Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A visual spectacle
It’s always a worry when a production company feels the need to force feed you the fact that a big-name is in a relatively minor role. In the case of Alita: Battle Angel, 20th Century Fox have been hammering home the fact that James Cameron is involved in a Producer capacity.
You have to feel a little sorry for director Robert Rodriguez as his name has been almost usurped by Cameron’s in the marketing push for this live-action adaptation of the classic manga. Of course, Cameron is too busy making the four Avatar sequels no-one actually cares about anymore and instead, entrusted his vision for Alita: Battle Angel to Rodriguez. He’s certainly an intriguing choice of director, but does the finished product work?
Set several centuries in the future, the abandoned Alita (Rosa Salazar) is found in the scrapyard of Iron City by Ido (Christoph Waltz), a compassionate cyber-doctor who takes the unconscious cyborg Alita to his clinic. When Alita awakens, she has no memory of who she is, nor does she have any recognition of the world she finds herself in. As Alita learns to navigate her new life and the treacherous streets of Iron City, Ido tries to shield her from her mysterious past.
After spending nearly $200million on Alita, Fox clearly think they’ve got another massive hit on their hands and to an extent, they deserve one. Battle Angel is a majestic film, filled with visual presence not dissimilar to the spectacle of watching Avatar for the first time in 2009. The bustling world of Iron City feels as if it’s living and breathing right before our eyes and that’s a testament to both Cameron and Rodriguez as well as the visual effects people down at Weta Digital.
This thriving metropolis is populated by practical and CGI effects of varying qualities, but as a movie world, it works much better than Wakanda did in Black Panther and is leagues ahead of the empty, soulless Asgard from Thor.
It is reminiscent of Sakaar in Thor: Ragnarok however, with its narrow streets and market stalls. The difference here is that Iron City is a much darker, eerier place than Sakarr ever was, save for Jeff Goldblum’s Grandmaster towering above everything.
The casting is also very good and features some household names that were clearly intrigued by the project. Waltz is excellent as the compassionate Ido and Jennifer Connelly works well as his ex-wife, though she is underused throughout.
Alita: Battle Angel is a pleasant surprise from a director who has needed a hit for quite some time.
Ed Skrein turns up every now and then as Zapan, a cyborg bounty hunter and provides some light comic relief in a film that has more than its fair share of darker moments. TV actor Keann Johnson makes his big-budget film debut here and he is excellent as Hugo, Alita’s love interest.
Unfortunately, the initial optimism fades somewhat when you realise that Alita: Battle Angel struggles under the weight of its own script. Plot points in the first 45 minutes feel ridiculously rushed and then the film hurtles towards its climax without stopping for breath.
You get the feeling there was much more that had to be cut to trim the runtime down to a more family friendly 2 hours. The dialogue too isn’t a strong point. Overly expositional and riddled in cliché, Alita is not a film you watch because of its sparkling and witty one-liners.
Niggles aside though and Alita: Battle Angel is much better than I thought it was going to be. The plot, while unoriginal, is sweet and easy enough to swallow, making it a great family film. True, it has its darker moments, but the strong visuals and vibrant environment will make it enjoyable for older children and adults alike.
Overall, Alita: Battle Angel is a pleasant surprise from a director who has needed a hit for quite some time. It’s a flawed film that struggles to cope with its many ideas that continuously pull it in hundreds of different directions, but it’s worth a watch just for the visual spectacle and emotionally arresting story. Whether or not it recoups that colossal $200million budget remains to be seen.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/02/09/alita-battle-angel-review-a-visual-spectacle/
You have to feel a little sorry for director Robert Rodriguez as his name has been almost usurped by Cameron’s in the marketing push for this live-action adaptation of the classic manga. Of course, Cameron is too busy making the four Avatar sequels no-one actually cares about anymore and instead, entrusted his vision for Alita: Battle Angel to Rodriguez. He’s certainly an intriguing choice of director, but does the finished product work?
Set several centuries in the future, the abandoned Alita (Rosa Salazar) is found in the scrapyard of Iron City by Ido (Christoph Waltz), a compassionate cyber-doctor who takes the unconscious cyborg Alita to his clinic. When Alita awakens, she has no memory of who she is, nor does she have any recognition of the world she finds herself in. As Alita learns to navigate her new life and the treacherous streets of Iron City, Ido tries to shield her from her mysterious past.
After spending nearly $200million on Alita, Fox clearly think they’ve got another massive hit on their hands and to an extent, they deserve one. Battle Angel is a majestic film, filled with visual presence not dissimilar to the spectacle of watching Avatar for the first time in 2009. The bustling world of Iron City feels as if it’s living and breathing right before our eyes and that’s a testament to both Cameron and Rodriguez as well as the visual effects people down at Weta Digital.
This thriving metropolis is populated by practical and CGI effects of varying qualities, but as a movie world, it works much better than Wakanda did in Black Panther and is leagues ahead of the empty, soulless Asgard from Thor.
It is reminiscent of Sakaar in Thor: Ragnarok however, with its narrow streets and market stalls. The difference here is that Iron City is a much darker, eerier place than Sakarr ever was, save for Jeff Goldblum’s Grandmaster towering above everything.
The casting is also very good and features some household names that were clearly intrigued by the project. Waltz is excellent as the compassionate Ido and Jennifer Connelly works well as his ex-wife, though she is underused throughout.
Alita: Battle Angel is a pleasant surprise from a director who has needed a hit for quite some time.
Ed Skrein turns up every now and then as Zapan, a cyborg bounty hunter and provides some light comic relief in a film that has more than its fair share of darker moments. TV actor Keann Johnson makes his big-budget film debut here and he is excellent as Hugo, Alita’s love interest.
Unfortunately, the initial optimism fades somewhat when you realise that Alita: Battle Angel struggles under the weight of its own script. Plot points in the first 45 minutes feel ridiculously rushed and then the film hurtles towards its climax without stopping for breath.
You get the feeling there was much more that had to be cut to trim the runtime down to a more family friendly 2 hours. The dialogue too isn’t a strong point. Overly expositional and riddled in cliché, Alita is not a film you watch because of its sparkling and witty one-liners.
Niggles aside though and Alita: Battle Angel is much better than I thought it was going to be. The plot, while unoriginal, is sweet and easy enough to swallow, making it a great family film. True, it has its darker moments, but the strong visuals and vibrant environment will make it enjoyable for older children and adults alike.
Overall, Alita: Battle Angel is a pleasant surprise from a director who has needed a hit for quite some time. It’s a flawed film that struggles to cope with its many ideas that continuously pull it in hundreds of different directions, but it’s worth a watch just for the visual spectacle and emotionally arresting story. Whether or not it recoups that colossal $200million budget remains to be seen.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/02/09/alita-battle-angel-review-a-visual-spectacle/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Deepwater Horizon (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing” could be a summary of this modern-age disaster movie. In 2010 the “Deepwater Horizon” drilling rig off the coast of Louisiana failed in spectacular fashion, bursting into flames and spewing millions of barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico in what was the worst oil-spill in American history. Mark Wahlberg plays the well-respected electrical ‘Mr fixit’ Mike Williams on the rig, reporting to the Operations Manager Jimmy Harrell (Kurt Russell).
The exploratory project is way-behind and BP are not happy. Big-wigs from the company add support to Donald Vidrine, the BP site leader, in applying mounting pressure on Harrell to press on regardless without all the necessary and time-consuming tests by Schlumberger being completed. Rogue numbers in further tests are waved away as ‘glitches’. A familiar story of corporate greed and pressure overriding the expert’s better judgment.
When disaster strikes it strikes quickly, with some spectacular and exciting special effects that leave the audience especially hot under the collar. Female support is provided by the comely Andrea Fleytas (Gina Rodriguez), given the almost impossible job of keeping the floating bomb on station as chaos reigns about her. As an audience we are back on familiar ground here from classic Irwin Allen disaster movies such as “The Towering Inferno” and “The Poseidon Adventure”. Who will make it, and who won’t?
A more telling question here is “Do we care?” and unfortunately for the film, the answer is “Not really”. This feels a callous thing to say when this was a real and recent event and eleven people and – as touchingly illustrated at the end of the film in tribute – many of them family men with young kids, never went home again. But film-wise, we only really get bought into the fate of Williams, whose back-story, with cute wife (Kate Hudson) and cute daughter (Stella Allen) we get to meet and sympathize with.
We get a minimalist view of Fleytas’s backstory, but only enough to provide a recurring “Mustang” reference. And that’s it. All the other characters are just two-dimensional “rig crew”: cannon-fodder for the special effects team. The screenplay by Matthew Sand and Matthew Carnahan really doesn’t deliver enough heft to get us bought in.
While the special effects are good, the sound design isn’t, with much of the dialogue being incomprehensible.
All the acting is fine, with the ever-watchable John Malkovich nicely portraying the corporate head you love to hate. Wahlberg as well delivers enough range to make you forget in this “action mode” that he was also in “Ted”. And Rodriguez as a junior lead holds her own against the big guns in what is a creditable performance in a big film role for her.
While “Lone Survivor”/”Battleship” director Peter Berg neatly provides an insight into life on and around rigs, and (via subtitles) descriptions of the drilling process which I found interesting, this comes down to the sum of a tense build up, an hour of frenetic disaster, and then a whimper of an ending. Where were some of the dramatic scenes of conflict in the congressional hearing that the film’s opening implies might come? Where are the scenes of ecological disaster and local financial ruin to add emotional angles to the story? None of this is really exploited and the whole concoction comes across a bit “meh” as a result. Not a bad film by any means. But not one I will remember in a month or two’s time.
The exploratory project is way-behind and BP are not happy. Big-wigs from the company add support to Donald Vidrine, the BP site leader, in applying mounting pressure on Harrell to press on regardless without all the necessary and time-consuming tests by Schlumberger being completed. Rogue numbers in further tests are waved away as ‘glitches’. A familiar story of corporate greed and pressure overriding the expert’s better judgment.
When disaster strikes it strikes quickly, with some spectacular and exciting special effects that leave the audience especially hot under the collar. Female support is provided by the comely Andrea Fleytas (Gina Rodriguez), given the almost impossible job of keeping the floating bomb on station as chaos reigns about her. As an audience we are back on familiar ground here from classic Irwin Allen disaster movies such as “The Towering Inferno” and “The Poseidon Adventure”. Who will make it, and who won’t?
A more telling question here is “Do we care?” and unfortunately for the film, the answer is “Not really”. This feels a callous thing to say when this was a real and recent event and eleven people and – as touchingly illustrated at the end of the film in tribute – many of them family men with young kids, never went home again. But film-wise, we only really get bought into the fate of Williams, whose back-story, with cute wife (Kate Hudson) and cute daughter (Stella Allen) we get to meet and sympathize with.
We get a minimalist view of Fleytas’s backstory, but only enough to provide a recurring “Mustang” reference. And that’s it. All the other characters are just two-dimensional “rig crew”: cannon-fodder for the special effects team. The screenplay by Matthew Sand and Matthew Carnahan really doesn’t deliver enough heft to get us bought in.
While the special effects are good, the sound design isn’t, with much of the dialogue being incomprehensible.
All the acting is fine, with the ever-watchable John Malkovich nicely portraying the corporate head you love to hate. Wahlberg as well delivers enough range to make you forget in this “action mode” that he was also in “Ted”. And Rodriguez as a junior lead holds her own against the big guns in what is a creditable performance in a big film role for her.
While “Lone Survivor”/”Battleship” director Peter Berg neatly provides an insight into life on and around rigs, and (via subtitles) descriptions of the drilling process which I found interesting, this comes down to the sum of a tense build up, an hour of frenetic disaster, and then a whimper of an ending. Where were some of the dramatic scenes of conflict in the congressional hearing that the film’s opening implies might come? Where are the scenes of ecological disaster and local financial ruin to add emotional angles to the story? None of this is really exploited and the whole concoction comes across a bit “meh” as a result. Not a bad film by any means. But not one I will remember in a month or two’s time.
The Alex Crow
Book
From the critically acclaimed author of cult teen novel Grasshopper Jungle, Andrew Smith, comes a...
EMPIRE: The Deck Building Strategy Game
Games and Entertainment
App
“Empire is so tight it squeaks, and I suspect it’s the best game I’ve played this year.” -...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) in Movies
Apr 22, 2022
Meta-Fun
It is a tricky thing on film, to parody your film image without making it an homage (or a complete trashing) of yourself. And, in THE UNBEARABLE WEIGHT OF MASSIVE TALENT, Nicholas Cage (playing Nick Cage) has found the line perfectly.
Conceived, written and Directed by Tom Cormican (THAT AWKWARD MOMENT), UWOMT (as I will call it here on out) is a meta-film that has Nicholas Cage playing a highly stylized and fictionalized version of himself. In this film, Nick Cage is desperate for work and going broke, when a rich fan offers him $1 million to appear at a birthday party. What happens next is bizarre, gonzo and out-of-control - and a lot of fun.
Let’s start with the man himself, Nicholas Cage, once he was convinced to do this film (and it took some convincing, for he turned this film down at least 3 times), he dives in with both feet and with full gusto filling Nick Cage with the wild actions and antics that are the basis of many, many Nicholas Cage memes. It is a knowing characterization by Cage, but one that knows when to pull back (not a trait often associated with him) and he does it all without winking at the camera.
Credit for this must go to Writer/Director Cormican (and his co-writer Kevin Etten),who had a clear vision of what they wanted to accomplish here, what tone they wanted to set, and how “meta” they wanted this film to be. And they accomplish this goal well, making an interesting and intriguing comedy/action flick that will satisfy many…but, especially, fans of Nicholas Cage.
Along for the fun ride are Neil Patrick Harris, Tiffany Hadish, Ike Barinholtz and Sharon Horgan who all deliver the right vibe for this film (as well as a couple of cameos that would be a spoiler to mention). They all look like that they are having a fun time.
But…the glue that holds all of this craziness together is the performance of Pedro Pascual (NARCOS, THE MANDILORIAN) who plays the millionaire Superfan who hires Cage and, eventually, befriends him. This is a masterful, comedic performance and it is Pascual’s sincerity (without going into buffoonery or overplaying) that grounds this film just enough that you actually care about the relationship between Pascual’s character, Javy, and Cage.
A ton of fun, not only for the performances and wild events, but for the many, many references to fun Cage films/roles of the past - items that will now motivate many (including myself) to check out.
Letter Grade: A
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Conceived, written and Directed by Tom Cormican (THAT AWKWARD MOMENT), UWOMT (as I will call it here on out) is a meta-film that has Nicholas Cage playing a highly stylized and fictionalized version of himself. In this film, Nick Cage is desperate for work and going broke, when a rich fan offers him $1 million to appear at a birthday party. What happens next is bizarre, gonzo and out-of-control - and a lot of fun.
Let’s start with the man himself, Nicholas Cage, once he was convinced to do this film (and it took some convincing, for he turned this film down at least 3 times), he dives in with both feet and with full gusto filling Nick Cage with the wild actions and antics that are the basis of many, many Nicholas Cage memes. It is a knowing characterization by Cage, but one that knows when to pull back (not a trait often associated with him) and he does it all without winking at the camera.
Credit for this must go to Writer/Director Cormican (and his co-writer Kevin Etten),who had a clear vision of what they wanted to accomplish here, what tone they wanted to set, and how “meta” they wanted this film to be. And they accomplish this goal well, making an interesting and intriguing comedy/action flick that will satisfy many…but, especially, fans of Nicholas Cage.
Along for the fun ride are Neil Patrick Harris, Tiffany Hadish, Ike Barinholtz and Sharon Horgan who all deliver the right vibe for this film (as well as a couple of cameos that would be a spoiler to mention). They all look like that they are having a fun time.
But…the glue that holds all of this craziness together is the performance of Pedro Pascual (NARCOS, THE MANDILORIAN) who plays the millionaire Superfan who hires Cage and, eventually, befriends him. This is a masterful, comedic performance and it is Pascual’s sincerity (without going into buffoonery or overplaying) that grounds this film just enough that you actually care about the relationship between Pascual’s character, Javy, and Cage.
A ton of fun, not only for the performances and wild events, but for the many, many references to fun Cage films/roles of the past - items that will now motivate many (including myself) to check out.
Letter Grade: A
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Devil Wears Prada (2006) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
I was watching The Devil Wears Prada the other day on ITV2 and forgot just how brilliant a film it is, it really did exceed expectations back then in 2006 and even now in 2011. Here’s the review I wrote all those years ago. Enjoy!
David Frankel, a rather unknown television director makes his debut on the silver screen in this stunning adaptation of Lauren Weisberger’s not so stunning novel, The Devil Wears Prada.
Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep join a mesmerising cast in this surprisingly brilliant rom-com. The premise is simple and kept that way to ensure all detail is carried across in depth without missing any major points from the novel. Weisberger should be astounded that Frankel managed to turn her rather lacklustre book into a first-rate movie.
Anne Hathaway plays ‘Andy Sax’, an unknown journalist with no eye for fashion who wants to get her foot on the bottom ladder of the media industry. Her character simply leaps off the screen, from her dopey, lovable personality to her cheap, second rate clothing; she is truly a joy to watch. Emily Blunt plays the fashion conscious assistant who would do anything and everything to get as high as possible in the clothing industry; again, her character is played with a love/hate finesse that few actresses of 2006 can match.
However, by far the best performance is given by Meryl Streep as ‘Miranda Priestly’, editor and chief of ‘Runway’ magazine. Sly, career obsessed with a dash of emotionality added in, she is exceptional in her role and should be seriously considered for an Oscar at this years awards. Her dialogue is spoken with a heartless brilliance that no other actress could even hold a candle to, she is perfectly cast in this role.
Stanley Tucci plays a somewhat flat member of the team, possibly due to his little screen time, but he is by no means dull, with personality abound.
The soundtrack is genius, and perfectly matched to the film, from the outset right up until the closing credits, each song is flawlessly integrated into the feature. Camera-work is also on par with the best of this year and really helps the characters stand out in their roles.
Where most rom-coms use cheap gags to gain laughs from the audience, Prada expects you to think a little more about what you’re laughing at, a deep message about ones self discovery is incorporated, but well hidden in the film. Of course there are a few laughs of the cheap kind, but unusually, they are actually funny. Comedy really doesn’t get much better than right here.
Some scenes in the film have been directed so well, that the more emotional among us may be reaching for the tissues. The transition from comedy to seriousness is exceptionally watertight, you’ll be laughing one minute and on the edge of your seat the next.
The ending of the film is perhaps of a slight anti-climax, but it portrays a wonderfully deep message about inner emotion, leaving a huge smile on your face as the credits role.
To put it simply, The Devil Wears Prada is a practically faultless movie which should appeal to a huge and diverse range of people. The acting, direction and soundtrack are all absolutely perfect and I think we may have a found a future classic character in ‘Miranda Priestly.’ It’s a joy to watch. Be a devil and go see it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/01/19/a-blast-from-the-past-the-devil-wears-prada-2006/
David Frankel, a rather unknown television director makes his debut on the silver screen in this stunning adaptation of Lauren Weisberger’s not so stunning novel, The Devil Wears Prada.
Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep join a mesmerising cast in this surprisingly brilliant rom-com. The premise is simple and kept that way to ensure all detail is carried across in depth without missing any major points from the novel. Weisberger should be astounded that Frankel managed to turn her rather lacklustre book into a first-rate movie.
Anne Hathaway plays ‘Andy Sax’, an unknown journalist with no eye for fashion who wants to get her foot on the bottom ladder of the media industry. Her character simply leaps off the screen, from her dopey, lovable personality to her cheap, second rate clothing; she is truly a joy to watch. Emily Blunt plays the fashion conscious assistant who would do anything and everything to get as high as possible in the clothing industry; again, her character is played with a love/hate finesse that few actresses of 2006 can match.
However, by far the best performance is given by Meryl Streep as ‘Miranda Priestly’, editor and chief of ‘Runway’ magazine. Sly, career obsessed with a dash of emotionality added in, she is exceptional in her role and should be seriously considered for an Oscar at this years awards. Her dialogue is spoken with a heartless brilliance that no other actress could even hold a candle to, she is perfectly cast in this role.
Stanley Tucci plays a somewhat flat member of the team, possibly due to his little screen time, but he is by no means dull, with personality abound.
The soundtrack is genius, and perfectly matched to the film, from the outset right up until the closing credits, each song is flawlessly integrated into the feature. Camera-work is also on par with the best of this year and really helps the characters stand out in their roles.
Where most rom-coms use cheap gags to gain laughs from the audience, Prada expects you to think a little more about what you’re laughing at, a deep message about ones self discovery is incorporated, but well hidden in the film. Of course there are a few laughs of the cheap kind, but unusually, they are actually funny. Comedy really doesn’t get much better than right here.
Some scenes in the film have been directed so well, that the more emotional among us may be reaching for the tissues. The transition from comedy to seriousness is exceptionally watertight, you’ll be laughing one minute and on the edge of your seat the next.
The ending of the film is perhaps of a slight anti-climax, but it portrays a wonderfully deep message about inner emotion, leaving a huge smile on your face as the credits role.
To put it simply, The Devil Wears Prada is a practically faultless movie which should appeal to a huge and diverse range of people. The acting, direction and soundtrack are all absolutely perfect and I think we may have a found a future classic character in ‘Miranda Priestly.’ It’s a joy to watch. Be a devil and go see it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/01/19/a-blast-from-the-past-the-devil-wears-prada-2006/
BookblogbyCari (345 KP) rated Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind in Books
Aug 5, 2018
This book was chosen to be the first book read and discussed in an online non-fiction book club I recently joined – and I’m glad we did choose this one!
The book is an overview of homo-sapiens as a species, and how we have changed over the ages, and what we have done, before finally touching on where we are going. As such the book is a cross-pollination of history, sociology, and economics.
As you may expect from a book with such a broad scope, there are some sweeping statements, and rather than being a neutral dispassionate account, Harari makes his opinions very evident. However rather than being irritating, I feel this makes for a more entertaining read.
The book begins by introducing the theme of homo-sapiens in the context of the presence of the other human species that used to exist. He then goes on to describe the cognitive and agricultural revolutions. Then it’s the establishment of patriarchal social hierarchies across the world, largely based on historical conventions. Next Harari states that the purpose of religion is to unify fragile societies with superhuman legitimacy.
Harari then moves on to the scientific revolution, describing how an admission of ignorance by Europeans, along with a desire to discover and conquer new lands was key to the movement.
The conversation moves swiftly then to economics, using the fact that a bank can loan £10 for every £1 it has, to argue that our economics is based on trust in the future. Harari states that a country’s credit rating is more important than its actual resources. Harari describes capitalism and consumerism as being 2 sides of the same coin with two commandments: rich must invest, rest of us must buy. Consumerism, he says, aims to convince people that indulgence is good and frugality is self-oppression.
Harari also argues that, now, instead of relying on local communities the individual relies on the market or the state. Parental authority no longer sacred, he says, and state intervenes. And so when Harari asks if we are any happier now than when we were hunter-gatherers, he argues that our rise of wealth is offset by the disintegration of community life.
Harari also speaks of ecological degradation and our tendency to treat other species as a means to an end, for example, the farming of cow's and chickens has cut years off the lives of both, since they are killed as soon as they reach their maximum weight.
In the final chapter, Harari speculates on the future of mankind. With improvements in medical knowledge comes new ethical conundrums, he says. How will we handle the options of genetic engineering? What will the advent of artificial intelligence mean for humanity?
In my book club, we found that the book generated a lot of talking points. What would the world be like now, had the other species of humans survived? Why have so many cultures across history and the world had patriarchal hierarchies? Can societies improve over time, or is one style better than another? Can communism be considered a religion? Are human rights really just a figment of our collective imagination?
Whilst not everyone in my book club enjoyed the book equally, I would say that it’s as enlightening as it is thought provoking. By the end, it was hard to argue with the author's conclusion that homo-sapiens are like dissatisfied and irresponsible gods.
The book is an overview of homo-sapiens as a species, and how we have changed over the ages, and what we have done, before finally touching on where we are going. As such the book is a cross-pollination of history, sociology, and economics.
As you may expect from a book with such a broad scope, there are some sweeping statements, and rather than being a neutral dispassionate account, Harari makes his opinions very evident. However rather than being irritating, I feel this makes for a more entertaining read.
The book begins by introducing the theme of homo-sapiens in the context of the presence of the other human species that used to exist. He then goes on to describe the cognitive and agricultural revolutions. Then it’s the establishment of patriarchal social hierarchies across the world, largely based on historical conventions. Next Harari states that the purpose of religion is to unify fragile societies with superhuman legitimacy.
Harari then moves on to the scientific revolution, describing how an admission of ignorance by Europeans, along with a desire to discover and conquer new lands was key to the movement.
The conversation moves swiftly then to economics, using the fact that a bank can loan £10 for every £1 it has, to argue that our economics is based on trust in the future. Harari states that a country’s credit rating is more important than its actual resources. Harari describes capitalism and consumerism as being 2 sides of the same coin with two commandments: rich must invest, rest of us must buy. Consumerism, he says, aims to convince people that indulgence is good and frugality is self-oppression.
Harari also argues that, now, instead of relying on local communities the individual relies on the market or the state. Parental authority no longer sacred, he says, and state intervenes. And so when Harari asks if we are any happier now than when we were hunter-gatherers, he argues that our rise of wealth is offset by the disintegration of community life.
Harari also speaks of ecological degradation and our tendency to treat other species as a means to an end, for example, the farming of cow's and chickens has cut years off the lives of both, since they are killed as soon as they reach their maximum weight.
In the final chapter, Harari speculates on the future of mankind. With improvements in medical knowledge comes new ethical conundrums, he says. How will we handle the options of genetic engineering? What will the advent of artificial intelligence mean for humanity?
In my book club, we found that the book generated a lot of talking points. What would the world be like now, had the other species of humans survived? Why have so many cultures across history and the world had patriarchal hierarchies? Can societies improve over time, or is one style better than another? Can communism be considered a religion? Are human rights really just a figment of our collective imagination?
Whilst not everyone in my book club enjoyed the book equally, I would say that it’s as enlightening as it is thought provoking. By the end, it was hard to argue with the author's conclusion that homo-sapiens are like dissatisfied and irresponsible gods.
Hit it Rich! Casino Slots
Games and Entertainment
App
Hit it Rich! Slots is the biggest collection of slot machine games based off of some of your...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Not buggering it up.
As Doctor Who repeatedly points out, time is most definitely a tricksy thing. As I think I’ve commented on before, the events of 1940-45 are not in my lifetime but were sufficiently fresh to my parents that they were still actively talked about… so they still appear “current” to me. But I find it astonishing to realize that to a teen viewer this film is equivalent in timeframe to the sinking of the Titanic! #ancienthistory! So I suspect your connection to this film will be strongly affected by your age, and that was definitely reflected in the average age at my showing which must have been at least 60.
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
Lee (2222 KP) rated Frozen II (2019) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019 (Updated Nov 25, 2019)
Just as enjoyable as the original
I'm sure you don't need me to tell you how big a hit 2013 movie Frozen was. For a long while after it was released, you couldn't go on social media, or even turn on a TV, without seeing mention of Frozen in some form. And you couldn't really avoid hearing somebody bash out their rendition of 'Let It Go', arguably one of the biggest and most recognisable songs of this decade. Frozen became the highest-grossing animated film ever and a sequel was always inevitable. But, with any sequel, there's always a high chance that they'll fail to live up to the original, simply coming across as nothing more than a cash grab. Frozen 2 had a lot to live up to!
Following the events of the first Frozen movie, Arendelle is once again a calm, happy and carefree place. Elsa and Anna are close sisters once more. Anna and Kristoff are a couple, although in a running theme throughout the movie, Kristoff is now keen to try and propose to Anna. Meanwhile, some magic from Elsa means that Olaf now has a permafrost, no longer needing his own snow cloud and able to freely go around without fear of melting. He's also extremely keen to learn - becoming more thoughtful and aware of the world, asking existential questions, and sharing new found facts with his friends.
An early scene shows a young Elsa and Anna being told a bedtime story by their parents. The story involves an enchanted forest and their grandfather, who went to the forest as king in order to make peace with it's inhabitants, the Northuldra, and to sweeten the deal by building them a shiny new dam. But a betrayal caused the elemental forces of the forest - air, earth, fire and water - to become angered, resulting in a fierce battle and the entire forest being sealed for all time beneath a magical shield of mist. Clearly this story is being told in order to set the scene for a major plot point in this sequel, so it's not long before present day Elsa begins to hear voices - a mysterious siren, beckoning her with a beautiful melody. And when the terrifying elemental spirits strike the town of Arendelle, forcing its residents to flee for safety, she remembers the story we've just heard and heads off to the enchanted forest to look for answers and a resolution, closely followed by Anna, Kristoff, Sven and Olaf.
What follows is an epic adventure involving all of the main characters as they work together, or separately at times, to try and regain order and peace to this expanding world we're being introduced to. It becomes a quest to uncover the sisters ancestry and an attempt to undo damage caused by past generations with each character deals with their own personal transformation and growth. It's all beautifully animated, as you'd expect, full of peril, action and fun. And Olaf still manages to generate big laughs in pretty much every scene he's in!
Once again, Frozen 2 boasts an impressive soundtrack of songs. At least one is extremely powerful and catchy, knocking loudly at the door of 'Let It Go' in terms of memorability (admittedly, I've already listened to it a few times since leaving the cinema!), and there are more fun songs for Olaf to sing too. Kristoff comes up short though, getting dealt the worst of the songs, but that's not to say they're not still enjoyable.
Like Toy Story 4 earlier this year, Frozen 2 is a sequel that wasn't really necessary. But, as with Toy Story, it is still wonderful to be back in the company of such great characters. Having re-watched the original Frozen the day before seeing Frozen 2, I can honestly say that the sequel for me was just as enjoyable and entertaining as the first. Highly recommended.
Following the events of the first Frozen movie, Arendelle is once again a calm, happy and carefree place. Elsa and Anna are close sisters once more. Anna and Kristoff are a couple, although in a running theme throughout the movie, Kristoff is now keen to try and propose to Anna. Meanwhile, some magic from Elsa means that Olaf now has a permafrost, no longer needing his own snow cloud and able to freely go around without fear of melting. He's also extremely keen to learn - becoming more thoughtful and aware of the world, asking existential questions, and sharing new found facts with his friends.
An early scene shows a young Elsa and Anna being told a bedtime story by their parents. The story involves an enchanted forest and their grandfather, who went to the forest as king in order to make peace with it's inhabitants, the Northuldra, and to sweeten the deal by building them a shiny new dam. But a betrayal caused the elemental forces of the forest - air, earth, fire and water - to become angered, resulting in a fierce battle and the entire forest being sealed for all time beneath a magical shield of mist. Clearly this story is being told in order to set the scene for a major plot point in this sequel, so it's not long before present day Elsa begins to hear voices - a mysterious siren, beckoning her with a beautiful melody. And when the terrifying elemental spirits strike the town of Arendelle, forcing its residents to flee for safety, she remembers the story we've just heard and heads off to the enchanted forest to look for answers and a resolution, closely followed by Anna, Kristoff, Sven and Olaf.
What follows is an epic adventure involving all of the main characters as they work together, or separately at times, to try and regain order and peace to this expanding world we're being introduced to. It becomes a quest to uncover the sisters ancestry and an attempt to undo damage caused by past generations with each character deals with their own personal transformation and growth. It's all beautifully animated, as you'd expect, full of peril, action and fun. And Olaf still manages to generate big laughs in pretty much every scene he's in!
Once again, Frozen 2 boasts an impressive soundtrack of songs. At least one is extremely powerful and catchy, knocking loudly at the door of 'Let It Go' in terms of memorability (admittedly, I've already listened to it a few times since leaving the cinema!), and there are more fun songs for Olaf to sing too. Kristoff comes up short though, getting dealt the worst of the songs, but that's not to say they're not still enjoyable.
Like Toy Story 4 earlier this year, Frozen 2 is a sequel that wasn't really necessary. But, as with Toy Story, it is still wonderful to be back in the company of such great characters. Having re-watched the original Frozen the day before seeing Frozen 2, I can honestly say that the sequel for me was just as enjoyable and entertaining as the first. Highly recommended.