Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Paycheck (2003) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In the year 2007, memories can be erased almost as easily as they can be created. With corporate security being of top concern, this technology is in high demand for corporations who hire people to work on sensitive projects.
Michael Jennings (Ben Affleck), is a master of technology, and as such, is in high demand for his ability to reverse engineer technology. Companies hire him to work in private to unlock technological secrets of their competition and upon completion of his work; Jennings has his memories of his work and time at the company removed. This arrangement protects the companies, as they do not have to disclose how they came about the new technologies and the only person who can attest to the source of the work has no memory of it making the claim valid, and keeping him from being able to recoup long-term profits from the company.
Jennings is well paid for his work, and has recently completed a two-month job when his friend Rethrick (Aaron Eckhart), asks Michael to come work on a secret thee-year project for his company. Michael is told only that it deals with optics and that he will be paid with stock options worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
After thinking about the deal, Michael agrees to the job and sets out to complete the task ahead of him.
In what seems like a few minutes to him, Michael comes to in the office of Rethrick and is stunned to learn that he has completed his work and that it was a huge success.
Pleased, Michael sets out to collect his payment but is surprised to learn that he forfeited his stocks four days earlier and sent himself an envelope containing various mundane items such as paperclips, ball bearings, matches, and keys.
Before long, Michael is running for his life and attempting to unravel the mystery of the missing three years in his memory.
Based on the short story by renowned Sci-Fi author Phillip K. Dick, and directed by famed action helmer John Woo, “Paycheck” is a pleasant and entertaining surprise. The previews do not do this film justice, as it is an entertaining and engrossing film with good supporting work by Uma Thurman and Paul Giamatti.
There are a number of twists and turns to the story and some good action and humor along the way. Affleck does solid work as a man desperate to solve the mystery and struggling to cope with his life spun out of control.
While the ending was a bit to Hollywood for me, “Paycheck” is a solid and entertaining film and worth seeing.
Michael Jennings (Ben Affleck), is a master of technology, and as such, is in high demand for his ability to reverse engineer technology. Companies hire him to work in private to unlock technological secrets of their competition and upon completion of his work; Jennings has his memories of his work and time at the company removed. This arrangement protects the companies, as they do not have to disclose how they came about the new technologies and the only person who can attest to the source of the work has no memory of it making the claim valid, and keeping him from being able to recoup long-term profits from the company.
Jennings is well paid for his work, and has recently completed a two-month job when his friend Rethrick (Aaron Eckhart), asks Michael to come work on a secret thee-year project for his company. Michael is told only that it deals with optics and that he will be paid with stock options worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
After thinking about the deal, Michael agrees to the job and sets out to complete the task ahead of him.
In what seems like a few minutes to him, Michael comes to in the office of Rethrick and is stunned to learn that he has completed his work and that it was a huge success.
Pleased, Michael sets out to collect his payment but is surprised to learn that he forfeited his stocks four days earlier and sent himself an envelope containing various mundane items such as paperclips, ball bearings, matches, and keys.
Before long, Michael is running for his life and attempting to unravel the mystery of the missing three years in his memory.
Based on the short story by renowned Sci-Fi author Phillip K. Dick, and directed by famed action helmer John Woo, “Paycheck” is a pleasant and entertaining surprise. The previews do not do this film justice, as it is an entertaining and engrossing film with good supporting work by Uma Thurman and Paul Giamatti.
There are a number of twists and turns to the story and some good action and humor along the way. Affleck does solid work as a man desperate to solve the mystery and struggling to cope with his life spun out of control.
While the ending was a bit to Hollywood for me, “Paycheck” is a solid and entertaining film and worth seeing.
MaryAnn (14 KP) rated CSB Worldview Study Bible in Books
Nov 4, 2019
The CSB Worldview Study Bible features extensive worldview study notes and articles by notable Christian scholars to help Christians better understand the grand narrative and flow of Scripture within the biblical framework from which we are called to view reality and make sense of life and the world. Guided by general editors David S. Dockery and Trevin K. Wax, this Bible is an invaluable resource and study tool that will help you to discuss, defend, and clearly share with others the truth, hope, and practical compatibility of Christianity in everyday life.
Features include:
Extensive worldview study notes
Over 130 articles by notable Christian scholars
Center-column references
Smyth-sewn binding
Presentation page
Two ribbon markers
Two-piece gift box, and more
General Editors: David S. Dockery and Trevin Wax
Associate Editors: Constantine R. Campbell, E. Ray Clendenen, Eric J. Tully
Contributors include: David S. Dockery, Trevin K. Wax, Ray Van Neste, John Stonestreet, Ted Cabal, Darrell L. Bock, Mary J. Sharp, Carl R. Trueman, Bruce Riley Ashford, R. Albert Mohler Jr., William A. Dembski, Preben Vang, David K. Naugle, Jennifer A. Marshall, Aida Besancon Spencer, Paul Copan, Robert Smith Jr., Douglas Groothuis, Russell D. Moore, Mark A. Noll, Timothy George, Carla D. Sanderson, Kevin Smith, Gregory B. Forster, Choon Sam Fong, and more.
The CSB Worldview Study Bible features the highly readable, highly reliable text of the Christian Standard Bible (CSB). The CSB stays as literal as possible to the Bibles original meaning without sacrificing clarity, making it easier to engage with Scriptures life-transforming message and to share it with others.
This is a wonderful Bible that not only gives us God's word but teaches through credible editors about the Christians view of the world. There are articles that show us the Biblical view of that issue; such a: the Biblical view of music, Personal Finances. Ther is an article on how Christians should relate to the government along with various other interesting articles.
This is a great study Bible for new believers, for discipling, for those interested in how God's word relates to issues around us today. How we as Christians should respond to a world that is turning against Christians.
This is a beautiful Bible, that is easy to read and has full-color maps. This will be a great addition to anyone's library.
CSB Worldview Study Bible
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review and the opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commissions 16 CFR, Part 255 : Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.
Features include:
Extensive worldview study notes
Over 130 articles by notable Christian scholars
Center-column references
Smyth-sewn binding
Presentation page
Two ribbon markers
Two-piece gift box, and more
General Editors: David S. Dockery and Trevin Wax
Associate Editors: Constantine R. Campbell, E. Ray Clendenen, Eric J. Tully
Contributors include: David S. Dockery, Trevin K. Wax, Ray Van Neste, John Stonestreet, Ted Cabal, Darrell L. Bock, Mary J. Sharp, Carl R. Trueman, Bruce Riley Ashford, R. Albert Mohler Jr., William A. Dembski, Preben Vang, David K. Naugle, Jennifer A. Marshall, Aida Besancon Spencer, Paul Copan, Robert Smith Jr., Douglas Groothuis, Russell D. Moore, Mark A. Noll, Timothy George, Carla D. Sanderson, Kevin Smith, Gregory B. Forster, Choon Sam Fong, and more.
The CSB Worldview Study Bible features the highly readable, highly reliable text of the Christian Standard Bible (CSB). The CSB stays as literal as possible to the Bibles original meaning without sacrificing clarity, making it easier to engage with Scriptures life-transforming message and to share it with others.
This is a wonderful Bible that not only gives us God's word but teaches through credible editors about the Christians view of the world. There are articles that show us the Biblical view of that issue; such a: the Biblical view of music, Personal Finances. Ther is an article on how Christians should relate to the government along with various other interesting articles.
This is a great study Bible for new believers, for discipling, for those interested in how God's word relates to issues around us today. How we as Christians should respond to a world that is turning against Christians.
This is a beautiful Bible, that is easy to read and has full-color maps. This will be a great addition to anyone's library.
CSB Worldview Study Bible
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review and the opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commissions 16 CFR, Part 255 : Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.
Janeeny (200 KP) rated How to Be Famous in Books
Jul 8, 2019
I’ve been ‘aware’ of Caitlin Moran’s work for a number of years. I think she first came to my attention in 2011. I worked in a bookshop and Morans book ‘How to be a Woman’ was in the charts. The cover art just seemed to exude a quirky confidence and it went straight into my ‘theoretical’ TBR pile.
As you can imagine, a booksellers TBR pile is a challenging Behemoth, so when ‘Raised by Wolves’ (a sitcom written by Caitlin Moran and her sister Caroline) came on the telly in 2013 I still hadn’t read ‘How to be a Woman’.
Happily, ‘Raised by Wolves’ was hilarious, putting Caitlin Moran well and truly on my radar as someone who had a lot of interesting and humorous opinions that I would really need to read about some day.
(On a little side note Alexa davies who plays Aretha in this is hilarious and worth keeping an eye on.)
Cut to 2019 Caitlin Moran has released 4 more books and I haven’t read a single one of them! So when NETgalley offered me a copy of ‘How to be famous’ in exchange for an honest review I had to say yes, as despite the fact that I actually own a copy of ‘How to be a girl’ I still haven’t read it, so I figured, if I have a deadline for a review that is going to spur me on to actually read this one!
It worked, I read it, and it was everything I thought it would be.
It had some definite laugh out loud moments, Morans humorous writing style comes through triumphantly.
So, the blurb . . .
“Johanna Morrigan (AKA Dolly Wilde) has it all: at eighteen, she lives in her own flat in London and writes for the coolest music magazine in Britain. But Johanna is miserable. Her best friend and man of her dreams John Kite has just made it big in 1994’s hot new BritPop scene. Suddenly John exists on another plane of reality: that of the Famouses.
Never one to sit on the sidelines, Johanna hatches a plan: she will Saint Paul his Corinthians, she will Jimmy his Pinocchio—she will write a monthly column, by way of a manual to the famous, analyzing fame, its power, its dangers, and its amusing aspects. In stories, girls never win the girl—they are won. Well, Johanna will re-write the stories, and win John, through her writing.
But as Johanna’s own star rises, an unpleasant one-night stand she had with a stand-up comedian, Jerry Sharp, comes back to haunt in her in a series of unfortunate consequences. How can a girl deal with public sexual shaming? Especially when her new friend, the up-and-coming feminist rock icon Suzanne Banks, is Jimmy Cricketing her?”
First off, despite the fact that this is the second book in a series, you don’t lose anything of the story by not having read the first one. If anything it makes you want to read the first one even more, as you want to know how Dolly got to where she is and the adventures she’s had on the way.
Secondly, the characters were just brilliant not a two-dimensional one among them, the dialogue just flows beautifully, and you’ll end the book wishing you were friends with them.
Thirdly, in my inexpert opinion its really well written, the story flows effortlessly and you are just grabbed by the collar and dragged along on this adventure.
I quite literally cannot find the words to say how much I admire Morans writing style, as I said before, this is so well written and the characters are so relatable. It’s full of many laugh out loud moments and some very frank and hilarious conversations about sex, and amongst the humour are actually some quite serious issues, like the clear displays of the inequality of women within the music industry (even though this was set in the 90s, I’m sure much of it is still true today)
And coming from somebody who never seems to get symbolism or messages from books, I took away a LOT from this one
One of my favourite moments was a letter that Dolly writes to her musician friend (Johnny) who is troubled by accusations of ‘selling out’
It basically addresses the scorn heaped on bands, with a predominantly teenage female following, by ‘Elitist’ fans and the music industry. She asks Johnny to appreciate his ‘screaming’ girls fans, as just because they’re louder, more emotional, younger, and haven’t been part of the fanbase since day one, doesn’t mean they don’t appreciate the music any less or feel any less. Yes, they are the ones putting money in your bank account, putting you in the charts, but just because they are part of the mass market doesn’t make their feelings any less valid.
Seeing as I’ve been both a ‘screaming girl fan’ and an ‘Elitist Fan’ I understand and appreciate what’s being said here.
There is so much to love bout this book, the strong female characters, the humour, the feminist message, and underneath it all a good old fashioned love story
As you can imagine, a booksellers TBR pile is a challenging Behemoth, so when ‘Raised by Wolves’ (a sitcom written by Caitlin Moran and her sister Caroline) came on the telly in 2013 I still hadn’t read ‘How to be a Woman’.
Happily, ‘Raised by Wolves’ was hilarious, putting Caitlin Moran well and truly on my radar as someone who had a lot of interesting and humorous opinions that I would really need to read about some day.
(On a little side note Alexa davies who plays Aretha in this is hilarious and worth keeping an eye on.)
Cut to 2019 Caitlin Moran has released 4 more books and I haven’t read a single one of them! So when NETgalley offered me a copy of ‘How to be famous’ in exchange for an honest review I had to say yes, as despite the fact that I actually own a copy of ‘How to be a girl’ I still haven’t read it, so I figured, if I have a deadline for a review that is going to spur me on to actually read this one!
It worked, I read it, and it was everything I thought it would be.
It had some definite laugh out loud moments, Morans humorous writing style comes through triumphantly.
So, the blurb . . .
“Johanna Morrigan (AKA Dolly Wilde) has it all: at eighteen, she lives in her own flat in London and writes for the coolest music magazine in Britain. But Johanna is miserable. Her best friend and man of her dreams John Kite has just made it big in 1994’s hot new BritPop scene. Suddenly John exists on another plane of reality: that of the Famouses.
Never one to sit on the sidelines, Johanna hatches a plan: she will Saint Paul his Corinthians, she will Jimmy his Pinocchio—she will write a monthly column, by way of a manual to the famous, analyzing fame, its power, its dangers, and its amusing aspects. In stories, girls never win the girl—they are won. Well, Johanna will re-write the stories, and win John, through her writing.
But as Johanna’s own star rises, an unpleasant one-night stand she had with a stand-up comedian, Jerry Sharp, comes back to haunt in her in a series of unfortunate consequences. How can a girl deal with public sexual shaming? Especially when her new friend, the up-and-coming feminist rock icon Suzanne Banks, is Jimmy Cricketing her?”
First off, despite the fact that this is the second book in a series, you don’t lose anything of the story by not having read the first one. If anything it makes you want to read the first one even more, as you want to know how Dolly got to where she is and the adventures she’s had on the way.
Secondly, the characters were just brilliant not a two-dimensional one among them, the dialogue just flows beautifully, and you’ll end the book wishing you were friends with them.
Thirdly, in my inexpert opinion its really well written, the story flows effortlessly and you are just grabbed by the collar and dragged along on this adventure.
I quite literally cannot find the words to say how much I admire Morans writing style, as I said before, this is so well written and the characters are so relatable. It’s full of many laugh out loud moments and some very frank and hilarious conversations about sex, and amongst the humour are actually some quite serious issues, like the clear displays of the inequality of women within the music industry (even though this was set in the 90s, I’m sure much of it is still true today)
And coming from somebody who never seems to get symbolism or messages from books, I took away a LOT from this one
One of my favourite moments was a letter that Dolly writes to her musician friend (Johnny) who is troubled by accusations of ‘selling out’
It basically addresses the scorn heaped on bands, with a predominantly teenage female following, by ‘Elitist’ fans and the music industry. She asks Johnny to appreciate his ‘screaming’ girls fans, as just because they’re louder, more emotional, younger, and haven’t been part of the fanbase since day one, doesn’t mean they don’t appreciate the music any less or feel any less. Yes, they are the ones putting money in your bank account, putting you in the charts, but just because they are part of the mass market doesn’t make their feelings any less valid.
Seeing as I’ve been both a ‘screaming girl fan’ and an ‘Elitist Fan’ I understand and appreciate what’s being said here.
There is so much to love bout this book, the strong female characters, the humour, the feminist message, and underneath it all a good old fashioned love story
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Batman (2022) in Movies
Mar 12, 2022
Too Long Of a Setup for a Terrific Payoff
The rap on the films of the DCEU - especially the films directed by Zach Snyder - is that they are too dark, dour and a “downer”, with very little joy or sunshine in the images or themes.
The Writer and Director of the new DCEU film, THE BATMAN, Matt Reeves (CLOVERFIELD) has one simple answer for you: “Hold my beer”.
Doubling down on the dark themes, imagery and attitudes of all involved, THE BATMAN is a 3 hour epic that is unrelenting in it’s bleakness with constant rain and dark images with not a peak of sun or color in the entire film. This bleakness and the slowness of the first 5/6 of this film will turn off the average viewer and will thrill only the most diehard of fans.
And that’s too bad for the last 1/2 hour of this film is pretty terrific, paying off the long setup beforehand with a confrontation between Batman (Robert Pattinson) and The Riddler (Paul Dano) that rivals just about any confrontation scene in comic books movie history (this side of Heath Ledger’s Joker).
Let’s start with the overwhelming look and feel of this film. It is a downer. Gotham City is, yet again, a city in decay with the bad guys over-running the good guys. Which begs this question - why would anyone join the Gotham City Police Department? But Director/Writer Reeves is is sure-handed in his approach to this material and he is unwavering in his bleakness. It is a strongly directed film that knows what it wants to be and does not pretend to be anything else - nor does it apologize for being what it is.
In this world is dropped Robert Pattinson (the TWILIGHT films) as the titular Batman and he is a perfect choice for this role in this film. His Batman is morose, dour, thoughtful and razor focused on being “vengeance”. He is not interested in being a good guy or a superhero, rather this version of Batman is focused on being a really good Detective, ferreting out evil-doers and administering punishment when they are caught. This film barely mentions Batman’s alter-ego, Bruce Wayne, and when Pattinson is on the screen in the guise as Bruce Wayne he looks uninterested in being Bruce Wayne, he’d rather be Batman - and this is a compliment for that is how this movie portrays this dual role. Batman is disguising himself as Bruce Wayne (and not vica-versa).
Assisting Batman in his Detective work is Lt. James Gordon (the always terrific Jeffrey Wright), the only honest cop in a corrupt Police Department. These 2 work as a Detective team, and this film often-times feels like a Detective procedural, some liken it to SEVEN with Brad Pitt/Morgan Freeman, I look at it more like the first season of TRUE DETECTIVE(the one with Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson), dark and interesting in their search for the bad guys.
As is typical of these types of films, we have a rogues gallery of villains. Some fair well - an unrecognizable Colin Farrel as Oz (the Penguin) and John Torturro as mob boss Carmine Falcone. While others fair less well - Peter Sarsgaard as corrupt District Attorney Gil Colson and, unfortunately, Zoe Kravitz as Selina Kyle (Catwoman). Both of these roles are not fleshed out well. Kravitz hits the screen looking good in her cat suit and while there is unmistakable sexual chemistry between Catwoman and Batman (not, it should be noted, between Selina Kyle and Bruce Wayne), but this only takes the character so far and Selina really wasn’t the bad-ass conflicted villain/hero that one would expect.
A pleasant surprise was the performance of the always interesting Paul Dano as the Riddler. He underplays this character in much the same way that most have overplayed him. Clearly, this is a smart, if mentally off, person who talks through riddles but has an overall plan to bring down “The Bat’ and the City. Not to spoil this film, but it didn’t really grab my attention until after the masked Riddler was unmasked and that was very late in the game - almost too late.
And that’s the problem with this film. The last 1/2 hour is TERRIFIC, but one has to sit through 2 1/2 hours of dark, dour setup to get there and for most, that journey will not be worth the payoff.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The Writer and Director of the new DCEU film, THE BATMAN, Matt Reeves (CLOVERFIELD) has one simple answer for you: “Hold my beer”.
Doubling down on the dark themes, imagery and attitudes of all involved, THE BATMAN is a 3 hour epic that is unrelenting in it’s bleakness with constant rain and dark images with not a peak of sun or color in the entire film. This bleakness and the slowness of the first 5/6 of this film will turn off the average viewer and will thrill only the most diehard of fans.
And that’s too bad for the last 1/2 hour of this film is pretty terrific, paying off the long setup beforehand with a confrontation between Batman (Robert Pattinson) and The Riddler (Paul Dano) that rivals just about any confrontation scene in comic books movie history (this side of Heath Ledger’s Joker).
Let’s start with the overwhelming look and feel of this film. It is a downer. Gotham City is, yet again, a city in decay with the bad guys over-running the good guys. Which begs this question - why would anyone join the Gotham City Police Department? But Director/Writer Reeves is is sure-handed in his approach to this material and he is unwavering in his bleakness. It is a strongly directed film that knows what it wants to be and does not pretend to be anything else - nor does it apologize for being what it is.
In this world is dropped Robert Pattinson (the TWILIGHT films) as the titular Batman and he is a perfect choice for this role in this film. His Batman is morose, dour, thoughtful and razor focused on being “vengeance”. He is not interested in being a good guy or a superhero, rather this version of Batman is focused on being a really good Detective, ferreting out evil-doers and administering punishment when they are caught. This film barely mentions Batman’s alter-ego, Bruce Wayne, and when Pattinson is on the screen in the guise as Bruce Wayne he looks uninterested in being Bruce Wayne, he’d rather be Batman - and this is a compliment for that is how this movie portrays this dual role. Batman is disguising himself as Bruce Wayne (and not vica-versa).
Assisting Batman in his Detective work is Lt. James Gordon (the always terrific Jeffrey Wright), the only honest cop in a corrupt Police Department. These 2 work as a Detective team, and this film often-times feels like a Detective procedural, some liken it to SEVEN with Brad Pitt/Morgan Freeman, I look at it more like the first season of TRUE DETECTIVE(the one with Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson), dark and interesting in their search for the bad guys.
As is typical of these types of films, we have a rogues gallery of villains. Some fair well - an unrecognizable Colin Farrel as Oz (the Penguin) and John Torturro as mob boss Carmine Falcone. While others fair less well - Peter Sarsgaard as corrupt District Attorney Gil Colson and, unfortunately, Zoe Kravitz as Selina Kyle (Catwoman). Both of these roles are not fleshed out well. Kravitz hits the screen looking good in her cat suit and while there is unmistakable sexual chemistry between Catwoman and Batman (not, it should be noted, between Selina Kyle and Bruce Wayne), but this only takes the character so far and Selina really wasn’t the bad-ass conflicted villain/hero that one would expect.
A pleasant surprise was the performance of the always interesting Paul Dano as the Riddler. He underplays this character in much the same way that most have overplayed him. Clearly, this is a smart, if mentally off, person who talks through riddles but has an overall plan to bring down “The Bat’ and the City. Not to spoil this film, but it didn’t really grab my attention until after the masked Riddler was unmasked and that was very late in the game - almost too late.
And that’s the problem with this film. The last 1/2 hour is TERRIFIC, but one has to sit through 2 1/2 hours of dark, dour setup to get there and for most, that journey will not be worth the payoff.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Rachel King (13 KP) rated A Short History of Myth in Books
Feb 11, 2019
For such a short book, I developed quite a strong opinion about the text while reading it. I have been curious about Armstrong's writings for a long time, but this is the first attempt I have made at actually reading anything by her. I have always been a fan of ancient mythology, such as Greek and Egyptian, so this seemed like an easy choice.
In seven chapters, Armstrong takes a simplified stroll through history, focusing on the concept of myth and its impact on civilization. All throughout the book, she attempts to support her claim that a person can believe in myths without believing that the myths are actually true, and that the failure of modern society is by not following her specific edict. While this notion strikes me as absurd, I keep reading because, hey, it's a short book.
While I know only bits and pieces about many of the world's religions, I do know both the history and the holy book of my religion, Christianity. It becomes apparent to me early in the text that she is masking her opinions and interpretations of this religion as actual fact, so I can only imagine how she misconstrues other religions.
Her citations were lacking to me, with many claims going unsupported, others only partially supported, such as citation #84 and #30, and some citations simply not even applying to the specified text, such as citation #87. In citation #55, she claims that the Bible contains a Creation myth in which God brings the world into being by killing a sea monster, but one of the four verses she cites make no reference to anything of the sort (Job 3:12), and the other three (Isaiah 27:1, Job 26:13, Psalm 74:14) that do mention a leviathan cannot be interpreted that way when read in context. Isaiah is describing the end of days, while Job merely says that God created the serpent, and the verse in Psalm is within the context of a song about God rescuing the Hebrews from Egyptian slavery -- no relevancy to Creation. She makes the claim that Paul "was not much interested in Jesus's teachings, which he rarely quotes, or in the events of his earthly life." This claim is easily disproved by examining how Paul's words line up with Jesus's in John 5:21 vs. 1 Corinthians 15:22, Matthew 6:25 vs. Philippians 4:6, and many other passages.
While going through the citations, I got the feeling that the author depended on secondary sources for her information without actually studying the original source of her information. The book struck me as highly opinionated, vague, and too general for the topic being addressed. I have no doubt that there are better and more thorough books available on the topic of myth. I do not believe that I will be reading any more of Armstrong's works in the future.
In seven chapters, Armstrong takes a simplified stroll through history, focusing on the concept of myth and its impact on civilization. All throughout the book, she attempts to support her claim that a person can believe in myths without believing that the myths are actually true, and that the failure of modern society is by not following her specific edict. While this notion strikes me as absurd, I keep reading because, hey, it's a short book.
While I know only bits and pieces about many of the world's religions, I do know both the history and the holy book of my religion, Christianity. It becomes apparent to me early in the text that she is masking her opinions and interpretations of this religion as actual fact, so I can only imagine how she misconstrues other religions.
Her citations were lacking to me, with many claims going unsupported, others only partially supported, such as citation #84 and #30, and some citations simply not even applying to the specified text, such as citation #87. In citation #55, she claims that the Bible contains a Creation myth in which God brings the world into being by killing a sea monster, but one of the four verses she cites make no reference to anything of the sort (Job 3:12), and the other three (Isaiah 27:1, Job 26:13, Psalm 74:14) that do mention a leviathan cannot be interpreted that way when read in context. Isaiah is describing the end of days, while Job merely says that God created the serpent, and the verse in Psalm is within the context of a song about God rescuing the Hebrews from Egyptian slavery -- no relevancy to Creation. She makes the claim that Paul "was not much interested in Jesus's teachings, which he rarely quotes, or in the events of his earthly life." This claim is easily disproved by examining how Paul's words line up with Jesus's in John 5:21 vs. 1 Corinthians 15:22, Matthew 6:25 vs. Philippians 4:6, and many other passages.
While going through the citations, I got the feeling that the author depended on secondary sources for her information without actually studying the original source of her information. The book struck me as highly opinionated, vague, and too general for the topic being addressed. I have no doubt that there are better and more thorough books available on the topic of myth. I do not believe that I will be reading any more of Armstrong's works in the future.
Jimmy Ray Davis (0 KP) created a post
Mar 4, 2018
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Richard Jewell (2019) in Movies
Feb 2, 2020
Mellow paced - nothing special
89 year old Director/Actor Clint Eastwood has mellowed with age. He seems at peace with himself and prefers to work at a pace that he sets. His latest Directing effort - RICHARD JEWELL - has that sort of mellowness. It takes it time to tell it's story with no real urgency to it.
It could have used some life to be injected in it.
Based on the true events of the pipe bombing in Centennial Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics, RICHARD JEWELL tells the story of...well...Richard Jewell - the Security Guard who was hailed as a hero for warning people about the bomb, saving many lives, while also being listed as the #1 suspect in the bombing.
Director Eastwood and Writer Billy Ray do not spend much time making the audience guess at to whether or not they think that Jewell committed the crime (he did not - the real bomber was caught in 2006), rather they spend their time showing a person who's being railroaded by the FBI and who's life is caught up in the scramble by the press to "get the story." Again...this would be more interesting if Director Eastwood would show some sort of urgency to the proceedings, but this film is paced on an even keel from start to finish, and I never got caught up, emotionally, in the events that were transpiring in front of me.
Paul Walter Hauser (Shawn Eckhardt in I, TONYA) does a "fine enough" job as the titular character - but it isn't anything special and since the viewer is spending almost every scene with him "fine enough" isn't good enough. Adding to my disappointment are the portrayals by John Hamm (as an FBI Agent) and Olivia Wilde (as a Newspaper Reporter). Both of these performances border on caricature (especially Wilde's performance). I'm disappointed in Eastwood for letting this happen.
Injecting "some" life into this film is Kathy Bates - who was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of Richard Jewell's mother - and she delivers better than the others...but not "Oscar Worthy". She does nail her "Oscar moment", but I don't think the script gives her much else to do.
The brightest spot in this film - by far - is the portrayal of Richard Jewell's lawyer, Watson Bryant, by Sam Rockwell and the performance of Nina Ariande as Bryant's Secretary/Girlfriend. If anyone should have been nominated for an Oscar for their performance in this film, it is Rockwell - his is the best one in the film and Ariande plays off him wonderfully well. I sat up a little taller in my seat whenever these two had a scene together.
But that's about it. It's a pretty "meh" movie - professionally made and paced deliberately and mellowly - like Clint Eastwood. But not like an Oscar contending film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It could have used some life to be injected in it.
Based on the true events of the pipe bombing in Centennial Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics, RICHARD JEWELL tells the story of...well...Richard Jewell - the Security Guard who was hailed as a hero for warning people about the bomb, saving many lives, while also being listed as the #1 suspect in the bombing.
Director Eastwood and Writer Billy Ray do not spend much time making the audience guess at to whether or not they think that Jewell committed the crime (he did not - the real bomber was caught in 2006), rather they spend their time showing a person who's being railroaded by the FBI and who's life is caught up in the scramble by the press to "get the story." Again...this would be more interesting if Director Eastwood would show some sort of urgency to the proceedings, but this film is paced on an even keel from start to finish, and I never got caught up, emotionally, in the events that were transpiring in front of me.
Paul Walter Hauser (Shawn Eckhardt in I, TONYA) does a "fine enough" job as the titular character - but it isn't anything special and since the viewer is spending almost every scene with him "fine enough" isn't good enough. Adding to my disappointment are the portrayals by John Hamm (as an FBI Agent) and Olivia Wilde (as a Newspaper Reporter). Both of these performances border on caricature (especially Wilde's performance). I'm disappointed in Eastwood for letting this happen.
Injecting "some" life into this film is Kathy Bates - who was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of Richard Jewell's mother - and she delivers better than the others...but not "Oscar Worthy". She does nail her "Oscar moment", but I don't think the script gives her much else to do.
The brightest spot in this film - by far - is the portrayal of Richard Jewell's lawyer, Watson Bryant, by Sam Rockwell and the performance of Nina Ariande as Bryant's Secretary/Girlfriend. If anyone should have been nominated for an Oscar for their performance in this film, it is Rockwell - his is the best one in the film and Ariande plays off him wonderfully well. I sat up a little taller in my seat whenever these two had a scene together.
But that's about it. It's a pretty "meh" movie - professionally made and paced deliberately and mellowly - like Clint Eastwood. But not like an Oscar contending film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Solo? So-so.
When the whole Disney “broaden out the Star Wars universe” thing was first mooted I was NOT enthusiastic about the prospect. Then, in Christmas 2016 “Rogue One” burst onto our screens as a breath of fresh air, and I thought “OK, I can be wrong!”. But even jolted by that pleasant surprise, I always thought that the second proposed diversion off the main hyperspace highway into “Radiator Springs” – a Han Solo back-story flick – might fall short. It just didn’t float my boat.
Add into that proposition the decision to give the film initially to “The Lego Movie” directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (why Disney? why?); them trying to forge it as a ‘comedy’; them falling horribly short and being fired by Disney; Disney bringing Ron Howard (“Inferno“, “Rush“) in to try to salvage the project; and Howard reportedly re-shooting 75% of the film and you have the makings of a turkey of galactic proportions.
With all that being said, I was surprised I enjoyed it as much as I did. But that’s off a very low base of expectation.
As you might guess, we go back to see Han… just Han… as a delinquent youth trying to keep his head above water under the thrall of the Fagin-like Lady Proxima (who – no pun intended – keeps her head under the water for most of the time). He is desperate to pull off a con that’s lucrative enough that it will get him and his girlfriend Qi’ra (Emilia Clarke, “Me Before You“; “Terminator: Genisys“; “Game of Thrones”) off-planet and into a free life. Things don’t go to plan though and Han – now Han Solo – finds himself a trooper of the Galactic Empire. He links up with fellow rogues Beckett (Woody Harrelson, “War for the Planet of the Apes“; “Three Billboards in Ebbing, Missouri“), Val (Thandie Newton, “Westworld”, “2012”), Rio (voiced by Jon Favreau, “Spider-Man: Homecoming“; “Iron Man Three“) and their assertive and rebellious droid L3-37 (voiced by Phoebe Waller-Bridge) in a get-rich-or-die mission for vicious gang-boss Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany, “Avengers: Infinity War“).
The film has its moments for sure:
There are some nice background touches: an army recruitment video plays to the sound of John William’s empire march (played I am assured by my more musical wife in a major key to sound more uplifting and positive!);
Han’s first meeting with that famous walking carpet (played by Joonas Suotamo) is memorable, as is the introduction to that “card player, gambler and scoundrel” Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover, “The Martian“, “Spider-Man: Homecoming“): all flamboyance, self-regard and well-dressed ego;
solo2
Never count your money while you’re sitting at the table. Lando Calrissian played by Donald Glover putting his ship (you probably haven’t heard of it) on the line. (Source: Lucasfilm).
the character of L3-37 is an excellent addition to the saga, forcefully demanding equality for droids: I would have liked to have seen much more of her;
there is a nice twist on the Greedo/Han “who shot first” debate;
production design and special effects are up to standard for a Star Wars film, and I enjoyed John Powell’s score, incorporating a new ‘young Han’ theme from John Williams himself;
and Erin Kellyman (in here movie debut) is just breathtaking and strikingly brilliant as the be-freckled renegade Enfys Nest.
But overall it’s all a bit disjointed and jumbled, probably as befits its growing pains. We are introduced to Solo within five seconds of the film’s opening….. BAM! No exquisite ‘reveal’ as we saw with River Phoenix in “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”. I found this disconcerting and it took me ten minutes to get into the film as a result.
When it gets going it rather tries too hard to join up more Star Wars dots than it needs to. “Rogue One” did that exceedingly well, but that was because it needed to as ‘Episode 3.5’. Here there are visual and verbal references everywhere as the screenwriters (Lawrence and Jonathan Kasdan) desperately try to knit their story into the canon. As an example, the action moves to the mines of Kessel at one point. Kessel? Kessel? Wasn’t that a throwaway C3PO line from the “A New Hope” about being “smashed to who knows what” in said mines?. So obviously, in the WHOLE GALAXY that’s where the story leads us, with the local lingo for the hyperspace fuel McGuffin at the heart of the plot being “spice”! It’s all a bit too trite for my liking.
And while a key protagonist appearing near the end of the film (no spoilers) is both a startling surprise and great fun, don’t get me started on the timeline implications…. (see the spoiler section below the trailer for more).
Alden Ehrenreich, who was just brilliant in “Hail Caesar” (“Was that it t’WERRRE so simple“) for me barely makes it past bland in the lead role. One of the defining characteristics of Harrison Ford’s Solo was his swagger and bravado and unfortunately Ehrenreich barely rates a three out of ten on the scale. I also found the chemistry with Emelia Clarke to be lukewarm. Clarke still seems to be struggling to make a significant breakthrough to the big screen…. “Me Before You” still seems to be her high water mark so far. Here she has a key and complex role, but comes over as just plain unconvincing and “meh”.
Ron Howard has clearly done a good job in buffing up a poisoned chalice so it can at least share space on the Star Wars shelf without being laughed out of the Cantina. Perhaps with a more coordinated and thought-through run-up to a Solo sequel (more Enfys Nest please!) this offshoot might have legs.
Add into that proposition the decision to give the film initially to “The Lego Movie” directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (why Disney? why?); them trying to forge it as a ‘comedy’; them falling horribly short and being fired by Disney; Disney bringing Ron Howard (“Inferno“, “Rush“) in to try to salvage the project; and Howard reportedly re-shooting 75% of the film and you have the makings of a turkey of galactic proportions.
With all that being said, I was surprised I enjoyed it as much as I did. But that’s off a very low base of expectation.
As you might guess, we go back to see Han… just Han… as a delinquent youth trying to keep his head above water under the thrall of the Fagin-like Lady Proxima (who – no pun intended – keeps her head under the water for most of the time). He is desperate to pull off a con that’s lucrative enough that it will get him and his girlfriend Qi’ra (Emilia Clarke, “Me Before You“; “Terminator: Genisys“; “Game of Thrones”) off-planet and into a free life. Things don’t go to plan though and Han – now Han Solo – finds himself a trooper of the Galactic Empire. He links up with fellow rogues Beckett (Woody Harrelson, “War for the Planet of the Apes“; “Three Billboards in Ebbing, Missouri“), Val (Thandie Newton, “Westworld”, “2012”), Rio (voiced by Jon Favreau, “Spider-Man: Homecoming“; “Iron Man Three“) and their assertive and rebellious droid L3-37 (voiced by Phoebe Waller-Bridge) in a get-rich-or-die mission for vicious gang-boss Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany, “Avengers: Infinity War“).
The film has its moments for sure:
There are some nice background touches: an army recruitment video plays to the sound of John William’s empire march (played I am assured by my more musical wife in a major key to sound more uplifting and positive!);
Han’s first meeting with that famous walking carpet (played by Joonas Suotamo) is memorable, as is the introduction to that “card player, gambler and scoundrel” Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover, “The Martian“, “Spider-Man: Homecoming“): all flamboyance, self-regard and well-dressed ego;
solo2
Never count your money while you’re sitting at the table. Lando Calrissian played by Donald Glover putting his ship (you probably haven’t heard of it) on the line. (Source: Lucasfilm).
the character of L3-37 is an excellent addition to the saga, forcefully demanding equality for droids: I would have liked to have seen much more of her;
there is a nice twist on the Greedo/Han “who shot first” debate;
production design and special effects are up to standard for a Star Wars film, and I enjoyed John Powell’s score, incorporating a new ‘young Han’ theme from John Williams himself;
and Erin Kellyman (in here movie debut) is just breathtaking and strikingly brilliant as the be-freckled renegade Enfys Nest.
But overall it’s all a bit disjointed and jumbled, probably as befits its growing pains. We are introduced to Solo within five seconds of the film’s opening….. BAM! No exquisite ‘reveal’ as we saw with River Phoenix in “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”. I found this disconcerting and it took me ten minutes to get into the film as a result.
When it gets going it rather tries too hard to join up more Star Wars dots than it needs to. “Rogue One” did that exceedingly well, but that was because it needed to as ‘Episode 3.5’. Here there are visual and verbal references everywhere as the screenwriters (Lawrence and Jonathan Kasdan) desperately try to knit their story into the canon. As an example, the action moves to the mines of Kessel at one point. Kessel? Kessel? Wasn’t that a throwaway C3PO line from the “A New Hope” about being “smashed to who knows what” in said mines?. So obviously, in the WHOLE GALAXY that’s where the story leads us, with the local lingo for the hyperspace fuel McGuffin at the heart of the plot being “spice”! It’s all a bit too trite for my liking.
And while a key protagonist appearing near the end of the film (no spoilers) is both a startling surprise and great fun, don’t get me started on the timeline implications…. (see the spoiler section below the trailer for more).
Alden Ehrenreich, who was just brilliant in “Hail Caesar” (“Was that it t’WERRRE so simple“) for me barely makes it past bland in the lead role. One of the defining characteristics of Harrison Ford’s Solo was his swagger and bravado and unfortunately Ehrenreich barely rates a three out of ten on the scale. I also found the chemistry with Emelia Clarke to be lukewarm. Clarke still seems to be struggling to make a significant breakthrough to the big screen…. “Me Before You” still seems to be her high water mark so far. Here she has a key and complex role, but comes over as just plain unconvincing and “meh”.
Ron Howard has clearly done a good job in buffing up a poisoned chalice so it can at least share space on the Star Wars shelf without being laughed out of the Cantina. Perhaps with a more coordinated and thought-through run-up to a Solo sequel (more Enfys Nest please!) this offshoot might have legs.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Avengers West Coast: Darker than Scarlet in Books
Nov 30, 2020
I took advantage of some great Marvel sales on Comixology the end of last month. It was a great opportunity to revisit HOUSE OF M (which I had own the TPB of it when still owned the physical copies, instead of the digital ones I now favor). I bought that one, WCA: DARKER THAN SCARLET, X-MEN: DECIMATION - SON OF M, DECIMATION: HOUSE OF M - THE DAY AFTER, and AVENGERS: THE CHILDREN'S CRUSADE. I started WCA: DTS the end of last week, finishing it up today.
First, I just want to open with what a refreshing breath it was to return to late 1989 for this read. It was a simpler time, in which you could tell the villains from the heroes, where heroes actually did <b>good things</b> on account of, you know, them being heroes and all, and where villains committed actual <i>dirty deeds</i>! And it was also a time when Marvel still understood that publishing good comic books didn't mean dovetailing each and every event into another event six months later, followed by *another* event six months <after> the first two!
One of the big draws for this trade was getting to see John Byrne back when he was totally on his game (not that he has ever been off his game). Seriously, it was worth it just to see him draw the 'M' fam again: Magneto, Scarlet With and Quicksilver! So, so good! And best of all? The art was actually drawn on paper, with inks, no computer aiding at that point in comic publishing!
And while his style was somewhat different that Byrne's, Paul Ryan did an equally great job as the penciller for the remainder of the story's last three issues. I had forgotten how I much I had liked his art back in the day, stirring up fond memories of his run as penciller on IRON MAN, also in the late 80s. #goodtimes
In addition to handling the art chores, Byrne also provided the writing. Equally admirable is the way Roy Thomas, and his wife Dann, took over the writing beginning with Issue #60, providing a seamless transition from Byrne. Both writers provided a fun sense, even when the danger was mounting against them, of the Avengers.
So, as much as I loved this trade, I also feel the need to let you all know the dialogue at points felt a little clunky, maybe a little dated. However, it was nothing that took away from my overall enjoyment of this volume. At points where the dialogue didn't feel all that good, I just went and re-read it with names, or words, that fit better. Again, nothing that should diminish the fun factor here, unless you are one of <i>those kind</i> of comic readers!
In concluding, I just want to say this was a good read. It is especially important, perhaps even so far as dubbing it "required reading", before starting HOUSE OF M. In an age where the fun has diminished greatly in the superhero comics, it is good to have something like this to read, which helps us escape the "doom 'n goom" of this so un-fun era!
First, I just want to open with what a refreshing breath it was to return to late 1989 for this read. It was a simpler time, in which you could tell the villains from the heroes, where heroes actually did <b>good things</b> on account of, you know, them being heroes and all, and where villains committed actual <i>dirty deeds</i>! And it was also a time when Marvel still understood that publishing good comic books didn't mean dovetailing each and every event into another event six months later, followed by *another* event six months <after> the first two!
One of the big draws for this trade was getting to see John Byrne back when he was totally on his game (not that he has ever been off his game). Seriously, it was worth it just to see him draw the 'M' fam again: Magneto, Scarlet With and Quicksilver! So, so good! And best of all? The art was actually drawn on paper, with inks, no computer aiding at that point in comic publishing!
And while his style was somewhat different that Byrne's, Paul Ryan did an equally great job as the penciller for the remainder of the story's last three issues. I had forgotten how I much I had liked his art back in the day, stirring up fond memories of his run as penciller on IRON MAN, also in the late 80s. #goodtimes
In addition to handling the art chores, Byrne also provided the writing. Equally admirable is the way Roy Thomas, and his wife Dann, took over the writing beginning with Issue #60, providing a seamless transition from Byrne. Both writers provided a fun sense, even when the danger was mounting against them, of the Avengers.
So, as much as I loved this trade, I also feel the need to let you all know the dialogue at points felt a little clunky, maybe a little dated. However, it was nothing that took away from my overall enjoyment of this volume. At points where the dialogue didn't feel all that good, I just went and re-read it with names, or words, that fit better. Again, nothing that should diminish the fun factor here, unless you are one of <i>those kind</i> of comic readers!
In concluding, I just want to say this was a good read. It is especially important, perhaps even so far as dubbing it "required reading", before starting HOUSE OF M. In an age where the fun has diminished greatly in the superhero comics, it is good to have something like this to read, which helps us escape the "doom 'n goom" of this so un-fun era!