Search
Search results
Suswatibasu (1701 KP) rated Brighton Rock in Books
Oct 10, 2017
Suswatibasu (1701 KP) rated Moby-Dick: or, the Whale: Or, the Whale in Books
Oct 10, 2017
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Thor: The Dark World (2013) in Movies
Oct 10, 2017 (Updated Oct 10, 2017)
Loki was fun to watch. (1 more)
Good SFX.
Totally forgettable villain. (1 more)
Any scene involving Kat Dennings and her intern.
Thor: God Of Meh
In the run up to the release of Thor: Ragnarok, the third Thor movie, I decided to go back and watch the only movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that I have not seen yet. I never had anything against this movie before I saw it, I had just heard it is mediocre and a bit unnecessary and to be honest Thor is one of my least favourite Avengers. Funnily enough what I got was a fairly unnecessary, mediocre superhero sequel with some fun moments sprinkled throughout.
This isn't a bad movie overall, it's just painfully mediocre. The direction is uninspired, the performances are phoned in and the plot is run of the mill for a superhero story. The new characters introduced are extraordinarily vanilla, the score is okay and the script is pretty pedestrian in terms of the kind of story it is telling. The whole thing is just passable and yet extremely unremarkable.
I know Marvel movies have become notorious for their obvious lack of decent antagonists, (other than Loki,) but this takes it to a new level of generic. This group of villains makes the Ultron bots look like deep, fleshed out characters.
I found myself getting extremely annoyed every time that Kat Dennings was in the screen and I don't hate this actress, I don't even remember hating her in the first Thor movie, but in this she was insufferable. Her over the top pantomime acting was painful to watch and none of the snarky remarks that she hit out with landed. The guy that was her intern was just as bad and there wasn't even any real need for these characters to be in the movie.
In summary, it's okay. Not much focus is put on Tom Hiddleston's Loki in this one, but when it is, these are the best parts of the movie. He is easily the highlight of a sub par movie overall. Even Chris Hemsworth was bad in this and I know that the guy is a good actor, I've seen him give brilliant performances in movies both within and outside of the MCU. Every part of this movie is positively conventional and these moderately successful parts add up to a tolerable film that is by no means required viewing, not even for the most die hard of comic book fans.
This isn't a bad movie overall, it's just painfully mediocre. The direction is uninspired, the performances are phoned in and the plot is run of the mill for a superhero story. The new characters introduced are extraordinarily vanilla, the score is okay and the script is pretty pedestrian in terms of the kind of story it is telling. The whole thing is just passable and yet extremely unremarkable.
I know Marvel movies have become notorious for their obvious lack of decent antagonists, (other than Loki,) but this takes it to a new level of generic. This group of villains makes the Ultron bots look like deep, fleshed out characters.
I found myself getting extremely annoyed every time that Kat Dennings was in the screen and I don't hate this actress, I don't even remember hating her in the first Thor movie, but in this she was insufferable. Her over the top pantomime acting was painful to watch and none of the snarky remarks that she hit out with landed. The guy that was her intern was just as bad and there wasn't even any real need for these characters to be in the movie.
In summary, it's okay. Not much focus is put on Tom Hiddleston's Loki in this one, but when it is, these are the best parts of the movie. He is easily the highlight of a sub par movie overall. Even Chris Hemsworth was bad in this and I know that the guy is a good actor, I've seen him give brilliant performances in movies both within and outside of the MCU. Every part of this movie is positively conventional and these moderately successful parts add up to a tolerable film that is by no means required viewing, not even for the most die hard of comic book fans.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Blade Runner (1982) in Movies
Oct 10, 2017
Incredible setting. (2 more)
Groundbreaking for sci-fi movies of the time.
The special effects and visuals still hold up 35 years later.
The Perils & Benefits Of Hindsight
I first watched Blade Runner around fifteen years ago and in my seven year old brain , I put it into the same category as Star Wars. They were both sci-fi movies, both made in a similar era and they both starred Harrison Ford. I think that the first version I saw was the director's cut version. I went back to Blade Runner at the age of 12, when the ultimate cut was released in 2007 and at the time, I felt that the setting and the world were still incredible, but the plot and characters in the movie left a lot to be desired. For the release of the sequel 2049, I decided to go back and re-watch the directors cut a few days before I went to see the new movie.
I totally forgot how slow this film was. The whole thing moves at a snail's pace and half of the runtime is spent looking at Harrison Ford's reaction shots. I had it in my head that the pace of Blade Runner was similar to that of A New Hope, but I was way off. I get it, it's not a sci-fi action flick, it's a hard-boiled, contemplative detective film, but it really was a slog.
I still feel the same way about this movie that I always have, the world and setting is better than the movie itself. There is a reason that so many movies took elements of Blade Runner's amazing setting and used them as inspiration for their own films. To this day the sets and the majority of this 35 year old film's visuals still look great, that is an achievement not to be scoffed at.
I will always appreciate Blade Runner for what it did for sci-fi movies that came after it, but if you saw this film as a kid and are thinking about going back to re-watch it again for the release of the sequel, I would actually recommend against it. This movie was so much better in my head than it was when I actually re-watched it and I somehow like it less now after re-watching it. This shouldn't take away from the importance and influence of this film though and if you consider this a classic, it would be hard to argue with you.
I totally forgot how slow this film was. The whole thing moves at a snail's pace and half of the runtime is spent looking at Harrison Ford's reaction shots. I had it in my head that the pace of Blade Runner was similar to that of A New Hope, but I was way off. I get it, it's not a sci-fi action flick, it's a hard-boiled, contemplative detective film, but it really was a slog.
I still feel the same way about this movie that I always have, the world and setting is better than the movie itself. There is a reason that so many movies took elements of Blade Runner's amazing setting and used them as inspiration for their own films. To this day the sets and the majority of this 35 year old film's visuals still look great, that is an achievement not to be scoffed at.
I will always appreciate Blade Runner for what it did for sci-fi movies that came after it, but if you saw this film as a kid and are thinking about going back to re-watch it again for the release of the sequel, I would actually recommend against it. This movie was so much better in my head than it was when I actually re-watched it and I somehow like it less now after re-watching it. This shouldn't take away from the importance and influence of this film though and if you consider this a classic, it would be hard to argue with you.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Sniper Elite 4 in Video Games
Oct 10, 2017 (Updated Oct 10, 2017)
Satisfying gameplay. (2 more)
X-Ray camera.
Neat settings.
Generic characters and plot. (1 more)
Sub par graphics.
Hits It's Target
The fourth game in the third person WW2 shooter series, this game expands on the groundwork laid by it's predecessors. If you are coming off of a story driven game and are just looking for something satisfying and fun, then this is perfect for you. The story and characters are paper thin and the voice acting is all over the place in terms of quality, but that's not why you come to Sniper Elite, you come to watch a Nazi's brains explode from the sheer impact of your well placed bullet.
This is definitely the best game in the series in terms of it's gameplay systems. The control given to the player is clear and specific and if you miss a shot, you have no one to blame but yourself. The infamous X-ray cam makes a glorious return and it is even more detailed and brutal than in previous entries. No matter how many times you make a pair of Nazi testicles go pop from across a beautiful Italian town, it never gets old.
The other great thing about this game is it's various settings. There is an array of different maps that you work your way through during the game's campaign and each is unique and well thought out enough to give you a challenge, but also make you feel like a total bad-ass when you land a near impossible shot, in equal measure.
Although the landscapes are nice to run around in and function well in terms of matching with the game's gameplay style, the quality of the graphics itself isn't going to astonish anyone. We are around halfway through the PS4's life-cycle and this looks at best, like a late generation PS3 game. Again though, it doesn't really matter here, no one is buying Sniper Elite 4 for it's graphical quality.
Overall, there is a ton of fun to be had here. Don't think too much about the story and just enjoy systematically working your way through each various map, popping Nazi skulls as you go.
This is definitely the best game in the series in terms of it's gameplay systems. The control given to the player is clear and specific and if you miss a shot, you have no one to blame but yourself. The infamous X-ray cam makes a glorious return and it is even more detailed and brutal than in previous entries. No matter how many times you make a pair of Nazi testicles go pop from across a beautiful Italian town, it never gets old.
The other great thing about this game is it's various settings. There is an array of different maps that you work your way through during the game's campaign and each is unique and well thought out enough to give you a challenge, but also make you feel like a total bad-ass when you land a near impossible shot, in equal measure.
Although the landscapes are nice to run around in and function well in terms of matching with the game's gameplay style, the quality of the graphics itself isn't going to astonish anyone. We are around halfway through the PS4's life-cycle and this looks at best, like a late generation PS3 game. Again though, it doesn't really matter here, no one is buying Sniper Elite 4 for it's graphical quality.
Overall, there is a ton of fun to be had here. Don't think too much about the story and just enjoy systematically working your way through each various map, popping Nazi skulls as you go.
Suswatibasu (1701 KP) rated The Butterfly Effect in Books
Oct 10, 2017 (Updated Oct 10, 2017)
Well produced but still completely missing a lot
It's pretty incredible to create a series about the effects of mass porn without mentioning how it actually affects the women in it and around it. Once again we have a very male take on women as a mass commodity, narrowing them down to keywords instead focusing on how the men who make it and are responsible for the consumerism are affected. I thought Jon Ronson would explore this issue, but he skirts around it as an aside. Not his best by far.
