Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You’ll never guess who dunnit…
There’s a big problem with Kenneth Branagh’s 2017 filming of the Hercule Poirot-based murder mystery…. and that’s the 1974 Sidney Lumet classic featuring Albert Finney in the starring role. For that film was so memorable – at least, the “who” of the “whodunnit” (no spoilers here) was so memorable – that any remake is likely to be tarnished by that knowledge. If you go into this film blissfully unaware of the plot, you are a lucky man/woman. For this is a classic Agatha Christie yarn.
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
Lee (2222 KP) rated Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019) in Movies
Jul 3, 2019
I think I was one of the few people that was ultimately disappointed by Spider-Man: Homecoming. After Spider-Man's impressive and thrilling introduction to the Marvel universe during Captain America: Civil War, I felt Homecoming to be somewhat lacking - set pieces that had already been shown in the trailer, bigger set pieces that were difficult to follow on screen and, to quote my review, "too much awkward teen, not enough action hero". I even used the phrase "superhero fatigue", which funnily enough is a phrase currently being bandied around by some for this next Spider-Man venture, Far From Home, particularly in the wake of the intense Avengers: Endgame earlier this year. So, let's just say I was cautiously optimistic heading in to see this movie.
We kick off with a brief introduction to what will dominate the rest of the movie - Nick Fury and Maria Hill arrive in Mexico, where "a cyclone with a face" has completely destroyed a small town. As this new threat returns to wreak even more havoc, a mysterious new hero arrives to face it square on in battle, dramatically declaring to the startled S.H.I.E.L.D agents, "you don't want any part of this". From there, we switch to a lighthearted wrap up of the devastating events surrounding Infinity War/Endgame, in the form of an amateur high school news report. Mourning the loss of fallen heroes (accompanied by Whitney Houston singing 'I Will Always Love You'!), the report goes on to explain how "The Blip" - the term many are using to describe the effects of the 5 year period where half of the population were wiped from existence. Having the population age 5 years while the returning half haven't aged at all naturally has humorous consequences when it comes to students and their school life, but essentially humanity has managed to move on and has learnt to deal with it. Someone who is struggling to move on though, particularly from the loss of mentor/surrogate father, Tony Stark, is young Peter Parker. Desperately in need of a summer vacation, and a break from being Spider-Man, Parker cannot wait to join the rest of his friends, and crucially MJ (Zendaya), on an upcoming school trip which will take them to various European destinations.
But there's no chance of any kind of break for Spider-Man just yet, as Nick Fury has other plans for him. Peter does the unthinkable though and ignores the many phone calls from Fury, until he eventually tracks him down for a face to face meeting in his Venice hotel room. Since the incident in Mexico, S.H.I.E.L.D have been working with the mysterious new hero, Quentin Beck, or 'Mysterio' as he has now been dubbed, and Peter (along with us) are now brought up to speed on the origins of Quentin and these new global threats. Quentin actually comes from an alternate Earth where these creatures, known as The Elementals (monstrous versions of wind, fire, water and air), were responsible for the destruction of not only his world but his entire family too. The most powerful Elemental, fire, is yet to appear on our Earth and Mysterio, along with the help of S.H.I.E.L.D and Spider-Man, need to locate and stop it before it becomes too powerful for them to defeat.
Peter isn't initially interested though, being more concerned about jeopardising his school trip and exposing his identity, not to mention ruining his chances of finally hooking up with MJ. So, the rest of the movie nicely splits itself between teen high school banter/comedy drama and international superhero action. Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau) features prominently throughout the movie, helping to guide and mentor Peter in the absence of his old boss Tony Stark, and providing plenty of comic relief along the way too. He also passes onto Peter, a gift from Tony Stark - a pair of Jarvis-like talking shades called EDITH (Even Dead I'm The Hero!) - which initially act as a funny and poignant accessory for Peter, but proves to be a hugely important part of how the rest of the movie plays out.
Beyond that, I'm struggling to avoid spoilers. And there are a lot of them. If you're familiar with the comics though (and despite having some vague familiarity with them, I'd completely forgotten everything!), you'll be able to predict a lot of what comes next anyway. But, once again, I have to say how amazed I am that Marvel managed to produce trailers for this movie which not only mislead you into believing that you know exactly which direction this movie is heading in, but also feature scenes which aren't in the final movie! As a result, I found Far From Home to be a truly wonderful surprise, and even if you know how it's all going to play out, you should still manage to get a huge amount of enjoyment from seeing the masters of storytelling at work yet again. This movie gave me Endgame-level thrills and goose-bump moments, over and over again throughout. Visually, it's outstanding - with impressive action scenes and trippy sequences the likes of which we haven't seen since Doctor Strange. Jake Gyllenhaal is perfect as Mysterio too, really bringing the character to life, and by the end of it all I was just completely blown away. So when the mid credit sequence hit, opening up some shocking possibilities for future movies, I was almost hyperventilating with excitement!
We kick off with a brief introduction to what will dominate the rest of the movie - Nick Fury and Maria Hill arrive in Mexico, where "a cyclone with a face" has completely destroyed a small town. As this new threat returns to wreak even more havoc, a mysterious new hero arrives to face it square on in battle, dramatically declaring to the startled S.H.I.E.L.D agents, "you don't want any part of this". From there, we switch to a lighthearted wrap up of the devastating events surrounding Infinity War/Endgame, in the form of an amateur high school news report. Mourning the loss of fallen heroes (accompanied by Whitney Houston singing 'I Will Always Love You'!), the report goes on to explain how "The Blip" - the term many are using to describe the effects of the 5 year period where half of the population were wiped from existence. Having the population age 5 years while the returning half haven't aged at all naturally has humorous consequences when it comes to students and their school life, but essentially humanity has managed to move on and has learnt to deal with it. Someone who is struggling to move on though, particularly from the loss of mentor/surrogate father, Tony Stark, is young Peter Parker. Desperately in need of a summer vacation, and a break from being Spider-Man, Parker cannot wait to join the rest of his friends, and crucially MJ (Zendaya), on an upcoming school trip which will take them to various European destinations.
But there's no chance of any kind of break for Spider-Man just yet, as Nick Fury has other plans for him. Peter does the unthinkable though and ignores the many phone calls from Fury, until he eventually tracks him down for a face to face meeting in his Venice hotel room. Since the incident in Mexico, S.H.I.E.L.D have been working with the mysterious new hero, Quentin Beck, or 'Mysterio' as he has now been dubbed, and Peter (along with us) are now brought up to speed on the origins of Quentin and these new global threats. Quentin actually comes from an alternate Earth where these creatures, known as The Elementals (monstrous versions of wind, fire, water and air), were responsible for the destruction of not only his world but his entire family too. The most powerful Elemental, fire, is yet to appear on our Earth and Mysterio, along with the help of S.H.I.E.L.D and Spider-Man, need to locate and stop it before it becomes too powerful for them to defeat.
Peter isn't initially interested though, being more concerned about jeopardising his school trip and exposing his identity, not to mention ruining his chances of finally hooking up with MJ. So, the rest of the movie nicely splits itself between teen high school banter/comedy drama and international superhero action. Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau) features prominently throughout the movie, helping to guide and mentor Peter in the absence of his old boss Tony Stark, and providing plenty of comic relief along the way too. He also passes onto Peter, a gift from Tony Stark - a pair of Jarvis-like talking shades called EDITH (Even Dead I'm The Hero!) - which initially act as a funny and poignant accessory for Peter, but proves to be a hugely important part of how the rest of the movie plays out.
Beyond that, I'm struggling to avoid spoilers. And there are a lot of them. If you're familiar with the comics though (and despite having some vague familiarity with them, I'd completely forgotten everything!), you'll be able to predict a lot of what comes next anyway. But, once again, I have to say how amazed I am that Marvel managed to produce trailers for this movie which not only mislead you into believing that you know exactly which direction this movie is heading in, but also feature scenes which aren't in the final movie! As a result, I found Far From Home to be a truly wonderful surprise, and even if you know how it's all going to play out, you should still manage to get a huge amount of enjoyment from seeing the masters of storytelling at work yet again. This movie gave me Endgame-level thrills and goose-bump moments, over and over again throughout. Visually, it's outstanding - with impressive action scenes and trippy sequences the likes of which we haven't seen since Doctor Strange. Jake Gyllenhaal is perfect as Mysterio too, really bringing the character to life, and by the end of it all I was just completely blown away. So when the mid credit sequence hit, opening up some shocking possibilities for future movies, I was almost hyperventilating with excitement!
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated All Is Fair in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
<h2><em><strong>All is Fair</strong></em><strong> by Dee Garretson promises an adventure.</strong></h2>
The beginning of <em>All is Fair</em> promises a fun, action-packed adventure, set in World War I with badass females being involved in espionage. After Mina receives a telegram from her father at her boarding school and decrypts the message, she heads home to find her friend Andrew with an American named Lucas.
<h2><strong>It's a little predictable, but also fun.</strong></h2>
<em>All is Fair</em> starts off great and I loved seeing Mina decrypting her father's message at school. I also loved seeing this play a role later on when Mina has to join Lucas on his mission so he could succeed.
But Garretson's novel is relatively predictable as I called some of the twists before they happened. While this may suck out of the fun for some people, I found myself letting the easy predictions slide as I enjoyed other aspects of the story.
<h2><strong>Slow at the beginning.</strong></h2>
After the promising intro and beginning when we are introduced to Mina and learn a little about her, the story dies down. <em>All is Fair</em> becomes slow and we focus a lot on the aristocratic life in the early 20th century before we get to the action-packed part of the story. I found myself stepping away frequently until then because I was just <em>bored</em> despite the character interactions.
<h2><strong>Characters and interactions are great, romance unnecessary</strong></h2>
I'm a huge character person - if there's a character or two that I enjoy reading, I'll likely let other problems (if any) I have slide. And I adored Mina. From the beginning, she's wanted to go on an adventure but rarely gets the opportunity until something happens and she takes the chance. Her interactions with Lucas are amusing and there is <em>quite</em> the shade being thrown between the two (I love me some good shade).
But the romance wasn't necessary to the story. It felt suddenly thrown in near the end just to have a romantic aspect of sorts. <em>All is Fair</em> would have been perfectly fine with the friendship and occasional shade being thrown about.
<h2><strong>We have an open ending.</strong></h2>
<em>All is Fair</em> leaves an open ending that promises of a possible sequel that could potentially happen. Even if there is no sequel, though, the story wrapped up nicely. My only issue aside from the unnecessary romantic aspect is the boring beginning readers will have to drag themselves through to get to the action-packed adventure.
<a href="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/all-is-fair-by-dee-garretson/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<h2><em><strong>All is Fair</strong></em><strong> by Dee Garretson promises an adventure.</strong></h2>
The beginning of <em>All is Fair</em> promises a fun, action-packed adventure, set in World War I with badass females being involved in espionage. After Mina receives a telegram from her father at her boarding school and decrypts the message, she heads home to find her friend Andrew with an American named Lucas.
<h2><strong>It's a little predictable, but also fun.</strong></h2>
<em>All is Fair</em> starts off great and I loved seeing Mina decrypting her father's message at school. I also loved seeing this play a role later on when Mina has to join Lucas on his mission so he could succeed.
But Garretson's novel is relatively predictable as I called some of the twists before they happened. While this may suck out of the fun for some people, I found myself letting the easy predictions slide as I enjoyed other aspects of the story.
<h2><strong>Slow at the beginning.</strong></h2>
After the promising intro and beginning when we are introduced to Mina and learn a little about her, the story dies down. <em>All is Fair</em> becomes slow and we focus a lot on the aristocratic life in the early 20th century before we get to the action-packed part of the story. I found myself stepping away frequently until then because I was just <em>bored</em> despite the character interactions.
<h2><strong>Characters and interactions are great, romance unnecessary</strong></h2>
I'm a huge character person - if there's a character or two that I enjoy reading, I'll likely let other problems (if any) I have slide. And I adored Mina. From the beginning, she's wanted to go on an adventure but rarely gets the opportunity until something happens and she takes the chance. Her interactions with Lucas are amusing and there is <em>quite</em> the shade being thrown between the two (I love me some good shade).
But the romance wasn't necessary to the story. It felt suddenly thrown in near the end just to have a romantic aspect of sorts. <em>All is Fair</em> would have been perfectly fine with the friendship and occasional shade being thrown about.
<h2><strong>We have an open ending.</strong></h2>
<em>All is Fair</em> leaves an open ending that promises of a possible sequel that could potentially happen. Even if there is no sequel, though, the story wrapped up nicely. My only issue aside from the unnecessary romantic aspect is the boring beginning readers will have to drag themselves through to get to the action-packed adventure.
<a href="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/all-is-fair-by-dee-garretson/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Hopscotch: Learn to Code
Education and Games
App
Hopscotch is a free, award-winning programming app for kids aged 9-13. Downloaded over 10 million...
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated Writings Of Thomas Paine Volume 4 (1794 1796); The Age Of Reason in Books
Jun 29, 2018
Thomas Paine was a political theorist who was perhaps best known for his support for the American Revolution in his pamphlet Common Sense. In what might be his second best known work, The Age of Reason, Paine argued in favor of deism and against the Christian religion and its conception of God. By deism it is meant the belief in a creator God who does not violate the laws of nature by communicating through revelation or miracles The book was very successful and widely read partly due to the fact that it was written in a style which appealed to a popular audience and often implemented a sarcastic, derisive tone to make its points.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Such Sweet Sorrow in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b><i>Such Sweet Sorrow</i> is quite literally an unwritten sequel to <i>Romeo and Juliet</i> coinciding with <i>Hamlet</i> with a dark twist, or in other words, a bridge between the end of one Shakespeare play and the beginning of another.
I personally liked Trouts version of Romeo as he journeys to Denmark in the quest to save Juliet from death - he's much more spunky, but he has his romantic elements as well that Shakespeare originally placed in him. Hamlet is just as cheeky as his original counterpart, if not more cheeky (<i>Hamlet</i> is my favorite Shakespeare play, and it's not actually because of the ending). Juliet, like Romeo, also has another side to her Trout creates - she's more badass. (<i>Romeo and Juliet</i> is my least favorite - interesting combo going on here honestly.)
But <i>Such Sweet Sorrow</i> can be overwhelming. Trout doesn't just have <i>Hamlet</i> mashed with <i>Romeo and Juliet</i> - she's got Norse mythology and Greek mythology and who knows what else (some reviewers on Goodreads say anything you can think of... Essentially). Regardless, there is definitely a mess of things going on throughout and I just decided to go with it rather than question the book in its entirety (like what other mythological aspects are involved).
For the first half of the book, Romeo and Hamlet are, for the most part, wandering around cluelessly through this place called the Afterjord - it can get boring pretty quickly, but there is so much going on with the creatures they come across, it's not actually boring (I'm too busy trying to keep track of what's going on so I'm not lost). <i>Such Sweet Sorrow </i>doesn't actually pick up until after Romeo and Hamlet finally rescue Juliet and try to make their way back to the mortal world.
But while there is so much going on throughout, I actually liked this strange little book in all its weird complexities. However...
I'm disappointed that a cliffhanger is involved and nowhere on Goodreads does it say <i>Such Sweet Sorrow</i> has a sequel in the works.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-such-sweet-sorrow-by-jenny-trou/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
I personally liked Trouts version of Romeo as he journeys to Denmark in the quest to save Juliet from death - he's much more spunky, but he has his romantic elements as well that Shakespeare originally placed in him. Hamlet is just as cheeky as his original counterpart, if not more cheeky (<i>Hamlet</i> is my favorite Shakespeare play, and it's not actually because of the ending). Juliet, like Romeo, also has another side to her Trout creates - she's more badass. (<i>Romeo and Juliet</i> is my least favorite - interesting combo going on here honestly.)
But <i>Such Sweet Sorrow</i> can be overwhelming. Trout doesn't just have <i>Hamlet</i> mashed with <i>Romeo and Juliet</i> - she's got Norse mythology and Greek mythology and who knows what else (some reviewers on Goodreads say anything you can think of... Essentially). Regardless, there is definitely a mess of things going on throughout and I just decided to go with it rather than question the book in its entirety (like what other mythological aspects are involved).
For the first half of the book, Romeo and Hamlet are, for the most part, wandering around cluelessly through this place called the Afterjord - it can get boring pretty quickly, but there is so much going on with the creatures they come across, it's not actually boring (I'm too busy trying to keep track of what's going on so I'm not lost). <i>Such Sweet Sorrow </i>doesn't actually pick up until after Romeo and Hamlet finally rescue Juliet and try to make their way back to the mortal world.
But while there is so much going on throughout, I actually liked this strange little book in all its weird complexities. However...
I'm disappointed that a cliffhanger is involved and nowhere on Goodreads does it say <i>Such Sweet Sorrow</i> has a sequel in the works.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-such-sweet-sorrow-by-jenny-trou/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Empirical Modeling and Data Analysis for Engineers and Applied Scientists: 2016
Book
This textbook teaches advanced undergraduate and first-year graduate students in Engineering and...
SG Project Pro 5
Business and Productivity
App
The Simple Genius brand means fresh design thinking for practical project management apps. Designed...
The four Plumb siblings aren't exactly the most likable group of brothers and sisters. Is their rather despicable, hands-off mother, Francie, to blame? Further, the siblings can't agree on much, either, except how they are all looking forward to the inheritance they've deemed "The Nest." Their late father intended the money to simply be a small sum to help each of his children along late in life (they can't get the money until the youngest turns 40), but the money has been inflated by the stock market and wise investments, and now each sibling is seriously relying on the money in some way. But then, one evening at a wedding, the eldest brother Leo drunkenly gets behind the wheel of his Porsche, a young waitress from the party at his side, and crashes the car. The waitress is badly injured, and the children's mother dips deeply into The Nest to get Leo out of his jam. The other siblings are enraged as they are forced to confront their own financial problems. Melody, the youngest, needs to send her twins to college. Jack, the other brother, has been secretly borrowing against his vacation home, without telling his lawyer husband. And Bea, their sister, hasn't been able to follow up on the success of her early work and finish her novel: she even had to pay back the advance. Leo promises his siblings he will pay them back; but can their wayward older brother be trusted?
This novel received a lot of hype, so of course I avoided reading it for a while. As I was reading it, I thought for quite some time that I'd been duped, as it seemed to be about a bunch of greedy, hateful siblings who cared about nothing but money and appearances. But D'Aprix Sweeney has a deft way with words and somehow, amazingly, this book is compulsively readable and surprisingly enjoyable. After a while, you get to know each Plumb sibling fairly well. While some are pretty despicable (ahem, Leo, ahem), some are just people and parents trying to get by--albeit not always in the most reasonable fashion. I felt the worst for Bea and Melody.
The most interesting part about this novel is that D'Aprix Sweeney doesn't just focus on the four siblings, but she opens up the aperture to include a whole cast of supporting characters, and that is where the novel really shines. Everyone becomes connected somehow, but it doesn't feel trite. We hear from folks in the literary world who work (and love) Bea and Leo, for instance. Leo's love interest (and Bea's editor) Stephanie is my favorite. So while parts of the novel are predictable and I found myself wondering if I cared about any of the Plumbs whatsoever, it's the characters to whom they are connected that are interesting. It takes a talented author to make you want to read a story, even if you don't like the main characters, per se. However, you'll find yourself caught up in the story and wanting to find out what happens. The bonus of extending the characters beyond the four Plumbs is that you get several characters' perspective on an issue or event. In the end, things tie up and together, but again, not too neatly or annoyingly. The ending is perfect somehow--again, a testament to the author's skill.
Overall, the novel surprised me. I honestly usually am not a fan of the spoiled New Yorker novels, but this one was different. It really drew me in. There's a depth and a warmth behind the characters. Definitely worth reading.
<a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">My Blog</a> ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/justacatandbook">Twitter</a>;
This novel received a lot of hype, so of course I avoided reading it for a while. As I was reading it, I thought for quite some time that I'd been duped, as it seemed to be about a bunch of greedy, hateful siblings who cared about nothing but money and appearances. But D'Aprix Sweeney has a deft way with words and somehow, amazingly, this book is compulsively readable and surprisingly enjoyable. After a while, you get to know each Plumb sibling fairly well. While some are pretty despicable (ahem, Leo, ahem), some are just people and parents trying to get by--albeit not always in the most reasonable fashion. I felt the worst for Bea and Melody.
The most interesting part about this novel is that D'Aprix Sweeney doesn't just focus on the four siblings, but she opens up the aperture to include a whole cast of supporting characters, and that is where the novel really shines. Everyone becomes connected somehow, but it doesn't feel trite. We hear from folks in the literary world who work (and love) Bea and Leo, for instance. Leo's love interest (and Bea's editor) Stephanie is my favorite. So while parts of the novel are predictable and I found myself wondering if I cared about any of the Plumbs whatsoever, it's the characters to whom they are connected that are interesting. It takes a talented author to make you want to read a story, even if you don't like the main characters, per se. However, you'll find yourself caught up in the story and wanting to find out what happens. The bonus of extending the characters beyond the four Plumbs is that you get several characters' perspective on an issue or event. In the end, things tie up and together, but again, not too neatly or annoyingly. The ending is perfect somehow--again, a testament to the author's skill.
Overall, the novel surprised me. I honestly usually am not a fan of the spoiled New Yorker novels, but this one was different. It really drew me in. There's a depth and a warmth behind the characters. Definitely worth reading.
<a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">My Blog</a> ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/justacatandbook">Twitter</a>;