was also a moment where Rizzoli called herself a “victim of The Surgeon” because she had fucked up part of the investigation, which I thought was completely inappropriate. Comparing a job related incident that was your own fault to being kidnapped and raped is just disgusting. <i>That</i> really got on my nerves. Another thing that grated on me was the overuse of the word “victim” when it came to the rape survivors, but I can imagine that’s more to do with the time this book came out than anything else.
Also!!! (<b>Not a spoiler</b>) There is a disgusting comment on suicide nearer the end of the novel, where Rizzoli calls a man who killed himself a “loser who ate his gun” and “pathetic enough to blow his own brains out”.
Even after having those couple of issues with this novel, I still enjoyed it enough to finish it but I won’t forget the offensiveness of it. I’m going to give myself a break from this series for a month or so, just to really review whether use want to continue with writing I find so problematic. If any of you have gone on to read more of this series, please let me know if it gets any better by not taking digs at traumatised women and mental illness.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I have put off writing this review because I honestly didn't know what, or more precisely how to sum up my feelings about this movie. That's not a typo at the top. I'm giving this one star, and honestly I nearly didn't even give it that.
Previously I've mentioned that I will happily sit through a movie bawling my eyes out. I hadn't quite realised how important it was to have good characters behind the emotional pieces. Twice this movie brought a tear to my eye, and neither were when I particularly expected. I'll circle back round to one of those in a moment.
It is entirely possible that how these people were portrayed is accurate to real life, I honestly don't know much about the people apart from what most around the world know. I could make no emotional connection with them. So much so that at the beginning of the film when we have our first opportunity to sympathise with them I was left frowning at the screen wondering how this devastating story line left me not caring.
The redeeming feature in this film was the Armstrong's oldest son. For the most part they're just around in the periphery of the story, after all most people are there for the space film not the biopic, but he earned this star. Janet makes Neil talk to their sons about the mission he's about to leave for, the boy is just old enough to know what it might mean, how dangerous it is, and in that moment he gave a brilliant performance and I could feel his sadness and anger.
Until I saw Blade Runner 2049 I had not seen Ryan Gosling in a film in 15 years. (I have seen Murder By Numbers but didn't realise he was in it until about five minutes ago.) From that one film I was sold on him as an actor, he played that part really well and I could almost forgive him for doing La La Land. (I have not seen La La Land. However, thanks to the film's sponsorship of drama on ITV2 at a peak moment in time for series I was watching, I have seen the trailer hundreds of times and vowed never to watch it.) Gosling's role in this pained me. As I said, I don't know the people this film is based on, his portrayal of Armstrong could be entirely accurate but I didn't find anything about it believable. His devastation at the beginning of the movie appeared like it should have been a genuine heartbreak for him, and yet his performance didn't reflect that at all apart from some unconvincing wailing.
Claire Foy's Janet Armstrong, again, could be accurate I honestly don't know. Listening to her spend a lot of her time getting angry left me frustrated. Anger is a strong emotion, yet it was another performance that didn't leave me identifying with her pain. I knew where it should have been, but I couldn't find it in any of the scenes.
I feel like I could go on about this for ages. Originally I was going to give First Man two stars, which on my score card is for films that I didn't like but I can see that they're well done and could appeal to other people. Usually that would mean the subject matter isn't too my liking but the performances were good... well. Yeah.
While I can understand the chaotic nature of shuttle's in flight, starting a film with camera shots that are so violently shaky that you can't tell what's going on didn't sit well with me. From the very start you're left confused and not knowing exactly who or what you're watching. Unfortunately that was not the only time that shot was used. The film didn't seem glossy, if that makes sense. It's a film in 2018, we want to see the past in glorious high definition, but everything felt a little retro in an old kind of way. Shaky camera was a constant feature and when we see the exterior shots of the module in space I honestly though I was watching a less technicolour version of Red Dwarf. With one main difference, I like Red Dwarf.
Lots of production choices make sense to some degree. When we go from the landing to getting down on to the moon there is silence. I can see that silence would be a good tool in what is essentially nothingness. But would it have been silent? Wouldn't they have heard console beeping, com channels, and the sound of their own breathing? The silence was deafening, and dull.
When I came out of the film I really couldn't reconcile what I'd seen with what people had been raving about. There was no redeeming feature for me. So much potential telling a story that everyone knows, but doesn't really, and I was left with a bad taste in my mouth and the desire to watch Apollo 13 to reassure myself that there were better films out there.
What you should do
You're going to go and see it because everyone thinks it's amazing. You shouldn't bother. Don't watch it on DVD, don't watch it streaming... buy yourself a copy of Apollo 13 instead.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I want nothing from this film. Anything I could have would be a horrible reminder of me wasting my time at the cinema.
Previously I've mentioned that I will happily sit through a movie bawling my eyes out. I hadn't quite realised how important it was to have good characters behind the emotional pieces. Twice this movie brought a tear to my eye, and neither were when I particularly expected. I'll circle back round to one of those in a moment.
It is entirely possible that how these people were portrayed is accurate to real life, I honestly don't know much about the people apart from what most around the world know. I could make no emotional connection with them. So much so that at the beginning of the film when we have our first opportunity to sympathise with them I was left frowning at the screen wondering how this devastating story line left me not caring.
The redeeming feature in this film was the Armstrong's oldest son. For the most part they're just around in the periphery of the story, after all most people are there for the space film not the biopic, but he earned this star. Janet makes Neil talk to their sons about the mission he's about to leave for, the boy is just old enough to know what it might mean, how dangerous it is, and in that moment he gave a brilliant performance and I could feel his sadness and anger.
Until I saw Blade Runner 2049 I had not seen Ryan Gosling in a film in 15 years. (I have seen Murder By Numbers but didn't realise he was in it until about five minutes ago.) From that one film I was sold on him as an actor, he played that part really well and I could almost forgive him for doing La La Land. (I have not seen La La Land. However, thanks to the film's sponsorship of drama on ITV2 at a peak moment in time for series I was watching, I have seen the trailer hundreds of times and vowed never to watch it.) Gosling's role in this pained me. As I said, I don't know the people this film is based on, his portrayal of Armstrong could be entirely accurate but I didn't find anything about it believable. His devastation at the beginning of the movie appeared like it should have been a genuine heartbreak for him, and yet his performance didn't reflect that at all apart from some unconvincing wailing.
Claire Foy's Janet Armstrong, again, could be accurate I honestly don't know. Listening to her spend a lot of her time getting angry left me frustrated. Anger is a strong emotion, yet it was another performance that didn't leave me identifying with her pain. I knew where it should have been, but I couldn't find it in any of the scenes.
I feel like I could go on about this for ages. Originally I was going to give First Man two stars, which on my score card is for films that I didn't like but I can see that they're well done and could appeal to other people. Usually that would mean the subject matter isn't too my liking but the performances were good... well. Yeah.
While I can understand the chaotic nature of shuttle's in flight, starting a film with camera shots that are so violently shaky that you can't tell what's going on didn't sit well with me. From the very start you're left confused and not knowing exactly who or what you're watching. Unfortunately that was not the only time that shot was used. The film didn't seem glossy, if that makes sense. It's a film in 2018, we want to see the past in glorious high definition, but everything felt a little retro in an old kind of way. Shaky camera was a constant feature and when we see the exterior shots of the module in space I honestly though I was watching a less technicolour version of Red Dwarf. With one main difference, I like Red Dwarf.
Lots of production choices make sense to some degree. When we go from the landing to getting down on to the moon there is silence. I can see that silence would be a good tool in what is essentially nothingness. But would it have been silent? Wouldn't they have heard console beeping, com channels, and the sound of their own breathing? The silence was deafening, and dull.
When I came out of the film I really couldn't reconcile what I'd seen with what people had been raving about. There was no redeeming feature for me. So much potential telling a story that everyone knows, but doesn't really, and I was left with a bad taste in my mouth and the desire to watch Apollo 13 to reassure myself that there were better films out there.
What you should do
You're going to go and see it because everyone thinks it's amazing. You shouldn't bother. Don't watch it on DVD, don't watch it streaming... buy yourself a copy of Apollo 13 instead.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I want nothing from this film. Anything I could have would be a horrible reminder of me wasting my time at the cinema.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
I'd managed to see the Terminator and T2 in a double bill at the cinema and was shocked to discover I hadn't seen the first one... I really thought I had! Retro films on the big screen are amazing and I need to find the person I need to bribe to get some of my favourites shown.
Dani is working hard to help support her family, she's happy and carefree living with her father, brother and dog, Taco. But today is going to change her life forever.
Grace drops into the world violently, her mission is to protect Dani from a machine sent back to kill her. It's a familiar story, but the Rev-9's aren't like the Terminators, they're relentless and nearly indestructible. Grace and Dani find some unexpected back-up when Sarah Connor joins the hunt, aiding their escape and leading them to another ally for their mission.
Straight off the bat I want to say I loved this film, I'm going to compare it to 2018's Halloween. Neither franchise is something I'm an expert in but these new incarnations to me feel quite respectful to the originals and manage to give us a successful modern take. They both create a homage of things that came before them, and I like that.
The film opens in a great way with the interview tape of Sarah Connor and I thought it was really clever to mix it with consistent effects onto the studio logos/trailers. I was also impressed with the flashback scene of Sarah and John... I genuinely thought I'd missed something from the previous films because I hadn't seen this footage. It was in fact done with a body double and some CGI from what I've read. The quality of the effects in this bit were amazing and I couldn't tell that it wasn't actual footage, it really threw me for a loop.
Our original characters have both developed since their outing in T2. Sarah is much more purposeful but I have to wonder what she was doing between the times she recounts during the film. The Terminator has managed to adapt to his own sort of "human" life, which again, looks like it's got a few holes in it, but neither case really had me pondering until after the film. Linda Hamilton gives a relaxed kick-ass action performance, Sarah has clearly honed her skills and has little emotion apart from hatred coursing through her veins when she's on a mission, it gave a satisfying little lift to things for me. I couldn't help but believe her attitude to everything, still a little bit of the crazy about her but her determination to keep the machines from rising gives her laser focus.
The Terminator, now going by the name Carl is left to do his own thing after completing his mission. I don't know how I feel about this, would there not have been programming beyond his original mission? Anyway, I can't go down that rabbit hole. I thought Arnie's performance was really good, he's still got that "unintentionally" funny thing down well and the chemistry between him and Hamilton really shone through. He's also done well to get Carl to be quite natural while still being a giant robot, had he played it human I don't think I'd have been so onboard... though I don't know how I felt about his new career.
Having the enhanced human character of Grace stopped the sequences from being too flat. With the emotionless side of things previously it was difficult to engage with all the scenes. Mackenzie Davis gets to do the Terminator acting while still being human, you get the human panic and the machine reacting and the blend works well. Her relationship with Dani is a nice one to follow and getting to see her backstory in flashbacks... wait, flashforwards... really added to it all.
Sadly I was disappointed with Dani in general, she's just kind of dragged along with everything and even though she was essentially our Sarah Connor of this film there's very little happening with her. Her character doesn't have enough substance, she doesn't have enough in her to play with the big boys around her. Dani is also confusing in the future story for several reasons, including issues with time travel which I'm not even going to get into.
Overall the effects were very good. The way the Rev-9 movies is unnatural and enthralling to watch and Gabriel Luna's performance was impressive when you think about how he'd have to act and react to some of the more sci-fi moments. The effects weren't great throughout though and in the underwater scene with Arnie and the Rev-9 I was frowning slightly at the screen. The whole thing had a rather misty feel to it and was much more distracting than you'd think.
The other thing I feel is worth mentioning is that there are some odd choices with slow-motion shots. I couldn't see any correlation between the shots and why they'd been chosen for this effect, some happened close together and others happened out on their own and hardly any fit naturally into the scenes. The only one that felt right was Grace sizing up her shot early on, it showed us one of her abilities and that worked well, but after that they felt more like they were trying to show off more than actually picking spots that would have any impact.
Dark Fate has a lot of nice little nods back to the originals and that made for a satisfying watch. There's subtle humour and surprisingly some emotional scenes too, I came out of this and felt really content having seen it. Despite my quibbles, or which I now realise there were many, I really enjoyed this film.
What you should do
It's definitely worth a watch, it's some good mindless action and I think it's a good follow on to the original two films.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some super robot enhancements wouldn't go amiss.
Dani is working hard to help support her family, she's happy and carefree living with her father, brother and dog, Taco. But today is going to change her life forever.
Grace drops into the world violently, her mission is to protect Dani from a machine sent back to kill her. It's a familiar story, but the Rev-9's aren't like the Terminators, they're relentless and nearly indestructible. Grace and Dani find some unexpected back-up when Sarah Connor joins the hunt, aiding their escape and leading them to another ally for their mission.
Straight off the bat I want to say I loved this film, I'm going to compare it to 2018's Halloween. Neither franchise is something I'm an expert in but these new incarnations to me feel quite respectful to the originals and manage to give us a successful modern take. They both create a homage of things that came before them, and I like that.
The film opens in a great way with the interview tape of Sarah Connor and I thought it was really clever to mix it with consistent effects onto the studio logos/trailers. I was also impressed with the flashback scene of Sarah and John... I genuinely thought I'd missed something from the previous films because I hadn't seen this footage. It was in fact done with a body double and some CGI from what I've read. The quality of the effects in this bit were amazing and I couldn't tell that it wasn't actual footage, it really threw me for a loop.
Our original characters have both developed since their outing in T2. Sarah is much more purposeful but I have to wonder what she was doing between the times she recounts during the film. The Terminator has managed to adapt to his own sort of "human" life, which again, looks like it's got a few holes in it, but neither case really had me pondering until after the film. Linda Hamilton gives a relaxed kick-ass action performance, Sarah has clearly honed her skills and has little emotion apart from hatred coursing through her veins when she's on a mission, it gave a satisfying little lift to things for me. I couldn't help but believe her attitude to everything, still a little bit of the crazy about her but her determination to keep the machines from rising gives her laser focus.
The Terminator, now going by the name Carl is left to do his own thing after completing his mission. I don't know how I feel about this, would there not have been programming beyond his original mission? Anyway, I can't go down that rabbit hole. I thought Arnie's performance was really good, he's still got that "unintentionally" funny thing down well and the chemistry between him and Hamilton really shone through. He's also done well to get Carl to be quite natural while still being a giant robot, had he played it human I don't think I'd have been so onboard... though I don't know how I felt about his new career.
Having the enhanced human character of Grace stopped the sequences from being too flat. With the emotionless side of things previously it was difficult to engage with all the scenes. Mackenzie Davis gets to do the Terminator acting while still being human, you get the human panic and the machine reacting and the blend works well. Her relationship with Dani is a nice one to follow and getting to see her backstory in flashbacks... wait, flashforwards... really added to it all.
Sadly I was disappointed with Dani in general, she's just kind of dragged along with everything and even though she was essentially our Sarah Connor of this film there's very little happening with her. Her character doesn't have enough substance, she doesn't have enough in her to play with the big boys around her. Dani is also confusing in the future story for several reasons, including issues with time travel which I'm not even going to get into.
Overall the effects were very good. The way the Rev-9 movies is unnatural and enthralling to watch and Gabriel Luna's performance was impressive when you think about how he'd have to act and react to some of the more sci-fi moments. The effects weren't great throughout though and in the underwater scene with Arnie and the Rev-9 I was frowning slightly at the screen. The whole thing had a rather misty feel to it and was much more distracting than you'd think.
The other thing I feel is worth mentioning is that there are some odd choices with slow-motion shots. I couldn't see any correlation between the shots and why they'd been chosen for this effect, some happened close together and others happened out on their own and hardly any fit naturally into the scenes. The only one that felt right was Grace sizing up her shot early on, it showed us one of her abilities and that worked well, but after that they felt more like they were trying to show off more than actually picking spots that would have any impact.
Dark Fate has a lot of nice little nods back to the originals and that made for a satisfying watch. There's subtle humour and surprisingly some emotional scenes too, I came out of this and felt really content having seen it. Despite my quibbles, or which I now realise there were many, I really enjoyed this film.
What you should do
It's definitely worth a watch, it's some good mindless action and I think it's a good follow on to the original two films.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some super robot enhancements wouldn't go amiss.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Joachim Phoenix - Oscar winning performance? (1 more)
Look and feel of the film - technically brilliant
A loser's tale.
“Joker” has managed to stir up a whirlwind of controversy, centring partly around the level of violence included but also on the use of “that song” on the soundtrack. But putting aside that flurry of commentary, what of the film itself?
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
Mothergamer (1511 KP) rated the PlayStation 3 version of Fallout 3 in Video Games
Apr 3, 2019
I know. How could I have not played Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas? There are many games I haven't had a chance to play and as I've gotten older, I've become a little more discerning about which games I buy right away and sometimes I just miss a game or two here and there. I also wait until things go down in price and only really pay full price for a game if it's something I know I really want. Again, that comes with being an older nerd. At any rate, when I saw that I could buy Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas for 10 bucks, I did jump at the chance and I was excited to play. I started with Fallout 3 first of course and it was quite an interesting adventure.
The opening sequence was intriguing with the lone wanderer being born and of course this is so you can choose to be a boy or a girl and design your character and decide their race. I went with Asian girl and as I was picking out all the facial and hair designs, I wondered why there were several varying choices of bald. I mean, I get it. It's Fallout and with spiffy things like radiation poisoning hair falls out and people are bald, but so many choices of bald over actual hair. It was weird. I found a hair choice I liked and everything was great and I started my Fallout 3 story.
So the time jumps from baby to ten years old were interesting for getting to see how life was for my lone wanderer in Vault 101 and there was a birthday party for me where I get my very own Pipboy. Neat. Wandering around talking to everyone including a ridiculous bully named Butch (I was not nice to him and punched him. That was my freaking birthday dessert damn it!) was cool and it definitely sets the story up nicely. Then the time line jumps again and my character is 16 years old and has to take the G.O.A.T. (Generalized Occupational Aptitude Test for Fallout newbies) to decide what they'll be doing.
16 and ready to take the G.O.A.T. test.
A last time jump happens and the lone wanderer is 19 years old and the main story of Fallout 3 begins. The Overseer's daughter and my friend Amata, wakes me up to tell me that her dad is losing it because my dad has left the Vault. Initially I was shocked and wondering what the heck she was talking about, but it turns out it was true. Dad left and didn't say a damn thing to me about it so of course I have no idea what's going on. Amata tells me she'll help me to leave because she doesn't know what her dad will do, so here I am running around trying to escape the Vault and thinking, geeze this is a messed up situation.
I was trying to play the chaotic good path, so I didn't kill the Overseer out of respect for my friend even though her dad was a freaking paranoid psycho. I managed to escape Vault 101 and here was this vast world in front of me and I couldn't wait to explore especially since the setting was in Washington D.C. a place I was familiar with having grown up in Virginia. So I set out to explore what was now known as the Capital Wasteland. I discovered the town of Megaton and the people surviving in the Wasteland and picked up some quests as well. Megaton was definitely cool with all the different houses and the crazy atomic bomb that is just there in the center of town.
Enjoying the view of Megaton.
From there the big thing in Fallout 3 is finding my lone wanderer's dad and getting some answers about why he left and what exactly he was up to. There's all kinds of main quests and side quests for hours of game play giving the impression of a vast world. There's all kinds of danger in the Wasteland too ranging from Super Mutants to Mirelurks which definitely kept me on my toes. There's all kinds of weapons too and of course I liked that I could modify and build my own. You get companions who travel with you too and that includes everyone's favorite canine Dogmeat. I did like the fact that you could have two companions travel with you. I ended up choosing Dogmeat and my Super Mutant friend, Fawkes. They both worked really well together with taking down enemies. There's also two factions of the Brotherhood of Steel, the Brotherhood and the Brotherhood Outcasts. They seemed to have different ideas about what they should be doing. I did like Elder Lyons the leader of the Brotherhood of Steel though. There was a kindness and gentle wisdom to him that was incredibly likable. I did find it amusing to see Maxson and MacCready (they're in Fallout 4) as kids in Fallout 3. They seemed so different from who they are now. I actually liked Maxson better in 3 because he seemed a little kinder and a little more open.
Taking down a Mirelurk.
My lone wanderer did find her dad and got to actually talk to him about what he was up to. Project Purity was a cool concept; the idea of clean water for everyone in the Wasteland was great and the fact that he figured out how to make it work was also great. I just didn't understand why he couldn't tell his own kid what he was up to and instead just left without saying a word and his excuse was the Vault would keep me safe. Really? Sure. I was so safe with the Overseer and his goons trying to kill me. It was hard to stay angry with him though when he was so apologetic and then proceeded to say nice things to his kid about how proud of her he was for surviving and trying to be a good person.
Then, dad and daughter team up to work on Project Purity. I did do some side quests along the way before getting back to the main story. I enjoyed exploring the Capital Wasteland and seeing some familiar places such as the Lincoln Memorial and the Jefferson Memorial. There's even a quest where you can break in to the White House to get somewhere. Granted the majority of it is destroyed, but it was still a pretty neat quest.
Checking out the Jefferson Memorial with Dogmeat.
Of course in the main story, things don't go as planned thanks to the shady people simply known as The Enclave. That's where the Brotherhood of Steel comes in as you work towards the common goal of eliminating the Enclave who apparently have an issue with the idea of everyone in the Wasteland getting pure water that isn't irradiated for free. Again, I ran around and did more side quests for more level grinding and more things. I did like that I got a free house for helping the people of Megaton by quietly disarming that atom bomb before it blew everyone sky high. One of the vendors there sold themes for the Megaton house and I went with pre-war which was nice with a 50s retro feel.
Cool, I got my own house!
Did I enjoy Fallout 3? Absolutely. That isn't to say there weren't flaws. This is Game of the Year Edition so there was no excuse for a lot of the issues I had. This included all the DLC titles and these were fun to play. I especially liked the Broken Steel and Mothership Zeta quests. I also liked the nod to the Cthulhu mythos with the Dark Heart of Blackhall quest. The big thing was the constant game freezes. Mothership Zeta was especially bad with this and it got incredibly frustrating. I did all the tricks suggested; turning off the auto save and clearing some data. That helped a bit, but every once in a while the frame rate would drop and the game would freeze. It turned out this was a common problem on the PS3 and I found myself annoyed with it. Sure, it wasn't a big deal because I could just reload my last save and it would be fine. However, it does take away from the atmosphere of the game when that happens. There would also be odd glitches like Dogmeat walking up in the air above me or my character would disappear and there would be bits and pieces of me visible such as my hair and my hands. That was incredibly weird. The controls were a little clunky and I actually had to change the difficulty to very easy until I got used to them. It wasn't a big deal, but it was noticeable.
I love the Fallout series and there's so much to enjoy about them. However with things like this happening, Bethesda should be embarrassed. For as long as the game has been out, there's no excuse in not fixing known issues especially when it comes to dropped frame rates and the game freezing. It made me glad that I follow my mantra of save my game and save often.
Technical issues aside, I did have fun playing Fallout 3 and liked the story a lot. The characters were good and the different paths I could take for the storytelling were great because it did make me really think about what choices I wanted to make during my adventure. I'm glad I finally got the chance to play it and it was a great game. Now, I'm ready to check out Fallout New Vegas!
The opening sequence was intriguing with the lone wanderer being born and of course this is so you can choose to be a boy or a girl and design your character and decide their race. I went with Asian girl and as I was picking out all the facial and hair designs, I wondered why there were several varying choices of bald. I mean, I get it. It's Fallout and with spiffy things like radiation poisoning hair falls out and people are bald, but so many choices of bald over actual hair. It was weird. I found a hair choice I liked and everything was great and I started my Fallout 3 story.
So the time jumps from baby to ten years old were interesting for getting to see how life was for my lone wanderer in Vault 101 and there was a birthday party for me where I get my very own Pipboy. Neat. Wandering around talking to everyone including a ridiculous bully named Butch (I was not nice to him and punched him. That was my freaking birthday dessert damn it!) was cool and it definitely sets the story up nicely. Then the time line jumps again and my character is 16 years old and has to take the G.O.A.T. (Generalized Occupational Aptitude Test for Fallout newbies) to decide what they'll be doing.
16 and ready to take the G.O.A.T. test.
A last time jump happens and the lone wanderer is 19 years old and the main story of Fallout 3 begins. The Overseer's daughter and my friend Amata, wakes me up to tell me that her dad is losing it because my dad has left the Vault. Initially I was shocked and wondering what the heck she was talking about, but it turns out it was true. Dad left and didn't say a damn thing to me about it so of course I have no idea what's going on. Amata tells me she'll help me to leave because she doesn't know what her dad will do, so here I am running around trying to escape the Vault and thinking, geeze this is a messed up situation.
I was trying to play the chaotic good path, so I didn't kill the Overseer out of respect for my friend even though her dad was a freaking paranoid psycho. I managed to escape Vault 101 and here was this vast world in front of me and I couldn't wait to explore especially since the setting was in Washington D.C. a place I was familiar with having grown up in Virginia. So I set out to explore what was now known as the Capital Wasteland. I discovered the town of Megaton and the people surviving in the Wasteland and picked up some quests as well. Megaton was definitely cool with all the different houses and the crazy atomic bomb that is just there in the center of town.
Enjoying the view of Megaton.
From there the big thing in Fallout 3 is finding my lone wanderer's dad and getting some answers about why he left and what exactly he was up to. There's all kinds of main quests and side quests for hours of game play giving the impression of a vast world. There's all kinds of danger in the Wasteland too ranging from Super Mutants to Mirelurks which definitely kept me on my toes. There's all kinds of weapons too and of course I liked that I could modify and build my own. You get companions who travel with you too and that includes everyone's favorite canine Dogmeat. I did like the fact that you could have two companions travel with you. I ended up choosing Dogmeat and my Super Mutant friend, Fawkes. They both worked really well together with taking down enemies. There's also two factions of the Brotherhood of Steel, the Brotherhood and the Brotherhood Outcasts. They seemed to have different ideas about what they should be doing. I did like Elder Lyons the leader of the Brotherhood of Steel though. There was a kindness and gentle wisdom to him that was incredibly likable. I did find it amusing to see Maxson and MacCready (they're in Fallout 4) as kids in Fallout 3. They seemed so different from who they are now. I actually liked Maxson better in 3 because he seemed a little kinder and a little more open.
Taking down a Mirelurk.
My lone wanderer did find her dad and got to actually talk to him about what he was up to. Project Purity was a cool concept; the idea of clean water for everyone in the Wasteland was great and the fact that he figured out how to make it work was also great. I just didn't understand why he couldn't tell his own kid what he was up to and instead just left without saying a word and his excuse was the Vault would keep me safe. Really? Sure. I was so safe with the Overseer and his goons trying to kill me. It was hard to stay angry with him though when he was so apologetic and then proceeded to say nice things to his kid about how proud of her he was for surviving and trying to be a good person.
Then, dad and daughter team up to work on Project Purity. I did do some side quests along the way before getting back to the main story. I enjoyed exploring the Capital Wasteland and seeing some familiar places such as the Lincoln Memorial and the Jefferson Memorial. There's even a quest where you can break in to the White House to get somewhere. Granted the majority of it is destroyed, but it was still a pretty neat quest.
Checking out the Jefferson Memorial with Dogmeat.
Of course in the main story, things don't go as planned thanks to the shady people simply known as The Enclave. That's where the Brotherhood of Steel comes in as you work towards the common goal of eliminating the Enclave who apparently have an issue with the idea of everyone in the Wasteland getting pure water that isn't irradiated for free. Again, I ran around and did more side quests for more level grinding and more things. I did like that I got a free house for helping the people of Megaton by quietly disarming that atom bomb before it blew everyone sky high. One of the vendors there sold themes for the Megaton house and I went with pre-war which was nice with a 50s retro feel.
Cool, I got my own house!
Did I enjoy Fallout 3? Absolutely. That isn't to say there weren't flaws. This is Game of the Year Edition so there was no excuse for a lot of the issues I had. This included all the DLC titles and these were fun to play. I especially liked the Broken Steel and Mothership Zeta quests. I also liked the nod to the Cthulhu mythos with the Dark Heart of Blackhall quest. The big thing was the constant game freezes. Mothership Zeta was especially bad with this and it got incredibly frustrating. I did all the tricks suggested; turning off the auto save and clearing some data. That helped a bit, but every once in a while the frame rate would drop and the game would freeze. It turned out this was a common problem on the PS3 and I found myself annoyed with it. Sure, it wasn't a big deal because I could just reload my last save and it would be fine. However, it does take away from the atmosphere of the game when that happens. There would also be odd glitches like Dogmeat walking up in the air above me or my character would disappear and there would be bits and pieces of me visible such as my hair and my hands. That was incredibly weird. The controls were a little clunky and I actually had to change the difficulty to very easy until I got used to them. It wasn't a big deal, but it was noticeable.
I love the Fallout series and there's so much to enjoy about them. However with things like this happening, Bethesda should be embarrassed. For as long as the game has been out, there's no excuse in not fixing known issues especially when it comes to dropped frame rates and the game freezing. It made me glad that I follow my mantra of save my game and save often.
Technical issues aside, I did have fun playing Fallout 3 and liked the story a lot. The characters were good and the different paths I could take for the storytelling were great because it did make me really think about what choices I wanted to make during my adventure. I'm glad I finally got the chance to play it and it was a great game. Now, I'm ready to check out Fallout New Vegas!