Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Runner Runner (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Many times as a reviewer I watch a film that has so many things going for it that there is every reason to expect that it will be a high-quality product. Sadly the sum of the parts do not always come together and I am left to ponder how such an accumulation of talent went so wrong especially when the concept was strong and intriguing.
Such was the case with the new film “Runner Runner” which stars Justin Timberlake, Ben Affleck, and Gemma Arterton and takes a look at the big money yet seedy and dangerous world of online gambling.
Timberlake stars as Richie Furst, a Princeton student who is seeking his Masters degree and earns his income by getting new clients to sign up for a gambling site. Richie is bitter as he was a player about to get the first of several big paydays on Wall Street who lost it all when the market and the economy turned.
Richie hopes that a Masters from Princeton will get him back on solid footing in Wall Street and dreams of getting back the money he believes was owed to him.
When Richie is told that he must give up his gambling income in order to remain at school after a fellow student complains about him, Richie decides to gamble his last $17K online in an effort to get the $60K he needs to pay for his education.
Richie does well early and despite pleas from his friends to take his $50K and call it good, he presses his luck and loses it all.
Richie then learns that he was cheated and sets out to travel to Costa Rica to meet with the mysterious owner of the site, Ivan Block, (Ben Affleck), and tell him about the cheat program that has been running on the popular site.
Richie is able to meet Block and he in time thanks Richie for being discreet and exposing a problem he did not know about. He offers to restore the money Richie lost and pay him a bonus and then offers him a lucrative job working for him.
Seduced by the lure of big money and the charismatic block, Richie soon moves up the ranks and sets his eyes on the comely associate of Block named Rebecca (Gemma Arterton).
The new found success of Richie soon draws the attention of the F.B.I. and an agent named Shavers (Anthony Mackie), who threatens Richie unless he works for him as an informant against Block.
Now this setup combined with the fact that Block starts to show his darker side as well as the seedy world of corruptions, payoffs, and violence would be an ideal formula for success.
Sadly the film plays out without much drama or tension and gives us very little on the background of the characters and why they do what they do beyond simple greed.
The film does not have any dramatic payoff and plods along in a very methodical way without any real twists or turns.
The finale is fairly underwhelming and is not what audiences deserved after investing their time in the film or the characters.
Timberlake does a good job as the ambitious Richie and Affleck is very good as the charismatic Block. Sadly they can only do so much with their thinly written characters and scenarios that we have seen many times before.
In the end “Runner Runner” is a great concept that is sadly left stalled at the starting line.
http://sknr.net/2013/10/04/runner-runner/
Such was the case with the new film “Runner Runner” which stars Justin Timberlake, Ben Affleck, and Gemma Arterton and takes a look at the big money yet seedy and dangerous world of online gambling.
Timberlake stars as Richie Furst, a Princeton student who is seeking his Masters degree and earns his income by getting new clients to sign up for a gambling site. Richie is bitter as he was a player about to get the first of several big paydays on Wall Street who lost it all when the market and the economy turned.
Richie hopes that a Masters from Princeton will get him back on solid footing in Wall Street and dreams of getting back the money he believes was owed to him.
When Richie is told that he must give up his gambling income in order to remain at school after a fellow student complains about him, Richie decides to gamble his last $17K online in an effort to get the $60K he needs to pay for his education.
Richie does well early and despite pleas from his friends to take his $50K and call it good, he presses his luck and loses it all.
Richie then learns that he was cheated and sets out to travel to Costa Rica to meet with the mysterious owner of the site, Ivan Block, (Ben Affleck), and tell him about the cheat program that has been running on the popular site.
Richie is able to meet Block and he in time thanks Richie for being discreet and exposing a problem he did not know about. He offers to restore the money Richie lost and pay him a bonus and then offers him a lucrative job working for him.
Seduced by the lure of big money and the charismatic block, Richie soon moves up the ranks and sets his eyes on the comely associate of Block named Rebecca (Gemma Arterton).
The new found success of Richie soon draws the attention of the F.B.I. and an agent named Shavers (Anthony Mackie), who threatens Richie unless he works for him as an informant against Block.
Now this setup combined with the fact that Block starts to show his darker side as well as the seedy world of corruptions, payoffs, and violence would be an ideal formula for success.
Sadly the film plays out without much drama or tension and gives us very little on the background of the characters and why they do what they do beyond simple greed.
The film does not have any dramatic payoff and plods along in a very methodical way without any real twists or turns.
The finale is fairly underwhelming and is not what audiences deserved after investing their time in the film or the characters.
Timberlake does a good job as the ambitious Richie and Affleck is very good as the charismatic Block. Sadly they can only do so much with their thinly written characters and scenarios that we have seen many times before.
In the end “Runner Runner” is a great concept that is sadly left stalled at the starting line.
http://sknr.net/2013/10/04/runner-runner/
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Warcraft (2016) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
To begin, I am not really up on the plot of the game in which this movie is based, though I do understand that this is a prequel and that the tone is reasonably accurate to the that of the long enduring PC game.
But derivative is the word. The game was designed to allow its players to interact with each over and across the internet and essentially play in scenarios which span the fantasy genre, itself drawing from such classics as Lord Of the Rings, Dungeons and Dragons and every medieval or ancient myth imaginable.
As a game, this sounds like fun, taking on roles and pretending to be mythological characters, wielding swords and magic, but since this was already taken wholesale from the genre, including films, what was the point?
Essentially, what we have is an epic mash up of films which have already made there mark whilst offering little if anything new worth talking about. The plot twists are predicable if not hammy, the characterisations are dull and cliched and in the end there is little to offer but a brand name and endless special effects.
The movie does pick up a bit in the third act but even this is let down with a finale of world building and sequel teasing, with the plot left wide open and several plot lines ready to go if there was ever to be a Warcraft 2. The problem is that there is little to tantalise unless you are already a die hard fan. The writing is poor, effective for driving the plot along at some pace but it is mundane, predictable and lacking any real intrigue or interest. It simply goes through the motions as does almost everything and everyone else in the film as a whole.
I want to say that it could have been better, but I can not. I think that Jones and his team have probably done a reasonable job of adapting this game but that is what it is, a derivative PC game and hardly suitable for a movie of this scale.
When will they learn?
But derivative is the word. The game was designed to allow its players to interact with each over and across the internet and essentially play in scenarios which span the fantasy genre, itself drawing from such classics as Lord Of the Rings, Dungeons and Dragons and every medieval or ancient myth imaginable.
As a game, this sounds like fun, taking on roles and pretending to be mythological characters, wielding swords and magic, but since this was already taken wholesale from the genre, including films, what was the point?
Essentially, what we have is an epic mash up of films which have already made there mark whilst offering little if anything new worth talking about. The plot twists are predicable if not hammy, the characterisations are dull and cliched and in the end there is little to offer but a brand name and endless special effects.
The movie does pick up a bit in the third act but even this is let down with a finale of world building and sequel teasing, with the plot left wide open and several plot lines ready to go if there was ever to be a Warcraft 2. The problem is that there is little to tantalise unless you are already a die hard fan. The writing is poor, effective for driving the plot along at some pace but it is mundane, predictable and lacking any real intrigue or interest. It simply goes through the motions as does almost everything and everyone else in the film as a whole.
I want to say that it could have been better, but I can not. I think that Jones and his team have probably done a reasonable job of adapting this game but that is what it is, a derivative PC game and hardly suitable for a movie of this scale.
When will they learn?
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Kick-Ass (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Kick-Ass starts out as a clever action movie with good humor interspersed throughout the first half, but by the second half the jokes trail off as the movie takes a blacker turn toward a mindless and confusing tale of morality.
Viewing this movie as a mindless action flick, it is impressive and at times humorous, albeit that humor, in the immersive first half, is deadened by the much darker scenes toward the end of the film. But if you’re trying to find a deeper message hidden behind the motivations and actions of the characters on screen, you perhaps would be better served by reading the comic first. The violence was surprisingly graphic for what started out as a clever and somewhat endearing highschool drama about not fitting in and trying to change the world for the better.
As the director of Layer Cake and Stardust, Matthew Vaughn has shown before that he knows how to do action and fantasy, and in this movie, the action scenes are tight and gripping and slightly surreal. You may even recognize a few cameos if you’re familiar with Guy Ritchie films.
Aaron Johnson, as the title character, brings a smart vulnerability to his part. As an overly ambitious, but well meaning comic book fan, his stabs at super-heroics were quite believable.
This movie may be titled Kick-Ass, but the most interesting character is Hit-Girl, played by Chloë Grace Moretz. Quite a few child actors come across as precocious, and Moretz is a welcome change. She shares some great scenes with Nicolas Cage, a vengeful father who has turned his 11 year-old daughter into a killing machine. Cage’s deadpan humor as Big Daddy matches surprisingly well with the giddy, foul-mouthed, black humor of Hit-Girl.
In a way, I may be doing the movie a disservice if I were to dwell on the plot holes, morality, and thematic elements of this movie which are clearly not the focused intent of the director. Not every movie is intended to be a deep and meaningful reflection on life, so in that regard, this movie is simply a blood-drenched charmer.
Viewing this movie as a mindless action flick, it is impressive and at times humorous, albeit that humor, in the immersive first half, is deadened by the much darker scenes toward the end of the film. But if you’re trying to find a deeper message hidden behind the motivations and actions of the characters on screen, you perhaps would be better served by reading the comic first. The violence was surprisingly graphic for what started out as a clever and somewhat endearing highschool drama about not fitting in and trying to change the world for the better.
As the director of Layer Cake and Stardust, Matthew Vaughn has shown before that he knows how to do action and fantasy, and in this movie, the action scenes are tight and gripping and slightly surreal. You may even recognize a few cameos if you’re familiar with Guy Ritchie films.
Aaron Johnson, as the title character, brings a smart vulnerability to his part. As an overly ambitious, but well meaning comic book fan, his stabs at super-heroics were quite believable.
This movie may be titled Kick-Ass, but the most interesting character is Hit-Girl, played by Chloë Grace Moretz. Quite a few child actors come across as precocious, and Moretz is a welcome change. She shares some great scenes with Nicolas Cage, a vengeful father who has turned his 11 year-old daughter into a killing machine. Cage’s deadpan humor as Big Daddy matches surprisingly well with the giddy, foul-mouthed, black humor of Hit-Girl.
In a way, I may be doing the movie a disservice if I were to dwell on the plot holes, morality, and thematic elements of this movie which are clearly not the focused intent of the director. Not every movie is intended to be a deep and meaningful reflection on life, so in that regard, this movie is simply a blood-drenched charmer.
CoinKeeper: spending tracker, money and finance
Finance and Productivity
App
CoinKeeper – is one the most popular personal finance managers with: * 180 000 active users * 10...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Triumph
Brutal. Spectacular. Emotional. These are just some of the adjectives you could use to describe Christopher Nolan’s latest film, Dunkirk. The director of Inception, The Dark Knight, Memento and Interstellar is one of the greatest film-makers working today and he raises the bar once again with this bleak tale from World War II.
With war, you have to respect the past whilst allowing modern-day film-goers to truly understand the brutality that ordinary people like you and I went through on a daily basis.
In May 1940, Germany had advanced into France, trapping Allied troops on the beaches of Dunkirk. Under air and ground cover from British and French forces, troops were slowly and methodically evacuated from the beach using not only military ships but civilian boats too. At the end of this incredible story of courage, 330,000 French, British, Belgian and Dutch soldiers were safely evacuated.
I found a quote the other day that said “Christopher Nolan is like Michael Bay for people who have ever read a book” and in Dunkirk that seems more apt than ever. Of course there are explosions, many of them, but they are interweaved with some incredible storytelling.
Split into three separate timelines, Dunkirk follows fisherman Mark Rylance as he sails to the beaches as part of the civilian rescue effort. On land we shadow a group of young soldiers desperately trying to get back home. Finally, the film flies alongside Tom Hardy’s brave Spitfire pilot as he tries his best to keep the beaches safe.
Each of the stories has something to offer but Mark Rylance’s performance is definitely the best, making his timeline the most interesting and often the most emotional. Addressing the elephant in the room, Harry Styles, is probably best at this part of the review – he’s excellent and in a much larger part than I had imagined.
In fact, all the performances are excellent, helped in part by Christopher Nolan’s incredible use of close-ups. This is a living, breathing war and as the audience, you feel as claustrophobic as the 400,000 men did waiting on that beach in 1940.
Moreover, the sound is just astonishing. I have never known a film use sound to such an extent to convey sheer terror. The score by Hans Zimmer, coupled with the deafening aircraft flying overhead and the rapid gunfire is incredibly harrowing and makes Dunkirk very hard to watch at times – despite its 12A certification.
Dunkirk is also a masterclass in practical effects. Nearly everything you see on screen was shot without the use of CGI and my goodness you can tell. We’re so used to seeing blockbusters filled to the brim with computer generated imagery that it’s easy to forget just how good practical effects can be.
Overall, Christopher Nolan has created a tasteful homage to a day that has been etched into the minds of generations of people. It would’ve been easy to create a film that focused on the action rather than the human details of this incredible story, but Nolan has managed to craft an absolute triumph. It’s one of the best films of the year and an absolute must-watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/23/dunkirk-review-a-triumph/
With war, you have to respect the past whilst allowing modern-day film-goers to truly understand the brutality that ordinary people like you and I went through on a daily basis.
In May 1940, Germany had advanced into France, trapping Allied troops on the beaches of Dunkirk. Under air and ground cover from British and French forces, troops were slowly and methodically evacuated from the beach using not only military ships but civilian boats too. At the end of this incredible story of courage, 330,000 French, British, Belgian and Dutch soldiers were safely evacuated.
I found a quote the other day that said “Christopher Nolan is like Michael Bay for people who have ever read a book” and in Dunkirk that seems more apt than ever. Of course there are explosions, many of them, but they are interweaved with some incredible storytelling.
Split into three separate timelines, Dunkirk follows fisherman Mark Rylance as he sails to the beaches as part of the civilian rescue effort. On land we shadow a group of young soldiers desperately trying to get back home. Finally, the film flies alongside Tom Hardy’s brave Spitfire pilot as he tries his best to keep the beaches safe.
Each of the stories has something to offer but Mark Rylance’s performance is definitely the best, making his timeline the most interesting and often the most emotional. Addressing the elephant in the room, Harry Styles, is probably best at this part of the review – he’s excellent and in a much larger part than I had imagined.
In fact, all the performances are excellent, helped in part by Christopher Nolan’s incredible use of close-ups. This is a living, breathing war and as the audience, you feel as claustrophobic as the 400,000 men did waiting on that beach in 1940.
Moreover, the sound is just astonishing. I have never known a film use sound to such an extent to convey sheer terror. The score by Hans Zimmer, coupled with the deafening aircraft flying overhead and the rapid gunfire is incredibly harrowing and makes Dunkirk very hard to watch at times – despite its 12A certification.
Dunkirk is also a masterclass in practical effects. Nearly everything you see on screen was shot without the use of CGI and my goodness you can tell. We’re so used to seeing blockbusters filled to the brim with computer generated imagery that it’s easy to forget just how good practical effects can be.
Overall, Christopher Nolan has created a tasteful homage to a day that has been etched into the minds of generations of people. It would’ve been easy to create a film that focused on the action rather than the human details of this incredible story, but Nolan has managed to craft an absolute triumph. It’s one of the best films of the year and an absolute must-watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/23/dunkirk-review-a-triumph/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Welcome back, chaps
Kingsman: The Secret Service was one of the surprise hits of 2014. Marketed poorly by an unassuming set of trailers, the end result was a film as big a surprise as Guardians of the Galaxy was.
We all know what happened. Kingsman senior grossed over $400million worldwide and a sequel was soon greenlit with a much bigger budget and a marketing effort worth of the first film.
But has some of that old-school charm been lost in the transition to high-budget movie event of the summer?
With their headquarters destroyed and the world held hostage by a villainous drug lord (Julianne Moore), members of Kingsman find new allies when they discover a spy organization in the United States known as Statesman. In an adventure that tests their strength and wits, the elite agents band together to battle a ruthless enemy and save the day, something that seems to be a bit of a habit for Eggsy (Taron Egerton) of late.
Thankfully, I’m pleased to tell you that Matthew Vaughn’s follow-up, while not bettering its predecessor, manages to stay away from many of the sequel pitfalls we tend to see nowadays.
Opening with a fantastically filmed cab ride through London’s narrow streets, the first sequence sets up the movie perfectly. This is a rollercoaster ride – loud, at times exhausting but completely and utterly exhilarating.
That familiar cast we grew to love in the first film return including the not-so-secret return of Colin Firth’s Harry. It’s disappointing to have seen the big reveal of his survival from Samuel L Jackson’s bullet in the trailers, but it’s still a welcome return and a smart move by the writers – even if the circumstances surrounding his well-being are a little farfetched.
Taron Egerton is once again on top form and Mark Strong is ever-reliable as intelligence agent, Merlin. Of the newcomers, Channing Tatum, Halle Berry and Jeff Bridges make a small, but noticeable impact on proceedings though I would’ve liked to have seen them a little more throughout the 140-minute runtime.
You’re right to gasp. Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a good 10 minutes or so longer than its predecessor and while the action is choreographed to the same exceptional standard of its forbearer, it does feel like a long film.
Nevertheless, if there’s one thing Matthew Vaughn knows how to direct, it’s action. The increased budget this time around means our heroes embark on a globetrotting mission that includes Cambodia, Italy, the US and of course Blighty. The cinematography is wonderful with the Cambodian lair of our main villain being a particular highlight.
Speaking of which, Julianne Moore is absolutely sublime. Described by Vaughn himself as “Martha Stewart on crack”, she is right up there with Samuel L Jackson’s outlandish Richmond Valentine. Watch out for a surprise turn from Elton John that will have you in stitches whenever the film switches to Moore’s mountain-top lair.
With this and President Alma Coin from The Hunger Games on her CV, she’s proving a great choice to play wicked characters – she’s certainly got the acting chops for it.
Overall, there’s far too much in Kingsman: The Golden Circle to talk about in one review, but it’s fair to say this sequel is a big success. With beautifully choreographed action and some cracking performances, it’s more than a candidate for best film of the year. Flawed? Yes. But you’ll be having too much fun to notice. Bring on the sequel.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/21/kingsman-the-golden-circle-review/
We all know what happened. Kingsman senior grossed over $400million worldwide and a sequel was soon greenlit with a much bigger budget and a marketing effort worth of the first film.
But has some of that old-school charm been lost in the transition to high-budget movie event of the summer?
With their headquarters destroyed and the world held hostage by a villainous drug lord (Julianne Moore), members of Kingsman find new allies when they discover a spy organization in the United States known as Statesman. In an adventure that tests their strength and wits, the elite agents band together to battle a ruthless enemy and save the day, something that seems to be a bit of a habit for Eggsy (Taron Egerton) of late.
Thankfully, I’m pleased to tell you that Matthew Vaughn’s follow-up, while not bettering its predecessor, manages to stay away from many of the sequel pitfalls we tend to see nowadays.
Opening with a fantastically filmed cab ride through London’s narrow streets, the first sequence sets up the movie perfectly. This is a rollercoaster ride – loud, at times exhausting but completely and utterly exhilarating.
That familiar cast we grew to love in the first film return including the not-so-secret return of Colin Firth’s Harry. It’s disappointing to have seen the big reveal of his survival from Samuel L Jackson’s bullet in the trailers, but it’s still a welcome return and a smart move by the writers – even if the circumstances surrounding his well-being are a little farfetched.
Taron Egerton is once again on top form and Mark Strong is ever-reliable as intelligence agent, Merlin. Of the newcomers, Channing Tatum, Halle Berry and Jeff Bridges make a small, but noticeable impact on proceedings though I would’ve liked to have seen them a little more throughout the 140-minute runtime.
You’re right to gasp. Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a good 10 minutes or so longer than its predecessor and while the action is choreographed to the same exceptional standard of its forbearer, it does feel like a long film.
Nevertheless, if there’s one thing Matthew Vaughn knows how to direct, it’s action. The increased budget this time around means our heroes embark on a globetrotting mission that includes Cambodia, Italy, the US and of course Blighty. The cinematography is wonderful with the Cambodian lair of our main villain being a particular highlight.
Speaking of which, Julianne Moore is absolutely sublime. Described by Vaughn himself as “Martha Stewart on crack”, she is right up there with Samuel L Jackson’s outlandish Richmond Valentine. Watch out for a surprise turn from Elton John that will have you in stitches whenever the film switches to Moore’s mountain-top lair.
With this and President Alma Coin from The Hunger Games on her CV, she’s proving a great choice to play wicked characters – she’s certainly got the acting chops for it.
Overall, there’s far too much in Kingsman: The Golden Circle to talk about in one review, but it’s fair to say this sequel is a big success. With beautifully choreographed action and some cracking performances, it’s more than a candidate for best film of the year. Flawed? Yes. But you’ll be having too much fun to notice. Bring on the sequel.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/21/kingsman-the-golden-circle-review/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 3 Days To Kill (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: 3 Days to Kill starts as we meet CIA agent Ethan Renner (Costner) who along with his team is about to take down one of the biggest threats in the world The Wolf (Sammel) by eliminating his closest associate The Albino (Lemarquis) only the mission gets compromised when Ethan’s health catches up with him as he learns he only has 3 months to live.
Released by the CIA Ethan sets out on cleaning up his own personal affairs wanting to build a relationship with daughter Zooey (Steinfeld) through his ex-wife Christine (Nielsen) after years of times apart working. With everything going badly Ethan knows that it will become difficult but when fellow agent Vivi Delay (Heard) offers him a chance to live longer Ethan comes out of retirement for one last assignment.
Thoughts on 3 Days to Kill
Story – The story for this film tries to balance a dying man’s final months with his family and his CIA life that he has meant to have walked away from. The CIA story does feel very generic of this modern day slick hitman style which is all fine. The dying man’s wish story ends up feeling like an awkward comedy in places. The story also feels very long and doesn’t seem to end up deciding if it wants to be serious or not.
Action/Thriller – The action is all very good and entertaining with the opening sequence looking like it set the tone but in the end if just turns into another slick hitman film.
Characters/Performance – I can’t find anything wrong with Costner’s performance as well as Steinfeld or Neilsen, it is the Heard performance that doesn’t make sense because she doesn’t suit the character and the character doesn’t suit the movie. The movie tries to make all the characters fit into everyday experiences but for some reason Vivi character is wildly over the top for no apparent reason.
Settings – The settings are mostly all in Paris which all works for the film which is trying to make us have a location we want to visit but showing that crime can happen there I guess.
Special Effects – The Special effects are mostly used for the action sequences and they all come off to the level you need them too.
Final Thoughts –This is an overlong action thriller that ends up getting caught up in the middle of comedy too often for its own good.
Overall: Solid action film that starts too strong for its own benefits.
Released by the CIA Ethan sets out on cleaning up his own personal affairs wanting to build a relationship with daughter Zooey (Steinfeld) through his ex-wife Christine (Nielsen) after years of times apart working. With everything going badly Ethan knows that it will become difficult but when fellow agent Vivi Delay (Heard) offers him a chance to live longer Ethan comes out of retirement for one last assignment.
Thoughts on 3 Days to Kill
Story – The story for this film tries to balance a dying man’s final months with his family and his CIA life that he has meant to have walked away from. The CIA story does feel very generic of this modern day slick hitman style which is all fine. The dying man’s wish story ends up feeling like an awkward comedy in places. The story also feels very long and doesn’t seem to end up deciding if it wants to be serious or not.
Action/Thriller – The action is all very good and entertaining with the opening sequence looking like it set the tone but in the end if just turns into another slick hitman film.
Characters/Performance – I can’t find anything wrong with Costner’s performance as well as Steinfeld or Neilsen, it is the Heard performance that doesn’t make sense because she doesn’t suit the character and the character doesn’t suit the movie. The movie tries to make all the characters fit into everyday experiences but for some reason Vivi character is wildly over the top for no apparent reason.
Settings – The settings are mostly all in Paris which all works for the film which is trying to make us have a location we want to visit but showing that crime can happen there I guess.
Special Effects – The Special effects are mostly used for the action sequences and they all come off to the level you need them too.
Final Thoughts –This is an overlong action thriller that ends up getting caught up in the middle of comedy too often for its own good.
Overall: Solid action film that starts too strong for its own benefits.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated The Tree of Life (2011) in Movies
Apr 19, 2019
Challenge yourself. Give this a watch!
I have to admit to not having seen many films directed by Terrence Malick. Not by choice, just hadn't gotten around to it. I watched The Thin Red Line when it was released, but thought it was inferior to Saving Private Ryan which was released around the same time. I will give a rewatch soon.
I saw another review which said to describe this film would be like trying to describe the color blue to someone who was blind. A basically impossible task.
The easiest way for me would be to mention other movies, so if you took parts of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Mother!, Revolutionary Road and Stand By Me you might start to come close to the interesting weave of imagery and story which conjoin this film.
Loosely speaking, it's about a family with 3 young boys in Texas in the 1950s. Their relationships, their troubles, their triumphs, the small insignificant moments in their lives combined with the very important ones. Throw in scenes of the creation of the universe, dinosaurs and unusual images of the Earth itself you'll finally start to maybe understand the complexity of this film.
Of course, this is a film like 2001 or Mother in which some will say it is crap or there is no meaning beyond what is displayed onscreen, but I would beg to differ. I respect everyone's opinions, but strive to seek out films that make me think a little and make me ponder during and after the end credits are complete and this film will do that for sure.
I am not a religious person, but you don't need to be to appreciate the vivid imagery in this film. I believe Malick supports differing views whether you believe in God or not.
In short, in a world of summer blockbusters just beyond the horizon, I would challenge you to enjoy those films as they have their place, but also challenge yourself with something rich.
I know I will be finding Days of Heaven and Badlands to get more Malick in the weeks ahead.
I saw another review which said to describe this film would be like trying to describe the color blue to someone who was blind. A basically impossible task.
The easiest way for me would be to mention other movies, so if you took parts of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Mother!, Revolutionary Road and Stand By Me you might start to come close to the interesting weave of imagery and story which conjoin this film.
Loosely speaking, it's about a family with 3 young boys in Texas in the 1950s. Their relationships, their troubles, their triumphs, the small insignificant moments in their lives combined with the very important ones. Throw in scenes of the creation of the universe, dinosaurs and unusual images of the Earth itself you'll finally start to maybe understand the complexity of this film.
Of course, this is a film like 2001 or Mother in which some will say it is crap or there is no meaning beyond what is displayed onscreen, but I would beg to differ. I respect everyone's opinions, but strive to seek out films that make me think a little and make me ponder during and after the end credits are complete and this film will do that for sure.
I am not a religious person, but you don't need to be to appreciate the vivid imagery in this film. I believe Malick supports differing views whether you believe in God or not.
In short, in a world of summer blockbusters just beyond the horizon, I would challenge you to enjoy those films as they have their place, but also challenge yourself with something rich.
I know I will be finding Days of Heaven and Badlands to get more Malick in the weeks ahead.
Barbie Magazine - South Africa Interactive
Lifestyle and Magazines & Newspapers
App
The next best thing to owning the doll, is reading Barbie magazine Barbie has been around for more...
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament in Books
Jun 29, 2018
In Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2006), Eugene H. Merrill sets out to provide a theology of the Old Testament which represents the O.T. as a consistent whole that has God as its ultimate source. As such, he supports a high view of biblical inspiration as verbal: “The word of God to the prophets was verbal; and what they spoke and wrote, therefore, was also verbal. The means by which the verbalizing was effected is never disclosed, nor is it necessary to know. The point is that the prophetic word, the highest form of divine revelation, was recognized at the time to be the words of God, a view maintained by virtually unanimous consensus in Jewish and Christian tradition until the inroads of modern criticism.”
Insofar as Merrill is a Christian writing about the Old Testament's theology, this creates a dilemma in regard to the role the New Testament is allowed to play in his interpretation. Merrill acknowledges this from the get go:
“Old Testament theology is the study of biblical theology that employs the methods of that discipline to the Old Testament alone while being aware of the limitations inherent in not addressing the New Testament witness in any comprehensive way. This delimitation can be justified on the grounds that the Old Testament speaks its own message, one that is legitimate and authoritative in every sense of the term even if, from the Christian viewpoint, its message is not ultimately complete.”
As such, his work attempts to focus on what the Old Testament says on its own, though he occasionally appeals to New Testament ideas as a means of providing an additional witness to his interpretation.
Merrill tends to provide basic level interpretation in the canonical order of the Old Testament books. As such, little of his exegesis is particularly creative. However, he does have one unique idea which comes up throughout the book and indeed inspired the title-- the idea that man was made by God as an intermediary for God's dominion over the world:
“The crowning work of creation was the appearance of mankind on the sixth day (Gen. 1:26–28). He is said to be in the image and likeness of God, but the grammar permits and theology favors the idea that he was created as his image and likeness, that is, as God's representative on earth... [This passage] is also the clearest expression of the divine purpose in creation. After all things else had been made and put into their several positions of function and interrelationship, the Lord said, 'Let Us make man [as] Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule' (Gen. 1:26). The significance of this for communicating a (if not the) major theme of Old Testament theology cannot be overstated, and the fact that it is the first divinely articulated expression of the reason for man's existence makes it doubly significant. What is lacking apparently after the whole cosmos has been spoken into existence is its management, a caretaker as it were who will govern it all according to the will of the Creator. He could have done it himself without mediation, but for reasons never revealed in the sacred record, God elected to reign through a subordinate, a surrogate king responsible only to him.”
Merrill explains what had been lost in this divine intention after the Fall: “No longer did man have dominion over all things; instead, he abdicated his role as sovereign and worshipped what he should have ruled.” However, he still highlights partial fulfillments of the divine plan even after the Fall, such as in the Israelite monarchy:
“The creation mandate that mankind should 'be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it' and 'rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth' (Gen. 1:28) finds tangible expression even if only in a highly preliminary and anticipatory manner. David and his dynastic successors never exhibited this kind of universal dominion, of course, but the limited success they did enjoy, especially under Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 4:20–34), was a foretaste of the splendor, glory, and power of his descendants yet to come at the end of human history.”
Of course, this idea of human dominion as a vice-regent of God would only find its final fulfillment in Christ, the second Adam and the second David:
“If paradise was lost at the fall, it will be regained at the re-creation, not least in the restoration of man's glory as the vice-regent of the King of kings.”
The book seems to go out of its way to contrast the wild speculation of liberal theology, resulting in a work which is so straight-forward as to be dull. This is by no means always the case with Merrill's writings, as his Historical Survey of the Old Testament was one of the most interesting books I read as a new Christian. In Everlasting Dominion, however, where skeptical scholarship always assumes that the text is hiding something, Merrill takes it at face value. The result is a theology of the Old Testament which is more grounded, but that also often fails to soar to the heights that the text might allow for. Instead of elucidation and theologizing, Merrill tends to resort to extended (and I do mean extended) summary of the Hebrew canon.
The one major exception to this tendency is in Merrill's discussion of dominion, which we discussed above in detail. However, more work could certainly have been done on this topic, particularly in regard to how Jesus brings the idea to its fulfillment. Since it is Merrill's goal to explain the Old Testament with as little light from the New as possible, it is difficult to fault him for this. But it's also hard to fault the reader for wanting more when he reads tantalizing sections like this:
“What we propose in the following comments is done with a great deal of tentativeness since, as far as we can determine, we are virtually alone in making the case that Jesus, in his earthly ministry, frequently performed miraculous works to demonstrate not just his full deity but also his role as Urmensch, the second Adam who came to display in character and life what God had intended as the ideal for the whole human race. Without pursuing the biblical arguments for a full-blown Christology that is sensitive to both his divine and human natures, let it be said that there is universal consensus that the New Testament presents Jesus not only as God but also as perfect man.”
That being said, it does seem like an exaggeration to claim that Genesis 1:26 is the key text to understanding Old Testament theology. That it is a major theme, particularly in relation to its underemphasis by most biblical commentators, does not by any means strain credulity. It also seems to be in the back of the mind of many New Testament authors who emphasize restoration of the Kingdom of God involving our reigning with Christ and inheriting the eternal life and dominion over the world which was originally connected with our Edenic charge.
In the final analysis, Everlasting Dominion provides a good straight-forward overview of the Old Testament, but simply doesn't provide enough insight to warrant its nearly 700 pages.
Insofar as Merrill is a Christian writing about the Old Testament's theology, this creates a dilemma in regard to the role the New Testament is allowed to play in his interpretation. Merrill acknowledges this from the get go:
“Old Testament theology is the study of biblical theology that employs the methods of that discipline to the Old Testament alone while being aware of the limitations inherent in not addressing the New Testament witness in any comprehensive way. This delimitation can be justified on the grounds that the Old Testament speaks its own message, one that is legitimate and authoritative in every sense of the term even if, from the Christian viewpoint, its message is not ultimately complete.”
As such, his work attempts to focus on what the Old Testament says on its own, though he occasionally appeals to New Testament ideas as a means of providing an additional witness to his interpretation.
Merrill tends to provide basic level interpretation in the canonical order of the Old Testament books. As such, little of his exegesis is particularly creative. However, he does have one unique idea which comes up throughout the book and indeed inspired the title-- the idea that man was made by God as an intermediary for God's dominion over the world:
“The crowning work of creation was the appearance of mankind on the sixth day (Gen. 1:26–28). He is said to be in the image and likeness of God, but the grammar permits and theology favors the idea that he was created as his image and likeness, that is, as God's representative on earth... [This passage] is also the clearest expression of the divine purpose in creation. After all things else had been made and put into their several positions of function and interrelationship, the Lord said, 'Let Us make man [as] Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule' (Gen. 1:26). The significance of this for communicating a (if not the) major theme of Old Testament theology cannot be overstated, and the fact that it is the first divinely articulated expression of the reason for man's existence makes it doubly significant. What is lacking apparently after the whole cosmos has been spoken into existence is its management, a caretaker as it were who will govern it all according to the will of the Creator. He could have done it himself without mediation, but for reasons never revealed in the sacred record, God elected to reign through a subordinate, a surrogate king responsible only to him.”
Merrill explains what had been lost in this divine intention after the Fall: “No longer did man have dominion over all things; instead, he abdicated his role as sovereign and worshipped what he should have ruled.” However, he still highlights partial fulfillments of the divine plan even after the Fall, such as in the Israelite monarchy:
“The creation mandate that mankind should 'be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it' and 'rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth' (Gen. 1:28) finds tangible expression even if only in a highly preliminary and anticipatory manner. David and his dynastic successors never exhibited this kind of universal dominion, of course, but the limited success they did enjoy, especially under Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 4:20–34), was a foretaste of the splendor, glory, and power of his descendants yet to come at the end of human history.”
Of course, this idea of human dominion as a vice-regent of God would only find its final fulfillment in Christ, the second Adam and the second David:
“If paradise was lost at the fall, it will be regained at the re-creation, not least in the restoration of man's glory as the vice-regent of the King of kings.”
The book seems to go out of its way to contrast the wild speculation of liberal theology, resulting in a work which is so straight-forward as to be dull. This is by no means always the case with Merrill's writings, as his Historical Survey of the Old Testament was one of the most interesting books I read as a new Christian. In Everlasting Dominion, however, where skeptical scholarship always assumes that the text is hiding something, Merrill takes it at face value. The result is a theology of the Old Testament which is more grounded, but that also often fails to soar to the heights that the text might allow for. Instead of elucidation and theologizing, Merrill tends to resort to extended (and I do mean extended) summary of the Hebrew canon.
The one major exception to this tendency is in Merrill's discussion of dominion, which we discussed above in detail. However, more work could certainly have been done on this topic, particularly in regard to how Jesus brings the idea to its fulfillment. Since it is Merrill's goal to explain the Old Testament with as little light from the New as possible, it is difficult to fault him for this. But it's also hard to fault the reader for wanting more when he reads tantalizing sections like this:
“What we propose in the following comments is done with a great deal of tentativeness since, as far as we can determine, we are virtually alone in making the case that Jesus, in his earthly ministry, frequently performed miraculous works to demonstrate not just his full deity but also his role as Urmensch, the second Adam who came to display in character and life what God had intended as the ideal for the whole human race. Without pursuing the biblical arguments for a full-blown Christology that is sensitive to both his divine and human natures, let it be said that there is universal consensus that the New Testament presents Jesus not only as God but also as perfect man.”
That being said, it does seem like an exaggeration to claim that Genesis 1:26 is the key text to understanding Old Testament theology. That it is a major theme, particularly in relation to its underemphasis by most biblical commentators, does not by any means strain credulity. It also seems to be in the back of the mind of many New Testament authors who emphasize restoration of the Kingdom of God involving our reigning with Christ and inheriting the eternal life and dominion over the world which was originally connected with our Edenic charge.
In the final analysis, Everlasting Dominion provides a good straight-forward overview of the Old Testament, but simply doesn't provide enough insight to warrant its nearly 700 pages.