Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Us (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
We’ve all heard that somewhere out in the world there is a true Doppelganger for each and every one of us. An almost exact copy which may not behave the same but would otherwise be indistinguishable from the other. In a common instance a Doppelganger might be a set of identical twins who share the same DNA, or in pop culture references we might look to the definition of a Doppelganger in Dungeons and Dragons, defined as a monstrous humanoid able to change the shape and read the minds of their intended target to mimic them completely. Somewhere in the middle is where Jordan Peele’s latest masterpiece takes us.
The film begins in the mid 80’s, when Michael Jackson’s Thriller is topping the charts and Hands Across America was a very real idea (worth looking up for younger readers who may not even know what I’m talking about). A young Adelaide Wilson is exploring the boardwalk on a beach in Santa Cruz with her parents. When her father is distracted by a game of Whack a’ Mole something draws Adelaide down to the beach where she passes a man holding a sign referencing Jeremiah 11:11, one of the first messages that foreshadows what is to come. On the beach she encounters an empty and sinister looking hall of mirrors attraction. Wandering through the hall of mirrors a young Adelaide encounters a girl in the mirror, an exact duplicate of herself whose encounter is so traumatic that it leaves her unable to speak.
The film transitions to present day where the now adult Adelaide (Lupita Nyong’o) is traveling with her husband Gabriel (Winston Duke) and her two children Zora (Shahadi Wright Joseph) and youngest son Jason (Evan Alex) to her parents’ home near the beach in Santa Cruz. Adelaide has resisted going back to the very same boardwalk where she had encountered her doppelganger as a young child. With her husband and children pressing her to go to the beach, she reluctantly agrees as long as they promise to be home before dark. The day at the beach is relatively uneventful until it is nearing time to go home and the family has lost sight of young Jason. Adelaide in a panic frantically searches for him, finally finding him returning from the bathroom.
The incident, while minor, convinces Adelaide that they should never have come back and wants to leave immediately. Various subtle “coincidences” occur that leave her feeling as though a black cloud hangs over her and a sense of dread that something terrible is about to happen. Before the family turns in for the evening, Jason sees “A family” at the edge of their driveway. Gabriel attempts to get to the bottom of who these mysterious visitors are, only for a night of unimaginable terror to ensue.
Us takes queues from several other movie types, The Strangers, Night of the Living Dead and Invasion of the Body Snatchers mashing them together to weave its frightening (and often funny) tale. It takes a little time to gain momentum, but once it does It never once lets off the gas. While at first it seems nothing more than a home invasion from characters who look exactly like the Wilson family, it quickly grows into something substantially more terrifying. The backdrop varies between a somewhat isolated house in the woods, to the bustling beach, giving a sense of isolation even at the most crowded of places. The boardwalk is a place that is both wonderous and terrifying at the same time, reminiscent of the early scenes in the 80’s classic The Lost Boys. While lacking in both clowns or vampires, it holds its own secrets (and terrors).
Us is a movie that is unlike any other and is refreshing when stacked against similar fright films that have been released recently. If you are a fan of Jordan Peele’s Get Out, you will find a lot to like here as well. It maintains its dark humor without ever going over board and has plenty of thrills and scares to keep you on your toes at all times. It’s not a movie that will keep you up all night hiding under your covers, but it may cause you to rethink your next vacation to the beach or the boardwalk. In the end, I feel this is another film that is sure to become a cult classic, enjoyable for fans of the genre.
The film begins in the mid 80’s, when Michael Jackson’s Thriller is topping the charts and Hands Across America was a very real idea (worth looking up for younger readers who may not even know what I’m talking about). A young Adelaide Wilson is exploring the boardwalk on a beach in Santa Cruz with her parents. When her father is distracted by a game of Whack a’ Mole something draws Adelaide down to the beach where she passes a man holding a sign referencing Jeremiah 11:11, one of the first messages that foreshadows what is to come. On the beach she encounters an empty and sinister looking hall of mirrors attraction. Wandering through the hall of mirrors a young Adelaide encounters a girl in the mirror, an exact duplicate of herself whose encounter is so traumatic that it leaves her unable to speak.
The film transitions to present day where the now adult Adelaide (Lupita Nyong’o) is traveling with her husband Gabriel (Winston Duke) and her two children Zora (Shahadi Wright Joseph) and youngest son Jason (Evan Alex) to her parents’ home near the beach in Santa Cruz. Adelaide has resisted going back to the very same boardwalk where she had encountered her doppelganger as a young child. With her husband and children pressing her to go to the beach, she reluctantly agrees as long as they promise to be home before dark. The day at the beach is relatively uneventful until it is nearing time to go home and the family has lost sight of young Jason. Adelaide in a panic frantically searches for him, finally finding him returning from the bathroom.
The incident, while minor, convinces Adelaide that they should never have come back and wants to leave immediately. Various subtle “coincidences” occur that leave her feeling as though a black cloud hangs over her and a sense of dread that something terrible is about to happen. Before the family turns in for the evening, Jason sees “A family” at the edge of their driveway. Gabriel attempts to get to the bottom of who these mysterious visitors are, only for a night of unimaginable terror to ensue.
Us takes queues from several other movie types, The Strangers, Night of the Living Dead and Invasion of the Body Snatchers mashing them together to weave its frightening (and often funny) tale. It takes a little time to gain momentum, but once it does It never once lets off the gas. While at first it seems nothing more than a home invasion from characters who look exactly like the Wilson family, it quickly grows into something substantially more terrifying. The backdrop varies between a somewhat isolated house in the woods, to the bustling beach, giving a sense of isolation even at the most crowded of places. The boardwalk is a place that is both wonderous and terrifying at the same time, reminiscent of the early scenes in the 80’s classic The Lost Boys. While lacking in both clowns or vampires, it holds its own secrets (and terrors).
Us is a movie that is unlike any other and is refreshing when stacked against similar fright films that have been released recently. If you are a fan of Jordan Peele’s Get Out, you will find a lot to like here as well. It maintains its dark humor without ever going over board and has plenty of thrills and scares to keep you on your toes at all times. It’s not a movie that will keep you up all night hiding under your covers, but it may cause you to rethink your next vacation to the beach or the boardwalk. In the end, I feel this is another film that is sure to become a cult classic, enjoyable for fans of the genre.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Kitchen (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Times are tough in Hells Kitchen, people need to diversify to stay on top. Three gangsters decide to do just that but manage to fall on the wrong side of the law on their first outing. As they are locked up their wives are left to pick up the pieces. They'll be looked after, that's the promise they hear but the money they get won't even cover their rent.
The three women are desperate but see an opportunity in the gap their imprisoned husbands have left. What the mob needs is a woman's touch.
Melissa McCarthy amuses me, her comedy really hits the spot, then she appeared in Can You Ever Forgive Me? and I was so happy to see she could do drama too. Tiffany Haddish was much the same, I've seen her in lots of comedy and find her to be entertaining (if a little over played) so when her name popped up on this I was interested to see how she handled "sensible". I was very pleased with the result, but we'll get there.
The look of everything in The Kitchen felt spot on. All the little touches really pulled the 70's feel together and gace each character their own vibe that lined up perfectly with their development through the film.
Music certainly helped on this front, though part of me was sad that they used "It's A Man's Man's Man's World." I know it fits perfectly with the tone and the subject but it felt so cliché for that to be the first thing we go and I actually sighed when it came on.
Our three wives make an interesting mix as a team, a collection that you couldn't see being friends under normal circumstances but they've been brought together out of necessity. I liked the way we got to see their lives unfold from the beginning. Their home life with their husbands and then their reactions as the men are charged. Kathy looking upset, Ruby with a look of disappointment that he should have been smarter, and Claire's smile as the court gives her a reprieve from his violence.
We see their progression to becoming a success in town happen quite quickly on screen and I thought that worked well. It left all the internal politics out until there was something bigger at stake to deal with.
The women all take on a path of their own, it diversifies their abilities but you know that something has to give. Every little piece that's added to their story felt like it was right to be there, nothing was unnecessary.
There's a certain amount of stereotype acting in The Kitchen but it works well when it comes to the gangs and their interactions together. Both Kathy (McCarthy) and Ruby (Haddish) have that in them too at one point or another but it's a little less evident in general.
As I said at the beginning, Melissa McCarthy's step into drama had been a hit with me and her portrayal of Kathy was no different. She went from an attentive wife and mother who minds her own business to a mob boss and entrepeneur, it's such a smooth transition that you'd wonder if she was doing something fishy on the side already.
Tiffany Haddish was amazing too, her dramatic skills really brought Ruby to life and it was a wonderfully believable performance.
Then there's Claire played by Elisabeth Moss. She's had great success in The Handmaid's Tale and I do binge watch that once the series is out, but truth be told I don't really like they way she brings her character in either to life. Claire is a woman abused by her husband, she's attacked by a homeless man and then "rescued" by Gabriel, a hitman who has skills that become and obsession for her. Her transition is the only one that doesn't sit right, yes I believe she'd try to take back her power wherever she could but her whole arc seems a little crazy.
As a crime drama it's probably missing something to take it over the line into an amazing effort but I enjoyed it for the most part. It didn't leave things unanswered and with so many different strands going on that was entirely possible.
Passing comment... I love Common, he needs to be in all the things.
What you should do
It's worth a watch when it hits streaming sites.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some quality retro clothing.
The three women are desperate but see an opportunity in the gap their imprisoned husbands have left. What the mob needs is a woman's touch.
Melissa McCarthy amuses me, her comedy really hits the spot, then she appeared in Can You Ever Forgive Me? and I was so happy to see she could do drama too. Tiffany Haddish was much the same, I've seen her in lots of comedy and find her to be entertaining (if a little over played) so when her name popped up on this I was interested to see how she handled "sensible". I was very pleased with the result, but we'll get there.
The look of everything in The Kitchen felt spot on. All the little touches really pulled the 70's feel together and gace each character their own vibe that lined up perfectly with their development through the film.
Music certainly helped on this front, though part of me was sad that they used "It's A Man's Man's Man's World." I know it fits perfectly with the tone and the subject but it felt so cliché for that to be the first thing we go and I actually sighed when it came on.
Our three wives make an interesting mix as a team, a collection that you couldn't see being friends under normal circumstances but they've been brought together out of necessity. I liked the way we got to see their lives unfold from the beginning. Their home life with their husbands and then their reactions as the men are charged. Kathy looking upset, Ruby with a look of disappointment that he should have been smarter, and Claire's smile as the court gives her a reprieve from his violence.
We see their progression to becoming a success in town happen quite quickly on screen and I thought that worked well. It left all the internal politics out until there was something bigger at stake to deal with.
The women all take on a path of their own, it diversifies their abilities but you know that something has to give. Every little piece that's added to their story felt like it was right to be there, nothing was unnecessary.
There's a certain amount of stereotype acting in The Kitchen but it works well when it comes to the gangs and their interactions together. Both Kathy (McCarthy) and Ruby (Haddish) have that in them too at one point or another but it's a little less evident in general.
As I said at the beginning, Melissa McCarthy's step into drama had been a hit with me and her portrayal of Kathy was no different. She went from an attentive wife and mother who minds her own business to a mob boss and entrepeneur, it's such a smooth transition that you'd wonder if she was doing something fishy on the side already.
Tiffany Haddish was amazing too, her dramatic skills really brought Ruby to life and it was a wonderfully believable performance.
Then there's Claire played by Elisabeth Moss. She's had great success in The Handmaid's Tale and I do binge watch that once the series is out, but truth be told I don't really like they way she brings her character in either to life. Claire is a woman abused by her husband, she's attacked by a homeless man and then "rescued" by Gabriel, a hitman who has skills that become and obsession for her. Her transition is the only one that doesn't sit right, yes I believe she'd try to take back her power wherever she could but her whole arc seems a little crazy.
As a crime drama it's probably missing something to take it over the line into an amazing effort but I enjoyed it for the most part. It didn't leave things unanswered and with so many different strands going on that was entirely possible.
Passing comment... I love Common, he needs to be in all the things.
What you should do
It's worth a watch when it hits streaming sites.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some quality retro clothing.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Little Joe (2019) in Movies
Feb 6, 2020
I managed to get a ticket to see this at the London Film Festival, it had made my long shortlist, the premise looked interesting and the graphics were extremely appealing. I was very excited to see what Little Joe had in store.
Alice is developing a new breed of flower, a beautiful crimson flower that has an incredible therapeutic value to its owner. Look after it properly, speak to it nicely, and it will make you happy.
After Alice sneaks one home to her son she soon notices that rather than a happy demeanour he starts acting strangely, and he's not the only one showing odd behaviour after being around Little Joe.
Little Joe has some very strong style choices. The colour palette is beautiful, and I wish I could find the notes I made about it from the Q&A after the film. The vibrant pastels are homely and comforting while at the same time unsettling around the normal tones of life.
That's what a lot of the film is made to do though, the music is something I noted frequently. The oriental music works directly against what's happening in the story, an intentional choice by the composer. I also wrote down the word "whistling" a lot with regards to sound. While I can understand (sort of) why the composer went that way with the music I didn't feel like it worked. I didn't dislike the music itself, but my comments were mainly exclaiming that it stuck out and felt too different from everything around it that it became distracting.
Another piece of the film that didn't sit well with me was camera work. There are some very well shot scenes, when we first encounter Little Joe in Alice's home and a scene later on inside the greenhouse (that I won't go into because of spoilers), that draw the viewer in with intrigue. But then... you know when you're doing something and you get bored and realise you've drifted off looking at a point in the distance? The camera appears to get bored too and it'll zoom to the gaps between characters. Maybe I'm just programmed to expect this sort of shot to reveal something secret to the audience that the characters haven't noticed... I found it more distracting and annoying than having any artistic benefit.
Alice (Emily Beecham) has a dual mother role, firstly with her son Joe and secondly with her plants. Little Joe appears to be more like a son to her than her own flesh and blood, her scientific mind perhaps finding it easier to interact with an inanimate object that begins to defy what she knows to be possible. The film gets across her struggle quite well with her therapy sessions and the interactions with those around her as we get deeper into the story. Beecham's performance is... relaxed? Even when there's urgency nothing ever seems to be very urgent.
That's something that is common throughout, the pace plods. You would expect a somewhat subdued pace in this sort of invasion storyline, but there are no real points of climax and that makes it more of a meander... perhaps those exciting moments happened when the camera zoned out.
There are touches here and there that do make you hopeful for the film, but overall it feels like Little Joe went for subtle and took it slightly too far. Everything felt too calm, the only one that seemed to react as you'd expect was Bella, but the nature of her part of the story meant that this was over the top because it was so far from everything else.
I like the idea behind this and we know from many different films that this sort of thing can work, but the lack of a real punch anywhere made this a struggle to watch. Oddly, I think this would have worked as a limited series without a lot of changes. The slow pace wouldn't have been so evident if it was broken down into episodes, there are small peaks in there that would give just enough intrigue to hold over to the next episode, I even feel like the ending as it is would have worked more in this style. Sadly, as it was I don't feel like there was enough reward for the time invested in watching it as a film, there's a different expectation between and film and a TV series but it's very difficult to explain it here without revealing spoilers.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/little-joe-movie-review.html
Alice is developing a new breed of flower, a beautiful crimson flower that has an incredible therapeutic value to its owner. Look after it properly, speak to it nicely, and it will make you happy.
After Alice sneaks one home to her son she soon notices that rather than a happy demeanour he starts acting strangely, and he's not the only one showing odd behaviour after being around Little Joe.
Little Joe has some very strong style choices. The colour palette is beautiful, and I wish I could find the notes I made about it from the Q&A after the film. The vibrant pastels are homely and comforting while at the same time unsettling around the normal tones of life.
That's what a lot of the film is made to do though, the music is something I noted frequently. The oriental music works directly against what's happening in the story, an intentional choice by the composer. I also wrote down the word "whistling" a lot with regards to sound. While I can understand (sort of) why the composer went that way with the music I didn't feel like it worked. I didn't dislike the music itself, but my comments were mainly exclaiming that it stuck out and felt too different from everything around it that it became distracting.
Another piece of the film that didn't sit well with me was camera work. There are some very well shot scenes, when we first encounter Little Joe in Alice's home and a scene later on inside the greenhouse (that I won't go into because of spoilers), that draw the viewer in with intrigue. But then... you know when you're doing something and you get bored and realise you've drifted off looking at a point in the distance? The camera appears to get bored too and it'll zoom to the gaps between characters. Maybe I'm just programmed to expect this sort of shot to reveal something secret to the audience that the characters haven't noticed... I found it more distracting and annoying than having any artistic benefit.
Alice (Emily Beecham) has a dual mother role, firstly with her son Joe and secondly with her plants. Little Joe appears to be more like a son to her than her own flesh and blood, her scientific mind perhaps finding it easier to interact with an inanimate object that begins to defy what she knows to be possible. The film gets across her struggle quite well with her therapy sessions and the interactions with those around her as we get deeper into the story. Beecham's performance is... relaxed? Even when there's urgency nothing ever seems to be very urgent.
That's something that is common throughout, the pace plods. You would expect a somewhat subdued pace in this sort of invasion storyline, but there are no real points of climax and that makes it more of a meander... perhaps those exciting moments happened when the camera zoned out.
There are touches here and there that do make you hopeful for the film, but overall it feels like Little Joe went for subtle and took it slightly too far. Everything felt too calm, the only one that seemed to react as you'd expect was Bella, but the nature of her part of the story meant that this was over the top because it was so far from everything else.
I like the idea behind this and we know from many different films that this sort of thing can work, but the lack of a real punch anywhere made this a struggle to watch. Oddly, I think this would have worked as a limited series without a lot of changes. The slow pace wouldn't have been so evident if it was broken down into episodes, there are small peaks in there that would give just enough intrigue to hold over to the next episode, I even feel like the ending as it is would have worked more in this style. Sadly, as it was I don't feel like there was enough reward for the time invested in watching it as a film, there's a different expectation between and film and a TV series but it's very difficult to explain it here without revealing spoilers.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/little-joe-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Sully (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
No, not “Monsters Inc 3”.
Chesley Sullenberger was just a very experienced US Airways pilot starting an everyday job flying from LaGuardia airport in New York to Charlotte when fate stepped in. Following an extensive bird strike and the loss of both engines, ‘Sully’ achieved worldwide fame by landing his aircraft and all 151 passengers and crew safely on the Hudson river. Sully is immediately acclaimed by the public as a hero; US Airways, and their insurers, however, are not necessarily as impressed given that their plane has got rather soggy when the flight data suggests it might have actually been able to make it to a landing at a number of nearby airports. So a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) inquiry is called, where a decision against Sully could see him facing the fastest fall from grace since Icarus.
This film is obviously based on this real-life ‘Miracle on the Hudson’ and to a large extent the recreation of the crash…. sorry… “forced water landing” is both vivid and gripping. The film is certainly unlikely to make the regular list of in-flight movies for nervous passengers, but it does serve as a good training film for all of those regular airline passengers who don’t “put down their reading materials” to listen to the aircraft safety announcement.
Director Clint Eastwood has delivered a highly watchable action sequence showcasing the undisputed acting talents of Tom Hanks (playing Sully) and his Aaron Eckhard (“Olympus Has Fallen”, playing the co-pilot Jeff Skiles). This makes for a great 45 minute film. The problem is the other 51 minutes.
Where the film works well – aside from the actual recreation itself – is in representing the post-traumatic stress experienced by Sully, with his insomnia and regular flashbacks of ‘what might have happened’ (anyone still strongly affected by 9/11 will struggle with these scenes). The final NTSB hearing scenes are also well-done and suitably gripping: particularly for viewers outside of the UK where we wouldn’t have heard the outcome of the affair once the news cycle had moved on from the ‘gee-whizz’ headline event.
Where the film aquaplanes somewhat is in the padding achieved through multiple (MULTIPLE!) scenes of New Yorkers back-slapping Sully. Some of this is needed to establish the pedestal that Sully is set upon: the bar scene, for example, is well done. But all the rest of the references become just plain tiresome.
There is also a back-story focused on Sully’s financial problems and rather scratchy marriage (as portrayed) to Lorraine (Laura Linney). Linney is normally a highly-watchable actress, but here her character is just so irritating that the mood of the film plummets every time she reappears on screen.
The key problem that screenwriter Todd Komarnicki (“Elf”!!) had here is the obvious one: that as a real-event (based on Sullenberger’s own book “Highest Duty”) he would have had more scope to build tension if the flight had lasted more than 208 seconds! We end up with little visibility into the back-stories of the passengers. We get to see a father and two grown-up sons who – as fate would have it – just manage to catch the doomed plane: and we end up caring what happens to them. But this approach could have perhaps been usefully extended to feature more of the passenger back-stories (without getting the full “Airport” soap treatment).
Clint Eastwood is also clearly an All-American patriot, and in common with some of his other films he can’t help himself from putting up rather soupy statements about the self-sacrifice of New Yorkers (“the best of New York came together”): when actually the rescue teams did what they were paid to do and Ferry captains did what you or I would do if we stumbled on the scene! These sentiments might go down well in the States: in the cynical UK they tend to generate snorts of irritation.
What IS nice are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) during the closing credits where the real Sully, Skiles, cabin-crew and passengers appear together in a celebration of continued life against all the odds. And just so you are aware, this is done as two separate segments during the titles, so if you don’t want to be one of those people standing in the aisles with your coat half on, then wait for the second one!
A curate’s egg of a film: great in places, but overall not as well executed as it could have been.
This film is obviously based on this real-life ‘Miracle on the Hudson’ and to a large extent the recreation of the crash…. sorry… “forced water landing” is both vivid and gripping. The film is certainly unlikely to make the regular list of in-flight movies for nervous passengers, but it does serve as a good training film for all of those regular airline passengers who don’t “put down their reading materials” to listen to the aircraft safety announcement.
Director Clint Eastwood has delivered a highly watchable action sequence showcasing the undisputed acting talents of Tom Hanks (playing Sully) and his Aaron Eckhard (“Olympus Has Fallen”, playing the co-pilot Jeff Skiles). This makes for a great 45 minute film. The problem is the other 51 minutes.
Where the film works well – aside from the actual recreation itself – is in representing the post-traumatic stress experienced by Sully, with his insomnia and regular flashbacks of ‘what might have happened’ (anyone still strongly affected by 9/11 will struggle with these scenes). The final NTSB hearing scenes are also well-done and suitably gripping: particularly for viewers outside of the UK where we wouldn’t have heard the outcome of the affair once the news cycle had moved on from the ‘gee-whizz’ headline event.
Where the film aquaplanes somewhat is in the padding achieved through multiple (MULTIPLE!) scenes of New Yorkers back-slapping Sully. Some of this is needed to establish the pedestal that Sully is set upon: the bar scene, for example, is well done. But all the rest of the references become just plain tiresome.
There is also a back-story focused on Sully’s financial problems and rather scratchy marriage (as portrayed) to Lorraine (Laura Linney). Linney is normally a highly-watchable actress, but here her character is just so irritating that the mood of the film plummets every time she reappears on screen.
The key problem that screenwriter Todd Komarnicki (“Elf”!!) had here is the obvious one: that as a real-event (based on Sullenberger’s own book “Highest Duty”) he would have had more scope to build tension if the flight had lasted more than 208 seconds! We end up with little visibility into the back-stories of the passengers. We get to see a father and two grown-up sons who – as fate would have it – just manage to catch the doomed plane: and we end up caring what happens to them. But this approach could have perhaps been usefully extended to feature more of the passenger back-stories (without getting the full “Airport” soap treatment).
Clint Eastwood is also clearly an All-American patriot, and in common with some of his other films he can’t help himself from putting up rather soupy statements about the self-sacrifice of New Yorkers (“the best of New York came together”): when actually the rescue teams did what they were paid to do and Ferry captains did what you or I would do if we stumbled on the scene! These sentiments might go down well in the States: in the cynical UK they tend to generate snorts of irritation.
What IS nice are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) during the closing credits where the real Sully, Skiles, cabin-crew and passengers appear together in a celebration of continued life against all the odds. And just so you are aware, this is done as two separate segments during the titles, so if you don’t want to be one of those people standing in the aisles with your coat half on, then wait for the second one!
A curate’s egg of a film: great in places, but overall not as well executed as it could have been.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) in Movies
Apr 24, 2022
The performances of Nicolas Cage and Pedro Pascal. (1 more)
A simple concept wrapped in a ton of adult humor.
Could be a bit too meta at times. (1 more)
The second half of the film isn't quite as good as the first half.
The R-Rated Action Comedy of a Lifetime
Nicolas Cage portrays an exaggerated version of himself in The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent. In the film, Nick Cage is struggling as an actor. He’s in a crazy amount of debt, he can’t find steady work, and his ex-wife Olivia (Sharon Horgan) and daughter Addy (Anna MacDonald) feel like he’s too full of himself to fit them into his life. Nick contemplates retiring from acting altogether and is intending to do so after an awkward $1 million gig of being on an island as the guest of honor at a birthday party.
But the birthday is for a gargantuan Nicolas Cage super fan named Javi Gutierrez (Pedro Pascal). Javi and Nick become fast friends, but the CIA abducts Nick one evening and informs him that Javi is actually an arms dealer that is responsible for the kidnapping of the daughter of an anti-crime politician. Nick becomes torn between snitching for the government and seeing where his newfound friendship with Javi goes, which revolves around Nick having the most fun he’s had in years.
What makes The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent so entertaining is the bromance between Nicolas Cage and Pedro Pascal. The two seem like legitimate best friends and there’s essentially chemistry with the two actors as soon as they meet each other on screen. As Nick Cage, the real Cage is totally self-absorbed as the character. He’s blinded by his own interests and what he has going on in his life to really understand or pay attention to anyone else. The whole world revolves around Nick Cage. Meanwhile, Javi is more humble. He has so much Nicolas Cage memorabilia that his room devoted to him could be considered as a museum or shrine to the actor. The two surprisingly have a lot in common and end up being hilarious together.
The first hour of the film is basically the Cage and Pascal show with the two running around like idiots in the best kind of way. Nick and Javi bond over Paddington 2, possibly making a movie together, and doing acid together. The acid taking sequence in general is probably the funniest part of the film, especially with their uncontrollable paranoia and Pascal’s fake laughing.
The remaining 47 minutes is devoted to the two men attempting to kill one another. Nick believing that Javi is this guns dealing madman and Javi discovering that Nick has been working with the CIA. The film snowballs further and further into ridiculous territory and you just gobble it up because it’s so great. The R-rated action comedy is loaded with incredibly detailed movie references and Nicolas Cage being funnier than he has ever been.
Pedro Pascal has dabbled in comedy since leaving Game of Thrones and it has never really worked out. He was the best part of The Bubble, which dropped on Netflix earlier this month, but that’s not saying much since the film was so bad. This is the first time Pascal has gotten to showcase his comedic chops in a film that is legitimately funny, surprisingly sentimental, and enormously entertaining from beginning to end.
Throughout the film, Nick Cage argues with Nicky – the younger and more successful version of himself from Wild at Heart. Nicky is basically the devil on Nick Cage’s shoulder as he encourages him to take more risks and do whatever he wants simply because he is Nick freaking Cage. It’s incredible seeing two versions of Cage argue and interact on screen, but it nearly melts your brain from simply being too awesome for our Nicolas Cage admiring brains to process.
It certainly seems like The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent will have a deeper impact on you if you’re at least somewhat of a fan of Nicolas Cage’s work, but could also be amusing for fans of absurd adult comedies. Pedro Pascal is the humorous wingman we all wish we could have; soft spoken and yet a priceless factor in the overall ludicrous nature of the film. Meanwhile, Nicolas Cage continues to reign supreme as a talented lunatic at the top of his game. The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent is an outrageous and uproarious expedition into hilarity and absurdity. Nicolas Cage and Pedro Pascal are an unlikely yet brilliant comical duo that will have you rolling on the sticky movie theater floor with laughter.
But the birthday is for a gargantuan Nicolas Cage super fan named Javi Gutierrez (Pedro Pascal). Javi and Nick become fast friends, but the CIA abducts Nick one evening and informs him that Javi is actually an arms dealer that is responsible for the kidnapping of the daughter of an anti-crime politician. Nick becomes torn between snitching for the government and seeing where his newfound friendship with Javi goes, which revolves around Nick having the most fun he’s had in years.
What makes The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent so entertaining is the bromance between Nicolas Cage and Pedro Pascal. The two seem like legitimate best friends and there’s essentially chemistry with the two actors as soon as they meet each other on screen. As Nick Cage, the real Cage is totally self-absorbed as the character. He’s blinded by his own interests and what he has going on in his life to really understand or pay attention to anyone else. The whole world revolves around Nick Cage. Meanwhile, Javi is more humble. He has so much Nicolas Cage memorabilia that his room devoted to him could be considered as a museum or shrine to the actor. The two surprisingly have a lot in common and end up being hilarious together.
The first hour of the film is basically the Cage and Pascal show with the two running around like idiots in the best kind of way. Nick and Javi bond over Paddington 2, possibly making a movie together, and doing acid together. The acid taking sequence in general is probably the funniest part of the film, especially with their uncontrollable paranoia and Pascal’s fake laughing.
The remaining 47 minutes is devoted to the two men attempting to kill one another. Nick believing that Javi is this guns dealing madman and Javi discovering that Nick has been working with the CIA. The film snowballs further and further into ridiculous territory and you just gobble it up because it’s so great. The R-rated action comedy is loaded with incredibly detailed movie references and Nicolas Cage being funnier than he has ever been.
Pedro Pascal has dabbled in comedy since leaving Game of Thrones and it has never really worked out. He was the best part of The Bubble, which dropped on Netflix earlier this month, but that’s not saying much since the film was so bad. This is the first time Pascal has gotten to showcase his comedic chops in a film that is legitimately funny, surprisingly sentimental, and enormously entertaining from beginning to end.
Throughout the film, Nick Cage argues with Nicky – the younger and more successful version of himself from Wild at Heart. Nicky is basically the devil on Nick Cage’s shoulder as he encourages him to take more risks and do whatever he wants simply because he is Nick freaking Cage. It’s incredible seeing two versions of Cage argue and interact on screen, but it nearly melts your brain from simply being too awesome for our Nicolas Cage admiring brains to process.
It certainly seems like The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent will have a deeper impact on you if you’re at least somewhat of a fan of Nicolas Cage’s work, but could also be amusing for fans of absurd adult comedies. Pedro Pascal is the humorous wingman we all wish we could have; soft spoken and yet a priceless factor in the overall ludicrous nature of the film. Meanwhile, Nicolas Cage continues to reign supreme as a talented lunatic at the top of his game. The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent is an outrageous and uproarious expedition into hilarity and absurdity. Nicolas Cage and Pedro Pascal are an unlikely yet brilliant comical duo that will have you rolling on the sticky movie theater floor with laughter.
Mothergamer (1568 KP) rated the PlayStation 3 version of Fallout 3 in Video Games
Apr 3, 2019
I know. How could I have not played Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas? There are many games I haven't had a chance to play and as I've gotten older, I've become a little more discerning about which games I buy right away and sometimes I just miss a game or two here and there. I also wait until things go down in price and only really pay full price for a game if it's something I know I really want. Again, that comes with being an older nerd. At any rate, when I saw that I could buy Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas for 10 bucks, I did jump at the chance and I was excited to play. I started with Fallout 3 first of course and it was quite an interesting adventure.
The opening sequence was intriguing with the lone wanderer being born and of course this is so you can choose to be a boy or a girl and design your character and decide their race. I went with Asian girl and as I was picking out all the facial and hair designs, I wondered why there were several varying choices of bald. I mean, I get it. It's Fallout and with spiffy things like radiation poisoning hair falls out and people are bald, but so many choices of bald over actual hair. It was weird. I found a hair choice I liked and everything was great and I started my Fallout 3 story.
So the time jumps from baby to ten years old were interesting for getting to see how life was for my lone wanderer in Vault 101 and there was a birthday party for me where I get my very own Pipboy. Neat. Wandering around talking to everyone including a ridiculous bully named Butch (I was not nice to him and punched him. That was my freaking birthday dessert damn it!) was cool and it definitely sets the story up nicely. Then the time line jumps again and my character is 16 years old and has to take the G.O.A.T. (Generalized Occupational Aptitude Test for Fallout newbies) to decide what they'll be doing.
16 and ready to take the G.O.A.T. test.
A last time jump happens and the lone wanderer is 19 years old and the main story of Fallout 3 begins. The Overseer's daughter and my friend Amata, wakes me up to tell me that her dad is losing it because my dad has left the Vault. Initially I was shocked and wondering what the heck she was talking about, but it turns out it was true. Dad left and didn't say a damn thing to me about it so of course I have no idea what's going on. Amata tells me she'll help me to leave because she doesn't know what her dad will do, so here I am running around trying to escape the Vault and thinking, geeze this is a messed up situation.
I was trying to play the chaotic good path, so I didn't kill the Overseer out of respect for my friend even though her dad was a freaking paranoid psycho. I managed to escape Vault 101 and here was this vast world in front of me and I couldn't wait to explore especially since the setting was in Washington D.C. a place I was familiar with having grown up in Virginia. So I set out to explore what was now known as the Capital Wasteland. I discovered the town of Megaton and the people surviving in the Wasteland and picked up some quests as well. Megaton was definitely cool with all the different houses and the crazy atomic bomb that is just there in the center of town.
Enjoying the view of Megaton.
From there the big thing in Fallout 3 is finding my lone wanderer's dad and getting some answers about why he left and what exactly he was up to. There's all kinds of main quests and side quests for hours of game play giving the impression of a vast world. There's all kinds of danger in the Wasteland too ranging from Super Mutants to Mirelurks which definitely kept me on my toes. There's all kinds of weapons too and of course I liked that I could modify and build my own. You get companions who travel with you too and that includes everyone's favorite canine Dogmeat. I did like the fact that you could have two companions travel with you. I ended up choosing Dogmeat and my Super Mutant friend, Fawkes. They both worked really well together with taking down enemies. There's also two factions of the Brotherhood of Steel, the Brotherhood and the Brotherhood Outcasts. They seemed to have different ideas about what they should be doing. I did like Elder Lyons the leader of the Brotherhood of Steel though. There was a kindness and gentle wisdom to him that was incredibly likable. I did find it amusing to see Maxson and MacCready (they're in Fallout 4) as kids in Fallout 3. They seemed so different from who they are now. I actually liked Maxson better in 3 because he seemed a little kinder and a little more open.
Taking down a Mirelurk.
My lone wanderer did find her dad and got to actually talk to him about what he was up to. Project Purity was a cool concept; the idea of clean water for everyone in the Wasteland was great and the fact that he figured out how to make it work was also great. I just didn't understand why he couldn't tell his own kid what he was up to and instead just left without saying a word and his excuse was the Vault would keep me safe. Really? Sure. I was so safe with the Overseer and his goons trying to kill me. It was hard to stay angry with him though when he was so apologetic and then proceeded to say nice things to his kid about how proud of her he was for surviving and trying to be a good person.
Then, dad and daughter team up to work on Project Purity. I did do some side quests along the way before getting back to the main story. I enjoyed exploring the Capital Wasteland and seeing some familiar places such as the Lincoln Memorial and the Jefferson Memorial. There's even a quest where you can break in to the White House to get somewhere. Granted the majority of it is destroyed, but it was still a pretty neat quest.
Checking out the Jefferson Memorial with Dogmeat.
Of course in the main story, things don't go as planned thanks to the shady people simply known as The Enclave. That's where the Brotherhood of Steel comes in as you work towards the common goal of eliminating the Enclave who apparently have an issue with the idea of everyone in the Wasteland getting pure water that isn't irradiated for free. Again, I ran around and did more side quests for more level grinding and more things. I did like that I got a free house for helping the people of Megaton by quietly disarming that atom bomb before it blew everyone sky high. One of the vendors there sold themes for the Megaton house and I went with pre-war which was nice with a 50s retro feel.
Cool, I got my own house!
Did I enjoy Fallout 3? Absolutely. That isn't to say there weren't flaws. This is Game of the Year Edition so there was no excuse for a lot of the issues I had. This included all the DLC titles and these were fun to play. I especially liked the Broken Steel and Mothership Zeta quests. I also liked the nod to the Cthulhu mythos with the Dark Heart of Blackhall quest. The big thing was the constant game freezes. Mothership Zeta was especially bad with this and it got incredibly frustrating. I did all the tricks suggested; turning off the auto save and clearing some data. That helped a bit, but every once in a while the frame rate would drop and the game would freeze. It turned out this was a common problem on the PS3 and I found myself annoyed with it. Sure, it wasn't a big deal because I could just reload my last save and it would be fine. However, it does take away from the atmosphere of the game when that happens. There would also be odd glitches like Dogmeat walking up in the air above me or my character would disappear and there would be bits and pieces of me visible such as my hair and my hands. That was incredibly weird. The controls were a little clunky and I actually had to change the difficulty to very easy until I got used to them. It wasn't a big deal, but it was noticeable.
I love the Fallout series and there's so much to enjoy about them. However with things like this happening, Bethesda should be embarrassed. For as long as the game has been out, there's no excuse in not fixing known issues especially when it comes to dropped frame rates and the game freezing. It made me glad that I follow my mantra of save my game and save often.
Technical issues aside, I did have fun playing Fallout 3 and liked the story a lot. The characters were good and the different paths I could take for the storytelling were great because it did make me really think about what choices I wanted to make during my adventure. I'm glad I finally got the chance to play it and it was a great game. Now, I'm ready to check out Fallout New Vegas!
The opening sequence was intriguing with the lone wanderer being born and of course this is so you can choose to be a boy or a girl and design your character and decide their race. I went with Asian girl and as I was picking out all the facial and hair designs, I wondered why there were several varying choices of bald. I mean, I get it. It's Fallout and with spiffy things like radiation poisoning hair falls out and people are bald, but so many choices of bald over actual hair. It was weird. I found a hair choice I liked and everything was great and I started my Fallout 3 story.
So the time jumps from baby to ten years old were interesting for getting to see how life was for my lone wanderer in Vault 101 and there was a birthday party for me where I get my very own Pipboy. Neat. Wandering around talking to everyone including a ridiculous bully named Butch (I was not nice to him and punched him. That was my freaking birthday dessert damn it!) was cool and it definitely sets the story up nicely. Then the time line jumps again and my character is 16 years old and has to take the G.O.A.T. (Generalized Occupational Aptitude Test for Fallout newbies) to decide what they'll be doing.
16 and ready to take the G.O.A.T. test.
A last time jump happens and the lone wanderer is 19 years old and the main story of Fallout 3 begins. The Overseer's daughter and my friend Amata, wakes me up to tell me that her dad is losing it because my dad has left the Vault. Initially I was shocked and wondering what the heck she was talking about, but it turns out it was true. Dad left and didn't say a damn thing to me about it so of course I have no idea what's going on. Amata tells me she'll help me to leave because she doesn't know what her dad will do, so here I am running around trying to escape the Vault and thinking, geeze this is a messed up situation.
I was trying to play the chaotic good path, so I didn't kill the Overseer out of respect for my friend even though her dad was a freaking paranoid psycho. I managed to escape Vault 101 and here was this vast world in front of me and I couldn't wait to explore especially since the setting was in Washington D.C. a place I was familiar with having grown up in Virginia. So I set out to explore what was now known as the Capital Wasteland. I discovered the town of Megaton and the people surviving in the Wasteland and picked up some quests as well. Megaton was definitely cool with all the different houses and the crazy atomic bomb that is just there in the center of town.
Enjoying the view of Megaton.
From there the big thing in Fallout 3 is finding my lone wanderer's dad and getting some answers about why he left and what exactly he was up to. There's all kinds of main quests and side quests for hours of game play giving the impression of a vast world. There's all kinds of danger in the Wasteland too ranging from Super Mutants to Mirelurks which definitely kept me on my toes. There's all kinds of weapons too and of course I liked that I could modify and build my own. You get companions who travel with you too and that includes everyone's favorite canine Dogmeat. I did like the fact that you could have two companions travel with you. I ended up choosing Dogmeat and my Super Mutant friend, Fawkes. They both worked really well together with taking down enemies. There's also two factions of the Brotherhood of Steel, the Brotherhood and the Brotherhood Outcasts. They seemed to have different ideas about what they should be doing. I did like Elder Lyons the leader of the Brotherhood of Steel though. There was a kindness and gentle wisdom to him that was incredibly likable. I did find it amusing to see Maxson and MacCready (they're in Fallout 4) as kids in Fallout 3. They seemed so different from who they are now. I actually liked Maxson better in 3 because he seemed a little kinder and a little more open.
Taking down a Mirelurk.
My lone wanderer did find her dad and got to actually talk to him about what he was up to. Project Purity was a cool concept; the idea of clean water for everyone in the Wasteland was great and the fact that he figured out how to make it work was also great. I just didn't understand why he couldn't tell his own kid what he was up to and instead just left without saying a word and his excuse was the Vault would keep me safe. Really? Sure. I was so safe with the Overseer and his goons trying to kill me. It was hard to stay angry with him though when he was so apologetic and then proceeded to say nice things to his kid about how proud of her he was for surviving and trying to be a good person.
Then, dad and daughter team up to work on Project Purity. I did do some side quests along the way before getting back to the main story. I enjoyed exploring the Capital Wasteland and seeing some familiar places such as the Lincoln Memorial and the Jefferson Memorial. There's even a quest where you can break in to the White House to get somewhere. Granted the majority of it is destroyed, but it was still a pretty neat quest.
Checking out the Jefferson Memorial with Dogmeat.
Of course in the main story, things don't go as planned thanks to the shady people simply known as The Enclave. That's where the Brotherhood of Steel comes in as you work towards the common goal of eliminating the Enclave who apparently have an issue with the idea of everyone in the Wasteland getting pure water that isn't irradiated for free. Again, I ran around and did more side quests for more level grinding and more things. I did like that I got a free house for helping the people of Megaton by quietly disarming that atom bomb before it blew everyone sky high. One of the vendors there sold themes for the Megaton house and I went with pre-war which was nice with a 50s retro feel.
Cool, I got my own house!
Did I enjoy Fallout 3? Absolutely. That isn't to say there weren't flaws. This is Game of the Year Edition so there was no excuse for a lot of the issues I had. This included all the DLC titles and these were fun to play. I especially liked the Broken Steel and Mothership Zeta quests. I also liked the nod to the Cthulhu mythos with the Dark Heart of Blackhall quest. The big thing was the constant game freezes. Mothership Zeta was especially bad with this and it got incredibly frustrating. I did all the tricks suggested; turning off the auto save and clearing some data. That helped a bit, but every once in a while the frame rate would drop and the game would freeze. It turned out this was a common problem on the PS3 and I found myself annoyed with it. Sure, it wasn't a big deal because I could just reload my last save and it would be fine. However, it does take away from the atmosphere of the game when that happens. There would also be odd glitches like Dogmeat walking up in the air above me or my character would disappear and there would be bits and pieces of me visible such as my hair and my hands. That was incredibly weird. The controls were a little clunky and I actually had to change the difficulty to very easy until I got used to them. It wasn't a big deal, but it was noticeable.
I love the Fallout series and there's so much to enjoy about them. However with things like this happening, Bethesda should be embarrassed. For as long as the game has been out, there's no excuse in not fixing known issues especially when it comes to dropped frame rates and the game freezing. It made me glad that I follow my mantra of save my game and save often.
Technical issues aside, I did have fun playing Fallout 3 and liked the story a lot. The characters were good and the different paths I could take for the storytelling were great because it did make me really think about what choices I wanted to make during my adventure. I'm glad I finally got the chance to play it and it was a great game. Now, I'm ready to check out Fallout New Vegas!
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.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Quantum of Solace (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
With the success of “Casino Royale” featuring new Bond Daniel Craig, the world has waiting eagerly for the follow up, “Quantum of Solace” which continues the historic spy franchise.
Picking up exactly where the last film ended, Bond is walking a fine line between revenge and doing his duty after being betrayed by Vesper at the end of the last film. While interrogating a suspect with M (Judy Densch), it is learned that there is an organization that is very dangerous and influential that even has influence in the C.I.A. and MI6.
Before they can learn any further information, a shocking betrayal happens and Bond is in hot pursuit of the suspect across the rooftops of Italy and soon locked in a deadly confrontation with the traitor.
The recent events have M concerned and Bond is dispatched to Haiti to follow on a lead which thanks to a case of mistaken identity leads Bond to a woman named Camille (Olga Kurylenko). Olga is involved in a deadly game with a corrupt businessman named Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), and a Bolivian General named Medrano (Joaquin Cosio).
Unsure of their involvement, Bond follows Greene, and learns that he heads an environmental group and has designs on a track of desert in Bolivia. Unsure if Greene’s interest in the area is related to diamonds, oil, or something else, M tasks Bond with finding out what is going on, as her superiors are betting that it is related to oil, and with the C.I. A. involved, it is reasoned that the England cannot be left out of an already dwindling oil supply.
It is at this point that the film lost much of its steam for me as the final revelation seemed to be much ado about nothing as this sort of thing happens, and has happened the world over for years and is hardly worthy of involving the MI6, much less the worlds must dangerous spy.
What follows is a series of betrayals and a few action scenes leading up to a fiery climax which almost redeems the film.
Let me say at the outset that I am a Bond fan and a traditionalist. I understand change happens over time and I am not one who thinks that the role began and ended with Sean Connery. I enjoyed Roger Moore though found him a bit camp. Timothy Dalton did not work for me, and George Lazenby was only Bond for one film so it is hard to judge him fairly. That being said, I found Pierce Brosnan to have been the best Bond since Connery as his interpretation of the character is dead on.
Sir Ian Fleming created the character and has said that he was influenced by people he knew. Bond is a well educated and cultured individual who was educated at the top schools, was an officer in the Royal Navy, and is a suave and charming individual as well as a cold and deadly killer when needed. He is scarred by events in his past, as such he relies on alcohol, duty, and woman to get by, but never once allows himself to get to close to anyone.
When they rebooted the franchise with Craig, much of the 40 years of Bond as well as the essence of the character have been lost. Craig’s Bond is not a cultured blue blood, he is a common thug. In my review of “Casino Royale” I mentioned that the new Bond passed up spending a night with a woman in order to pursue a lead, and how Connery would have found time to do both with style.
Craig’s Bond is very light on womanizing and the film has zero sexual tension and only a very brief romance seen that seems tacked on. The underlying themes of Bond has been guns, gadgets, girls, and action, and this film has chosen to pretty much eschew almost all of this as there are zero gadgets in the film and to be honest, I found the plot to be uninspired.
I think that in many ways the people behind the film have tried to get as far away from the past Bond films as possible especially the maniacal villains who were bent on destroying the world.
As an action film, the movie does have its moments and if it was not a Bond film would be a passable action thriller. As a Bond film, it promises the world and will likely disappoint much long term Bond fans and appeal mainly to those who do not have a longstanding history with the character from book to film. I have to wonder if Sir Ian Fleming is spinning in his grave over what they have done to his gentleman spy in the name of progress.
Picking up exactly where the last film ended, Bond is walking a fine line between revenge and doing his duty after being betrayed by Vesper at the end of the last film. While interrogating a suspect with M (Judy Densch), it is learned that there is an organization that is very dangerous and influential that even has influence in the C.I.A. and MI6.
Before they can learn any further information, a shocking betrayal happens and Bond is in hot pursuit of the suspect across the rooftops of Italy and soon locked in a deadly confrontation with the traitor.
The recent events have M concerned and Bond is dispatched to Haiti to follow on a lead which thanks to a case of mistaken identity leads Bond to a woman named Camille (Olga Kurylenko). Olga is involved in a deadly game with a corrupt businessman named Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), and a Bolivian General named Medrano (Joaquin Cosio).
Unsure of their involvement, Bond follows Greene, and learns that he heads an environmental group and has designs on a track of desert in Bolivia. Unsure if Greene’s interest in the area is related to diamonds, oil, or something else, M tasks Bond with finding out what is going on, as her superiors are betting that it is related to oil, and with the C.I. A. involved, it is reasoned that the England cannot be left out of an already dwindling oil supply.
It is at this point that the film lost much of its steam for me as the final revelation seemed to be much ado about nothing as this sort of thing happens, and has happened the world over for years and is hardly worthy of involving the MI6, much less the worlds must dangerous spy.
What follows is a series of betrayals and a few action scenes leading up to a fiery climax which almost redeems the film.
Let me say at the outset that I am a Bond fan and a traditionalist. I understand change happens over time and I am not one who thinks that the role began and ended with Sean Connery. I enjoyed Roger Moore though found him a bit camp. Timothy Dalton did not work for me, and George Lazenby was only Bond for one film so it is hard to judge him fairly. That being said, I found Pierce Brosnan to have been the best Bond since Connery as his interpretation of the character is dead on.
Sir Ian Fleming created the character and has said that he was influenced by people he knew. Bond is a well educated and cultured individual who was educated at the top schools, was an officer in the Royal Navy, and is a suave and charming individual as well as a cold and deadly killer when needed. He is scarred by events in his past, as such he relies on alcohol, duty, and woman to get by, but never once allows himself to get to close to anyone.
When they rebooted the franchise with Craig, much of the 40 years of Bond as well as the essence of the character have been lost. Craig’s Bond is not a cultured blue blood, he is a common thug. In my review of “Casino Royale” I mentioned that the new Bond passed up spending a night with a woman in order to pursue a lead, and how Connery would have found time to do both with style.
Craig’s Bond is very light on womanizing and the film has zero sexual tension and only a very brief romance seen that seems tacked on. The underlying themes of Bond has been guns, gadgets, girls, and action, and this film has chosen to pretty much eschew almost all of this as there are zero gadgets in the film and to be honest, I found the plot to be uninspired.
I think that in many ways the people behind the film have tried to get as far away from the past Bond films as possible especially the maniacal villains who were bent on destroying the world.
As an action film, the movie does have its moments and if it was not a Bond film would be a passable action thriller. As a Bond film, it promises the world and will likely disappoint much long term Bond fans and appeal mainly to those who do not have a longstanding history with the character from book to film. I have to wonder if Sir Ian Fleming is spinning in his grave over what they have done to his gentleman spy in the name of progress.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Land of the Dead (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Twenty years after his last installment of the classic “Dead” zombie genre, landmark Horror writer/director George Romero has returned to the delight of fans worldwide.
After years of various horror projects, and remakes of his previous “Dead” films, fans had begun to wonder if they had seen the last of Romero’s Zombie films and had to content themselves with the remakes and rumored offshoots and sequels from such.
Thankfully, with Land of the Dead Romero has returned to his basics and has crafted a Zombie thriller that is not only better than 85’s disappointing “Day of the Dead”, but on par with the ground breaking “Dawn of the Dead and the classic Original “Night of the Living Dead.”
For those who are not familiar with the series, the dead have arisen and now walk the earth looking for humans to feed upon. Gone is any memory of their former selves, only the insatiable desire to feed remains. How this event happened is never explained in the films viewers simply have to accept that it is happening and that those who are bitten by zombies are destined to join the ranks of the undead.
Like the previous films, the story follows a group of humans who are attempting to survive against the zombie hordes and who seek shelter and a way to stave off the zombie masses.
In Land of the Dead, a group of survivors have taken refuge in a fortified city where the common folks live in the streets while the affluent live in pristine high rise complex with many of the luxuries of their past lives.
One such survivor is Riley (Simon Baker), who spends his time venturing beyond the walls of the city with his team as they attempt to locate food, medicines, and other needed items in cities that have been abandoned due to zombie infestation.
As the film opens, Riley is completing his last run as he plans to venture north to find a cold and desolated area that is devoid of zombies and huddled masses.
His second in command Cholo, (John Leguizamo), is anxious to take over, as he sees the expeditions as a chance to obtain valuable items such as cigars and whiskey, which he can in turn sell to those who live in luxury. This desire causes much friction between Riley and Cholo but with the pending departure of Riley, Cholo realizes he may be able to finally purchase a home of his own in the luxury high rise.
Things do not go as planned for Cholo as when he tells his boss, Kaufman (Dennis Hopper), about his plans to move into the new complex, he is shocked to learn that Riley’s prediction of class exclusions in the building apply to him as well.
Furious over being used and cheated of his dreams and money, and an attempt upon his life, Cholo decides to hijack a well-armed armored vehicle that defends the city in an effort to extort his payment from Kaufman.
At the same time, Riley has learned that he has be swindled from his car, and soon finds himself working with Kaufman in an attempt to recover the armored vehicle from Cholo before he unleashes a hail of rockets upon the city. In short order, Riley and his support team are forced to enter the zombie infested streets to save the day.
Of course with “Land” being a Zombie film, the city will soon find itself overrun with all manner of ghouls and there will be plenty of flesh splitting, blood spattering, gore spewing scenes that will delight fans of the genre and elicit more than a few shrieks and cheers from the audience.
It is learned that the zombies have started to evolve and as such, now communicate with each other in a basic way, which makes their attacks even more dangerous as they are organized and starting to use tools and weapons.
What this all ads up to is a thrilling romp that will delight fans of the genre. Sure the story and characters are not the deepest, but as horror films go, there is a complexity to them. Hopper does great work as Kaufman as his malicious and selfish nature provides the perfect focal point to the films numerous commentaries on topics ranging from social class, to politics and well fare as well as the plight of the inner cities.
The genius of Romero is that he can insert so many topics into the film without it every seeming heavy-handed or over the top. The use of social commentary adds strength to the story as while the characters are in a very unrealistic situation, their base desires, motivations and behaviors are easily identifiable and strong.
Some may see Land of the Dead as just another blood and guts film with a basic story that lacks depth. To those who are fans of the genre and series, “Land” will likely be seen as a triumphant return to the genre he made his own by Romero and will enjoy the ride.
After years of various horror projects, and remakes of his previous “Dead” films, fans had begun to wonder if they had seen the last of Romero’s Zombie films and had to content themselves with the remakes and rumored offshoots and sequels from such.
Thankfully, with Land of the Dead Romero has returned to his basics and has crafted a Zombie thriller that is not only better than 85’s disappointing “Day of the Dead”, but on par with the ground breaking “Dawn of the Dead and the classic Original “Night of the Living Dead.”
For those who are not familiar with the series, the dead have arisen and now walk the earth looking for humans to feed upon. Gone is any memory of their former selves, only the insatiable desire to feed remains. How this event happened is never explained in the films viewers simply have to accept that it is happening and that those who are bitten by zombies are destined to join the ranks of the undead.
Like the previous films, the story follows a group of humans who are attempting to survive against the zombie hordes and who seek shelter and a way to stave off the zombie masses.
In Land of the Dead, a group of survivors have taken refuge in a fortified city where the common folks live in the streets while the affluent live in pristine high rise complex with many of the luxuries of their past lives.
One such survivor is Riley (Simon Baker), who spends his time venturing beyond the walls of the city with his team as they attempt to locate food, medicines, and other needed items in cities that have been abandoned due to zombie infestation.
As the film opens, Riley is completing his last run as he plans to venture north to find a cold and desolated area that is devoid of zombies and huddled masses.
His second in command Cholo, (John Leguizamo), is anxious to take over, as he sees the expeditions as a chance to obtain valuable items such as cigars and whiskey, which he can in turn sell to those who live in luxury. This desire causes much friction between Riley and Cholo but with the pending departure of Riley, Cholo realizes he may be able to finally purchase a home of his own in the luxury high rise.
Things do not go as planned for Cholo as when he tells his boss, Kaufman (Dennis Hopper), about his plans to move into the new complex, he is shocked to learn that Riley’s prediction of class exclusions in the building apply to him as well.
Furious over being used and cheated of his dreams and money, and an attempt upon his life, Cholo decides to hijack a well-armed armored vehicle that defends the city in an effort to extort his payment from Kaufman.
At the same time, Riley has learned that he has be swindled from his car, and soon finds himself working with Kaufman in an attempt to recover the armored vehicle from Cholo before he unleashes a hail of rockets upon the city. In short order, Riley and his support team are forced to enter the zombie infested streets to save the day.
Of course with “Land” being a Zombie film, the city will soon find itself overrun with all manner of ghouls and there will be plenty of flesh splitting, blood spattering, gore spewing scenes that will delight fans of the genre and elicit more than a few shrieks and cheers from the audience.
It is learned that the zombies have started to evolve and as such, now communicate with each other in a basic way, which makes their attacks even more dangerous as they are organized and starting to use tools and weapons.
What this all ads up to is a thrilling romp that will delight fans of the genre. Sure the story and characters are not the deepest, but as horror films go, there is a complexity to them. Hopper does great work as Kaufman as his malicious and selfish nature provides the perfect focal point to the films numerous commentaries on topics ranging from social class, to politics and well fare as well as the plight of the inner cities.
The genius of Romero is that he can insert so many topics into the film without it every seeming heavy-handed or over the top. The use of social commentary adds strength to the story as while the characters are in a very unrealistic situation, their base desires, motivations and behaviors are easily identifiable and strong.
Some may see Land of the Dead as just another blood and guts film with a basic story that lacks depth. To those who are fans of the genre and series, “Land” will likely be seen as a triumphant return to the genre he made his own by Romero and will enjoy the ride.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Skyfall (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
It has been four years since Daniel Craig graced the screen as James Bond, in large part due to financial issues with MGM studio. Thankfully the matters were resolved and Academy award-winning director Sam Mendes kept his schedule free to avoid any conflicts that would have kept him from filming the latest chapter in the series. “Skyfall” has a very satisfying and enjoyable plot that twist and turns yet is not difficult to follow as it takes the audience on an emotional roller coaster.
After being wounded in the line of duty, Bond has gone missing and is assumed dead by everyone at MI6. While recuperating, Bond is in no hurry to let the world or his former comrades know that he still alive, becoming very dependent on alcohol and medication to help him cope.
A list of all the operatives in deep cover operations has fallen into the wrong hands which places not only the agents’ lives, but the effectiveness of the British Secret Service, in grave danger. As a result, the head of MI6, M (Dame Judy Dench), is fighting not only for the lives of her agents, but for her very career as she is strongly encourage to ease into retirement by the new government minister named Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes).
As if M’s troubles could not get any worse without her primary operative, an explosion rocks the MI6 headquarters as M returns from her meeting with Mallory. It becomes very clear that the person in possession of list has a personal score to settle with M, and delights in taunting her and her agents online as he executes a deadly plan of revenge.
Following the explosion, Bond resurfaces and demands to return to active duty despite having physical and mental issues as a result of his last mission. Mallory and others urge Bond to get out of the game and leave it for younger men, but Bond’s sense of honor and duty drive him to face the challenge.
With exotic locales ranging from Shanghai, Macau, Turkey, as well as London and Scotland, “Skyfall” captures the best of Bond with a gripping story that will have you hooked for the film’s entire 2 1/2 hours run time.
The introduction of Javier Bardem to the series was a masterful stroke as he plays a Bond villain unlike others. He is not a mega-millionaire bent on conquering the world, but rather he is a sympathetic and somewhat tragic figure that is a very kindred spirit to Bond himself.
The hallmark of the series has always been great action pieces and stunt work and “Skyfall”, does not disappoint in this category. I am very impressed with how computer generated effects were kept to an absolute minimum in the movie and how Craig and cast really went all out for their demanding and physical roles.
Mendes is to be commended for his work. Not only is the film wonderful to look at capturing the darkness of the world Bond operates in as well as the lavish beauty of the locales in which he travels. The stark contrast between light and dark in the film aptly portrays the psyche of Bond as he’s truly a person haunted by demons and the film even allows us greater insight into his character and past than has previously been seen before.
Naomi Harris and Bérénice Marlohe are the latest of Bond girls and they prove that they are more than just eye candy for the film, as they both are complex and strong women who complement the story well instead of being gratuitous sidekicks and obligatory damsels in distress.
The action-filled finale is very satisfying and the film concludes very well setting up the next chapters in the series very well. I had not been as big offensive glass to Daniel Craig films as I have of certain past Bond films. My biggest issue was that the new version of bond comes across more as a common thug rather than the suave, sophisticated, gentleman killer that I had grown to associate with bond.
This time around the film has much more of a balance in this regard as there is a quiet strength to Craig’s performance as he seems more comfortable in the role than he had in previous outings. We know that he can carry the physical demands of the role, this time around Mendes encouraged him to open up his emotional range which allowed for a more diverse and complex Bond than we had seen previously. I truly think that his work in “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” really helped Craig as he did a masterful job playing a complex character with flaws, and seemed much more comfortable in bringing more bonds demons to light.
I’m extremely happy with the film and especially love the movie’s dénouement which, for me, promises a very good and eagerly anticipated direction for future films.
After being wounded in the line of duty, Bond has gone missing and is assumed dead by everyone at MI6. While recuperating, Bond is in no hurry to let the world or his former comrades know that he still alive, becoming very dependent on alcohol and medication to help him cope.
A list of all the operatives in deep cover operations has fallen into the wrong hands which places not only the agents’ lives, but the effectiveness of the British Secret Service, in grave danger. As a result, the head of MI6, M (Dame Judy Dench), is fighting not only for the lives of her agents, but for her very career as she is strongly encourage to ease into retirement by the new government minister named Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes).
As if M’s troubles could not get any worse without her primary operative, an explosion rocks the MI6 headquarters as M returns from her meeting with Mallory. It becomes very clear that the person in possession of list has a personal score to settle with M, and delights in taunting her and her agents online as he executes a deadly plan of revenge.
Following the explosion, Bond resurfaces and demands to return to active duty despite having physical and mental issues as a result of his last mission. Mallory and others urge Bond to get out of the game and leave it for younger men, but Bond’s sense of honor and duty drive him to face the challenge.
With exotic locales ranging from Shanghai, Macau, Turkey, as well as London and Scotland, “Skyfall” captures the best of Bond with a gripping story that will have you hooked for the film’s entire 2 1/2 hours run time.
The introduction of Javier Bardem to the series was a masterful stroke as he plays a Bond villain unlike others. He is not a mega-millionaire bent on conquering the world, but rather he is a sympathetic and somewhat tragic figure that is a very kindred spirit to Bond himself.
The hallmark of the series has always been great action pieces and stunt work and “Skyfall”, does not disappoint in this category. I am very impressed with how computer generated effects were kept to an absolute minimum in the movie and how Craig and cast really went all out for their demanding and physical roles.
Mendes is to be commended for his work. Not only is the film wonderful to look at capturing the darkness of the world Bond operates in as well as the lavish beauty of the locales in which he travels. The stark contrast between light and dark in the film aptly portrays the psyche of Bond as he’s truly a person haunted by demons and the film even allows us greater insight into his character and past than has previously been seen before.
Naomi Harris and Bérénice Marlohe are the latest of Bond girls and they prove that they are more than just eye candy for the film, as they both are complex and strong women who complement the story well instead of being gratuitous sidekicks and obligatory damsels in distress.
The action-filled finale is very satisfying and the film concludes very well setting up the next chapters in the series very well. I had not been as big offensive glass to Daniel Craig films as I have of certain past Bond films. My biggest issue was that the new version of bond comes across more as a common thug rather than the suave, sophisticated, gentleman killer that I had grown to associate with bond.
This time around the film has much more of a balance in this regard as there is a quiet strength to Craig’s performance as he seems more comfortable in the role than he had in previous outings. We know that he can carry the physical demands of the role, this time around Mendes encouraged him to open up his emotional range which allowed for a more diverse and complex Bond than we had seen previously. I truly think that his work in “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” really helped Craig as he did a masterful job playing a complex character with flaws, and seemed much more comfortable in bringing more bonds demons to light.
I’m extremely happy with the film and especially love the movie’s dénouement which, for me, promises a very good and eagerly anticipated direction for future films.