Change Your Image
hanyap
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Cyberpunk 2077 (2020)
Groundbreaking design and a visionary title
8+ rounded up to 9.0
I have 20+ hours in on PC, and I love this game. I've been in software and game development and I appreciate what they did, how alive Night City feels, how it seems like a real place. I think it's a groundbreaking title and as it gets patched it will be lauded for the visionary bit of gaming that it is.
The pros- the lore, Jackie and aesthetic of Night City are amazing. From kitsch burrito vending machines to sexualized ads on marquees, clothes and coloured recievers on guns, the attention to detail is breathtaking (yes, I used that word on purpose). The character creation (aside from some oddities like having freckles under cheek makeup), is the best I've seen. It's the cyberpunk world fans have dreamed of where you can walk around and feel part of a city rich with history.
The cons - I've been lucky in my experience so far. A little sound glitching, some Z fighting of textures, a few twitchy corpses and a crash (a reboot fixed it), have been the only real issues I've had. My BIGGEST complaint is the driving (I've futzed with my mouse sensitivity and perspective still seems to jerk, and the turns are too sharp), and the female voice of V, WHICH SUCKS. My God, I could have done better. She seems to think that switching between husky and sounding like a try-hard merc are examples of character depth. She is so bad, when I restarted (I decided to change life path), I thought about being a male V and I NEVER play guys in games if I have a choice. When you're constantly listening to terrible voice acting, it is really immersion breaking.
I have read that people on different platforms (I play on Win 7, AMD Ryzen) have had big issues, but this rating is based solely on my experience. I appreciate the depth and scope of this game, the little details and dressing, but it is definitely not as polished as you might ideally like and you do notice things here and there, like the aforementioned sound glitching or a phrase in the conversation of passerby that is repeated a lot elsewhere, or an awkward animation of an NPC.
CDPR has always patched and improved their games, and I feel a bit of the shade is deserved but not most of it. I think the hype, expectation and desire for this game was so immense that almost nothing could live up to those ideals. For me, when I drop in this dystopian vision feels real and possible, and I'm a player in some sort of game I don't entirely know the rules for. I have been a fan of cyberpunk for a long time, so this scratched that itch pretty well.
I know people have been complaining that there should be more for '8 years of work' but that's not fair. Planning and early dev isn't the same as full-blown game dev, and the initial team, as they finished Witcher 3/DLC was small. It's ironic how gamers tolerate bad sports franchises that scam for money each year but when an up and coming, previously well liked game company (not majority owned by China either), fumbles a bit, knives come out. (I am an avid gamer, and have seen some heinous rollouts, like Star Wars Galaxies.) I believe in CDPR, and I look forward to more games from them.
Cosmos (2019)
Good potential but meh execution.
The SO and I love space, astronomy, etc. He spent a lot of nights as a kid out in the backyard with a telescope, and we have two but don't spend nearly enough time looking at the stars but we do have a taste of the fever, and there is certainly a dearth of good 'contact' movies.
We were excited to watch this movie - being an Indie title doesn't hurt; if it's a good story the lapses in gear, production, etc are a minor problem. There have been many Hollywood movies with insane budgets that haven't impressed. It's what you do with what you have that matters.
Still, we DNF this movie, so why give it so many stars? Because it had a LOT of potential and there were some decent moments. There were times it captured the hunger to understand the cosmos, to struggle with it, to look at the stars and wonder and try to contribute to the little we do know. The acting, especially for an Indie flick, was better than anticipated and the cinematography wasn't bad at all.
Overall though, we both felt the movie dragged a lot; it could have been much shorter. Also there were many forced 'emo' bits that just seemed tedious. For example, I get that Roy had a bad experience but his frustration with Webster seemed petty and childish, especially considering the role Webster (didn't) play in it and the implied amount of time that lapsed. Knight also was a bit of a tool when he didn't let Webster know why Roy was angst-y, and Webster at first came across rather bland and uninteresting, so for quite a bit of the movie, I didn't care - or root for - anyone. Frankly the whole problem later with the software was unbelievable and felt contrived. I've read some of the reviews today and the cause of the rush/climax at the end seems ridiculous and unbelievable.
The script and science could have been quite a bit tighter, and the editing a bit more ruthless and I feel this film would have benefited a LOT with just a handful of changes.
So to summarize - better in some places than expected but the too-long running length dampened the enthusiasm or excitement that I did manage to get a few times; there were moments when the creepy or nervous atmosphere were achieved quite well though but it didn't fully come to fruition, and TBH we were both waiting for an 'I see dead people' moment because sometimes it felt like it was building towards a gimmick. Would try another movie of theirs with more polish and tightness.
The Witcher (2019)
Could be more enjoyable, but some very noticeable flaws...
As a huge fan of the games, I was nervous when I saw a TV show was being made. (I've tried the books, but the translation could be better.) Would Geralt's story be brought to life by Henry Cavill? I had my doubts.
Oddly enough, his performance was the least of my criticisms, and I think he does quite a good job. "The Witcher" series rather lacks in other areas, and I'll enumerate the good and bad below.
Flashbacks: In order to tie a bunch of stories together, early episodes in particular have flashbacks and they are confusing, as there could be a 'modern' exchange next to a flashback that took place 30 years ago and it isn't clear this is the case until usually much later on (sometimes the next episode).
Creatures: Many of the creatures (the goat-headed beast in one of the earlier episodes is a good example), are actually very cheap looking, like something out of a 1950's B movie. Really pulls you out of the moment. Some of the sets, however, like where the mages are trained, are quite good.
Consistency/Conflicts: There are some odd things that aren't resolved or seem in conflict; is it only witches that have to pay the price? Yen's friend Istred doesn't seem to - why? Or does he, but he looks no different...? Some of the politics - particularly among the mages - can be a bit confusing; it would have been better to develop those more. How is Yennefer still a mage if she missed initiation? During "Rare Species" there is dialogue that implies Yen and Geralt have been together multiple times - but that she leaves a lot, but we've nary a hint of that up to this point.
Characters: They are a mix of good and bad. Renfri and her 'haunting words' to Geralt don't make sense (and that all seemed forced), Jaskier is one of THE most annoying characters I have ever seen (and his Witcher song is insipid), but some of the acting - from Cavill, Adam Levy as Mousesack and others, is terrific!
All in all, some decent viewing, especially if you are a bit familiar with the lore and geography (there are some decent fight scenes too!), but quite the mixed bag in my opinion.
The Death of Stalin (2017)
Surprising dark comedy that manages to show evil with humour, without excusing it
I wasn't sure what to expect, but this movie was recommended to me. As a descendant of someone who suffered under Soviet communism (farm collectivised, friends dragged off, etc), and sensitive to how revisionist history sometimes dulls the edges of evil, I was very curious as to how this crazy, fearful time would be presented. How do you make the terror that Solzhenitsyn expressed so passionately, funny?
The performances are top notch - from Beria to Zhukov, the cast were amazing; Michael Palin was good as Molotov (as he chose to play him), although the way he characterized him I disagree with. The humour comes in seeing these brutal and merciless men terrorized by their own fear of what could happen and knowledge that they could be next on the list, (in fact, Molotov's wife was in prison as a traitor). Seeing these men nervous, fawning, scheming and obsessing over things was funny, because the script was clever and managed to preserve the absurdity and callousness of the Soviet regime whilst showing the duplicity, machinations and plotting against each other. The egos were preserved, the desire to criticise and use anything as a way to climb up way was shown, and even though you knew they were real people, it was hard to feel sorry for any of them, seeing and knowing what they did.
It is a rare movie, in that it took a terrible time, made a dark comedy, yet didn't sugar coat things but pulled you in. The dialogue, quips and chemistry between all the stars were terrific, and I actually laughed loudly at Jason Issacs' portrayal of Zhukov; it was brilliant, and shows what a talented actor he is (Lucius Malfoy as a Soviet general? IT WORKS.) Buschemi had a lot of depth playing Khrushchev, another great performance by him. See it - I guarantee it won't be what you expect but it will be worth your time! A new favourite.
The Finest Hours (2016)
A decidedly mixed bag of a movie
Some mild spoilers.
I grew up on the east coast, and I know a little about the crazy storms there; I also am a sailor, and have had my share of vomit inducing rough rides in my current west coast location, but I have never seen *anything* like the storm described in the book this movie is based on, although I can extrapolate a little to get some idea of what it must have been like... a truly terrifying experience. Those are the spots of the movie I think they got right - you had a sense of the extreme cold, the wicked seas, the hopelessness of the rescue mission, the desperation and determination.
What I thought was a failure were the personal portions, which were altered significantly and often painted people in a poor light, which angers me in a 'based on a true story' movie and was totally unnecessary. For instance - Miriam and Bernie were already married and she was sick with the flu and worried in bed when Bernie went out; the total drama and mockery of her 'asking him to get married' was unnecessary (she DID propose to him, apparently, but they had already been married for over a year at the time of the rescue) and didn't enhance the story, nor did Miriam's lecturing the commander, Daniel Cluff. Every military spouse I have ever met and spoken to knows the risks of the life and would never barge into the CO's office and demand he/she be removed from a mission. It seemed forced and silly because it was - it wasn't true, she never did it, and at times they almost made Cluff seem like a buffoon - which from what I have read, he wasn't.
There was also no need to contrive the story about Ray Sybert and someone on the ship knocking heads - there was enough drama, and I think it detracted from what personally happened in a harrowing situation. Sybert stepped into the Captain's shoes when the boat foundered and there was enough there without concocting something ridiculous about a makeshift rudder and beaching when by the book's account that didn't happen, and I am not sure that physically it would be possible.
It would have been better if the movie had stuck with the FULL story of that day - the attempt at a double rescue of crew of two oil tankers that had BOTH split in half. The Fort Mercer story had a lot of nail-biting moments too, and I think that movie that showed this double rescue would have been better than what was produced. Bernie and his crew were genuine, gold-plated heroes, and the Coasties rescuing men from the Fort Mercer were also, and I think celebrating them - people who go out in the worst conditions to rescue absolute strangers - is a triumph on it's own, especially considering the backdrop this record storm created.
Unidentified: Inside America's UFO Investigation (2019)
Overall a good show, including some great interviews
If you're curious about whether UFOs are real and are open to the discussion, this might be the show for you.
While is has typical History channel filler - repeating the same stuff you've seen before, overplaying the same clip, rehashing stuff from the previous episode, it has some solid interviews with very credible people who have seen or handled UFO cases.
We're not talking about the person who wants to be the next UFO celebrity and stages an friend in the backyard with an alien mask, but dozens of Top-Gun caliber pilots who have seen VISUALLY, not just on radar, unusual objects as well as radar operators, members of foreign governments and private pilots who have seen some weird stuff.
We trust these men (and women!) to fly some of the most expensive and deadly hardware in our military, and they go through incredible training and risk future professional careers by coming forward and speaking about a topic that has been labeled taboo; the military has released actual footage that shows how unusual these objects are behaving, and if you know anything about aerodynamics you'll see immediately why they are exceptional.
It's time we had a rational discussion about these phenomena, instead of just resorting to hyperbole on one end or the other; they potentially pose a risk to our pilots and equipment for starters and in the big picture, finding other intelligent life would be the most profound discovery of our history. This series does a fine job in moving the discussion to a rational and thoughtful place and despite the formatting issue I mentioned earlier, I believe it is a good start.
Go in with an open and critical mind, and you might be surprised.
Lost in Space (2018)
Really disappointing
Mild Spoilers!
I was super excited about this reboot, but in the end I couldn't get past the first episode.The sets are terrific, and despite seeing a trailer in a theatre before a screening of "Ready Player One" that showed the mom (Maureen), a SCIENTIST, talking about traveling 'trillions of light years', I gulped and tuned in. (The universe is around 14 BILLION years old.)
The pretty trappings make no difference - they are candy to divert you from the ridiculousness of the scenario, the angry and obstreperous teen daughter and scientific inaccuracies. Their shuttle crash-lands and Maureen is injured; they need to retrieve some supplies but because of a shortage on time and damage to the ship, Will, the smallest, should be the one to go. Maureen says it is going to be really cold soon - in perhaps only a few hours - but they are walking about in only somewhat warm clothing with no face protection, despite the fact it might soon be 60 degrees below zero Fahrenheit!
To get an idea of how cold that is, in January 2018 a two person team tried to ascend Nanga Parbat, where the temperatures could reach 35 degrees or more below zero, with wind chill making it 70 below. The cold and altitude cost one climber their life, and the other may lose several toes and fingers, and experienced hallucinations. At that temperature, you quickly become disoriented, you may start to shiver uncontrollably, skin can freeze to the point where the frozen digit can just fall off, (even your corneas can freeze), and this can happen in mere minutes. People who die from hypothermia often take their clothes off because they confuse their body's last gasps (blood vessel dilation, etc) for being too warm, and in their confused state, they take their clothes off. Some burrow, reverting to primitive survival instincts like hibernation. So saying it is about to be 60 below is kind of a big deal. But in Lost in Space the team is wearing no face protection and is relatively blase about the conditions, although they are worried the sunken shuttle will be trapped in ice.
Enter surly Judy Robinson, who steps in so Will doesn't have to go back to the ship. She dives into the freezing water, and tries to retrieve things from the ship when the water begins to freeze. Judy had been kind of mouthing off to her dad about his 'ordering people around' despite the fact that they are in a desperate survival situation and he is the most skilled/knowledgeable. And the water freezes VERY FAST, as in almost instantaneously, and from THE BOTTOM UP. This is just so absurd I am still stunned by it. Water freezes from the top down - if that happened otherwise, life would not exist. Anyone who has left water in their bird bath over winter can see this first hand (and have a broken bath for their troubles). Also, it doesn't freeze instantaneously except nearly instantaneously in very specific circumstances. If it was that cold, they would all be dead from exposure already. It just felt so contrived, so absurd, so wrong and 'lost' that I couldn't continue. I feel very let down; this could have been a fun and interesting reboot, (we desperately need good science fiction), but early on it was filled with so many errors and tweeny Judy lecturing her dad while they are facing death that I realised this wasn't a show I was interested in. Who do they get to write the scripts dialogue (I am thinking about Altered Carbon as well); it seems very lowest denominator, with sophomoric chatter and stereotyped characters.
It's expected in science fiction to have a bit of mystery, things that aren't real yet like interstellar travel. But the immaturity and changing the laws of chemistry bit was wholly unnecessary and made the series seem immature and cheap.
Altered Carbon (2018)
Cheesy dialogue and mediocre acting ruin a potentially great show
I was excited by the hype, the trailers, the tantalizing hints of a dystopian future wrapped with a murder mystery. I love cyberpunk and science fiction in general and was really excited to see this series.
But it just laboured from the start (I could only stomach a few episodes). The rose coloured glasses were quickly stripped off by forced characters like Ortega, (who sports about every stereotype out there), mediocre sound editing that made the dialogue sometimes difficult to understand (Ortega's heavy accent and super-fast delivery didn't help), cheesy dialogue that is meant to impress with its depth but comes up empty, and some gaps that would have helped with context early on (exactly WHY Kovacs is perceived by Bancroft as the only person to solve the crime). The reps of the authoritarian government (like the warden), are paper thin and unimaginative, with the usual tropes hanging on them like Miss Havisham's dusty dress. Some of the sets are good, but the the editing also makes the series seem disjointed, and it doesn't flow well as a result. Purefoy brings some gravitas to the effort, but it's too little to hold interest. I can't remember being this disappointed in a long time by something I was chomping at the bit to see.
A friend watched the entire series and his take was, 'I had no expectations going in. It was okay - a lot of nudity if you like that, interesting world, but the bad dialogue and other stuff aren't up to Netflix standards, which is pretty high after Stranger Things', and those are the kindest words about it from my sci-fi friends. It's a shame, because there is a dearth of cyberpunk and this show could have been great, but it tries too hard to be the next Blade Runner and fails miserably.
Rogue One (2016)
Great movie, re-energized my love of SW after disappointing #7
Some light spoilers.
I had very low expectations going into RO, because I felt horribly let down by #7. Sure it hit some buttons in the sense that the universe was there, some familiar faces (and ships) were present, but there was too much humour, it felt like #4 re-imagined, the plot lacked cohesion, (parts of it, like the planet sapping the suns was just laughable), emo villain (Khylo Ren) wasn't impressive, and a weak, semi-hysterical heroine who runs off into the forest when she discovers something difficult was disappointing.
I almost didn't go to SEE Rogue One, because after 1-3 and 7, I couldn't take any more disappointment. I LOVE Star Wars, it was a seminal series for me with lots of attachments and importance, and I couldn't take another battering by it. I love space and science fiction, and Star Wars grabbed the love I had of that genre and made it alive in front of my eyes. I am grateful for that.
My boyfriend's company had extra tickets for RO however and I went. At first I was confused a little - the story line comes together in pieces in the beginning, jumping from a remote planet to a prison to a mining colony, etc - but slowly the shape takes form.
Jyn is a terrific character; she tries desperately to hold what is happening at bay, because as she says to Saw, her former father figure, "all this has brought me is pain", and it's believable. But when confronted with a message from her real father Galen and what is going on she becomes a dedicated fighter, willing to sacrifice anything to stop the empire and make Galen's sacrifice mean something.
I loved the characters - from Bodhi, the cautious rebel who fully embraces the Alliance, to Churrit, the almost naively faithful guardian of the Jedi temple. The danger and urgency seem real - something 7 was lacking for me - and Cassian is a great character; a man hard from years of fighting the Empire who softens yet stays true to his principles.
The locations are great - from Scarif, the Empire's repository of plans to Yavin 4, faithfully reproduced as the rebel base, to Jedha, the site of a Jedi temple. I loved how everything isn't all spelled out - you know for instance what Jyn has is Khyber around her neck without being told, and you are left to wonder a bit how Bodhi really came to want to help to alliance; whether it was mostly because of the rape of Jedha, his homeworld, his admiration for Galen, or even more than that.
K-2SO, voice acted by Alan Tudyk, provides a few light moments in a story that feels urgent, deadly serious. The last 45 minutes or so, when the rebels decide to join the fight on Scarif whilst Rogue One is trying to steal the plans is amazing. I saw this movie in both Real 3D and IMAX, and it is stunning in both. It has some of the best space fighting and cinematography I've seen in any Star Wars movie.
When I first heard Peter Cushing's voice, I was surprised - I knew he had died years ago. His CGI is better than Carrie Fisher's at the end, FWIW. Tarkin is as creepy and loathsome as you remember him, and I am glad he was able to be included here, as he is key to the continuity and it segues into Star Wars: A New Hope.
The movie for me, however, wasn't without flaws. When General Dravin tells Cassian to kill Galen rather than capture him, it seemed ill advised - after all, the station is operational and Galen could be the only person to provide information on it to the rebellion. I do admit a capture operation is a bit more involved and perhaps Draven didn't want to sacrifice the forces necessary for it. Also Tarkin destroyed the repository on Scarif, which I also thought wasn't very reasonable. I don't believe he was certain about the status of any upload and the records for the ENTIRE empire were stored there. A huge loss, I would think, and if the Death Star is so impregnable as Tarkin seems to believe, then why worry even if they DID get the plans for the Death Star? Then I realised there might be another consideration - Tarkin knew that Director Krennick was on Scarif, and could have also been getting rid of a thorn in his side.
Despite these few questions, I think the movie is excellent and holds up well - perhaps better - after a few showings, when you have a bit of an orientation and you can enjoy the smaller details, drink in the battles.
The Path (2016)
Some good spots, some eye-roll
I love Aaron Paul - he is brilliant, and I think he does a good job here; sometimes he seems too intense, casting nearly everyone else into shadow. He doesn't pass muster as someone who has a 16 year old, however, because he is just too youthful.
Dancy is creepy, as he should be - you suspect there is something else lurking there and Monaghan is good, although her character is predictably a bit flat.
The show however, feels sloppy. There is a tornado in NH, (which is really rare), and it feels very staged. The woman with the wailing baby, the frenetic young woman who drinks wiper washer fluid because she craves water, but the tornado just happened, so the timing seems off. Then the young woman steps on top of a pile of boxes and planters that *happen* to be arranged like steps to the top of a shipping container. Remember, this is after a tornado, when everything else is thrown around and cars are overturned.
There are also some odd but important things that aren't explained. At least of the followers live off the compound,yet the cult seems insular. More than a few of the scenes, (like where the recruits are trying to convert people on the street), are overly simplistic and not believable. Paul's anguish over his vision in Peru is almost palpable; he appears like he is on the brink, and I wonder for a moment if he is sane. It's almost too much considering how average a lot of the rest of the show is.
Still it is interesting, and seems to combine some Scientology and Mormonism into a reasonably believable construct. I wish there was more depth, but perhaps that will come in time. I'm 2.5 episodes in and although I'm not chomping on the bit to see the rest, I am curious to see how Paul's crisis of faith is played out, and whether he continues to chat with the woman who left Meyerism.