Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The Arthurian legend: but with Cockneys.
So, bit difficult to describe this one… so I asked my bloke Alfie from Londinium to explain what’s it all about…
“‘Ere, OK bruv. So this is dun by that geezer Guy Ritchie – yer know, the one that dun that Sherlock Holmes with the Iron Man geezer Robert Junior Downey, that one. His new film is a rip-roarin’ acshun movie what retells da Arfurian legend in a novel new way.
That Hulk bloke Eric Bana is Arfur’s farfer an’ ‘e’s ‘avin’ a few problems wiv ‘is bruvver Vortigern (Jude Law, who’s a bi’ ov a cockney ‘imself, but ‘ere speaks like a posh bloke. Know what I mean?) So ‘e (Vortigern dat is) gets some magical ‘elp from some slippery watery bints in a puddle and so ‘is dad puts ‘is God Forbid in a boat an’ sends ‘im down da river ter The Smoke ter live wiv some prozzies.
But ‘e grows up big an’ strong an’ ‘andy wiv a sword. His friends tell ‘im ter get aaaht ov town as da King’s blokes are lookin’ fer da young geezer who would be king. An’ e says like “Scapa Flow sowf ov da river at dis time ov night. Are yew mad?”. So e gets caught like an’ gets tested by some famous football bloke ter pull a big sword aaaht ov just a random bi’ ov stone (nod, nod, wink wink, nice twist – ssshhh!).
The Vortigern bloke is very cross an’ tries to kill ‘im but ‘e gets rescued by some bird who can make birds, lol, an’ other fings do what she wants. So can Arfur beat ‘is uncle? Gawdon Bennet, I’m not gon’a tell yew da whole darn fing! Yer’ll ‘ave ter go an’ watch i’ ter find out.”
Thanks Alfie. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
The quirky style of Guy Ritchie isn’t one that you would think would translate well to the Arthurian setting, and as the film starts you tend to think you were right! But if you give it a chance it wears you down into acceptance and then – ultimately – a lot of enjoyment.
Jude Law is deliciously evil mixed with a heavy dose of mad, and delivers the goods.
Charlie Hunnam who plays Arthur (no, I hadn’t heard of him either but he was in the “Lost City of Z”) does a decent job as the medieval hunk, although he seems at time to have taken voice coaching in ‘Olde-English’ from Russell Crowe, since the lad’s Geordie accent seems to wander from Cockney through central southern England to Liverpudlian at one point (definitely channelling a young John Lennon)! Relative newcomer, the Spanish actress Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is effectively weird as the mage.
Particularly noteworthy (no pun intended) is the superb action soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton (“Steve Jobs“, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.“) which propels the action really well and contains some standout moments.
Also a standout in the technical categories is the editing by James Herbert, who did both of Downey Junior’s “Sherlock Holmes” films (in a similar style) and also “Edge of Tomorrow“. The style is typified with Arthur’s growth to manhood in the streets of London which is stylishly done.
I saw the film in 3D – not a particularly favourite format – but quite well done, although falls into the “trying too hard” category at times with lots of drifting embers… you know the sort.
It’s not bloody Shakespeare. It’s not even the bloody Arthurian legend as you know it. But it is bloody good fun if you let it in.
“‘Ere, OK bruv. So this is dun by that geezer Guy Ritchie – yer know, the one that dun that Sherlock Holmes with the Iron Man geezer Robert Junior Downey, that one. His new film is a rip-roarin’ acshun movie what retells da Arfurian legend in a novel new way.
That Hulk bloke Eric Bana is Arfur’s farfer an’ ‘e’s ‘avin’ a few problems wiv ‘is bruvver Vortigern (Jude Law, who’s a bi’ ov a cockney ‘imself, but ‘ere speaks like a posh bloke. Know what I mean?) So ‘e (Vortigern dat is) gets some magical ‘elp from some slippery watery bints in a puddle and so ‘is dad puts ‘is God Forbid in a boat an’ sends ‘im down da river ter The Smoke ter live wiv some prozzies.
But ‘e grows up big an’ strong an’ ‘andy wiv a sword. His friends tell ‘im ter get aaaht ov town as da King’s blokes are lookin’ fer da young geezer who would be king. An’ e says like “Scapa Flow sowf ov da river at dis time ov night. Are yew mad?”. So e gets caught like an’ gets tested by some famous football bloke ter pull a big sword aaaht ov just a random bi’ ov stone (nod, nod, wink wink, nice twist – ssshhh!).
The Vortigern bloke is very cross an’ tries to kill ‘im but ‘e gets rescued by some bird who can make birds, lol, an’ other fings do what she wants. So can Arfur beat ‘is uncle? Gawdon Bennet, I’m not gon’a tell yew da whole darn fing! Yer’ll ‘ave ter go an’ watch i’ ter find out.”
Thanks Alfie. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
The quirky style of Guy Ritchie isn’t one that you would think would translate well to the Arthurian setting, and as the film starts you tend to think you were right! But if you give it a chance it wears you down into acceptance and then – ultimately – a lot of enjoyment.
Jude Law is deliciously evil mixed with a heavy dose of mad, and delivers the goods.
Charlie Hunnam who plays Arthur (no, I hadn’t heard of him either but he was in the “Lost City of Z”) does a decent job as the medieval hunk, although he seems at time to have taken voice coaching in ‘Olde-English’ from Russell Crowe, since the lad’s Geordie accent seems to wander from Cockney through central southern England to Liverpudlian at one point (definitely channelling a young John Lennon)! Relative newcomer, the Spanish actress Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is effectively weird as the mage.
Particularly noteworthy (no pun intended) is the superb action soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton (“Steve Jobs“, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.“) which propels the action really well and contains some standout moments.
Also a standout in the technical categories is the editing by James Herbert, who did both of Downey Junior’s “Sherlock Holmes” films (in a similar style) and also “Edge of Tomorrow“. The style is typified with Arthur’s growth to manhood in the streets of London which is stylishly done.
I saw the film in 3D – not a particularly favourite format – but quite well done, although falls into the “trying too hard” category at times with lots of drifting embers… you know the sort.
It’s not bloody Shakespeare. It’s not even the bloody Arthurian legend as you know it. But it is bloody good fun if you let it in.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Night Of - Season 1 in TV
Jul 19, 2017
Fantastic performances by the entire cast (4 more)
Phenomenal Script
Beautiful cinematography
Clever use of lighting
Brillaint direction
A Masterpice of Storytelling.
The Night Of stars Riz Ahmed as Naz, a young guy from Manhattan from an Asian family, who makes a series of bad decisions on what was supposed to be a simple night out; leading to his subsequent arrest and trial for the murder of a young girl. While there is no denying that Naz made some bad decisions and it is hard to deny he looks guilty, we are on this guy’s side at the start of the series. Then Jon Turturro comes into the show as Naz’s lawer John Stone. This is Turturro’s best role in years, possibly in his entire career and it serves as a stark reminder how wasted this guy is in the Transformers series and Adam Sandler Movies. Both leads give convincing performances as their respective characters, thrust into a situation that ends up being way out of their depth, they are both fish out of water, on either side of the justice system and we see the adapt or die method used by each of them.
Preacher, Westworld and Stranger Things are widely considered to be the best new TV shows of 2016, but I reckon that The Night Of is probably the most important new show broadcast this year. In the wake of a plethora of horrific, recent terror attacks across the world and following the vote to elect Donald Trump as the president of the most powerful country in the world, (a man who once expressed the desire to ban all Muslims from entering the USA,) this show seems unfortunately more relevant than ever. The show doesn’t shove any explicit propaganda down your throat, but there is no denying the racist undertones present and the social issues that the show presents to us. The writing is also fantastic throughout and this is by far the most painfully realistic show I have seen in the last few years. The show isn’t without its quirks though, but the consistently realistic nature of the writing and the performances are what make this show so immersive. The series also takes the viewer on a journey of discovery, constantly dropping unexpected character twists and new hints towards what really happened on the night referred to in the show’s title. This show throws so many interesting conversation starters into the viewership’s collective mind and constantly keeps you guessing as a spectator to these gruesome events.
This is a show that everyone should try, in a post brexit world where racial tensions are at an extreme high, this show is painfully relevant to people on either side of the argument. The crime itself becomes a background element as we see the biased treatment of a young Muslim man by the system and the assumptions made for and against him. There are so many backdoor deals being made between lawyers and other law officials and really the worst light is thrown on the criminal justice system itself and how broken the whole thing is. By halfway through the series’ 8 episodes, the issue of whether or not Naz actually committed the crime is irrelevant, the most important thing at this point being trying to keep everybody involved with this high profile case happy.
Although the moral points that this show chooses to pursue are unflinching and extremely well handled, the more technical aspects of the show are also expertly executed. I have already spoke about Riz Ahmed and John Turturro’s stand out performances, but the show’s supporting cast doesn’t contain any weak spots either and features a well rounded variety of races, ages and social classes. Naz’s family are all brilliant as are the other lawyers that make up the case. I have also already spoke about the high quality script present in the show, but I feel that the show’s writing team can’t be praised enough for the consistently high quality script they have produced. The cinematography of the show is also impressive throughout, with each shot perfectly complimenting the tone that the show sets and framing the actor’s performances masterfully. The use of light is also well implemented and adds to each shot composition and the overall aesthetic of the show. As highlighted above the actor’s performances are fantastic, but they are guided very well by the show’s directors. The score is also a nice addition to the tone of the show, as are all of the sound effects and audio used throughout.
Overall, this is the definition of great television and is the example that all other TV shows should aim for. Even if you don’t agree with the moral compasses of the show’s characters, it is objectively impossible to deny the show’s high caliber of technical filmaking. This is without a doubt one of the best shows aired in 2016 and could even be considered as one of the best seasons of a TV show of the last decade.
Preacher, Westworld and Stranger Things are widely considered to be the best new TV shows of 2016, but I reckon that The Night Of is probably the most important new show broadcast this year. In the wake of a plethora of horrific, recent terror attacks across the world and following the vote to elect Donald Trump as the president of the most powerful country in the world, (a man who once expressed the desire to ban all Muslims from entering the USA,) this show seems unfortunately more relevant than ever. The show doesn’t shove any explicit propaganda down your throat, but there is no denying the racist undertones present and the social issues that the show presents to us. The writing is also fantastic throughout and this is by far the most painfully realistic show I have seen in the last few years. The show isn’t without its quirks though, but the consistently realistic nature of the writing and the performances are what make this show so immersive. The series also takes the viewer on a journey of discovery, constantly dropping unexpected character twists and new hints towards what really happened on the night referred to in the show’s title. This show throws so many interesting conversation starters into the viewership’s collective mind and constantly keeps you guessing as a spectator to these gruesome events.
This is a show that everyone should try, in a post brexit world where racial tensions are at an extreme high, this show is painfully relevant to people on either side of the argument. The crime itself becomes a background element as we see the biased treatment of a young Muslim man by the system and the assumptions made for and against him. There are so many backdoor deals being made between lawyers and other law officials and really the worst light is thrown on the criminal justice system itself and how broken the whole thing is. By halfway through the series’ 8 episodes, the issue of whether or not Naz actually committed the crime is irrelevant, the most important thing at this point being trying to keep everybody involved with this high profile case happy.
Although the moral points that this show chooses to pursue are unflinching and extremely well handled, the more technical aspects of the show are also expertly executed. I have already spoke about Riz Ahmed and John Turturro’s stand out performances, but the show’s supporting cast doesn’t contain any weak spots either and features a well rounded variety of races, ages and social classes. Naz’s family are all brilliant as are the other lawyers that make up the case. I have also already spoke about the high quality script present in the show, but I feel that the show’s writing team can’t be praised enough for the consistently high quality script they have produced. The cinematography of the show is also impressive throughout, with each shot perfectly complimenting the tone that the show sets and framing the actor’s performances masterfully. The use of light is also well implemented and adds to each shot composition and the overall aesthetic of the show. As highlighted above the actor’s performances are fantastic, but they are guided very well by the show’s directors. The score is also a nice addition to the tone of the show, as are all of the sound effects and audio used throughout.
Overall, this is the definition of great television and is the example that all other TV shows should aim for. Even if you don’t agree with the moral compasses of the show’s characters, it is objectively impossible to deny the show’s high caliber of technical filmaking. This is without a doubt one of the best shows aired in 2016 and could even be considered as one of the best seasons of a TV show of the last decade.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in Books
Apr 19, 2019
Strong writing (1 more)
Good characters
Run-on sentences (1 more)
No explanations for paranormal activity
Contains spoilers, click to show
If you're looking for a scary story, 'The Haunting of Hill House' just doesn't add up.
The story is still worth reading because Jackson's story telling is something that is missing in literature today. The reader is introduced to characters that are different enough to be interesting; their development is just right that it leaves the reader satisfied. The story moves along well enough that the pace keeps us from getting bored. And each turn of the page keeps the reader guessing what is going to happen next- a must for any ghost story.
In 'The Haunting of Hill House,' Jackson mostly focuses on the character Eleanor - a woman who recently lost the sickly mother she had taken care of for years, to receiving an invitation for a paranormal experiment at the infamous Hill House. Eleanor also seems to be the main character affected by the house, not only having her name written on a wall, but also having her named called out by spirits during an automatic writing session with them.
Our first introduction to the Hill House happens as Eleanor arrives: "No Human eye can isolate the unhappy coincidence of line and place which suggests evil in the face of a house, and yet somehow a maniac juxtaposition, a badly turned angle, some chance meeting of roof and sky, turned Hill House into a place of despair, more frightening because the face of Hill House seemed awake, with a watchfulness from the blank windows and a touch of glee in the eyebrow of a cornice. Almost any house, caught unexpectedly or at an odd angle, can turn a deeply humorous look on a watching person; even a mischievous little chimney, or a dormer like a dimple, can catch up a beholder with a sense of fellowship; but a house arrogant and hating, never off guard, can only be evil. This house, which seemed somehow to have formed itself, flying together into its own powerful pattern under the hands of its builders, fitting itself into its own construction of lines and angles, reared its great head back against the sky without concession to humanity. It was a house without kindness, never meant to be lived in , not a fit place for people or for love or for hope. Exorcism cannot alter the countenance of a house; Hill House would stay as it was until it was destroyed."
We never see Hill House through any other character's eyes, and the viewpoints mostly come from Eleanor (a missed opportunity,I think). Everyone who arrives at the house feels uneasy about it: doors and curtains close on their own, unexplained banging noises down the hallways(only at night), the chattering and laughter of children, and with an oddly placed cold spot. Yet,to the reader's dismay, nothing is fully explained by the end of the story - no apparitions show up, no one seems harmed by anything unseen (although, the character, Luke, suddenly shows up with a bruised face that is never discussed), and the reader ends up wondering if this really is a product of mass psychosis. It almost seems like Jackson ended the story abruptly just to finish it(the book is only a little under 200 pages). She set up wonderful scenarios, but without explanations, we're left with a very empty feeling.
Nearing the end of the book, the doctor, John Montague, who has ran the entire experiment, has his wife,Mrs. Montague,arrive a few days later, who seems to know more about contacting spirits than he does: "The library? I think it might do; books are frequently very good carriers, you know. Materializations are often best produced in rooms where there are books. I cannot think of any time when materialization was in any way hampered by the presence of books." And with the arrival of Dr. Montague's wife, we get one of the major experiences in the entire book. Although her character is quite annoying- even seen through the eyes of other characters- she brings some of the most ghost story elements, one of which is her automatic writing sessions: "Planchette felt very strongly about a nun, John. Perhaps something of the sort- a dark, vague figure, even- has been seen in the neighborhood? Villagers terrified when staggering home late at night?" None of the characters, besides Mrs. Montague's companion, Arthur, believe her automatic writing sessions are real, even after Eleanor's name is brought up during one. As I stated before, without any explanations, the reader is even led to believe that nothing was meant to come of these sessions whatsoever.
The ghost story elements may not have been strong in the story, but the characters make up for them. They constantly question what they are experiencing and/or seeing, they question their surroundings, and they question each other -Jackson does an amazing job weaving paranoia into the story line.
One of the more shocking and unbelievable scenes is when Eleanor is suddenly not fearful of the house anymore: "And here I am, she thought. Here I am inside. It was not cold at all, but deliciously, fondly warm. It was light enough for her to see the iron stairway curving around and around up to the tower, and the little door at the top. Under her feet the stone floor moved caressingly, rubbing itself against the soles of her feet, and all around the soft air touched her, stirring her hair, drifting against her fingers, coming in a light breath across her mouth, and she danced in circles. No stone lions for me, she thought, no oleanders; I have broken the spell of Hill House and somehow come inside. I am home, she thought, and stopped in wonder at the thought. I am home, I am home, she thought; now to climb." It was as if Eleanor was a completely different person in just a few pages.
I do have a couple of problems with 'The Haunting of Hill House,' mostly centering around the use of run-on sentences and extra long paragraphs. The run-on sentences are a waste of time because Jackson seems to merely elaborate on something that could be easily explained or experienced with fewer words. The paragraphs, however, need to be broken up for scene transitioning purposes -when she transitions from one scene to the next, she can confuse the reader with them: one paragraph will have all the characters in the dining area, but in that same paragraph, just a few sentences down, Jackson has the characters suddenly in the parlor,drinking Brandy. Maybe the intention was to make the reader feel paranoid and uneasy like the characters in the book, but it was certainly not needed with the way of Jackson's style of writing.
With all that said, it's easy to see why this book is a popular classic. The writing is strong, using enough descriptions to put the reader in Hill House with all of its paranormal beings. And no matter who you are, you are able to find at least one of the lead characters as a favorite. I feel the book is a must-read for anyone interested in the paranormal, because Jackson brings out the occult interest that was going on around 1959 - when she published 'The Haunting of Hill House;' everything from cold spots to the use of a planchette for automatic writing.
I recommend this book, but if you're looking for scares, you must look elsewhere.
The story is still worth reading because Jackson's story telling is something that is missing in literature today. The reader is introduced to characters that are different enough to be interesting; their development is just right that it leaves the reader satisfied. The story moves along well enough that the pace keeps us from getting bored. And each turn of the page keeps the reader guessing what is going to happen next- a must for any ghost story.
In 'The Haunting of Hill House,' Jackson mostly focuses on the character Eleanor - a woman who recently lost the sickly mother she had taken care of for years, to receiving an invitation for a paranormal experiment at the infamous Hill House. Eleanor also seems to be the main character affected by the house, not only having her name written on a wall, but also having her named called out by spirits during an automatic writing session with them.
Our first introduction to the Hill House happens as Eleanor arrives: "No Human eye can isolate the unhappy coincidence of line and place which suggests evil in the face of a house, and yet somehow a maniac juxtaposition, a badly turned angle, some chance meeting of roof and sky, turned Hill House into a place of despair, more frightening because the face of Hill House seemed awake, with a watchfulness from the blank windows and a touch of glee in the eyebrow of a cornice. Almost any house, caught unexpectedly or at an odd angle, can turn a deeply humorous look on a watching person; even a mischievous little chimney, or a dormer like a dimple, can catch up a beholder with a sense of fellowship; but a house arrogant and hating, never off guard, can only be evil. This house, which seemed somehow to have formed itself, flying together into its own powerful pattern under the hands of its builders, fitting itself into its own construction of lines and angles, reared its great head back against the sky without concession to humanity. It was a house without kindness, never meant to be lived in , not a fit place for people or for love or for hope. Exorcism cannot alter the countenance of a house; Hill House would stay as it was until it was destroyed."
We never see Hill House through any other character's eyes, and the viewpoints mostly come from Eleanor (a missed opportunity,I think). Everyone who arrives at the house feels uneasy about it: doors and curtains close on their own, unexplained banging noises down the hallways(only at night), the chattering and laughter of children, and with an oddly placed cold spot. Yet,to the reader's dismay, nothing is fully explained by the end of the story - no apparitions show up, no one seems harmed by anything unseen (although, the character, Luke, suddenly shows up with a bruised face that is never discussed), and the reader ends up wondering if this really is a product of mass psychosis. It almost seems like Jackson ended the story abruptly just to finish it(the book is only a little under 200 pages). She set up wonderful scenarios, but without explanations, we're left with a very empty feeling.
Nearing the end of the book, the doctor, John Montague, who has ran the entire experiment, has his wife,Mrs. Montague,arrive a few days later, who seems to know more about contacting spirits than he does: "The library? I think it might do; books are frequently very good carriers, you know. Materializations are often best produced in rooms where there are books. I cannot think of any time when materialization was in any way hampered by the presence of books." And with the arrival of Dr. Montague's wife, we get one of the major experiences in the entire book. Although her character is quite annoying- even seen through the eyes of other characters- she brings some of the most ghost story elements, one of which is her automatic writing sessions: "Planchette felt very strongly about a nun, John. Perhaps something of the sort- a dark, vague figure, even- has been seen in the neighborhood? Villagers terrified when staggering home late at night?" None of the characters, besides Mrs. Montague's companion, Arthur, believe her automatic writing sessions are real, even after Eleanor's name is brought up during one. As I stated before, without any explanations, the reader is even led to believe that nothing was meant to come of these sessions whatsoever.
The ghost story elements may not have been strong in the story, but the characters make up for them. They constantly question what they are experiencing and/or seeing, they question their surroundings, and they question each other -Jackson does an amazing job weaving paranoia into the story line.
One of the more shocking and unbelievable scenes is when Eleanor is suddenly not fearful of the house anymore: "And here I am, she thought. Here I am inside. It was not cold at all, but deliciously, fondly warm. It was light enough for her to see the iron stairway curving around and around up to the tower, and the little door at the top. Under her feet the stone floor moved caressingly, rubbing itself against the soles of her feet, and all around the soft air touched her, stirring her hair, drifting against her fingers, coming in a light breath across her mouth, and she danced in circles. No stone lions for me, she thought, no oleanders; I have broken the spell of Hill House and somehow come inside. I am home, she thought, and stopped in wonder at the thought. I am home, I am home, she thought; now to climb." It was as if Eleanor was a completely different person in just a few pages.
I do have a couple of problems with 'The Haunting of Hill House,' mostly centering around the use of run-on sentences and extra long paragraphs. The run-on sentences are a waste of time because Jackson seems to merely elaborate on something that could be easily explained or experienced with fewer words. The paragraphs, however, need to be broken up for scene transitioning purposes -when she transitions from one scene to the next, she can confuse the reader with them: one paragraph will have all the characters in the dining area, but in that same paragraph, just a few sentences down, Jackson has the characters suddenly in the parlor,drinking Brandy. Maybe the intention was to make the reader feel paranoid and uneasy like the characters in the book, but it was certainly not needed with the way of Jackson's style of writing.
With all that said, it's easy to see why this book is a popular classic. The writing is strong, using enough descriptions to put the reader in Hill House with all of its paranormal beings. And no matter who you are, you are able to find at least one of the lead characters as a favorite. I feel the book is a must-read for anyone interested in the paranormal, because Jackson brings out the occult interest that was going on around 1959 - when she published 'The Haunting of Hill House;' everything from cold spots to the use of a planchette for automatic writing.
I recommend this book, but if you're looking for scares, you must look elsewhere.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Miss Sloane (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“I never know where the line is”.
In a roller-coaster year for political intrigue on both sides of the Atlantic, and with all hell breaking loose again between Trump and ‘The Hill’, here comes “Miss Sloane”.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Mar 5, 2020
More CGI animals in another adaptation of a franchise that has been around since the 1920s. I do so love Eddie Murphy's comedy portrayal, am I ready for a period appropriate version?
Tommy Stubbins isn't like his uncle, he doesn't want to hunt the animals in the wood. When he shoots wide in an attempt to miss his target he accidentally hits a squirrel, but his reaction makes his uncle and cousin leave him there with the injured animal. Clutching the squirrel and not knowing what to do Tommy finds himself being beckoned by a parrot. She leads him through a gap in a high stone wall to an expanse filled with (not so) wild animals.
Doctor Dolittle has been hidden behind closed doors ever since his wife disappeared. With just the animals for company he's forgotten some of his human manners, he must remember them quickly as he's summoned by the Queen who is gravely ill.
Welsh. That accent that you couldn't quite put your finger on, that was Welsh... yeah, it wouldn't have been my first guess either but let's just accept it and move on shall we?
Seeing the CGI on this in the trailer didn't annoy me, and looking back now I'm not sure how that was the case when Call Of The Wild basically the same thing and I was livid. Just like Call Of The Wild, Dolittle benefits from the comedy you can get from the CGI and it really needed that.
RDJ is a big ticket name, but I'm not entirely sure he was suited to the role of John Dolittle. Perhaps that's partly to do with the fact that so much of his recent history is dominated by him as Tony Stark, perhaps it's because the slightly crazy and vulnerable Dolittle in this film has little impact. The truth for me is probably somewhere in the middle.
Considering the live action section of the films features a lot of Tommy Stubbins (played by Harry Collett) his role seems of little consequence after he's taken us to the estate, after all, Lady Rose would still have gone there and I suspect Polly would have steered him right. Stubbins, in the books, narrates the stories after he first appears, but in this adaptation it's given to Polly, voiced by Emma Thompson. I can understand that decision, she's got a very soothing and yet commanding voice that's perfect for that role.
There seems to be a lot of pieces kept from the books, though they've been tweaked for the modern audience. Not only the change of narrator but Polly is no longer a grey African parrot, instead we're given a much brighter macaw which has a better visual payoff.
One day I'll remember to look at the cast list for animated films before I go in, trying to place voices is so difficult on the fly. All in all the animals are fine, the script doesn't feel great but the antics help it out somewhat.
Our villains are quite varied throughout but Michael Sheen takes a main role as Dr. Blair Müdfly, Dolittle's rival. The interactions between him and the animals did amuse me but his over the top nature that built steadily through the film felt much too cliche, sadly not always in an entertaining way.
There are many things to like hidden in the film. It opens with a great animation that gives us back story which allows us not to suffer through clumsy attempts at the same during the film. I also really enjoyed the way we're shown how Dolittle speaks to the animals, though that does raise other questions that make things unravel, so I'll move on. The squirrel's commentary is hilarious and probably makes him my favourite character, though the octopus isn't too far behind.
Dolittle has a lot of nice little touches but it relies heavily on predictable humour and at times doesn't know when to stop (I'm thinking specifically about a scene towards the end of the film here). Even with its many ups and downs the film was enjoyable to watch, just the once. I'm entirely convinced that with a different accent it would have been infinitely better.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/dolittle-movie-review.html
Tommy Stubbins isn't like his uncle, he doesn't want to hunt the animals in the wood. When he shoots wide in an attempt to miss his target he accidentally hits a squirrel, but his reaction makes his uncle and cousin leave him there with the injured animal. Clutching the squirrel and not knowing what to do Tommy finds himself being beckoned by a parrot. She leads him through a gap in a high stone wall to an expanse filled with (not so) wild animals.
Doctor Dolittle has been hidden behind closed doors ever since his wife disappeared. With just the animals for company he's forgotten some of his human manners, he must remember them quickly as he's summoned by the Queen who is gravely ill.
Welsh. That accent that you couldn't quite put your finger on, that was Welsh... yeah, it wouldn't have been my first guess either but let's just accept it and move on shall we?
Seeing the CGI on this in the trailer didn't annoy me, and looking back now I'm not sure how that was the case when Call Of The Wild basically the same thing and I was livid. Just like Call Of The Wild, Dolittle benefits from the comedy you can get from the CGI and it really needed that.
RDJ is a big ticket name, but I'm not entirely sure he was suited to the role of John Dolittle. Perhaps that's partly to do with the fact that so much of his recent history is dominated by him as Tony Stark, perhaps it's because the slightly crazy and vulnerable Dolittle in this film has little impact. The truth for me is probably somewhere in the middle.
Considering the live action section of the films features a lot of Tommy Stubbins (played by Harry Collett) his role seems of little consequence after he's taken us to the estate, after all, Lady Rose would still have gone there and I suspect Polly would have steered him right. Stubbins, in the books, narrates the stories after he first appears, but in this adaptation it's given to Polly, voiced by Emma Thompson. I can understand that decision, she's got a very soothing and yet commanding voice that's perfect for that role.
There seems to be a lot of pieces kept from the books, though they've been tweaked for the modern audience. Not only the change of narrator but Polly is no longer a grey African parrot, instead we're given a much brighter macaw which has a better visual payoff.
One day I'll remember to look at the cast list for animated films before I go in, trying to place voices is so difficult on the fly. All in all the animals are fine, the script doesn't feel great but the antics help it out somewhat.
Our villains are quite varied throughout but Michael Sheen takes a main role as Dr. Blair Müdfly, Dolittle's rival. The interactions between him and the animals did amuse me but his over the top nature that built steadily through the film felt much too cliche, sadly not always in an entertaining way.
There are many things to like hidden in the film. It opens with a great animation that gives us back story which allows us not to suffer through clumsy attempts at the same during the film. I also really enjoyed the way we're shown how Dolittle speaks to the animals, though that does raise other questions that make things unravel, so I'll move on. The squirrel's commentary is hilarious and probably makes him my favourite character, though the octopus isn't too far behind.
Dolittle has a lot of nice little touches but it relies heavily on predictable humour and at times doesn't know when to stop (I'm thinking specifically about a scene towards the end of the film here). Even with its many ups and downs the film was enjoyable to watch, just the once. I'm entirely convinced that with a different accent it would have been infinitely better.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/dolittle-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jungle Cruise (2021) in Movies
Aug 2, 2021
Star power from Johnson and Blunt (1 more)
Direction, cinematography, special effects and score all top notch
An Amazon-based blockbuster that delivers!
Dating from 1955, Jungle Cruise was one of the key attractions at Disneyland when it first opened. Full of corny spiel from the lovable boat captains, the experience is nicely evoked in the new Disney movie: a true summer blockbuster that delights.
Positives:
- Cut the movie open and it reads "summer blockbuster pleaser" through the middle. This is largely down to the charisma of its two stars, Blunt and Johnson, who prove why they are both such bankable commodities. It's clearly based on the "will they/won't they" simmering sexual chemistry between two polar-opposites, as featured in movies such as "Romancing the Stone" and "The African Queen". (Since the theme park ride was heavily influenced by the latter, this is no surprise). But there's also a heavy dose of tongue-in-cheek ridiculousness as featured in other great B-movie homages such as "The Mummy" and (most notably) "Raiders of the Lost Ark". (A few scenes directly mimic the Indiana Jones movies.)
- The supporting cast also have fun with their roles. Jack Whitehouse, doing almost a like-for-like copy of John Hannah's character in "The Mummy", could have been extremely annoying. But although he's the comic relief in the piece, he steers it just the right side of farcical, avoiding Jar-Jar Binks territory. ("When in Rome" he declares, swallowing a flagon of fermented spit. "God - I wish I was in Rome"!) Jesse Plemons, one of my favourite actors, who proved his comic chops in "Game Night", here delivers one of the most over-the-top Nazis since Ronald Lacey's Toht in "Raiders". Rounding things off is Paul Giamatti with a bizarrely comic performance as Nilo, a competing riverboat owner.
- Special effects, cinematography (Flavio Martínez Labiano, of "The Shallows") and James Newton-Howard's score all add to the lush blockbuster feel of the movie. And director Jaume Collet-Serra (who did the clever shark B-movie "The Shallows") keeps the movie clipping along at a fine rate, with only a few sections of character-building dialogue to get the kids fidgety.
Negatives:
- I mean, it's popcorn nonsense of course. The Amazonian 'McGuffin' is a tree that only comes to life under very specific conditions. And isn't it amazing that watery machinery (developed by who?) still works after at least 400 years, when my dishwasher gives up after ten? (But it's done with verve and style, so who cares?)
- Although the screenplay is actually very slick for a movie of this type, it feels like a script by committee at times. A single writer might have been tempted to duck the Hollywood ending and leave things on a more thoughtful, albeit downbeat, note.
Summary Thoughts on "Jungle Cruise": This was a pleasant surprise for me. A fun and light-hearted movie that ticks all the boxes as a summer blockbuster. It nicely evokes the cheesiness of the theme park ride operator (past alumni have included Robin Williams and Kevin Costner), especially with Johnson's opening scenes. But then rounds it out as a spectacular and appealing tongue-in-cheek adventure.
And, by the way, in case you fancy sitting through the interminable end titles to watch a post-credits scene.... there isn't one.
(#takenonefortheteam).
Parental Guidance: One question might be whether, with a "12A" certificate, this summer blockbuster is one that your kids might enjoy or be freaked out by. A comparison with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is perhaps useful here. There are quite a number of "jolts" involving snakes and bees but probably not as bad as the ones you get in an uncut version of "Raiders" (think the spiked Satipo; the mummies/snakes when escaping the 'Well of Souls'; and the melting Nazi bad-guys). So if you have kids that lapped up that stuff then I don't think they would have any issues with this one.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
Positives:
- Cut the movie open and it reads "summer blockbuster pleaser" through the middle. This is largely down to the charisma of its two stars, Blunt and Johnson, who prove why they are both such bankable commodities. It's clearly based on the "will they/won't they" simmering sexual chemistry between two polar-opposites, as featured in movies such as "Romancing the Stone" and "The African Queen". (Since the theme park ride was heavily influenced by the latter, this is no surprise). But there's also a heavy dose of tongue-in-cheek ridiculousness as featured in other great B-movie homages such as "The Mummy" and (most notably) "Raiders of the Lost Ark". (A few scenes directly mimic the Indiana Jones movies.)
- The supporting cast also have fun with their roles. Jack Whitehouse, doing almost a like-for-like copy of John Hannah's character in "The Mummy", could have been extremely annoying. But although he's the comic relief in the piece, he steers it just the right side of farcical, avoiding Jar-Jar Binks territory. ("When in Rome" he declares, swallowing a flagon of fermented spit. "God - I wish I was in Rome"!) Jesse Plemons, one of my favourite actors, who proved his comic chops in "Game Night", here delivers one of the most over-the-top Nazis since Ronald Lacey's Toht in "Raiders". Rounding things off is Paul Giamatti with a bizarrely comic performance as Nilo, a competing riverboat owner.
- Special effects, cinematography (Flavio Martínez Labiano, of "The Shallows") and James Newton-Howard's score all add to the lush blockbuster feel of the movie. And director Jaume Collet-Serra (who did the clever shark B-movie "The Shallows") keeps the movie clipping along at a fine rate, with only a few sections of character-building dialogue to get the kids fidgety.
Negatives:
- I mean, it's popcorn nonsense of course. The Amazonian 'McGuffin' is a tree that only comes to life under very specific conditions. And isn't it amazing that watery machinery (developed by who?) still works after at least 400 years, when my dishwasher gives up after ten? (But it's done with verve and style, so who cares?)
- Although the screenplay is actually very slick for a movie of this type, it feels like a script by committee at times. A single writer might have been tempted to duck the Hollywood ending and leave things on a more thoughtful, albeit downbeat, note.
Summary Thoughts on "Jungle Cruise": This was a pleasant surprise for me. A fun and light-hearted movie that ticks all the boxes as a summer blockbuster. It nicely evokes the cheesiness of the theme park ride operator (past alumni have included Robin Williams and Kevin Costner), especially with Johnson's opening scenes. But then rounds it out as a spectacular and appealing tongue-in-cheek adventure.
And, by the way, in case you fancy sitting through the interminable end titles to watch a post-credits scene.... there isn't one.
(#takenonefortheteam).
Parental Guidance: One question might be whether, with a "12A" certificate, this summer blockbuster is one that your kids might enjoy or be freaked out by. A comparison with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is perhaps useful here. There are quite a number of "jolts" involving snakes and bees but probably not as bad as the ones you get in an uncut version of "Raiders" (think the spiked Satipo; the mummies/snakes when escaping the 'Well of Souls'; and the melting Nazi bad-guys). So if you have kids that lapped up that stuff then I don't think they would have any issues with this one.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Terrible film making at it's best
Michael Bay’s Transformers series has received a huge amount of criticism since the first film was released back in 2007, some of it fair, and some of it not. Now, 7 years on and three films later, Bay returns to the helm of one of the biggest movie franchises of all time with Transformers: Age of Extinction, but can it silence his critics?
The answer here is no, but not because Extinction is poor, it’s simply because there seems to be a chip on the shoulders of reviewers who expect Oscar quality film-making, when all the target audience for these films really want is to see Optimus Prime kick some Decepticon ass.
Extinction is a whole new start for the series with new characters and a five year jump to allow people to put Dark of the Moon at the back of their minds.
Mark Wahlberg heads an entirely new cast as Cade, an inventor who has run out of luck after a string of failed concepts which haven’t taken off. Thankfully he comes across an old truck that promises to change his fortunes – I bet you can guess just who that might be.
Much of the criticism of the previous films was directed squarely at Bay’s choice of female leads, from Megan Fox’s pout to Rosie Huntington-Whitely’s laughable acting performance, it’s safe to say the series hasn’t been the pinnacle of the fairer sex’s characterisations. Mercifully, the introduction of Nicola Peltz as Cade’s daughter Tessa goes some way to dissolve that problem.
Yes, she’s not going to be troubling the Academy Awards any time soon, but she is a damn sight better than those that preceded her, though the poor script stops her from being anything but a whining teen.
A brilliant Stanley Tucci and an ingenious bit of casting in Kelsey Grammer complete the film’s human characters and the two act as the main antagonists.
Of the robot kind, Michael Bay has gone into overdrive, introducing characters left, right and centre and leaving no stone unturned. John Goodman and Ken Watanabe are both excellent as Hound and Drift – two new Autobots joining the resistance. Of course all the Transformers are outshone by the wonderful Peter Cullen who again returns to the series as Optimus, his voice work is absolutely superb, though with his previous experience, you wouldn’t expect any less.
Extinction’s premise is simple, there is a bounty on the heads of Optimus Prime and the rest of the Autobots, with the humans wanting to get there planet back after the events in Dark of the Moon.
The story is fun if a little incomprehensible at times; it occasionally feels like each plot point is merely there to act as a bridge until the next big set piece, though this never affects your enjoyment of the film itself.
Thankfully the special effects are absolutely stunning and some of the best seen on the big screen. The Transformers are beautifully rendered in seamless CGI and the CGI environments all look great as well.
Bay has also done well to make the battles look more realistic this time around. Previously, it was difficult to know who was fightingTransformers-Age-of-Extinction-Poster-Optimus-and-Grimlock-Crop who, with close ups of mashed metal stopping the audience from seeing exactly what was happening. Here things are much better, but still not perfect.
Unfortunately it isn’t all good news. The heavily marketed Dinobots are only in the film for about 20 minutes towards the finale which is a real shame, as it makes you feel a little cheated. Also, the running time is a real headache; this is the biggest Transformers film yet at just over three hours long and it feels it with numerous plot fillers that can occasionally detract from the rest of the film.
Overall, Bay has probably created the best Transformers film yet with some cracking special effects and dare I say it; decent acting. However, it is far too long with unnecessary sub-plots, especially at the start, which detract from what is pure entertainment.
The Transformers movies aren’t going to win any awards, and Michael Bay knows that, but they are a fine example of terrible film-making at its very best.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/07/06/terrible-film-making-at-its-best-transformers-4-review/
The answer here is no, but not because Extinction is poor, it’s simply because there seems to be a chip on the shoulders of reviewers who expect Oscar quality film-making, when all the target audience for these films really want is to see Optimus Prime kick some Decepticon ass.
Extinction is a whole new start for the series with new characters and a five year jump to allow people to put Dark of the Moon at the back of their minds.
Mark Wahlberg heads an entirely new cast as Cade, an inventor who has run out of luck after a string of failed concepts which haven’t taken off. Thankfully he comes across an old truck that promises to change his fortunes – I bet you can guess just who that might be.
Much of the criticism of the previous films was directed squarely at Bay’s choice of female leads, from Megan Fox’s pout to Rosie Huntington-Whitely’s laughable acting performance, it’s safe to say the series hasn’t been the pinnacle of the fairer sex’s characterisations. Mercifully, the introduction of Nicola Peltz as Cade’s daughter Tessa goes some way to dissolve that problem.
Yes, she’s not going to be troubling the Academy Awards any time soon, but she is a damn sight better than those that preceded her, though the poor script stops her from being anything but a whining teen.
A brilliant Stanley Tucci and an ingenious bit of casting in Kelsey Grammer complete the film’s human characters and the two act as the main antagonists.
Of the robot kind, Michael Bay has gone into overdrive, introducing characters left, right and centre and leaving no stone unturned. John Goodman and Ken Watanabe are both excellent as Hound and Drift – two new Autobots joining the resistance. Of course all the Transformers are outshone by the wonderful Peter Cullen who again returns to the series as Optimus, his voice work is absolutely superb, though with his previous experience, you wouldn’t expect any less.
Extinction’s premise is simple, there is a bounty on the heads of Optimus Prime and the rest of the Autobots, with the humans wanting to get there planet back after the events in Dark of the Moon.
The story is fun if a little incomprehensible at times; it occasionally feels like each plot point is merely there to act as a bridge until the next big set piece, though this never affects your enjoyment of the film itself.
Thankfully the special effects are absolutely stunning and some of the best seen on the big screen. The Transformers are beautifully rendered in seamless CGI and the CGI environments all look great as well.
Bay has also done well to make the battles look more realistic this time around. Previously, it was difficult to know who was fightingTransformers-Age-of-Extinction-Poster-Optimus-and-Grimlock-Crop who, with close ups of mashed metal stopping the audience from seeing exactly what was happening. Here things are much better, but still not perfect.
Unfortunately it isn’t all good news. The heavily marketed Dinobots are only in the film for about 20 minutes towards the finale which is a real shame, as it makes you feel a little cheated. Also, the running time is a real headache; this is the biggest Transformers film yet at just over three hours long and it feels it with numerous plot fillers that can occasionally detract from the rest of the film.
Overall, Bay has probably created the best Transformers film yet with some cracking special effects and dare I say it; decent acting. However, it is far too long with unnecessary sub-plots, especially at the start, which detract from what is pure entertainment.
The Transformers movies aren’t going to win any awards, and Michael Bay knows that, but they are a fine example of terrible film-making at its very best.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/07/06/terrible-film-making-at-its-best-transformers-4-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Galaxy like you've never seen it before
Crafting sequels is never easy, but creating a fitting sequel to 2015’s biggest movie and one of the world’s biggest franchises is no easy feat. Not only do you have to make a film that moves the game on from The Force Awakens, but one that also meets the incredibly high expectations of fans across the globe.
Who took on this ridiculous job I hear you cry? Well Looper’s Rian Johnson takes over directorial duties from J.J. Abrams and the result is The Last Jedi. But is this a fitting sequel or a lacklustre affair?
Following on from the events of 2015’s The Force Awakens, Rey (Daisy Ridley) develops her newly discovered abilities with the guidance of Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), who is unsettled by the strength of her powers. Meanwhile, the Resistance, led by General Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher) prepares to do battle with not only the First Order, but Supreme Leader Snoke (Andy Serkis) and Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) too.
The Last Jedi opens with a beautifully choreographed battle between good and evil as Resistance pilot Poe Dameron (Oscar Issac), assisted by the adorable BB-8, tries to take on the evil First Order. This stunningly directed sequence sets up The Last Jedi perfectly – this is one hell of a good-looking film.
Practical effects are the order of the day here, something some other franchises seem to have forgotten about, and the movie is all the better for having them there. From large scale model ships to the more intricate fauna, The Last Jedi seeps with attention to detail – no stone has been left unturned in creating a living, breathing world. So, it’s all the more disappointing to be sucked out of the spectacle with some occasionally very shoddy CGI.
Apart from a couple of lapses that are geared more towards the film’s finale, The Last Jedi is probably the best-looking Star Wars film out there. From the blood-red lair of Supreme Leader Snoke to the salt-encrusted planet of the film’s gorgeous finale, every frame gives you something to look at. Rian Johnson carefully focusses the cameras on our main characters, using intense close-ups to bleed every single drop of emotion from them. Speaking of which, the entire cast is absolutely mesmerising.
Daisy Ridley deserves recognition for being utterly brilliant in this instalment. I had my reservations about her ability to cope with the toll this franchise would take on the actress but she has proved me wrong, and then some. John Boyega is excellent and Laura Dern’s addition to the galaxy is wonderful. The problem is the cast is just so huge, it’s impossible to mention everyone. Oh, Adam Driver’s performance really has to be seen to be believed and Kylo Ren is definitely moving up the ranks of the Star Wars villain hierarchy. His take on the character in The Last Jedi is exceptional.
If The Force Awakens was J.J. Abrams love letter to the franchise, then The Last Jedi is the break-up song
Special mention must go however, to Carrie Fisher. Rian Johnson has stated that none of Fisher’s scenes were changed or moved after the actresses’ untimely death last year, but her time on screen really does take on new, and emotional, meaning here. Princess Leia is as much a Star Wars staple as Chewie, Luke or Han and the galaxy certainly won’t shine brighter without her presence. Nevertheless, this was a fitting tribute to the actress and a wonderful body of work to have her name attached to.
The script is like nothing Star Wars has ever seen before. Riddled with more twists and turns than spaghetti junction, it’s almost entirely unpredictable and that’s something you really don’t see come around very often. In any other franchise it would be exhausting, but here it’s exhilarating and incredibly well written.
At 152 minutes, The Last Jedi is a long film, the longest in the franchise in fact and there’s no getting away from that. The middle act in which some of our heroes traverse a vast casino planet are a little off pace and it does have a whiff of George Lucas’ less than stellar prequels about it, but the rest of the film moves at breakneck speed.
Overall, Rian Johnson has taken risks here and the majority of them pay off with fantastic results; Star Wars: The Last Jedi is a worthy sequel to an ever-growing brand and one that outdoes its predecessor by some margin. If The Force Awakens was J.J. Abrams love letter to the franchise, then The Last Jedi is the break-up song because while still feeling like a Star Wars movie in many ways, it’s so different it’ll have you picking your jaw up off the floor more than once. My only question is: why isn’t Rian Johnson directing Episode IX?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/14/star-wars-the-last-jedi-review-the-galaxy-like-youve-never-seen-it-before/
Who took on this ridiculous job I hear you cry? Well Looper’s Rian Johnson takes over directorial duties from J.J. Abrams and the result is The Last Jedi. But is this a fitting sequel or a lacklustre affair?
Following on from the events of 2015’s The Force Awakens, Rey (Daisy Ridley) develops her newly discovered abilities with the guidance of Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), who is unsettled by the strength of her powers. Meanwhile, the Resistance, led by General Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher) prepares to do battle with not only the First Order, but Supreme Leader Snoke (Andy Serkis) and Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) too.
The Last Jedi opens with a beautifully choreographed battle between good and evil as Resistance pilot Poe Dameron (Oscar Issac), assisted by the adorable BB-8, tries to take on the evil First Order. This stunningly directed sequence sets up The Last Jedi perfectly – this is one hell of a good-looking film.
Practical effects are the order of the day here, something some other franchises seem to have forgotten about, and the movie is all the better for having them there. From large scale model ships to the more intricate fauna, The Last Jedi seeps with attention to detail – no stone has been left unturned in creating a living, breathing world. So, it’s all the more disappointing to be sucked out of the spectacle with some occasionally very shoddy CGI.
Apart from a couple of lapses that are geared more towards the film’s finale, The Last Jedi is probably the best-looking Star Wars film out there. From the blood-red lair of Supreme Leader Snoke to the salt-encrusted planet of the film’s gorgeous finale, every frame gives you something to look at. Rian Johnson carefully focusses the cameras on our main characters, using intense close-ups to bleed every single drop of emotion from them. Speaking of which, the entire cast is absolutely mesmerising.
Daisy Ridley deserves recognition for being utterly brilliant in this instalment. I had my reservations about her ability to cope with the toll this franchise would take on the actress but she has proved me wrong, and then some. John Boyega is excellent and Laura Dern’s addition to the galaxy is wonderful. The problem is the cast is just so huge, it’s impossible to mention everyone. Oh, Adam Driver’s performance really has to be seen to be believed and Kylo Ren is definitely moving up the ranks of the Star Wars villain hierarchy. His take on the character in The Last Jedi is exceptional.
If The Force Awakens was J.J. Abrams love letter to the franchise, then The Last Jedi is the break-up song
Special mention must go however, to Carrie Fisher. Rian Johnson has stated that none of Fisher’s scenes were changed or moved after the actresses’ untimely death last year, but her time on screen really does take on new, and emotional, meaning here. Princess Leia is as much a Star Wars staple as Chewie, Luke or Han and the galaxy certainly won’t shine brighter without her presence. Nevertheless, this was a fitting tribute to the actress and a wonderful body of work to have her name attached to.
The script is like nothing Star Wars has ever seen before. Riddled with more twists and turns than spaghetti junction, it’s almost entirely unpredictable and that’s something you really don’t see come around very often. In any other franchise it would be exhausting, but here it’s exhilarating and incredibly well written.
At 152 minutes, The Last Jedi is a long film, the longest in the franchise in fact and there’s no getting away from that. The middle act in which some of our heroes traverse a vast casino planet are a little off pace and it does have a whiff of George Lucas’ less than stellar prequels about it, but the rest of the film moves at breakneck speed.
Overall, Rian Johnson has taken risks here and the majority of them pay off with fantastic results; Star Wars: The Last Jedi is a worthy sequel to an ever-growing brand and one that outdoes its predecessor by some margin. If The Force Awakens was J.J. Abrams love letter to the franchise, then The Last Jedi is the break-up song because while still feeling like a Star Wars movie in many ways, it’s so different it’ll have you picking your jaw up off the floor more than once. My only question is: why isn’t Rian Johnson directing Episode IX?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/14/star-wars-the-last-jedi-review-the-galaxy-like-youve-never-seen-it-before/
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Raya and the Last Dragon (2021) in Movies
Mar 20, 2021 (Updated Mar 27, 2021)
Beautiful animation and good character design (2 more)
Voice acting/voice actors
Pretty good setup or start of story going into the movie
$29.99 on top of a Disney plus subscription (2 more)
More often than not pretty predictable and not enough surprises
Not enough stakes or characters never really felt like they were ever in danger to me
Raya, A Really Good Movie That Could Have Been Great
This movie was really good. I really liked it, from the character design to the excellent voice-actors and the setup of the story going into it in the beginning, it really had a lot going for it. This movie had a pretty good all-star cast of Asian voice actors and really liked Kelly Marie Tran and Awkwafina's performances. Awkwafina was really funny to me and her voice fit naturally for her character Sisu. The character designs were interesting to me and I liked the way they differed for the different tribes. I heard a lot of people were giving comparisons to Avatar: The Last Airbender and I can see why people would say that but for me there really isn't that much of a comparison. Avatar is by far a way better show but it also has a lot more episodes to be a better show and tell a better story. I feel this movie wasn't able to live up to the hype and the Disney standard in the long run but that doesn't stop it from trying. I just think that a lot of it is predictable and nothing really surprising, also as likable as the characters were, there wasn't a lot of character development outside of the main character and nothing to really make you feel enough for the other characters to make them really, really matter to the viewer/audience. The beginning like I said was a decent setup of the legend of how the people had the dragons protecting them from these evil spirits and how the last dragons used their power to save everyone. That was a pretty cool concept and I definitely like the way it lead into the introduction of the different tribal lands and tribes which exist in the present. The training scene with Chief Benja and Raya reminded me of something, from another movie but it was pretty cool. There are also some pretty funny and cool characters you meet later like the charismatic young boy Boun, the hilarious little baby Noi and let's not forget the adorable Tuk-Tuk, Raya's best friend. There's a lot more that I want to go over but I'll save it for the spoiler section because I don't want to ruin this movie for those who still want to see it. This movie doesn't get my must-see seal of approval but it did come close. Main reason is the additional $29.99 price tag on top of Disney plus subscription required for most people to see it at home. If you can see it without having to pay that price then I would say it's definitely worth checking out and if you're going to see it in theaters then it's worth taking the family too. But if your short on cash I'd say wait for this one to be free on Disney plus around June 4th. The rating I give for this movie is going to be a 7/10. It was really good but not great but I enjoyed it.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
I thought this movie was really good but it definitely had a lot of flaws. One of those wasn't the character designs or animation which were looked awesome. Also the voice actors were really good and Awkwafina's performance really surprised me but was understandably one of the better performance's and reminded me of such great comedians who have leant their voices for roles like Robin Williams as Genie in Aladdin and Eddie Murphy as Mushu in Mulan and Donkey in Shrek. I mentioned in the first part of the review that the opening story of the legend of how the dragons saved everyone was a really cool concept I thought worked well into introducing the different tribes and then the main characters. That opening scene of Raya breaking into the orb chamber and training with her father reminded me of a scene from another movie. Not sure if it was Pacific Rim: Uprising where John Boyega's character Jake is stealing something from one of the giant robots or a scene from Indiana Jones but it felt very familiar. Which brings me to another big thing that I didn't like about this movie, which is that most if not all the movie was pretty predictable for me. Which doesn't necessary make it a bad thing or a bad movie but takes some of the fun out of it. One of the things that I didn't predict was how after making friends with Namaari in the beginning of the movie that she would totally backstab Raya the way she did. That was such a gripping and tense moment where Chief Benja had to come to Raya's rescue as the Fang tribe moves in to steal the orb. I really liked the part where he can see in the reflection of his sword that Raya was ready to continue fighting alongside him against all the enemies even when the other tribes came to steal the orb for themselves as well. The character designs and animation were really awesome too. I liked Raya's costume and how she transitioned from what she wore as a child to the time skip as well as the different attire that the different tribes had. I liked how they all were quite different beside just their clothes too, like how Raya's tribe was the Heart and they wore green and blue but their home was the most full of life, with plants and water, the Fang looked more like a city but like a capital militaristic feel to it, with much being about law and order or rule. The spine was more in the colder region and had big people wearing multiple layer clothing for warmth and Tail which little is known about even though it was the first one we're shown because it has been wiped out by the Druun and it is supposed to be a mainly dried up desert region and have small pockets of villages. The last one, Talon was probably one of the most colorful ones and smart in how they dealt with the Druun as well. They built their houses on stilts right on the water and had a huge marketplace where it seemed like a festival or party was going on because there was so many people going on as if there wasn't any danger. Another thing I liked about the movie was how Raya didn't have to have powers and she didn't have to be the rescued princess but instead was a strong capable person on her own. I also liked how it seemed the more the movie went on, she kept adding people to her group/crew on her journey. Kind of like Magnificent Seven. One thing I didn't like was that it never really felt like their were enough stakes along the way. Characters kept making mistakes but nothing bad really happened or mattered for long enough to impact the characters in a bad way. The part that got me the most was in the very beginning scene where the tribes try to steal the orb and it falls and breaks and Chief Benja gets shot by an arrow in the leg and tries his hardest to save Raya from the Druun as they come back and start devouring everyone turning them to stone. I heard a lot of people say that he didn't need to sacrifice himself and throw Raya into the river to save her if he just kept running; and that he probably could have hopped more on the other leg. If you think about it though he probably made it pretty far even though he had that injury and couldn't go on any further. I admit that this part got me a little emotional but for many people that knew it was a Disney movie and not Pixar figured that it didn't mean everyone would stay as stone. I however thought back to the beginning of the film and remember that even the dragons stayed as stone meaning it was possible that these people might never turn back to normal. The other part that got me was also a part I had a hard time with was when Namaari first sees Sisu and then her actions later after she tells her mother. I felt that Sisu should have told her something or vice-versa but I guess she stayed in shock. Also when she told her mother and the mother already knew I really felt like her Mother was the bad guy of the film but when Raya gives Namaari her pendant back and sets up a meeting with her, I really felt like I knew what would happen next. Namaari's mother, Virana would have a bunch of guards show up and it would be a setup and Namaari wouldn't have known about it and it would be a time for her character to redeem herself. Instead Namaari pulls out a crossbow when she sees Raya has all the pieces of the orb and while Sisu tries to talk her down Raya takes a chance to attack Namaari and Sisu gets struck with an arrow and falls into the river to die. I could totally see this happening but what I couldn't predict was that Namaari would blame it all on Raya and say it was all her fault and none of this would of happened if it wasn't for her. This was like the stupidest line in the movie and made no sense to me because Namaari was the one when she was a girl who backstabbed Raya and betrayed her as soon as she found out the location of the orb. So the scene where Raya is super pissed and trying to kill her was very gratifying to me because it made a lot of sense that Raya was mad and didn't care about anything but revenge in that part. Namaari tells her that she's lost everything already and doesn't care, and Raya decides to help her friends with her orb piece. As the pieces start losing power and they are becoming surrounded by the Druun, what doesn't make sense to me is how Raya chooses to put her faith in Namaari and let's herself become consumed by the Druun. Her friends decide to follow her example and do the same and eventually when Namaari is the only one she's able to put the pieces of the orb back together vanquishing the Druun and bringing everyone back to life including Sisu and all the dragons. I don't know to me it just seemed like Namaari was pretty irredeemable after all that she had done and didn't seem like it was a sure thing and this kind of bothered me. It seemed like the movie had a message about wanting to be able to trust people but showed more and more how sometimes you can't so had me pretty mixed about what the movie was really about. Anyways I think I went off a little too long for this review but it's because it was a fun watch for me. So like I said, I give this movie a 7/10 and say it's a really good movie.
https://youtu.be/3So_GFox4-A
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
I thought this movie was really good but it definitely had a lot of flaws. One of those wasn't the character designs or animation which were looked awesome. Also the voice actors were really good and Awkwafina's performance really surprised me but was understandably one of the better performance's and reminded me of such great comedians who have leant their voices for roles like Robin Williams as Genie in Aladdin and Eddie Murphy as Mushu in Mulan and Donkey in Shrek. I mentioned in the first part of the review that the opening story of the legend of how the dragons saved everyone was a really cool concept I thought worked well into introducing the different tribes and then the main characters. That opening scene of Raya breaking into the orb chamber and training with her father reminded me of a scene from another movie. Not sure if it was Pacific Rim: Uprising where John Boyega's character Jake is stealing something from one of the giant robots or a scene from Indiana Jones but it felt very familiar. Which brings me to another big thing that I didn't like about this movie, which is that most if not all the movie was pretty predictable for me. Which doesn't necessary make it a bad thing or a bad movie but takes some of the fun out of it. One of the things that I didn't predict was how after making friends with Namaari in the beginning of the movie that she would totally backstab Raya the way she did. That was such a gripping and tense moment where Chief Benja had to come to Raya's rescue as the Fang tribe moves in to steal the orb. I really liked the part where he can see in the reflection of his sword that Raya was ready to continue fighting alongside him against all the enemies even when the other tribes came to steal the orb for themselves as well. The character designs and animation were really awesome too. I liked Raya's costume and how she transitioned from what she wore as a child to the time skip as well as the different attire that the different tribes had. I liked how they all were quite different beside just their clothes too, like how Raya's tribe was the Heart and they wore green and blue but their home was the most full of life, with plants and water, the Fang looked more like a city but like a capital militaristic feel to it, with much being about law and order or rule. The spine was more in the colder region and had big people wearing multiple layer clothing for warmth and Tail which little is known about even though it was the first one we're shown because it has been wiped out by the Druun and it is supposed to be a mainly dried up desert region and have small pockets of villages. The last one, Talon was probably one of the most colorful ones and smart in how they dealt with the Druun as well. They built their houses on stilts right on the water and had a huge marketplace where it seemed like a festival or party was going on because there was so many people going on as if there wasn't any danger. Another thing I liked about the movie was how Raya didn't have to have powers and she didn't have to be the rescued princess but instead was a strong capable person on her own. I also liked how it seemed the more the movie went on, she kept adding people to her group/crew on her journey. Kind of like Magnificent Seven. One thing I didn't like was that it never really felt like their were enough stakes along the way. Characters kept making mistakes but nothing bad really happened or mattered for long enough to impact the characters in a bad way. The part that got me the most was in the very beginning scene where the tribes try to steal the orb and it falls and breaks and Chief Benja gets shot by an arrow in the leg and tries his hardest to save Raya from the Druun as they come back and start devouring everyone turning them to stone. I heard a lot of people say that he didn't need to sacrifice himself and throw Raya into the river to save her if he just kept running; and that he probably could have hopped more on the other leg. If you think about it though he probably made it pretty far even though he had that injury and couldn't go on any further. I admit that this part got me a little emotional but for many people that knew it was a Disney movie and not Pixar figured that it didn't mean everyone would stay as stone. I however thought back to the beginning of the film and remember that even the dragons stayed as stone meaning it was possible that these people might never turn back to normal. The other part that got me was also a part I had a hard time with was when Namaari first sees Sisu and then her actions later after she tells her mother. I felt that Sisu should have told her something or vice-versa but I guess she stayed in shock. Also when she told her mother and the mother already knew I really felt like her Mother was the bad guy of the film but when Raya gives Namaari her pendant back and sets up a meeting with her, I really felt like I knew what would happen next. Namaari's mother, Virana would have a bunch of guards show up and it would be a setup and Namaari wouldn't have known about it and it would be a time for her character to redeem herself. Instead Namaari pulls out a crossbow when she sees Raya has all the pieces of the orb and while Sisu tries to talk her down Raya takes a chance to attack Namaari and Sisu gets struck with an arrow and falls into the river to die. I could totally see this happening but what I couldn't predict was that Namaari would blame it all on Raya and say it was all her fault and none of this would of happened if it wasn't for her. This was like the stupidest line in the movie and made no sense to me because Namaari was the one when she was a girl who backstabbed Raya and betrayed her as soon as she found out the location of the orb. So the scene where Raya is super pissed and trying to kill her was very gratifying to me because it made a lot of sense that Raya was mad and didn't care about anything but revenge in that part. Namaari tells her that she's lost everything already and doesn't care, and Raya decides to help her friends with her orb piece. As the pieces start losing power and they are becoming surrounded by the Druun, what doesn't make sense to me is how Raya chooses to put her faith in Namaari and let's herself become consumed by the Druun. Her friends decide to follow her example and do the same and eventually when Namaari is the only one she's able to put the pieces of the orb back together vanquishing the Druun and bringing everyone back to life including Sisu and all the dragons. I don't know to me it just seemed like Namaari was pretty irredeemable after all that she had done and didn't seem like it was a sure thing and this kind of bothered me. It seemed like the movie had a message about wanting to be able to trust people but showed more and more how sometimes you can't so had me pretty mixed about what the movie was really about. Anyways I think I went off a little too long for this review but it's because it was a fun watch for me. So like I said, I give this movie a 7/10 and say it's a really good movie.
https://youtu.be/3So_GFox4-A
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.