lawrence worrell

Nice beginning mystery that ultimately doesn't live up to its promise. I have to agree with Den ledwidge, especially with the pontificating over stupid things, like rushing back for a mcguffin when there really was no need to. From ep 3 I knew there wouldn't be a satisfactory answer to the mystery and that much of it was created without a good explanation, it's sole purpose was to string the audience along and then either present hand waving or just not mention it again. It's just ended up being super cheesy. I m of the opinion this show was not created with the serious sci fi buff in mind but the average viewer of stuff who isn't really able to see the holes and flaws: disappearing bath water anyone? Just where did it go because it vanished on both. Things like people conveniently forgetting what they've experienced before or for no reason, not being clear about what they want to say along the lines of: I've got something to tell you It's important And I really want to tell you But I'm just going to not tell you Because you'll be waiting for me to tell you Because if I do then what needs to happen in the story to keep you hooked with cheap narrative tricks won't work. By the end the most ridiculous things are happening and it's like they're trying to cram as much nonsense to keep the viewer off balance enough not to question the silly stuff. It tries to be clever with imagery but it feels like a slap in the face considering it's naff sci fi. I thought it would be hard sci fi. That's how it presented itself at the beginning. Then veered into soft. I think that's why it annoyed me so much. It lied at the beginning. So in conclusion, don't waste your time unless you're really desperate. Spoiler It starts as an inferior Gravity. Transitions into cloverfield paradox with weak interstellar undertones.

Starts off great. Lots of things to kill zombies with. Blueprints to make combo weapons which are fun to use. You can combo vehicles too now so you can kill zombies with them. But after a while it gets repetitive and boring. Navigating the map becomes a chore, cause you end up just going forwards and backwards. The story is about as taxing as watching paint dry, with things you see coming a mile off. Side missions become boring and frustrating. Your partners generally get in the way of you killing stuff and the micro management of their health becomes cumbersome. And you don't need them. Vehicles have some of the worst handling of any game with vehicles. Devolves into a series of fetch missions. Yawn.

Solid Shooter that is hampered by unintuitive controls and lack of variation. Ok lets get the first things out, as you probably know. Hatred is about mass murder. You play the role the villain; a mass shooter who has decided that he's had enough of his fellow humans, gets strapped, and goes on a killing spree. Cue typical outrage......yadda, yadda, yadda.( Like you cant do that in GTA *eye roll*) Now that you've got that out of your system, its time to get down to it. It's set in a fictional city, with an isometric style view, but with 3D models, think X-com, or any other tactical RTS or Turn-based shooter. However this is real time, no turn taking. The world is coloured in shades of gray, probably a homage to the content of the game, and only some things are coloured, lending to stylised visuals. You have a cursor which represents where shots or grenades will land, controlled by the mouse, then you move the character with keyboard controls. This means you can run in completely separate directions to where you're aiming, giving it an actiony feel. Add to that being able to duck to take cover behind obstacles and being able to vault them, you have a nice fast paced action shooter. Pedestrians are usually the target in that you have a certain body count to achieve and so run around killing people. This is where part of the game shines, in that you have nicely designed areas where houses and shops, even piers and roads exists, giving it a real city feel. You can run into houses, jump through windows, even get in cars and go for a drive. Sprinting through neighbourhoods with the cops on your tail feels strategic in that you can enter a home and use it for cover or to lure them into traps. Yes after a period of time the police get wind of your actions and come in force to take you down. And at points even pedestrians take up arms against you. Other than that it isn't as thought provoking as something like Super Columbine but it does put you in a strange place where you end up chasing down pedestrians to gain health as executing people is the only way to do it. Obviously the idea of the game is to disturb the player, which by most of the comments, it does well. And to be fair, it does take a very mature mind to accept the content for what it is, and understand the hypocrisy, which is one of the things it pushes, of killing in games. This is in the form of why is it fine to kill say some Russian, Afghan, Chinese, insert one of the generic "bad guys" you get in games, sneaking up on the dude and head-shot, but then civilians are not. The argument for both being that they are just games, not real life, or real in anyway. Essentially if you play GTA and have enjoyed the game, but then remonstrate this game, you are a hypocrite. Any open sandbox game where you can run people over, really.

Haywire writing leaves this new wonder woman movie a mess. The first Wonder Woman movie had a heart that felt genuine, things generally made sense, and even though some of the ending was a let down, overall it was a well made, good plotted movie. So what happened with this new one? One of the biggest mistakes this new wonder woman movie makes is breaking its promises all over the place. Not only that but it has a lot of dead end plot points and tension issues in the vein of C3PO in star wars; the 'oh no your going to forget all of your friends and never see them again, oh wait false alarm', type issues. It has tone problems and the same issue with the first one where the ending was lacklustre. And with this movie the implication of the problem and the solution are not properly addressed where it falls into the issue of TV shows where every episode the universe resets. Certain things aren't explained which leaves the viewer scratching their head, even though they set it up as a tension point, then just forget that it was supposed to be a tension point, or they cheat by lying about it being a tension point then whip the carpet from under your feet, which is what I was talking about it being promise breaking. All of this adds up to make the movies heart seem superficial. If they had just stuck to the main central plot and cut away the superfluous stuff it would have been a better movie, and a shorter one. Not to mention changing origins and characters and what not.

Interesting setting, marred by genre cliches. The world and setting are interesting. Set in Lovecraft Country, the world is not what it seems, and in the hidden and quiet places Lovecraftian monsters roam. There are other supernatural things that happen, but trying to keep spoilers to a minimum. Anyway, to give you a flavour of the show: Its set in America in the past, stationed in the middle of it's racist and segregationist past. To that end, the story follows a small cast of black characters navigating the hostile land scape. The main protagonist is an ex soldier, looking for his father who has gone missing. And a few other characters join him, although I don't really know why. The show then goes on and continues to depict the troubles these characters face due to racist whites and corrupt police officers. In this regard it feels current, in that you are always on edge when the white police officers turn up, your never sure if they are going to start shooting first before asking questions, giving a sense of the current climate in America. But then the show doesn't really go any further. What I mean by this is that essentially that is where its pondering stops, and your left with characters that annoy rather than anything. From the person who seems to keep falling over (the obvious character to put in peril when you can't have the hero in peril just yet), to obtuse questions (rather than ask meaningful questions like what the hell are these things, the main character strangely persists in asking only one question: where is my father), the goodness that the show could have brought is lost in what feels like the inability of writers to fully flesh out events and conversations. It just feels incomplete and shallow, unable to satisfy the sci fi itch or the horror itch, falling short of both. Its a shame because the acting is good (generally)but the show in its entirety fall short of the good mark, making it only mehh, its kind of interesting. Like I will watch some more in the hopes that it gets better, but it is not a show that if someone asked me what's good to watch, this wouldn't be a recommendation.

Brilliantly acted, marred by a shoddy plot, which leans heavily on trying to create Alfred Hitchcock style suspense, but fails the sci fi element so badly it will leave the well versed sci fi fan scratching their head. The Invisible Man does a lot of things well. It doesn't give you long monologues to explain where we are and what is happening, leaving little crumbs for the watcher to piece together certain aspects that are not overt, such as the year and month when the movie is set. You can even work out roughly what day it is just by observing things. This is great cinema, giving the viewer just enough information for their minds to be working on things, pulling you further into the world that the film is presenting almost cooperatively with the watcher. Then later in places that seem natural, it confirms what you were thinking, without pulling you out with awkwardly placed info drops. The sound is atmospheric, fitting the setting and vibe of the movie perfectly, and again, in this area, it leaves you hints and clues as to what is going on. This combination of leaving visual and audio crumbs makes the movie palpable in a way many fail to do. So the production, the casting, lighting, sound and many other aspects are top flight, top notch, high quality that leaves no doubt that the movie was made by experienced cinematic hands. So how is it that such a well made movie has garnered a lower rating than what is expected from such a group of masterful actors and film makers? Characterisation, the science fiction, predictability and tired tropes. Albeit the movie doesn't protest that it's on the cutting edge of the scientific aspect, granted, but it feels like its tacked on, much like how it was in the Keanu Reeves movie 42 Ronin. In reality, this should have been a thriller without the science fiction element as it is one of the worst executed parts of the film. It relies too heavily on the Invisibility angle, swerving it into a Deus Ex device. It is not that the science behind it isn't really explained at all to any satisfactory degree, it's just not that kind of movie, but there are certain considerations that they really should have thought about, but clearly failed to do. This for me is what pulled me out of the movie, as well as certain trope characterisations. I get it, its hard. Science fiction has come along in leaps and bounds and some makers have taken into account recent scientific discoveries, implanting them into movies and ruminating on what those discoveries could mean, also adding certain scientific realisms, which means the quality of sci-fi has risen from the days of Black Hole and such, when a Henry vacuum cleaner was the perfect design for a futuristic robot. But it's like this movie, for all it's attempts at being clever, left glaring holes in how things could be done. Invisibility does not mean Intangibility, for starters. I can't really say more without spoilers, but suffice to say that maximum enjoyment will be had if you forget the sci fi elements and just watch it as a suspenseful horror.