Search
Search results
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
The Star Wars Story that nobody asked for, but was is a story worth telling?
In short, NO.
Where to start? Indeed, where to start with a background prequel focusing on one of the most iconic Star Wars characters ever, taking the ageing Harrison Ford’s characters to, well not so far beyond the age that we first met him back in 1977.
Recast with actor who brings very little Ford with him, apart from a few well practice smiles and other expressions here and there, this is a reinterpretation of the character, in this case as a naive and wimpy version, maybe even soft, is not the part for Alden Ehrenreich.
The Character arch of Han Solo in the original trilogy was his redemption from a selfish, self-assured space pirate to a man who could recognise and fight for a cause bigger than himself. But according this haphazard prequel, he was already a big softy before her learns the harsh realities of life, only he doesn’t, not really.
He just learns to be a little more cynical and to smirk his way through every situation with his lucky die and everything turns out okay for him. Ehrenrieich done not bring an ounce of the gravitas or charisma of Harrison Ford, as this film, which had to be almost entirely re-shot with Ron Howard taking the helm after The Lego Movie directing due Chris Miller and Phil Lord where unceremoniously fired after “not getting it”, apparently, shoe horns as much of the token events of Solo’s pre-rebellion life into its two and bit hour run time.
Ron Howard; A few hits and plenty of misses. Willow (1988) springs to mind. Not only was Willow Lucas’ attempt to begin and new fantasy trilogy after the Star Wars Saga was completed, it was micro directed by George Lucas as Ron Howard took the credit. And this has a lot of the hallmarks of Willow.
In short; A poor mans Star Wars. Hammy scripting and at times acting, the story is all over the place, with shallow characterisations, poor exposition, haphazard pacing and the action is actually quite hard to follow. Just please, give us ONE decent shot of the Millennium Falcon that we can keep up with and actually see, especially as it has been altered so much from the icon version that we all love. Maybe we’re getting bored of the same ship after 40 years? Maybe we all need to go out and by a new version?
Toyetic… anyone?
Instead everything of interest is speeding across the screen and the boring stuff is left to linger. And there was a level of boredom here. Incredibly predictable plotting, simply going through the motions of a no stakes story. But it does feel as if they shoehorned a larger narrative in there, with introduction in the final act of the rebellion and an old villain returns with a new legs, but by the time what should have been an earth shattering twist appeared, it wasn’t really interested, especially if you know the The Clone Wars or Rebels.
One major plus note though, Donald Glover aced Lando Calrissian, to such an extant that I wish this movie was actually called Lando: A Star War Story rather than Solo, because there’s no doubt that Glover brought so much more Billy Dee Williams and built on it, than Ehrenreich did for Ford’s.
As well as the subtle and well conceived plotting around Lando’s female droid, L3-37 (Phoebe Waller-Bridge) who may well be the ‘Old girl’ referred to by both Han and Lando during in the original trilogy when they speak to the Falcon, whilst shining a light on the deliberately ambiguous nature of droids in the Star Wars universe. In short; are they sentient or not? But this is not Star Trek so we do not really need an answer to that… do we?
Overall, I want to say that this was missed opportunity but in truth, it was not. It was waste of time. A story that did not need to be told with script that did not know what say. Clearly, they were aiming for a Guardians Of The Galaxy (2015), unaware that the secret of that surprise success was that it tapped in to the retro Star Wars vibe by NOT being Star Wars. And with little expectations.
Here they were playing with one of the biggest guns in modern film history and in my opinion, it blew up in there faces.
Where to start? Indeed, where to start with a background prequel focusing on one of the most iconic Star Wars characters ever, taking the ageing Harrison Ford’s characters to, well not so far beyond the age that we first met him back in 1977.
Recast with actor who brings very little Ford with him, apart from a few well practice smiles and other expressions here and there, this is a reinterpretation of the character, in this case as a naive and wimpy version, maybe even soft, is not the part for Alden Ehrenreich.
The Character arch of Han Solo in the original trilogy was his redemption from a selfish, self-assured space pirate to a man who could recognise and fight for a cause bigger than himself. But according this haphazard prequel, he was already a big softy before her learns the harsh realities of life, only he doesn’t, not really.
He just learns to be a little more cynical and to smirk his way through every situation with his lucky die and everything turns out okay for him. Ehrenrieich done not bring an ounce of the gravitas or charisma of Harrison Ford, as this film, which had to be almost entirely re-shot with Ron Howard taking the helm after The Lego Movie directing due Chris Miller and Phil Lord where unceremoniously fired after “not getting it”, apparently, shoe horns as much of the token events of Solo’s pre-rebellion life into its two and bit hour run time.
Ron Howard; A few hits and plenty of misses. Willow (1988) springs to mind. Not only was Willow Lucas’ attempt to begin and new fantasy trilogy after the Star Wars Saga was completed, it was micro directed by George Lucas as Ron Howard took the credit. And this has a lot of the hallmarks of Willow.
In short; A poor mans Star Wars. Hammy scripting and at times acting, the story is all over the place, with shallow characterisations, poor exposition, haphazard pacing and the action is actually quite hard to follow. Just please, give us ONE decent shot of the Millennium Falcon that we can keep up with and actually see, especially as it has been altered so much from the icon version that we all love. Maybe we’re getting bored of the same ship after 40 years? Maybe we all need to go out and by a new version?
Toyetic… anyone?
Instead everything of interest is speeding across the screen and the boring stuff is left to linger. And there was a level of boredom here. Incredibly predictable plotting, simply going through the motions of a no stakes story. But it does feel as if they shoehorned a larger narrative in there, with introduction in the final act of the rebellion and an old villain returns with a new legs, but by the time what should have been an earth shattering twist appeared, it wasn’t really interested, especially if you know the The Clone Wars or Rebels.
One major plus note though, Donald Glover aced Lando Calrissian, to such an extant that I wish this movie was actually called Lando: A Star War Story rather than Solo, because there’s no doubt that Glover brought so much more Billy Dee Williams and built on it, than Ehrenreich did for Ford’s.
As well as the subtle and well conceived plotting around Lando’s female droid, L3-37 (Phoebe Waller-Bridge) who may well be the ‘Old girl’ referred to by both Han and Lando during in the original trilogy when they speak to the Falcon, whilst shining a light on the deliberately ambiguous nature of droids in the Star Wars universe. In short; are they sentient or not? But this is not Star Trek so we do not really need an answer to that… do we?
Overall, I want to say that this was missed opportunity but in truth, it was not. It was waste of time. A story that did not need to be told with script that did not know what say. Clearly, they were aiming for a Guardians Of The Galaxy (2015), unaware that the secret of that surprise success was that it tapped in to the retro Star Wars vibe by NOT being Star Wars. And with little expectations.
Here they were playing with one of the biggest guns in modern film history and in my opinion, it blew up in there faces.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Who thought it was a good idea to remake Ben-Hur? Well, on paper, it would seem to be a possibility. Ben-Hur has been hitting our cinema screens since 1907, with three other theatrical versions before this one; a short silent effort in 1907, the 1925 silent epic and the blockbusting MGM epic from 1959.
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
May 4, 2019 (Updated May 4, 2019)
Surprisingly Strong Chemistry Between The Leads
Quite a few people that I have spoken with don't like either Charlize Theron or Seth Rogan as performers, so the idea of a pairing of the straight-laced, uptight politician played by Theron and the shlubby, weed-smoking slacker played by Rogan was like "nails on a chalkboard" to them.
And these people would be wrong, for LONG SHOT is a very entertaining, heartfelt romantic comedy that has one big surprise - the strong chemistry between the two leads.
Kind of the "anti-AMERICAN PRESIDENT" (the 1995 Michael Douglas/Annette Benning RomCom written by Aaron Sorkin), LONG SHOT tells the tale of Secretary of State, Charlotte Field (Theron) who embarks on a Presidential bid. When she polls low in "sense of humor" she decides to add a comedy writer to her staff to punch up her speeches. A chance encounter with her childhood next door neighbor leads Field to hire Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan). Will sparks fly? Can Fred remind Charlotte of why she chose politics in the first place?
What do you think? It's a RomCom afterall, but it's the journey and not the destination that is important.
And...his is a fun journey...mostly because of the performances of Theron and Rogan. Over the years, I have grown to really appreciate Theron - from dramas like NORTH COUNTRY and her Oscar-winning turn in MONSTER, to action flicks like MAD MAX:FURY ROAD and FATE OF THE FURIOUS, to comedies like A MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST and this film - there is nothing (apparently) that she can't do. She is really good in all of these - even if the material is not the greatest.
The surprise to me here was the performance of Rogan - it was "wacky", "stoner-ish" and "out there", but toned down and tempered - probably the sign of a good, strong Director at the helm. I bought Flarsky's journey in this story and the relationship between these two characters was believable because Rogan was able to match Theron's energy and show real chemistry between the two.
Other fine turns are given by O'Shea Jackson, Jr (STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON), as Rogan's buddy, Ravi Patel (TV's MASTER OF NONE) as one of Theron's support staff and (especially) June Diane Rapheal (TV's GRACE AND FRANKIE) who really shines in the unenviable role of the Theron's Chief of Staff who doesn't approve of putting Rogan's character on the team, but she plays the role with layers - not one-note - and so we get a real person, with conflicted feelings at time, and she rises above the typical type of character in this type of role.
The only disappointment for me was Bob Odenkirk's President (who is stepping down for - he hopes - a much bigger job, MOVIE STAR) and not because of Odenkirk's performance, he was fine with what he was given, but there wasn't much nuance written in this part and (compared to the layers shown/written by others) the one-note-ness of Odenkirk's character was noticeable. As was Andy Serkis as a heavily-made up, older media mogul who is trying to use his wealth to manipulate the events from behind the scene - this character (and make-up) was a "swing and a miss" for me. But, fortunately, neither Serkis nor Odenkirk have much screen time, so it was more of a "distraction" than an "annoyance" for me.
I mention the Director - so I better give credit to Jonathan Levine (the awful SNATCHED with Amy Shumer and Goldie Hawn) - I have not really enjoyed anything else he has Directed, but I have to give him credit for this one - he brings "the funny and the crude" without going overboard, driving the story efficiently while putting in enough yuks and (surprisingly) heart in this movie along the way.
Now...don't be fooled here...there is quite a bit of "crude, lewd and rude" behavior and jokes (a crucial plot point hangs on a "sex act"), so don't expect a gentile, Cary Grant/Katherine Hepburn battle of the sexes. Expect a funny (crude), sexy (lewd) and opinionated (rude) take on the modern political system and how a person can lose their soul if they choose to play the game.
With a large amount of heart - and strong performances/chemistry between the two leads - I was pleasantly surprised by LONG SHOT - and, if you can handle the crude, lude and rude, then you will have a good time at this film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And these people would be wrong, for LONG SHOT is a very entertaining, heartfelt romantic comedy that has one big surprise - the strong chemistry between the two leads.
Kind of the "anti-AMERICAN PRESIDENT" (the 1995 Michael Douglas/Annette Benning RomCom written by Aaron Sorkin), LONG SHOT tells the tale of Secretary of State, Charlotte Field (Theron) who embarks on a Presidential bid. When she polls low in "sense of humor" she decides to add a comedy writer to her staff to punch up her speeches. A chance encounter with her childhood next door neighbor leads Field to hire Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan). Will sparks fly? Can Fred remind Charlotte of why she chose politics in the first place?
What do you think? It's a RomCom afterall, but it's the journey and not the destination that is important.
And...his is a fun journey...mostly because of the performances of Theron and Rogan. Over the years, I have grown to really appreciate Theron - from dramas like NORTH COUNTRY and her Oscar-winning turn in MONSTER, to action flicks like MAD MAX:FURY ROAD and FATE OF THE FURIOUS, to comedies like A MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST and this film - there is nothing (apparently) that she can't do. She is really good in all of these - even if the material is not the greatest.
The surprise to me here was the performance of Rogan - it was "wacky", "stoner-ish" and "out there", but toned down and tempered - probably the sign of a good, strong Director at the helm. I bought Flarsky's journey in this story and the relationship between these two characters was believable because Rogan was able to match Theron's energy and show real chemistry between the two.
Other fine turns are given by O'Shea Jackson, Jr (STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON), as Rogan's buddy, Ravi Patel (TV's MASTER OF NONE) as one of Theron's support staff and (especially) June Diane Rapheal (TV's GRACE AND FRANKIE) who really shines in the unenviable role of the Theron's Chief of Staff who doesn't approve of putting Rogan's character on the team, but she plays the role with layers - not one-note - and so we get a real person, with conflicted feelings at time, and she rises above the typical type of character in this type of role.
The only disappointment for me was Bob Odenkirk's President (who is stepping down for - he hopes - a much bigger job, MOVIE STAR) and not because of Odenkirk's performance, he was fine with what he was given, but there wasn't much nuance written in this part and (compared to the layers shown/written by others) the one-note-ness of Odenkirk's character was noticeable. As was Andy Serkis as a heavily-made up, older media mogul who is trying to use his wealth to manipulate the events from behind the scene - this character (and make-up) was a "swing and a miss" for me. But, fortunately, neither Serkis nor Odenkirk have much screen time, so it was more of a "distraction" than an "annoyance" for me.
I mention the Director - so I better give credit to Jonathan Levine (the awful SNATCHED with Amy Shumer and Goldie Hawn) - I have not really enjoyed anything else he has Directed, but I have to give him credit for this one - he brings "the funny and the crude" without going overboard, driving the story efficiently while putting in enough yuks and (surprisingly) heart in this movie along the way.
Now...don't be fooled here...there is quite a bit of "crude, lewd and rude" behavior and jokes (a crucial plot point hangs on a "sex act"), so don't expect a gentile, Cary Grant/Katherine Hepburn battle of the sexes. Expect a funny (crude), sexy (lewd) and opinionated (rude) take on the modern political system and how a person can lose their soul if they choose to play the game.
With a large amount of heart - and strong performances/chemistry between the two leads - I was pleasantly surprised by LONG SHOT - and, if you can handle the crude, lude and rude, then you will have a good time at this film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Paul Kellett (118 KP) created a post in Solo Gamers
May 9, 2019
Rob Bell's book wins on pathos and good intentions, but not on solid argumentation or exegesis. He has a heart for the lost and the suffering, which is admirable. But he has to turn the Bible into theological silly putty to make his case.
There are a few major errors in Love Wins, which leads to his making other more minor mistakes. The first error is giving precedence to certain biblical themes (to the exclusion of others) over clear and specific biblical teaching. Bell makes much of themes like restoration in Scripture, but ignores themes of final punishment. By dwelling on those themes, he can transition to reading them into texts where they don't belong without being found out by biblical illiterates, such as Jesus' claim that Sodom and Gomorrah will fare better on the day of judgement than cities which rejected the direct revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Instead of reading this in its obvious sense-- that there are degrees of punishment on the final day and those who reject direct revelation of Jesus will suffer most-- he understands Jesus to be saying that there is a great deal of hope for Sodom and Gomorrah's salvation-- that their punishment was corrective instead of destructive. Even though he doesn't get anywhere close to proving his case (certainly only God knows whether or not some in Sodom will be saved, but the story of Abraham bargaining would suggest otherwise), he seems to fall back on the emotionally-driven claim that God saving everyone is a "better story" than damning some and saving others.
On his overuse of the word "story," it is one example where Bell is obnoxiously post-modern and emergent. He uses the word "story/stories" in his short book 138 times. For a book of around 200 pages, large font, and constantly skipped lines/single words on their own lines*, that's an impressive display of post-modernism.
Another major error is that he conflates a strong exclusivism with eternal conscious punishment which has the effect that when he attacks one, he is in effect attacking the other, making his job easier. In addition, he ignores annihilationism as an alternative to eternal conscious torment, which also strengthens the emotional pull of his position, since it is contrasted with an eternal conscious punishment where God damns people for never being able to hear the name of Jesus. (note: while I am annoyed at Bell's misrepresentations of eternal conscious torment, I am myself an annihilationist)
Bell explains that God will eventually win everyone over, but it must be of their accord. However, he doesn't explain how it is that everyone will be saved of their own free will. For emotional effect, Bell criticizes the eternal conscious hell camp with having a God that would turn his back on people in hell who are repenting and turning to God. Of course, this assumes that sinners turn to God on their own instead of by His grace. Bell here appears to be a Pelagian, or else doesn't know enough about soteriology to make such distinctions (a terrifying prospect for a Pastor). In any case, this is another example where he is misrepresenting eternal conscious hell proponents (the first I mentioned was when he claimed they were all strict exclusivists), which makes his book far harder to take seriously.
One strange and interesting point that Rob Bell makes comes from making the afterlife analogous to the parable of the prodigal son. He claims that hell is not being cast out of "the party," (despite Jesus' parable about the marriage supper being like a party where people are cast out of) but being at the party but not enjoying it. "Hell is being at the party," Bell claims. The message to take from that is never go to one of Rob Bell's parties.
*Bell's book is filled with skipped lines and one word sentences sitting on their own lines. I suppose this is done for dramatic effect-- indicating places where Bell would pause if this were one of his Nooma videos. However, it tends to just look irritating and faux artsy. I mostly listened to the book on Kindle's text-to-speech feature, and I could still tell when he was doing it. Like,
You put a series of short sentences on their own lines to make a point?
Really?
You do that?
And it's repetitive?
Extremely?
And annoying?
There are a few major errors in Love Wins, which leads to his making other more minor mistakes. The first error is giving precedence to certain biblical themes (to the exclusion of others) over clear and specific biblical teaching. Bell makes much of themes like restoration in Scripture, but ignores themes of final punishment. By dwelling on those themes, he can transition to reading them into texts where they don't belong without being found out by biblical illiterates, such as Jesus' claim that Sodom and Gomorrah will fare better on the day of judgement than cities which rejected the direct revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Instead of reading this in its obvious sense-- that there are degrees of punishment on the final day and those who reject direct revelation of Jesus will suffer most-- he understands Jesus to be saying that there is a great deal of hope for Sodom and Gomorrah's salvation-- that their punishment was corrective instead of destructive. Even though he doesn't get anywhere close to proving his case (certainly only God knows whether or not some in Sodom will be saved, but the story of Abraham bargaining would suggest otherwise), he seems to fall back on the emotionally-driven claim that God saving everyone is a "better story" than damning some and saving others.
On his overuse of the word "story," it is one example where Bell is obnoxiously post-modern and emergent. He uses the word "story/stories" in his short book 138 times. For a book of around 200 pages, large font, and constantly skipped lines/single words on their own lines*, that's an impressive display of post-modernism.
Another major error is that he conflates a strong exclusivism with eternal conscious punishment which has the effect that when he attacks one, he is in effect attacking the other, making his job easier. In addition, he ignores annihilationism as an alternative to eternal conscious torment, which also strengthens the emotional pull of his position, since it is contrasted with an eternal conscious punishment where God damns people for never being able to hear the name of Jesus. (note: while I am annoyed at Bell's misrepresentations of eternal conscious torment, I am myself an annihilationist)
Bell explains that God will eventually win everyone over, but it must be of their accord. However, he doesn't explain how it is that everyone will be saved of their own free will. For emotional effect, Bell criticizes the eternal conscious hell camp with having a God that would turn his back on people in hell who are repenting and turning to God. Of course, this assumes that sinners turn to God on their own instead of by His grace. Bell here appears to be a Pelagian, or else doesn't know enough about soteriology to make such distinctions (a terrifying prospect for a Pastor). In any case, this is another example where he is misrepresenting eternal conscious hell proponents (the first I mentioned was when he claimed they were all strict exclusivists), which makes his book far harder to take seriously.
One strange and interesting point that Rob Bell makes comes from making the afterlife analogous to the parable of the prodigal son. He claims that hell is not being cast out of "the party," (despite Jesus' parable about the marriage supper being like a party where people are cast out of) but being at the party but not enjoying it. "Hell is being at the party," Bell claims. The message to take from that is never go to one of Rob Bell's parties.
*Bell's book is filled with skipped lines and one word sentences sitting on their own lines. I suppose this is done for dramatic effect-- indicating places where Bell would pause if this were one of his Nooma videos. However, it tends to just look irritating and faux artsy. I mostly listened to the book on Kindle's text-to-speech feature, and I could still tell when he was doing it. Like,
You put a series of short sentences on their own lines to make a point?
Really?
You do that?
And it's repetitive?
Extremely?
And annoying?
LilyLovesIndie (123 KP) rated A Time of Myths in Books
Nov 5, 2018
I received this book as a complimentary, signed review copy through the Goodreads Giveaway scheme. Instantly after reading the title and the blurb, I was incredibly intrigued by this book that promised myth, events of legendary stature (Woodstock) and a mysterious edge to it as well.
It seemed perfect, and when I received it I was eager to get started, but then I hit what I thought would be a huge stumbling block for me. It was right up my street with regards to the content and genre, but when I started to read I initially struggled with Blamires' style of writing. He switches perspective initially to introduce all of the main characters, which, in someone with less talent would be confusing, however Blamires does this with a certain skill which weaves the separate narratives together into one intertwining story of humanity at it's grittiest and most basic level.
Initially set in the mid 80s, the mystery set and questions begin to swirl in the readers head before jumping into the next 'book'. As the story progresses, in a very natural and well written way, we follow this intertwined story of a group of youngsters from the age of free love, flower power and smoking dope, of course, I'm referring to the 60s for those of you scratching your heads! The description and atmosphere created by Blamires in describing the Woodstock festival is admirably done, and as someone who only knows of 'hippies' from watching reruns of bad tv shows and my own limited cultural knowledge, I have to hold my hands up and say I'm no expert. However, it felt utterly believable and very much in line with my limited knowledge, so much so that at times I actually felt like I would have loved to be part of this group of people.
Again, the book returns to the modern day of the 80s, told from the perspective of Nathan, the character who seems the most likeable and least tragic of the group, but oh how that changes! I won't spoil it, but his perspective is fantastic and easy to read, and he is a very believable character. You want to help him uncover his past and in the process find out exactly what happened to the rest of the group as, if there isn't enough that Blamires does well, he is also fantastic at drawing you totally into the story and keeping you guessing right to the very end, truly engaging you with every character. Well, except Derek, he simply repulsed me and I was glad with his ending!
The final 'book' was fantastically written, full of the same atmosphere and drama seen in the rest of the story, but also neatly tidying up all, well, nearly all, the questions you ask throughout the story, whilst still delivering the drama and tension you have come to expect from the book so far. Again, Blamires tells it in a very believable and engaging manner, and I think the greatest strength of this story is that it is so believable, I actually found myself wondering if there weren't groups of people just like these out there today as lost as Nathan and Maddy are in this 'hellhole' of a world we live in.
Great credit has to be given to Blamires in the creation of this story as it is truly fantastic. The characters are engaging, in their own ways, real and so easy to relate to. I wanted so badly to be their friend, to help Jo with her inner turmoil, to fix the issues they all had, and more than anything to have been part of that group at Woodstock having a laugh with like minded people. It transported me to times and places I will never be able to experience, but through this book, I feel I have, in some small way, been able to experience a tiny ounce of what it may have been like. The story was never superficial, at times it is really philosophical and 'deep', and this is absorbed by the reader without really noticing it, but at the end, it al makes sense.
Chris Blamires is a hugely talented author, great story teller, deep thinker and all of this comes through in just over 300 pages of excellently written tales. I thoroughly enjoyed this book, as I think is clear, and it is one I look forward to reading again and recommending to my friends. And as for the author, well, he certainly is one to watch and I look forward to reading more of his work in the near future!
It seemed perfect, and when I received it I was eager to get started, but then I hit what I thought would be a huge stumbling block for me. It was right up my street with regards to the content and genre, but when I started to read I initially struggled with Blamires' style of writing. He switches perspective initially to introduce all of the main characters, which, in someone with less talent would be confusing, however Blamires does this with a certain skill which weaves the separate narratives together into one intertwining story of humanity at it's grittiest and most basic level.
Initially set in the mid 80s, the mystery set and questions begin to swirl in the readers head before jumping into the next 'book'. As the story progresses, in a very natural and well written way, we follow this intertwined story of a group of youngsters from the age of free love, flower power and smoking dope, of course, I'm referring to the 60s for those of you scratching your heads! The description and atmosphere created by Blamires in describing the Woodstock festival is admirably done, and as someone who only knows of 'hippies' from watching reruns of bad tv shows and my own limited cultural knowledge, I have to hold my hands up and say I'm no expert. However, it felt utterly believable and very much in line with my limited knowledge, so much so that at times I actually felt like I would have loved to be part of this group of people.
Again, the book returns to the modern day of the 80s, told from the perspective of Nathan, the character who seems the most likeable and least tragic of the group, but oh how that changes! I won't spoil it, but his perspective is fantastic and easy to read, and he is a very believable character. You want to help him uncover his past and in the process find out exactly what happened to the rest of the group as, if there isn't enough that Blamires does well, he is also fantastic at drawing you totally into the story and keeping you guessing right to the very end, truly engaging you with every character. Well, except Derek, he simply repulsed me and I was glad with his ending!
The final 'book' was fantastically written, full of the same atmosphere and drama seen in the rest of the story, but also neatly tidying up all, well, nearly all, the questions you ask throughout the story, whilst still delivering the drama and tension you have come to expect from the book so far. Again, Blamires tells it in a very believable and engaging manner, and I think the greatest strength of this story is that it is so believable, I actually found myself wondering if there weren't groups of people just like these out there today as lost as Nathan and Maddy are in this 'hellhole' of a world we live in.
Great credit has to be given to Blamires in the creation of this story as it is truly fantastic. The characters are engaging, in their own ways, real and so easy to relate to. I wanted so badly to be their friend, to help Jo with her inner turmoil, to fix the issues they all had, and more than anything to have been part of that group at Woodstock having a laugh with like minded people. It transported me to times and places I will never be able to experience, but through this book, I feel I have, in some small way, been able to experience a tiny ounce of what it may have been like. The story was never superficial, at times it is really philosophical and 'deep', and this is absorbed by the reader without really noticing it, but at the end, it al makes sense.
Chris Blamires is a hugely talented author, great story teller, deep thinker and all of this comes through in just over 300 pages of excellently written tales. I thoroughly enjoyed this book, as I think is clear, and it is one I look forward to reading again and recommending to my friends. And as for the author, well, he certainly is one to watch and I look forward to reading more of his work in the near future!
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Watchmen (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In an alternate 1985, where Nixon is president, The U.S. won the Vietnam War, and costumed heroes have been banned by an act of the Senate, a superhero is killed. The death of the mercurial entity known as The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) sets a string of events into motion that will soon see the world poised on the edge of nuclear annihilation, and the few remaining heroes locked in a life or death race against time to save the world. In the gritty and compelling new movie “Watchmen” by Director Zack Snyder, a clever blend of film noir and gumshoe style films of old combined with action and adventure as well as a deep examination of human frailties to create a film like no other.
No sooner has the death of the Comedian hit the streets (literally), when the edgy vigilante Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), begins to suspect that there is a larger and far more sinister plot in effect, one that has targeted the few remaining costumed avengers of New York City. Rorschach’s theory is disbelieved by his former associate Dan (Patrick Wilson), who prowled the streets as Night Owl and is now content to keep to himself, with his days of costumed glory behind him. He keeps his social circle limited to the first Night Owl and visiting with Laurie Jupiter ( Malin Akerman), and her husband, Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup).
With his concerns being dismissed, Rorschach is left to do the legwork on the mystery which soon shifts into high gear when he is framed for a murder he actually did not commit and an attempt is made on the life of the other former Watchmen, Ozymandias (Matthew Goode). With Rorschach in prison and surrounded by enemies, Dr. Manhattan, the all powerful and blue skinned being, is forced to take refuge on Mars after Laurie leaves him and a series of accusations are levied against him at a press conference .
It soon becomes clear to all that the death of The Comedian was not a random act of violence or a simple act of revenge, but rather the first salvo in a war against costumed heroes. With the former team in chaos, Laurie to take up residence with Dan, who has long held a torch for her, to defy the government order and suit up again. After saving a group of people from a fire, Laurie and Dan find the passion and purpose that has been missing from their post-hero lives and passionately unite and set out to free Rorschach and get to the bottom of the conspiracy before it is to late.
The film is an amazing mix of comic book action and mystery that includes a suprising amount of mature material that examines everything from humanity’s ultimate destiny to the inner psyche of tortured and flawed individuals. The characters all have their flaws and traumas and compensate by donning masks and taking on new personas. The deeply troubled Rorschach is filled in by some horrific and disturbing flashbacks that show how he became the disturbed and deeply dangerous crusader for justice that he is, so extreme in his measures that he is wanted by the police for his actions. Dan and Laurie try to move on from their past, but find that they are more comfortable in their costumed personas than they are in their day-to-day lives. Dr. Manhattan is perhaps the most dysfunctional of all as he has shut himself off from his wife, humanity, and joy. He has evolved beyond caring for anything but his experiments.
Snyder keeps the nearly three hour film moving at a brisk pace and deftly captures the look and tone of the graphic novel on which the film is based. The opening segment that shows alternate versions of great moments in history is amazing, as is the well choreographed action sequences. Despite being a superhero film, “Watchmen” is a superb mystery and drama that is loaded with interesting characters and clever social commentary. The cast is very strong, and Haley is remarkable as Rorschach. He is utterly captivating whenever he is on the screen and has crafted a true modern anti-hero for the masses.
Some may find the graphic violence and sex in the film a bit extreme, but in order to fully capture the duality of the characters and the dark world that they dwell in, it was in many ways restrained from what is actually implied by the source material. “Watchmen”, is a true marvel and is one of the most entertaining, diverse, and original action films in memory.
No sooner has the death of the Comedian hit the streets (literally), when the edgy vigilante Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), begins to suspect that there is a larger and far more sinister plot in effect, one that has targeted the few remaining costumed avengers of New York City. Rorschach’s theory is disbelieved by his former associate Dan (Patrick Wilson), who prowled the streets as Night Owl and is now content to keep to himself, with his days of costumed glory behind him. He keeps his social circle limited to the first Night Owl and visiting with Laurie Jupiter ( Malin Akerman), and her husband, Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup).
With his concerns being dismissed, Rorschach is left to do the legwork on the mystery which soon shifts into high gear when he is framed for a murder he actually did not commit and an attempt is made on the life of the other former Watchmen, Ozymandias (Matthew Goode). With Rorschach in prison and surrounded by enemies, Dr. Manhattan, the all powerful and blue skinned being, is forced to take refuge on Mars after Laurie leaves him and a series of accusations are levied against him at a press conference .
It soon becomes clear to all that the death of The Comedian was not a random act of violence or a simple act of revenge, but rather the first salvo in a war against costumed heroes. With the former team in chaos, Laurie to take up residence with Dan, who has long held a torch for her, to defy the government order and suit up again. After saving a group of people from a fire, Laurie and Dan find the passion and purpose that has been missing from their post-hero lives and passionately unite and set out to free Rorschach and get to the bottom of the conspiracy before it is to late.
The film is an amazing mix of comic book action and mystery that includes a suprising amount of mature material that examines everything from humanity’s ultimate destiny to the inner psyche of tortured and flawed individuals. The characters all have their flaws and traumas and compensate by donning masks and taking on new personas. The deeply troubled Rorschach is filled in by some horrific and disturbing flashbacks that show how he became the disturbed and deeply dangerous crusader for justice that he is, so extreme in his measures that he is wanted by the police for his actions. Dan and Laurie try to move on from their past, but find that they are more comfortable in their costumed personas than they are in their day-to-day lives. Dr. Manhattan is perhaps the most dysfunctional of all as he has shut himself off from his wife, humanity, and joy. He has evolved beyond caring for anything but his experiments.
Snyder keeps the nearly three hour film moving at a brisk pace and deftly captures the look and tone of the graphic novel on which the film is based. The opening segment that shows alternate versions of great moments in history is amazing, as is the well choreographed action sequences. Despite being a superhero film, “Watchmen” is a superb mystery and drama that is loaded with interesting characters and clever social commentary. The cast is very strong, and Haley is remarkable as Rorschach. He is utterly captivating whenever he is on the screen and has crafted a true modern anti-hero for the masses.
Some may find the graphic violence and sex in the film a bit extreme, but in order to fully capture the duality of the characters and the dark world that they dwell in, it was in many ways restrained from what is actually implied by the source material. “Watchmen”, is a true marvel and is one of the most entertaining, diverse, and original action films in memory.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Friday the 13th (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In the 1980’s the so- called slasher film genre was in full swing. When Michael Myers and the “Halloween” franchise became the highest grossing independent film in cinema history, the studios scrambled to get in on the booming genre and unleashed a flood of psycho killers on the viewing public, for the better part of a decade and a half.
Along with the aforementioned Michael Myers, and the later Freddy Krueger from the “Nightmare on Elm Street” series, Jason Voorhees of the “Friday The 13Th” series has become a cultural landmark. He has appeared in over ten movies (eleven if you count “Freddy Vs. Jason”) and unleashed havoc on countless oversexed and loaded teens, as well as those unfortunate enough to cross his path.
While the series, to many fans, become stale and largely self mocking with the Jason-in-space themed “Jason X”, the character rebounded nicely with “Freddy Vs. Jason” and had many fans clamoring for a second match up between the two iconic bad guys.
Eventually the powers-that-be decided to go the remake route, which had proven successful with “Halloween” and “My Bloody Valentine”, and have crafted a new “Friday the 13th” which they hope will re-energize the series.
The film opens with a modern re-telling of what was part of the finale of the original film, and hits the ground running with an impressive opening sequence that has Jason menacing a group of teens camping in the woods. The intense first twenty minutes of the film had the audience at the test screening gasping and cheering as the events set the stage for the body of the film, which revolves around another group of young adults taking a trip into the woods for a scenic getaway.
As the group stops for supplies, they encounter a young man who is looking for his sister who vanished in the area six weeks earlier. Despite little luck in his search, and the insistence by the local police that his sister is not anywhere in the area, he remains undaunted and continues his search.
At the same time, the group of young adults embarks on a frenzy of sex, drinking, drugs, and carefree living in the woods unaware that they are about to gain the attention of Camp Crystal Lake’s most infamous former camper.
As the film unfolds, Jason soon unleashes his customary brutality on the group as well as any townies that come across him, and the film deftly mixes some humor with classic horror mayhem. In the time honored formula, a group of survivors soon finds themselves under siege by Jason and must find a way to survive Jason’s wrath.
While the film lacks much in the way of plot and is loaded with a cast of largely unknowns, the film is a refreshing update to the series, knowing what the fans have come to expect and providing plenty of gore and scares. Since the cast exists to be little more than fodder for Jason, there is little effort devoted to fleshing them out as characters other than to provide excuses for most of the ladies in the film to shed their clothes, and a few of the male cast to establish themselves as comic relief, or the jerk who is destined for something special.
Director Marcus Nispel who has a solid pedigree with the recent “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, viral videos of Resident Evil 5, as well as the pending “Alice.” He clearly knows his subject matter and working with Producer Michael Bay and a script from Damian Shannon and Mark Swift (the duo behind “Freddy vs. Jason”), produced a solid by the numbers horror film.
Fans of the series will note clever references to the past films such as Jason’s original mask and will find themselves yelling at the screen over the constant stupidity of the victims as well as the inventive way Jason dispatches his victims. I found myself enjoying the updated Jason because while the movie is faithful to the character, it revitalized him to show a more cunning predator who is not above using traps, bait, and plotting to achieve his means. There was a plot thread in the film that did not really get developed as much as I had hoped, but in the end, the film delivered the goods and sets the stage well for future outings of the machete-wielding Jason.
Along with the aforementioned Michael Myers, and the later Freddy Krueger from the “Nightmare on Elm Street” series, Jason Voorhees of the “Friday The 13Th” series has become a cultural landmark. He has appeared in over ten movies (eleven if you count “Freddy Vs. Jason”) and unleashed havoc on countless oversexed and loaded teens, as well as those unfortunate enough to cross his path.
While the series, to many fans, become stale and largely self mocking with the Jason-in-space themed “Jason X”, the character rebounded nicely with “Freddy Vs. Jason” and had many fans clamoring for a second match up between the two iconic bad guys.
Eventually the powers-that-be decided to go the remake route, which had proven successful with “Halloween” and “My Bloody Valentine”, and have crafted a new “Friday the 13th” which they hope will re-energize the series.
The film opens with a modern re-telling of what was part of the finale of the original film, and hits the ground running with an impressive opening sequence that has Jason menacing a group of teens camping in the woods. The intense first twenty minutes of the film had the audience at the test screening gasping and cheering as the events set the stage for the body of the film, which revolves around another group of young adults taking a trip into the woods for a scenic getaway.
As the group stops for supplies, they encounter a young man who is looking for his sister who vanished in the area six weeks earlier. Despite little luck in his search, and the insistence by the local police that his sister is not anywhere in the area, he remains undaunted and continues his search.
At the same time, the group of young adults embarks on a frenzy of sex, drinking, drugs, and carefree living in the woods unaware that they are about to gain the attention of Camp Crystal Lake’s most infamous former camper.
As the film unfolds, Jason soon unleashes his customary brutality on the group as well as any townies that come across him, and the film deftly mixes some humor with classic horror mayhem. In the time honored formula, a group of survivors soon finds themselves under siege by Jason and must find a way to survive Jason’s wrath.
While the film lacks much in the way of plot and is loaded with a cast of largely unknowns, the film is a refreshing update to the series, knowing what the fans have come to expect and providing plenty of gore and scares. Since the cast exists to be little more than fodder for Jason, there is little effort devoted to fleshing them out as characters other than to provide excuses for most of the ladies in the film to shed their clothes, and a few of the male cast to establish themselves as comic relief, or the jerk who is destined for something special.
Director Marcus Nispel who has a solid pedigree with the recent “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, viral videos of Resident Evil 5, as well as the pending “Alice.” He clearly knows his subject matter and working with Producer Michael Bay and a script from Damian Shannon and Mark Swift (the duo behind “Freddy vs. Jason”), produced a solid by the numbers horror film.
Fans of the series will note clever references to the past films such as Jason’s original mask and will find themselves yelling at the screen over the constant stupidity of the victims as well as the inventive way Jason dispatches his victims. I found myself enjoying the updated Jason because while the movie is faithful to the character, it revitalized him to show a more cunning predator who is not above using traps, bait, and plotting to achieve his means. There was a plot thread in the film that did not really get developed as much as I had hoped, but in the end, the film delivered the goods and sets the stage well for future outings of the machete-wielding Jason.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In 1951 Director Robert Wise helped create one of the most insightful films of the dawning Science Fiction genre. At that time, the growing theme was the good folks of Earth having to defend ourselves against all manner of evil creatures from beyond.
This tone has carried over to modern day as the notion of hostile invaders from beyond has become part of our cinematic and written culture.
The ironic thing about “The Day The Earth Stood Still” was that it was a cautionary tale that stood apart from the genre films of the day. Instead of an all out assault on humanity, a visitor named Klaatu (Michael Rennie) came to deliver a message that change was needed or else there would be dire consequences. Klaatu told the people of the earth that they must learn to live in peace and make war a thing of the past or they would run the risk of being destroyed by more powerful races that would see them as a threat to their peaceful ways.
Klaatu had a powerful robot named Gort who would destroy any hints of aggression and used him to get his message of the need for peace across.
Now in 2008, 20th Century Fox has recreated this classic tale with a star studded cast and a large production budget.
In the new version, Jennifer Connelly stars as Helen Benson, a scientist who is raising her stepson Jacob (Jaden Smith), who still mourns for his father who was recently killed while serving in the gulf. One night, Helen is taken into custody by agents who whisk her and other scientists to a secret conference where it is learned that an object in on a collision course with Manhattan and that due to a lack of warning, there is no time to evacuate the city.
Just when the gathered group prepares for the worst, the mysterious object lands in the middle of Central Park and after being surrounded by the military, produces a lone being from the interior of the spherical object. Just as Helen is about to make first contact with the being, he is shot by a nervous soldier, and before anyone knows what has happened, a giant mechanized being emerges from the sphere and incapacitates the assembled crowd with a sound wave. Just as the creature is about to take matters further he is called off by the wounded being.
The wounded being is taken to for medical care and the confounded scientists are amazed to find a human being underneath the organic suit that the being was wearing. The being grows very quickly and is soon a full grown adult.
Naturally these events are very concerning to the U.S. government and Defense Secretary Jackson (Kathy Bates). The Being identifies himself as Klaatu (Keanu Reeves), and asks to speak with the leaders of the world about a very important matter. Jackson is convinced that Klaatu is the first wave of an invasion and orders him to be interrogated in order to learn his true mission.
Klaatu is able to escape and soon finds himself on the run with Helen and in doing so, learns about humanity. As his mission is revealed, it soon becomes a race against time for Klaatu and Helen to save the world from the greatest threat it has ever known.
The setup to the new film was very good and I was fortunate enough to see the film at an Imax screen which really enhanced the visuals of the film. Sadly there was not enough action for it to hold my attention as the best visuals in the film were largely shown in the trailer.
Once the events of the plot were put into motion, I found them to be very underwhelming, and the message of the film was lost in a series of muddled dialogue and a script lacking any really tension or drama. Klaatu is supposed to be a fish out of water that learns through Helen and Jacob about the other side of humanity, the one that is not about war, death, and destruction. Yet, thanks to the lack of chemistry between Reeves and the always good Connelly the audience is left with little to root for.
When the action finally comes it is very brief and restrained and not nearly enough to save the film, which stumbles to a very awkward and predictable finale.
I had hoped that this new version would be able to up the action promised in the first film and greater delve into the origins of Klaatu as well as the message of change he brought to humanity. Instead the film loses its way and the message becomes an afterthought leaving the audience with very little.
This tone has carried over to modern day as the notion of hostile invaders from beyond has become part of our cinematic and written culture.
The ironic thing about “The Day The Earth Stood Still” was that it was a cautionary tale that stood apart from the genre films of the day. Instead of an all out assault on humanity, a visitor named Klaatu (Michael Rennie) came to deliver a message that change was needed or else there would be dire consequences. Klaatu told the people of the earth that they must learn to live in peace and make war a thing of the past or they would run the risk of being destroyed by more powerful races that would see them as a threat to their peaceful ways.
Klaatu had a powerful robot named Gort who would destroy any hints of aggression and used him to get his message of the need for peace across.
Now in 2008, 20th Century Fox has recreated this classic tale with a star studded cast and a large production budget.
In the new version, Jennifer Connelly stars as Helen Benson, a scientist who is raising her stepson Jacob (Jaden Smith), who still mourns for his father who was recently killed while serving in the gulf. One night, Helen is taken into custody by agents who whisk her and other scientists to a secret conference where it is learned that an object in on a collision course with Manhattan and that due to a lack of warning, there is no time to evacuate the city.
Just when the gathered group prepares for the worst, the mysterious object lands in the middle of Central Park and after being surrounded by the military, produces a lone being from the interior of the spherical object. Just as Helen is about to make first contact with the being, he is shot by a nervous soldier, and before anyone knows what has happened, a giant mechanized being emerges from the sphere and incapacitates the assembled crowd with a sound wave. Just as the creature is about to take matters further he is called off by the wounded being.
The wounded being is taken to for medical care and the confounded scientists are amazed to find a human being underneath the organic suit that the being was wearing. The being grows very quickly and is soon a full grown adult.
Naturally these events are very concerning to the U.S. government and Defense Secretary Jackson (Kathy Bates). The Being identifies himself as Klaatu (Keanu Reeves), and asks to speak with the leaders of the world about a very important matter. Jackson is convinced that Klaatu is the first wave of an invasion and orders him to be interrogated in order to learn his true mission.
Klaatu is able to escape and soon finds himself on the run with Helen and in doing so, learns about humanity. As his mission is revealed, it soon becomes a race against time for Klaatu and Helen to save the world from the greatest threat it has ever known.
The setup to the new film was very good and I was fortunate enough to see the film at an Imax screen which really enhanced the visuals of the film. Sadly there was not enough action for it to hold my attention as the best visuals in the film were largely shown in the trailer.
Once the events of the plot were put into motion, I found them to be very underwhelming, and the message of the film was lost in a series of muddled dialogue and a script lacking any really tension or drama. Klaatu is supposed to be a fish out of water that learns through Helen and Jacob about the other side of humanity, the one that is not about war, death, and destruction. Yet, thanks to the lack of chemistry between Reeves and the always good Connelly the audience is left with little to root for.
When the action finally comes it is very brief and restrained and not nearly enough to save the film, which stumbles to a very awkward and predictable finale.
I had hoped that this new version would be able to up the action promised in the first film and greater delve into the origins of Klaatu as well as the message of change he brought to humanity. Instead the film loses its way and the message becomes an afterthought leaving the audience with very little.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Soup 2 Nuts in Tabletop Games
Oct 29, 2019
I like when I can learn something from a game. Or any experience, really. In the case of Soup 2 Nuts I learned that a proper six-course meal begins with the Soup course and ends with the Nuts course. I didn’t even know nuts was their own course! Now you are interested in what the other courses are, aren’t you? Fine, I will oblige: Soup, Appetizer, Salad, Main Course, Dessert, Nuts. These are the courses, and these are the rounds of play in this party card game of opinions and ridiculousness.
Soup 2 Nuts is a card game where players will be drawing cards from the giant stack, performing or answering questions written thereon and scoring points for what the other players deem “good enough.” The player with the highest score at the end of the six courses is the winner! … if you decide to even keep score.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game. It is not a prototype, so what you see is what you get. At least I think. More on that later. -T
To setup, open the aluminum can that the game comes in, dump out the components, shuffle the cards, and place them in a central stack. You are now ready to play. Yes, that’s it for setup.
So the game is very straightforward. Draw a card, read to yourself the prompt according to which course you are playing at the time (you play consecutively, so everyone will play a card at the Soup level through the Nuts level), and perform the action or answer the prompt question. After you have done this the other players will give you a thumbs up or thumbs down to indicate how well you did or how much they may agree with you. If you have a majority of ups you gain a point. A majority of downs is negative points. Yes, someone actually finished the game with negative points. I will not mention her name. You continue playing in this fashion until everyone has had a chance to complete actions on six cards (or passed if they wish, scoring zero points for the round). Tally up the points and announce the winner!
Components. This is a butt-ton of cards in a can. There is a golf pencil and tiny post-it-notes-style pad of paper. Also there was a hippo figure that came in our can. The hippo has nothing to do with the game (that we have found), and so we just keep it in the can and play around with it while waiting for people to decide what they want to do with their card. The cards are good quality, but the pencil and pad could have just as easily been left out all together. The can. Okay I have mixed feelings about the can the game comes in. On one hand, it is hilarious and appropriate for a game themed around a meal. It’s GREAT quality and comes with a plastic lid for containing the bits once you’ve popped the top. On the other hand, I now have to figure out how I am going to put it on my game shelves. One negative point to House Dunce Cap. (but I really do like the can haha)
So here’s the rub on this one. This is a VERY adult-focused game. It is NSFW and NSFKids. Please do not pull this out when you are playing games on a holiday with your parents and grandparents unless you have an incredibly modern relationship with them. Also, we very much recommend playing with as many people as you can. The more the better. We tried it with three players and it just did not work. We suggest at least five players to really let the game play shine as it should. There are also quite a few prompts that just didn’t apply as we were playing. I would house rule that you can have one re-draw if you would normally pass on a prompt, but you may play it however you’d like.
As this game is seriously a TON of prompts to get the group talking, debating, laughing, and being grossed out, we at Purple Phoenix Games give this one a hippo-in-the-can 7 / 18. It is not a horrible game, but it is not one I will be pulling off the shelves terribly often. If you enjoy TMI games and making each other squirm for points, give it a shot.
Soup 2 Nuts is a card game where players will be drawing cards from the giant stack, performing or answering questions written thereon and scoring points for what the other players deem “good enough.” The player with the highest score at the end of the six courses is the winner! … if you decide to even keep score.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game. It is not a prototype, so what you see is what you get. At least I think. More on that later. -T
To setup, open the aluminum can that the game comes in, dump out the components, shuffle the cards, and place them in a central stack. You are now ready to play. Yes, that’s it for setup.
So the game is very straightforward. Draw a card, read to yourself the prompt according to which course you are playing at the time (you play consecutively, so everyone will play a card at the Soup level through the Nuts level), and perform the action or answer the prompt question. After you have done this the other players will give you a thumbs up or thumbs down to indicate how well you did or how much they may agree with you. If you have a majority of ups you gain a point. A majority of downs is negative points. Yes, someone actually finished the game with negative points. I will not mention her name. You continue playing in this fashion until everyone has had a chance to complete actions on six cards (or passed if they wish, scoring zero points for the round). Tally up the points and announce the winner!
Components. This is a butt-ton of cards in a can. There is a golf pencil and tiny post-it-notes-style pad of paper. Also there was a hippo figure that came in our can. The hippo has nothing to do with the game (that we have found), and so we just keep it in the can and play around with it while waiting for people to decide what they want to do with their card. The cards are good quality, but the pencil and pad could have just as easily been left out all together. The can. Okay I have mixed feelings about the can the game comes in. On one hand, it is hilarious and appropriate for a game themed around a meal. It’s GREAT quality and comes with a plastic lid for containing the bits once you’ve popped the top. On the other hand, I now have to figure out how I am going to put it on my game shelves. One negative point to House Dunce Cap. (but I really do like the can haha)
So here’s the rub on this one. This is a VERY adult-focused game. It is NSFW and NSFKids. Please do not pull this out when you are playing games on a holiday with your parents and grandparents unless you have an incredibly modern relationship with them. Also, we very much recommend playing with as many people as you can. The more the better. We tried it with three players and it just did not work. We suggest at least five players to really let the game play shine as it should. There are also quite a few prompts that just didn’t apply as we were playing. I would house rule that you can have one re-draw if you would normally pass on a prompt, but you may play it however you’d like.
As this game is seriously a TON of prompts to get the group talking, debating, laughing, and being grossed out, we at Purple Phoenix Games give this one a hippo-in-the-can 7 / 18. It is not a horrible game, but it is not one I will be pulling off the shelves terribly often. If you enjoy TMI games and making each other squirm for points, give it a shot.