Search
Search results
Eilidh G Clark (177 KP) rated Sunsett Song in Books
May 14, 2017
there are better things than your books or studies or loving or bedding, there’s the countryside your own […] in the days when you’re neither bairn nor woman.’ I
Sunset Song by Lewis Grassic Gibbon, published in 1932 became the ‘cream of the crop’ in a poll organised by The Scottish Book Trust last year. Not only was it voted as Scotland’s favourite novel, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon described it as ‘timeless’ in an interview with the BBC, ‘ it said something about the history of the country I grew up in and it resonated with me very strongly as a young Scottish woman.’ I have to say that I am in agreement with the First Minister. Sunset Song is a beautifully written aesthetic novel that follows the life and internal conflict of the protagonist Chris Guthrie. By presenting Chris as a kind of cultural double, Gibbon is showing the reader the problems that result in Chris’s separation from the community and her parents conflicting interests regarding her upbringing. Chris’ father, hoping to enhance his daughter’s natural intelligence, is aware of the negative impact that the community might have on her progression, ‘Stick to your lessons and let’s see you make a name for yourself, you’ve no time for friends.’ John Guthrie, a progressive man, regards Chris’s peers as ‘servant queans.’ Whilst this may read as a cultural attack on the lower classes, John Guthrie, is simply reacting to his own working class conditions as a farmer. His motivation is to raise Chris out of the environment that he himself has struggled in and to give her better opportunities. Chris refers to her intelligent self as ‘English’ and identifies a cultural otherness between herself and those of her community. Chris’ mother Jean, on the other hand, has a view of the world that is from a much older time. Before marriage she was a free spirit, ‘there are better things than your books or studies or loving or bedding, there’s the countryside your own […] in the days when you’re neither bairn nor woman.’ It was Gibbon’s intention to create a heteroglossic view of education between Chris’ parents in order to create a protagonist whose future is a conflict between progression and an older unstructured way of life. It is through Chris’s thoughts, however, that her true self can be found. Her English self forms an escape, a place that is simpler, refined and an improvement on how she perceives Scottish culture as a result of her class, ‘the furrows went criss and cross, you wanted this and you wanted that, books and the fineness of them no more than empty gabble sometimes, and then sharn and the snapping that sickened you and drove you back to books.’ It is clear that Gibbon wanted to show the reader that Scottish culture does evaporate with progression. Culture lives in all of us, in the people, the land and in the struggles that we have faced and will face in the future. Chris Guthrie is the perfect example of hope, for a future which is rich in learning while still embracing her Scottish roots, I guess a future we can all identify with.
Hadley (567 KP) rated Ghost Story in Books
May 14, 2019
Great story line (1 more)
Great characters
Don Wanderley is a writer who happens to meet a supernatural being, and this meeting causes his life to be turned upside down in the novel 'Ghost Story.' Wanderley's brother and uncle both die of strange circumstances, leading him to seek how their deaths came to be. What Wanderley finds is that they were both infatuated with two women: Alma Mobley and Ann- Veronica Moore; Mobley just so happens to be Don's ex-fiance'.
Even if it seems so, Wanderley is not the main character of this book, instead, we meet four older gentlemen who have been friends the majority of their lives: John, Lewis, Ricky and Sears. The four have created what they like to call 'the Chowder Society,' where they meet up in suit and tie at one of their houses to tell ghost stories. Sears tells one ghost story that will haunt them the rest of the book about his time as a teacher in a rural town known as Elmira: "Well, one of the most dreadful things in my life happened to me there, or it didn't happen and I imagined it all, but anyhow it scared the pants off me and eventually made it impossible for me to stay on. This is the worst story I know, and I've kept it locked up in my mind for fifty years."
After that story, strange things begin to happen in Milburn; a farmer named Elmer Scales, reports that his sheep have been slaughtered by having their throats slit and completely drained of blood, but there are no footprints nor blood stains where the sheep were killed: " 'Their throats were cut,' Elmer said to his wife. 'What did I tell you? Some crazyman's been out here. And -' his voice rose ' - a crazyman who can fly, because he didn't leave no prints.' "
When the reader finds out that the four life long friends have a dark secret that has seem to come back to haunt them, we witness them being killed off by a supernatural force, one by one. This story brings not only a great cast of characters and amazing story telling, but also twist and turns that are not seen from a mile away, like most paranormal thrillers have today.
The supernatural force readers are introduced to is a shape shifter, who takes on forms from a werewolf to a vampire " When he took off the dark glasses his eyes shone a uniform golden yellow. " But the book is not lacking on ghosts, either : "Then she saw a figure moving around out there and Nettie, who understood more than even her sister credited, fearfully watched it approach the house and barn. She uttered a few choked sounds, but knew that Rea would never hear them. The figure came nearer, hauntingly familiar. Nettie was afraid it was the boy from town Rea talked about - that wild boy in a rage that Rea had named him to police. She trembled, watching the figure come nearer across the field, imagining what life would be like if the boy did anything to Rea; and then squawked in terror and nearly tipped over the wheelchair. The man walking toward the barn was her brother Stringer, wearing the brown shirt he'd had on the day he died: it was covered with blood, just as it had been when they'd put him on the table and wrapped him in blankets, but his arms were whole."
The entire story takes place in the town of Milburn, with a few scenes outside of it, but because of this, there are so many secondary characters introduced that the reader may find themselves back tracking through the book just to remember who all of them are. On top of that, a lot of the characters are so much alike, that description can't even help tell who is who. Even our four main characters have similar descriptions, other than girth, that it takes a couple of chapters for readers to put a face to a name. Only some secondary characters become important enough to remember near the end of the book, this including a teenager named Peter.
'Ghost Story' is among the few paranormal books that can stand on it's own. There are scenes of hallucination that out-do those of the top paranormal writers of today. One of the most memorable scenes is with the character Lewis: "Lewis moved back and forth on the floorboards, willing his friends to return with the farmer's car. He did not want to look at the covered shape on the bed; he went to the window. Through the greasepaper he could see only vague orange light.. He glanced back at the sheet. 'Linda, ' he said miserably. " - the scene quickly changes - "He stood in a metal room, with gray metal walls. One light bulb hung from the ceiling. His wife lay under a sheet on a metal table. Lewis leaned over her body and sobbed. 'I won't bury you in the pond,' he said. 'I'll take you into the rose garden.' He touched his wife's lifeless fingers under the sheet and felt them twitch. He recoiled. "
When the ghost story is finally revealed from the main characters' past, pieces of the puzzle begin to fit together. To not give away too much, here is a portion of that story: " 'She said she was lonely,' Ricky said. 'Said she was sick of this damned town and all the hypocrites in it. She wanted to drink and she wanted to dance, and she didn't care who was shocked. Said this dead little town and all its dead little people could go to hell as far as she was concerned. And if we were men and not little boys, we'd damn the town too.' "
While our main characters are being killed off one by one, the town of Milburn is going through an odd blizzard that seems to put everyone on edge: " People settled down in front of the television and ate pizzas from the freezer and prayed that the power lines would stay up; they avoided one another. If you looked outside and saw your next-door neighbor fighting up his lawn to get to his front door, he looked unearthly, transformed by stress into a wild ragged frontier version of himself: you knew he'd damage anyone who threatened to touch his dwindling store of food. He'd been touched by that savage music you had tried to escape, and if he looked through your Thermopane picture window and saw you his eyes were barely human."
Although 'Ghost Story' was published in 1979, it still has a big impact on the way the paranormal genre is written today. Straub not only makes a convincing story line, but he also makes characters that the reader can actually care about. Even when we find out what has been going on in the small town of Milburn, the reader can still feel a very real threat from the supernatural force within it. 'Ghost Story' is by far the best paranormal thriller I have ever read. I highly recommend this book to anyone who believes that the past can come back to haunt you.
For more reviews by me, please check out my blog at goreandtea.com
Even if it seems so, Wanderley is not the main character of this book, instead, we meet four older gentlemen who have been friends the majority of their lives: John, Lewis, Ricky and Sears. The four have created what they like to call 'the Chowder Society,' where they meet up in suit and tie at one of their houses to tell ghost stories. Sears tells one ghost story that will haunt them the rest of the book about his time as a teacher in a rural town known as Elmira: "Well, one of the most dreadful things in my life happened to me there, or it didn't happen and I imagined it all, but anyhow it scared the pants off me and eventually made it impossible for me to stay on. This is the worst story I know, and I've kept it locked up in my mind for fifty years."
After that story, strange things begin to happen in Milburn; a farmer named Elmer Scales, reports that his sheep have been slaughtered by having their throats slit and completely drained of blood, but there are no footprints nor blood stains where the sheep were killed: " 'Their throats were cut,' Elmer said to his wife. 'What did I tell you? Some crazyman's been out here. And -' his voice rose ' - a crazyman who can fly, because he didn't leave no prints.' "
When the reader finds out that the four life long friends have a dark secret that has seem to come back to haunt them, we witness them being killed off by a supernatural force, one by one. This story brings not only a great cast of characters and amazing story telling, but also twist and turns that are not seen from a mile away, like most paranormal thrillers have today.
The supernatural force readers are introduced to is a shape shifter, who takes on forms from a werewolf to a vampire " When he took off the dark glasses his eyes shone a uniform golden yellow. " But the book is not lacking on ghosts, either : "Then she saw a figure moving around out there and Nettie, who understood more than even her sister credited, fearfully watched it approach the house and barn. She uttered a few choked sounds, but knew that Rea would never hear them. The figure came nearer, hauntingly familiar. Nettie was afraid it was the boy from town Rea talked about - that wild boy in a rage that Rea had named him to police. She trembled, watching the figure come nearer across the field, imagining what life would be like if the boy did anything to Rea; and then squawked in terror and nearly tipped over the wheelchair. The man walking toward the barn was her brother Stringer, wearing the brown shirt he'd had on the day he died: it was covered with blood, just as it had been when they'd put him on the table and wrapped him in blankets, but his arms were whole."
The entire story takes place in the town of Milburn, with a few scenes outside of it, but because of this, there are so many secondary characters introduced that the reader may find themselves back tracking through the book just to remember who all of them are. On top of that, a lot of the characters are so much alike, that description can't even help tell who is who. Even our four main characters have similar descriptions, other than girth, that it takes a couple of chapters for readers to put a face to a name. Only some secondary characters become important enough to remember near the end of the book, this including a teenager named Peter.
'Ghost Story' is among the few paranormal books that can stand on it's own. There are scenes of hallucination that out-do those of the top paranormal writers of today. One of the most memorable scenes is with the character Lewis: "Lewis moved back and forth on the floorboards, willing his friends to return with the farmer's car. He did not want to look at the covered shape on the bed; he went to the window. Through the greasepaper he could see only vague orange light.. He glanced back at the sheet. 'Linda, ' he said miserably. " - the scene quickly changes - "He stood in a metal room, with gray metal walls. One light bulb hung from the ceiling. His wife lay under a sheet on a metal table. Lewis leaned over her body and sobbed. 'I won't bury you in the pond,' he said. 'I'll take you into the rose garden.' He touched his wife's lifeless fingers under the sheet and felt them twitch. He recoiled. "
When the ghost story is finally revealed from the main characters' past, pieces of the puzzle begin to fit together. To not give away too much, here is a portion of that story: " 'She said she was lonely,' Ricky said. 'Said she was sick of this damned town and all the hypocrites in it. She wanted to drink and she wanted to dance, and she didn't care who was shocked. Said this dead little town and all its dead little people could go to hell as far as she was concerned. And if we were men and not little boys, we'd damn the town too.' "
While our main characters are being killed off one by one, the town of Milburn is going through an odd blizzard that seems to put everyone on edge: " People settled down in front of the television and ate pizzas from the freezer and prayed that the power lines would stay up; they avoided one another. If you looked outside and saw your next-door neighbor fighting up his lawn to get to his front door, he looked unearthly, transformed by stress into a wild ragged frontier version of himself: you knew he'd damage anyone who threatened to touch his dwindling store of food. He'd been touched by that savage music you had tried to escape, and if he looked through your Thermopane picture window and saw you his eyes were barely human."
Although 'Ghost Story' was published in 1979, it still has a big impact on the way the paranormal genre is written today. Straub not only makes a convincing story line, but he also makes characters that the reader can actually care about. Even when we find out what has been going on in the small town of Milburn, the reader can still feel a very real threat from the supernatural force within it. 'Ghost Story' is by far the best paranormal thriller I have ever read. I highly recommend this book to anyone who believes that the past can come back to haunt you.
For more reviews by me, please check out my blog at goreandtea.com
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Bad Times at the El Royale (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
The El Royale Hotel sit directly on the California and Nevada border just outside of Lake Tahoe. In its heyday, the novelty hotel, vibrant and bustling with activity. Even getting visits from famous actors, singers and politicians. But by the 1960s those days had gone and now it is rundown and mostly vacant. Then on one fateful day a group of random strangers meet at the El Royale. There is a minister, Father Daniel Flynn (Jeff Bridges), on his way back from Oakland visiting his brother. Singer Darlene Sweet (Cynthia Erivo) who came to the El Royale because her midday casino singing gig in Reno didn’t pay enough for her to stay anywhere else. Then there is Laramie Seymour Sullivan (John Hamm) the vacuum salesman who talks fast and loud. His company does all the hotel bookings so he was stuck with the El Royale, but he is dead set on enjoying the luxurious Honeymoon Suite given the choices. Lastly, there is Emily (Dakota Johnson) she doesn’t say much besides she wants a room far away from the other guests. The mismatched group is all greeted by the bellhop/bar tender/service manager Miles (Lewis Pullman). All seems like a chance meeting of a group of travelers. But nothing is what it seems. By the nights end all manner of secrets will come out and all the guests’ lives will be in jeopardy.
El Royale is a well-crafted and executed mystery/thriller. Writer and Director Drew Goddard (The Martian) does a great job of telling an original story. It keeps you guessing to the end. The cast for the most part is really good. Chris Hemsworth (as Billy Lee) and Cailee Spaeny (as Ruth Summersping) have more underwhelming performances compared to the rest of the cast but still good. Cynthia Erivo, for me, had a great performance. I thought her voice was amazing and how her character was developed throughout the film was interesting and well done. The pace of the movie does start out somewhat slow but rapidly builds and overall is good. The film is set in the 1960s and definitely feels like of that era with the music, news stories, overall appearance of the hotel rooms, etc.
I enjoyed this film. I thought the way the story unfolded was interesting and original. One part that really occurred to be later is that you never really knew who the hero of the film was or would wind up being. When I thought I had it figured out something would happen to change my mind. Or maybe there was not really hero. The slow build up was a little long for me but otherwise it was a great movie theater experience.
El Royale is a well-crafted and executed mystery/thriller. Writer and Director Drew Goddard (The Martian) does a great job of telling an original story. It keeps you guessing to the end. The cast for the most part is really good. Chris Hemsworth (as Billy Lee) and Cailee Spaeny (as Ruth Summersping) have more underwhelming performances compared to the rest of the cast but still good. Cynthia Erivo, for me, had a great performance. I thought her voice was amazing and how her character was developed throughout the film was interesting and well done. The pace of the movie does start out somewhat slow but rapidly builds and overall is good. The film is set in the 1960s and definitely feels like of that era with the music, news stories, overall appearance of the hotel rooms, etc.
I enjoyed this film. I thought the way the story unfolded was interesting and original. One part that really occurred to be later is that you never really knew who the hero of the film was or would wind up being. When I thought I had it figured out something would happen to change my mind. Or maybe there was not really hero. The slow build up was a little long for me but otherwise it was a great movie theater experience.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Our Kind of Traitor (2016) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
Characters – Perry is a university professor, he is trying to make amends with his wife on a romantic holiday, he reluctantly gets involved in the information trade with his good nature being used by both sides. Gail is the lawyer wife of Perry, she has become distant from him while still loving him and does question his decision to help Dima. Dima is the Russian mafia handling the accounts, but he wants out to help his own children become safe, he uses his connection with Perry to get MI6 involved in the truth. Hector is the MI6 agent that is willing to work with Dima for the information in exchange for the family, he does have his own grudge with the man they are trying to take down too.
Performances – The performances through the film show us just what Le Carre does with his characters, he gives them good moments, without making them stand out. McGregor is good, but you feel a younger up and comer would have been perfect here, Harris is good and doesn’t put a foot wrong, while Skarsgard enjoys his role, shady but loyal. Damian Lewis brings back his true English role which at times does feel weird knowing how often he has been an American character recently.
Story – The story comes from a John Le Carre novel, so instantly we know we are going to get a thriller that keeps us guessing on what everyone’s motivation will be. The idea that a normal couple get mixed up in the middle of an international information exchange is different and does work for the film because it helps us stay on edge thinking and wondering if they do have a bigger involvement. The story does feel like that one moment to make it great is missing, as everything does end up feeling just normal and good only.
Crime – The crime side of the film follows a criminal looking for a safe way out of the life for his family in exchange for bringing down the mafia’s dealings in London.
Settings – The film splits the settings between London, for the deals, Morocco for the exchanges and the final location for the next chapter of the lives, they work because they show how this world would operate.
Scene of the Movie – The escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It lacks the edge of your seat style of Le Carre novels have given us.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid thriller even if it lacks that final factor to make it one of the best ones, it does the by the book material well, but never develops the characters enough to understand the situation they put themselves in.
Overall: Simple thriller.
Performances – The performances through the film show us just what Le Carre does with his characters, he gives them good moments, without making them stand out. McGregor is good, but you feel a younger up and comer would have been perfect here, Harris is good and doesn’t put a foot wrong, while Skarsgard enjoys his role, shady but loyal. Damian Lewis brings back his true English role which at times does feel weird knowing how often he has been an American character recently.
Story – The story comes from a John Le Carre novel, so instantly we know we are going to get a thriller that keeps us guessing on what everyone’s motivation will be. The idea that a normal couple get mixed up in the middle of an international information exchange is different and does work for the film because it helps us stay on edge thinking and wondering if they do have a bigger involvement. The story does feel like that one moment to make it great is missing, as everything does end up feeling just normal and good only.
Crime – The crime side of the film follows a criminal looking for a safe way out of the life for his family in exchange for bringing down the mafia’s dealings in London.
Settings – The film splits the settings between London, for the deals, Morocco for the exchanges and the final location for the next chapter of the lives, they work because they show how this world would operate.
Scene of the Movie – The escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It lacks the edge of your seat style of Le Carre novels have given us.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid thriller even if it lacks that final factor to make it one of the best ones, it does the by the book material well, but never develops the characters enough to understand the situation they put themselves in.
Overall: Simple thriller.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Tenet (2020) in Movies
Aug 28, 2020
Spectacular action set pieces done "in camera" (1 more)
Branagh and Debecki, both superb
Sound mix makes dialogue unintelligible (1 more)
In the words of Huey Lewis, "You're too darn loud"
Only Nolan and Schrödinger’s cat knows what’s going on.
Tenet is the long awaited new movie from Christopher Nolan. The movie that's set to reboot the multiplexes post-Covid. It's a manic, extremely loud, extremely baffling sci-fi cum spy rollercoaster that will please a lot of Nolan fan-boys but which left me with very mixed views.
How to write a spoiler-free plot summary? John David Washington (Denzel's lad) plays "The Protagonist" - a crack-CIA field operative who is an unstoppable one-man army in the style of Hobbs or Shaw. Recruited into an even more shadowy organisation, he's on the trail of an international arms dealer, Andrei Sator (Kenneth Branagh in full villain mode). Sator is bullying his estranged wife Kat (Elizabeth Debicki) over custody of their son (and the film unusually has a BBFC warning about "Domestic Abuse"). Our hero jets the world to try to prevent a very particular kind of Armageddon while also keeping the vulnerable and attractive Kat alive.
This is cinema at its biggest and boldest. Nolan has taken a cinema 'splurge' gun, filled it with money, set it on rapid fire, removed the safety and let rip at the screen. Given that Nolan is famous for doing all of his 'effects' for real and 'in camera', some of what you see performed is almost unbelievable. You thought crashing a train through rush-hour traffic in "Inception" was crazy? You ain't seen nothing yet with the airport scene! And for lovers of Chinooks (I must admit I am one and rush out of the house to see one if I hear it coming!) there is positively Chinook-p*rn on offer in the film's ridiculously huge finale.
The 'inversion' aspects of the story also lends itself to some fight scenes - one in particular in an airport 'freeport' - which are both bizarre to watch and, I imagine, technically extremely challenging to pull off. In this regard John David Washington is an acrobatic and talented stunt performer in his own right, and must have trained for months for this role.
Nolan's crew also certainly racked up their air miles pre-lockdown, since the locations range far and wide across the world. The locations encompassed Denmark, Estonia, India, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom, and United States. Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography is lush in introducing these, especially the beautiful Italian coast scenes. Although I did miss the David Arnold strings that would typically introduce these in a Bond movie: it felt like that was missing.
The 'timey-wimey' aspects of the plot are also intriguing and very cleverly done. There are numerous points at which you think "Oh, that's a sloppy continuity error" or "Shame the production design team missed that cracked wing mirror". Then later in the movie, you get at least a dozen "Aha!" moments. Some of them (no spoilers) are jaw-droppingly spectacular.
Perhaps the best twist is hidden in the final line of the movie. I only processed it on the way home.
And so to the first of my significant gripes with Tenet. The sound mix in the movie is all over the place. I'd go stronger than that... it's truly awful (expletive deleted)! Nolan often implements Shakespeare's trick of having characters in the play provide exposition of the plot to aid comprehension. But unfortunately, all of this exposition dialogue was largely incomprehensible. This was due to:
- the ear-splitting volume of the sound: 2020 movie audiences are going to be suffering from 'Tenetis'! (that joke © David Moody, 2020);
- the dialogue is poorly mixed with the thumping music by Ludwig Göransson (Wot? No Hans Zimmer?);
- a large proportion of the dialogue was through masks of varying description (#covid-appropriate). Aaron Taylor-Johnson was particularly unintelligible to my ears.
Overall, watching this with subtitles at a special showing might be advisable!
OK, so I only have a PhD in Physics... but at times I was completely lost as to the intricacies of the plot. It made "Inception" look like "The Tiger Who Came to Tea". There was an obvious 'McGuffin' in "Inception" - - ("These 'dream levels'... how exactly are they architected??".... "Don't worry... they'll never notice". And we didn't!) In "Tenet" there are McGuffins nested in McGuffins. So much of this is casually waved away as "future stuff... you're not qualified" that it feels vaguely condescending to the audience. At one point Kat says "I don't understand what's going on" - darn right luv.
There are also gaps in the storyline that jar. The word "Tenet"? What does it mean. Is it just a password? I'm none the wiser.
The manic pace of Tenet and the constant din means that the movie gallops along like a series of disconnected (albeit brilliant) action set pieces. For me, it has none of the emotional heart of the Cobb's marriage problems from "Inception" or the father/daughter separation of "Interstellar". In fact, you barely care for anyone in the movie, perhaps with the exception of Kat.
It's a talented cast. As mentioned above, John David Washington is muscular and athletic in the role. It's a big load for the actor to carry in such a tent-pole movie, given his only significant starring role before was in the excellent BlacKkKlansman. But he carries it off well. A worthy successor to Gerard Butler and Jason Statham for action roles in the next 10 years.
This is also a great performance by Robert Pattinson, in his most high-profile film in a long time, playing the vaguely alcoholic and Carré-esque support guy. Pattinson's Potter co-star Clemence Poésy also pops up - rather more un-glam that usual - as the scientist plot-expositor early in the movie.
Nolan's regular Michael Caine also pops up. although the 87-year old legend is starting to show his age: His speech was obviously affected at the time of filming (though nice try Mr Nolan in trying to disguise that with a mouth full of food!). But in my book, any amount of Caine in a movie is a plus. He also gets to deliver the best killer line in the film about snobbery!
However, it's Kenneth Branagh and Elizabeth Debicki that really stand out. They were both fabulous, especially when they were bouncing off each other in their marital battle royale.
So, given this was my most anticipated movie of the year, it's a bit of a curate's egg for me. A mixture of being awe-struck at times and slightly disappointed at others. It's a movie which needs a second watch, so I'm heading back today to give my ear drums another bashing! And this is one where I reserve the right to revisit my rating after that second watch... it's not likely to go down... but it might go up.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/28/tenet-only-nolan-and-schrodingers-cat-knows-whats-going-on/ .)
How to write a spoiler-free plot summary? John David Washington (Denzel's lad) plays "The Protagonist" - a crack-CIA field operative who is an unstoppable one-man army in the style of Hobbs or Shaw. Recruited into an even more shadowy organisation, he's on the trail of an international arms dealer, Andrei Sator (Kenneth Branagh in full villain mode). Sator is bullying his estranged wife Kat (Elizabeth Debicki) over custody of their son (and the film unusually has a BBFC warning about "Domestic Abuse"). Our hero jets the world to try to prevent a very particular kind of Armageddon while also keeping the vulnerable and attractive Kat alive.
This is cinema at its biggest and boldest. Nolan has taken a cinema 'splurge' gun, filled it with money, set it on rapid fire, removed the safety and let rip at the screen. Given that Nolan is famous for doing all of his 'effects' for real and 'in camera', some of what you see performed is almost unbelievable. You thought crashing a train through rush-hour traffic in "Inception" was crazy? You ain't seen nothing yet with the airport scene! And for lovers of Chinooks (I must admit I am one and rush out of the house to see one if I hear it coming!) there is positively Chinook-p*rn on offer in the film's ridiculously huge finale.
The 'inversion' aspects of the story also lends itself to some fight scenes - one in particular in an airport 'freeport' - which are both bizarre to watch and, I imagine, technically extremely challenging to pull off. In this regard John David Washington is an acrobatic and talented stunt performer in his own right, and must have trained for months for this role.
Nolan's crew also certainly racked up their air miles pre-lockdown, since the locations range far and wide across the world. The locations encompassed Denmark, Estonia, India, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom, and United States. Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography is lush in introducing these, especially the beautiful Italian coast scenes. Although I did miss the David Arnold strings that would typically introduce these in a Bond movie: it felt like that was missing.
The 'timey-wimey' aspects of the plot are also intriguing and very cleverly done. There are numerous points at which you think "Oh, that's a sloppy continuity error" or "Shame the production design team missed that cracked wing mirror". Then later in the movie, you get at least a dozen "Aha!" moments. Some of them (no spoilers) are jaw-droppingly spectacular.
Perhaps the best twist is hidden in the final line of the movie. I only processed it on the way home.
And so to the first of my significant gripes with Tenet. The sound mix in the movie is all over the place. I'd go stronger than that... it's truly awful (expletive deleted)! Nolan often implements Shakespeare's trick of having characters in the play provide exposition of the plot to aid comprehension. But unfortunately, all of this exposition dialogue was largely incomprehensible. This was due to:
- the ear-splitting volume of the sound: 2020 movie audiences are going to be suffering from 'Tenetis'! (that joke © David Moody, 2020);
- the dialogue is poorly mixed with the thumping music by Ludwig Göransson (Wot? No Hans Zimmer?);
- a large proportion of the dialogue was through masks of varying description (#covid-appropriate). Aaron Taylor-Johnson was particularly unintelligible to my ears.
Overall, watching this with subtitles at a special showing might be advisable!
OK, so I only have a PhD in Physics... but at times I was completely lost as to the intricacies of the plot. It made "Inception" look like "The Tiger Who Came to Tea". There was an obvious 'McGuffin' in "Inception" - - ("These 'dream levels'... how exactly are they architected??".... "Don't worry... they'll never notice". And we didn't!) In "Tenet" there are McGuffins nested in McGuffins. So much of this is casually waved away as "future stuff... you're not qualified" that it feels vaguely condescending to the audience. At one point Kat says "I don't understand what's going on" - darn right luv.
There are also gaps in the storyline that jar. The word "Tenet"? What does it mean. Is it just a password? I'm none the wiser.
The manic pace of Tenet and the constant din means that the movie gallops along like a series of disconnected (albeit brilliant) action set pieces. For me, it has none of the emotional heart of the Cobb's marriage problems from "Inception" or the father/daughter separation of "Interstellar". In fact, you barely care for anyone in the movie, perhaps with the exception of Kat.
It's a talented cast. As mentioned above, John David Washington is muscular and athletic in the role. It's a big load for the actor to carry in such a tent-pole movie, given his only significant starring role before was in the excellent BlacKkKlansman. But he carries it off well. A worthy successor to Gerard Butler and Jason Statham for action roles in the next 10 years.
This is also a great performance by Robert Pattinson, in his most high-profile film in a long time, playing the vaguely alcoholic and Carré-esque support guy. Pattinson's Potter co-star Clemence Poésy also pops up - rather more un-glam that usual - as the scientist plot-expositor early in the movie.
Nolan's regular Michael Caine also pops up. although the 87-year old legend is starting to show his age: His speech was obviously affected at the time of filming (though nice try Mr Nolan in trying to disguise that with a mouth full of food!). But in my book, any amount of Caine in a movie is a plus. He also gets to deliver the best killer line in the film about snobbery!
However, it's Kenneth Branagh and Elizabeth Debicki that really stand out. They were both fabulous, especially when they were bouncing off each other in their marital battle royale.
So, given this was my most anticipated movie of the year, it's a bit of a curate's egg for me. A mixture of being awe-struck at times and slightly disappointed at others. It's a movie which needs a second watch, so I'm heading back today to give my ear drums another bashing! And this is one where I reserve the right to revisit my rating after that second watch... it's not likely to go down... but it might go up.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/28/tenet-only-nolan-and-schrodingers-cat-knows-whats-going-on/ .)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Deadpool 2 (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
More of the same
Who would have thought we would get to this? I certainly didn’t. After the right royal mess 20th Century Fox made of everyone’s favourite anti-hero, Deadpool, in X-Men Origins: Wolverine all those years ago, it felt like a solo outing would never be possible, never mind a sequel.
Deadpool senior went on to gross nearly $800million worldwide, impressive for an R-rated (15 certification) flick, and was an undisputed king of comic-book hero movies. Like Guardians of the Galaxy was for Marvel Studios, Deadpool was a huge gamble that paid off massively thanks to Ryan Reynold’s brilliant comic-timing and an origins story that wasn’t done to death. Naturally, a sequel was always on the cards. But are we looking at a sequel of Empire quality or Speed 2: Cruise Control?
Wisecracking mercenary Deadpool (Reynolds) is back, and this time he decides to joins force with three mutants – Bedlam (Terry Crews), Shatterstar (Lewis Tan) and Domino (Zazie Beets) – to protect a boy from the all-powerful Cable (Josh Brolin).
One-half of John Wick’s directing team, David Leitch, is thrust into the directing chair for Deadpool 2 after Tim Miller was unceremoniously dumped from the project due to creative differences with Ryan Reynolds (read into that what you will). Thankfully, he brings that trademark style that we again saw in Atomic Blonde to this sequel and with that comes plenty of stylised action and a neon/grey colour palate plus a Celine Dion number that’s just begging for parody status.
Surprisingly, that all works rather well for this film. Propped by another cracking performance from Ryan Reynolds who has really found his calling after years of mediocrity. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, he was absolutely born to play this role and his dry wit is given much more room to breathe this time around.
The rest of the cast are fine, if a little underdeveloped. Zazie Beets probably makes the most impact as mutant, Domino, but even she is a little underpowered when compared to the brilliant work the MCU has done on its heroes over the years. Josh Brolin (who must be getting paid rather handsomely this year) is great as Cable, though it is difficult to hear his voice and not immediately think of Thanos. T.J. Miller returns in a heavily reduced role as does Reynolds’ on-screen girlfriend Morena Baccarin who is criminally underused.
Story wise, it’s pretty much more of the same and that’s no bad thing. The fourth-wall breaking is as fresh as it felt two years ago and is cleverly used to hide the necessary exposition to bring the audience up-to-speed with what’s been happening in Deadpool-ville over the last couple of years.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members
The comedy hits more than it misses, though the constant quipps can be exhausting, and the action is filmed as confidently as you’d expect from the man who brought Keanu Reeves screaming into the 21st Century, but there is some incredibly poor CGI that is at odds with a movie costing over $100million. By incredibly poor, I don’t mean just a bit naff, I’m talking laughably bad.
The finale is vibrant, action-packed and as Deadpool himself says, CGI-filled, but it’s a little unoriginal and very much like its predecessor, though the inclusion of one particular character that I won’t spoil here is great fun to see.
There are also plenty of X-Men Easter eggs for fans to enjoy too. From characters showing up where you’d least expect them to a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it Stan Lee cameo, the film is full to the brim of in-references that only the most hardened of comic-book fans will notice on the first watch.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members. Reynolds, T.J. Miller, Leslie Uggams (Wade Wilson’s blind roommate Al) and Karan Soni (taxi driver Dopinder) are welcome returnees and ensure the film has a little heart, though not too much. After all, that wouldn’t be the Deadpool way.
Overall, Deadpool 2 is a confident sequel to one of the best comic-book movies there is. What it does right, it does very well indeed. The comedy, performances and action are all spot on. Unfortunately, there are some very poor special effects over the course of the film and in an effort to make everything bigger and badder, it occasionally feels like a mass of scenes put together to make a film. A worthy sequel, but not an Empire or Spider-Man 2 in this instance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/05/16/deadpool-2-review-more-of-the-same/#more-6342
Deadpool senior went on to gross nearly $800million worldwide, impressive for an R-rated (15 certification) flick, and was an undisputed king of comic-book hero movies. Like Guardians of the Galaxy was for Marvel Studios, Deadpool was a huge gamble that paid off massively thanks to Ryan Reynold’s brilliant comic-timing and an origins story that wasn’t done to death. Naturally, a sequel was always on the cards. But are we looking at a sequel of Empire quality or Speed 2: Cruise Control?
Wisecracking mercenary Deadpool (Reynolds) is back, and this time he decides to joins force with three mutants – Bedlam (Terry Crews), Shatterstar (Lewis Tan) and Domino (Zazie Beets) – to protect a boy from the all-powerful Cable (Josh Brolin).
One-half of John Wick’s directing team, David Leitch, is thrust into the directing chair for Deadpool 2 after Tim Miller was unceremoniously dumped from the project due to creative differences with Ryan Reynolds (read into that what you will). Thankfully, he brings that trademark style that we again saw in Atomic Blonde to this sequel and with that comes plenty of stylised action and a neon/grey colour palate plus a Celine Dion number that’s just begging for parody status.
Surprisingly, that all works rather well for this film. Propped by another cracking performance from Ryan Reynolds who has really found his calling after years of mediocrity. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, he was absolutely born to play this role and his dry wit is given much more room to breathe this time around.
The rest of the cast are fine, if a little underdeveloped. Zazie Beets probably makes the most impact as mutant, Domino, but even she is a little underpowered when compared to the brilliant work the MCU has done on its heroes over the years. Josh Brolin (who must be getting paid rather handsomely this year) is great as Cable, though it is difficult to hear his voice and not immediately think of Thanos. T.J. Miller returns in a heavily reduced role as does Reynolds’ on-screen girlfriend Morena Baccarin who is criminally underused.
Story wise, it’s pretty much more of the same and that’s no bad thing. The fourth-wall breaking is as fresh as it felt two years ago and is cleverly used to hide the necessary exposition to bring the audience up-to-speed with what’s been happening in Deadpool-ville over the last couple of years.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members
The comedy hits more than it misses, though the constant quipps can be exhausting, and the action is filmed as confidently as you’d expect from the man who brought Keanu Reeves screaming into the 21st Century, but there is some incredibly poor CGI that is at odds with a movie costing over $100million. By incredibly poor, I don’t mean just a bit naff, I’m talking laughably bad.
The finale is vibrant, action-packed and as Deadpool himself says, CGI-filled, but it’s a little unoriginal and very much like its predecessor, though the inclusion of one particular character that I won’t spoil here is great fun to see.
There are also plenty of X-Men Easter eggs for fans to enjoy too. From characters showing up where you’d least expect them to a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it Stan Lee cameo, the film is full to the brim of in-references that only the most hardened of comic-book fans will notice on the first watch.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members. Reynolds, T.J. Miller, Leslie Uggams (Wade Wilson’s blind roommate Al) and Karan Soni (taxi driver Dopinder) are welcome returnees and ensure the film has a little heart, though not too much. After all, that wouldn’t be the Deadpool way.
Overall, Deadpool 2 is a confident sequel to one of the best comic-book movies there is. What it does right, it does very well indeed. The comedy, performances and action are all spot on. Unfortunately, there are some very poor special effects over the course of the film and in an effort to make everything bigger and badder, it occasionally feels like a mass of scenes put together to make a film. A worthy sequel, but not an Empire or Spider-Man 2 in this instance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/05/16/deadpool-2-review-more-of-the-same/#more-6342
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.