Search
Search results
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Haven in Tabletop Games
May 1, 2021
Have you ever been a spirit of the forest fighting to keep it from falling into the hands of a greedy nearby city? No? What about the greedy nearby city – ever been one of those? No?? Then you are in luck because Haven is all about pitting the inhabitants of the Forest against the expansion of the nearby City in a fight for the rights to the mysterious Forest. Who will champion the battlefield and further their agendas? Read on to find out!
Haven is a two player area control card game with elements of classic games in an amazingly themed skin. Players will be playing cards jockeying for position to gain Lore from the forest Elementals by winning combats and lore challenges (a la Battle Line and Hanamikoji). These battles are won and forest Elementals influenced to gain control of shrines within the forest. By claiming the majority of shrines in an enclosed area players will be able to place ownership tokens that will assist in scoring at the end of the game. The player with the most points at game’s end will be the winner!
To setup, place the main game board between the players, give each player (Forest and City) their respective components, arrange each player’s starting hand of cards, randomly place forest Elementals per the rule book, and place out Lore Tokens between the players to act as the line. The game may now begin!
On a turn a player will take two actions to begin. These actions are playing a Lore Power card (once only per turn), placing a Seeker, or removing a Seeker from play. In Haven, players are attempting to claim shrines on the board in order to have majority in a region so they may place their tokens within that area. To achieve this, players will be battling for influence chips and Lore Tokens at the same time. Assigning Seekers to the Lore Tokens with more weapon symbols than the opponent will result in won influence chips to be placed on shrines. Owning the team of Seekers that matches or comes closest to the Lore Token’s number threshold will earn that player the Lore Token to be scored at the end of the game. A team of Seekers whose total numbers surpass the threshold on the Lore Token will bust and be disqualified from winning the Lore Token.
After two actions have been completed, players will draw two cards from any of the three decks in front of them. These are Seekers, Offerings, and Lore Power cards. These draws can be of any combination as long as the player is left with at least one Offering card at the end of their turn.
Once the player’s two cards have been drawn and added to their hand, the player will then add an Offering card to one of the Lore Tokens’ battlefield. For once a battlefield has three or more Offerings upon it, the battle for the influence chips and Lore Tokens will commence.
Elementals will be moving throughout the forest once battles are won to be conquered and pressed for precious Lore. Once an Elemental has no more shrines to visit or if one of the stacks of Lore Tokens ever runs out the game ends and points are tallied to determine if the Forest has been protected by the Forest player or if it falls to the City and its champion.
Components. This game is absolutely gorgeous, as most Ryan Laukat illustrated games are. The art style is recognizably Laukat, but the theme is a little darker than some. The board is nice sized to place between two people, and all cardboard bits are great quality. The Elemental standees are just fine (vs having minis), and all the cards are small and entirely functional. The cogeeples and leafeeples (grr) are nice touches and add a pop of color onto the board once placed. I have no issues with the components at all.
It’s obvious from my score above that I absolutely love Haven. From my very first learning game (I usually play each game solo but multi-handed before introducing to other players) I knew this is my type of game. The out-thinking of your opponents, and the playing Seekers to different Lore Tokens to win areas on the board are just wonderful here. Granted, I’ve never played Battle Line, but I have played Hanamikoji tons, and I prefer the way that mechanic is used in Haven. I have played so many area control games, but I like the movement of the Elementals from shrine to shrine as targets for players to claim on the board. I love that both sides are completely balanced and any one game could award victory to either side. Having agency over the draw piles from which you must draw cards is great. I simply love everything about this game.
It was a complete surprise to me that I would end up falling for this game as I initially picked up from my FLGS clearance rack. It also took me a long time to get it to the table, but once I did it was magic for me. If you and I share similarities in the games we enjoy I implore you to assign your Seekers to track down a copy of Haven. It is perfect for couples or just any two people who enjoy great games. Purple Phoenix Games gives Haven a very well-loved GOLDEN FEATHER AWARD! Let’s show this hidden gem the love it deserves!
Haven is a two player area control card game with elements of classic games in an amazingly themed skin. Players will be playing cards jockeying for position to gain Lore from the forest Elementals by winning combats and lore challenges (a la Battle Line and Hanamikoji). These battles are won and forest Elementals influenced to gain control of shrines within the forest. By claiming the majority of shrines in an enclosed area players will be able to place ownership tokens that will assist in scoring at the end of the game. The player with the most points at game’s end will be the winner!
To setup, place the main game board between the players, give each player (Forest and City) their respective components, arrange each player’s starting hand of cards, randomly place forest Elementals per the rule book, and place out Lore Tokens between the players to act as the line. The game may now begin!
On a turn a player will take two actions to begin. These actions are playing a Lore Power card (once only per turn), placing a Seeker, or removing a Seeker from play. In Haven, players are attempting to claim shrines on the board in order to have majority in a region so they may place their tokens within that area. To achieve this, players will be battling for influence chips and Lore Tokens at the same time. Assigning Seekers to the Lore Tokens with more weapon symbols than the opponent will result in won influence chips to be placed on shrines. Owning the team of Seekers that matches or comes closest to the Lore Token’s number threshold will earn that player the Lore Token to be scored at the end of the game. A team of Seekers whose total numbers surpass the threshold on the Lore Token will bust and be disqualified from winning the Lore Token.
After two actions have been completed, players will draw two cards from any of the three decks in front of them. These are Seekers, Offerings, and Lore Power cards. These draws can be of any combination as long as the player is left with at least one Offering card at the end of their turn.
Once the player’s two cards have been drawn and added to their hand, the player will then add an Offering card to one of the Lore Tokens’ battlefield. For once a battlefield has three or more Offerings upon it, the battle for the influence chips and Lore Tokens will commence.
Elementals will be moving throughout the forest once battles are won to be conquered and pressed for precious Lore. Once an Elemental has no more shrines to visit or if one of the stacks of Lore Tokens ever runs out the game ends and points are tallied to determine if the Forest has been protected by the Forest player or if it falls to the City and its champion.
Components. This game is absolutely gorgeous, as most Ryan Laukat illustrated games are. The art style is recognizably Laukat, but the theme is a little darker than some. The board is nice sized to place between two people, and all cardboard bits are great quality. The Elemental standees are just fine (vs having minis), and all the cards are small and entirely functional. The cogeeples and leafeeples (grr) are nice touches and add a pop of color onto the board once placed. I have no issues with the components at all.
It’s obvious from my score above that I absolutely love Haven. From my very first learning game (I usually play each game solo but multi-handed before introducing to other players) I knew this is my type of game. The out-thinking of your opponents, and the playing Seekers to different Lore Tokens to win areas on the board are just wonderful here. Granted, I’ve never played Battle Line, but I have played Hanamikoji tons, and I prefer the way that mechanic is used in Haven. I have played so many area control games, but I like the movement of the Elementals from shrine to shrine as targets for players to claim on the board. I love that both sides are completely balanced and any one game could award victory to either side. Having agency over the draw piles from which you must draw cards is great. I simply love everything about this game.
It was a complete surprise to me that I would end up falling for this game as I initially picked up from my FLGS clearance rack. It also took me a long time to get it to the table, but once I did it was magic for me. If you and I share similarities in the games we enjoy I implore you to assign your Seekers to track down a copy of Haven. It is perfect for couples or just any two people who enjoy great games. Purple Phoenix Games gives Haven a very well-loved GOLDEN FEATHER AWARD! Let’s show this hidden gem the love it deserves!
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Hidden Beach in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Book-Review-Banner-72.png"/>;
I had the most amazing opportunity this month! Thanks to the team at Tandem Collective UK, I participated in a #Readalong on Instagram for The Hidden Beach by Karen Swan. The book is published by the amazing team at Pan Macmillan.
And I can immediately say - this experience was, so far, the highlight of my reading year!
Together with a number of amazing bookstagrammers, we read this book in 5 days, chatting about the plot twists and the ending. By the end of the second day, we were all in love with Karen Swan's writing and decided to do another read along for August. I also had the chance to participate in a Live Q&A session with Karen Swan herself and win a prize for being a runner-up to the quiz. And on top of everything, I visited my mum on the weekend, and we talked about books we're reading. And to my surprise, she owns FOUR books of Karen Swan already! So we decided to swap some books, and I came home with four more books I want to read!
We will be reading The Greek Escape by Karen Swan in August - so please shout if you have this book and want to join us!
I shared my readalong journey on my Instagram, and the highlights are still up, in case you want to have a look at my journey! I always share posts and stories of the books I am currently reading - so don't forget to follow for more updates.
<b><i>Synopsis:</i></b>
In the oldest part of Stockholm, Bell Everhurst is working as a nanny for an affluent family. Hanna and Max Von Greyerz are parents to 7 year-old Linus, and 5-year old twins Ellinor and Tilde, and Bell has been with the family for over two years.
One early Spring morning, as she’s rushing out to take the children to school, she answers the phone – and everything changes. A woman from a clinic she’s never heard of asks her to pass on the message that Hanna’s husband is awake.Bell is confused. She clearly just saw Max walking out of the house a few minutes earlier, but the woman mentioned Hanna by name...
When she gets hold of her employer, the truth is revealed: Hanna’s first husband fell into a coma seven years earlier, following a terrible accident. He has been in a Persistent Minimally Conscious State since and there was very little hope of further improvement. But now he’s awake. And life is going to change for them all.
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
I absolutely adored this book! I loved it so much, that I am unsure how to contain all my impressions in a well-written review.
Let's start with the setting.
It is set in Stockholm, on the coast, during summer. The descriptions about the place and the season really fit the mood. There is also a midsummer festival in the book which made me feel as if I was transported there, dancing with people from the town and enjoying the sunshine.
The characters have that aura about them, that makes you want to know them. Or they happen to remind you of someone you know, but you can't just recall where you know them from. They are so familiar, but distant at the same time. Each of them carrying their weight on their shoulders and each of them having their separate story.
We meet Bell - the nanny, who has her own reasons of why she decides to become a nanny and stay in Stockholm longer than she needed to. Her love for the children, especially for Linus is so adorable, and I can understand why she is so protective of him.
<b><i>I felt for Linus.</i></b>
The trauma he is going through in this book is heartbreaking, he's introduced to his real father, but he doesn't remember him. The way some situations are handled also doesn't do him any favours and just contributes to his confusion and anger, and I completely understand him. It is a very difficult situation to be in.
The most intriguing character in this book is definitely the husband that was in coma. Losing seven years of your life is devastating. One day - you have everything, and then you wake up to find out that your wife is with another person, happy, and has more children of her own with another man. And all you want to do is bring them back. Just like it was. Like time never passed. But time did pass. And people continued living...
<b><i>Very emotional read.</i></b>
I had all emotions flowing in me at certain moments. Sometimes I had conflicted opinions about some decisions the characters made. I had suspicions, hopes and anticipated a lot. And I loved it. It ended on a very (for me) satisfying ending, and I got the result I was hoping to get.
<b><i>I definitely recommend you pick up this book straight ahead - it's simply amazing! The perfect summer read with thriller elements, plot twists like you've never seen before and a subtle touch of romance.</i></b>
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Book-Review-Banner-72.png"/>;
I had the most amazing opportunity this month! Thanks to the team at Tandem Collective UK, I participated in a #Readalong on Instagram for The Hidden Beach by Karen Swan. The book is published by the amazing team at Pan Macmillan.
And I can immediately say - this experience was, so far, the highlight of my reading year!
Together with a number of amazing bookstagrammers, we read this book in 5 days, chatting about the plot twists and the ending. By the end of the second day, we were all in love with Karen Swan's writing and decided to do another read along for August. I also had the chance to participate in a Live Q&A session with Karen Swan herself and win a prize for being a runner-up to the quiz. And on top of everything, I visited my mum on the weekend, and we talked about books we're reading. And to my surprise, she owns FOUR books of Karen Swan already! So we decided to swap some books, and I came home with four more books I want to read!
We will be reading The Greek Escape by Karen Swan in August - so please shout if you have this book and want to join us!
I shared my readalong journey on my Instagram, and the highlights are still up, in case you want to have a look at my journey! I always share posts and stories of the books I am currently reading - so don't forget to follow for more updates.
<b><i>Synopsis:</i></b>
In the oldest part of Stockholm, Bell Everhurst is working as a nanny for an affluent family. Hanna and Max Von Greyerz are parents to 7 year-old Linus, and 5-year old twins Ellinor and Tilde, and Bell has been with the family for over two years.
One early Spring morning, as she’s rushing out to take the children to school, she answers the phone – and everything changes. A woman from a clinic she’s never heard of asks her to pass on the message that Hanna’s husband is awake.Bell is confused. She clearly just saw Max walking out of the house a few minutes earlier, but the woman mentioned Hanna by name...
When she gets hold of her employer, the truth is revealed: Hanna’s first husband fell into a coma seven years earlier, following a terrible accident. He has been in a Persistent Minimally Conscious State since and there was very little hope of further improvement. But now he’s awake. And life is going to change for them all.
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
I absolutely adored this book! I loved it so much, that I am unsure how to contain all my impressions in a well-written review.
Let's start with the setting.
It is set in Stockholm, on the coast, during summer. The descriptions about the place and the season really fit the mood. There is also a midsummer festival in the book which made me feel as if I was transported there, dancing with people from the town and enjoying the sunshine.
The characters have that aura about them, that makes you want to know them. Or they happen to remind you of someone you know, but you can't just recall where you know them from. They are so familiar, but distant at the same time. Each of them carrying their weight on their shoulders and each of them having their separate story.
We meet Bell - the nanny, who has her own reasons of why she decides to become a nanny and stay in Stockholm longer than she needed to. Her love for the children, especially for Linus is so adorable, and I can understand why she is so protective of him.
<b><i>I felt for Linus.</i></b>
The trauma he is going through in this book is heartbreaking, he's introduced to his real father, but he doesn't remember him. The way some situations are handled also doesn't do him any favours and just contributes to his confusion and anger, and I completely understand him. It is a very difficult situation to be in.
The most intriguing character in this book is definitely the husband that was in coma. Losing seven years of your life is devastating. One day - you have everything, and then you wake up to find out that your wife is with another person, happy, and has more children of her own with another man. And all you want to do is bring them back. Just like it was. Like time never passed. But time did pass. And people continued living...
<b><i>Very emotional read.</i></b>
I had all emotions flowing in me at certain moments. Sometimes I had conflicted opinions about some decisions the characters made. I had suspicions, hopes and anticipated a lot. And I loved it. It ended on a very (for me) satisfying ending, and I got the result I was hoping to get.
<b><i>I definitely recommend you pick up this book straight ahead - it's simply amazing! The perfect summer read with thriller elements, plot twists like you've never seen before and a subtle touch of romance.</i></b>
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A League of Their Own (1992) in Movies
May 26, 2020
My Favorite Baseball Movie of All Time
I am a big fan of movies. I am a big fan of baseball. So, inevitably, I get asked what my favorite baseball movie is - and my answer surprises many. Beyond a doubt, my favorite baseball movie is the 1992 comedy A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN, directed by Penny Marshall and starring Geena Davis and Tom Hanks.
I just rewatched this film (for the umpteenth time) and it still works very, very well.
Set during WWII, A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN tells the story of the All American Girls Professional Baseball League - set up by owners of Major League baseball as many, many of the male professional baseball players were overseas fighting in the war.
Set up as a sibling rivalry story between star player Dottie Henson (Geena Davis) and her kid sister Kit (Lori Petty) who is always in Dottie's shadow, ALOTO shows the start-up of the league, the initial reluctance of the general public to embrace it and the eventual winning over of those that mocked it by actually playing good, hard-nosed ball.
This indifference (turned to acceptance) of this league is shown through the eyes of alcoholic, former Major League star Jimmy Dugan (a pre-Oscars Tom Hanks). After a strong 1980's in film, the first part of the 1990's was not kind to Hanks (JOE vs. THE VOLCANO tanked and the less that can be said about BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES the better). This film was considered a bit of a "comeback" film for him and he came back very, very well. His Jimmy Dugan is irascible, vulgar and angry but has a good heart that shines through. It was this role that would catapult Hanks into SuperStardom later in this decade (with films like PHILADELPHIA, FOREST GUMP, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE, APOLLO 13 and THE GREEN MILE). So, remember, without Jimmy Duggan, their probably would not be a Woody from TOY STORY (at least not a Woody voiced by Hanks).
Geena Davis is strong in the lead role of Dottie. Davis is a natural athlete and a very intelligent individual (she was a semi-finalist for the U.S. Olympic Archery team and is a member of MENSA) and both attributes shine through in her portrayal of Dottie. She is strong, graceful and sure-headed in her approach to her goal - to be the best at what she is currently doing. The pairing of Davis and Hanks is interesting for you see great chemistry between these two characters - 2 characters that are compatriots and, perhaps, friends, but...which is unusual in a film such as this...NOT love interests for each other.
Faring less well in this film is Lori Petty as kid sister Kit who just wants a chance to get out from under her sister's shadow. I don't blame Petty's performance - she does the best she can with the material she is given, but her character is "whiny, pouty and shouty" throughout the film and was just not someone I cared about.
That cannot be said for the strong list of actresses that were cast as members of the Rockford Peaches - the team that Dottie and Kit play for (and that Jimmy Dugan manages). Director Penny Marshall insisted that all of the women cast actually be able to play baseball, so cut many, many good actresses that just couldn't be believed as baseball players. Madonna (of all people) shows a passable ability to play ball - as well as a winning personality as "All the Way" Mae, the team's centerfielder. In her first film role, Rosie O'Donnell almost steals the film as loud Long Island 3b Doris Murphy. Megan Cavanagh (2b Marla Hooch), Tracy Reiner (LF/P Betty "Spaghetti" Horn), Bitty Schram (RF Evelyn Gardner who was the cryer in the "there's no crying in baseball" scene), Ann Cusack (illiterate OF Shirley Baker), Anne Ramsey (1B Helen Haley) and Freddie Simpson (SS/P Ellen Sue Gotlander) all make a believably passable group of ballplayers that you want to spend time with.
Special notice needs to be made to the always dependable David Strathairn (as Ira Lowenstein - the guiding light to this league) and Jon Lovitz (who is the star of the first 1/4 of this film as Scout Ernie Capadino). They both bring needed life to moments of the film when it need it the most.
All of these elements are brought together wonderfully by the smart, thoughtful and emotionally rich direction of Penny Marshall. She was on a bit of a roll in this part of her career, having helmed BIG (1988) and AWAKENINGS (1990 - with Robin Williams and Robert DeNiro) previously. She went "3 for 3" as a Director with this one. She keeps the film moving along smartly, pausing just long enough at times to bring in some emotion and then follows it right up with some gut-busting laughs.
While I am not thrilled by the events of the final game (I think it is a little contrived and one of the principal characters gets a reward they don't deserve) but that is a "nit" on this film, for it is the journey - with characters that are fun to spend some time with - that makes this film works.
Oh...and Marshall also puts in some of the real players from the league in a finale that serves as a well-deserved salute to these womeon
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I just rewatched this film (for the umpteenth time) and it still works very, very well.
Set during WWII, A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN tells the story of the All American Girls Professional Baseball League - set up by owners of Major League baseball as many, many of the male professional baseball players were overseas fighting in the war.
Set up as a sibling rivalry story between star player Dottie Henson (Geena Davis) and her kid sister Kit (Lori Petty) who is always in Dottie's shadow, ALOTO shows the start-up of the league, the initial reluctance of the general public to embrace it and the eventual winning over of those that mocked it by actually playing good, hard-nosed ball.
This indifference (turned to acceptance) of this league is shown through the eyes of alcoholic, former Major League star Jimmy Dugan (a pre-Oscars Tom Hanks). After a strong 1980's in film, the first part of the 1990's was not kind to Hanks (JOE vs. THE VOLCANO tanked and the less that can be said about BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES the better). This film was considered a bit of a "comeback" film for him and he came back very, very well. His Jimmy Dugan is irascible, vulgar and angry but has a good heart that shines through. It was this role that would catapult Hanks into SuperStardom later in this decade (with films like PHILADELPHIA, FOREST GUMP, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE, APOLLO 13 and THE GREEN MILE). So, remember, without Jimmy Duggan, their probably would not be a Woody from TOY STORY (at least not a Woody voiced by Hanks).
Geena Davis is strong in the lead role of Dottie. Davis is a natural athlete and a very intelligent individual (she was a semi-finalist for the U.S. Olympic Archery team and is a member of MENSA) and both attributes shine through in her portrayal of Dottie. She is strong, graceful and sure-headed in her approach to her goal - to be the best at what she is currently doing. The pairing of Davis and Hanks is interesting for you see great chemistry between these two characters - 2 characters that are compatriots and, perhaps, friends, but...which is unusual in a film such as this...NOT love interests for each other.
Faring less well in this film is Lori Petty as kid sister Kit who just wants a chance to get out from under her sister's shadow. I don't blame Petty's performance - she does the best she can with the material she is given, but her character is "whiny, pouty and shouty" throughout the film and was just not someone I cared about.
That cannot be said for the strong list of actresses that were cast as members of the Rockford Peaches - the team that Dottie and Kit play for (and that Jimmy Dugan manages). Director Penny Marshall insisted that all of the women cast actually be able to play baseball, so cut many, many good actresses that just couldn't be believed as baseball players. Madonna (of all people) shows a passable ability to play ball - as well as a winning personality as "All the Way" Mae, the team's centerfielder. In her first film role, Rosie O'Donnell almost steals the film as loud Long Island 3b Doris Murphy. Megan Cavanagh (2b Marla Hooch), Tracy Reiner (LF/P Betty "Spaghetti" Horn), Bitty Schram (RF Evelyn Gardner who was the cryer in the "there's no crying in baseball" scene), Ann Cusack (illiterate OF Shirley Baker), Anne Ramsey (1B Helen Haley) and Freddie Simpson (SS/P Ellen Sue Gotlander) all make a believably passable group of ballplayers that you want to spend time with.
Special notice needs to be made to the always dependable David Strathairn (as Ira Lowenstein - the guiding light to this league) and Jon Lovitz (who is the star of the first 1/4 of this film as Scout Ernie Capadino). They both bring needed life to moments of the film when it need it the most.
All of these elements are brought together wonderfully by the smart, thoughtful and emotionally rich direction of Penny Marshall. She was on a bit of a roll in this part of her career, having helmed BIG (1988) and AWAKENINGS (1990 - with Robin Williams and Robert DeNiro) previously. She went "3 for 3" as a Director with this one. She keeps the film moving along smartly, pausing just long enough at times to bring in some emotion and then follows it right up with some gut-busting laughs.
While I am not thrilled by the events of the final game (I think it is a little contrived and one of the principal characters gets a reward they don't deserve) but that is a "nit" on this film, for it is the journey - with characters that are fun to spend some time with - that makes this film works.
Oh...and Marshall also puts in some of the real players from the league in a finale that serves as a well-deserved salute to these womeon
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022) in Movies
Feb 19, 2022 (Updated Feb 19, 2022)
Wasted backstories that go nowhere. (3 more)
Rehashes and recreates the original film while not offering much of its own material.
New characters fall flat.
Feels like a half-cocked attempt at a new "film. "
Tearing the Face Off of a Horror Franchise
Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a direct sequel to the original 1974 film nearly 50 years later. Directed by David Blue Garcia with a screenplay by Chris Thomas Devlin and a story by Fede Alvarez (co-writer and director of the 2013 Evil Dead remake) and Rodo Sayagues (Don’t Breathe 1 & 2), Texas Chainsaw Massacre follows a group of young 20-somethings as they venture from Austin to Harlow, TX; a seven hour drive.
Dante (Jacob Latimore, Detroit) and Melody (Sarah Yarkin, Happy Death Day 2U) are business partners with somewhat of an impressive internet following. Dante is a chef who is looking to expand and Harlow is just the type of remote town to do it in. Melody’s teenage sister Lila (Elsie Fisher, Eighth Grade) and Dante’s fiancé Ruth (Nell Hudson) have tagged along mostly for emotional support.
With bank investors on the way to scout the location, the young foursome discovers a dilapidated orphanage with an old woman (Alice Krige, Gretel & Hansel) still living inside along with the last of what she refers to as, “her boys.” Dante and his friends awaken the mostly dormant monster known as Leatherface. Sally Hardesty (Olwen Fouéré) has been searching for Leatherface since he killed her friends all those years ago and now she can finally have the vengeful closure that she deserves.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is mostly trash. Leatherface has gotten the manure treatment outside of the original film, the 2003 remake, and maybe the 1986 sequel. The timeline is as messy and inconsistent as Halloween as whatever takes place behind the scenes between sequels, remakes, and reboots all seems to result in lackluster or sometimes atrocious outings for one of the most recognizable horror movie icons.
This new film can’t seem to decide what it wants to be. Sally is brought back for a half-hearted cameo as she does nothing but wear a cowboy hat, stare at a picture, cock a shotgun, and gut a pig. She’s meant to be the connection between this film and the original and it just doesn’t work. Texas Chainsaw Massacre also just seems to lift aspects from the original film as well as other non-genre films without ever offering its audience anything original or actually worthwhile.
The ending is basically lifted directly from the original as is the aspect of a group of young people running into trouble on a road trip far away from home. It’s young, city outsiders versus born-and-bred country veterans. The film also has a weird amount of homage to Terminator 2 (Melody’s leg wound and the shotgun blasts to Leatherface by the water being similar to Sarah Connor’s showdown with the T-1000 near the end of T2). It also feels like it’s trying to capitalize on the success Halloween has had since it follows a similar format (making a direct sequel to the original film decades later).
On the bright side, the kills and the gore are mostly satisfying. The wrist breaking scene followed by being stabbed in the neck with the broken bone is gnarly. There’s a brutal head smashing scene with a hammer and the bus sequence is essentially horror movie fan heaven even if the setup and dialogue in said sequence is awful. The swinging door kill feels like it could have been better than it was since it covers up more than it reveals. You can either leave the brutality to the audience’s imagination or show everything in its nasty and gruesome glory; trying to do both in the same sequence just results in disappointment.
You can make the argument that you watch a film like this for the gore and not the story anyway, but that isn’t the point. When there’s this much of a wait between new entries fans deserve better. The frustrating aspect is that Fede Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues are capable of providing a worthwhile story along with the blood and guts because they gave it to us with Evil Dead. There’s nothing here worth the nine year gap between this and the last Texas Chainsaw film (Texas Chainsaw 3D) or the five year gap between this and Leatherface. When it’s not recycling gags from the original film or borrowing from other franchises, it’s just young people being dumb for the sake of a cheap scare or kill.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre isn’t as unwatchable as some reviews are making it out to be, but it’s not a good film by any stretch of the imagination. It’s barely 80-minutes long, so it has a relatively quick pace and the kills are solid. But the story is seriously lacking as there are elements that literally go nowhere; Lila’s backstory about why she’s so quiet doesn’t add much of anything other than a reason for her to never leave a padded cell when and if a sequel to this is ever made.
The problem now is that the successful film formula revolves around nostalgia, rehashing familiar sequences and storylines, and bringing back survivors for one final confrontation. This has all proven to crush the box office, especially during the pandemic. This results in there being no originality or creativity anymore; it’s just a repetition of what we’ve already seen. Until Leatherface can get a fresh face to wear, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is doomed to run in circles with a sputtering chainsaw on a mostly deserted road no one wants to travel down.
Dante (Jacob Latimore, Detroit) and Melody (Sarah Yarkin, Happy Death Day 2U) are business partners with somewhat of an impressive internet following. Dante is a chef who is looking to expand and Harlow is just the type of remote town to do it in. Melody’s teenage sister Lila (Elsie Fisher, Eighth Grade) and Dante’s fiancé Ruth (Nell Hudson) have tagged along mostly for emotional support.
With bank investors on the way to scout the location, the young foursome discovers a dilapidated orphanage with an old woman (Alice Krige, Gretel & Hansel) still living inside along with the last of what she refers to as, “her boys.” Dante and his friends awaken the mostly dormant monster known as Leatherface. Sally Hardesty (Olwen Fouéré) has been searching for Leatherface since he killed her friends all those years ago and now she can finally have the vengeful closure that she deserves.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is mostly trash. Leatherface has gotten the manure treatment outside of the original film, the 2003 remake, and maybe the 1986 sequel. The timeline is as messy and inconsistent as Halloween as whatever takes place behind the scenes between sequels, remakes, and reboots all seems to result in lackluster or sometimes atrocious outings for one of the most recognizable horror movie icons.
This new film can’t seem to decide what it wants to be. Sally is brought back for a half-hearted cameo as she does nothing but wear a cowboy hat, stare at a picture, cock a shotgun, and gut a pig. She’s meant to be the connection between this film and the original and it just doesn’t work. Texas Chainsaw Massacre also just seems to lift aspects from the original film as well as other non-genre films without ever offering its audience anything original or actually worthwhile.
The ending is basically lifted directly from the original as is the aspect of a group of young people running into trouble on a road trip far away from home. It’s young, city outsiders versus born-and-bred country veterans. The film also has a weird amount of homage to Terminator 2 (Melody’s leg wound and the shotgun blasts to Leatherface by the water being similar to Sarah Connor’s showdown with the T-1000 near the end of T2). It also feels like it’s trying to capitalize on the success Halloween has had since it follows a similar format (making a direct sequel to the original film decades later).
On the bright side, the kills and the gore are mostly satisfying. The wrist breaking scene followed by being stabbed in the neck with the broken bone is gnarly. There’s a brutal head smashing scene with a hammer and the bus sequence is essentially horror movie fan heaven even if the setup and dialogue in said sequence is awful. The swinging door kill feels like it could have been better than it was since it covers up more than it reveals. You can either leave the brutality to the audience’s imagination or show everything in its nasty and gruesome glory; trying to do both in the same sequence just results in disappointment.
You can make the argument that you watch a film like this for the gore and not the story anyway, but that isn’t the point. When there’s this much of a wait between new entries fans deserve better. The frustrating aspect is that Fede Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues are capable of providing a worthwhile story along with the blood and guts because they gave it to us with Evil Dead. There’s nothing here worth the nine year gap between this and the last Texas Chainsaw film (Texas Chainsaw 3D) or the five year gap between this and Leatherface. When it’s not recycling gags from the original film or borrowing from other franchises, it’s just young people being dumb for the sake of a cheap scare or kill.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre isn’t as unwatchable as some reviews are making it out to be, but it’s not a good film by any stretch of the imagination. It’s barely 80-minutes long, so it has a relatively quick pace and the kills are solid. But the story is seriously lacking as there are elements that literally go nowhere; Lila’s backstory about why she’s so quiet doesn’t add much of anything other than a reason for her to never leave a padded cell when and if a sequel to this is ever made.
The problem now is that the successful film formula revolves around nostalgia, rehashing familiar sequences and storylines, and bringing back survivors for one final confrontation. This has all proven to crush the box office, especially during the pandemic. This results in there being no originality or creativity anymore; it’s just a repetition of what we’ve already seen. Until Leatherface can get a fresh face to wear, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is doomed to run in circles with a sputtering chainsaw on a mostly deserted road no one wants to travel down.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Werewolves Within (2021) in Movies
Dec 14, 2021
An incredible ensemble cast. (2 more)
Plot stays true to the classic 'whodunit' formula.
Milana Vayntrub.
Not enough horror. (2 more)
Not enough werewolves.
The burning desire for a hard R-rating.
A Sleepover with Guns
A horror comedy film based on the 2016 Red Storm Entertainment developed, Ubisoft published multiplayer VR video game of the same name, Werewolves Within keeps the same mystery/whodunit element of the game by introducing audiences to a small town under attack from a werewolf and leaving them to wonder which of the townsfolk could be the actual lycanthrope.
Directed by Josh Ruben and written by Mishna Wolff, Werewolves Within begins as Ranger Finn Wheeler (Sam Richardson) arrives in Beaverfield for his new post. Finn hits it off with the local mail carrier Cecily (Milana Vayntrub), but the rest of the town is unusually eccentric, to say the least.
There’s Trisha (Micahela Watkins) and Pete (Michael Chernus) Aderton, a couple who makes weird miniature dolls of everyone they meet and care a little too much for their dog. Devon (Cheyenne Jackson) and Joaquim (Harvey Guillén) are a homosexual couple living off the riches of a successful technological company. The town’s resident mechanic is Gwen (Sarah Burns), a crude woman whose husband Marcus (George Basil) is largely regarded as the town idiot.
Elsewhere in town, rounding out Beaverfield’s colorful cast of characters, is the clingy owner of the local lodge, Jeanine (Catherine Curtin), canine attack expert Dr. Ellis (Rebecca Henderson), oil magnate Sam (Wayne Duvall) who hopes to install a pipeline through the town at any cost, and Emerson, a ‘scary’ hunter who hates people and lives on the outskirts of town.
One night, when the power suddenly goes out and with the town’s back-up generators in a state of disrepair, everyone in town takes refuge in Jeanine’s lodge. However, after a corpse is discovered underneath the lodge’s porch and the townsfolk barricade themselves inside the building in an attempt to protect themselves from whatever may be lurking outside, the werewolf manages to attack from within.
In the aftermath of the attack, everyone begins to turn on each other, as the monster’s strike from inside the lodge provides them with a shocking revelation: Somebody in the lodge is the werewolf.
The cast works so well together. Richardson is does an excellent job of portraying Finn, a guy so nice and soft spoken that he feels like an African American Ned Flanders attempting to take charge as the authority figure.
Similarly, Vayntrub is so charming as Cecily that it makes you wonder why she hasn’t been in much else outside of AT&T commercials and the occasional voice role as Marvel’s Squirrel Girl, while Guillén is just as funny here as he is on What We Do in the Shadows, albeit in a slightly different way.
However, the most entertaining aspect of the film’s casting is the way everyone’s eccentric chemistry bounces off each other in a way that evokes this palpable sense of quirky absurdity that you can’t really find anywhere else.
The formula of Werewolves Within is a lot like Knives Out or Murder on the Orient Express, as it’s a mystery wrapped within the confines of a horror comedy, with the ensemble cast taking center stage as they dance around the comedy genre and a mild R-rating while the horror aspect is mostly reduced to sitting in the backseat and tapping you on the shoulder from time to time.
In fact, to that same mysterious end, the eponymous werewolf isn’t actually revealed until the last ten or so minutes of the film.
As someone who hasn’t played the original video game, the film adaptation of Werewolves Within was, overall, a little disappointing from a personal standpoint.
Yes, the film is more of a whodunit than a straight horror film, and thus it’s understandable why it did not lean completely into the more gory and terrifying potential of its premise. Yet, even with this fact in mind, the film still feels particularly lacking when it comes to its actual horror elements.
It’s also one of the softest R-rated films to come along in quite some time. While some aspects, such as Finn biting his tongue or saying “Heavens to Betsy” instead of dropping an F-bomb make sense, it remains frustrating nonetheless that Werewolves Within constantly feels as if it’s purposely holding itself back.
Which is a shame, because there’s more to a film like this than silly on-screen hijinks and running attempts by the audience to figure out who the killer is – after all, some of us will pay good money to see the monster you’ve advertised your entire film.
Recently, there seems to be a rising trend among modern werewolf movies to barely feature a film’s respective monster on screen. This year’s Bloodthirsty is a great example and, as much as I love the film, The Wolf of Snow Hollow did the horror/comedy concoction to a much more satisfying degree than Werewolves Within, and yet totally massacred the idea of an actual werewolf being the culprit.
At the end of the day, Werewolves Within is a film where a bunch of weirdos in some-little-nowhere-town are forcibly crammed into a lodge during a snowstorm and proceed to irritate one another to semi-humorous results as a werewolf hides among them. The film is essentially a wolf in a person’s clothing, as while Werewolves Within is fine for what it is and features some great performances here and a couple laugh-out-loud moments, its potential seems to be far greater than what we received.
Ultimately, Werewolves Within leaves horror fans starving and salivating for more.
Directed by Josh Ruben and written by Mishna Wolff, Werewolves Within begins as Ranger Finn Wheeler (Sam Richardson) arrives in Beaverfield for his new post. Finn hits it off with the local mail carrier Cecily (Milana Vayntrub), but the rest of the town is unusually eccentric, to say the least.
There’s Trisha (Micahela Watkins) and Pete (Michael Chernus) Aderton, a couple who makes weird miniature dolls of everyone they meet and care a little too much for their dog. Devon (Cheyenne Jackson) and Joaquim (Harvey Guillén) are a homosexual couple living off the riches of a successful technological company. The town’s resident mechanic is Gwen (Sarah Burns), a crude woman whose husband Marcus (George Basil) is largely regarded as the town idiot.
Elsewhere in town, rounding out Beaverfield’s colorful cast of characters, is the clingy owner of the local lodge, Jeanine (Catherine Curtin), canine attack expert Dr. Ellis (Rebecca Henderson), oil magnate Sam (Wayne Duvall) who hopes to install a pipeline through the town at any cost, and Emerson, a ‘scary’ hunter who hates people and lives on the outskirts of town.
One night, when the power suddenly goes out and with the town’s back-up generators in a state of disrepair, everyone in town takes refuge in Jeanine’s lodge. However, after a corpse is discovered underneath the lodge’s porch and the townsfolk barricade themselves inside the building in an attempt to protect themselves from whatever may be lurking outside, the werewolf manages to attack from within.
In the aftermath of the attack, everyone begins to turn on each other, as the monster’s strike from inside the lodge provides them with a shocking revelation: Somebody in the lodge is the werewolf.
The cast works so well together. Richardson is does an excellent job of portraying Finn, a guy so nice and soft spoken that he feels like an African American Ned Flanders attempting to take charge as the authority figure.
Similarly, Vayntrub is so charming as Cecily that it makes you wonder why she hasn’t been in much else outside of AT&T commercials and the occasional voice role as Marvel’s Squirrel Girl, while Guillén is just as funny here as he is on What We Do in the Shadows, albeit in a slightly different way.
However, the most entertaining aspect of the film’s casting is the way everyone’s eccentric chemistry bounces off each other in a way that evokes this palpable sense of quirky absurdity that you can’t really find anywhere else.
The formula of Werewolves Within is a lot like Knives Out or Murder on the Orient Express, as it’s a mystery wrapped within the confines of a horror comedy, with the ensemble cast taking center stage as they dance around the comedy genre and a mild R-rating while the horror aspect is mostly reduced to sitting in the backseat and tapping you on the shoulder from time to time.
In fact, to that same mysterious end, the eponymous werewolf isn’t actually revealed until the last ten or so minutes of the film.
As someone who hasn’t played the original video game, the film adaptation of Werewolves Within was, overall, a little disappointing from a personal standpoint.
Yes, the film is more of a whodunit than a straight horror film, and thus it’s understandable why it did not lean completely into the more gory and terrifying potential of its premise. Yet, even with this fact in mind, the film still feels particularly lacking when it comes to its actual horror elements.
It’s also one of the softest R-rated films to come along in quite some time. While some aspects, such as Finn biting his tongue or saying “Heavens to Betsy” instead of dropping an F-bomb make sense, it remains frustrating nonetheless that Werewolves Within constantly feels as if it’s purposely holding itself back.
Which is a shame, because there’s more to a film like this than silly on-screen hijinks and running attempts by the audience to figure out who the killer is – after all, some of us will pay good money to see the monster you’ve advertised your entire film.
Recently, there seems to be a rising trend among modern werewolf movies to barely feature a film’s respective monster on screen. This year’s Bloodthirsty is a great example and, as much as I love the film, The Wolf of Snow Hollow did the horror/comedy concoction to a much more satisfying degree than Werewolves Within, and yet totally massacred the idea of an actual werewolf being the culprit.
At the end of the day, Werewolves Within is a film where a bunch of weirdos in some-little-nowhere-town are forcibly crammed into a lodge during a snowstorm and proceed to irritate one another to semi-humorous results as a werewolf hides among them. The film is essentially a wolf in a person’s clothing, as while Werewolves Within is fine for what it is and features some great performances here and a couple laugh-out-loud moments, its potential seems to be far greater than what we received.
Ultimately, Werewolves Within leaves horror fans starving and salivating for more.
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated A Black Theology of Liberation in Books
Jun 29, 2018
James Cone is considered to be the founder of Black Liberation Theology, a variant of the Liberation Theology movement most widely connected with South American theologian Gustavo Gutierrez. Liberation Theology emphasizes those biblical concerns that white European flavored Christianity has often looked over– concerns like justice and liberation for the oppressed and downtrodden (Luke 4:16-21, Matthew 25:31-45, etc.). Though these emphases are quite important, in Liberation movements, they can often drown out other, extremely vital, elements of the Christian faith, as they clearly do in Cone’s Black Liberation Theology.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Friday the 13th (2009) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 20, 2019)
**I wrote this review a decade ago. I was going to change some stuff (mostly the last couple lines of the last paragraph), but thought it was too crude and hilarious to remove. Hopefully you feel the same way. Thanks for reading.**
In 1980, Pamela Voorhees set out to kill all the counselors at Camp Crystal Lake. Several years ago, the counselors did nothing as Mrs. Voorhees' son, Jason, drowned in the lake. Now, as the camp is about to re-open, Mrs. Voorhees has returned to seek revenge for her son and she only has one more victim before she accomplishes that goal. Unfortunately for Mrs. Voorhees, she didn't count on this particular camp counselor decapitating her and ending her reign of terror once and for all. Unbeknownst to anyone at the time, Jason was still alive and witnessed his mother's gruesome death. Now, in the present day, Jason is the one who seeks revenge and anyone who even comes near Camp Crystal Lake is at risk of feeling his onslaught.
It's been something like five and a half years since we last saw Jason Voorhees in the theater. So was it worth the wait? Does the remake measure up to the rest of the franchise? Is it a remake worth seeing at all? Does it continue the trend with 2009 being a strong year for the horror genre? The short answer to all of these questions is yes.
I've always been partial to the Friday the 13th franchise. Jason Voorhees has always been my favorite when it comes slasher films. So I was beyond excited by the time today finally rolled around. The film opens with a flashback that chronicles what would be the ending to the original film. Jump to the present day. Some kids decide to hike out into the woods to have some fun and wind up about a half mile from Camp Blood. Everything is fun and games until one of them turns up missing. The survivors wind up exploring and get picked off one by one while Jason wears a bag over his head. After the scene in the trailer where Jason runs towards the girl on the ground and swings his machete, we get a black screen with "Friday the 13th" in red plastered across it.
Six weeks later, Clay is looking for his sister, Whitney. She was one of the victims of the attack we just witnessed. It seems as though everyone has given up hope looking for her except him. Meanwhile, Trent and his friends are going up to his dad's cabin for the weekend which just so happens to reside on Camp Crystal Lake. It's basically just more pigs being sent out to slaughter from there. Jason's bag gets pulled off right before he disposes of one of his victims in a barn. It's there that he stumbles across a hockey mask and things begin to pick up from there.
The film definitely delivers in all of the elements that make up the formula to a Friday the 13th film. There's plenty of T&A and sex for any sexhound. I haven't seen any R-rated film with this much nudity and sexual content in quite a while. The kills are also pretty satisfactory for a Friday fan. I think Trent's death is probably the most memorable, but I'm partial to Amanda's death because it was an interesting twist on the sleeping bag kill. Officer Bracke's kill was also a favorite of mine. Then, of course, there's Jason's death. It's interesting since it seems obvious how things are going to turn out for Jason, but it winds up happening in a round-a-bout way. Something is thrown in there to throw the audience off and that not many would see coming. Kind of like a, "Oh, maybe he'll die this way instead," kind of thing. Thinking back on it, it also felt like a throwback to one of the earlier sequels, which is pretty cool.
We can't finish this review without talking about Derek Mears as the man behind the hockey mask. I feel like he did a great job. I prefer him over Ken Kirzinger in Freddy Vs Jason. He kind of reminded me as a cross between C.J. Graham(part VI) and Kane Hodder(parts VII-IX). He also ran at times, which may put some people off. I actually enjoyed the running quite a bit. It reminded me of Jason in The Final Chapter, which is my favorite F13 film. He had the body movements down to perfection and is a worthy addition to the list of actors who have donned the hockey mask.
My one complaint is that it seemed like it was hard to see what was going on in certain scenes. The camera would be too shaky or scenes wouldn't have enough lighting and be too dark. It's really a minor complaint though as it usually only lasted a few seconds when it did occur.
So, all in all, I feel like it was well worth the wait for this film. I am really hoping it does well because I would welcome sequels with open arms. The remake follows the Friday the 13th formula extremely well. Right down to the ending. I guess the only thing that's not like some of the previous sequels is the acting, which seems to be top notch for a slasher film. As a Friday the 13th fan, I'm more than satisfied with the remake. To tell the truth, it was just nice to see a film with Jason Voorhees in theaters again. And as I've told quite a few friends, the feeling I had after walking out of the theater was equivalent to the way I feel after I blow my load. Not many films can plaster that on their movie poster, but this one could. And really, that's the biggest compliment of all.
In 1980, Pamela Voorhees set out to kill all the counselors at Camp Crystal Lake. Several years ago, the counselors did nothing as Mrs. Voorhees' son, Jason, drowned in the lake. Now, as the camp is about to re-open, Mrs. Voorhees has returned to seek revenge for her son and she only has one more victim before she accomplishes that goal. Unfortunately for Mrs. Voorhees, she didn't count on this particular camp counselor decapitating her and ending her reign of terror once and for all. Unbeknownst to anyone at the time, Jason was still alive and witnessed his mother's gruesome death. Now, in the present day, Jason is the one who seeks revenge and anyone who even comes near Camp Crystal Lake is at risk of feeling his onslaught.
It's been something like five and a half years since we last saw Jason Voorhees in the theater. So was it worth the wait? Does the remake measure up to the rest of the franchise? Is it a remake worth seeing at all? Does it continue the trend with 2009 being a strong year for the horror genre? The short answer to all of these questions is yes.
I've always been partial to the Friday the 13th franchise. Jason Voorhees has always been my favorite when it comes slasher films. So I was beyond excited by the time today finally rolled around. The film opens with a flashback that chronicles what would be the ending to the original film. Jump to the present day. Some kids decide to hike out into the woods to have some fun and wind up about a half mile from Camp Blood. Everything is fun and games until one of them turns up missing. The survivors wind up exploring and get picked off one by one while Jason wears a bag over his head. After the scene in the trailer where Jason runs towards the girl on the ground and swings his machete, we get a black screen with "Friday the 13th" in red plastered across it.
Six weeks later, Clay is looking for his sister, Whitney. She was one of the victims of the attack we just witnessed. It seems as though everyone has given up hope looking for her except him. Meanwhile, Trent and his friends are going up to his dad's cabin for the weekend which just so happens to reside on Camp Crystal Lake. It's basically just more pigs being sent out to slaughter from there. Jason's bag gets pulled off right before he disposes of one of his victims in a barn. It's there that he stumbles across a hockey mask and things begin to pick up from there.
The film definitely delivers in all of the elements that make up the formula to a Friday the 13th film. There's plenty of T&A and sex for any sexhound. I haven't seen any R-rated film with this much nudity and sexual content in quite a while. The kills are also pretty satisfactory for a Friday fan. I think Trent's death is probably the most memorable, but I'm partial to Amanda's death because it was an interesting twist on the sleeping bag kill. Officer Bracke's kill was also a favorite of mine. Then, of course, there's Jason's death. It's interesting since it seems obvious how things are going to turn out for Jason, but it winds up happening in a round-a-bout way. Something is thrown in there to throw the audience off and that not many would see coming. Kind of like a, "Oh, maybe he'll die this way instead," kind of thing. Thinking back on it, it also felt like a throwback to one of the earlier sequels, which is pretty cool.
We can't finish this review without talking about Derek Mears as the man behind the hockey mask. I feel like he did a great job. I prefer him over Ken Kirzinger in Freddy Vs Jason. He kind of reminded me as a cross between C.J. Graham(part VI) and Kane Hodder(parts VII-IX). He also ran at times, which may put some people off. I actually enjoyed the running quite a bit. It reminded me of Jason in The Final Chapter, which is my favorite F13 film. He had the body movements down to perfection and is a worthy addition to the list of actors who have donned the hockey mask.
My one complaint is that it seemed like it was hard to see what was going on in certain scenes. The camera would be too shaky or scenes wouldn't have enough lighting and be too dark. It's really a minor complaint though as it usually only lasted a few seconds when it did occur.
So, all in all, I feel like it was well worth the wait for this film. I am really hoping it does well because I would welcome sequels with open arms. The remake follows the Friday the 13th formula extremely well. Right down to the ending. I guess the only thing that's not like some of the previous sequels is the acting, which seems to be top notch for a slasher film. As a Friday the 13th fan, I'm more than satisfied with the remake. To tell the truth, it was just nice to see a film with Jason Voorhees in theaters again. And as I've told quite a few friends, the feeling I had after walking out of the theater was equivalent to the way I feel after I blow my load. Not many films can plaster that on their movie poster, but this one could. And really, that's the biggest compliment of all.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Clash of the Titans (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Clash of the Titans tells the story of men turning their backs on the gods. The gods grow weaker as men refuse to pay worship to them and neither side will budge. That's where Perseus (Sam Worthington) comes in. Perseus is a demigod, half man and half god. Zeus (Liam Neeson) is his father, but Perseus was raised as a fisherman. As the gods grow desperate, they turn to Zeus' brother who was banished to the underworld, Hades (Ralph Fiennes) to hopefully scare them into realizing "the order of things." When Hades onslaught kills Perseus' family, Perseus vows revenge against him and will do everything within his power to destroy the god of the underworld. Perseus' journey will not be easy as several ungodly beasts stand in the way of him reaching his goal as he struggles with accepting sanctuary as a god or continuing on this journey as a man.
Clash of the Titans was highly anticipated on my end for quite some time. The trailers were pretty fantastic and everything seemed to point to the film being epic. Directed by Louis Leterrier (Unleashed, The Incredible Hulk) and starring Sam Worthington (Avatar, Terminator: Salvation), Liam Neeson (Taken, Batman Begins), and Ralph Fiennes (In Bruges, The Hurt Locker), this film had a solid cast and a director with some pretty great films under his belt. It had all the elements to make a fantastic film and yet it somehow managed to fail.
The film felt like a watered down version of what a film based on the God of War video game could potentially be. All the same gods are there, the Medusa character is in there, there's a character battling against the gods, the similarities are pretty obvious. The only thing that is different is that the main character is named Perseus instead of Kratos. On one hand, it may not be a bad thing comparing the film to God of War. If they do decide to make a God of War film down the road though, it seems like it'll be way too similar to this film unless they go full-blown, balls out rated R with it. That's the route they should go anyway, but Clash of the Titans basically feels like a censored version of God of War.
Certain other things about the film really bugged me. The main one being that the two main female characters Io (Gemma Arterton) and Andromeda (Alexa Davalos) cried at EVERYTHING. Every time they spoke it was like they started getting teary eyed. "Oh Perseus, I can't follow you into Medusa's lair since I'm not a big strong man like you are. *sob*" Just made me want to slap them and go, "GET A GRIP, LADY! SHEESH!" The biggest pet peeve of mine lies in the finale of the film. Everything regarding Hades and the kraken are dealt with so quickly. The film makes a huge deal about both of them only to have everything wrapped up in less than five minutes when the time finally comes. It just wound up feeling very rushed and anticlimactic. Also, what was the deal with the prophecy the witches gave Perseus? Was the explanation of getting around that because Perseus was half god? That's pretty weak. Instead, we're going to go with this ending that's completely open-ended and leaves massive room for a potential sequel. Lame.
Despite all of the things I found wrong with the film, there were some high points. The CG seemed very all or nothing to me. At times, the effects were fantastic. The giant scorpions scene and the kraken being the best examples. Pegasus is also a great example. The winged horses looked fairly genuine, but they looked kind of odd when they flew. Other times though, it seemed way too obvious that the characters were standing in front of a green screen and fighting with creatures that weren't actually there. There's a scene near the beginning where we first see Perseus as an adult where his father is talking to him and a thunderstorm is beginning to brew. The sky was obviously CG. There were just several moments like that that brought me out of the film.
Ralph Fiennes as Hades was easily the high point for me as far as acting goes. Fiennes was most impressive in David Cronenberg's Spider and has been on my radar for actors to keep an eye on ever since. He doesn't disappoint here. His smarminess as Hades spoke volumes. The ferry scene is also pretty amazing, at least until Perseus and Io begin their Medusa training. Ugh.
A few humorous points, the South Park fan in me chimed in when Io told Perseus "You're more than half man half god." I thought she was going to follow up with, "You're actually half man, half bear, half pig. Or maybe you're actually half bear half man-pig." Still laughing about that one. The scene where Perseus emerges from Medusa's lair and Io is waiting for him, she's wearing this really weird outfit. I heard the guy next to me say, "What the...is she wearing a mop?!" and it made me laugh out loud. Best part of the whole film though, at the end, when everything had been resolved somebody yelled at the top of their lungs, "I AM A GOD!!!!!!" After a brief silence, everyone in the theater started laughing. Kinda sad that the most entertaining part of the film wasn't actually a part of the film itself.
Clash of the Titans was one of the most anticipated blockbusters of the year, but fell short and wound up being one of the most disappointing. With mediocre special effects, a sloppy finale, and female characters that will get on your last nerve, the action film fails to live up to expectations. At the end of the day, Clash of the Titans is basically just a glorified Xena: Warrior Princess.
Clash of the Titans was highly anticipated on my end for quite some time. The trailers were pretty fantastic and everything seemed to point to the film being epic. Directed by Louis Leterrier (Unleashed, The Incredible Hulk) and starring Sam Worthington (Avatar, Terminator: Salvation), Liam Neeson (Taken, Batman Begins), and Ralph Fiennes (In Bruges, The Hurt Locker), this film had a solid cast and a director with some pretty great films under his belt. It had all the elements to make a fantastic film and yet it somehow managed to fail.
The film felt like a watered down version of what a film based on the God of War video game could potentially be. All the same gods are there, the Medusa character is in there, there's a character battling against the gods, the similarities are pretty obvious. The only thing that is different is that the main character is named Perseus instead of Kratos. On one hand, it may not be a bad thing comparing the film to God of War. If they do decide to make a God of War film down the road though, it seems like it'll be way too similar to this film unless they go full-blown, balls out rated R with it. That's the route they should go anyway, but Clash of the Titans basically feels like a censored version of God of War.
Certain other things about the film really bugged me. The main one being that the two main female characters Io (Gemma Arterton) and Andromeda (Alexa Davalos) cried at EVERYTHING. Every time they spoke it was like they started getting teary eyed. "Oh Perseus, I can't follow you into Medusa's lair since I'm not a big strong man like you are. *sob*" Just made me want to slap them and go, "GET A GRIP, LADY! SHEESH!" The biggest pet peeve of mine lies in the finale of the film. Everything regarding Hades and the kraken are dealt with so quickly. The film makes a huge deal about both of them only to have everything wrapped up in less than five minutes when the time finally comes. It just wound up feeling very rushed and anticlimactic. Also, what was the deal with the prophecy the witches gave Perseus? Was the explanation of getting around that because Perseus was half god? That's pretty weak. Instead, we're going to go with this ending that's completely open-ended and leaves massive room for a potential sequel. Lame.
Despite all of the things I found wrong with the film, there were some high points. The CG seemed very all or nothing to me. At times, the effects were fantastic. The giant scorpions scene and the kraken being the best examples. Pegasus is also a great example. The winged horses looked fairly genuine, but they looked kind of odd when they flew. Other times though, it seemed way too obvious that the characters were standing in front of a green screen and fighting with creatures that weren't actually there. There's a scene near the beginning where we first see Perseus as an adult where his father is talking to him and a thunderstorm is beginning to brew. The sky was obviously CG. There were just several moments like that that brought me out of the film.
Ralph Fiennes as Hades was easily the high point for me as far as acting goes. Fiennes was most impressive in David Cronenberg's Spider and has been on my radar for actors to keep an eye on ever since. He doesn't disappoint here. His smarminess as Hades spoke volumes. The ferry scene is also pretty amazing, at least until Perseus and Io begin their Medusa training. Ugh.
A few humorous points, the South Park fan in me chimed in when Io told Perseus "You're more than half man half god." I thought she was going to follow up with, "You're actually half man, half bear, half pig. Or maybe you're actually half bear half man-pig." Still laughing about that one. The scene where Perseus emerges from Medusa's lair and Io is waiting for him, she's wearing this really weird outfit. I heard the guy next to me say, "What the...is she wearing a mop?!" and it made me laugh out loud. Best part of the whole film though, at the end, when everything had been resolved somebody yelled at the top of their lungs, "I AM A GOD!!!!!!" After a brief silence, everyone in the theater started laughing. Kinda sad that the most entertaining part of the film wasn't actually a part of the film itself.
Clash of the Titans was one of the most anticipated blockbusters of the year, but fell short and wound up being one of the most disappointing. With mediocre special effects, a sloppy finale, and female characters that will get on your last nerve, the action film fails to live up to expectations. At the end of the day, Clash of the Titans is basically just a glorified Xena: Warrior Princess.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
In the search for a way to watch the 92nd Academy Awards live from Hollywood tonight I was led to a subscription for Now TV, which is basically the online platform for Sky Cinema. And there I found all the missing films I had yet to see from last year that aren’t available “free” on Amazon Prime or Netflix. I should really have worked it out before now that a free trial might be available, having assumed that a Sky subscription was beyond my means at the moment. Imagine my excitement to not only secure the Oscars but a 7 day pass to catch up on some big titles. It’s the small things in life…
Having made a 20 strong watch list, I wasted no time in heading straight for the Queen biopic, Bohemian Rhapsody, winner of 4 awards last February, including one for Rami Malek as Freddy Mercury that I applauded very loudly at the time, without having seen it, due to my love for him as Elliot Alderson in my favourite TV show of the last 5 years, the incredible and mindbendingly brilliant Mr. Robot.
My connection to Queen as a fan isn’t an especially strong one; I have always thought they were fine, and enjoyed their biggest hits as much as anyone. But it is the story, charisma and undeniable singing talent of Mercury that attracts me. From the opening scenes it is apparent that what we are going to get here is a fairly straightforward, by the numbers recounting of events, punctuated by some serious tunes and some glorious 70s fashions. Having read that this was the main criticism of it going in, it really didn’t bother me at all to find it wasn’t going to make bolder artistic and dramatic choices. It was very much about sitting back and enjoying the show!
In fact, there is something comforting and unchallenging about its format that I liked. The pattern of abc that is a) some background to Freddy’s life, b) a build up to how they came across their big hits, and c) a rendition of that hit, didn’t strike me as cheap, but rather unpretentious and to the point. The whole thing clipped along nicely with very little dead air; Malek is a joy to watch in every moment; the clothes and scenery of the 70s and later 80s is a treat; and the music stands for itself, with you often forgetting how good the tunes are until you hear them in this context.
Of course, at times it is almost laughable how well known facts and details are crow-barred into the narrative, with some of the darker elements glossed over, as if this were almost a Disney retelling. But, again, it doesn’t matter, because as an entertainment it is all so enjoyable. Not to say the dark side of the story isn’t touched upon, because it is to an extent, just that it is clear this is a celebration of a life and a talent, not an exposé. Which is fine. As with the superior Walk The Line, and the recently inferior Rocketman, we know a seedier story of Johnny Cash and Elton John exists, but we accept that revelling in the genius of the music is more fun than trawling through the trash.
Malek is a wonder to behold! It has to be said. Once you (and he) get used to the false teeth and bite down on the energy and drive of Mercury, it is impossible to take your eyes off him! He handles the dramatic moments and nuance of this fragile mind with ease, but it is the performances that stand out: his movement is so fluid and accurate that you forget at times you aren’t watching archive footage, which is some trick! Gwilym Lee and Ben Hardy as Brian May and Roger Taylor are also to be praised for this, despite having less to do. With Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon largely merging into the background inoffensively, much as his real life counterpart did.
There is some solid support too. Lucy Boynton is completely charming if largely uninteresting; Tom Hollander quietly steals several scenes as the lawyer who doesn’t just work for them but idolises them as much as any fan; and an unrecognisable Mike Myers is a lot of fun as the manager who missed out on the vision and lives to regret it. Honourable mention also to Allen Leech as the villain of the piece, who walks the tightrope of cartoonish nastiness with some skill, serving the story well in the latter half.
My favourites parts were, unsurprisingly, the genesis and evolution of the big tunes, which was invariably very satisfying. Love of My Life, We Will Rock You, We are the Champions and of course Bohemian Rhapsody are treated like holy texts, with fascinating detail and a reverence that never seems over-egged. Building to the climax of Live Aid; a twenty minute segment at the end of the film that brings a genuine lump to the throat. The magnitude of the event and its natural energy are so well realised, every minor foible of the film up to that point are forgiven, and you walk away from it feeling elated and glad that this moment exists in music history.
Artistically, it isn’t a movie to get too caried away about, but the art of creating a spectacle that pleases on a basic, uncomplicated level is. Director Bryan Singer knows a trick or two, and the trick here is what is left out. There just isn’t a moment to be bored, and I find myself wishing that films of this kind took a leaf out of that book more often. In conclusion, I think this movie will endure the test of time, which is a lot more than most biopic genre films can say. But who wants to live forever anyway?
Having made a 20 strong watch list, I wasted no time in heading straight for the Queen biopic, Bohemian Rhapsody, winner of 4 awards last February, including one for Rami Malek as Freddy Mercury that I applauded very loudly at the time, without having seen it, due to my love for him as Elliot Alderson in my favourite TV show of the last 5 years, the incredible and mindbendingly brilliant Mr. Robot.
My connection to Queen as a fan isn’t an especially strong one; I have always thought they were fine, and enjoyed their biggest hits as much as anyone. But it is the story, charisma and undeniable singing talent of Mercury that attracts me. From the opening scenes it is apparent that what we are going to get here is a fairly straightforward, by the numbers recounting of events, punctuated by some serious tunes and some glorious 70s fashions. Having read that this was the main criticism of it going in, it really didn’t bother me at all to find it wasn’t going to make bolder artistic and dramatic choices. It was very much about sitting back and enjoying the show!
In fact, there is something comforting and unchallenging about its format that I liked. The pattern of abc that is a) some background to Freddy’s life, b) a build up to how they came across their big hits, and c) a rendition of that hit, didn’t strike me as cheap, but rather unpretentious and to the point. The whole thing clipped along nicely with very little dead air; Malek is a joy to watch in every moment; the clothes and scenery of the 70s and later 80s is a treat; and the music stands for itself, with you often forgetting how good the tunes are until you hear them in this context.
Of course, at times it is almost laughable how well known facts and details are crow-barred into the narrative, with some of the darker elements glossed over, as if this were almost a Disney retelling. But, again, it doesn’t matter, because as an entertainment it is all so enjoyable. Not to say the dark side of the story isn’t touched upon, because it is to an extent, just that it is clear this is a celebration of a life and a talent, not an exposé. Which is fine. As with the superior Walk The Line, and the recently inferior Rocketman, we know a seedier story of Johnny Cash and Elton John exists, but we accept that revelling in the genius of the music is more fun than trawling through the trash.
Malek is a wonder to behold! It has to be said. Once you (and he) get used to the false teeth and bite down on the energy and drive of Mercury, it is impossible to take your eyes off him! He handles the dramatic moments and nuance of this fragile mind with ease, but it is the performances that stand out: his movement is so fluid and accurate that you forget at times you aren’t watching archive footage, which is some trick! Gwilym Lee and Ben Hardy as Brian May and Roger Taylor are also to be praised for this, despite having less to do. With Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon largely merging into the background inoffensively, much as his real life counterpart did.
There is some solid support too. Lucy Boynton is completely charming if largely uninteresting; Tom Hollander quietly steals several scenes as the lawyer who doesn’t just work for them but idolises them as much as any fan; and an unrecognisable Mike Myers is a lot of fun as the manager who missed out on the vision and lives to regret it. Honourable mention also to Allen Leech as the villain of the piece, who walks the tightrope of cartoonish nastiness with some skill, serving the story well in the latter half.
My favourites parts were, unsurprisingly, the genesis and evolution of the big tunes, which was invariably very satisfying. Love of My Life, We Will Rock You, We are the Champions and of course Bohemian Rhapsody are treated like holy texts, with fascinating detail and a reverence that never seems over-egged. Building to the climax of Live Aid; a twenty minute segment at the end of the film that brings a genuine lump to the throat. The magnitude of the event and its natural energy are so well realised, every minor foible of the film up to that point are forgiven, and you walk away from it feeling elated and glad that this moment exists in music history.
Artistically, it isn’t a movie to get too caried away about, but the art of creating a spectacle that pleases on a basic, uncomplicated level is. Director Bryan Singer knows a trick or two, and the trick here is what is left out. There just isn’t a moment to be bored, and I find myself wishing that films of this kind took a leaf out of that book more often. In conclusion, I think this movie will endure the test of time, which is a lot more than most biopic genre films can say. But who wants to live forever anyway?
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated G.I. Joe: Retaliation (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Who didn’t grow up as a child of the eighties and nineties and not play with G.I. Joes? And of those, who can honestly say they were not thoroughly disappointed in G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra? Surprisingly, I can say that I wasn’t thoroughly disappointed, but I know the movie could have been so much more than it was. Could it have done without the surreal technology, the sappy love story and the unrealistic action scenes in the movie? Yes. Many fans cried out about this. G.I. Joe: Retaliation set out to respond.
Did they succeed? That’s debatable, but they did a lot of things right in the go-around. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not award winning or anything, and you should never expect a movie like this to be that. But let’s run through a check list. Sappy out of place love-story: gone. Surreal technology: less. Let’s face it, despite what some people felt about the first movie, it did kind of set that precedent. Retaliation is considered a true follow up to The Rise of Cobra. So would it honestly make any sense to go from one extreme of nearly impossible gadgets to none at all? Absolutely not. Besides, the cartoon series also had technology in it. I am not trying to defend the use of it, and there were some pretty crazy gadgets going on in this movie, but it seemed to jive better with what I remember of it as a kid. And they found a really unique way to tone it down without it not seeming right. Unfortunately, there is still a fair amount of unrealistic action in this movie, but that’s kind of become the norm for most action movies these days.
We pick up fairly close to where we left off in The Rise of Cobra. Duke (Channing Tatum) is now commanding a unit of the Joes with Roadblock, Lady Jaye, Flint and Snake Eyes (Dwayne Johnson, Adrianne Palicki, D.J. Cotrona and Ray Park respectively) under his command. The Joes are sent out on a mission, a good rapport is built between Duke and Roadblock, but then they go and destroy that when their convoy gets attacked by Cobra eliminating Duke from the rest of the film. Go cry spoiler somewhere else, this happens in the beginning of the movie, and it’s been everywhere since the delay of the movie from last year. I was hoping they would somehow managed to keep him in the movie, especially after seeing the chemistry between Tatum and Johnson, but alas…
So the convoy attacked, and all the Joes presumed dead. Only Roadblock, Jaye and Flint actually survive and try to get to the bottom of everything. Meanwhile President Zartan (remember how the last movie ended) is up to his own nefarious plans in breaking out Cobra Commander with the aide of Storm Shadow. The Joes work their magic, still have access to some technology (though not over the top like The Rise of Cobra), and recruit people to help them along the way, including the man who is the reason the Joes were started: General Joe Coulton (played epic-ly by Bruce Willis).
The movie was entertaining, had a lot of great and clever humor that wasn’t thrown in your face, and had some great action scenes (if you can get past the fact that in one scene they are fighting Cirque Du Soleil style on the side of a cliff). But it’s some of the little things in this movie that prevent it from redeeming the franchise after the first iteration, including the casting of RZA in a part that looks like it is meant to be serious, but his horrible acting make you really wonder if it was supposed to be a serious role or not. The other gripe I had with the movie was the unlikely resolution of the main conflict. With the Cobra Commander so confident in his plan, why would he, or any self-respecting super villain, deliver a way to foil the evil plan with literally half a second left on a silver platter. The last issue I had with the movie was Storm Shadow. I really liked the conflict between him and Snake Eyes in The Rise of Cobra, but they seemed to discredit his character a lot in this movie. Ultimately they changed the nature of Storm Shadow to make it seem as if he might switch sides in any future installments of the franchise, and that’s just not cool. The character was awesome the way he was.
As for the 3D aspect, it’s said this was the reason that the studio delayed the movie for a year. They wanted to add more effects to it. This tells me two things: the movie was shot in 2D and they had little faith in it. Honestly, I think we all know they tried to add more Duke to the movie in this time (which it’s really hard to tell if they did), but you can tell there was work done with 3D aspect. Too much. It was very distracting at points, and it seemed liked they added elements to scenes just to have 3D. For instance there was a scene where you were in a situation room viewing information on a monitor. It literally looked like they just super imposed a shoulder into the lower right of the screen so they could have in 3D as if you were looking over someone’s shoulder. That’s just silly.
All that being said. I had fun watching the movie. Dwayne Johnson is becoming a powerhouse that everyone was expecting him to years ago. I hope that he can continue this streak with some good movies (he’s got two more within the next month alone). I own the first one on Blu Ray, and I will probably buy this one when comes out as well. I would watch it in theater just for the enormity of the action on the big screen, but skip the 3D.
Did they succeed? That’s debatable, but they did a lot of things right in the go-around. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not award winning or anything, and you should never expect a movie like this to be that. But let’s run through a check list. Sappy out of place love-story: gone. Surreal technology: less. Let’s face it, despite what some people felt about the first movie, it did kind of set that precedent. Retaliation is considered a true follow up to The Rise of Cobra. So would it honestly make any sense to go from one extreme of nearly impossible gadgets to none at all? Absolutely not. Besides, the cartoon series also had technology in it. I am not trying to defend the use of it, and there were some pretty crazy gadgets going on in this movie, but it seemed to jive better with what I remember of it as a kid. And they found a really unique way to tone it down without it not seeming right. Unfortunately, there is still a fair amount of unrealistic action in this movie, but that’s kind of become the norm for most action movies these days.
We pick up fairly close to where we left off in The Rise of Cobra. Duke (Channing Tatum) is now commanding a unit of the Joes with Roadblock, Lady Jaye, Flint and Snake Eyes (Dwayne Johnson, Adrianne Palicki, D.J. Cotrona and Ray Park respectively) under his command. The Joes are sent out on a mission, a good rapport is built between Duke and Roadblock, but then they go and destroy that when their convoy gets attacked by Cobra eliminating Duke from the rest of the film. Go cry spoiler somewhere else, this happens in the beginning of the movie, and it’s been everywhere since the delay of the movie from last year. I was hoping they would somehow managed to keep him in the movie, especially after seeing the chemistry between Tatum and Johnson, but alas…
So the convoy attacked, and all the Joes presumed dead. Only Roadblock, Jaye and Flint actually survive and try to get to the bottom of everything. Meanwhile President Zartan (remember how the last movie ended) is up to his own nefarious plans in breaking out Cobra Commander with the aide of Storm Shadow. The Joes work their magic, still have access to some technology (though not over the top like The Rise of Cobra), and recruit people to help them along the way, including the man who is the reason the Joes were started: General Joe Coulton (played epic-ly by Bruce Willis).
The movie was entertaining, had a lot of great and clever humor that wasn’t thrown in your face, and had some great action scenes (if you can get past the fact that in one scene they are fighting Cirque Du Soleil style on the side of a cliff). But it’s some of the little things in this movie that prevent it from redeeming the franchise after the first iteration, including the casting of RZA in a part that looks like it is meant to be serious, but his horrible acting make you really wonder if it was supposed to be a serious role or not. The other gripe I had with the movie was the unlikely resolution of the main conflict. With the Cobra Commander so confident in his plan, why would he, or any self-respecting super villain, deliver a way to foil the evil plan with literally half a second left on a silver platter. The last issue I had with the movie was Storm Shadow. I really liked the conflict between him and Snake Eyes in The Rise of Cobra, but they seemed to discredit his character a lot in this movie. Ultimately they changed the nature of Storm Shadow to make it seem as if he might switch sides in any future installments of the franchise, and that’s just not cool. The character was awesome the way he was.
As for the 3D aspect, it’s said this was the reason that the studio delayed the movie for a year. They wanted to add more effects to it. This tells me two things: the movie was shot in 2D and they had little faith in it. Honestly, I think we all know they tried to add more Duke to the movie in this time (which it’s really hard to tell if they did), but you can tell there was work done with 3D aspect. Too much. It was very distracting at points, and it seemed liked they added elements to scenes just to have 3D. For instance there was a scene where you were in a situation room viewing information on a monitor. It literally looked like they just super imposed a shoulder into the lower right of the screen so they could have in 3D as if you were looking over someone’s shoulder. That’s just silly.
All that being said. I had fun watching the movie. Dwayne Johnson is becoming a powerhouse that everyone was expecting him to years ago. I hope that he can continue this streak with some good movies (he’s got two more within the next month alone). I own the first one on Blu Ray, and I will probably buy this one when comes out as well. I would watch it in theater just for the enormity of the action on the big screen, but skip the 3D.