Search
Search results
Interior 2015 SWEET HOME : Bedrooms & Bathrooms, Kitchens & Kids' rooms, Sauna & Pool, Loft & Patio
Catalogs and Lifestyle
App
Decorating your home? INTERIOR 2015 helps you find your perfect House Design. With Interior 2015 you...
Caster CAD 3D
Catalogs and Productivity
App
"Caster CAD 3D is a free application from the Colson Group, allowing users to quickly configure and...
Cold Granite (Logan McRae #1)
8.2
Rate It
Book
Christmas is coming, cold, dark and wet, bringing death with it. DS Logan McRae is having a bad...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Atari Flashback Classics Volume 1 in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
As a child I fondly remember going to Arcades and how exciting it was to see new games arrive. IN the pre-Internet days, you would only learn of new games through word of mouth, a magazine article, or seeing them in an arcade, so naturally gamers would check out a few locales on a regular basis to help ensure that they were up to date with all of the gaming options available to them.
Atari established itself early and often as one of the leading companies for Arcade Games and classics such as Asteroids, Centipede, Missile, Command, Tempest, and countless others always drew eager gamers who would place their quarters down to experience what the company had to offer.
In time Atari released the Atari 2600 system which allowed gamers to play 100s of titles at home even though the graphics and gameplay were far from the standards of the Arcade Games and were comically primitive by today’s gaming standards.
Atari released subsequent systems but never gained the impact on the market that their original system did largely due to increased competition, the decline of the Arcades, and the rise of PC gaming, but many fondly remember that era of gaming well and the classics that installed an early love of gaming in us.
Thankfully a good dose of nostalgia and fun has arrived for the Nintendo Switch in the form of the Atari Flashback Classics Collection. While there have been other collections of classic Atari games before, this collection offers 150 games taken from the best of their Arcade, Atari 2600, and Atari 5200 catalogs. Being able to play Arcade versions of beloved classics like Lunar Lander and the blister inducing Trac-Ball games like Football and Baseball is a nostalgic trip down memory lane.
The games are faithfully captured but do require some patience as in the mobile version; the gaming screen is often only a portion of the screen leaving gaps on either side. Some games as well also must be played vertically which requires some adjustments.
The controls can take some getting used to as some are too responsive which makes controlling the games an exercise in patience and frustration. It does help to change the sensitivity but I can see how some players will not want to do this for each game they encounter issues with.
With a collection this large some titles did not make the cut as I would have loved to have seen Battlezone and Kangaroo be included as I think gamers should truly be able to have every Atari Arcade game in one collection but of course there are often numerous reasons behind their absence so we can only hope that the collection will prove popular enough to spawn a second collection down the road.
For now the Atari Flashback Collection offers an impressive collection of beloved and obscure Atari games from the days of old which is a must-own for fans of that era and those who love retro gaming.
http://sknr.net/2019/01/05/atari-flashback-classics/
Atari established itself early and often as one of the leading companies for Arcade Games and classics such as Asteroids, Centipede, Missile, Command, Tempest, and countless others always drew eager gamers who would place their quarters down to experience what the company had to offer.
In time Atari released the Atari 2600 system which allowed gamers to play 100s of titles at home even though the graphics and gameplay were far from the standards of the Arcade Games and were comically primitive by today’s gaming standards.
Atari released subsequent systems but never gained the impact on the market that their original system did largely due to increased competition, the decline of the Arcades, and the rise of PC gaming, but many fondly remember that era of gaming well and the classics that installed an early love of gaming in us.
Thankfully a good dose of nostalgia and fun has arrived for the Nintendo Switch in the form of the Atari Flashback Classics Collection. While there have been other collections of classic Atari games before, this collection offers 150 games taken from the best of their Arcade, Atari 2600, and Atari 5200 catalogs. Being able to play Arcade versions of beloved classics like Lunar Lander and the blister inducing Trac-Ball games like Football and Baseball is a nostalgic trip down memory lane.
The games are faithfully captured but do require some patience as in the mobile version; the gaming screen is often only a portion of the screen leaving gaps on either side. Some games as well also must be played vertically which requires some adjustments.
The controls can take some getting used to as some are too responsive which makes controlling the games an exercise in patience and frustration. It does help to change the sensitivity but I can see how some players will not want to do this for each game they encounter issues with.
With a collection this large some titles did not make the cut as I would have loved to have seen Battlezone and Kangaroo be included as I think gamers should truly be able to have every Atari Arcade game in one collection but of course there are often numerous reasons behind their absence so we can only hope that the collection will prove popular enough to spawn a second collection down the road.
For now the Atari Flashback Collection offers an impressive collection of beloved and obscure Atari games from the days of old which is a must-own for fans of that era and those who love retro gaming.
http://sknr.net/2019/01/05/atari-flashback-classics/
English Spanish Dictionary
Reference and Education
App
WORKS OFFLINE. By far, the largest Spanish to English and English to Spanish Dictionary App at any...
Sarah (7800 KP) rated The Meg (2018) in Movies
May 10, 2019
Isn’t even entertainingly bad
You know to have low expectations when watching a Jason Statham film, especially one about giant sharks. I had hoped for something similar to Sharknado, a proper cheesy laughingly bad B movie, but sadly The Meg can’t even live up to these very low standards.
For starters, I don’t think this film has any idea what it’s meant to be. Is it serious, is it silly? It ends up being a bizarre mixture of the two which just doesn’t work as both aspects just seem out of place. Whilst I absolutely love the Thai version of Mickey that plays over the end credits, again it kind of seems a bit confused. The script is awful, and the acting for the most part is horrendous. I wanted it to be entertainingly bad, but sadly it was just cringeworthy to the point I was almost embarrassed for them. The only person who comes out of this relatively unscathed is Cliff Curtis as Mac, who is at least pretty funny although sadly underused. Also, what on earth was going on with Jason Statham’s accent? Was it English or American?! And then there’s the plot. It’s very predictable, the first hour is ridiculously dull and then changes into completely farce and unbelievability at the end, with stupid characters doing silly things that just don’t make any sense. Even the CGI was average and nothing exceptional.
I really wanted to like this, at least in a “it’s so bad it’s good” way, but sadly this is just plain old bad.
For starters, I don’t think this film has any idea what it’s meant to be. Is it serious, is it silly? It ends up being a bizarre mixture of the two which just doesn’t work as both aspects just seem out of place. Whilst I absolutely love the Thai version of Mickey that plays over the end credits, again it kind of seems a bit confused. The script is awful, and the acting for the most part is horrendous. I wanted it to be entertainingly bad, but sadly it was just cringeworthy to the point I was almost embarrassed for them. The only person who comes out of this relatively unscathed is Cliff Curtis as Mac, who is at least pretty funny although sadly underused. Also, what on earth was going on with Jason Statham’s accent? Was it English or American?! And then there’s the plot. It’s very predictable, the first hour is ridiculously dull and then changes into completely farce and unbelievability at the end, with stupid characters doing silly things that just don’t make any sense. Even the CGI was average and nothing exceptional.
I really wanted to like this, at least in a “it’s so bad it’s good” way, but sadly this is just plain old bad.
Michael Packner (32 KP) rated Black Christmas (1974) in Movies
Jun 15, 2019 (Updated Jun 15, 2019)
The ultra dark atmosphere, even with the beautiful Christmas setting. (7 more)
The super gritty and dark tone of the film.
The acting, especially Olivia Hussey is perfect.
A terrifying boogeyman who is not supernatural in any way.
Even being made in 1974, the film still holds up and is just as terrifying today.
John Saxon
The plastic bag.
The touching on hot button issues such as abortion still resonates today, and may be one of the best uses of the issue ever.
There is truly only one word to describe this movie: PERFECT. This is everything a perfect score film should be. Black Christmas is suspenseful, intense, and absolutely provocative. The film is deeply disturbing even by today's standards. Most films don't hold up in that department. What was provocative and disturbing in 1974 is by comparison tame and cheesy in 2018. Not Black Christmas. This film is just as terrifying and just as vile as it was when it came out. Nothing makes your skin crawl quite like this film. If you were to pair this as a double feature with 2008's The Strangers, you just might need to take some heart medication, and just like the latter film, the ending to this film is a nihilistic mindfucking piece of genius. If you haven't seen Black Christmas, what in the he'll are you waiting for? I think this film is a better Bob Clark Christmas film than his ever popular family film, A Christmas Story, but that's just my opinion.
ArecRain (8 KP) rated Taboo (Albright Sisters, #2.5) in Books
Jan 18, 2018
I had very high hopes for this book. While I wasn't disappointed, I shouldn't have set my standards so high just because of a pretty cover. The gorgeous cover is what intrigued me and I literally couldn't stop myself from buying it. I didn't know it was part of a series so I definitely am going to read the other three novels in the series. Although, I am so confused as to how they can consider this novel 2.5. What disappointed me about Taboo was the completely simplistic and unimaginative plot.
The rundown: boy and girl fall in love despite being in different classes of society. Because society would never accept their relationships, someone meddles, breaking them apart. One turns into a whore while the other turns into a crybaby and runs to another country. Said crybaby returns and, because he cannot get his once lover out of his head, he blackmails her into becoming his whore. Eventually, the truth comes out and the couple lives happily ever after.
Despite the uncreative plot, I really enjoyed this book. The erotic scenes were great except for one particular scene that just wasn't my taste. Despite that, they were expertly written. The only thing that actually bothered me was the fact that the female protagonist became a whore for the ton so that sex wouldn't be ruined for her. It was a major "Wtf?" moment and I almost threw the book across the room, especially since Michaels like to repeatedly bring this point up.
Overall, a pleasing erotic novel.
The rundown: boy and girl fall in love despite being in different classes of society. Because society would never accept their relationships, someone meddles, breaking them apart. One turns into a whore while the other turns into a crybaby and runs to another country. Said crybaby returns and, because he cannot get his once lover out of his head, he blackmails her into becoming his whore. Eventually, the truth comes out and the couple lives happily ever after.
Despite the uncreative plot, I really enjoyed this book. The erotic scenes were great except for one particular scene that just wasn't my taste. Despite that, they were expertly written. The only thing that actually bothered me was the fact that the female protagonist became a whore for the ton so that sex wouldn't be ruined for her. It was a major "Wtf?" moment and I almost threw the book across the room, especially since Michaels like to repeatedly bring this point up.
Overall, a pleasing erotic novel.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Fortitude - Season 2 in TV
Dec 20, 2018
Not as good as the first
The problem with the second series of Fortitude is that it seems to want to outdo the first, and in many respects it does. Its even weirder (which I didn't think possible), a lot gorier and seems to have a lot more going on. The issue is that it appears to be too much, and although it's still a good series, it doesn't quite reach the standards of the original.
There are some great additions to the cast - notably Dennis Quaid and Robert Sheehan - but then there's also some not so great. For some reason I couldn't quite stand Ken Stott's Erling Munk and there are others that seem to be thrown in just to kill off. There's also a few surviving characters from the first series that have disappeared without a single mention.
The plot itself is a little convoluted, but on watching this series again recently I have appreciated the plot line more and it is quite entertaining, although the shaman aspect is possibly a little too much. There is a lot of dry humour in this though, especially with Petra which is absolutely hilarious at times.
My main issue is that there's just not enough Dan in this. He's by far the best character and although he's more present towards the end of the series, it's not quite enough. Richard Dormer plays this version of Dan brilliantly though and he's still the best thing when he's on screen.
Intrigued to see how they wrap this up now in series 3.
There are some great additions to the cast - notably Dennis Quaid and Robert Sheehan - but then there's also some not so great. For some reason I couldn't quite stand Ken Stott's Erling Munk and there are others that seem to be thrown in just to kill off. There's also a few surviving characters from the first series that have disappeared without a single mention.
The plot itself is a little convoluted, but on watching this series again recently I have appreciated the plot line more and it is quite entertaining, although the shaman aspect is possibly a little too much. There is a lot of dry humour in this though, especially with Petra which is absolutely hilarious at times.
My main issue is that there's just not enough Dan in this. He's by far the best character and although he's more present towards the end of the series, it's not quite enough. Richard Dormer plays this version of Dan brilliantly though and he's still the best thing when he's on screen.
Intrigued to see how they wrap this up now in series 3.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Blade Runner (1982) in Movies
Jul 24, 2019
Sci Fi Film Noir Masterpiece
When film scholars debate whether Alien or Blade Runner is director Ridley Scott's best film it is hard to make an argument against each as both are masterpieces It's funny that although they are both science fiction films, they are completely different in tone, style and action.
The art direction and cinematography are almost unmatched even under today's standards and then consider this movie is from 1982 and it is just astonishing. I won't argue with someone who says the film is slow developing or style or substance; however, I do not consider that a negative whatsoever. Consider it just another way to tell a story. Why do movies always have to follow the same formula to be considered a acceptable?
It is hard to believe the film only managed US box office of $27 million upon its original theatrical release. It's cult status was almost immediate along with the rise of home video and eventually DVD. The various cuts of the film and the vast and minor differences between them can make the meaning of the film quite different depending on how you interpret it.
The argument whether or not Deckard is a replicant could really depend on which version of the film you have seen or what you choose to believe.
Nevertheless, the film still stands the test of time as a sci fi classic and one of the most visually stunning films ever made!
The art direction and cinematography are almost unmatched even under today's standards and then consider this movie is from 1982 and it is just astonishing. I won't argue with someone who says the film is slow developing or style or substance; however, I do not consider that a negative whatsoever. Consider it just another way to tell a story. Why do movies always have to follow the same formula to be considered a acceptable?
It is hard to believe the film only managed US box office of $27 million upon its original theatrical release. It's cult status was almost immediate along with the rise of home video and eventually DVD. The various cuts of the film and the vast and minor differences between them can make the meaning of the film quite different depending on how you interpret it.
The argument whether or not Deckard is a replicant could really depend on which version of the film you have seen or what you choose to believe.
Nevertheless, the film still stands the test of time as a sci fi classic and one of the most visually stunning films ever made!