TheEndless7

Finally saw it this past weekend. Fully agree with you, Reilly. I really enjoyed the movie. It's a bit of a modern twist and a partial sendup of the classic whodunits. I've seen references to a potential followup/sequel. I'll be curious to see how well that might go. I think the plan is to just make another Benoit Blanc mystery without any of the Thrombeys. Which could be interesting. If they can make them nearly as good as Knives Out I'd be more than willing to see one every year or two.

Season 1 of the Grand Tour isn't very good. Season 2 and 3 greatly improve on it and have some classic episodes. Season one is by far the weakest of the bunch. If you enjoyed old BBC Top Gear, you'll like most of Season 2 and 3 of The Grand Tour.

Takes less time than I would have expected. I've just got H'aanit's Chapter Four to go and the post game and have been mostly just wandering aimlessly and enjoying the world. I kinda hoped it would be harder but so far the only times I've died have been when I tried to fight the secret shrine bosses at like level 25 and when I blow myself up with Bewildering Grace.

Saw I, Tonya and The Post recently. Thought I, Tonya was entertaining. I'm old enough to know the general backstory but not old enough to remember it happening. I found it amusing and entertaining. Was glad it doesn't try to turn Tonya Harding into a hero or anything. Thought The Post was almost unbearable. Meryl Streep seemed like she was just doing her Julia Child voice the entire time. Granted I know nothing of the Mrs. Graham in real life so maybe that's fitting. I just couldn't get Julie and Julia out of my head. And then there were all sorts of really odd script things that drove me batty that I felt could have and should have been easily edited out. For example, the film goes out of its way to tell you it takes place in 1971. Which is fine. But Tom Hanks's character yells, twice, that 'The government has been lying to us about the Vietnam war for thirty years!' The Vietnam War did not start in 1941. The movie also goes out of it's way to blame President Eisenhower for something it time stamps at 1951. Ike wasn't president in 1951. But if you're going to use that as the other given date you have, then at least have Tom Hanks yell twenty years twice to at least be in your own continuity. It also does absolutely nothing to explain why the audience should expect a study commissioned by Robert McNamara to be something Richard Nixon knows about. It even, late in it's running, points out that McNamara is closely associated with LBJ and not Nixon. And then blames Nixon for not knowing intimate details of a study done by McNamara. I understand how this should function in real life, but the movie literally SHOWS McNamara discussing the study, going in front of the media and lying about Vietnam, and then blames it on Nixon five years later after establishing that McNamara and Nixon are not close. Not trying to get political with it at all, that's just literally how it's presented in the movie. It's also a movie that is about the failure of the Vietnam war and references JFK a couple of times, and LBJ none at all. Yes, Eisenhower is referenced more in a movie about the Vietnam war than LBJ. And instead blames it all on Nixon. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure American Involvement in Vietnam is typically dated 1961-1975 Which would be JFK/LBJ 1961-1968, Nixon 1969-72(3?), and Ford to 75. And the Movie takes place in 1971. So arguably two years of Nixon, seven years of Not-Nixon. Nixon's fault. And never points out that Nixon was withdrawing troops during this time. It's edited to make it seem like they're still sending thousands of troops in. And then there's a subplot about how the Post is going public because it doesn't make any money. Which is all fine and dandy. Except that we then get shots of Meryl Streep's Cartier watch, and elaborate parties she's throwing, and practical tours of her Washington mansion. Which is also all fine and dandy. I understand that someone shouldn't be expected to put all their own personal wealth into a business. But why keep reiterating the 'not making any money' bit. Why not just edit it to be about going public and the difficulties in there. They make it seem like the newspaper needs millions from investors to keep publishing, while showing the ritzy life the publisher/ceo is living where she hob nobs with Jack Kennedy and Robert McNamara, and the like. It's just a jarring tonal shift at times. There's an interesting movie to be had in The Post. But it should have focused on the changing dynamic of the Media and the Government, rather than just trying to vilify Nixon. Or pointed out that this 'cover up' dated back to at least LBJ and likely LBJ/JFK. This is a movie that is, ostensibly, about the Government hiding things from the People and it's narrative is literally Nixon is to blame for everything that happened in Vietnam. It doesn't even establish how or why Nixon would even have this study. The real life Pentagon Papers were finished shortly before his inauguration and the Nixon administration's excuse was pretty much, "we didn't read the 3000 page study about the failure in Vietnam because we were already going to pull troops out." and while that's a horrible excuse, it's better than anything this move posits. To it's credit, it does say 'The Government' but at those points, it only then goes on to name drop Nixon. To me it felt like saying 'Why didn't Bill Clinton tell us everything about Desert Storm?!' in a way. It then ends with a setup of the break in at the DNC. Which again makes it feel more like it's trying to setup an All The Presidents Men remake more than telling it's own story. It comes off as 'we must show Nixon is always evil to make this next movie' more than actually making an interesting movie about it's topic. I came out frustrated and wondering why we needed a Watergate prequel movie and not a Pentagon Papers movie.

Alex Ovechin said he was going to play regardless. I wonder if enough players just said "screw it we're playing regardless" would the NHL owners kinda of have to take a break? I believe the Caps owner said he'd back any of his players who wanted to leave for the olympics. It will be more interesting to see what they do if it involves missing two weeks or so of the season, which could amount to 5-6 games, while teams are fighting for playoff spots. Does an owner of a team who's somewhere in the mix for 6-8 in the conference where 4 points from two wins could mean missing the playoffs react differently than, say, this years caps who you could literally take out 10 of their wins and they'd still be like the 5 seed in the conference?

I dunno how true that is. I don't disagree that Milwaukee, without someone with a whole lot of money just going 'hey I'm buying X land, building an arena, and buying a team on my dime' will ever have an NHL Team. But I'm not sure how much Chicago cares about a 'Milwaukee Market' in terms of NHL. There are more Minnesota Wild games broadcast in Milwaukee on local TV than Chicago Blackhawk games. I'm sure this has something to do with the Fox Sports vs. Comcast Sports deal. But even the games that are on WGN in Chicago do not get broadcast on WGN in Milwaukee. Of course that might have to do with WGN Milwaukee vs WGN Chicago. Still, the fact that the only time the Blackhawks are on TV in Milwaukee is when it's the NBC/NBCSN/NHLTV game as opposed to say, the Wild, who are on pretty much every time they play on FSWisconsin assuming the Bucks aren't playing at the same time. I don't know that you can realistically say the the Blackhawks have any control over 'Market area' in Milwaukee. Of course we are talking about a franchise that didn't broadcast all their own home games until about a decade ago.

I agree with Roco that Overwatch is one of the best PS games I've ever played. Especially if you're into shooters where it's not just about shooting. The MOBA/teamwork tactical aspect of it and different heroes with different abilities makes for a lot of very unique games. It is the best when played with a group of friends on your team though, as communication is the key to success. My PSN ID is TheEndless7 if anyone ever wants to add me. PSNow and PSVUe are two different things. I've used both. PSVUE is a cable TV alternative with a bunch of non local channels. It seems decent. But I have nothing to compare it to. It's completely different from the FIRETV box I have, although I can stream PSVUE through the Firetv. I honestly use it mostly because it was the cheapest way I could get the racing and hockey channels I wanted with little extra. Right now for like 55$/month you can get like 100 channels INCLUDING HBO, showtime,and the NFL network. And there are various packages below that. The user interface is not very good and a pain to navigate. But the video quality has always been good. While you do get the local fox sports affiliate, you do not get any local channels. ((Although it does give you ABC/NBC/FOX on demand)) SO you need an internal dish for things like the Packers. PSNOW is a streaming video game service that offers around 150ish PS3 titles to stream on your PS4. It works pretty well, but if your connection isn't strong it's prone to skip and lag a bit. Usually nothing that pausing the game and waiting a few moments wont fix. It does have some great titles on it like Red Dead Redemption and all the Borderlands game and I think every Telltale game. It's a bit pricey for what you get. Buying it for a month here or there to beat a couple of the games that come on monthly may be worth it. The library has been expanding more in the last few months than it seems like it did all of last year. So I'm hoping they add in even more. I'd like to see PS1 and PS2 games added to but i have no idea how feasible that is. Steam is just essentially a digital retailer of video games. You can log into their store and buy games to download and play. You can also set up friend lists and see what friends are playing and if, say, they're in a game of Battlefield you'll have the option to join them. They do offer a lot of great sales here and there but it tends to mostly be on older stuff.