Search
Search results
JT (287 KP) rated Fast & Furious 6 (2013) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
I've been a fan of this franchise since the very first film, and while Tokyo Drift might have been a little blip, or bump in the road, there is no denying that the films have delivered box office success. Fast and Furious 6 is the second film to be left on a cliffhanger (we’ll get to that later) and delves deep into the story of the mystery surrounding Letty’s (Michelle Rodriguez) death a few films ago. I don’t regard that as a plot spoiler as it’s in the trailer. Having demolished most of Rio and now living peacefully in a country with no extradition Dom and new dad Brian think that they have put all their troubles behind them.
After the opening credits montage, agent Hobbs (Johnson) comes knocking. His offer requires all the team converge once again, this time they have to track down and capture a ruthless mercenary called Owen Shaw (Luke Evans). Hobbs and Toretto have to stand side by side working together to take down the villain. Letty of course has returned and is working for the bad guys but has no memory of her past life. If you’re a true fan then the plot will reveal more back story and as it turns out part six is practically a sequel to part four with past villains announcing a few home truths.
The film and action is set in the heart of London which, includes a car chase that defies belief, a ménage à trois of fist fights on the underground, shoot outs and a drag race that drifts through Piccadilly Circus. The action is pulsating and over the top but you shouldn’t care in the least about that. What were you expecting the film to do? Each vehicular sequence is more mind bending than the next.
Take the opening chase for example. A modified F1 style car pursued by Toretto and his crew as well as local police weaves its way through the streets with the ability to flip oncoming cars. Justin Lin who directed the last four films is well in control and more than happy to up the action.
Fast and Furious 6 is guilty of plot holes, but these will only be deconstructed by people who have nothing better to do. That said, even I was left wondering what distance the longest runway in the world was? There is a good level of humour with Tyrese Gibson’s Roman providing much of the light heartedness that the film needed. Let’s face it The Avengers had the same level of action and humour mixed and that seemed to work.
One of the dangers for this was having a cast that was pretty extensive, regrouping the team meant that there was jostling for position. But on the whole everyone has their time to shine and no one is really cast to the shadows. Evans does a good job as the main antagonist and Gina Carano also proves her worth after the abject Haywire a few years back.
Fast and Furious 7 takes place back in LA after the events of this film and has a teasing post credit sequence that will bait those fans to come back once again. James Wan steps into the directors chair for the seventh film switching from the comfort of the horror genre. I found Fast and Furious 6 to be a highly entertaining film, and you’ll need to check your brain in at the door. To quote a cliché it ‘does what it says on the tin’, and doesn’t take itself too seriously.
After the opening credits montage, agent Hobbs (Johnson) comes knocking. His offer requires all the team converge once again, this time they have to track down and capture a ruthless mercenary called Owen Shaw (Luke Evans). Hobbs and Toretto have to stand side by side working together to take down the villain. Letty of course has returned and is working for the bad guys but has no memory of her past life. If you’re a true fan then the plot will reveal more back story and as it turns out part six is practically a sequel to part four with past villains announcing a few home truths.
The film and action is set in the heart of London which, includes a car chase that defies belief, a ménage à trois of fist fights on the underground, shoot outs and a drag race that drifts through Piccadilly Circus. The action is pulsating and over the top but you shouldn’t care in the least about that. What were you expecting the film to do? Each vehicular sequence is more mind bending than the next.
Take the opening chase for example. A modified F1 style car pursued by Toretto and his crew as well as local police weaves its way through the streets with the ability to flip oncoming cars. Justin Lin who directed the last four films is well in control and more than happy to up the action.
Fast and Furious 6 is guilty of plot holes, but these will only be deconstructed by people who have nothing better to do. That said, even I was left wondering what distance the longest runway in the world was? There is a good level of humour with Tyrese Gibson’s Roman providing much of the light heartedness that the film needed. Let’s face it The Avengers had the same level of action and humour mixed and that seemed to work.
One of the dangers for this was having a cast that was pretty extensive, regrouping the team meant that there was jostling for position. But on the whole everyone has their time to shine and no one is really cast to the shadows. Evans does a good job as the main antagonist and Gina Carano also proves her worth after the abject Haywire a few years back.
Fast and Furious 7 takes place back in LA after the events of this film and has a teasing post credit sequence that will bait those fans to come back once again. James Wan steps into the directors chair for the seventh film switching from the comfort of the horror genre. I found Fast and Furious 6 to be a highly entertaining film, and you’ll need to check your brain in at the door. To quote a cliché it ‘does what it says on the tin’, and doesn’t take itself too seriously.
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated A Black Theology of Liberation in Books
Jun 29, 2018
James Cone is considered to be the founder of Black Liberation Theology, a variant of the Liberation Theology movement most widely connected with South American theologian Gustavo Gutierrez. Liberation Theology emphasizes those biblical concerns that white European flavored Christianity has often looked over– concerns like justice and liberation for the oppressed and downtrodden (Luke 4:16-21, Matthew 25:31-45, etc.). Though these emphases are quite important, in Liberation movements, they can often drown out other, extremely vital, elements of the Christian faith, as they clearly do in Cone’s Black Liberation Theology.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The 2nd best star wars film
The Star Wars universe just got a whole lot bigger. When Rogue One: A Star Wars Story was announced by Disney a couple of years ago, diehard fans of the sci-fi saga met the news with a huge dose of scepticism.
After all, the prequel trilogy was an unmitigated disaster, doing all it could to destroy not only the greatest villain in the history of film, but the series itself. Then Gareth Edwards was announced as director, whose film credits include the brilliant Monsters and Godzilla, which was critically praised but received a lukewarm reception publically.
THEN Disney announced the film was undergoing “heavy” reshoots to its first cut, reportedly due to executives being unhappy with the finished product’s tone.
So it’s clear that it’s not been plain sailing for Rogue One, but that headline isn’t a misprint – the finished article is just that damn good. But why?
In a time of conflict, a group of unlikely heroes band together on a mission to steal the plans to the Death Star, the Empire’s ultimate weapon of destruction. This key event in the Star Wars timeline brings together ordinary people who choose to do extraordinary things, and in doing so, become part of something greater than themselves.
If you cast your minds back to 1977 and the release of A New Hope, Rogue One takes place just before those events, acting as a stop-gap between the ending of Revenge of the Sith and the film that started it all.
A cast that includes Felicity Jones, Forest Whitaker, Diego Luna, Ben Mendelsohn and Mads Mikkelsen all gel together incredibly well to form one of the most coherent ensemble groups the galaxy has ever seen. Not since the introduction of Han, Chewie, Luke and Leia has the Star Wars franchise been so superbly kept afloat. Jones in particular is excellent and adds yet another leading lady to a franchise that loves putting women at the forefront, and rightly so.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is sublime. Director Gareth Edwards is renowned for his stunning shot choices and Rogue One is no exception. The intense variety of planets created from photo-realistic CGI and real landscapes adds an immersive quality that it has to be said, was lacking somewhat in The Force Awakens.
Then there is the much publicised return of Lord Vader. The aforementioned villain has been playing heavy on the minds of Star Wars fans for years after he was ridiculously robbed of any street cred at the climax of Revenge of the Sith. Mercifully, Edwards keeps his appearances to but a few, though he does loom heavy throughout the course of the film’s 133 minute running time, and returns to the dark presence he once was – it’s also nice to see James Earl Jones returning to the series.
There are Star Wars easter eggs abound, some only noticeable to diehards, whilst others smack you in the face with their lack of subtlety – though each and every one is placed at a point where the film feels better because of it. I’m not going to mention any by name, but a couple of old faces received cheers from the audience.
Any negatives? Well, Forest Whitaker’s Saw Gerrera fails to make a lasting impact and feels a little too much like executives wanted to shoehorn the Clone Wars television series into the film, and as much as it pains me to say, Michael Giacchino’s bombastic score, whilst brimming with nostalgia, doesn’t hit the right notes 100% of the time – with some musical elements feeling a little out of place with what is occurring on the screen.
Then there’s the dreaded reshoots. Well, they’re not noticeable… unless you’ve been watching the trailers, from which there are numerous scenes that aren’t included in the final cut. That’s a shame, though they’ll feature on the extended edition that will no doubt follow when the film is released on DVD and Blu-Ray.
Overall, Rogue One is better than anyone could have hoped. 2016 has been one of the worst years in decades for disappointing blockbusters and as it nears its end, we have one of the best yet. Smartly written with a heartfelt and engaging story, it adds a new and exciting layer to the Star Wars saga, and what’s even more impressive is its ability to make A New Hope a better film because of its existence.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/12/16/the-2nd-best-star-wars-film-rogue-one-review/
After all, the prequel trilogy was an unmitigated disaster, doing all it could to destroy not only the greatest villain in the history of film, but the series itself. Then Gareth Edwards was announced as director, whose film credits include the brilliant Monsters and Godzilla, which was critically praised but received a lukewarm reception publically.
THEN Disney announced the film was undergoing “heavy” reshoots to its first cut, reportedly due to executives being unhappy with the finished product’s tone.
So it’s clear that it’s not been plain sailing for Rogue One, but that headline isn’t a misprint – the finished article is just that damn good. But why?
In a time of conflict, a group of unlikely heroes band together on a mission to steal the plans to the Death Star, the Empire’s ultimate weapon of destruction. This key event in the Star Wars timeline brings together ordinary people who choose to do extraordinary things, and in doing so, become part of something greater than themselves.
If you cast your minds back to 1977 and the release of A New Hope, Rogue One takes place just before those events, acting as a stop-gap between the ending of Revenge of the Sith and the film that started it all.
A cast that includes Felicity Jones, Forest Whitaker, Diego Luna, Ben Mendelsohn and Mads Mikkelsen all gel together incredibly well to form one of the most coherent ensemble groups the galaxy has ever seen. Not since the introduction of Han, Chewie, Luke and Leia has the Star Wars franchise been so superbly kept afloat. Jones in particular is excellent and adds yet another leading lady to a franchise that loves putting women at the forefront, and rightly so.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is sublime. Director Gareth Edwards is renowned for his stunning shot choices and Rogue One is no exception. The intense variety of planets created from photo-realistic CGI and real landscapes adds an immersive quality that it has to be said, was lacking somewhat in The Force Awakens.
Then there is the much publicised return of Lord Vader. The aforementioned villain has been playing heavy on the minds of Star Wars fans for years after he was ridiculously robbed of any street cred at the climax of Revenge of the Sith. Mercifully, Edwards keeps his appearances to but a few, though he does loom heavy throughout the course of the film’s 133 minute running time, and returns to the dark presence he once was – it’s also nice to see James Earl Jones returning to the series.
There are Star Wars easter eggs abound, some only noticeable to diehards, whilst others smack you in the face with their lack of subtlety – though each and every one is placed at a point where the film feels better because of it. I’m not going to mention any by name, but a couple of old faces received cheers from the audience.
Any negatives? Well, Forest Whitaker’s Saw Gerrera fails to make a lasting impact and feels a little too much like executives wanted to shoehorn the Clone Wars television series into the film, and as much as it pains me to say, Michael Giacchino’s bombastic score, whilst brimming with nostalgia, doesn’t hit the right notes 100% of the time – with some musical elements feeling a little out of place with what is occurring on the screen.
Then there’s the dreaded reshoots. Well, they’re not noticeable… unless you’ve been watching the trailers, from which there are numerous scenes that aren’t included in the final cut. That’s a shame, though they’ll feature on the extended edition that will no doubt follow when the film is released on DVD and Blu-Ray.
Overall, Rogue One is better than anyone could have hoped. 2016 has been one of the worst years in decades for disappointing blockbusters and as it nears its end, we have one of the best yet. Smartly written with a heartfelt and engaging story, it adds a new and exciting layer to the Star Wars saga, and what’s even more impressive is its ability to make A New Hope a better film because of its existence.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/12/16/the-2nd-best-star-wars-film-rogue-one-review/