Search
Search results
Andy K (10821 KP) created a video about Hellboy II: The Golden Army (Hellboy 2) (2008) in Movies
Nov 16, 2017 (Updated Nov 16, 2017)
BookblogbyCari (345 KP) rated God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction in Books
Oct 16, 2018
A striking book designed to hit Christianity in the heart.
(Please note: It is beyond the scope of this book review to go into whether or not there is a God, or if God is good.)
This book is written by Dan Barker, a former evangelical preacher. The inspiration for this book comes from a single paragraph in Richard Dawkin’s God Delusion, which goes as follows:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanical, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
Now that’s quite a statement! And it’s also what Barker’s book is centred around. In Part 1, Barker sets out examples of these 19 characteristics within the Christian bible.
Sadly for Christianity, not only had barker found examples of every single one of these 19 characteristics, but he usually found several examples in every case. In fact, the reason I haven’t given it a higher rating is because it was so repetitive, with so many examples of remarkably similar and disturbing passages. A whole chapter is dedicated to each of the descriptors in turn, and the whereabouts of each of the passages are clearly noted in bold before being presented underneath.
In Part 2, Barker takes the argument further still:
“He [Dawkins] forgot to mention that the God of the Old Testament is also a pyromaniacal, angry, merciless, curse-hurling, vaccicdal, aborticidal, cannibalistic slavemonger.”
Again, the following chapters are full of examples of these characteristics.
The book is predominantly a laundry list of evil requests and doings of the God of the Old Testament, but Chapter 28 asks “What About Jesus?” And here Barker even manages to find evidence that Jesus endorsed invasion and bloodshed (Deuteronomy 6.15-19), and encouraged the beating of slaves (Luke 12:47-48). Barker also sites a lot of Jesus’ bad advice
Several passages may be unpleasant for even strong atheists to read. I couldn’t get over how many times “fingers dripping with blood” comes up in the Bible.
Overall, Barker has little comments around and between the examples he sights, but I would suggest that this makes for a stronger argument, handing the role of jury to the reader. Obviously this book will upset just about any Christian who attempts to read it, and for those who do read it may feel better to recall that the analysis is only of how God is presented in the Bible, and not an analysis of any effect (if any) of God in their daily lives.
This book is written by Dan Barker, a former evangelical preacher. The inspiration for this book comes from a single paragraph in Richard Dawkin’s God Delusion, which goes as follows:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanical, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
Now that’s quite a statement! And it’s also what Barker’s book is centred around. In Part 1, Barker sets out examples of these 19 characteristics within the Christian bible.
Sadly for Christianity, not only had barker found examples of every single one of these 19 characteristics, but he usually found several examples in every case. In fact, the reason I haven’t given it a higher rating is because it was so repetitive, with so many examples of remarkably similar and disturbing passages. A whole chapter is dedicated to each of the descriptors in turn, and the whereabouts of each of the passages are clearly noted in bold before being presented underneath.
In Part 2, Barker takes the argument further still:
“He [Dawkins] forgot to mention that the God of the Old Testament is also a pyromaniacal, angry, merciless, curse-hurling, vaccicdal, aborticidal, cannibalistic slavemonger.”
Again, the following chapters are full of examples of these characteristics.
The book is predominantly a laundry list of evil requests and doings of the God of the Old Testament, but Chapter 28 asks “What About Jesus?” And here Barker even manages to find evidence that Jesus endorsed invasion and bloodshed (Deuteronomy 6.15-19), and encouraged the beating of slaves (Luke 12:47-48). Barker also sites a lot of Jesus’ bad advice
Several passages may be unpleasant for even strong atheists to read. I couldn’t get over how many times “fingers dripping with blood” comes up in the Bible.
Overall, Barker has little comments around and between the examples he sights, but I would suggest that this makes for a stronger argument, handing the role of jury to the reader. Obviously this book will upset just about any Christian who attempts to read it, and for those who do read it may feel better to recall that the analysis is only of how God is presented in the Bible, and not an analysis of any effect (if any) of God in their daily lives.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Crank (2006) in Movies
Jul 29, 2019
First Person Video Game
People forgot that hardcore henry was not the first, first person movie. It seems like people were like oh my god hardcore henry was this first person film, and its the first one and its shot like a video game and your in the charcters shoes.
Crank came out many years before hardcore henry and was a first person film, your in cranks shoes and it is shot like a video game, it is basically a video game. The plot even sounds like a video game.
The plot: Chev Chelios (Jason Statham), a hit man wanting to go straight, lets his latest target slip away, then he awakes the next morning to a phone call that informs him he has been poisoned and has only an hour to live unless he keeps adrenaline coursing through his body while he searches for an antidote.
This film and its sequel i would highly reccordmend, not alot of people talk about these films.
It has action, drama, susepense, comedy, adventure. Hardcore henry is a copy and paste movie minus the everything that crank had.
Dont watch hardcore henry, watch this movie instead.
Crank came out many years before hardcore henry and was a first person film, your in cranks shoes and it is shot like a video game, it is basically a video game. The plot even sounds like a video game.
The plot: Chev Chelios (Jason Statham), a hit man wanting to go straight, lets his latest target slip away, then he awakes the next morning to a phone call that informs him he has been poisoned and has only an hour to live unless he keeps adrenaline coursing through his body while he searches for an antidote.
This film and its sequel i would highly reccordmend, not alot of people talk about these films.
It has action, drama, susepense, comedy, adventure. Hardcore henry is a copy and paste movie minus the everything that crank had.
Dont watch hardcore henry, watch this movie instead.
Kevin Morby recommended track Goodbye Sadness by Yoko Ono in Season of Glass by Yoko Ono in Music (curated)
Adam White (32 KP) rated The Silence (2019) in Movies
Jun 21, 2020
What did I just watch?
Contains spoilers, click to show
Where do I start? This movie is like watching, Birds, Bird Box, The Village and A Quiet Place all in one, the only problem is, it doesn't work at all.
I was really hoping with this being Directed by John R. Leonetti (cinematographer of such films as, The Conjuring, Insidious, The Mask) he would bring a lot to the table, nope and then I remembered he directed The Butterfly Effect 2 and Mortal Kombat: Annihilation.
This movie being listed as a horror movie is a major let down, yes it does have a few jump scenes but I feel like the the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park made me jump a lot more, really the only scary part was the fact that someone checked off the okay for this storyline.
The storyline (not to give anything away) is a rush jump, which some movies need to move faster, I feel like this one moves way to fast, not enough is explained and way to much is left out.
One of the biggest keys of the story is that Ally Andrews (Kiernan Shipka) is teenage girl who lost her hearing a few years back, which helps the family and her during this time, as they all know how to use sign language. With that being said, the movie fails mean times at remembering the daughter is deaf!! With some members of the family using sign language, some not, sounds making her notice things, at some parts of the movie I forgot she lost her hearing.
I will skip over the crazy cult members, which trust me, I feel like NO one understands, I mean I get it but good God, give them some time of back story, nope kill them off in 11 minutes, that works too.
Skip forward to the end and bang, the lover is still healthy, and they are hunting the dam birds/dinosaurs now, no real dam answer on what happened, what's the plan of killing them off or nothing, it just ends!!
I recommend that you watch this movie just once, just enough to understand why some movies should be just left alone. Don't get me wrong, it could have worked, if they would have worked on the storyline more, and maybe followed the storyline, but hey, I have never made a movie before, so maybe I'm wrong about this all. 🤷♂️
I was really hoping with this being Directed by John R. Leonetti (cinematographer of such films as, The Conjuring, Insidious, The Mask) he would bring a lot to the table, nope and then I remembered he directed The Butterfly Effect 2 and Mortal Kombat: Annihilation.
This movie being listed as a horror movie is a major let down, yes it does have a few jump scenes but I feel like the the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park made me jump a lot more, really the only scary part was the fact that someone checked off the okay for this storyline.
The storyline (not to give anything away) is a rush jump, which some movies need to move faster, I feel like this one moves way to fast, not enough is explained and way to much is left out.
One of the biggest keys of the story is that Ally Andrews (Kiernan Shipka) is teenage girl who lost her hearing a few years back, which helps the family and her during this time, as they all know how to use sign language. With that being said, the movie fails mean times at remembering the daughter is deaf!! With some members of the family using sign language, some not, sounds making her notice things, at some parts of the movie I forgot she lost her hearing.
I will skip over the crazy cult members, which trust me, I feel like NO one understands, I mean I get it but good God, give them some time of back story, nope kill them off in 11 minutes, that works too.
Skip forward to the end and bang, the lover is still healthy, and they are hunting the dam birds/dinosaurs now, no real dam answer on what happened, what's the plan of killing them off or nothing, it just ends!!
I recommend that you watch this movie just once, just enough to understand why some movies should be just left alone. Don't get me wrong, it could have worked, if they would have worked on the storyline more, and maybe followed the storyline, but hey, I have never made a movie before, so maybe I'm wrong about this all. 🤷♂️
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Blade Runner (1982) in Movies
Oct 10, 2017
Incredible setting. (2 more)
Groundbreaking for sci-fi movies of the time.
The special effects and visuals still hold up 35 years later.
The Perils & Benefits Of Hindsight
I first watched Blade Runner around fifteen years ago and in my seven year old brain , I put it into the same category as Star Wars. They were both sci-fi movies, both made in a similar era and they both starred Harrison Ford. I think that the first version I saw was the director's cut version. I went back to Blade Runner at the age of 12, when the ultimate cut was released in 2007 and at the time, I felt that the setting and the world were still incredible, but the plot and characters in the movie left a lot to be desired. For the release of the sequel 2049, I decided to go back and re-watch the directors cut a few days before I went to see the new movie.
I totally forgot how slow this film was. The whole thing moves at a snail's pace and half of the runtime is spent looking at Harrison Ford's reaction shots. I had it in my head that the pace of Blade Runner was similar to that of A New Hope, but I was way off. I get it, it's not a sci-fi action flick, it's a hard-boiled, contemplative detective film, but it really was a slog.
I still feel the same way about this movie that I always have, the world and setting is better than the movie itself. There is a reason that so many movies took elements of Blade Runner's amazing setting and used them as inspiration for their own films. To this day the sets and the majority of this 35 year old film's visuals still look great, that is an achievement not to be scoffed at.
I will always appreciate Blade Runner for what it did for sci-fi movies that came after it, but if you saw this film as a kid and are thinking about going back to re-watch it again for the release of the sequel, I would actually recommend against it. This movie was so much better in my head than it was when I actually re-watched it and I somehow like it less now after re-watching it. This shouldn't take away from the importance and influence of this film though and if you consider this a classic, it would be hard to argue with you.
I totally forgot how slow this film was. The whole thing moves at a snail's pace and half of the runtime is spent looking at Harrison Ford's reaction shots. I had it in my head that the pace of Blade Runner was similar to that of A New Hope, but I was way off. I get it, it's not a sci-fi action flick, it's a hard-boiled, contemplative detective film, but it really was a slog.
I still feel the same way about this movie that I always have, the world and setting is better than the movie itself. There is a reason that so many movies took elements of Blade Runner's amazing setting and used them as inspiration for their own films. To this day the sets and the majority of this 35 year old film's visuals still look great, that is an achievement not to be scoffed at.
I will always appreciate Blade Runner for what it did for sci-fi movies that came after it, but if you saw this film as a kid and are thinking about going back to re-watch it again for the release of the sequel, I would actually recommend against it. This movie was so much better in my head than it was when I actually re-watched it and I somehow like it less now after re-watching it. This shouldn't take away from the importance and influence of this film though and if you consider this a classic, it would be hard to argue with you.
365Flicks (235 KP) rated Cute Little Buggers (2017) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
What the hell exactly did I just watch? Now where will I start with Cute Little Buggers, apart from fact that its the coolest movie title I have seen in a long time.
Cute Little Buggers… Hmmmmm
Cute Little Buggers…
Right okay. Let me start by saying that there is a movie here, A pretty decent one at that. When this movie knows exactly what it is and can be, it is great (a guilty pleasure if you will) when this movie shoots for the stars and trys to be what it wants to be it falls just short for me, however if there is one thing I love and can get behind, its when a director and his crew do what they can with what they have.
Let’s crack on with the pitch… We open up this very, very, very British horror movie in a small town in the south of England that is full of your typical small town England movie characters. Characters like the put upon farmer whose son left town to make it big and for the purposes of story-line has returned this very day. Then we have said prodigal sons old flame who is with the local village asshole now but the candle still burns bright. Local law enforcement, yes you guessed it, as dumb as a box of rocks. Then of course all your regular locals. One other thing, everyone seems to be a bit of a sexual deviant. We are about to spend a day and night with these crazy madcap zany characters as Aliens (Yes I said Aliens) have come to town and are going to use Rabbits (Yes I said Rabbits) to infiltrate and kidnap the women of earth… Oh shit nearly forgot heres the trailer…
I know right the movie is as mental as this trailer looks. I was completely sold for the first half of this movie, Director Tony Jopia was taking his time to build up these characters and every member of the cast knew what kind of flick they were making (a sort of crossover between Hot Fuzz and Critters) so while you could see they were having a bit of fun it also helped the chemistry flow. My god did the movie need that chemistry so we could up the laugh-ability and like-ability factor because on an estimated budget of 25k, the digital on the scares (Tentacle Bunny Things) were pretty laughable. Now as I said I give credit to any director who goes out and makes his passion so I don’t blame Jopia for one second, it was a budget thing and he absolutely made up for it everywhere else by casting well and having a pretty solid script with some cracking one liners. Just the effects left me feeling MEH. We just wont mention the Alien cut scenes on this review.
For me this is a recommend but its a pretty weak one as you may have guessed. That cast all play there parts and they do play them well on just the other side of bonkers and in some cases crazy beautiful. Tony Jopia as a director definitely has something, I dunno maybe with a bit more of a budget but I will say again there is a movie here.
Cute Little Buggers… Hmmmmm
Cute Little Buggers…
Right okay. Let me start by saying that there is a movie here, A pretty decent one at that. When this movie knows exactly what it is and can be, it is great (a guilty pleasure if you will) when this movie shoots for the stars and trys to be what it wants to be it falls just short for me, however if there is one thing I love and can get behind, its when a director and his crew do what they can with what they have.
Let’s crack on with the pitch… We open up this very, very, very British horror movie in a small town in the south of England that is full of your typical small town England movie characters. Characters like the put upon farmer whose son left town to make it big and for the purposes of story-line has returned this very day. Then we have said prodigal sons old flame who is with the local village asshole now but the candle still burns bright. Local law enforcement, yes you guessed it, as dumb as a box of rocks. Then of course all your regular locals. One other thing, everyone seems to be a bit of a sexual deviant. We are about to spend a day and night with these crazy madcap zany characters as Aliens (Yes I said Aliens) have come to town and are going to use Rabbits (Yes I said Rabbits) to infiltrate and kidnap the women of earth… Oh shit nearly forgot heres the trailer…
I know right the movie is as mental as this trailer looks. I was completely sold for the first half of this movie, Director Tony Jopia was taking his time to build up these characters and every member of the cast knew what kind of flick they were making (a sort of crossover between Hot Fuzz and Critters) so while you could see they were having a bit of fun it also helped the chemistry flow. My god did the movie need that chemistry so we could up the laugh-ability and like-ability factor because on an estimated budget of 25k, the digital on the scares (Tentacle Bunny Things) were pretty laughable. Now as I said I give credit to any director who goes out and makes his passion so I don’t blame Jopia for one second, it was a budget thing and he absolutely made up for it everywhere else by casting well and having a pretty solid script with some cracking one liners. Just the effects left me feeling MEH. We just wont mention the Alien cut scenes on this review.
For me this is a recommend but its a pretty weak one as you may have guessed. That cast all play there parts and they do play them well on just the other side of bonkers and in some cases crazy beautiful. Tony Jopia as a director definitely has something, I dunno maybe with a bit more of a budget but I will say again there is a movie here.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Thor: Love and Thunder (2022) in Movies
Jul 23, 2022
When I came out of Endgame, I was disappointed. But on a second (sixth) viewing, I had come around. There was still disappointment there I'll admit, but it wasn't as big as I'd felt after that midnight screening. Where's this going you ask... As the credits began rolling, I turned to my friend and proclaimed - "Well that was a pile of s**t." Unlike Endgame, I'm not going to change my mind.
Thor is getting his life back on track. The Guardians have helped him get some perspective and it's time to go back to New Asgard and see his people. In his absence, however, there's a new superhero on the block... and she's kind of cramping his style.
One of my difficulties with this one is that it's hard to tell what the film is wanting to do. A redemption arc for Thor, introducing new characters, setting up for the next big finale? That all doesn't seem like a problem initially, but just wait.
I loved Thor: Ragnarok. It's my favourite MCU film. It mixed the underlying humour with the nuttiness of Guardians and it worked. But, something about Love and Thunder makes me feel like they said "Just go for it, anything you want"...
The last we saw of Thor he was flying off into the great unknown with a plucky band of heroes... and it's almost like they completely forgot that had happened, and at the last minute had to write the beginning of the movie again. The whole opening was so badly acted (and dull) that I was genuinely convinced that not all of the actors were back for these cameos. And not just GotG, every recalled character was wasted.
Christian Bale was Christian Bale, I expected nothing less, I imagine him being entirely terrifying on set. This is where the film does a real disservice. With a strong, dark performance and character, Gorr the God Butcher is surrounded by bright tomfoolery. Yes, I said tomfoolery. Gorr deserved a better film.
Possibly my least favourite bit that felt entirely at odds with Gorr's story, is all the gods being so over the top. They do try to explain this away at one point, but this and the fact you don't see Gorr on his godly murder spree led to more and more frustration.
Seemingly that and other cameos were left on the cutting room floor in order to keep the running time under 2 hours. Cutting that spree almost certainly had a negative impact on the film.
If it wasn't clear from everything above... I did not enjoy this film. (I saw it in a double bill, little did I know that Minions: The Rise of Gru would be the best film I saw that day.) I could go on and on about Love and Thunder. Don't get me wrong, there are things about it that I enjoyed, but those things definitely constitute spoilers.
Note: For those of you that stay through the credits, there are two scenes. Both of which give possibilities for the future of the next MCU phase. One I'm excited for, the other... not so much.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/07/thor-love-and-thunder-movie-review.html
Thor is getting his life back on track. The Guardians have helped him get some perspective and it's time to go back to New Asgard and see his people. In his absence, however, there's a new superhero on the block... and she's kind of cramping his style.
One of my difficulties with this one is that it's hard to tell what the film is wanting to do. A redemption arc for Thor, introducing new characters, setting up for the next big finale? That all doesn't seem like a problem initially, but just wait.
I loved Thor: Ragnarok. It's my favourite MCU film. It mixed the underlying humour with the nuttiness of Guardians and it worked. But, something about Love and Thunder makes me feel like they said "Just go for it, anything you want"...
The last we saw of Thor he was flying off into the great unknown with a plucky band of heroes... and it's almost like they completely forgot that had happened, and at the last minute had to write the beginning of the movie again. The whole opening was so badly acted (and dull) that I was genuinely convinced that not all of the actors were back for these cameos. And not just GotG, every recalled character was wasted.
Christian Bale was Christian Bale, I expected nothing less, I imagine him being entirely terrifying on set. This is where the film does a real disservice. With a strong, dark performance and character, Gorr the God Butcher is surrounded by bright tomfoolery. Yes, I said tomfoolery. Gorr deserved a better film.
Possibly my least favourite bit that felt entirely at odds with Gorr's story, is all the gods being so over the top. They do try to explain this away at one point, but this and the fact you don't see Gorr on his godly murder spree led to more and more frustration.
Seemingly that and other cameos were left on the cutting room floor in order to keep the running time under 2 hours. Cutting that spree almost certainly had a negative impact on the film.
If it wasn't clear from everything above... I did not enjoy this film. (I saw it in a double bill, little did I know that Minions: The Rise of Gru would be the best film I saw that day.) I could go on and on about Love and Thunder. Don't get me wrong, there are things about it that I enjoyed, but those things definitely constitute spoilers.
Note: For those of you that stay through the credits, there are two scenes. Both of which give possibilities for the future of the next MCU phase. One I'm excited for, the other... not so much.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/07/thor-love-and-thunder-movie-review.html