Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Dredd (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The mid 90’s was a strange time for movies. Sure, there were quite a few remembered fondly (just like with any era) but there were also many movies that are forgotten due to their ridiculousness. It was a time that gave us the style of adaptions on par with Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection, or the two Joel Schumacher Batman films. Likewise, there was a Judge Dredd film right in the middle of that time period.
It was a mess. It exemplified everything wrong with many adaptions in the 90’s. Big name actors, over-the-top designs, cheesy dialogue. It tried very hard to be akin to the original Total Recall but instead succeeded at only being a movie fun to laugh at. It featured Sylvester Stallone and Rob Schneider. That is all that needs to be said about that film. So, when Hollywood comes along and decides to make a new adaption, of course the original’s ridiculousness looms over the whole affair. Not helping is the fact that most of the cast and crew are relatively obscure, and its source material (the Judge Dredd comics) is not as well-known as most of Marvel’s or DC’s pantheon. Yet, this brand new adaption, Dredd 3D, soars much higher than the original and manages to be one of those well-hidden gems of Fall 2012. I don’t imagine this film breaking box office records, but it is a wholly worthwhile piece of screen entertainment, even if it has some notable flaws and is overshadowed by past outings in the franchise.
The future America is an irradiated waste land known as the Cursed Earth. On the east coast of North America lies Mega-City One, a vast, violent metropolis containing 800 million residents, where 17,000 crimes are reported daily and “Slo-Mo”, an addictive new drug that slows the user’s perception of time, has been introduced. The only force of order is the Judges, who act as police, judge, jury and executioner. Judge Dredd (Karl Urban) is tasked by the Chief Judge (Rakie Ayola) with evaluating rookie Judge Cassandra Anderson (Olivia Thirlby), a psychic who has failed the tests to become a full Judge. They become involved in a raid upon a crime and Slo-Mo ridden apartment complex known as Peach-Trees, which is ruled by a vicious crime boss Ma-Ma (Lena Heady).
You can guess from the title that the movie is meant to be watched in 3D. But that is where personal opinions of 3D come into play. For me personally, I cannot ding the film’s use of 3D because it uses it well enough that it becomes unnoticeable, which is to say it does not obnoxiously remind you at all times it is meant to be watched in 3D by throwing random things at the camera. But I will say that, although somewhat gimmicky, the “Slo-Mo” segments (which are shot from the perspective of those on the mind-altering drug ‘Slo-Mo’) do use 3D very well and manage to be some of the most visually striking and beautiful shots in the entire film.
The plot is simple to understand and straight forward. There are not huge twists and turns, and manages to be tightly written. It is not extremely memorable for plot standards, but it does not need to be. The story is held up by focusing on three major characters, which some good additional characterization of two more side characters. In that sense, the plot and characters do not pop off the screen into greatness, yet they are still tightly written enough that both elements (plot and characters) are not muddled or confusing. The simple plot, and the fact it all takes place in one apartment complex, makes it easier to focus on action and visuals.
While the visuals are all extremely well-done, the action could use some work. The setting of Mega-City One is extremely well established, as opposed to the original Judge Dredd adaption. It seems like it could be a real place not far off in the future, as it is set up with a realistic visual design – just with added grittiness and subtle science fictional elements. Also, there is not a huge amount of CG and the Judge uniforms especially look like iconic yet possibly realistic futuristic police suits. But the action could use some work, as stated. I could not help but constantly compare it to the recently released film, “The Raid: Redeption”, the Indonesian martial arts police film centering on a single police raid on an apartment complex. The similarities are there.
Both movies have very similar locations and plots, but the difference is that while Dredd has more interesting setting and science fiction elements (and arguably more interesting characters), The Raid: Redemption’s action is far more entertaining and engrossing. The real problem with Dredd is that there are never any real amazing feats of heroics on part of Judge Dredd. They set up the film in a sort of “’Die Hard’ in the future vibe” but that requires the hero to barely overcome overwhelming odds. As it stands, it never really feels like Judge Dredd is in a ton of danger. There are some cool shooting moments, and some even more interesting usage of Judge Anderson’s psychic powers. But at the end of the day, there simply are not many memorable action moments.
Overall, it does not ruin the film at all. It still manages to be an entertaining and interesting movie regardless of memorable action sequences. It has a tightly plotted narrative with fairly well done characters, not muddled by overuse of complexity or plot twists. It manages to be visually excellent with interesting science fictional elements, but never does it soar with its action set-pieces. It would have benefitted with some better use of gunplay or more clever feats of heroics on Judge Dredd’s part. But at least it takes itself seriously enough to not have anything akin to Rob Schneider following Sylvester Stallone around in a cheesy script.
It was a mess. It exemplified everything wrong with many adaptions in the 90’s. Big name actors, over-the-top designs, cheesy dialogue. It tried very hard to be akin to the original Total Recall but instead succeeded at only being a movie fun to laugh at. It featured Sylvester Stallone and Rob Schneider. That is all that needs to be said about that film. So, when Hollywood comes along and decides to make a new adaption, of course the original’s ridiculousness looms over the whole affair. Not helping is the fact that most of the cast and crew are relatively obscure, and its source material (the Judge Dredd comics) is not as well-known as most of Marvel’s or DC’s pantheon. Yet, this brand new adaption, Dredd 3D, soars much higher than the original and manages to be one of those well-hidden gems of Fall 2012. I don’t imagine this film breaking box office records, but it is a wholly worthwhile piece of screen entertainment, even if it has some notable flaws and is overshadowed by past outings in the franchise.
The future America is an irradiated waste land known as the Cursed Earth. On the east coast of North America lies Mega-City One, a vast, violent metropolis containing 800 million residents, where 17,000 crimes are reported daily and “Slo-Mo”, an addictive new drug that slows the user’s perception of time, has been introduced. The only force of order is the Judges, who act as police, judge, jury and executioner. Judge Dredd (Karl Urban) is tasked by the Chief Judge (Rakie Ayola) with evaluating rookie Judge Cassandra Anderson (Olivia Thirlby), a psychic who has failed the tests to become a full Judge. They become involved in a raid upon a crime and Slo-Mo ridden apartment complex known as Peach-Trees, which is ruled by a vicious crime boss Ma-Ma (Lena Heady).
You can guess from the title that the movie is meant to be watched in 3D. But that is where personal opinions of 3D come into play. For me personally, I cannot ding the film’s use of 3D because it uses it well enough that it becomes unnoticeable, which is to say it does not obnoxiously remind you at all times it is meant to be watched in 3D by throwing random things at the camera. But I will say that, although somewhat gimmicky, the “Slo-Mo” segments (which are shot from the perspective of those on the mind-altering drug ‘Slo-Mo’) do use 3D very well and manage to be some of the most visually striking and beautiful shots in the entire film.
The plot is simple to understand and straight forward. There are not huge twists and turns, and manages to be tightly written. It is not extremely memorable for plot standards, but it does not need to be. The story is held up by focusing on three major characters, which some good additional characterization of two more side characters. In that sense, the plot and characters do not pop off the screen into greatness, yet they are still tightly written enough that both elements (plot and characters) are not muddled or confusing. The simple plot, and the fact it all takes place in one apartment complex, makes it easier to focus on action and visuals.
While the visuals are all extremely well-done, the action could use some work. The setting of Mega-City One is extremely well established, as opposed to the original Judge Dredd adaption. It seems like it could be a real place not far off in the future, as it is set up with a realistic visual design – just with added grittiness and subtle science fictional elements. Also, there is not a huge amount of CG and the Judge uniforms especially look like iconic yet possibly realistic futuristic police suits. But the action could use some work, as stated. I could not help but constantly compare it to the recently released film, “The Raid: Redeption”, the Indonesian martial arts police film centering on a single police raid on an apartment complex. The similarities are there.
Both movies have very similar locations and plots, but the difference is that while Dredd has more interesting setting and science fiction elements (and arguably more interesting characters), The Raid: Redemption’s action is far more entertaining and engrossing. The real problem with Dredd is that there are never any real amazing feats of heroics on part of Judge Dredd. They set up the film in a sort of “’Die Hard’ in the future vibe” but that requires the hero to barely overcome overwhelming odds. As it stands, it never really feels like Judge Dredd is in a ton of danger. There are some cool shooting moments, and some even more interesting usage of Judge Anderson’s psychic powers. But at the end of the day, there simply are not many memorable action moments.
Overall, it does not ruin the film at all. It still manages to be an entertaining and interesting movie regardless of memorable action sequences. It has a tightly plotted narrative with fairly well done characters, not muddled by overuse of complexity or plot twists. It manages to be visually excellent with interesting science fictional elements, but never does it soar with its action set-pieces. It would have benefitted with some better use of gunplay or more clever feats of heroics on Judge Dredd’s part. But at least it takes itself seriously enough to not have anything akin to Rob Schneider following Sylvester Stallone around in a cheesy script.
BlockyTime - Track your time no need to Start/Stop
Productivity and Utilities
App
BlockyTime, A simple time logger no need to tap Start/Stop. ### App Store Featured of 2016 in China...
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Founder (2017) in Movies
Jul 26, 2017
These days McDonalds is everywhere. You don’t have to travel too far before you see those familiar golden arches – in fact, there are three of them within a two mile radius of my home! I’m not personally a big fan of them, but that’s not to say I haven’t enjoyed the odd meal occasionally when in a hurry. It’s one of those things that’s just always been there in life, taken for granted without much of a thought as to how it all came to be so huge. Turns out there’s a pretty interesting story to be told involving a couple of pioneering brothers, and the guy who eventually completely screwed them over…
Michael Keaton is Ray Kroc, a hardworking salesman who always seems to be on the road while his bored wife (Laura Dern) is at home. Repeatedly getting the brush off from restaurant owners who don’t want to buy his amazing new five-spindled milkshake machine and frustrated by the slow, unreliable service from the drive-ins where he goes to get his lunch. For this part of the movie, we’re actually pretty sympathetic with Ray as he struggles in his lonely, boring, unfullfilling job, listening to motivational records in motel rooms as he drifts off to sleep. And then he gets a call from two brothers, Dick and Mac McDonald. They don’t just want to buy one of his milkshake machines, they want to buy at least six in order to cope with demand in their restaurant. Ray puts down the phone and his mind immediately goes into overdrive – what kind of restaurant have these guys got that’s producing this kind of demand? He pulls out a map and looks them up – they’re in San Bernadino California, so he heads off in his car to pay them a visit.
When he arrives, the place is packed with customers queuing for food. As Ray joins the queue a woman assures him that he won’t have to wait long and sure enough, after placing his 15 cent order for a burger, fries and soft drink (bargain!), he promptly gets his order within 30 seconds – served in a paper bag, no plates, no cutlery. He thinks there must be some mistake and it’s pretty amusing to see the bemused look on his face as he struggles to accept the concept that we now all take for granted. Fast, cheap food that you can eat absolutely anywhere you want – in your car, at the park, it’s up to you.
Ray offers to take the brothers out to dinner so that he can hear their story. It’s a wonderful, captivating story too, one that could so easily have been the entire movie. The brothers have such a good rapport as they passionately talk about what they’ve worked to achieve. Moving their restaurant to where it is now, developing their own machines for applying perfect amounts of ketchup and mustard into each bun and spending six hours sketching out potential restaurant layouts on a tennis court while their restaurant staff choreograph their optimised cooking routines. Everything has been tweaked to perfection, even down to the exact cooking time and temperature for their fries. After sleeping on all this information, Ray goes back to the brothers early the next morning and offers them the idea of franchising. But, it’s something they’ve dabbled in before and gave up on, having felt that they had no control over the quality and attention to detail that they pride themselves on in their own restaurant. Eventually Ray wins them over though and a contract is drawn up. The brothers get final say on everything and get half a percent of the profits but it’s up to Ray to setup the franchises and find the people to run them.
It’s a slow, hard process though and although Ray does setup a few successful restaurants, he soon becomes frustrated at the lack of money he seems to be making and the lack of control he has on the decision making process whenever he wants to save costs. The McDonald brothers just seem to keep saying ‘no’! But after he receives some business advice, telling him he should be concentrating on buying the land that the restaurants are on rather than the burgers being cooked, the tide begins to turn. He eventually becomes powerful enough to overpower the brothers, trademark their name, and generally take credit for everything the brothers worked for and built, eventually putting them out of business.
Kroc becomes ruthless, and a complete arsehole. The brothers did eventually make some decent money out of their final deal with Ray, but it certainly wasn’t the 100 million dollars a year they could have been making if they’d been treated right. You really feel for them, as they completely lose control of everything. But you can’t help wondering if things would have worked out that much different for them if they had never met Ray at all. Their restaurant will certainly have continued to do well for a while, but by focusing on just their one restaurant, how long before somebody else stole their idea and ran with it, somebody with the drive and vision to make real money like Ray, leaving them with no money settlement at all? After all, as the motivational LP that Ray listens to clearly pointed out at the start of the movie, “Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence, talent will not, nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent …”.
Michael Keaton is Ray Kroc, a hardworking salesman who always seems to be on the road while his bored wife (Laura Dern) is at home. Repeatedly getting the brush off from restaurant owners who don’t want to buy his amazing new five-spindled milkshake machine and frustrated by the slow, unreliable service from the drive-ins where he goes to get his lunch. For this part of the movie, we’re actually pretty sympathetic with Ray as he struggles in his lonely, boring, unfullfilling job, listening to motivational records in motel rooms as he drifts off to sleep. And then he gets a call from two brothers, Dick and Mac McDonald. They don’t just want to buy one of his milkshake machines, they want to buy at least six in order to cope with demand in their restaurant. Ray puts down the phone and his mind immediately goes into overdrive – what kind of restaurant have these guys got that’s producing this kind of demand? He pulls out a map and looks them up – they’re in San Bernadino California, so he heads off in his car to pay them a visit.
When he arrives, the place is packed with customers queuing for food. As Ray joins the queue a woman assures him that he won’t have to wait long and sure enough, after placing his 15 cent order for a burger, fries and soft drink (bargain!), he promptly gets his order within 30 seconds – served in a paper bag, no plates, no cutlery. He thinks there must be some mistake and it’s pretty amusing to see the bemused look on his face as he struggles to accept the concept that we now all take for granted. Fast, cheap food that you can eat absolutely anywhere you want – in your car, at the park, it’s up to you.
Ray offers to take the brothers out to dinner so that he can hear their story. It’s a wonderful, captivating story too, one that could so easily have been the entire movie. The brothers have such a good rapport as they passionately talk about what they’ve worked to achieve. Moving their restaurant to where it is now, developing their own machines for applying perfect amounts of ketchup and mustard into each bun and spending six hours sketching out potential restaurant layouts on a tennis court while their restaurant staff choreograph their optimised cooking routines. Everything has been tweaked to perfection, even down to the exact cooking time and temperature for their fries. After sleeping on all this information, Ray goes back to the brothers early the next morning and offers them the idea of franchising. But, it’s something they’ve dabbled in before and gave up on, having felt that they had no control over the quality and attention to detail that they pride themselves on in their own restaurant. Eventually Ray wins them over though and a contract is drawn up. The brothers get final say on everything and get half a percent of the profits but it’s up to Ray to setup the franchises and find the people to run them.
It’s a slow, hard process though and although Ray does setup a few successful restaurants, he soon becomes frustrated at the lack of money he seems to be making and the lack of control he has on the decision making process whenever he wants to save costs. The McDonald brothers just seem to keep saying ‘no’! But after he receives some business advice, telling him he should be concentrating on buying the land that the restaurants are on rather than the burgers being cooked, the tide begins to turn. He eventually becomes powerful enough to overpower the brothers, trademark their name, and generally take credit for everything the brothers worked for and built, eventually putting them out of business.
Kroc becomes ruthless, and a complete arsehole. The brothers did eventually make some decent money out of their final deal with Ray, but it certainly wasn’t the 100 million dollars a year they could have been making if they’d been treated right. You really feel for them, as they completely lose control of everything. But you can’t help wondering if things would have worked out that much different for them if they had never met Ray at all. Their restaurant will certainly have continued to do well for a while, but by focusing on just their one restaurant, how long before somebody else stole their idea and ran with it, somebody with the drive and vision to make real money like Ray, leaving them with no money settlement at all? After all, as the motivational LP that Ray listens to clearly pointed out at the start of the movie, “Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence, talent will not, nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent …”.
FearlessLover (27 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jul 31, 2017
Stunning cinea
It' s 1940, 400,000 allied troops are cornered and cut off on the beaches of Dunkirk; with the enemy closing in, and no cover or defence, they await annihilation or a miracle. We experience the moment as the characters do, without unnecessary exposition or dialogue! This proves quite the departure for Nolan; there is a lot here that owes more to silent cinema than anything else, but his images often say all that needs to be said.
An opening frame invites us to join a group of soldiers. Next, the loudest onslaught of gunfire kicks the film into another gear. We are given as much pause for thought as the soldiers we follow. We run with Tommy, played here by a Fionn Whitehead, and like him, we are aware of comrades falling dead next to us, but it is all panic and no time; we will lament their loss later. Set to the ticking of a watch, we feel Tommy's heart pounding with ours, and we know the tone for this audacious movie has been set.
We see the event from different perspectives and from within different time frames. Right now, not many directors can build momentum like Nolan. The jumping to and from different characters' point of view, the corkscrewing impression of the editing, events echoed and mirrored by Hans Zimmer's Shepherd's Tones and persistent, all enveloping score, acting at times more like sound design than music; it all results in a constant rise in tension, to the point of almost being exhaustive.
This said, the editing also serves another purpose. The "Miracle of Dunkirk" is a grand story, with every soldier, every pilot, and every civilian having their own point of view. Nolan wants us to build up an overall picture of the event purely through subjective experience, so of course we spend a tiring week with the terrified boys. Of course we spend a desperate day with a fisherman as he and his familial crew sail their way into action. Lastly, given the fuel constraints of the RAF, whose decisions had to be immediate and impulsive, always a choice between defending the beach or getting home, why would we spend any more that an edge-of-your-seat, quickly-cut hour in the cockpit of a Spitfire, as they do their duty and enter into dogfights to keep the German aircraft at bay? Each timeline is contracted or dilated to give everybody equal measure and importance, whilst staying true to and very much in their situation. Yes, this means we're kept on our toes; we have moments of confusion as timelines cross over and we see the same thing happening from another point of view, but as we head into the finale, as well as the aforementioned tension and release (which is just exciting cinema), we also get to see how, despite very different perspectives, everyone was working together, and how sacrifice and struggle for duty were par for the course for all involved, whether other people knew it or not. It is important that we the audience recognise this bigger picture, and as everything clicks together in an emotive final convergence of efforts, we not only see the justification for the techniques adopted, but struggle to imagine the story told another way. That is, at least, without going down a standard route, with objective storytelling employed.
A proper review not being complete without comment on the elephant in the room, it must be said that Harry Styles does not stand out like the proverbial sore thumb at all. Frankly, he carries his scenes with aplomb, and surely, following the Heath Ledger lesson, and now this, it is time we learned that, maybe, Christopher Nolan just knows what he's doing better that we do? As to the other big names, there are moments from that remain with me so long after having seen it: Kenneth Brannagh and Mark Rylance can say so much with so little, their faces and gestures doing the heavy lifting to deliver a lot of the human emotion, and it would appear Tom Hardy has Oscar-worthy eyes! You need see nothing more through the course of his drama to have a complete sense of the type of man his Farrier is. We talk about great acting and achieving realism through imagination, but with the knowledge that Nolan actually took everyone to Dunkirk, sank real ships, sailed real ships, flew real Spitfires overhead, employed real explosions on the beach, and even rejected green screen and CGI in favour of cardboard cut-outs, it seems imagination wasn't too necessary for these already consummate actors.
Nolan's principle fan base will be well prepared for what they get; but with his insistence on holding back from the audience any perspective not afforded his characters, ala 'Memento', some knowledge of the "Miracle Of Dunkirk" might put the more casual viewer in better stead. Regardless of which camp you fall into, or indeed of whether or not the movie does it for you, certain things are for sure: With no melodrama or cheese, and no superfluous fluff or emotional subterfuge, 'Dunkirk' is a purely experiential movie, a technical marvel of a war film unlike any other I can name. It also stands as a beacon in Nolan's career, characterised by his desire to cultivate an audience willing to keep up with him. And perhaps most importantly, this is a key moment in world history that is often overlooked; a disaster averted which, had it not been, would have seen the history books written very differently. That this event has been marshalled by a confident and sincere director, who has surely by now cemented his name alongside those of his own heroes, is reason enough to see 'Dunkirk'.
An opening frame invites us to join a group of soldiers. Next, the loudest onslaught of gunfire kicks the film into another gear. We are given as much pause for thought as the soldiers we follow. We run with Tommy, played here by a Fionn Whitehead, and like him, we are aware of comrades falling dead next to us, but it is all panic and no time; we will lament their loss later. Set to the ticking of a watch, we feel Tommy's heart pounding with ours, and we know the tone for this audacious movie has been set.
We see the event from different perspectives and from within different time frames. Right now, not many directors can build momentum like Nolan. The jumping to and from different characters' point of view, the corkscrewing impression of the editing, events echoed and mirrored by Hans Zimmer's Shepherd's Tones and persistent, all enveloping score, acting at times more like sound design than music; it all results in a constant rise in tension, to the point of almost being exhaustive.
This said, the editing also serves another purpose. The "Miracle of Dunkirk" is a grand story, with every soldier, every pilot, and every civilian having their own point of view. Nolan wants us to build up an overall picture of the event purely through subjective experience, so of course we spend a tiring week with the terrified boys. Of course we spend a desperate day with a fisherman as he and his familial crew sail their way into action. Lastly, given the fuel constraints of the RAF, whose decisions had to be immediate and impulsive, always a choice between defending the beach or getting home, why would we spend any more that an edge-of-your-seat, quickly-cut hour in the cockpit of a Spitfire, as they do their duty and enter into dogfights to keep the German aircraft at bay? Each timeline is contracted or dilated to give everybody equal measure and importance, whilst staying true to and very much in their situation. Yes, this means we're kept on our toes; we have moments of confusion as timelines cross over and we see the same thing happening from another point of view, but as we head into the finale, as well as the aforementioned tension and release (which is just exciting cinema), we also get to see how, despite very different perspectives, everyone was working together, and how sacrifice and struggle for duty were par for the course for all involved, whether other people knew it or not. It is important that we the audience recognise this bigger picture, and as everything clicks together in an emotive final convergence of efforts, we not only see the justification for the techniques adopted, but struggle to imagine the story told another way. That is, at least, without going down a standard route, with objective storytelling employed.
A proper review not being complete without comment on the elephant in the room, it must be said that Harry Styles does not stand out like the proverbial sore thumb at all. Frankly, he carries his scenes with aplomb, and surely, following the Heath Ledger lesson, and now this, it is time we learned that, maybe, Christopher Nolan just knows what he's doing better that we do? As to the other big names, there are moments from that remain with me so long after having seen it: Kenneth Brannagh and Mark Rylance can say so much with so little, their faces and gestures doing the heavy lifting to deliver a lot of the human emotion, and it would appear Tom Hardy has Oscar-worthy eyes! You need see nothing more through the course of his drama to have a complete sense of the type of man his Farrier is. We talk about great acting and achieving realism through imagination, but with the knowledge that Nolan actually took everyone to Dunkirk, sank real ships, sailed real ships, flew real Spitfires overhead, employed real explosions on the beach, and even rejected green screen and CGI in favour of cardboard cut-outs, it seems imagination wasn't too necessary for these already consummate actors.
Nolan's principle fan base will be well prepared for what they get; but with his insistence on holding back from the audience any perspective not afforded his characters, ala 'Memento', some knowledge of the "Miracle Of Dunkirk" might put the more casual viewer in better stead. Regardless of which camp you fall into, or indeed of whether or not the movie does it for you, certain things are for sure: With no melodrama or cheese, and no superfluous fluff or emotional subterfuge, 'Dunkirk' is a purely experiential movie, a technical marvel of a war film unlike any other I can name. It also stands as a beacon in Nolan's career, characterised by his desire to cultivate an audience willing to keep up with him. And perhaps most importantly, this is a key moment in world history that is often overlooked; a disaster averted which, had it not been, would have seen the history books written very differently. That this event has been marshalled by a confident and sincere director, who has surely by now cemented his name alongside those of his own heroes, is reason enough to see 'Dunkirk'.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Snow White and the Huntsman (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
It is easy to be cynical or dismissive regarding the trend in Hollywood to take up beloved gems of the past – namely our childhoods – and adapt them to the big screen with all of the flare and clichés of a summer blockbuster. Yet, what happens when it actually ends up winning you over? There’s a moment in movies like “Snow White and the Huntsman” in which you realize you have let go of those prejudices and notions of incorruptible nostalgia and you’ve actually started to enjoy a new rendition of something old. It’s the directorial debut for the film’s helmer, Rupert Sanders; and to be honest he’s the star of the show. As shallow as it is to say, the visual effects and action overshadow most flaws with characters, acting, or uneven pacing. Not only because his directing ability is well done, but because any flaws with the movie are relatively minor.
The movie retells the familiar story of Snow White (Kristen Stewart), likely popularized by Disney’s adaptation for most of us. Yet, the film takes more influence from the original fairy tale with the additional focus on the Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth). Snow White grows up in a kingdom under the rule of her wicked step-mother, Queen Ravenna (Charlize Theron). The Queen is a narcissistic tyrant obsessed with preserving her physical beauty – at the behest of the entire land and its people. One day, the Queen’s mirror warns that Snow White is fairer than her which leads her to order Snow White’s death. Snow White escapes, and goes on an adventure to save herself and her kingdom with the help of the Huntsman, seven dwarves, and other fantastical allies.
The movie’s framework holds up fairly well. To be honest it was my biggest worry going into the movie – that its plot would break under bloating or simply feeling uninspired. Neither was the case, yet if it were to tip in one side or the other it definitely tips in the direction of a bloated plot. Some characters simply do not get the screentime they require, and with so many characters already it feels like some of them could have been taken out entirely without much effect. Trimming down of characters and irrelevant plot threads could have benefitted the movie greatly. It does, however, do a serviceable job establishing its own identity among fantasy epics. It’s refreshing to see a movie fully embrace two extremes – full-on hard fantasy and the more gritty, realistic and perhaps minimalist fantasy. It strikes a balance with both, so you will see great effects for trolls and fairies while still maintaining a gothic medieval feel. The plot moves forward at a mostly well-paced format, but unfortunately wavers here and there. Sometimes I wished the movie would linger on certain scenes longer – as it can help to have us dwell on great character moments or moments of visual beauty – an unfortunate side effect of a bloated script. While not a problem for the overall plot, the uneven pacing in some scenes can feel a bit rushed. Some questions in the plot went unanswered, but fortunately they aren’t important to the overall understanding of the story.
The only other major issue with the movie is acting. Kristen Stewart as Snow White was an odd choice. Not to say her performance is bad in this film, but it is awkward at points. In some moments she does very well but in others she seems uninspired. It is hard to see her as the titular character instead of just Kristen Stewart in those instances; and in those scenes it feels like she’s as much part of the audience as we are – just with more of a one-note “concerned” facial expression for every instance. While not a breaking element, it leaves more to be desired from her, especially in interactions with others. Chris Hemsworth was much more enjoyable as the Huntsman, and honestly I think his performance along with Theron’s far outbalance any flaws in Kristen Stewart’s acting. The chemistry between the two protagonists seems one sided, as Chris Hemsworth acts well on his side of the equation, but Stewart unfortunately does not reciprocate. Essentially this makes a potential major relationship fall flat. However, Theron completely inhibits the role as the evil Queen. While she may overact in some scenes, she does an excellent job playing a sinister, abusive, powerful and surprisingly tragic villain.
The highlight of the movie is definitely its visual design, cinematography, and action. The only downside in this area is that this movie will definitely remind you of other great movies from long ago. Obvious inspiration from “The Lord of the Rings” echoes while watching, as it even features the same faraway montage shots of the group traversing grand vistas. If you can get passed these obvious influences, it does establish a vibrant and inspired design. That is one of the greatest aspects of the movie – the fact that the director can do so much in a single scene to really draw you in. He does an excellent job using color and pattern contrasts to a striking and awesome effect. There are some great moments that have no action yet are just as enthralling to watch, something difficult to do with just visual style. A great use of color really brings out the themes of the movie – the grey monotones and gothic style bring out a sense of dread and annihilation throughout the Queen’s empire. She truly is a force of parasitism – entirely vampiric in the way she sucks the life out of the entire land around her. She is the embodiment of self-obsession with physical beauty – a force so vain and narcissistic that she acts as a black hole absorbing all beauty around her. Sanders plays this against the vibrant designs of the forest in which Snow White spends most of her time. Alive, colorful, and natural – she embodies natural beauty – and in doing so she seemingly commands nature itself.
Sanders’ directing ability really shines in scenes of action. Instead of lazy overuse of “shaky-cam” to get the effect, he balances it with just enough on-screen choreography so you get intensity without confusion. The movie is truly action packed with familiar medieval-esque battles throughout, but highlighted by truly amazing shots of action and use of fantastical effects. There were a couple instances of eye-rolling wonder at battlefield tactics, but that gets into too much of an area of nitpicking. The action really is one of the best aspects of the movie, and these scenes by themselves outweigh many already mentioned issues.
Overall, “Snow White and the Huntsman” has proven to be a great initial outing for director Rupert Sanders. There are some issues in the flick – namely some instances of uneven pacing and acting issues which leaves some potential to be desired. But even these seemingly huge issues are overshadowed by an excellent use of visual design, cinematography, and action. The plot may be merely serviceable overall, and the movie will remind you of great films long past; yet it still happens to triumph in its main goal – to retell the classic fairly tale of Snow White in the modern Blockbuster sense. In a summer packed with science fiction and superheroes, an entertaining fantasy movie fits in quite nicely.
The movie retells the familiar story of Snow White (Kristen Stewart), likely popularized by Disney’s adaptation for most of us. Yet, the film takes more influence from the original fairy tale with the additional focus on the Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth). Snow White grows up in a kingdom under the rule of her wicked step-mother, Queen Ravenna (Charlize Theron). The Queen is a narcissistic tyrant obsessed with preserving her physical beauty – at the behest of the entire land and its people. One day, the Queen’s mirror warns that Snow White is fairer than her which leads her to order Snow White’s death. Snow White escapes, and goes on an adventure to save herself and her kingdom with the help of the Huntsman, seven dwarves, and other fantastical allies.
The movie’s framework holds up fairly well. To be honest it was my biggest worry going into the movie – that its plot would break under bloating or simply feeling uninspired. Neither was the case, yet if it were to tip in one side or the other it definitely tips in the direction of a bloated plot. Some characters simply do not get the screentime they require, and with so many characters already it feels like some of them could have been taken out entirely without much effect. Trimming down of characters and irrelevant plot threads could have benefitted the movie greatly. It does, however, do a serviceable job establishing its own identity among fantasy epics. It’s refreshing to see a movie fully embrace two extremes – full-on hard fantasy and the more gritty, realistic and perhaps minimalist fantasy. It strikes a balance with both, so you will see great effects for trolls and fairies while still maintaining a gothic medieval feel. The plot moves forward at a mostly well-paced format, but unfortunately wavers here and there. Sometimes I wished the movie would linger on certain scenes longer – as it can help to have us dwell on great character moments or moments of visual beauty – an unfortunate side effect of a bloated script. While not a problem for the overall plot, the uneven pacing in some scenes can feel a bit rushed. Some questions in the plot went unanswered, but fortunately they aren’t important to the overall understanding of the story.
The only other major issue with the movie is acting. Kristen Stewart as Snow White was an odd choice. Not to say her performance is bad in this film, but it is awkward at points. In some moments she does very well but in others she seems uninspired. It is hard to see her as the titular character instead of just Kristen Stewart in those instances; and in those scenes it feels like she’s as much part of the audience as we are – just with more of a one-note “concerned” facial expression for every instance. While not a breaking element, it leaves more to be desired from her, especially in interactions with others. Chris Hemsworth was much more enjoyable as the Huntsman, and honestly I think his performance along with Theron’s far outbalance any flaws in Kristen Stewart’s acting. The chemistry between the two protagonists seems one sided, as Chris Hemsworth acts well on his side of the equation, but Stewart unfortunately does not reciprocate. Essentially this makes a potential major relationship fall flat. However, Theron completely inhibits the role as the evil Queen. While she may overact in some scenes, she does an excellent job playing a sinister, abusive, powerful and surprisingly tragic villain.
The highlight of the movie is definitely its visual design, cinematography, and action. The only downside in this area is that this movie will definitely remind you of other great movies from long ago. Obvious inspiration from “The Lord of the Rings” echoes while watching, as it even features the same faraway montage shots of the group traversing grand vistas. If you can get passed these obvious influences, it does establish a vibrant and inspired design. That is one of the greatest aspects of the movie – the fact that the director can do so much in a single scene to really draw you in. He does an excellent job using color and pattern contrasts to a striking and awesome effect. There are some great moments that have no action yet are just as enthralling to watch, something difficult to do with just visual style. A great use of color really brings out the themes of the movie – the grey monotones and gothic style bring out a sense of dread and annihilation throughout the Queen’s empire. She truly is a force of parasitism – entirely vampiric in the way she sucks the life out of the entire land around her. She is the embodiment of self-obsession with physical beauty – a force so vain and narcissistic that she acts as a black hole absorbing all beauty around her. Sanders plays this against the vibrant designs of the forest in which Snow White spends most of her time. Alive, colorful, and natural – she embodies natural beauty – and in doing so she seemingly commands nature itself.
Sanders’ directing ability really shines in scenes of action. Instead of lazy overuse of “shaky-cam” to get the effect, he balances it with just enough on-screen choreography so you get intensity without confusion. The movie is truly action packed with familiar medieval-esque battles throughout, but highlighted by truly amazing shots of action and use of fantastical effects. There were a couple instances of eye-rolling wonder at battlefield tactics, but that gets into too much of an area of nitpicking. The action really is one of the best aspects of the movie, and these scenes by themselves outweigh many already mentioned issues.
Overall, “Snow White and the Huntsman” has proven to be a great initial outing for director Rupert Sanders. There are some issues in the flick – namely some instances of uneven pacing and acting issues which leaves some potential to be desired. But even these seemingly huge issues are overshadowed by an excellent use of visual design, cinematography, and action. The plot may be merely serviceable overall, and the movie will remind you of great films long past; yet it still happens to triumph in its main goal – to retell the classic fairly tale of Snow White in the modern Blockbuster sense. In a summer packed with science fiction and superheroes, an entertaining fantasy movie fits in quite nicely.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Many Saints of Newark (2021) in Movies
Oct 12, 2021
The "non-Sopranos" part of this film worked much better
The new Sopranos prequel film THE MANY SAINTS OF NEWARK is a review-proof film. Most people fall into 1 of 2 camps.
The first, fans of the 1999-2007 landmark HBO series that some (including myself) call one of the best TV series of all time. The folks that fall into this camp will be checking this film out no matter what.
The second are folks that either never saw the series or have only a passing knowledge of it - these folks are (more than likely) gonna take a pass at this film.
And both camps would be right and wrong for THE MANY SAINTS OF NEWARK is a middle-of-the-road film that will be satisfying for SOPRANOS fans, but the part of this film that really, really works well has nothing to do with the series.
Written by Sopranos creator David Chase, TMSON is set in the late 1960’s-early 1970’s and tells the tale of a young Tony Soprano and his introduction to the North Jersey mafia and the charismatic mob boss who he is drawn to.
The first 15 minutes of this film were written specifically for SOPRANOS fans for it is here that you are introduced to younger versions of many of your favorite characters. From Tony to Uncle Junior to Livia (Tony’s Mom) to Pauly Walnuts, Silvio and “Big Pussy” they are all there - along with a few others you don’t know (and it is not a spoiler to say, there is a reason that they never made it to the TV series). You are also introduced to Tony’s Father Johnny Soprano, Mob Boss “Hollywood” Dick Moltisanti and the center of this film, the son of the Boss “Uncle” Dickie Moltisanti (father of future TV Series character Christopher).
It’s an enjoyable enough introduction, but it is nothing new. The characters sit around, talk, act tough and eat. Something that we’ve seen in countless mob movies before. Chase and Director Alan Taylor (THOR: THE DARK WORLD) appear somewhat bored with this part of the film - almost as if they are saying “here they all are, enjoy this for we have a more interesting story to tell”. This first 15 minutes of the film seem to go on forever.
And then the movie - and Chase’s ideas and Taylor’s Direction - kick in.
And this is where TMSON begins to escalate as the story splits into 2 parts - the first following Dickie (Alessandro Nivola) and the 2nd following one of his “runners” (Leslie Odom, Jr.) who is destined to become a powerful boss of the “Black Mafia”.
It’s a smart juxtaposition of story, but unfortunately for SOPRANO’s fans, the first story (following Dickie) and including most of the Soprano’s characters is the less interesting of the 2 stories. It is the journey of Leslie Odom, Jr.’s character that makes for a more compelling story. It is as if Chase had an interesting idea for a mob film but knew he would not be able to get it made unless he tied it somewhat to a Sopranos story.
Leslie Odom Jr. is magnetic as Harold McBrayer, the former numbers runner for Dickie that has an awaking through the Black Power movement of the late ‘60’s and becomes a formidable mob boss in his own right. This half of the movie/story is intriguing and interesting for you never know in what direction it is going to land. This “B” story is free to be whatever it wants/needs to be and this freedom elevates it.
The same cannot be said for the “A” story - the journey of Dickie Moltisanti. Alessandro Nivola is charming enough as this sadistic, sociopathic mobster, but he is saddled with too much TV show baggage to become a character on his own. Specifically his mentorship and (ultimate) disassociation with the young Tony Soprano (played by Michael Gandolfini, the son of the late James Gandolfini who played Tony in the TV series). I felt like these characters were burdened with the weight of the TV show and the need to pay homage to what will be coming in their lives via the TV show and to shoehorn in each character along the way.
Consequently some great actors like Vera Farmiga (Tony’s mother Livia), Jon Bernthal (Tony’s father), and Corey Stoll (as Uncle Junior) are all filming extended cameos. They do a good (enough) job bringing the essence of the characters from the TV Series to this film, but they just don’t have enough to do. I would love for these 3 to spin-off on their own.
The same can be said for Billy Magnussen (Pauly), John Magaro (Silvio) and Samson Moeakiola (Big Pussy). They all do a nice job bringing the younger versions of these characters to life (especailly Magaro) but they just don’t have enough to do.
And then there is Ray Liotta’s over-the-top performance as Mob Boss “Hollywood” Dick Moltisanti. Ove-the-top doesn’t even begin to describe the performance he is giving. I will give him credit, though, he does tone it down about 1/2 way through the film, but…geez…the first part…wow.
Ultimately, the failure of the “A” story to captivate dooms this movie to mediocre status. I would have loved for Chase to really sink his teeth into the “B” story - and to let Leslie Odom Jr. really fly as a character and and actor.
But that would have defeated the purpose of making a Sopranos prequel - a prequel that, perhaps, shouldn’t have been made in the first place.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The first, fans of the 1999-2007 landmark HBO series that some (including myself) call one of the best TV series of all time. The folks that fall into this camp will be checking this film out no matter what.
The second are folks that either never saw the series or have only a passing knowledge of it - these folks are (more than likely) gonna take a pass at this film.
And both camps would be right and wrong for THE MANY SAINTS OF NEWARK is a middle-of-the-road film that will be satisfying for SOPRANOS fans, but the part of this film that really, really works well has nothing to do with the series.
Written by Sopranos creator David Chase, TMSON is set in the late 1960’s-early 1970’s and tells the tale of a young Tony Soprano and his introduction to the North Jersey mafia and the charismatic mob boss who he is drawn to.
The first 15 minutes of this film were written specifically for SOPRANOS fans for it is here that you are introduced to younger versions of many of your favorite characters. From Tony to Uncle Junior to Livia (Tony’s Mom) to Pauly Walnuts, Silvio and “Big Pussy” they are all there - along with a few others you don’t know (and it is not a spoiler to say, there is a reason that they never made it to the TV series). You are also introduced to Tony’s Father Johnny Soprano, Mob Boss “Hollywood” Dick Moltisanti and the center of this film, the son of the Boss “Uncle” Dickie Moltisanti (father of future TV Series character Christopher).
It’s an enjoyable enough introduction, but it is nothing new. The characters sit around, talk, act tough and eat. Something that we’ve seen in countless mob movies before. Chase and Director Alan Taylor (THOR: THE DARK WORLD) appear somewhat bored with this part of the film - almost as if they are saying “here they all are, enjoy this for we have a more interesting story to tell”. This first 15 minutes of the film seem to go on forever.
And then the movie - and Chase’s ideas and Taylor’s Direction - kick in.
And this is where TMSON begins to escalate as the story splits into 2 parts - the first following Dickie (Alessandro Nivola) and the 2nd following one of his “runners” (Leslie Odom, Jr.) who is destined to become a powerful boss of the “Black Mafia”.
It’s a smart juxtaposition of story, but unfortunately for SOPRANO’s fans, the first story (following Dickie) and including most of the Soprano’s characters is the less interesting of the 2 stories. It is the journey of Leslie Odom, Jr.’s character that makes for a more compelling story. It is as if Chase had an interesting idea for a mob film but knew he would not be able to get it made unless he tied it somewhat to a Sopranos story.
Leslie Odom Jr. is magnetic as Harold McBrayer, the former numbers runner for Dickie that has an awaking through the Black Power movement of the late ‘60’s and becomes a formidable mob boss in his own right. This half of the movie/story is intriguing and interesting for you never know in what direction it is going to land. This “B” story is free to be whatever it wants/needs to be and this freedom elevates it.
The same cannot be said for the “A” story - the journey of Dickie Moltisanti. Alessandro Nivola is charming enough as this sadistic, sociopathic mobster, but he is saddled with too much TV show baggage to become a character on his own. Specifically his mentorship and (ultimate) disassociation with the young Tony Soprano (played by Michael Gandolfini, the son of the late James Gandolfini who played Tony in the TV series). I felt like these characters were burdened with the weight of the TV show and the need to pay homage to what will be coming in their lives via the TV show and to shoehorn in each character along the way.
Consequently some great actors like Vera Farmiga (Tony’s mother Livia), Jon Bernthal (Tony’s father), and Corey Stoll (as Uncle Junior) are all filming extended cameos. They do a good (enough) job bringing the essence of the characters from the TV Series to this film, but they just don’t have enough to do. I would love for these 3 to spin-off on their own.
The same can be said for Billy Magnussen (Pauly), John Magaro (Silvio) and Samson Moeakiola (Big Pussy). They all do a nice job bringing the younger versions of these characters to life (especailly Magaro) but they just don’t have enough to do.
And then there is Ray Liotta’s over-the-top performance as Mob Boss “Hollywood” Dick Moltisanti. Ove-the-top doesn’t even begin to describe the performance he is giving. I will give him credit, though, he does tone it down about 1/2 way through the film, but…geez…the first part…wow.
Ultimately, the failure of the “A” story to captivate dooms this movie to mediocre status. I would have loved for Chase to really sink his teeth into the “B” story - and to let Leslie Odom Jr. really fly as a character and and actor.
But that would have defeated the purpose of making a Sopranos prequel - a prequel that, perhaps, shouldn’t have been made in the first place.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated Writings Of Thomas Paine Volume 4 (1794 1796); The Age Of Reason in Books
Jun 29, 2018
Thomas Paine was a political theorist who was perhaps best known for his support for the American Revolution in his pamphlet Common Sense. In what might be his second best known work, The Age of Reason, Paine argued in favor of deism and against the Christian religion and its conception of God. By deism it is meant the belief in a creator God who does not violate the laws of nature by communicating through revelation or miracles The book was very successful and widely read partly due to the fact that it was written in a style which appealed to a popular audience and often implemented a sarcastic, derisive tone to make its points.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Does it live up to the hype?
When it came to choosing a director for Star Wars: the Force Awakens, there really was only one choice: J.J Abrams. He had the difficult task of bringing the beloved Star Trek series back onto the big screen after numerous misfiring movies and did so with two near-perfect films.
With Episode VII of the sci-fi soap opera proving to be the most-hyped movie of the last decade, Abrams had a lot riding on this film. But does it live up to it all?
Following on from the events of Return of the Jedi, Episode VII follows the story of the First Order – born from the remains of the Empire destroyed at the end of the original trilogy. Taking them on is the Resistance, aka the good guys. That’s as much as I will say about the story, as anymore would be venturing dangerously close to spoiler territory.
A whole host of new characters join the old blood fans have been dying to see for years and the exceptional writing here means they blend seamlessly together without the need to delve into sickly nostalgia. That’s not to say there isn’t any nostalgia of course, but it’s tastefully referenced.
Of the newcomers, Daisy Ridley’s scavenger Rey and John Boyega’s disillusioned Stormtrooper Finn make the most impact and are commanding in each of their many action sequences; their acting prowess is impeccable considering their lack of experience in big blockbusters.
Elsewhere, the much-marketed ball droid BB-8 ends up becoming one of the most memorable characters to grace the series and is up there with R2-D2 and C-3P0 and will no doubt become a fan favourite as the new trilogy progresses.
It’s wonderful to see J.J Abrams grounding Star Wars with its roots. Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford certainly look different to how we remember them, but their characters still remain the feisty figures that we know and love, though a little more of Leia would be welcome throughout The Force Awakens.
Over on the dark side, Adam Driver’s Kylo Ren is a menacing presence. His many tantrums are a joy to watch and you can feel the evil radiating from him. He’s most definitely deserving of a place in the Star Wars Villain Hall of Fame and makes more of an impact than any of the bad guys in the prequel trilogy.
The special effects are absolutely sublime. Beautiful sets and stunning planets are brilliantly juxtaposed with intergalactic dogfights featuring some of the series’ much-loved ships and yes the Millennium Falcon looks as good as ever. The action sequences are filmed with such confidence that every single frame looks 100% convincing.
It’s impossible to know where Abrams has chosen to use CGI and when he has opted for good old practical effects. This is how film-making should be and The Force Awakens is all the better for it.
Unfortunately, the story is somewhat lacking. A near carbon-copy of what we saw in A New Hope means it’s easy to see where the film is going from the off and while this doesn’t detract from the overall viewing experience, it would have been nice to have something a little more original to really sink your teeth into.
Nevertheless, this is a film with a fantastic sense of humour. Abrams and writing partners Lawrence Kasdan and Michael Arndt have managed to inject some genuinely funny moments – most of them involving BB-8 – into the film’s 135 minute running time.
Overall, J.J Abrams need not worry. Star Wars: the Force Awakens has topped off a year that has included some incredible films and this is one to add to the list. With some of the best special effects ever put to the big screen and a cast of intriguing and memorable characters, Episode VII is the film that fans of the series deserve and there’s a lot for newcomers to enjoy too.
Does it live up to the hype? Not quite, but it’s a memorable movie nonetheless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/12/20/does-it-live-up-to-the-hype-star-wars-the-force-awakens-review/
With Episode VII of the sci-fi soap opera proving to be the most-hyped movie of the last decade, Abrams had a lot riding on this film. But does it live up to it all?
Following on from the events of Return of the Jedi, Episode VII follows the story of the First Order – born from the remains of the Empire destroyed at the end of the original trilogy. Taking them on is the Resistance, aka the good guys. That’s as much as I will say about the story, as anymore would be venturing dangerously close to spoiler territory.
A whole host of new characters join the old blood fans have been dying to see for years and the exceptional writing here means they blend seamlessly together without the need to delve into sickly nostalgia. That’s not to say there isn’t any nostalgia of course, but it’s tastefully referenced.
Of the newcomers, Daisy Ridley’s scavenger Rey and John Boyega’s disillusioned Stormtrooper Finn make the most impact and are commanding in each of their many action sequences; their acting prowess is impeccable considering their lack of experience in big blockbusters.
Elsewhere, the much-marketed ball droid BB-8 ends up becoming one of the most memorable characters to grace the series and is up there with R2-D2 and C-3P0 and will no doubt become a fan favourite as the new trilogy progresses.
It’s wonderful to see J.J Abrams grounding Star Wars with its roots. Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford certainly look different to how we remember them, but their characters still remain the feisty figures that we know and love, though a little more of Leia would be welcome throughout The Force Awakens.
Over on the dark side, Adam Driver’s Kylo Ren is a menacing presence. His many tantrums are a joy to watch and you can feel the evil radiating from him. He’s most definitely deserving of a place in the Star Wars Villain Hall of Fame and makes more of an impact than any of the bad guys in the prequel trilogy.
The special effects are absolutely sublime. Beautiful sets and stunning planets are brilliantly juxtaposed with intergalactic dogfights featuring some of the series’ much-loved ships and yes the Millennium Falcon looks as good as ever. The action sequences are filmed with such confidence that every single frame looks 100% convincing.
It’s impossible to know where Abrams has chosen to use CGI and when he has opted for good old practical effects. This is how film-making should be and The Force Awakens is all the better for it.
Unfortunately, the story is somewhat lacking. A near carbon-copy of what we saw in A New Hope means it’s easy to see where the film is going from the off and while this doesn’t detract from the overall viewing experience, it would have been nice to have something a little more original to really sink your teeth into.
Nevertheless, this is a film with a fantastic sense of humour. Abrams and writing partners Lawrence Kasdan and Michael Arndt have managed to inject some genuinely funny moments – most of them involving BB-8 – into the film’s 135 minute running time.
Overall, J.J Abrams need not worry. Star Wars: the Force Awakens has topped off a year that has included some incredible films and this is one to add to the list. With some of the best special effects ever put to the big screen and a cast of intriguing and memorable characters, Episode VII is the film that fans of the series deserve and there’s a lot for newcomers to enjoy too.
Does it live up to the hype? Not quite, but it’s a memorable movie nonetheless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/12/20/does-it-live-up-to-the-hype-star-wars-the-force-awakens-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019) in Movies
Dec 20, 2019
Young ensemble cast actually ensembling! (1 more)
Adam Driver on great form
After 42 years - does it leave with a bang or a whimper?
This review will be spoiler-free.
And so we come to the grand conclusion of George Lucas's nine-film vision, and someone can at last put the multi-limbed behemoth in a coffin and nail down the lid. It's certainly been a bumpy ride for this latest trilogy under Disney's stewardship, with rabidly negative fan-boys getting very hot under the collar about 'their baby' being despoiled by the evil empire!
We left the end of the last film with the Rebellion in tatters, reduced to a tiny fleet of ships. (It was truly fortunate that our key players were not on any of the lost ships wasn't it?) Rey (Daisy Ridley) is progressing her Jedi-training under the guidance of a new teacher. But the presence of Kylo-Ren (Adam Driver) is forever there, and their long-distance "psycho-chats" are becoming ever more 'substantial' as the bond between them grows.
But a dark presence from the past has returned, and both are drawn to it in different ways. A showdown between the forces of good and evil is inevitable.
The pace of the film is frenetic and totally exhausting. The first 30 minutes hardly pause for a breath as we zap around from location to location. Where the film really worked better for me was in the quieter and more reflective moments. Kylo Ren is in many of these moments: one, where he visits a very dark place, is well done; and one, where he receives a special visitor, is an interlude that is surprisingly effective. Adam Driver really is in excellent form here; he's never been my favourite actor in the world, but here truly impresses.
One of the problems of the first two films in the trilogy is that it sent all the young leads off in multiple different directions. The result was that there was very little of the interplay of the first films (between Han, Luke and Leia) that made them so memorable. Here that issue is rectified and Poe (Oscar Isaac) and Finn (John Boyega) develop a close onscreen bond with much resultant banter. Ridley's Rey also gets thrown into the mix, with the result that a group hug feels at last normal and right. It's bizarre, but you suddenly realise what was missing here when - FOR THE FIRST TIME - two of the characters get introduced to each other!
A welcome inclusion is that of the late Carrie Fisher as Leia. It's actually extraordinary that they had enough unused footage to be able to weave in a full role for the character into the story. It never feels forced and there were only a few 'hugs' where I found myself thinking "I bet that's not her".
C3PO (Anthony Daniels) also gets much more screen time and has some really nice and comical scenes in here. And a new uni-wheeled robot (voiced by director J.J. Abrams) adds to both the comic potential (and the available Disney merchandise!).
One of the new characters on show is the physically impressive Naomi Ackie as the horse (or something!) riding Jannah. But she's given little to do in the plot.
Elsewhere, there are a whole bunch of famous faces cropping up. Watching the end credit roll is an "OH! That was who that was" revelation in some cases. I won't list them here, since it is delicious to go in blind and have the surprise of seeing them. But some are famous actors from screen and TV, and one is an Abrams' favourite from a past TV glory. The biggest cheer though was reserved for a certain X-wing fighter near the end of the film. A blink-and-you'll-miss-him moment, it was a white-haired appearance to treasure.
What the film does very well (or very badly if you read some reviews) is hark back to the glories of the earlier films, and particularly Episodes IV to VI. Many places are revisited or scenes re-enacted until the place is just SOGGY with nostalgia (to use an old Tom Lehrer line). Although greatly contrived, I enjoyed these scenes immensely.
Making maximum use of the opportunity, John Williams bashes out theme after theme from most of the nine films. The soundtrack really is a "John Williams Greatest Hits" collection. Williams also actually gets a cameo as well - apparently as an eye-patch wearing bar-tender in the Nepalese-like town, though I must admit I missed it. (I've seen comment online that this is his first on-screen appearance: actually not true... he was conducting the orchestra in the "bird-lady's concert hall" in "Home Alone 2").
There are also a huge number of similarities I saw in certain scenes with other cinematic releases outside of the Star Wars universe:
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" - in two particular scenes;
"Dunkirk" - but done properly!
"Dora and the Lost City of Gold" - it doesn't make any physics sense here either!
"Power Rangers" - just because of one of the characters - you'll know the one
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2" - but to say more would be a spoiler!
And there are probably others I've forgotten!
One of my key issues with "The Last Jedi" was the way in which it invented mad-cap tasks, objects and people that had to be completed/found for the plot to be moved forwards. A massive and pointless diversion to a casino planet, for example, was made just to get into a secure area of an imperial vessel: something in this film they 'just do'!
This movie also suffers to a degree from the disease of 'McGuffinitis'. Where's the beacon? There's a dagger that must be found; Where's the interpreter?; etc. It's all very formulaic. But at least in this case, there is a certain logical flow that follows within the plot.
The LP soundtrack of "Star Wars" got me into a lifelong love of film music. One of the last tracks on the soundtrack of the first film was called "The Last Battle". Well, THAT wasn't true! There have been so many space battles since then that we've all lost count. But we all knew this would build to a doozy of a finale, and the film doesn't disappoint. There is utter mayhem in the skies: WILL NOBODY THINK OF THE HENCHMEN'S FAMILIES?
It all drives to a satisfying ending for me and feels like a good closure to the saga. Is it perfect? No, not at all. It really sets itself with too much to do, and then tries to do it all within the available running time. The film will - and has by looking at the volume of IMDB 1* ratings - upset a lot of the fan-boys. But, you know what? Stuff 'em! The film should be judged on how it makes YOU feel as a standalone piece of entertainment, rather than as a part of some sort of pseudo-religious cult. And I personally think Abrams did a pretty decent job here of trying to please most of the people most of the time.
(For the full graphical review, please visit One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker-2019/ )
And so we come to the grand conclusion of George Lucas's nine-film vision, and someone can at last put the multi-limbed behemoth in a coffin and nail down the lid. It's certainly been a bumpy ride for this latest trilogy under Disney's stewardship, with rabidly negative fan-boys getting very hot under the collar about 'their baby' being despoiled by the evil empire!
We left the end of the last film with the Rebellion in tatters, reduced to a tiny fleet of ships. (It was truly fortunate that our key players were not on any of the lost ships wasn't it?) Rey (Daisy Ridley) is progressing her Jedi-training under the guidance of a new teacher. But the presence of Kylo-Ren (Adam Driver) is forever there, and their long-distance "psycho-chats" are becoming ever more 'substantial' as the bond between them grows.
But a dark presence from the past has returned, and both are drawn to it in different ways. A showdown between the forces of good and evil is inevitable.
The pace of the film is frenetic and totally exhausting. The first 30 minutes hardly pause for a breath as we zap around from location to location. Where the film really worked better for me was in the quieter and more reflective moments. Kylo Ren is in many of these moments: one, where he visits a very dark place, is well done; and one, where he receives a special visitor, is an interlude that is surprisingly effective. Adam Driver really is in excellent form here; he's never been my favourite actor in the world, but here truly impresses.
One of the problems of the first two films in the trilogy is that it sent all the young leads off in multiple different directions. The result was that there was very little of the interplay of the first films (between Han, Luke and Leia) that made them so memorable. Here that issue is rectified and Poe (Oscar Isaac) and Finn (John Boyega) develop a close onscreen bond with much resultant banter. Ridley's Rey also gets thrown into the mix, with the result that a group hug feels at last normal and right. It's bizarre, but you suddenly realise what was missing here when - FOR THE FIRST TIME - two of the characters get introduced to each other!
A welcome inclusion is that of the late Carrie Fisher as Leia. It's actually extraordinary that they had enough unused footage to be able to weave in a full role for the character into the story. It never feels forced and there were only a few 'hugs' where I found myself thinking "I bet that's not her".
C3PO (Anthony Daniels) also gets much more screen time and has some really nice and comical scenes in here. And a new uni-wheeled robot (voiced by director J.J. Abrams) adds to both the comic potential (and the available Disney merchandise!).
One of the new characters on show is the physically impressive Naomi Ackie as the horse (or something!) riding Jannah. But she's given little to do in the plot.
Elsewhere, there are a whole bunch of famous faces cropping up. Watching the end credit roll is an "OH! That was who that was" revelation in some cases. I won't list them here, since it is delicious to go in blind and have the surprise of seeing them. But some are famous actors from screen and TV, and one is an Abrams' favourite from a past TV glory. The biggest cheer though was reserved for a certain X-wing fighter near the end of the film. A blink-and-you'll-miss-him moment, it was a white-haired appearance to treasure.
What the film does very well (or very badly if you read some reviews) is hark back to the glories of the earlier films, and particularly Episodes IV to VI. Many places are revisited or scenes re-enacted until the place is just SOGGY with nostalgia (to use an old Tom Lehrer line). Although greatly contrived, I enjoyed these scenes immensely.
Making maximum use of the opportunity, John Williams bashes out theme after theme from most of the nine films. The soundtrack really is a "John Williams Greatest Hits" collection. Williams also actually gets a cameo as well - apparently as an eye-patch wearing bar-tender in the Nepalese-like town, though I must admit I missed it. (I've seen comment online that this is his first on-screen appearance: actually not true... he was conducting the orchestra in the "bird-lady's concert hall" in "Home Alone 2").
There are also a huge number of similarities I saw in certain scenes with other cinematic releases outside of the Star Wars universe:
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" - in two particular scenes;
"Dunkirk" - but done properly!
"Dora and the Lost City of Gold" - it doesn't make any physics sense here either!
"Power Rangers" - just because of one of the characters - you'll know the one
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2" - but to say more would be a spoiler!
And there are probably others I've forgotten!
One of my key issues with "The Last Jedi" was the way in which it invented mad-cap tasks, objects and people that had to be completed/found for the plot to be moved forwards. A massive and pointless diversion to a casino planet, for example, was made just to get into a secure area of an imperial vessel: something in this film they 'just do'!
This movie also suffers to a degree from the disease of 'McGuffinitis'. Where's the beacon? There's a dagger that must be found; Where's the interpreter?; etc. It's all very formulaic. But at least in this case, there is a certain logical flow that follows within the plot.
The LP soundtrack of "Star Wars" got me into a lifelong love of film music. One of the last tracks on the soundtrack of the first film was called "The Last Battle". Well, THAT wasn't true! There have been so many space battles since then that we've all lost count. But we all knew this would build to a doozy of a finale, and the film doesn't disappoint. There is utter mayhem in the skies: WILL NOBODY THINK OF THE HENCHMEN'S FAMILIES?
It all drives to a satisfying ending for me and feels like a good closure to the saga. Is it perfect? No, not at all. It really sets itself with too much to do, and then tries to do it all within the available running time. The film will - and has by looking at the volume of IMDB 1* ratings - upset a lot of the fan-boys. But, you know what? Stuff 'em! The film should be judged on how it makes YOU feel as a standalone piece of entertainment, rather than as a part of some sort of pseudo-religious cult. And I personally think Abrams did a pretty decent job here of trying to please most of the people most of the time.
(For the full graphical review, please visit One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker-2019/ )
Bong Mines Entertainment (15 KP) rated Damn. by Kendrick Lamar in Music
Jun 7, 2019
Kendrick Lamar is an iconic hip-hop artist outta Compton, California. Not too long ago, he released his fourth studio album, entitled, “DAMN.”.
1) Kendrick Lamar – “BLOOD.”
Lamar tackles the issue of life and death. He poses several questions over a melodic instrumental produced by Lamar, Bēkon, and Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith. One of them being, “Are we gonna live or die?” Lamar tells a brilliant story about him walking down a block, and he sees a blind lady in search of something she had lost. He goes over to help, and then he asks, “Hello, ma’am, can I be of any assistance? It seems to me that you have lost something. I would like to help you find it.” She replied, “Oh yes, you have lost something. You’ve lost your life.” And then we hear a gunshot. Lamar is shot. Did he lose his life? The dire ending answers the probing question posed in the beginning—we gonna die.
2) Kendrick Lamar – “DNA.”
Lamar explains why his DNA differs from a sucker’s DNA. His deoxyribonucleic acid consists of going through the school of hard knocks. He endured a rugged street life, prisons, money, drugs, alcohol, sex, murder, mayhem, loyalty, royalty, joy, etc. This is because his DNA comprises of things shared collectively by African-Americans who have been through the struggle. Lyrically, Lamar leaves earth, while rapping over an explosive track produced by Mike WiLL Made-It. From beginning to end, he doesn’t take a bar off and shows why conscience rap has resurrected into the new norm.
3) Kendrick Lamar – “YAH.”
Lamar let it be known that he’s diagnosed with real ni^^a conditions, and keeps it a hunnit by calling out Geraldo Rivera because of criticism Lamar received from a FOX NEWS segment. The kid Capri intro adds a classic east coast authenticity over a laid-back track produced by Bēkon, Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith, Sounwave, and DJ Dahi. Preconceived lies told by White slave masters to African slaves are melting like hot butter in the sun. Lamar, a descendant of those slaves, has awakened and knows himself.
4) Kendrick Lamar – “ELEMENT.”
Lamar, who Capri calls the ‘New Kung Fu Kenny’, continues his Shaolin-rap assault over a Wu-Tang-like track produced by Bēkon, Tae Beast, James Blake, Sounwave, and Ricci Riera. Lamar is simply on another level than his peers. He’s been through more sh*t than them, and he’s ready to put the Bible down and go eye for an eye for this sh*t. When he said, “I been stomped out in front of my mama / my daddy commissary made it to commas / B*tch, all my grandmas dead / So, ain’t nobody prayin’ for me, I’m on your head.”
5) Kendrick Lamar – “FEEL.”
Lamar beautifully expresses how he feels on a dope Sounwave-produced track, where Lamar raps, “I feel like the whole world want me to pray for ’em / But who the f*ck prayin’ for me?” Lamar feels that nobody ain’t prayin’ for him, and this void has him with a chip on his shoulders, looking at life from a dark, and troubled point of view. He feels pain and doesn’t see hope. Did the incident with the blind lady cause him to feel this way? Why does he feel this way? Kendrick raps, “I feel like it ain’t no tomorrow f*ck the world / The world is endin’, I’m done pretendin’… I feel like this gotta be the feelin’ what ‘Pac was…”
But Lamar knows ill-thinking is bad for his health, and he acknowledges the source of his negative thinking, “The feelin’ is toxic, I feel like I’m boxin’ demons / Monsters, false prophets schemin’,” and the list goes on and on. If no one is, just know that we are praying for you Kendrick, YAH-willing.
6) Kendrick Lamar – “LOYALTY” (FEAT. RIHANNA.)
Lamar and Rihanna explore one of the key elements in Lamar’s DNA, loyalty; and they pose a simple question—who are you loyal to? Is it your family? Friends? Or yourself? Maybe it’s money, weed, or alcoholic? Where does it begin and where does it end? Lamar and Rihanna do a wonderful job over a beautify track produced by Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith, Terrace Martin, Sounwave, and DJ Dahi.
7) Kendrick Lamar – “PRIDE.”
The Steve Lacy’s intro, “Love’s gonna get you killed, but pride’s gonna be the death of you and me,” fits perfect in the scheme of things. Lamar, a spiritual intellectual, understands Proverbs 16: 18, which states, “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” So, Lamar uses those reference points to further expound his faith. In the beginning, Lamar’s love for the blind lady got him shot. And now, will his pride, the great satisfaction he feels when he reviews all that he has achieved, will that be the death of him? Over a smooth/laid-back track produced by Bēkon, Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith, and Steve Lacy, Lamar states that he can’t fake being humble, just because people are insecure.
He answers the question of pride
Lamar raps, “Sick venom in men and women overcome with pride. A perfect world is never perfect, only filled with lies. Promises are broken and more resentment come alive. Race barriers make inferior of you and I. See, in a perfect world, I’ll choose faith over riches. I’ll choose work over b*tches, I’ll make schools out of prison. I’ll take all the religions and put ‘em all in one service. Just to tell ’em we ain’t sh*t, but He’s been perfect.”
If Lamar maintains his Israelite faith over riches, and keep that equation as the top priority, he won’t be a victim of pride. But the question is—can Lamar remain humble amidst all the madness?
8) Kendrick Lamar – “HUMBLE.”
Lamar shows that being humble is easier said than done. Over a bouncy-head-nodding track produced by Mike WiLL Made-It, Lamar speaks his mind and gives zero f*cks on what people think about him. He’s braggadocios, confident, and asserts himself as the king of rap music. He sends a cryptic message to his competition, “Watch my soul speak, you let the meds talk. If I kill a ni^^a, it won’t be the alcohol. I’m the realest ni^^a after all, b*tch, be humble.”
9) Kendrick Lamar – “LUST.”
Lamar tackles the issue of lust, one of the main causes that fuel what we do. He begins by creating a scene, where lust has him trying to stick the tip of his phallus inside a woman’s vagina. She agrees, causing blood to run through his favorite vein. His logic, it doesn’t matter what you do—just make it count.
So, over a chilled- track produced by BADBADNOTGOOD, Sounwave, and DJ Dahi, Lamar raps, “Hop in the shower, put on your makeup, lace your weave up. Touch on yourself, call up your ni^^a, tell him he ain’t sh*t. Credit card scam, get you a Visa, make him pay your rent. Hop on the ‘Gram, flex on the b*tches that be hatin’ on you. Pop you a pill, call up your b*tches, have ‘em waitin’ on you. Go to the club, have you some fun, make that ass bounce. It’s whatever, just make it count.”
10) Kendrick Lamar – “LOVE.” (FEAT. ZACARI.)
Lamar turns the lights down over a contemporary R&B love song, produced by Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith, Greg Kurstin, Sounwave, and Teddy Walton. The theme of love and lust continues, but this time, into a more unchartered direction. Zacari’s melodic cadence compliments Kung Fu Kenny’s intimate love-lyrics to the love of his life, probably his fiancé Whitney Alford, Lamar’s high school sweetheart.
11) Kendrick Lamar – “XXX.” (FEAT. U2.)
Lamar gets political over an NWA-type track produced By Bēkon, Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith, DJ Dahi, Sounwave, and Mike WiLL Made-It. The theme is America and the plight and strife of young African-American males trying to make ends meet. Lamar talks about a man who calls him, needing prayer and advice because his son had been murdered. He wants to know what to do and seeks advice from Lamar because he’s anointed.
But Lamar doesn’t sugarcoat his advice. He tells the man straight up, “If somebody kills my son, that means somebody’s gettin’ killed.” Then, Lamar goes on to tell the man how he would go about doing the killing. America is an eye-for-an-eye nation, and forgiveness is hardly practiced.
12) Kendrick Lamar – “FEAR.”
Lamar deeps dig into his soul to confront his fears. He does so over a conversation track produced by The Alchemist. Lamar uses Deuteronomy 28:28 to make sense of his damnation, where the title track derived from. “The Lord shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart…,” states the biblical commandment. Lamar reasons that YAH cursed the Israelites (so-called Blacks, Hispanics, and Native American Indians) because of their iniquity. So, that explains their conditions in the wilderness of North America.
Pride
So, Lamar’s fear of lose it all like the biblical character forced him or scared him to not spend a dime. Not because he is cheap, but because he didn’t want to spend money because he feared running out of money, and going back to Section 8. Lamar raps, “30 shows a month and I still won’t buy me no Lexus.” Not a lot of people can say this.
13) Kendrick Lamar – “GOD.”
Lamar talks about the success that he doesn’t want to lose. He compares it to what it was like when he didn’t have fame and fortune. Even though he chooses faith over riches, he’s still feeling good laughing to the bank like aha. Over a laid-back track produced by Bēkon, Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith, Cardo, Sounwave, Ricci Riera, and DJ Dahi, Lamar tells listeners, “Don’t judge me,” because this is what God feels like. Matthew 7:1 states,
14) Kendrick Lamar – “DUCKWORTH.”
Lamar uses his last name, Duckworth, as a song to explain the relationship between his father, Ducky, and Anthony Tiffith, CEO of Top Dawg Entertainment. Lamar explained if Tiffith had killed Ducky, then he would be serving life, and Lamar would’ve grown up without a father. And there would have been no Top Dawg Entertainment, and probably no Kendrick Lamar.
1) Kendrick Lamar – “BLOOD.”
Lamar tackles the issue of life and death. He poses several questions over a melodic instrumental produced by Lamar, Bēkon, and Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith. One of them being, “Are we gonna live or die?” Lamar tells a brilliant story about him walking down a block, and he sees a blind lady in search of something she had lost. He goes over to help, and then he asks, “Hello, ma’am, can I be of any assistance? It seems to me that you have lost something. I would like to help you find it.” She replied, “Oh yes, you have lost something. You’ve lost your life.” And then we hear a gunshot. Lamar is shot. Did he lose his life? The dire ending answers the probing question posed in the beginning—we gonna die.
2) Kendrick Lamar – “DNA.”
Lamar explains why his DNA differs from a sucker’s DNA. His deoxyribonucleic acid consists of going through the school of hard knocks. He endured a rugged street life, prisons, money, drugs, alcohol, sex, murder, mayhem, loyalty, royalty, joy, etc. This is because his DNA comprises of things shared collectively by African-Americans who have been through the struggle. Lyrically, Lamar leaves earth, while rapping over an explosive track produced by Mike WiLL Made-It. From beginning to end, he doesn’t take a bar off and shows why conscience rap has resurrected into the new norm.
3) Kendrick Lamar – “YAH.”
Lamar let it be known that he’s diagnosed with real ni^^a conditions, and keeps it a hunnit by calling out Geraldo Rivera because of criticism Lamar received from a FOX NEWS segment. The kid Capri intro adds a classic east coast authenticity over a laid-back track produced by Bēkon, Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith, Sounwave, and DJ Dahi. Preconceived lies told by White slave masters to African slaves are melting like hot butter in the sun. Lamar, a descendant of those slaves, has awakened and knows himself.
4) Kendrick Lamar – “ELEMENT.”
Lamar, who Capri calls the ‘New Kung Fu Kenny’, continues his Shaolin-rap assault over a Wu-Tang-like track produced by Bēkon, Tae Beast, James Blake, Sounwave, and Ricci Riera. Lamar is simply on another level than his peers. He’s been through more sh*t than them, and he’s ready to put the Bible down and go eye for an eye for this sh*t. When he said, “I been stomped out in front of my mama / my daddy commissary made it to commas / B*tch, all my grandmas dead / So, ain’t nobody prayin’ for me, I’m on your head.”
5) Kendrick Lamar – “FEEL.”
Lamar beautifully expresses how he feels on a dope Sounwave-produced track, where Lamar raps, “I feel like the whole world want me to pray for ’em / But who the f*ck prayin’ for me?” Lamar feels that nobody ain’t prayin’ for him, and this void has him with a chip on his shoulders, looking at life from a dark, and troubled point of view. He feels pain and doesn’t see hope. Did the incident with the blind lady cause him to feel this way? Why does he feel this way? Kendrick raps, “I feel like it ain’t no tomorrow f*ck the world / The world is endin’, I’m done pretendin’… I feel like this gotta be the feelin’ what ‘Pac was…”
But Lamar knows ill-thinking is bad for his health, and he acknowledges the source of his negative thinking, “The feelin’ is toxic, I feel like I’m boxin’ demons / Monsters, false prophets schemin’,” and the list goes on and on. If no one is, just know that we are praying for you Kendrick, YAH-willing.
6) Kendrick Lamar – “LOYALTY” (FEAT. RIHANNA.)
Lamar and Rihanna explore one of the key elements in Lamar’s DNA, loyalty; and they pose a simple question—who are you loyal to? Is it your family? Friends? Or yourself? Maybe it’s money, weed, or alcoholic? Where does it begin and where does it end? Lamar and Rihanna do a wonderful job over a beautify track produced by Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith, Terrace Martin, Sounwave, and DJ Dahi.
7) Kendrick Lamar – “PRIDE.”
The Steve Lacy’s intro, “Love’s gonna get you killed, but pride’s gonna be the death of you and me,” fits perfect in the scheme of things. Lamar, a spiritual intellectual, understands Proverbs 16: 18, which states, “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” So, Lamar uses those reference points to further expound his faith. In the beginning, Lamar’s love for the blind lady got him shot. And now, will his pride, the great satisfaction he feels when he reviews all that he has achieved, will that be the death of him? Over a smooth/laid-back track produced by Bēkon, Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith, and Steve Lacy, Lamar states that he can’t fake being humble, just because people are insecure.
He answers the question of pride
Lamar raps, “Sick venom in men and women overcome with pride. A perfect world is never perfect, only filled with lies. Promises are broken and more resentment come alive. Race barriers make inferior of you and I. See, in a perfect world, I’ll choose faith over riches. I’ll choose work over b*tches, I’ll make schools out of prison. I’ll take all the religions and put ‘em all in one service. Just to tell ’em we ain’t sh*t, but He’s been perfect.”
If Lamar maintains his Israelite faith over riches, and keep that equation as the top priority, he won’t be a victim of pride. But the question is—can Lamar remain humble amidst all the madness?
8) Kendrick Lamar – “HUMBLE.”
Lamar shows that being humble is easier said than done. Over a bouncy-head-nodding track produced by Mike WiLL Made-It, Lamar speaks his mind and gives zero f*cks on what people think about him. He’s braggadocios, confident, and asserts himself as the king of rap music. He sends a cryptic message to his competition, “Watch my soul speak, you let the meds talk. If I kill a ni^^a, it won’t be the alcohol. I’m the realest ni^^a after all, b*tch, be humble.”
9) Kendrick Lamar – “LUST.”
Lamar tackles the issue of lust, one of the main causes that fuel what we do. He begins by creating a scene, where lust has him trying to stick the tip of his phallus inside a woman’s vagina. She agrees, causing blood to run through his favorite vein. His logic, it doesn’t matter what you do—just make it count.
So, over a chilled- track produced by BADBADNOTGOOD, Sounwave, and DJ Dahi, Lamar raps, “Hop in the shower, put on your makeup, lace your weave up. Touch on yourself, call up your ni^^a, tell him he ain’t sh*t. Credit card scam, get you a Visa, make him pay your rent. Hop on the ‘Gram, flex on the b*tches that be hatin’ on you. Pop you a pill, call up your b*tches, have ‘em waitin’ on you. Go to the club, have you some fun, make that ass bounce. It’s whatever, just make it count.”
10) Kendrick Lamar – “LOVE.” (FEAT. ZACARI.)
Lamar turns the lights down over a contemporary R&B love song, produced by Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith, Greg Kurstin, Sounwave, and Teddy Walton. The theme of love and lust continues, but this time, into a more unchartered direction. Zacari’s melodic cadence compliments Kung Fu Kenny’s intimate love-lyrics to the love of his life, probably his fiancé Whitney Alford, Lamar’s high school sweetheart.
11) Kendrick Lamar – “XXX.” (FEAT. U2.)
Lamar gets political over an NWA-type track produced By Bēkon, Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith, DJ Dahi, Sounwave, and Mike WiLL Made-It. The theme is America and the plight and strife of young African-American males trying to make ends meet. Lamar talks about a man who calls him, needing prayer and advice because his son had been murdered. He wants to know what to do and seeks advice from Lamar because he’s anointed.
But Lamar doesn’t sugarcoat his advice. He tells the man straight up, “If somebody kills my son, that means somebody’s gettin’ killed.” Then, Lamar goes on to tell the man how he would go about doing the killing. America is an eye-for-an-eye nation, and forgiveness is hardly practiced.
12) Kendrick Lamar – “FEAR.”
Lamar deeps dig into his soul to confront his fears. He does so over a conversation track produced by The Alchemist. Lamar uses Deuteronomy 28:28 to make sense of his damnation, where the title track derived from. “The Lord shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart…,” states the biblical commandment. Lamar reasons that YAH cursed the Israelites (so-called Blacks, Hispanics, and Native American Indians) because of their iniquity. So, that explains their conditions in the wilderness of North America.
Pride
So, Lamar’s fear of lose it all like the biblical character forced him or scared him to not spend a dime. Not because he is cheap, but because he didn’t want to spend money because he feared running out of money, and going back to Section 8. Lamar raps, “30 shows a month and I still won’t buy me no Lexus.” Not a lot of people can say this.
13) Kendrick Lamar – “GOD.”
Lamar talks about the success that he doesn’t want to lose. He compares it to what it was like when he didn’t have fame and fortune. Even though he chooses faith over riches, he’s still feeling good laughing to the bank like aha. Over a laid-back track produced by Bēkon, Anthony “Top Dawg” Tiffith, Cardo, Sounwave, Ricci Riera, and DJ Dahi, Lamar tells listeners, “Don’t judge me,” because this is what God feels like. Matthew 7:1 states,
14) Kendrick Lamar – “DUCKWORTH.”
Lamar uses his last name, Duckworth, as a song to explain the relationship between his father, Ducky, and Anthony Tiffith, CEO of Top Dawg Entertainment. Lamar explained if Tiffith had killed Ducky, then he would be serving life, and Lamar would’ve grown up without a father. And there would have been no Top Dawg Entertainment, and probably no Kendrick Lamar.