Search
Search results
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated The Quest Kids in Tabletop Games
Mar 26, 2021
Have you heard of The Quest Kids? It’s a YouTube channel featuring six young adventurers as they use powerful “Tolk Gems” to help complete quests and protect the city of Treasure Falls. These kids are always striving for good and understanding, and are not afraid to do what is right in all scenarios. These Quest Kids are ideal role models for young children, and when I heard of board games based on the IP I knew my kids and I would love the games. Was my Faith Tolk Gem pointing me in the right direction, or has it gone dark for me? SPOILER: This game is great!
The Quest Kids is a dungeon crawler style board game for players as young as five years of age. Yes, FIVE! In it, players are acting as one of these Quest Kids, attempting to explore the cave of Tolk the Wise. The Quest Kids will find abilities to enhance their own, treasures to collect, and silly bad guys to scare away within, and the player with the most stars (VP) at the end will win the game!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, place the large game board on the table and populate it with the green, gray, and red Dungeon Tiles according to the rules. Also prepare the card decks and place them appropriately in their spaces on the board. The Treasure Tokens are placed in the Treasure Bag. Each player will receive one Quest Kid Player Mat and matching figurine. In addition each player will receive three starting Health Cards, one Quest Card, and one appropriate starting Ability Card. The game may now begin from the entrance to the cave!
On a turn players will be able to have free movement around the board exploring tiles and resolving them in turns. Green tiles are always good for the players, Gray tiles may have some bad guys but are predominantly good, and Red tiles are littered with those silly bad guys that will need to be scared away. A player will travel to a board location and encounter a Dungeon Tile by flipping it over and collecting the resources shown or attempting to scare away the bad guys. Bad guys can be scared by discarding the printed Ability Cards on their tile. Once discarded, the player collects the tile to their Player Mat for stars at game end.
Sometimes players will encounter a bad guy they do not possess enough Ability Cards to scare away. In these scenarios the player may ask the other players for help. Nonactive players may then offer Ability Cards from their stash in order to help achieve the goal. For every Ability Card donated to the cause the donating Quest Kid will receive one Kind Kid Card. Kind Kid Cards are always great and can be resolved at ANY time during the game. Should a player encounter a bad guy they cannot scare away and other Quest Kids cannot help with Ability Cards, the active player will suffer a loss of one of their Health Cards (worth two stars).
Some tiles or Quest cards will instruct the player to draw one or more treasures from the Treasure Bag. Most treasures are good and provide stars, but some are blobs that eat stars. Each Treasure Token also has two values. The top value is for the normal amount of stars. However, the bottom value is worth more stars if the controlling player matches the Quest Kid printed on the token. Some treasure may be worth just one star unless the Quest Kid is a match, in which case it is then worth three stars, for example.
Turns continue in this fashion until all Dungeon Tiles have been resolved or a stalemate reached. At this point all players count up their stars they have collected from various sources and the player with the most stars is the winner!
Components. This is a kids’ game, can we all agree? THIS kids’ game, however, boasts some of the most interesting and wonderful components I have seen. The board is huge and depicts a magical cave. Super cool. The tiles are easy to read and understand, as with all the iconography. The Quest Kids themselves all have the same abilities (unless the expansion is added – and the review for that is coming soon), so that smaller children are not burdened with having to remember their special abilities. There are these plastic Tolk Gems that can be collected during the game and children absolutely flip for these things. And did you see those colorful and very big minis? I mean, come on! It’s a kids’ game! They LOVE minis! The game also comes with cardboard standees in case your children cannot handle the minis carefully enough.
Here is the deal. I absolutely adore these Quest Kids games. They are absolutely the perfect difficulty for young gamers who are ready to step up from the Candy Lands and Chutes & Ladders. Now, the box suggests 5+ but my 4-year-old did just fine with it, so take that with a grain of salt. Having had him already familiarize himself with The Quest Kids characters in The Quest Kids: Matching Adventure, this was an easier process getting this game to the table for us.
The game gives an exciting dungeon crawl experience for younger children, and it’s honestly something I never really knew I needed in my life until I now have it. It is so simple to teach and play and definitely encourages helping other players, if even just because you receive those Kind Kid cards in return. Anything to create that helpful player atmosphere to prepare them for heavier cooperative games is much appreciated.
Please do not misunderstand me. The Quest Kids is targeting younger players, but I do believe that any aged gamer could appreciate and have a good time with this. It certainly will not fill the void of other dungeon crawlers, but if you need a fix and would like to spend 20-45 minutes playing something to scratch that itch, then pull out your copy of The Quest Kids. It is super-light, colorful, and is a perfect stepping stone to bigger cooperative games. Purple Phoenix Games (with special guest Finley) gives this one a Kind 11/12. Please visit the publisher’s website to pick up your copy, and have a great time introducing your children (or partners, in-laws, grannies, pets, whomever) to cooperative dungeon crawls that will have you leaving the table in a much better mood than when you sat down.
The Quest Kids is a dungeon crawler style board game for players as young as five years of age. Yes, FIVE! In it, players are acting as one of these Quest Kids, attempting to explore the cave of Tolk the Wise. The Quest Kids will find abilities to enhance their own, treasures to collect, and silly bad guys to scare away within, and the player with the most stars (VP) at the end will win the game!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, place the large game board on the table and populate it with the green, gray, and red Dungeon Tiles according to the rules. Also prepare the card decks and place them appropriately in their spaces on the board. The Treasure Tokens are placed in the Treasure Bag. Each player will receive one Quest Kid Player Mat and matching figurine. In addition each player will receive three starting Health Cards, one Quest Card, and one appropriate starting Ability Card. The game may now begin from the entrance to the cave!
On a turn players will be able to have free movement around the board exploring tiles and resolving them in turns. Green tiles are always good for the players, Gray tiles may have some bad guys but are predominantly good, and Red tiles are littered with those silly bad guys that will need to be scared away. A player will travel to a board location and encounter a Dungeon Tile by flipping it over and collecting the resources shown or attempting to scare away the bad guys. Bad guys can be scared by discarding the printed Ability Cards on their tile. Once discarded, the player collects the tile to their Player Mat for stars at game end.
Sometimes players will encounter a bad guy they do not possess enough Ability Cards to scare away. In these scenarios the player may ask the other players for help. Nonactive players may then offer Ability Cards from their stash in order to help achieve the goal. For every Ability Card donated to the cause the donating Quest Kid will receive one Kind Kid Card. Kind Kid Cards are always great and can be resolved at ANY time during the game. Should a player encounter a bad guy they cannot scare away and other Quest Kids cannot help with Ability Cards, the active player will suffer a loss of one of their Health Cards (worth two stars).
Some tiles or Quest cards will instruct the player to draw one or more treasures from the Treasure Bag. Most treasures are good and provide stars, but some are blobs that eat stars. Each Treasure Token also has two values. The top value is for the normal amount of stars. However, the bottom value is worth more stars if the controlling player matches the Quest Kid printed on the token. Some treasure may be worth just one star unless the Quest Kid is a match, in which case it is then worth three stars, for example.
Turns continue in this fashion until all Dungeon Tiles have been resolved or a stalemate reached. At this point all players count up their stars they have collected from various sources and the player with the most stars is the winner!
Components. This is a kids’ game, can we all agree? THIS kids’ game, however, boasts some of the most interesting and wonderful components I have seen. The board is huge and depicts a magical cave. Super cool. The tiles are easy to read and understand, as with all the iconography. The Quest Kids themselves all have the same abilities (unless the expansion is added – and the review for that is coming soon), so that smaller children are not burdened with having to remember their special abilities. There are these plastic Tolk Gems that can be collected during the game and children absolutely flip for these things. And did you see those colorful and very big minis? I mean, come on! It’s a kids’ game! They LOVE minis! The game also comes with cardboard standees in case your children cannot handle the minis carefully enough.
Here is the deal. I absolutely adore these Quest Kids games. They are absolutely the perfect difficulty for young gamers who are ready to step up from the Candy Lands and Chutes & Ladders. Now, the box suggests 5+ but my 4-year-old did just fine with it, so take that with a grain of salt. Having had him already familiarize himself with The Quest Kids characters in The Quest Kids: Matching Adventure, this was an easier process getting this game to the table for us.
The game gives an exciting dungeon crawl experience for younger children, and it’s honestly something I never really knew I needed in my life until I now have it. It is so simple to teach and play and definitely encourages helping other players, if even just because you receive those Kind Kid cards in return. Anything to create that helpful player atmosphere to prepare them for heavier cooperative games is much appreciated.
Please do not misunderstand me. The Quest Kids is targeting younger players, but I do believe that any aged gamer could appreciate and have a good time with this. It certainly will not fill the void of other dungeon crawlers, but if you need a fix and would like to spend 20-45 minutes playing something to scratch that itch, then pull out your copy of The Quest Kids. It is super-light, colorful, and is a perfect stepping stone to bigger cooperative games. Purple Phoenix Games (with special guest Finley) gives this one a Kind 11/12. Please visit the publisher’s website to pick up your copy, and have a great time introducing your children (or partners, in-laws, grannies, pets, whomever) to cooperative dungeon crawls that will have you leaving the table in a much better mood than when you sat down.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Tales from the Loop in TV
Jan 22, 2021
Such is the competition for our attention on the major streaming services, and such is the daunting depth of choice, that sometimes something of real quality can slip through the net for a while. I like to think that eventually, everything gets the audience it deserves, because eventually enough people that appreciated it will find it and pass it on. But it is apparent that good things can go under the radar very easily for one reason or another.
Everything about the production and presentation of Amazon’s Tales From the Loop suggests they thought it might be a bigger hit, or at least they had enough faith in it to let it be different from the mass appeal conventions that apply to sci-fi shows. They have proved this many times in recent years, with shows like The Man In the High Castle and The Expanse favouring patient and mature story-telling over interminable flashbangs and whizzpops usually found in the more action based sci-fi on Netflix and others (The Handmaid’s Tale being another notable exception).
Having raised myself auto-didactically on the oldest traditions of science fiction writing in novel and short story form since my teenage years, I can say with some amateur authority that the point of using sci-fi ideas was always about the people and the parallels to social reality and politics that could be highlighted by putting them in a “what-if” situation. The lazer guns and spaceships and evil aliens were much more a product of Hollywood, and still are. Great science fiction writing can and usually does revolve around a very simple change to the world we know, an inversion or a convention or a technology that turns how we live on its head. At its best it is philosophical and moral poetry.
Tales From the Loop, inspired by the beguiling paintings of Swedish Artist Simon Stålenhag aspires to return to these principles, eschewing breakneck pace and unnecessary exposition at every turn – it is entirely content to confuse and sometimes even bore you with its patient, melancholy approach, testing almost if you are worthy to reach the prize of deeper meaning buried away in the final few episodes.
The idea of Stålenhag’s work is to juxtapose a familiar and mundane landscape with a detail of technology that does not exist in our reality. Often it is something broken, run-down or neglected, leaving a strange sadness and beauty behind that has you wondering who once made this and what was it for, and why is it no longer loved? The untold stories objects and hidden lives, secrets and desires that have been lost, is what this sensitive and delicate show is about. It is about the interconnection of lives caught in time, and the sci-fi / tech conceit is only the hanger that coat is put on. Which… I love.
The surface idea is that we are looking at the inhabitants of a small American town that once relied on farming and community, but now has been changed by the presence of an underground facility that deals with experimental physics and finding ways to make impossible things possible. They call it The Loop. It is never fully explained where it came from, or why, or what it is truly capable of – the mystery is always allowed to remain mostly a mystery – which, again, I love!
Many people in the town work at The Loop and rely on it for their livelihoods and collective economy, including Jonathon Pryce and Rebecca Hall, who are ostensibly the show’s main characters. But most folk have no idea what is really going on. Each episode focuses on one or two members of the community that interweave with one another; several important people begin as background dressing and become more prevalent as the full story of their lives and connections unfolds. But no one character is in every episode… which, you know, I love.
Their lives, that seem simple at first glance, are revealed to be complex tapestries of emotion and personal history, revolving around how The Loop has affected them and the things they love. The progression and unfolding of the detail is so deliberate and usually under-explained that very often you don’t realise the effect the full image will have. And when it does catch up with you it becomes a very moving and meaningful experience. Characters that you don’t understand or even like at first come into sharper focus as we reach the climax of the season and grow to learn why they are the way they are. The story arcs of Pryce and Hall in particular are very satisfying, tragic yet utterly beautiful to comprehend.
A lot of the criticism you will see about the show will concentrate on how slow it all is. I am totally convinced this is a deliberate artistic choice to weed out the thrill junkies. They are very welcome to go elsewhere, and it sounds as if many of them did, basing their reviews on one or two half watched episodes they couldn’t be bothered to engage with or wonder at. Which is why I think in time the respect for this as a work of art will come back around.
There is nothing to fault in the production at all. From the opening credits to the end of each episode, what you get is a very highly polished and considered look and feel, designed to evoke certain feelings over others – a wistfulness, an ennui, a bittersweet smile of knowing, perhaps. It invites you to watch patiently and relate, not to watch eagerly and expect… which, you know, I love.
The photography is crisp and well framed always; the music is subtle but effective; the dialogue is often sparing and well chosen (no detail is merely thrown away); and the direction is of a remarkably uniform vision, considering each episode is a different guest professional, including such prestigious names as Jodie Foster, Mark Romanek and Andrew Stanton.
I absolutely urge anyone that isn’t put off by a little sentiment to give this one a try. Sadness and regret in life is not something to shun and be afraid of, they are parts of human experience, and I love art that explores them as concepts. Put that art in a science fiction context and I am bound to love it even more. Like the final moments of Blade Runner, we know that one day all these moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. We have to take time to see the beauty while we can, even if that beauty is painful.
It may not be for you – I don’t think it is better or worse than other things, just more… me. There is every chance that if it isn’t you… you will hate it. If you do begin, however, please see it to the finish before casting judgement – the final episode directed by Jodie Foster is truly wonderful: a pay-off of such emotion after your investment of seven previous stories, tying it all together perfectly. Rarely have I felt so stupid for not understanding the point of something sooner, or been more pleased that I hadn’t. The final moment of the season is literally unforgettable, and gets richer in my imagination by the day.
Will there be a second season? There certainly could be. Was it enough of a success to justify the investment? Hmm, not sure. Either way, it either sits as a perfect self contained collection of fine, old-fashioned sci-fi stories, or I’d be happy to see it expand, as long as the temptation isn’t to listen to the negative reviews and pander to the fast-food mentality that has already rejected it without fully understanding it. Because nothing needs to change here. A thing of beauty, recommended to those who like beautiful and delicate things.
Everything about the production and presentation of Amazon’s Tales From the Loop suggests they thought it might be a bigger hit, or at least they had enough faith in it to let it be different from the mass appeal conventions that apply to sci-fi shows. They have proved this many times in recent years, with shows like The Man In the High Castle and The Expanse favouring patient and mature story-telling over interminable flashbangs and whizzpops usually found in the more action based sci-fi on Netflix and others (The Handmaid’s Tale being another notable exception).
Having raised myself auto-didactically on the oldest traditions of science fiction writing in novel and short story form since my teenage years, I can say with some amateur authority that the point of using sci-fi ideas was always about the people and the parallels to social reality and politics that could be highlighted by putting them in a “what-if” situation. The lazer guns and spaceships and evil aliens were much more a product of Hollywood, and still are. Great science fiction writing can and usually does revolve around a very simple change to the world we know, an inversion or a convention or a technology that turns how we live on its head. At its best it is philosophical and moral poetry.
Tales From the Loop, inspired by the beguiling paintings of Swedish Artist Simon Stålenhag aspires to return to these principles, eschewing breakneck pace and unnecessary exposition at every turn – it is entirely content to confuse and sometimes even bore you with its patient, melancholy approach, testing almost if you are worthy to reach the prize of deeper meaning buried away in the final few episodes.
The idea of Stålenhag’s work is to juxtapose a familiar and mundane landscape with a detail of technology that does not exist in our reality. Often it is something broken, run-down or neglected, leaving a strange sadness and beauty behind that has you wondering who once made this and what was it for, and why is it no longer loved? The untold stories objects and hidden lives, secrets and desires that have been lost, is what this sensitive and delicate show is about. It is about the interconnection of lives caught in time, and the sci-fi / tech conceit is only the hanger that coat is put on. Which… I love.
The surface idea is that we are looking at the inhabitants of a small American town that once relied on farming and community, but now has been changed by the presence of an underground facility that deals with experimental physics and finding ways to make impossible things possible. They call it The Loop. It is never fully explained where it came from, or why, or what it is truly capable of – the mystery is always allowed to remain mostly a mystery – which, again, I love!
Many people in the town work at The Loop and rely on it for their livelihoods and collective economy, including Jonathon Pryce and Rebecca Hall, who are ostensibly the show’s main characters. But most folk have no idea what is really going on. Each episode focuses on one or two members of the community that interweave with one another; several important people begin as background dressing and become more prevalent as the full story of their lives and connections unfolds. But no one character is in every episode… which, you know, I love.
Their lives, that seem simple at first glance, are revealed to be complex tapestries of emotion and personal history, revolving around how The Loop has affected them and the things they love. The progression and unfolding of the detail is so deliberate and usually under-explained that very often you don’t realise the effect the full image will have. And when it does catch up with you it becomes a very moving and meaningful experience. Characters that you don’t understand or even like at first come into sharper focus as we reach the climax of the season and grow to learn why they are the way they are. The story arcs of Pryce and Hall in particular are very satisfying, tragic yet utterly beautiful to comprehend.
A lot of the criticism you will see about the show will concentrate on how slow it all is. I am totally convinced this is a deliberate artistic choice to weed out the thrill junkies. They are very welcome to go elsewhere, and it sounds as if many of them did, basing their reviews on one or two half watched episodes they couldn’t be bothered to engage with or wonder at. Which is why I think in time the respect for this as a work of art will come back around.
There is nothing to fault in the production at all. From the opening credits to the end of each episode, what you get is a very highly polished and considered look and feel, designed to evoke certain feelings over others – a wistfulness, an ennui, a bittersweet smile of knowing, perhaps. It invites you to watch patiently and relate, not to watch eagerly and expect… which, you know, I love.
The photography is crisp and well framed always; the music is subtle but effective; the dialogue is often sparing and well chosen (no detail is merely thrown away); and the direction is of a remarkably uniform vision, considering each episode is a different guest professional, including such prestigious names as Jodie Foster, Mark Romanek and Andrew Stanton.
I absolutely urge anyone that isn’t put off by a little sentiment to give this one a try. Sadness and regret in life is not something to shun and be afraid of, they are parts of human experience, and I love art that explores them as concepts. Put that art in a science fiction context and I am bound to love it even more. Like the final moments of Blade Runner, we know that one day all these moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. We have to take time to see the beauty while we can, even if that beauty is painful.
It may not be for you – I don’t think it is better or worse than other things, just more… me. There is every chance that if it isn’t you… you will hate it. If you do begin, however, please see it to the finish before casting judgement – the final episode directed by Jodie Foster is truly wonderful: a pay-off of such emotion after your investment of seven previous stories, tying it all together perfectly. Rarely have I felt so stupid for not understanding the point of something sooner, or been more pleased that I hadn’t. The final moment of the season is literally unforgettable, and gets richer in my imagination by the day.
Will there be a second season? There certainly could be. Was it enough of a success to justify the investment? Hmm, not sure. Either way, it either sits as a perfect self contained collection of fine, old-fashioned sci-fi stories, or I’d be happy to see it expand, as long as the temptation isn’t to listen to the negative reviews and pander to the fast-food mentality that has already rejected it without fully understanding it. Because nothing needs to change here. A thing of beauty, recommended to those who like beautiful and delicate things.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Crime and Punishment in Books
Apr 27, 2018
**spoilers**
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky. read by Anthony Heald.
Genre: Fiction, classic
Rating: 5
Sin, Sentence, and Salvation
The allegory of Crime and Punishment
Crime and Punishment, one of the more famous works of Fyodor Dostoevsky, is considered “the first great novel of his mature period,” (Frank, 1995) and is one of his more famous books, rivaled only by The Brothers Karamazov. What makes Crime and Punishment such a classic? Perhaps because it is a picture of the only classic, and greatest story of all time. Crime and Punishment is an allegory of Salvation.
Self-justified
The main character, Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, was a poor student at a university, and was overcome with hate toward an old pawnbroker, and decided to rid the world of her for the greater good of everyone. He believed that she was a “louse,” and since everyone would be happier without her, his actions would be justified. He believed that he had broken the letter of the law only, but that it didn’t have any authority over him anyway because it was written by people just as low as himself. He didn’t believe in God, and in prison he was convinced that he didn’t deserve his treatment, and that it was something he simply needed to get over with. He had no higher authority, so he said “my conscience is at rest.” This is a picture of man before he is touched by the merciful salvation of Christ.
A Troubled Man
Although Raskolnikov justified his actions in killing the old woman, he still felt an overwhelming sense of guilt and fear over what he did. He worked very hard at keeping it a secret, and at first he thought he could live with the guilt that sat in back of his mind, but he was wrong. Raskolnikov had horrible dreams, was always sick, and one of the other characters noticed that he was constantly “set off by little things” for no apparent reason (though the reader knew that it was only because it reminded him of his crime). This represents a man who knows in his heart that he is a sinner, but who will not turn and repent from his sin.
Unending Love
Sonya Semyonovna Marmeladov was the daughter of a drunkard who “took the yellow card” and prostituted herself to support her family. Throughout the book, Sonya began to love Raskolnikov. Eventually, Raskolnikov told Sonya his secret. Sonya was horrified, but still loved him and forgave him after her initial shock wore off. As Raskolnikov was fighting inside with his conscience and his sins, he repeatedly snapped at her, refused her comfort, yelled at her, and so on. He was a bitter, angry, hateful man—and yet Sonya forgave him for everything he did to her, and everything he had done in his past. What redeeming quality Sonya saw in the wretch and why she forgave him, one cannot begin to comprehend; aside from the simple truth that Sonya was a loving, gentile, merciful girl. She saw that Raskolnikov needed someone to love him and she reached out to him, even when he repeatedly pushed her away. Sonya’s love for him is a picture of Christ’s unending and perfect love to His sinful people.
A Silent Witness
When Raskolnikov finally broke down and confessed his crime, Sonya moved to Siberia with him. Raskolnikov expected this, and knew that telling her not to come would be fruitless. She visited him often in prison and wrote to his family for him. But although Raskolnikov expected her to preach to him and push the Gospel in his face, she did not. Sonya followed the scripture’s instruction to Christian wives with non-Christian husbands in 1 Peter 3:1—“ Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives…” The verse tells women to be good examples of Christ to their non-Christian husbands rather than to preach to them and try to convert them, and that is exactly what Sonya did, even though she was not married to him. She did not try to convert him with words; rather she won him with her love. She did not push the Testament into Raskolnikov’s hands, he asked for it. When she did bring it, she did not pester him to read it. She had faith, and showed Raskolnikov the love of Christ through her actions. In the end, it paid off. Although Dostoevsky does not specifically say that Raskolnikov was converted, he does imply that he eventually became a Christian when he mused “Can not her own convictions now be mine?”
The truth will set you free
When Raskolnikov finally realized that he loved Sonya, he accepted that he was a criminal, and a murderer. When he finally accepted that he was a sinner, he repented and had a new life in him. He said he felt like “he had risen again” and that Sonya “lived only in his life.” By life, Dostoevsky refers to his mentality. Before, he had been a living dead man in prison. He was hated by his inmates, was almost killed by them in an outbreak, was unaffected by anything that happened to him or his family, and eventually became ill from it all. But after his resurrection, he repented from his sins, learned to move on with his life, and started to change. He began to converse with his inmates, and they no longer hated him. Sonya was alive in his “life” because of her love for him. When he was changed, she was so happy that she became sick with joy, to the point that she was ill in bed. Dostoevsky paints a picture of a redeemed man at the end of his novel—redeemed both by the law, and by God. This picture symbolizes the miracle of salvation through Christ.
An amazing Allegory
Dostoevsky was a wonderful writer because of his use of dialogue to tell the story, his descriptive scenes, his powerfully developed characters, and their inner dialogue. He often times told you that something was happening by only telling you what the character who was speaking at the time said in response to what was going on. For example, if Sonya was standing up, Dostoevsky would write “… ‘hey, what do you stand for?’ for Sonya had stood.”
He also painted such good descriptions of his characters, that by the middle of the book he didn’t have to say that Raskolnikov was musing in the corner of the room, glaring at anyone who was brave enough to look at him, while he stewed in grief under his old ratted cap, because you knew from how well he was described earlier and how well his character was developed from the dialogue, that he was doing exactly that.
His characters are so real, they almost frighten you because you see the things they do and feel and experience reflected in your own life. They are not perfect—in fact they are all incredibly flawed, but they are a joy to read.
His ending is superb, because he closes the story without actually telling you everything. He never says that Raskolnikov was converted, he never says when he got out of prison, and he never says that Sonya and he were married, but you know that it happened. The last scene of the story is so superb, it makes you want to read it again, just to experience the joy all over again.
But what really made Crime and Punishment the classic that it was is the picture of the best story in the world, the classic story of the world, showing through. The story of the Gospel, of Jesus Christ’s unending love and sin and salvation is clearly portrayed, and makes a joyous read.
Works cited:
Quotes are from Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky, 1886
Frank, Joseph (1995). Dostoevsky: The Miraculous Years, 1865–1871. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01587-2. (source found and taken from Wikipedia.com)
1 Peter 3:1 New International Version of The Holy Bible
Audio review: I had a hard time reading the book, simply because it was so huge that it was intimidating. I bought (ouch) the audio book of Crime and Punishment, recorded by Anthony Heald who did a fantastic job reading. His voices for the characters perfectly matched them, he felt for them, and he acted them. None of them were cheesy (yeah you all know how lame some male readers are at acting female voices). He read fast enough that the story didn't drag at all, but not so fast that you'd feel like you'd miss something if you didn't listen hard. I will definitely re-listen to the audio book.
Content: some gruesome descriptions of blood from the murder
Recommendation: Ages 14+
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky. read by Anthony Heald.
Genre: Fiction, classic
Rating: 5
Sin, Sentence, and Salvation
The allegory of Crime and Punishment
Crime and Punishment, one of the more famous works of Fyodor Dostoevsky, is considered “the first great novel of his mature period,” (Frank, 1995) and is one of his more famous books, rivaled only by The Brothers Karamazov. What makes Crime and Punishment such a classic? Perhaps because it is a picture of the only classic, and greatest story of all time. Crime and Punishment is an allegory of Salvation.
Self-justified
The main character, Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, was a poor student at a university, and was overcome with hate toward an old pawnbroker, and decided to rid the world of her for the greater good of everyone. He believed that she was a “louse,” and since everyone would be happier without her, his actions would be justified. He believed that he had broken the letter of the law only, but that it didn’t have any authority over him anyway because it was written by people just as low as himself. He didn’t believe in God, and in prison he was convinced that he didn’t deserve his treatment, and that it was something he simply needed to get over with. He had no higher authority, so he said “my conscience is at rest.” This is a picture of man before he is touched by the merciful salvation of Christ.
A Troubled Man
Although Raskolnikov justified his actions in killing the old woman, he still felt an overwhelming sense of guilt and fear over what he did. He worked very hard at keeping it a secret, and at first he thought he could live with the guilt that sat in back of his mind, but he was wrong. Raskolnikov had horrible dreams, was always sick, and one of the other characters noticed that he was constantly “set off by little things” for no apparent reason (though the reader knew that it was only because it reminded him of his crime). This represents a man who knows in his heart that he is a sinner, but who will not turn and repent from his sin.
Unending Love
Sonya Semyonovna Marmeladov was the daughter of a drunkard who “took the yellow card” and prostituted herself to support her family. Throughout the book, Sonya began to love Raskolnikov. Eventually, Raskolnikov told Sonya his secret. Sonya was horrified, but still loved him and forgave him after her initial shock wore off. As Raskolnikov was fighting inside with his conscience and his sins, he repeatedly snapped at her, refused her comfort, yelled at her, and so on. He was a bitter, angry, hateful man—and yet Sonya forgave him for everything he did to her, and everything he had done in his past. What redeeming quality Sonya saw in the wretch and why she forgave him, one cannot begin to comprehend; aside from the simple truth that Sonya was a loving, gentile, merciful girl. She saw that Raskolnikov needed someone to love him and she reached out to him, even when he repeatedly pushed her away. Sonya’s love for him is a picture of Christ’s unending and perfect love to His sinful people.
A Silent Witness
When Raskolnikov finally broke down and confessed his crime, Sonya moved to Siberia with him. Raskolnikov expected this, and knew that telling her not to come would be fruitless. She visited him often in prison and wrote to his family for him. But although Raskolnikov expected her to preach to him and push the Gospel in his face, she did not. Sonya followed the scripture’s instruction to Christian wives with non-Christian husbands in 1 Peter 3:1—“ Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives…” The verse tells women to be good examples of Christ to their non-Christian husbands rather than to preach to them and try to convert them, and that is exactly what Sonya did, even though she was not married to him. She did not try to convert him with words; rather she won him with her love. She did not push the Testament into Raskolnikov’s hands, he asked for it. When she did bring it, she did not pester him to read it. She had faith, and showed Raskolnikov the love of Christ through her actions. In the end, it paid off. Although Dostoevsky does not specifically say that Raskolnikov was converted, he does imply that he eventually became a Christian when he mused “Can not her own convictions now be mine?”
The truth will set you free
When Raskolnikov finally realized that he loved Sonya, he accepted that he was a criminal, and a murderer. When he finally accepted that he was a sinner, he repented and had a new life in him. He said he felt like “he had risen again” and that Sonya “lived only in his life.” By life, Dostoevsky refers to his mentality. Before, he had been a living dead man in prison. He was hated by his inmates, was almost killed by them in an outbreak, was unaffected by anything that happened to him or his family, and eventually became ill from it all. But after his resurrection, he repented from his sins, learned to move on with his life, and started to change. He began to converse with his inmates, and they no longer hated him. Sonya was alive in his “life” because of her love for him. When he was changed, she was so happy that she became sick with joy, to the point that she was ill in bed. Dostoevsky paints a picture of a redeemed man at the end of his novel—redeemed both by the law, and by God. This picture symbolizes the miracle of salvation through Christ.
An amazing Allegory
Dostoevsky was a wonderful writer because of his use of dialogue to tell the story, his descriptive scenes, his powerfully developed characters, and their inner dialogue. He often times told you that something was happening by only telling you what the character who was speaking at the time said in response to what was going on. For example, if Sonya was standing up, Dostoevsky would write “… ‘hey, what do you stand for?’ for Sonya had stood.”
He also painted such good descriptions of his characters, that by the middle of the book he didn’t have to say that Raskolnikov was musing in the corner of the room, glaring at anyone who was brave enough to look at him, while he stewed in grief under his old ratted cap, because you knew from how well he was described earlier and how well his character was developed from the dialogue, that he was doing exactly that.
His characters are so real, they almost frighten you because you see the things they do and feel and experience reflected in your own life. They are not perfect—in fact they are all incredibly flawed, but they are a joy to read.
His ending is superb, because he closes the story without actually telling you everything. He never says that Raskolnikov was converted, he never says when he got out of prison, and he never says that Sonya and he were married, but you know that it happened. The last scene of the story is so superb, it makes you want to read it again, just to experience the joy all over again.
But what really made Crime and Punishment the classic that it was is the picture of the best story in the world, the classic story of the world, showing through. The story of the Gospel, of Jesus Christ’s unending love and sin and salvation is clearly portrayed, and makes a joyous read.
Works cited:
Quotes are from Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky, 1886
Frank, Joseph (1995). Dostoevsky: The Miraculous Years, 1865–1871. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01587-2. (source found and taken from Wikipedia.com)
1 Peter 3:1 New International Version of The Holy Bible
Audio review: I had a hard time reading the book, simply because it was so huge that it was intimidating. I bought (ouch) the audio book of Crime and Punishment, recorded by Anthony Heald who did a fantastic job reading. His voices for the characters perfectly matched them, he felt for them, and he acted them. None of them were cheesy (yeah you all know how lame some male readers are at acting female voices). He read fast enough that the story didn't drag at all, but not so fast that you'd feel like you'd miss something if you didn't listen hard. I will definitely re-listen to the audio book.
Content: some gruesome descriptions of blood from the murder
Recommendation: Ages 14+
Dana (24 KP) rated Empire of Storms in Books
Mar 23, 2018
This review will have a lot of spoilers for the books, so if you haven't read it, I suggest you turn away now. This is going to be a long review!
Let's start off with a character analysis section:
The Little Folk: I loved how they gave Aelin little gifts. I want more interaction with them in the next book!!
Elide Lochan: Elide doesn't see her own strength. She has been through hell, but still knows kindness and love. She has so much hope and is loyal to a fault. She loves Lorcan, but is constantly stopped by this idiocy. She has three freaking guardian angels: Aelin, Manon, and Aedion. She is a half-witch, which is cool! She was able to withstand the torment of the wyrdkey with little side effects! She is protected by the God of Death's consort which is cool because the God of Death is Lorcan's protector. She learns from and is strengthened by her crappy past. She can STILL LOVE AFTER EVERYTHING! Also, she is such a tricky schemer and a great liar!
Lorcan Salvaterre: He is a dummy and is too fixated on Maeve to see that he can have real love with Elide. He is death-protected by Hellas-and is a great hunter. He has a heart of gold underneath all that grime. He freaking makes Elide a brace for her ankle for goodness sake! Lorcan is vengeful as f, especially when Elide is threatened. I feel like he's going to be a big help to Aelin's course!
Aedion Ashryver: He's Bisexual!!! He is so in Love with Lysandra and is a flirtatious bastard. He doubts Aelin too much and questions her all the time. I get it, but it gets disheartening. He has a bad ass shot (that sea wyvern shot though!!) and is obviously a skilled warrior. He has an interestingly complicated relationship with his father. I love the the White Wolf of the North! I love his tattoo: the knot made of the courts' names!
Lysandra: Oh my goodness, she is so freaking strong! I love her powers! She is so protective of her girls, especially Evangeline. Her Snow Leopard and Sea Dragon forms are my favorite! She can and will conquer as many men as need be (mainly in killing, not sex). She loves Aedion and is so loyal to Aelin that she would literally become her.
Evangeline: She is the innocence of the group. When she goes, the group is harder and lacks the absolute faith that everything will be alright.
Fleetfoot: I love her, that is all.
Dorian Havillard: A king without a kingdom. He is a boy with powers he has no idea how to control. A boy whose friends left him. He has to learn his powers alone like he has all his life. He is trusting but questions things-he knows when he should hold back. He loves Manon and oh my sweet goodness, that cabinet scene. He is great at riddles too!
Mannon Blackbeak: OUR QUEEN!!!! She protects her own and can let go of prejudices when she needs to do the best for her people. She is so savage! She is a great leader willing to die for her thirteen. I can't wait until she kills her grandmother. SHE WILL BRING PEACE FOR HER PEOPLE!!!!! She obviously has feelings for Dorian.
Abraxos: He is the best damned wyvern ever. Even though Manon tells him to "go hide," he finds a freaking army and saves the day!
Gavriel: He's not the best dad, but he's working on it! He is too loyal to Maeve, but he cares about people. He is a lot more emotional than I would have guessed. Lol, Uncle Kitty-Cat.
Fenrys: He is such a sarcastic little ass, but a great warrior (both in the battlefield and in bed ;D). He kinda reminds me of Cassian. His situation sucks with Maeve because both he and his brother are basically prisoners and sex objects for the queen. I hope he will find a way to break the blood bond for him and his brother to help Aelin. Also, WINNOWING!!!
Queen Maeve: She is a witch with a capital B and I hate her.
Erawan: Power hungry as hell.
Elena: She is so dumb. I get it, she made a mistake, but she was still dumb. She acts before thinking and doesn't understand sacrifice or strategy. She pushed a war onto a group of children for goodness sake!
Rowan Whitethorn: He has come such a long way since Heir of Fire. He is so emotional and a freaking worry wart, loyal and trusting as hell, but he is still bad ass. He lets his woman fight when she needs to. He embraces the past mistakes of his friends and family. He is a horny little hawk. HE IS AELIN'S MATE AND HUSBAND!!! And he is the KING OF TERRASAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Strategic as hell-the thing with the Whitethorn cousins-hell yes! When he gets his hands on Maeve, shit will go down! VENGEANCE WILL BE HIS and Maeve will die horribly!! His reaction when he found out Aelin was captured was gut wrenching! Also, I loved it when he called Aelin Milady. Freaking great!
Aelin Ashryver Galanthys: She is always 500 steps ahead of everyone else. She shuts everyone down with her witty comebacks. She lets Aedion think the worst of her because she doesn't want to get their hopes up. She is not too trusting but is willing to sacrifice herself for everyone else. "But your faces are so wonderful when I get to reveal them." WOW AELIN!! When Deanna took over Aelins super power moment-I was terrified. I hate that she has to sacrifice herself. I just want her to be happy!! I loved how she pulled all of the characters from The Assassin's Blade into this! She's bloody brilliant! Using all of those Life Debts!! Her reaction to Elide is heartbreaking. Killing all of the Valg was great! When she slipped into the Celeana person, I go so freaking excited!! She was so close to settling and Maeve had to freaking ruined it all! She could have lived forever and been so happy!
Now onto some plot analysis:
So this book had a pretty awesome start since we got a flashback to the first war with Elena and Erawan. I love the little history throughout the book! The flashbacks with Elena and Nehemia were so freaking sad. I cried when they talked about Nehemia and Aelin's respective sacrifices. I feel like we get to go deeper into the history even though this is the second to last book!
Nicknames in all of Sarah J Maas' books are so cute! I love how Aelin and Rowan call each other Fireheart and Buzzard.
Family (especially chosen and made family) is so important in all of Sarah J Maas' books. Characters are willing to die to protect those they love and I think that's something important to put into books. The fact that you can always find a home in your people is very nice to see.
Women are the ones to be truly feared in this series because they have the most power. They are all so badass and never take shit from the male characters!
The multiple PoVs were very well done. As you may have realized from my other reviews, I am not a fan on multiple PoV novels much, so the fact I loved this one is great!
I think it was really cool how each character is being guided by at least one God. I have a crackpot theory about this that connects this series to the ACOTAR series. So it is stated multiple times that the Gods want to "go home" because they are trapped, right? So what if they are our Night Court Crew? Some of the descriptions of the powers fit!
I loved how SJM described the process of the magic weilding.
There was a great plot structure and pacing.
The Mycenians are so interesting! I called it that Rolfe was a Mycenian before I got to that part!
I want to know what Rowan said to Rolfe back at Skull's Bay.
All the ships got to have fun time together. Well, except for Elide and Lorcan.
I wish we could have had Choal and Nesryn in this book, but I understand why we didn't.
One thing I didn't like was how similar some of the plot points and characters were to ACOTAR and ACOMAF. Even thought they're both by SJM, I wish there wasnt' as much overlap.
Overall, I loved this book--a few thinggs could have been changed to keep it more significantly different from ACOTAR but it was still great.
Some Quotes I loved:
"Because destroying a symbol can break the spirits of men as much as bloodshed." (44)
"To call in old debts and promises. To raise an army of assassins and thieves and exiles and commoners. To finish what was started long, long ago." (72)
"One does not deal with Celeana Sardothian. One survives her." (241)
"Even when this world is a forgotten whisper if dust between the stars, I will love you." (350)
Let's start off with a character analysis section:
The Little Folk: I loved how they gave Aelin little gifts. I want more interaction with them in the next book!!
Elide Lochan: Elide doesn't see her own strength. She has been through hell, but still knows kindness and love. She has so much hope and is loyal to a fault. She loves Lorcan, but is constantly stopped by this idiocy. She has three freaking guardian angels: Aelin, Manon, and Aedion. She is a half-witch, which is cool! She was able to withstand the torment of the wyrdkey with little side effects! She is protected by the God of Death's consort which is cool because the God of Death is Lorcan's protector. She learns from and is strengthened by her crappy past. She can STILL LOVE AFTER EVERYTHING! Also, she is such a tricky schemer and a great liar!
Lorcan Salvaterre: He is a dummy and is too fixated on Maeve to see that he can have real love with Elide. He is death-protected by Hellas-and is a great hunter. He has a heart of gold underneath all that grime. He freaking makes Elide a brace for her ankle for goodness sake! Lorcan is vengeful as f, especially when Elide is threatened. I feel like he's going to be a big help to Aelin's course!
Aedion Ashryver: He's Bisexual!!! He is so in Love with Lysandra and is a flirtatious bastard. He doubts Aelin too much and questions her all the time. I get it, but it gets disheartening. He has a bad ass shot (that sea wyvern shot though!!) and is obviously a skilled warrior. He has an interestingly complicated relationship with his father. I love the the White Wolf of the North! I love his tattoo: the knot made of the courts' names!
Lysandra: Oh my goodness, she is so freaking strong! I love her powers! She is so protective of her girls, especially Evangeline. Her Snow Leopard and Sea Dragon forms are my favorite! She can and will conquer as many men as need be (mainly in killing, not sex). She loves Aedion and is so loyal to Aelin that she would literally become her.
Evangeline: She is the innocence of the group. When she goes, the group is harder and lacks the absolute faith that everything will be alright.
Fleetfoot: I love her, that is all.
Dorian Havillard: A king without a kingdom. He is a boy with powers he has no idea how to control. A boy whose friends left him. He has to learn his powers alone like he has all his life. He is trusting but questions things-he knows when he should hold back. He loves Manon and oh my sweet goodness, that cabinet scene. He is great at riddles too!
Mannon Blackbeak: OUR QUEEN!!!! She protects her own and can let go of prejudices when she needs to do the best for her people. She is so savage! She is a great leader willing to die for her thirteen. I can't wait until she kills her grandmother. SHE WILL BRING PEACE FOR HER PEOPLE!!!!! She obviously has feelings for Dorian.
Abraxos: He is the best damned wyvern ever. Even though Manon tells him to "go hide," he finds a freaking army and saves the day!
Gavriel: He's not the best dad, but he's working on it! He is too loyal to Maeve, but he cares about people. He is a lot more emotional than I would have guessed. Lol, Uncle Kitty-Cat.
Fenrys: He is such a sarcastic little ass, but a great warrior (both in the battlefield and in bed ;D). He kinda reminds me of Cassian. His situation sucks with Maeve because both he and his brother are basically prisoners and sex objects for the queen. I hope he will find a way to break the blood bond for him and his brother to help Aelin. Also, WINNOWING!!!
Queen Maeve: She is a witch with a capital B and I hate her.
Erawan: Power hungry as hell.
Elena: She is so dumb. I get it, she made a mistake, but she was still dumb. She acts before thinking and doesn't understand sacrifice or strategy. She pushed a war onto a group of children for goodness sake!
Rowan Whitethorn: He has come such a long way since Heir of Fire. He is so emotional and a freaking worry wart, loyal and trusting as hell, but he is still bad ass. He lets his woman fight when she needs to. He embraces the past mistakes of his friends and family. He is a horny little hawk. HE IS AELIN'S MATE AND HUSBAND!!! And he is the KING OF TERRASAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Strategic as hell-the thing with the Whitethorn cousins-hell yes! When he gets his hands on Maeve, shit will go down! VENGEANCE WILL BE HIS and Maeve will die horribly!! His reaction when he found out Aelin was captured was gut wrenching! Also, I loved it when he called Aelin Milady. Freaking great!
Aelin Ashryver Galanthys: She is always 500 steps ahead of everyone else. She shuts everyone down with her witty comebacks. She lets Aedion think the worst of her because she doesn't want to get their hopes up. She is not too trusting but is willing to sacrifice herself for everyone else. "But your faces are so wonderful when I get to reveal them." WOW AELIN!! When Deanna took over Aelins super power moment-I was terrified. I hate that she has to sacrifice herself. I just want her to be happy!! I loved how she pulled all of the characters from The Assassin's Blade into this! She's bloody brilliant! Using all of those Life Debts!! Her reaction to Elide is heartbreaking. Killing all of the Valg was great! When she slipped into the Celeana person, I go so freaking excited!! She was so close to settling and Maeve had to freaking ruined it all! She could have lived forever and been so happy!
Now onto some plot analysis:
So this book had a pretty awesome start since we got a flashback to the first war with Elena and Erawan. I love the little history throughout the book! The flashbacks with Elena and Nehemia were so freaking sad. I cried when they talked about Nehemia and Aelin's respective sacrifices. I feel like we get to go deeper into the history even though this is the second to last book!
Nicknames in all of Sarah J Maas' books are so cute! I love how Aelin and Rowan call each other Fireheart and Buzzard.
Family (especially chosen and made family) is so important in all of Sarah J Maas' books. Characters are willing to die to protect those they love and I think that's something important to put into books. The fact that you can always find a home in your people is very nice to see.
Women are the ones to be truly feared in this series because they have the most power. They are all so badass and never take shit from the male characters!
The multiple PoVs were very well done. As you may have realized from my other reviews, I am not a fan on multiple PoV novels much, so the fact I loved this one is great!
I think it was really cool how each character is being guided by at least one God. I have a crackpot theory about this that connects this series to the ACOTAR series. So it is stated multiple times that the Gods want to "go home" because they are trapped, right? So what if they are our Night Court Crew? Some of the descriptions of the powers fit!
I loved how SJM described the process of the magic weilding.
There was a great plot structure and pacing.
The Mycenians are so interesting! I called it that Rolfe was a Mycenian before I got to that part!
I want to know what Rowan said to Rolfe back at Skull's Bay.
All the ships got to have fun time together. Well, except for Elide and Lorcan.
I wish we could have had Choal and Nesryn in this book, but I understand why we didn't.
One thing I didn't like was how similar some of the plot points and characters were to ACOTAR and ACOMAF. Even thought they're both by SJM, I wish there wasnt' as much overlap.
Overall, I loved this book--a few thinggs could have been changed to keep it more significantly different from ACOTAR but it was still great.
Some Quotes I loved:
"Because destroying a symbol can break the spirits of men as much as bloodshed." (44)
"To call in old debts and promises. To raise an army of assassins and thieves and exiles and commoners. To finish what was started long, long ago." (72)
"One does not deal with Celeana Sardothian. One survives her." (241)
"Even when this world is a forgotten whisper if dust between the stars, I will love you." (350)
ELLDBRY (0 KP) rated The Godfather (1972) in Movies
Apr 16, 2020
10/10
Contains spoilers, click to show
"I believe in America…."
What is it about someone you care about that sets them apart? Are they family, a friend, or someone you feel just needs help? What causes you to go the extra mile to put someone else ahead of yourself? You may find the answers in your religion, your upbringing, or in movies. For example, say your daughter goes out on a date with a guy and she is violently beaten by him and one of his friends. You go see her in the hospital and she cannot even weep because of the pain. So trying to keep your cool you press charges and try by the legal means to bring the young men to justice. It doesn't happen, their sentences are suspended. That may make you lose faith in the system that is supposed to protect you. So now you go to someone else who could help. This person is a bigshot, a pezzonovante in his own way but outside the system. You explain what happened and what you did, and all he says is 'why didn't you come to me first?' How many times in your life have some of us gone to others that don't care and asked for help instead of going to the ones that actually care. And the problem is solved. Imagine for another example that your father is in the hospital and men are coming to kill him. And you are the only one there that can help him. Imagine that you had your own dreams and your own goals that were different to what your father wanted. But in this moment you put all that aside to help your father survive. You assure him that everything will be ok and you are with him now. You bluff out the men trying to kill him and your father is saved. Most of us may never have to defend our dads from someone trying to kill him. But seeing someone laying helpless in a hospital bed in need of help we can all relate to. Every son, every daughter, every parent, every sibling, every friend. You see everybody wants to talk about the gangster mafia element of The Godfather, and say that is what it is all about. But family plays an even bigger role in the story by being the driving force behind the main characters. Family, love, loyalty, sacrifice all these elements are used in the movie to bring a standard boring mafia shootout movie to the level of greatest movie of all time. Francis Ford Coppola used as much he could to bring this point home. The wedding scene was not made up by any means but instead taken from other weddings witnessed by every Italian who has ever been to a wedding. Bringing envelopes filled with money to the bride, nieces dancing on the feet of uncle's, people waiting in line to see the father of the bride, sandwiches in white paper being tossed around. 'two gabagool, one proshootoh!' Then go to the kitchen to make spaghetti. Need a recipe? Try 'a little of oil then fry some garlic, throw in some tomatoes and tomato paste, fry it, make sure it does not stick, get it to boil, put in all your sausage and meatballs, add some wine and a little bit of sugar and that's the trick.' That recipe has been in Italian kitchens long before the cameras rolled. Need an idea for some quality time with the kids, well go to work do what you have to do and pick up some cannolis before you get home. Just remember to leave the gun and take the cannolis. Coppola always said he had to be good or no cannolis when his dad got home to share with the family. Coppola also put in his own family to work, his dad scored the movie, his sister Talia was Connie, and his daughter played the baby in the baptism scene. The family was on both sides of the family. But for me the movie revolves around Don Vito Corleone and Marlon Brando. Mario Puzo based the character of Don Corleone on his mother, everytime the Don opened his mouth all that came out was the passion of his mother, her wisdom, her ruthlessness, and her unconquerable love for her family and for life itself. Therefore only the greatest actor of the day will do to play the part. Coppola agreed and suggested either Brando or Laurence Olivier. Olivier was considered and it would have been interesting but he eventually passed on the role. Only two men wanted Brando, Coppola and Puzo. Brando had a history of being difficult and the studio executives nearly vetoed his casting. Coppola was able to make a deal with in order to cast Brando. Brando had to agree to do the movie for nothing, he had to put up a bond in order to cover cost overruns, and he had to do a screen test. They only got to the screen test because Brando transformed himself from a forty year old man into a sixty year old mafia don before their eyes in a matter of minutes. When the executives saw the footage they said ‘no no no, WOW THAT'S INCREDIBLE!’ Brando would be The Godfather. But Brando still needed a little extra help. If you watch the movie, everytime Don Corleone is speaking and stops and looks off in the distance he is reading from a card with his lines on it. He still won an oscar though. Two scenes are my favorite in the movie. One is the scene in the restaurant, I feel like I don’t need to explain it, because it is the most famous scene. Just know that without that scene the movie would not have existed. When you shoot a movie, the scenes are viewed day by day by the studio decision makers. They were hating what they were seeing, everything shot before the restaurant scene was met with cruel criticism by everyone on the outside not working on the movie. All Coppola could do was show them this scene and the movie was not only saved but validated. There are moments in the movie that other scenes build to, the restaurant was one of those scenes. You know of it’s importance because of everything that preceded it. The other scene is the meeting. Don Corleone stands before the other mafia dons and surrenders to them and their wishes. He reasons with them in order to come to a peaceful solution. But there is a catch: if you mess with my other son or if ‘he’s struck by a bolt of lightning. Then I’m going to blame some of the people in this room and that I do not forgive. So with that aside let me say that I swear, on the souls of my grandchildren, that I will not be the one that breaks the peace that we’ve made here today.’ There is a time for peace and a time for reckoning. This scene is my favorite because you believe him, you go along with his plea for peace. But the other dons do not realize it is not a surrender but a tactical retreat.
So the movie went on to make a lot of money, win a bunch of awards, and won it’s way on a bunch of lists that say it’s great. I was lucky enough to not know that when I first saw the movie. I saw it for what it was: a father and three sons. One son was intense and savage, another was sweet and innocent, another was conviving and calculating, the father was all those combined. But the father was the steadying force in all their lives. That is why when they all find out he was shot they react in ways we all would react. When you see the father lying in the street his second son is there to help but can’t, all he can do is cry and yell ‘papa.’ The first son nearly strong arms one of his father’s closest associates because he wants someone to beat up. The third son panics and tries to do whatever he can to help. That is for the audience, and that that’s how everyone relates. Finally, I’ll quote Martin Sheen: ‘The Godfather is the best filmmaking ever in the history of American cinema. There is nothing that speaks more to who we are, where we came from, what we stand for, and where we’re gonna go. That’s the work of a true genius.’ I agree. It is my favorite, of what I’ve seen of course.
".... Don Corleone."
What is it about someone you care about that sets them apart? Are they family, a friend, or someone you feel just needs help? What causes you to go the extra mile to put someone else ahead of yourself? You may find the answers in your religion, your upbringing, or in movies. For example, say your daughter goes out on a date with a guy and she is violently beaten by him and one of his friends. You go see her in the hospital and she cannot even weep because of the pain. So trying to keep your cool you press charges and try by the legal means to bring the young men to justice. It doesn't happen, their sentences are suspended. That may make you lose faith in the system that is supposed to protect you. So now you go to someone else who could help. This person is a bigshot, a pezzonovante in his own way but outside the system. You explain what happened and what you did, and all he says is 'why didn't you come to me first?' How many times in your life have some of us gone to others that don't care and asked for help instead of going to the ones that actually care. And the problem is solved. Imagine for another example that your father is in the hospital and men are coming to kill him. And you are the only one there that can help him. Imagine that you had your own dreams and your own goals that were different to what your father wanted. But in this moment you put all that aside to help your father survive. You assure him that everything will be ok and you are with him now. You bluff out the men trying to kill him and your father is saved. Most of us may never have to defend our dads from someone trying to kill him. But seeing someone laying helpless in a hospital bed in need of help we can all relate to. Every son, every daughter, every parent, every sibling, every friend. You see everybody wants to talk about the gangster mafia element of The Godfather, and say that is what it is all about. But family plays an even bigger role in the story by being the driving force behind the main characters. Family, love, loyalty, sacrifice all these elements are used in the movie to bring a standard boring mafia shootout movie to the level of greatest movie of all time. Francis Ford Coppola used as much he could to bring this point home. The wedding scene was not made up by any means but instead taken from other weddings witnessed by every Italian who has ever been to a wedding. Bringing envelopes filled with money to the bride, nieces dancing on the feet of uncle's, people waiting in line to see the father of the bride, sandwiches in white paper being tossed around. 'two gabagool, one proshootoh!' Then go to the kitchen to make spaghetti. Need a recipe? Try 'a little of oil then fry some garlic, throw in some tomatoes and tomato paste, fry it, make sure it does not stick, get it to boil, put in all your sausage and meatballs, add some wine and a little bit of sugar and that's the trick.' That recipe has been in Italian kitchens long before the cameras rolled. Need an idea for some quality time with the kids, well go to work do what you have to do and pick up some cannolis before you get home. Just remember to leave the gun and take the cannolis. Coppola always said he had to be good or no cannolis when his dad got home to share with the family. Coppola also put in his own family to work, his dad scored the movie, his sister Talia was Connie, and his daughter played the baby in the baptism scene. The family was on both sides of the family. But for me the movie revolves around Don Vito Corleone and Marlon Brando. Mario Puzo based the character of Don Corleone on his mother, everytime the Don opened his mouth all that came out was the passion of his mother, her wisdom, her ruthlessness, and her unconquerable love for her family and for life itself. Therefore only the greatest actor of the day will do to play the part. Coppola agreed and suggested either Brando or Laurence Olivier. Olivier was considered and it would have been interesting but he eventually passed on the role. Only two men wanted Brando, Coppola and Puzo. Brando had a history of being difficult and the studio executives nearly vetoed his casting. Coppola was able to make a deal with in order to cast Brando. Brando had to agree to do the movie for nothing, he had to put up a bond in order to cover cost overruns, and he had to do a screen test. They only got to the screen test because Brando transformed himself from a forty year old man into a sixty year old mafia don before their eyes in a matter of minutes. When the executives saw the footage they said ‘no no no, WOW THAT'S INCREDIBLE!’ Brando would be The Godfather. But Brando still needed a little extra help. If you watch the movie, everytime Don Corleone is speaking and stops and looks off in the distance he is reading from a card with his lines on it. He still won an oscar though. Two scenes are my favorite in the movie. One is the scene in the restaurant, I feel like I don’t need to explain it, because it is the most famous scene. Just know that without that scene the movie would not have existed. When you shoot a movie, the scenes are viewed day by day by the studio decision makers. They were hating what they were seeing, everything shot before the restaurant scene was met with cruel criticism by everyone on the outside not working on the movie. All Coppola could do was show them this scene and the movie was not only saved but validated. There are moments in the movie that other scenes build to, the restaurant was one of those scenes. You know of it’s importance because of everything that preceded it. The other scene is the meeting. Don Corleone stands before the other mafia dons and surrenders to them and their wishes. He reasons with them in order to come to a peaceful solution. But there is a catch: if you mess with my other son or if ‘he’s struck by a bolt of lightning. Then I’m going to blame some of the people in this room and that I do not forgive. So with that aside let me say that I swear, on the souls of my grandchildren, that I will not be the one that breaks the peace that we’ve made here today.’ There is a time for peace and a time for reckoning. This scene is my favorite because you believe him, you go along with his plea for peace. But the other dons do not realize it is not a surrender but a tactical retreat.
So the movie went on to make a lot of money, win a bunch of awards, and won it’s way on a bunch of lists that say it’s great. I was lucky enough to not know that when I first saw the movie. I saw it for what it was: a father and three sons. One son was intense and savage, another was sweet and innocent, another was conviving and calculating, the father was all those combined. But the father was the steadying force in all their lives. That is why when they all find out he was shot they react in ways we all would react. When you see the father lying in the street his second son is there to help but can’t, all he can do is cry and yell ‘papa.’ The first son nearly strong arms one of his father’s closest associates because he wants someone to beat up. The third son panics and tries to do whatever he can to help. That is for the audience, and that that’s how everyone relates. Finally, I’ll quote Martin Sheen: ‘The Godfather is the best filmmaking ever in the history of American cinema. There is nothing that speaks more to who we are, where we came from, what we stand for, and where we’re gonna go. That’s the work of a true genius.’ I agree. It is my favorite, of what I’ve seen of course.
".... Don Corleone."
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.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Raya and the Last Dragon (2021) in Movies
Mar 20, 2021 (Updated Mar 27, 2021)
Beautiful animation and good character design (2 more)
Voice acting/voice actors
Pretty good setup or start of story going into the movie
$29.99 on top of a Disney plus subscription (2 more)
More often than not pretty predictable and not enough surprises
Not enough stakes or characters never really felt like they were ever in danger to me
Raya, A Really Good Movie That Could Have Been Great
This movie was really good. I really liked it, from the character design to the excellent voice-actors and the setup of the story going into it in the beginning, it really had a lot going for it. This movie had a pretty good all-star cast of Asian voice actors and really liked Kelly Marie Tran and Awkwafina's performances. Awkwafina was really funny to me and her voice fit naturally for her character Sisu. The character designs were interesting to me and I liked the way they differed for the different tribes. I heard a lot of people were giving comparisons to Avatar: The Last Airbender and I can see why people would say that but for me there really isn't that much of a comparison. Avatar is by far a way better show but it also has a lot more episodes to be a better show and tell a better story. I feel this movie wasn't able to live up to the hype and the Disney standard in the long run but that doesn't stop it from trying. I just think that a lot of it is predictable and nothing really surprising, also as likable as the characters were, there wasn't a lot of character development outside of the main character and nothing to really make you feel enough for the other characters to make them really, really matter to the viewer/audience. The beginning like I said was a decent setup of the legend of how the people had the dragons protecting them from these evil spirits and how the last dragons used their power to save everyone. That was a pretty cool concept and I definitely like the way it lead into the introduction of the different tribal lands and tribes which exist in the present. The training scene with Chief Benja and Raya reminded me of something, from another movie but it was pretty cool. There are also some pretty funny and cool characters you meet later like the charismatic young boy Boun, the hilarious little baby Noi and let's not forget the adorable Tuk-Tuk, Raya's best friend. There's a lot more that I want to go over but I'll save it for the spoiler section because I don't want to ruin this movie for those who still want to see it. This movie doesn't get my must-see seal of approval but it did come close. Main reason is the additional $29.99 price tag on top of Disney plus subscription required for most people to see it at home. If you can see it without having to pay that price then I would say it's definitely worth checking out and if you're going to see it in theaters then it's worth taking the family too. But if your short on cash I'd say wait for this one to be free on Disney plus around June 4th. The rating I give for this movie is going to be a 7/10. It was really good but not great but I enjoyed it.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
I thought this movie was really good but it definitely had a lot of flaws. One of those wasn't the character designs or animation which were looked awesome. Also the voice actors were really good and Awkwafina's performance really surprised me but was understandably one of the better performance's and reminded me of such great comedians who have leant their voices for roles like Robin Williams as Genie in Aladdin and Eddie Murphy as Mushu in Mulan and Donkey in Shrek. I mentioned in the first part of the review that the opening story of the legend of how the dragons saved everyone was a really cool concept I thought worked well into introducing the different tribes and then the main characters. That opening scene of Raya breaking into the orb chamber and training with her father reminded me of a scene from another movie. Not sure if it was Pacific Rim: Uprising where John Boyega's character Jake is stealing something from one of the giant robots or a scene from Indiana Jones but it felt very familiar. Which brings me to another big thing that I didn't like about this movie, which is that most if not all the movie was pretty predictable for me. Which doesn't necessary make it a bad thing or a bad movie but takes some of the fun out of it. One of the things that I didn't predict was how after making friends with Namaari in the beginning of the movie that she would totally backstab Raya the way she did. That was such a gripping and tense moment where Chief Benja had to come to Raya's rescue as the Fang tribe moves in to steal the orb. I really liked the part where he can see in the reflection of his sword that Raya was ready to continue fighting alongside him against all the enemies even when the other tribes came to steal the orb for themselves as well. The character designs and animation were really awesome too. I liked Raya's costume and how she transitioned from what she wore as a child to the time skip as well as the different attire that the different tribes had. I liked how they all were quite different beside just their clothes too, like how Raya's tribe was the Heart and they wore green and blue but their home was the most full of life, with plants and water, the Fang looked more like a city but like a capital militaristic feel to it, with much being about law and order or rule. The spine was more in the colder region and had big people wearing multiple layer clothing for warmth and Tail which little is known about even though it was the first one we're shown because it has been wiped out by the Druun and it is supposed to be a mainly dried up desert region and have small pockets of villages. The last one, Talon was probably one of the most colorful ones and smart in how they dealt with the Druun as well. They built their houses on stilts right on the water and had a huge marketplace where it seemed like a festival or party was going on because there was so many people going on as if there wasn't any danger. Another thing I liked about the movie was how Raya didn't have to have powers and she didn't have to be the rescued princess but instead was a strong capable person on her own. I also liked how it seemed the more the movie went on, she kept adding people to her group/crew on her journey. Kind of like Magnificent Seven. One thing I didn't like was that it never really felt like their were enough stakes along the way. Characters kept making mistakes but nothing bad really happened or mattered for long enough to impact the characters in a bad way. The part that got me the most was in the very beginning scene where the tribes try to steal the orb and it falls and breaks and Chief Benja gets shot by an arrow in the leg and tries his hardest to save Raya from the Druun as they come back and start devouring everyone turning them to stone. I heard a lot of people say that he didn't need to sacrifice himself and throw Raya into the river to save her if he just kept running; and that he probably could have hopped more on the other leg. If you think about it though he probably made it pretty far even though he had that injury and couldn't go on any further. I admit that this part got me a little emotional but for many people that knew it was a Disney movie and not Pixar figured that it didn't mean everyone would stay as stone. I however thought back to the beginning of the film and remember that even the dragons stayed as stone meaning it was possible that these people might never turn back to normal. The other part that got me was also a part I had a hard time with was when Namaari first sees Sisu and then her actions later after she tells her mother. I felt that Sisu should have told her something or vice-versa but I guess she stayed in shock. Also when she told her mother and the mother already knew I really felt like her Mother was the bad guy of the film but when Raya gives Namaari her pendant back and sets up a meeting with her, I really felt like I knew what would happen next. Namaari's mother, Virana would have a bunch of guards show up and it would be a setup and Namaari wouldn't have known about it and it would be a time for her character to redeem herself. Instead Namaari pulls out a crossbow when she sees Raya has all the pieces of the orb and while Sisu tries to talk her down Raya takes a chance to attack Namaari and Sisu gets struck with an arrow and falls into the river to die. I could totally see this happening but what I couldn't predict was that Namaari would blame it all on Raya and say it was all her fault and none of this would of happened if it wasn't for her. This was like the stupidest line in the movie and made no sense to me because Namaari was the one when she was a girl who backstabbed Raya and betrayed her as soon as she found out the location of the orb. So the scene where Raya is super pissed and trying to kill her was very gratifying to me because it made a lot of sense that Raya was mad and didn't care about anything but revenge in that part. Namaari tells her that she's lost everything already and doesn't care, and Raya decides to help her friends with her orb piece. As the pieces start losing power and they are becoming surrounded by the Druun, what doesn't make sense to me is how Raya chooses to put her faith in Namaari and let's herself become consumed by the Druun. Her friends decide to follow her example and do the same and eventually when Namaari is the only one she's able to put the pieces of the orb back together vanquishing the Druun and bringing everyone back to life including Sisu and all the dragons. I don't know to me it just seemed like Namaari was pretty irredeemable after all that she had done and didn't seem like it was a sure thing and this kind of bothered me. It seemed like the movie had a message about wanting to be able to trust people but showed more and more how sometimes you can't so had me pretty mixed about what the movie was really about. Anyways I think I went off a little too long for this review but it's because it was a fun watch for me. So like I said, I give this movie a 7/10 and say it's a really good movie.
https://youtu.be/3So_GFox4-A
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
I thought this movie was really good but it definitely had a lot of flaws. One of those wasn't the character designs or animation which were looked awesome. Also the voice actors were really good and Awkwafina's performance really surprised me but was understandably one of the better performance's and reminded me of such great comedians who have leant their voices for roles like Robin Williams as Genie in Aladdin and Eddie Murphy as Mushu in Mulan and Donkey in Shrek. I mentioned in the first part of the review that the opening story of the legend of how the dragons saved everyone was a really cool concept I thought worked well into introducing the different tribes and then the main characters. That opening scene of Raya breaking into the orb chamber and training with her father reminded me of a scene from another movie. Not sure if it was Pacific Rim: Uprising where John Boyega's character Jake is stealing something from one of the giant robots or a scene from Indiana Jones but it felt very familiar. Which brings me to another big thing that I didn't like about this movie, which is that most if not all the movie was pretty predictable for me. Which doesn't necessary make it a bad thing or a bad movie but takes some of the fun out of it. One of the things that I didn't predict was how after making friends with Namaari in the beginning of the movie that she would totally backstab Raya the way she did. That was such a gripping and tense moment where Chief Benja had to come to Raya's rescue as the Fang tribe moves in to steal the orb. I really liked the part where he can see in the reflection of his sword that Raya was ready to continue fighting alongside him against all the enemies even when the other tribes came to steal the orb for themselves as well. The character designs and animation were really awesome too. I liked Raya's costume and how she transitioned from what she wore as a child to the time skip as well as the different attire that the different tribes had. I liked how they all were quite different beside just their clothes too, like how Raya's tribe was the Heart and they wore green and blue but their home was the most full of life, with plants and water, the Fang looked more like a city but like a capital militaristic feel to it, with much being about law and order or rule. The spine was more in the colder region and had big people wearing multiple layer clothing for warmth and Tail which little is known about even though it was the first one we're shown because it has been wiped out by the Druun and it is supposed to be a mainly dried up desert region and have small pockets of villages. The last one, Talon was probably one of the most colorful ones and smart in how they dealt with the Druun as well. They built their houses on stilts right on the water and had a huge marketplace where it seemed like a festival or party was going on because there was so many people going on as if there wasn't any danger. Another thing I liked about the movie was how Raya didn't have to have powers and she didn't have to be the rescued princess but instead was a strong capable person on her own. I also liked how it seemed the more the movie went on, she kept adding people to her group/crew on her journey. Kind of like Magnificent Seven. One thing I didn't like was that it never really felt like their were enough stakes along the way. Characters kept making mistakes but nothing bad really happened or mattered for long enough to impact the characters in a bad way. The part that got me the most was in the very beginning scene where the tribes try to steal the orb and it falls and breaks and Chief Benja gets shot by an arrow in the leg and tries his hardest to save Raya from the Druun as they come back and start devouring everyone turning them to stone. I heard a lot of people say that he didn't need to sacrifice himself and throw Raya into the river to save her if he just kept running; and that he probably could have hopped more on the other leg. If you think about it though he probably made it pretty far even though he had that injury and couldn't go on any further. I admit that this part got me a little emotional but for many people that knew it was a Disney movie and not Pixar figured that it didn't mean everyone would stay as stone. I however thought back to the beginning of the film and remember that even the dragons stayed as stone meaning it was possible that these people might never turn back to normal. The other part that got me was also a part I had a hard time with was when Namaari first sees Sisu and then her actions later after she tells her mother. I felt that Sisu should have told her something or vice-versa but I guess she stayed in shock. Also when she told her mother and the mother already knew I really felt like her Mother was the bad guy of the film but when Raya gives Namaari her pendant back and sets up a meeting with her, I really felt like I knew what would happen next. Namaari's mother, Virana would have a bunch of guards show up and it would be a setup and Namaari wouldn't have known about it and it would be a time for her character to redeem herself. Instead Namaari pulls out a crossbow when she sees Raya has all the pieces of the orb and while Sisu tries to talk her down Raya takes a chance to attack Namaari and Sisu gets struck with an arrow and falls into the river to die. I could totally see this happening but what I couldn't predict was that Namaari would blame it all on Raya and say it was all her fault and none of this would of happened if it wasn't for her. This was like the stupidest line in the movie and made no sense to me because Namaari was the one when she was a girl who backstabbed Raya and betrayed her as soon as she found out the location of the orb. So the scene where Raya is super pissed and trying to kill her was very gratifying to me because it made a lot of sense that Raya was mad and didn't care about anything but revenge in that part. Namaari tells her that she's lost everything already and doesn't care, and Raya decides to help her friends with her orb piece. As the pieces start losing power and they are becoming surrounded by the Druun, what doesn't make sense to me is how Raya chooses to put her faith in Namaari and let's herself become consumed by the Druun. Her friends decide to follow her example and do the same and eventually when Namaari is the only one she's able to put the pieces of the orb back together vanquishing the Druun and bringing everyone back to life including Sisu and all the dragons. I don't know to me it just seemed like Namaari was pretty irredeemable after all that she had done and didn't seem like it was a sure thing and this kind of bothered me. It seemed like the movie had a message about wanting to be able to trust people but showed more and more how sometimes you can't so had me pretty mixed about what the movie was really about. Anyways I think I went off a little too long for this review but it's because it was a fun watch for me. So like I said, I give this movie a 7/10 and say it's a really good movie.
https://youtu.be/3So_GFox4-A
