Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Antikörper (Antibodies) (2007) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
A serial killer named Gabriel Engel (André Hennicke, Pandorum) that the police have been after for months has finally been captured. This is where most stories would end happily ever after, but instead this is how Antibodies begins. Michael Martens (Wotan Wilke Möhring, Valkyrie), a cop from a small, rural town had an unsolved case from a year ago concerning a 12-year-old girl named Lucia Flieder and Michael intends to interrogate Gabriel in hopes of a confession for her murder.
Gabriel already admitted to being in the area around the time of Lucia’s death, but her murder doesn’t entirely fit his M.O. But Michael plays right into Gabriel’s hands and becomes the pawn in his sick, psychological game as he’s able to get into Michael’s head from the moment they meet and remains there until the credits roll. The question isn’t, “Will Michael be able to find what he’s looking for?” but is instead, “Will Michael be able to survive the cerebral hedge maze Gabriel has thrown him into?”
Written and directed by Christian Alvart (Case 39, Pandorum), Antibodies is a German crime drama thriller that is worth seeing for André Hennicke’s performance alone. His portrayal of Gabriel is psychotic, disturbing, and extraordinarily mesmerizing as he steals nearly every scene he’s in. Hennicke embodies Gabriel and brings the character to life in all of his monstrously disquieting glory. There’s a brief sequence where Gabriel is drawing in his cell and he slowly starts pulling out his hair. There’s no dialogue, but Hennicke is able to pull it off with such terrifying elegance that it is incredible to witness.
Wotan Wilke Möhring is also quite impressive as Michael Martens. Michael struggles with the mental obstacles Gabriel throws at him throughout the film. Möhring is fantastically efficient at portraying a man who devoted his life to being an abiding citizen that is also committed to his religion. He cares deeply about his family and is now slowly losing his grip on his so-called perfect life. The interrogation scenes between Michael and Gabriel seem to simultaneously be homage to The Silence of the Lambs while also offering something different with its complete mastery of tension and Gabriel’s ulterior motives ring loudly upon the audience yet fall on deaf ears to a gullible Michael.
The religious parallels are incredibly interesting and deserve recognition, as well. The film has a tendency to not only reveal these parallels, but dives into them in a way that is easy to understand for the audience; the similarities between Michael and the archangel Gabriel are uncanny. The ending involving the test Gabriel gives Michael is all a part of a twisted game Gabriel plays and the web he’s spun has managed to get Michael tangled up in it. The film makes you think you know where it’s headed before it takes an unexpected detour and ends up going in the opposite direction.
Perhaps the most unusual aspect of the film is the involvement of Norman Reedus. The Wikipedia entry for Antibodies is still so bare, but apparently Reedus did his part in the film for free. Before The Walking Dead came along, Reedus was known best for his roles in The Boondock Saints, 8MM, Blade II, and the John Carpenter directed Masters of Horror episode, “Cigarette Burns.” Reedus has always taken part in projects that are unusual, but typically turn out to be fairly awesome. It was a great change of pace to see him show up and speak a few lines of German without a crossbow or a motorcycle.
Antibodies isn’t without its flaws as its script is often juvenile with the way it references sex and pleasuring yourself way more often than it should. The German thriller is still able to capitalize on a wonderfully tense and magnificently unsettling atmosphere with two incredibly strong leads that make the whole journey worthwhile. The story is riveting despite a few hiccups, the cast is top notch, the cinematography is excellent, and its unpredictable outcome is brilliant.
Antibodies is currently streaming on Amazon Video and Vudu for $2.99. The 2-disc special edition DVD is available for $24.98 on Amazon while the standard DVD is between $19.99 and $43.41. The film is available on DVD for various prices on eBay with the best offers being a pre-owned version of the single disc edition for $5.39 (10% off its normal $5.99 price) and the two-disc edition for $18.24; both have free shipping.
Gabriel already admitted to being in the area around the time of Lucia’s death, but her murder doesn’t entirely fit his M.O. But Michael plays right into Gabriel’s hands and becomes the pawn in his sick, psychological game as he’s able to get into Michael’s head from the moment they meet and remains there until the credits roll. The question isn’t, “Will Michael be able to find what he’s looking for?” but is instead, “Will Michael be able to survive the cerebral hedge maze Gabriel has thrown him into?”
Written and directed by Christian Alvart (Case 39, Pandorum), Antibodies is a German crime drama thriller that is worth seeing for André Hennicke’s performance alone. His portrayal of Gabriel is psychotic, disturbing, and extraordinarily mesmerizing as he steals nearly every scene he’s in. Hennicke embodies Gabriel and brings the character to life in all of his monstrously disquieting glory. There’s a brief sequence where Gabriel is drawing in his cell and he slowly starts pulling out his hair. There’s no dialogue, but Hennicke is able to pull it off with such terrifying elegance that it is incredible to witness.
Wotan Wilke Möhring is also quite impressive as Michael Martens. Michael struggles with the mental obstacles Gabriel throws at him throughout the film. Möhring is fantastically efficient at portraying a man who devoted his life to being an abiding citizen that is also committed to his religion. He cares deeply about his family and is now slowly losing his grip on his so-called perfect life. The interrogation scenes between Michael and Gabriel seem to simultaneously be homage to The Silence of the Lambs while also offering something different with its complete mastery of tension and Gabriel’s ulterior motives ring loudly upon the audience yet fall on deaf ears to a gullible Michael.
The religious parallels are incredibly interesting and deserve recognition, as well. The film has a tendency to not only reveal these parallels, but dives into them in a way that is easy to understand for the audience; the similarities between Michael and the archangel Gabriel are uncanny. The ending involving the test Gabriel gives Michael is all a part of a twisted game Gabriel plays and the web he’s spun has managed to get Michael tangled up in it. The film makes you think you know where it’s headed before it takes an unexpected detour and ends up going in the opposite direction.
Perhaps the most unusual aspect of the film is the involvement of Norman Reedus. The Wikipedia entry for Antibodies is still so bare, but apparently Reedus did his part in the film for free. Before The Walking Dead came along, Reedus was known best for his roles in The Boondock Saints, 8MM, Blade II, and the John Carpenter directed Masters of Horror episode, “Cigarette Burns.” Reedus has always taken part in projects that are unusual, but typically turn out to be fairly awesome. It was a great change of pace to see him show up and speak a few lines of German without a crossbow or a motorcycle.
Antibodies isn’t without its flaws as its script is often juvenile with the way it references sex and pleasuring yourself way more often than it should. The German thriller is still able to capitalize on a wonderfully tense and magnificently unsettling atmosphere with two incredibly strong leads that make the whole journey worthwhile. The story is riveting despite a few hiccups, the cast is top notch, the cinematography is excellent, and its unpredictable outcome is brilliant.
Antibodies is currently streaming on Amazon Video and Vudu for $2.99. The 2-disc special edition DVD is available for $24.98 on Amazon while the standard DVD is between $19.99 and $43.41. The film is available on DVD for various prices on eBay with the best offers being a pre-owned version of the single disc edition for $5.39 (10% off its normal $5.99 price) and the two-disc edition for $18.24; both have free shipping.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Exorcist (1973) in Movies
Oct 17, 2019
Its a scream
This is a guest review for the stage show of The Exorcist not for the movie written by my good friend jappyscraps (on instagram) which I'm very thankful for.
The Exorcist on stage – Alexandra Theatre, Birmingham, 16/10/19
It’s my number one film of all-time so naturally I approached this production with some caution. Any stage adaptations of films have to be stripped down for obvious reasons and with The Exorcist having some key technical moments I was eager to see how they achieved them or even included them at all.
There’s a very clever build-up to the show with a steady drone of religious chanting and indecipherable voices, whispers and moans which stay with you before a massive crack rips through the sound system and the theatre is plunged into total darkness. It’s quite unsettling and there were a lot of nervous giggles and squeaks in the audience. A light appears at the top of the stage set and Father Merrin (played by Paul Nicholas, yes him of 80’s sitcom ‘Just Good Friends’ fame and one-time pop star) appears, speaks a few lines which we couldn’t hear at all and then promptly disappears and the stage lights reveal the MacNeil household below where Chris MacNeil and her daughter Regan. They obviously have a close bond and the next few minutes is spent establishing this and introducing the character of Burke, a film director and friend of actress Chris, who provides some occasional comedy touches. There are scenes of Regan playing with a Ouija board which she discovers in the attic. This is the first introduction of the demon that Regan refers to as Captain Howdy. Unlike the film, we hear the demon speaking in the early stages of Regan’s possession. The demon’s voice is provided by (a pre-recorded) Sir Ian McKellen and his performance is brilliant despite it sounding nothing like Mercedes McCambridge in the original.
At this stage we have lost one of the key characters and if you know the story well you will know who this is. As Reagan’s behaviour deteriorates, we are introduced to various doctors and psychiatrists before a priest friend of Chris suggests she talks to Father Karras, a key character in The Exorcist. When Karras first meets Regan she is in her bed, restrained by straps and speaking in the demon’s voice. Susannah Edgeley as Regan does a magnificent job lip-synching to McKellen’s voice, she does not miss a beat and her performance overall steals the show.
Father Karras is not convinced that an exorcism is the answer but, as we know, events take a turn for the worse and a frail Father Merrin is summoned for a showdown with the demon, which is the show’s dramatic (and loud) finale.
If you are wondering if all of The Exorcist’s key moments are included in the stage show I can confirm that most of them are, even if they don’t appear in the same scenes in the film. So, the crucifix scene is present and correct, though not so bloody and graphic. Regan’s head spin is there, achieved by what you might describe as a Penn & Teller trick but it is surprisingly effective. Regan does vomit during the exorcism but the classic scene of her projectile vomiting over Karras isn’t there, probably a step too far for a stage show. There is no levitation in the exorcism but there is a clever effect where Regan is catapulted forward on the bed, as if pushed forward by the demon. It’s all very impressive stuff.
The Exorcist on stage is very good, fans of the film will enjoy picking up on the original dialogue and dissecting the new lines and plotline. Some characters from the film don’t appear at all, the key one being Lieutenant Kinderman (played by Lee J. Cobb in the film) which I was a little disappointed about. My main issues were with the sound on occasions, particularly not hearing the actors deliver their lines clearly but it was a minor niggle. The character of Burke Dennings is renamed Burke Dennis in the stage show and I have no idea why – I was frankly irritated by it. The performances of Susannah Edgeley and McKellen’s demon more than make up for it though. The stage set is excellent and the lights and sound effects were top notch. I’d recommend it without hesitation, just don’t expect a scene for scene reboot of the film or you will be very disappointed.
The Exorcist on stage – Alexandra Theatre, Birmingham, 16/10/19
It’s my number one film of all-time so naturally I approached this production with some caution. Any stage adaptations of films have to be stripped down for obvious reasons and with The Exorcist having some key technical moments I was eager to see how they achieved them or even included them at all.
There’s a very clever build-up to the show with a steady drone of religious chanting and indecipherable voices, whispers and moans which stay with you before a massive crack rips through the sound system and the theatre is plunged into total darkness. It’s quite unsettling and there were a lot of nervous giggles and squeaks in the audience. A light appears at the top of the stage set and Father Merrin (played by Paul Nicholas, yes him of 80’s sitcom ‘Just Good Friends’ fame and one-time pop star) appears, speaks a few lines which we couldn’t hear at all and then promptly disappears and the stage lights reveal the MacNeil household below where Chris MacNeil and her daughter Regan. They obviously have a close bond and the next few minutes is spent establishing this and introducing the character of Burke, a film director and friend of actress Chris, who provides some occasional comedy touches. There are scenes of Regan playing with a Ouija board which she discovers in the attic. This is the first introduction of the demon that Regan refers to as Captain Howdy. Unlike the film, we hear the demon speaking in the early stages of Regan’s possession. The demon’s voice is provided by (a pre-recorded) Sir Ian McKellen and his performance is brilliant despite it sounding nothing like Mercedes McCambridge in the original.
At this stage we have lost one of the key characters and if you know the story well you will know who this is. As Reagan’s behaviour deteriorates, we are introduced to various doctors and psychiatrists before a priest friend of Chris suggests she talks to Father Karras, a key character in The Exorcist. When Karras first meets Regan she is in her bed, restrained by straps and speaking in the demon’s voice. Susannah Edgeley as Regan does a magnificent job lip-synching to McKellen’s voice, she does not miss a beat and her performance overall steals the show.
Father Karras is not convinced that an exorcism is the answer but, as we know, events take a turn for the worse and a frail Father Merrin is summoned for a showdown with the demon, which is the show’s dramatic (and loud) finale.
If you are wondering if all of The Exorcist’s key moments are included in the stage show I can confirm that most of them are, even if they don’t appear in the same scenes in the film. So, the crucifix scene is present and correct, though not so bloody and graphic. Regan’s head spin is there, achieved by what you might describe as a Penn & Teller trick but it is surprisingly effective. Regan does vomit during the exorcism but the classic scene of her projectile vomiting over Karras isn’t there, probably a step too far for a stage show. There is no levitation in the exorcism but there is a clever effect where Regan is catapulted forward on the bed, as if pushed forward by the demon. It’s all very impressive stuff.
The Exorcist on stage is very good, fans of the film will enjoy picking up on the original dialogue and dissecting the new lines and plotline. Some characters from the film don’t appear at all, the key one being Lieutenant Kinderman (played by Lee J. Cobb in the film) which I was a little disappointed about. My main issues were with the sound on occasions, particularly not hearing the actors deliver their lines clearly but it was a minor niggle. The character of Burke Dennings is renamed Burke Dennis in the stage show and I have no idea why – I was frankly irritated by it. The performances of Susannah Edgeley and McKellen’s demon more than make up for it though. The stage set is excellent and the lights and sound effects were top notch. I’d recommend it without hesitation, just don’t expect a scene for scene reboot of the film or you will be very disappointed.
Midge (525 KP) rated Salvation in Death (In Death, #27) in Books
Dec 17, 2018
Lovely portrayal of the relationship between the two lead characters (1 more)
Some hilarious moments
Gripping And Very Interesting!
Immediately after drinking the wine during a Catholic funeral mass, Father Miguel Flores is dead on the altar. Detective Lieutenant Eve Dallas confirms that the consecrated wine contained potassium cyanide. Though the East Harlem neighbourhood is a long way from the stone mansion she shares with her billionaire husband Roarke, she knows she's looking for a murderer.
The autopsy reveals faint scars of knife wounds, a removed tattoo and evidence of plastic surgery, suggesting “Father Flores” may not be the man his parishioners thought. Now, as Eve pieces together clues that suggest identity theft, gang connections, and a deeply personal act of revenge, she hopes to track down whoever committed this unholy act. Then a second murder takes place, in front of an even larger crowd of worshippers. Are the homicides linked?
Salvation in Death is the 27th book of the "In Death" series, with Eve and Roarke as the lead characters.
Salvation in Death begins with the poisoning of a Catholic priest during mass. The priest, a passionate, dedicated and energetic member of the community, seems to have no enemies. He cared especially about young people, was not depressed, stressed or troubled and every member of the church looked up to him. But when his autopsy reveals some old scars and a covered tattoo, Eve realises that the priest must have some dark secrets in his past. When the tattoo points to a ruthless badass gang, Eve is not convinced that the priest is the person he purports to be. When another religious leader is also killed, Eve and her team have to investigate whether there is a serial killer on the loose or if the cases are coincidental in their timing.
This is the first book I have read from the "In Death" series by J. D. Robb, the pseudonym of Nora Roberts. I loved the portrayal of the relationship between the two lead characters, Eve and Roarke, particularly,
"Everything and all things. That was Eve for him. Nothing he'd ever dreamed of, even in secret in the dirty alleys of Dublin, approached the reality of her. Nothing he possessed could ever be as precious. The taste of her in the cool night, in the pale light, stirred a craving he understood would never be fully sated."
There is an impressive number of characters in this crime novel which I have to say made it a little difficult to follow at times. Others that I found an affinity with were Peabody and her significant other and work colleague, McNab.
"They were a good ten feet from the Homicide bullpen when Peabody's nose went up like a hound on the hunt. "I smell doughnuts." When Peabody increased her pace, Eve started to roll her eyes, but then she smelled them, too."
I also liked the following quote including McNab:-
"We got a snag. One of the sons-in-law's a lawyer." "Shit." "Ain't that always the way?" ......."So. He's making lawyer noises. It's after two A.M., and people have been held here for over four hours, yaddah-blah-blah." "Did you get anything from the interviews?" "Nothing that buzzed and popped......"
Eve is really out of her comfort zone investigating murders that have taken place in Catholic churches. She obviously has a past that she has to come to terms with which she seems to make some progress in Salvation in Death. Roarke and she have a great deal of chemistry between them and are very hot together and Roarke has some hilarious moments that make him adorable. He is there for her when certain aspects of the case trouble her and she is needing clarity, but she is by his side when he is struggling with some bad memories of his own. They make a brilliant team and I can't wait to read more of them.
I really surprised myself in that I chose to read this crime novel at all as I don't generally go for books relating to Catholicism. However, I thought it was very nicely written and I found it thoroughly enjoyable. The ending was a surprise to me, and I loved the way the book was concluded. Reading Salvation in Death has inspired me to read other "In Deaths" and also other Nora Roberts novels.
Overall, Salvation in Death is a gripping and very interesting read.
The autopsy reveals faint scars of knife wounds, a removed tattoo and evidence of plastic surgery, suggesting “Father Flores” may not be the man his parishioners thought. Now, as Eve pieces together clues that suggest identity theft, gang connections, and a deeply personal act of revenge, she hopes to track down whoever committed this unholy act. Then a second murder takes place, in front of an even larger crowd of worshippers. Are the homicides linked?
Salvation in Death is the 27th book of the "In Death" series, with Eve and Roarke as the lead characters.
Salvation in Death begins with the poisoning of a Catholic priest during mass. The priest, a passionate, dedicated and energetic member of the community, seems to have no enemies. He cared especially about young people, was not depressed, stressed or troubled and every member of the church looked up to him. But when his autopsy reveals some old scars and a covered tattoo, Eve realises that the priest must have some dark secrets in his past. When the tattoo points to a ruthless badass gang, Eve is not convinced that the priest is the person he purports to be. When another religious leader is also killed, Eve and her team have to investigate whether there is a serial killer on the loose or if the cases are coincidental in their timing.
This is the first book I have read from the "In Death" series by J. D. Robb, the pseudonym of Nora Roberts. I loved the portrayal of the relationship between the two lead characters, Eve and Roarke, particularly,
"Everything and all things. That was Eve for him. Nothing he'd ever dreamed of, even in secret in the dirty alleys of Dublin, approached the reality of her. Nothing he possessed could ever be as precious. The taste of her in the cool night, in the pale light, stirred a craving he understood would never be fully sated."
There is an impressive number of characters in this crime novel which I have to say made it a little difficult to follow at times. Others that I found an affinity with were Peabody and her significant other and work colleague, McNab.
"They were a good ten feet from the Homicide bullpen when Peabody's nose went up like a hound on the hunt. "I smell doughnuts." When Peabody increased her pace, Eve started to roll her eyes, but then she smelled them, too."
I also liked the following quote including McNab:-
"We got a snag. One of the sons-in-law's a lawyer." "Shit." "Ain't that always the way?" ......."So. He's making lawyer noises. It's after two A.M., and people have been held here for over four hours, yaddah-blah-blah." "Did you get anything from the interviews?" "Nothing that buzzed and popped......"
Eve is really out of her comfort zone investigating murders that have taken place in Catholic churches. She obviously has a past that she has to come to terms with which she seems to make some progress in Salvation in Death. Roarke and she have a great deal of chemistry between them and are very hot together and Roarke has some hilarious moments that make him adorable. He is there for her when certain aspects of the case trouble her and she is needing clarity, but she is by his side when he is struggling with some bad memories of his own. They make a brilliant team and I can't wait to read more of them.
I really surprised myself in that I chose to read this crime novel at all as I don't generally go for books relating to Catholicism. However, I thought it was very nicely written and I found it thoroughly enjoyable. The ending was a surprise to me, and I loved the way the book was concluded. Reading Salvation in Death has inspired me to read other "In Deaths" and also other Nora Roberts novels.
Overall, Salvation in Death is a gripping and very interesting read.
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated Masters of Horror: A Horror Anthology in Books
Jun 26, 2020
112 of 200
Kindle
Masters of Horror: A Horror anthology
Presented by Matt Shaw
Collection of authors
Masters of Horror A selection of some of the finest horror writers of today were invited by Matt Shaw to bring him their twisted tales for this anthology. A book put together with the sole purpose of reminding readers what the horror genre is really about. Each author was told they could write about any subject matter they wanted so long as it was set in a world of horror. The only rule they had: No Paranormal Romance. Vampires do not sparkle, werewolves do not date, Witches do not scour Tinder for Virgins and ghosts do not declare their undying love whilst tidying the apartment... This is horror... Featuring work from: Introduction- Matt Shaw Brian Lumley - The Cyprus Shell Ramsey Campbell- Again Sam West- Survival J R Park - Mary Peter McKeirnon- Doll Face Andrew Freudenberg- A Taste of Mercy Mason Sabre - Chocolate Shaun Hutson- The Contract Anton Palmer- Dead-Eyed Dick Wrath James White- Beast Mode Shane McKenzie- Dewey Davenport Tonia Brown - Zolem Graeme Reynolds- The Pit Adam L.G. Nevill- Hippocampus Gary McMahon- You Can Go Now Ryan Harding - Down There Matt Shaw - Letter From Hell Matt Hickman- Eye For An Eye Daniel Marc Chant - Three Black Dogs Amy Cross- Checkout Kit Power- Loco Parentis Adam Millard - In The Family Guy N. Smith - The Priest Hole Jaime Johnesee- Just Breathe Craig Saunders- Raintown Sam Michael Bray - The End Is Where You’ll Find It Jeff Strand- Don’t Make Fun Of The Haunted House Mark Cassell - Trust Issues Paul Flewitt- The Silent Invader Clare Riley Whitfield- The Clay Man Jim Goforth- Animus Brian Lumley - The Deep-Sea Conch Chris Hall- Afterword
A few comments on the ones I enjoyed the most!
1. The Cyprus shell by Brain Lumley
This is a letter to a friend explaining his recent early departure from a dinner party. He explains his awful experience and aversion to oysters! Got to say I loved it and it captured so much in a short letter!
2. Again by Ramsey Campbell
This is a strange little story about a hiker discovering a strange old woman keeping her almost dead husband tied to a bed. It was a little strange.
4. Mary by J R Park
Ooo this was good religious symbols and lots of murder and blood!!
5 Doll Face by Peter McKeirnon
This was creepy as f**k there are no limits to what a father would do for his little girl!
6. A taste of Mercy by Andrew Freudenburg
Brilliant so sad and yet so gross! You felt every word of the woe the trenches brought these men!
7 chocolate by Mason Sabre
Ok so I will be keeping a close eye on my kids and their imaginary friends needing chocolate haha loved it!
8 The Contract by Shaun Hutson
Well this taught us one thing is certain killing death would be a very silly thing to do!!
9 Dead-eyed Dick by Anton Palmer
This had me in tears laughing and must be every mans worst nightmare! I’m definitely getting my husband to read it! Brilliant!!
11 Hippocampus by Adam L.G. Nevill
Nevill is one of my favourite authors he has a way of taking you every step of the journey with every book he writes. This one did not disappoint I walked the length of that vessel
With him! I know have some pretty gruesome scenes in my head.
12 you can go now. By Gary McMahon
Totally heartbreaking in some way and utterly creepy in others! Also an eye opener to mental illness which I took from it!
13 letter from hell by Matt Shaw
Reading this made me sick to my stomach being a mum I think it’s my worst nightmare! I can just imagine how those mothers felt when their children never came home! Totally gut wrenching!!
14 Eye for an eye by Matt Hickman
Brilliant! Gruesome and totally what you’d expect from the afterlife of a murderer!
16 Loco Parentis by Kit Power
About a man rounding up a pedophile ring and breaking some bones but in a strange twist he turns it on the reader lol very good!!
I absolutely loved most of these stories I think there is something in there for every Horror fan I’ve also found a few more authors!
Kindle
Masters of Horror: A Horror anthology
Presented by Matt Shaw
Collection of authors
Masters of Horror A selection of some of the finest horror writers of today were invited by Matt Shaw to bring him their twisted tales for this anthology. A book put together with the sole purpose of reminding readers what the horror genre is really about. Each author was told they could write about any subject matter they wanted so long as it was set in a world of horror. The only rule they had: No Paranormal Romance. Vampires do not sparkle, werewolves do not date, Witches do not scour Tinder for Virgins and ghosts do not declare their undying love whilst tidying the apartment... This is horror... Featuring work from: Introduction- Matt Shaw Brian Lumley - The Cyprus Shell Ramsey Campbell- Again Sam West- Survival J R Park - Mary Peter McKeirnon- Doll Face Andrew Freudenberg- A Taste of Mercy Mason Sabre - Chocolate Shaun Hutson- The Contract Anton Palmer- Dead-Eyed Dick Wrath James White- Beast Mode Shane McKenzie- Dewey Davenport Tonia Brown - Zolem Graeme Reynolds- The Pit Adam L.G. Nevill- Hippocampus Gary McMahon- You Can Go Now Ryan Harding - Down There Matt Shaw - Letter From Hell Matt Hickman- Eye For An Eye Daniel Marc Chant - Three Black Dogs Amy Cross- Checkout Kit Power- Loco Parentis Adam Millard - In The Family Guy N. Smith - The Priest Hole Jaime Johnesee- Just Breathe Craig Saunders- Raintown Sam Michael Bray - The End Is Where You’ll Find It Jeff Strand- Don’t Make Fun Of The Haunted House Mark Cassell - Trust Issues Paul Flewitt- The Silent Invader Clare Riley Whitfield- The Clay Man Jim Goforth- Animus Brian Lumley - The Deep-Sea Conch Chris Hall- Afterword
A few comments on the ones I enjoyed the most!
1. The Cyprus shell by Brain Lumley
This is a letter to a friend explaining his recent early departure from a dinner party. He explains his awful experience and aversion to oysters! Got to say I loved it and it captured so much in a short letter!
2. Again by Ramsey Campbell
This is a strange little story about a hiker discovering a strange old woman keeping her almost dead husband tied to a bed. It was a little strange.
4. Mary by J R Park
Ooo this was good religious symbols and lots of murder and blood!!
5 Doll Face by Peter McKeirnon
This was creepy as f**k there are no limits to what a father would do for his little girl!
6. A taste of Mercy by Andrew Freudenburg
Brilliant so sad and yet so gross! You felt every word of the woe the trenches brought these men!
7 chocolate by Mason Sabre
Ok so I will be keeping a close eye on my kids and their imaginary friends needing chocolate haha loved it!
8 The Contract by Shaun Hutson
Well this taught us one thing is certain killing death would be a very silly thing to do!!
9 Dead-eyed Dick by Anton Palmer
This had me in tears laughing and must be every mans worst nightmare! I’m definitely getting my husband to read it! Brilliant!!
11 Hippocampus by Adam L.G. Nevill
Nevill is one of my favourite authors he has a way of taking you every step of the journey with every book he writes. This one did not disappoint I walked the length of that vessel
With him! I know have some pretty gruesome scenes in my head.
12 you can go now. By Gary McMahon
Totally heartbreaking in some way and utterly creepy in others! Also an eye opener to mental illness which I took from it!
13 letter from hell by Matt Shaw
Reading this made me sick to my stomach being a mum I think it’s my worst nightmare! I can just imagine how those mothers felt when their children never came home! Totally gut wrenching!!
14 Eye for an eye by Matt Hickman
Brilliant! Gruesome and totally what you’d expect from the afterlife of a murderer!
16 Loco Parentis by Kit Power
About a man rounding up a pedophile ring and breaking some bones but in a strange twist he turns it on the reader lol very good!!
I absolutely loved most of these stories I think there is something in there for every Horror fan I’ve also found a few more authors!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Children Act (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“And the Oscar goes to”… (or should go to)… “Dame Emma Thompson”.
Given my last review was for “The Equalizer 2“, where Denzel was judge, jury and executioner, it’s a nice seque that this film follows the life of a senior judge in London’s Law Courts: trying to do the justice job, but in the right way!
Judge Maye (Thompson) is a childless wife to her loving husband Jack (Tucci), but is also a workaholic. This is driving the long-term couple to the point of infidelity: a fact the ever-focused Fiona – whose life, to her, probably feels to be in a perfect if selfish equilibrium – is oblivious to. With Fiona’s intense but comfortable world about to cave in around her, her increasing stress is not helped by the latest case she is working on: one where Adam ( Fionn Whitehead from “Dunkirk“), a Jehovah’s Witness boy and a minor, is refusing on religious grounds the blood transfusion he desperately needs to fight his leukaemia. Fiona’s decisions in the months ahead go much further than a simple judgement on the case.
Two acting giants – one born in London; one born in New York – tower over this Ian McEwan adaptation like leviathons. I bandy around the phrase “national treasure” a lot in these reviews but, if there was a league table of national treasures, Emma Thompson would qualify for the Champion’s League every season. Here she is simply breathtakingly powerful in the lead role of Judge Fiona Maye, exhibiting such extremes of emotion that you would like to think that an Oscar nomination would be assured. (However, before I run out and put a £10 bet on her to win, the film is such a small British film that unfortunately both a nomination and a win seem unlikely! THIS IS A CRIME! So I have added the tag #OscarBuzz to this post…. please share and lobby people, lobby! Perhaps at the very least we can hope for some BAFTA recognition).
Sometimes a masterly lead performance can make a co-star performance seem unbalanced, but no such danger here. Stanley Tucci makes a perfect acting foil for Thompson: if he were a wine he would be described as “exasperation, frustration, compassion with strong notes of respect”. And he carries it off with perfection.
This is an incredibly intelligent film, working on so many different levels and subject to so much interpretation. Fiona’s feelings for the troubled teenager feel more maternal than sexual, but when those feelings become returned and escalate the whole piece develops a queasily oedipal quality. Many films have focused on illicit attractions between teacher and pupil, but here lies a new variation, with Maye fighting against her best professional insticts to ‘do the right thing’. “I’m frightened of myself” she eventually wails to a colleague.
In his opening hospital scenes*, Adam seems completely other-wordly compared to a typical teen and this comes across as utterly false. That is, until you consider the oddness of his family background and Jehovah’s Witness upbringing. As such, the film just about gets away with it. Whitehead does a good job with a difficult role. (*It took my wife to point out – after the film, thank goodness – the similarities between this hospital scene and a famous guitar-playing scene in “Airplane” at which I dissolved into guffaws!).
If you’ve been in a court, you’ll know that there is something regal and magical about a judge in full regalia entering a packed courtroom. So it’s unusual to see the view from the other side of the door… a non-descript office corridor and a non-descript door. Helping the judge on this side of the door is her PA Nigel, played by the brilliant Jason Watkins: a TV regular (e.g. “Line of Duty”, “W1A”) but seen far less at the movies.
As a story of obsessive fixation, it borders on McEwan’s disturbing earlier work “Enduring Love”. And it has the potential to go in lots of interesting directions as a sort of bonkers platonic love triangle (“He wants to live with US?” splutters Tucci). Where the story does end up going was not particularly to my liking, and a melodramatic concert scene was – for me – a little overdone. However it does give rise to a scene (the ‘sopping wet’ scene) that shows Thompson at her most brilliant: if she DID get Oscar or BAFTA nominated then this will be her pre-announcement snippet.
It’s a great film for showcasing acting talent, but beware: it’s not got a “lot of laffs”. As such it’s very much a “Father Ted film” that takes a while to recover from.
Judge Maye (Thompson) is a childless wife to her loving husband Jack (Tucci), but is also a workaholic. This is driving the long-term couple to the point of infidelity: a fact the ever-focused Fiona – whose life, to her, probably feels to be in a perfect if selfish equilibrium – is oblivious to. With Fiona’s intense but comfortable world about to cave in around her, her increasing stress is not helped by the latest case she is working on: one where Adam ( Fionn Whitehead from “Dunkirk“), a Jehovah’s Witness boy and a minor, is refusing on religious grounds the blood transfusion he desperately needs to fight his leukaemia. Fiona’s decisions in the months ahead go much further than a simple judgement on the case.
Two acting giants – one born in London; one born in New York – tower over this Ian McEwan adaptation like leviathons. I bandy around the phrase “national treasure” a lot in these reviews but, if there was a league table of national treasures, Emma Thompson would qualify for the Champion’s League every season. Here she is simply breathtakingly powerful in the lead role of Judge Fiona Maye, exhibiting such extremes of emotion that you would like to think that an Oscar nomination would be assured. (However, before I run out and put a £10 bet on her to win, the film is such a small British film that unfortunately both a nomination and a win seem unlikely! THIS IS A CRIME! So I have added the tag #OscarBuzz to this post…. please share and lobby people, lobby! Perhaps at the very least we can hope for some BAFTA recognition).
Sometimes a masterly lead performance can make a co-star performance seem unbalanced, but no such danger here. Stanley Tucci makes a perfect acting foil for Thompson: if he were a wine he would be described as “exasperation, frustration, compassion with strong notes of respect”. And he carries it off with perfection.
This is an incredibly intelligent film, working on so many different levels and subject to so much interpretation. Fiona’s feelings for the troubled teenager feel more maternal than sexual, but when those feelings become returned and escalate the whole piece develops a queasily oedipal quality. Many films have focused on illicit attractions between teacher and pupil, but here lies a new variation, with Maye fighting against her best professional insticts to ‘do the right thing’. “I’m frightened of myself” she eventually wails to a colleague.
In his opening hospital scenes*, Adam seems completely other-wordly compared to a typical teen and this comes across as utterly false. That is, until you consider the oddness of his family background and Jehovah’s Witness upbringing. As such, the film just about gets away with it. Whitehead does a good job with a difficult role. (*It took my wife to point out – after the film, thank goodness – the similarities between this hospital scene and a famous guitar-playing scene in “Airplane” at which I dissolved into guffaws!).
If you’ve been in a court, you’ll know that there is something regal and magical about a judge in full regalia entering a packed courtroom. So it’s unusual to see the view from the other side of the door… a non-descript office corridor and a non-descript door. Helping the judge on this side of the door is her PA Nigel, played by the brilliant Jason Watkins: a TV regular (e.g. “Line of Duty”, “W1A”) but seen far less at the movies.
As a story of obsessive fixation, it borders on McEwan’s disturbing earlier work “Enduring Love”. And it has the potential to go in lots of interesting directions as a sort of bonkers platonic love triangle (“He wants to live with US?” splutters Tucci). Where the story does end up going was not particularly to my liking, and a melodramatic concert scene was – for me – a little overdone. However it does give rise to a scene (the ‘sopping wet’ scene) that shows Thompson at her most brilliant: if she DID get Oscar or BAFTA nominated then this will be her pre-announcement snippet.
It’s a great film for showcasing acting talent, but beware: it’s not got a “lot of laffs”. As such it’s very much a “Father Ted film” that takes a while to recover from.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Magnificent Seven (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Hornery Exit.
As a big fan of the original – a staple of many Bank Holiday afternoons in my youth – I was prepared to be sniffy about this remake and came to the film on my high-horse (I left that tied to the rail outside the cinema by the way). But I was surprised to have my expectations reset.
Possibly on the basis that Trump has been given the Mexican’s a good bashing lately, the villain of the piece in this film is updated from Mexican bandit Calvera to Sacremento based land-snatcher and all round bad-egg Bartholomew Bogue (an expressionless Peter Sarsgaard). After ripping through some of the inhabitants of Rose Creek in a brutal pre-title sequence, widowed sharp-shooter Emma Cullen (Haley Bennett, “The Equalizer”) heads into the West on a recruiting mission for hired guns. She first recruits the bounty hunter Chisholm (sing “Chisum, John Chisum…”… no, sorry different Western) played by Denzel Washington. Washington matches Yul Brynner’s famous black outfit, and unlike Brynner is obviously able to finish off the ensemble naturally!
They recruit another six (who’d have thought it?) including wise-guy gambler Faraday (Chris “Guardians of the Galaxy” Pratt); famed confederate sniper Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke); his nifty knife throwing Asian sidekick (but good for the Far East box office) Billy Rocks (Bjung-hun Lee, from Terminator: Genisys); and religious bear-of-a-man Indian-hunter Jack Horne (Vincent D’Onofrio, “Jurassic World”). After trying to whip the incompetent townsfolk into shape, and setting some Home-Alone style surprises, the stage is set for a showdown as Bogue whips up an army to re-take “his” town.
I like classic Westerns, with John Ford’s Rio Bravo being a particular favourite. In my view the problem with many modern Westerns is that they try too hard to shock (Tarentino’s recent “Hateful 8” was a case in point: a promising start ruined by gratuitous over-the-top violence). “The Magnificent Seven” doesn’t make that mistake, and while the squib-master and blood-bag boy are heavily employed throughout, nothing is too excessive: in fact, my view – and I don’t often tend in this direction – is that the censors rather over-egged the UK 12A rating on this one and could have gone with a 12. Director Antoine Fuqua has produced a film that is highly respectful of its heritage: perhaps to the point where many scenes might be deemed to be clichéd. But I personally warmed to that.
Denzel Washington was born to be in a Western like this and the emerging Chris Pratt does his star potential no harm by turning in a stellar performance adding both levity – with some whip-sharp lines – and screen presence in the role made famous by Steve McQueen. (Although no one comes close to the screen presence of McQueen…. Look up “real man” in the dictionary and his picture is there!) Also effective is Ethan Hawke in the nearest thing to the Robert Vaughan character in this film.
Where the adapted script by Richard Wenk and Nik Pizzolatto falters somewhat is in the motivations of the characters, which come across as superficial and unconvincing. (Perhaps “selling” was a whole lot easier in the Old West?) It is even unclear at the end of the film whether the survivors (and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the seven don’t all make it!) actually take their payment, or even a “share of the gold” that the town is sitting on. It makes for an unsatisfactory closure. The degree of racial harmony present in the film is also difficult to buy into, and the script could have made something more of this.
The film soundtrack marks the swan-song of the late James Horner, so tragically killed in a plane crash last year at the age of just 61. As the natural successor to the great John Williams and the late Jerry Goldsmith, Horner’s loss was a terrible one. The film is dedicated to him. Although the soundtrack was completed by Simon Franglen, there are flourishes of classic Horner, most notably in the first Rose Creek showdown scene. There is also a treat to the ears over the closing credits which is very welcome.
Although the film draws natural comparison with its 5* classic predecessor, this is a good film in its own right – a genuinely pleasant surprise. Perhaps its done well enough that we might get to now see a remake of “The Return of the Seven”. I hope so… “the Western is dead… long live the Western”!
Possibly on the basis that Trump has been given the Mexican’s a good bashing lately, the villain of the piece in this film is updated from Mexican bandit Calvera to Sacremento based land-snatcher and all round bad-egg Bartholomew Bogue (an expressionless Peter Sarsgaard). After ripping through some of the inhabitants of Rose Creek in a brutal pre-title sequence, widowed sharp-shooter Emma Cullen (Haley Bennett, “The Equalizer”) heads into the West on a recruiting mission for hired guns. She first recruits the bounty hunter Chisholm (sing “Chisum, John Chisum…”… no, sorry different Western) played by Denzel Washington. Washington matches Yul Brynner’s famous black outfit, and unlike Brynner is obviously able to finish off the ensemble naturally!
They recruit another six (who’d have thought it?) including wise-guy gambler Faraday (Chris “Guardians of the Galaxy” Pratt); famed confederate sniper Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke); his nifty knife throwing Asian sidekick (but good for the Far East box office) Billy Rocks (Bjung-hun Lee, from Terminator: Genisys); and religious bear-of-a-man Indian-hunter Jack Horne (Vincent D’Onofrio, “Jurassic World”). After trying to whip the incompetent townsfolk into shape, and setting some Home-Alone style surprises, the stage is set for a showdown as Bogue whips up an army to re-take “his” town.
I like classic Westerns, with John Ford’s Rio Bravo being a particular favourite. In my view the problem with many modern Westerns is that they try too hard to shock (Tarentino’s recent “Hateful 8” was a case in point: a promising start ruined by gratuitous over-the-top violence). “The Magnificent Seven” doesn’t make that mistake, and while the squib-master and blood-bag boy are heavily employed throughout, nothing is too excessive: in fact, my view – and I don’t often tend in this direction – is that the censors rather over-egged the UK 12A rating on this one and could have gone with a 12. Director Antoine Fuqua has produced a film that is highly respectful of its heritage: perhaps to the point where many scenes might be deemed to be clichéd. But I personally warmed to that.
Denzel Washington was born to be in a Western like this and the emerging Chris Pratt does his star potential no harm by turning in a stellar performance adding both levity – with some whip-sharp lines – and screen presence in the role made famous by Steve McQueen. (Although no one comes close to the screen presence of McQueen…. Look up “real man” in the dictionary and his picture is there!) Also effective is Ethan Hawke in the nearest thing to the Robert Vaughan character in this film.
Where the adapted script by Richard Wenk and Nik Pizzolatto falters somewhat is in the motivations of the characters, which come across as superficial and unconvincing. (Perhaps “selling” was a whole lot easier in the Old West?) It is even unclear at the end of the film whether the survivors (and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the seven don’t all make it!) actually take their payment, or even a “share of the gold” that the town is sitting on. It makes for an unsatisfactory closure. The degree of racial harmony present in the film is also difficult to buy into, and the script could have made something more of this.
The film soundtrack marks the swan-song of the late James Horner, so tragically killed in a plane crash last year at the age of just 61. As the natural successor to the great John Williams and the late Jerry Goldsmith, Horner’s loss was a terrible one. The film is dedicated to him. Although the soundtrack was completed by Simon Franglen, there are flourishes of classic Horner, most notably in the first Rose Creek showdown scene. There is also a treat to the ears over the closing credits which is very welcome.
Although the film draws natural comparison with its 5* classic predecessor, this is a good film in its own right – a genuinely pleasant surprise. Perhaps its done well enough that we might get to now see a remake of “The Return of the Seven”. I hope so… “the Western is dead… long live the Western”!
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated Writings Of Thomas Paine Volume 4 (1794 1796); The Age Of Reason in Books
Jun 29, 2018
Thomas Paine was a political theorist who was perhaps best known for his support for the American Revolution in his pamphlet Common Sense. In what might be his second best known work, The Age of Reason, Paine argued in favor of deism and against the Christian religion and its conception of God. By deism it is meant the belief in a creator God who does not violate the laws of nature by communicating through revelation or miracles The book was very successful and widely read partly due to the fact that it was written in a style which appealed to a popular audience and often implemented a sarcastic, derisive tone to make its points.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Breakthrough (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
The fact that this film is based on a true story is incredible to think about. I haven't read the book that was written by the boy's mother or read about the actual incident and events online, I'm not sure I want to. I usually like finding out the differences to the actual stories but I wonder if in this instance it might make me change the way I feel about the film.
John is off with his friends having fun, and what's more fun than playing out on a frozen lake? By the time they hear the crack it's too late, the three boys go under. With the emergency services on their way it's a countdown to rescuing them. Two of them have their head above water, but John, knocked unconscious while trying to help his friend out of the water, is sinking. When water rescue appears it may already be too late. They take the search slowly, but John could be anywhere, it's almost certainly too late. Tommy is about to call an end to the search when he hears someone telling him to go back, and there he is.
Rushed to the hospital, the doctors and staff work on trying to bring him back, but as the time elapses there is nothing to do but continue until his family arrive. Joyce, his mother, is devastated and not willing to accept that it's the end... and she prays, asking god to save her son... the monitor beeps to life.
Everywhere I see descriptions of this it says "christian drama". I honestly don't see that the word "christian" needs to be in there. Sure, Joyce prays a fair bit, and their pastor is in it a lot too, but it's still just a drama about something miraculous happening.
By far the best performance for me was Chrissy Metz. Joyce comes across as a very determined woman in everything that she does, and Metz really makes that stand out. From the happiness to the heartbreak, it's all believeable, which sometimes doesn't happen with films that are based on true stories.
I enjoyed Mike Colter as Tommy too. As a non-religious man trying to deal with what happened to him, and what he sees happening to John, the thought process was clear on his face and I liked how he visually interacted with those around him in those moments.
By far the strongest scene for me was the one I mentioned above in the hospital. I think it's always quite challenging to create something that has an impact on the viewer when they already know what the outcome is going to be. In this instance we already know that John doesn't die, we just don't know how the situation is remedied. The hospital staff have left the room and Joyce is with her son, she doesn't want to accept what's before her eyes. We cut between her and the staff outside in the hall in what builds up to an incredible moment. The staff reacting to Joyce as she wails in pain is something that was just stuck in my chest, I could really feel it.
While some are saying that Breakthrough is a christian film, but personally it feels more like a film about community. It's about family, about friends, about everyone around us. It also captures some of the things you have to deal with in these situations. Although fleeting at the end of the film, we see John coming to terms with the fact he survived, his miracle is hard to take for other people and they feel like they need answers, but from where? Him?
Everything about the film felt thoughtful and real, even though some bits felt a little cramped at times. By that I mean they clearly wanted to show the "negativity" and realistic thinking of those around John, he didn't have good odds and everyone would be talking about that. But getting that in felt a little cluttered with everything else going on.
I enjoyed this "christian" film, or as I like to call it "film". I spent a significant amount of time with my sleeves pressed up under my eyes, and when the doctors on screen were telling people to breathe I was doing it to recover. It's not a pushy film, I didn't feel the urge to go and join a congregation after watching it, it's just a wonderful reminder that miracles can happen, and while you wait for them there will be people all around you for support even when you don't expect it.
What you should do
It may not be a film to watch for some, I imagine the content may bring back memories that are difficult, but if you're up to it then it's well worth a watch.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Just a smidge of Joyce's determination would be good.
John is off with his friends having fun, and what's more fun than playing out on a frozen lake? By the time they hear the crack it's too late, the three boys go under. With the emergency services on their way it's a countdown to rescuing them. Two of them have their head above water, but John, knocked unconscious while trying to help his friend out of the water, is sinking. When water rescue appears it may already be too late. They take the search slowly, but John could be anywhere, it's almost certainly too late. Tommy is about to call an end to the search when he hears someone telling him to go back, and there he is.
Rushed to the hospital, the doctors and staff work on trying to bring him back, but as the time elapses there is nothing to do but continue until his family arrive. Joyce, his mother, is devastated and not willing to accept that it's the end... and she prays, asking god to save her son... the monitor beeps to life.
Everywhere I see descriptions of this it says "christian drama". I honestly don't see that the word "christian" needs to be in there. Sure, Joyce prays a fair bit, and their pastor is in it a lot too, but it's still just a drama about something miraculous happening.
By far the best performance for me was Chrissy Metz. Joyce comes across as a very determined woman in everything that she does, and Metz really makes that stand out. From the happiness to the heartbreak, it's all believeable, which sometimes doesn't happen with films that are based on true stories.
I enjoyed Mike Colter as Tommy too. As a non-religious man trying to deal with what happened to him, and what he sees happening to John, the thought process was clear on his face and I liked how he visually interacted with those around him in those moments.
By far the strongest scene for me was the one I mentioned above in the hospital. I think it's always quite challenging to create something that has an impact on the viewer when they already know what the outcome is going to be. In this instance we already know that John doesn't die, we just don't know how the situation is remedied. The hospital staff have left the room and Joyce is with her son, she doesn't want to accept what's before her eyes. We cut between her and the staff outside in the hall in what builds up to an incredible moment. The staff reacting to Joyce as she wails in pain is something that was just stuck in my chest, I could really feel it.
While some are saying that Breakthrough is a christian film, but personally it feels more like a film about community. It's about family, about friends, about everyone around us. It also captures some of the things you have to deal with in these situations. Although fleeting at the end of the film, we see John coming to terms with the fact he survived, his miracle is hard to take for other people and they feel like they need answers, but from where? Him?
Everything about the film felt thoughtful and real, even though some bits felt a little cramped at times. By that I mean they clearly wanted to show the "negativity" and realistic thinking of those around John, he didn't have good odds and everyone would be talking about that. But getting that in felt a little cluttered with everything else going on.
I enjoyed this "christian" film, or as I like to call it "film". I spent a significant amount of time with my sleeves pressed up under my eyes, and when the doctors on screen were telling people to breathe I was doing it to recover. It's not a pushy film, I didn't feel the urge to go and join a congregation after watching it, it's just a wonderful reminder that miracles can happen, and while you wait for them there will be people all around you for support even when you don't expect it.
What you should do
It may not be a film to watch for some, I imagine the content may bring back memories that are difficult, but if you're up to it then it's well worth a watch.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Just a smidge of Joyce's determination would be good.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In the last two decades America has seen an almost literal ‘invasion’ of British film and television programming. Like the British ‘music invasion’ some 60 years ago we just can’t seem to get enough of it. Today’s film for your consideration is the 2015 British dramatic comedy ‘The Lady In The Van’. Based upon the 1999 West End play of the same name written by Alan Bennett and starring famed British actress Maggie Smith, who also portrayed the lead in the original stage production at Queens Theater in London and again in a 2009 BBC 4 radio adaption, ‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of Maggie Shepherd. An elderly lady who lived in a rundown van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner, who also directed the stage play, the film stars legendary British actress Maggie Smith as Maggie Shepherd, Alex Jennings as Alan Bennett, Jim Broadbent as Underwood, Deborah Findlay as Pauline, Roger Allam as Rufus, Gwen Taylor as Mam, Cecillia Noble as Miss Brisco, Nicholas Burns as Giles Perry, Pandora Colin as Mrs Perry, and Frances de la Tour As Ursula Vaughan Williams.
‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of playwright Alan Bennett’s strained and tested relationship with Miss Maggie Shepherd. An eccentric and frightened homeless woman whom he befriended in the 1970s shortly after he moved into London’s Camden neighborhood. Originally, Bennett invites Shepherd to park her aging Bedford van in his driveway so she can list it as an address in order to collect benefits and eventually move on. Instead, Shepherd ends up living in the van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years. Just before her death in 1989, Alan learns that Maggie Shepherd is actually Margaret Fairchild. A gifted piano player who was a pupil of pianist Alfred Cortot and had a fondness for Chopin. So much so that when she tried to become a nun, she was kicked out of her religious order twice for wanting to play music. Bennett also learns that the reason Shepherd was homeless was that she was on the run for leaving the scene of a crime she didn’t commit after escaping an institution where she’d been committed by her own brother.
I found this movie to be a prime example of the concept ‘Everyone Has A Story To Tell’. Whether the person wants to tell the story or not is a whole other idea entirely. The strange friendship between Bennett and Shepherd is certainly an unusual one to be sure. While Bennett’s neighbors would be happy to see they as they describe ‘the crazy old lady leave the neighborhood, Bennett seems to follow his writer’s instincts and also his humanity. Maggie Smith’s and Alex Jennings’s performances as the oddly paired friends go far in helping to comprehend what went on between the two. Shepherd and Bennett both excelled as artists in their own way. One as a writer one as a musician. Both kinds of artists tell stories thorough their respective crafts. In this case though, the writer (Bennett) had the ‘responsibility’ of telling Shepherd’s story after debating with himself more than once whether he had the right to do so and whether it was moral or not. On top of that, it took over a decade to find the answers Bennett was looking for. In the end, it seems Bennett did what writers do. They use what’s around them in their lives to write about. And perhaps, by doing so, he helped give Shepherd some sort of closure and perhaps peace as well just before her death.
I’m going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The movie clocks in at 104 minutes so it is a long movie but honestly, how can you say ‘no’ to a movie with Maggie Smith? Honestly, explain that one to me. She definitely ‘carries the film’ with her performance as Miss Mary Shepherd but the combination of her performance and that of Alex Jennings as the writer Alan Bennett that really make the film. I think another one of the reasons this film was good was because you had so many of the people that were involved in the original play that worked on the film itself. I personally find some British films, comedies in particular, to be a bit quirky sometimes. As funny as British humor is its sometimes difficult to grasp at first and there’s a bit of that in this film. Don’t let that discourage you though. If you can find an awesome art house movie theater, I’d certainly recommend going to catch it there. If you can’t, watch it online.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed I’d like to say ‘Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll see you at the movies.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner, who also directed the stage play, the film stars legendary British actress Maggie Smith as Maggie Shepherd, Alex Jennings as Alan Bennett, Jim Broadbent as Underwood, Deborah Findlay as Pauline, Roger Allam as Rufus, Gwen Taylor as Mam, Cecillia Noble as Miss Brisco, Nicholas Burns as Giles Perry, Pandora Colin as Mrs Perry, and Frances de la Tour As Ursula Vaughan Williams.
‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of playwright Alan Bennett’s strained and tested relationship with Miss Maggie Shepherd. An eccentric and frightened homeless woman whom he befriended in the 1970s shortly after he moved into London’s Camden neighborhood. Originally, Bennett invites Shepherd to park her aging Bedford van in his driveway so she can list it as an address in order to collect benefits and eventually move on. Instead, Shepherd ends up living in the van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years. Just before her death in 1989, Alan learns that Maggie Shepherd is actually Margaret Fairchild. A gifted piano player who was a pupil of pianist Alfred Cortot and had a fondness for Chopin. So much so that when she tried to become a nun, she was kicked out of her religious order twice for wanting to play music. Bennett also learns that the reason Shepherd was homeless was that she was on the run for leaving the scene of a crime she didn’t commit after escaping an institution where she’d been committed by her own brother.
I found this movie to be a prime example of the concept ‘Everyone Has A Story To Tell’. Whether the person wants to tell the story or not is a whole other idea entirely. The strange friendship between Bennett and Shepherd is certainly an unusual one to be sure. While Bennett’s neighbors would be happy to see they as they describe ‘the crazy old lady leave the neighborhood, Bennett seems to follow his writer’s instincts and also his humanity. Maggie Smith’s and Alex Jennings’s performances as the oddly paired friends go far in helping to comprehend what went on between the two. Shepherd and Bennett both excelled as artists in their own way. One as a writer one as a musician. Both kinds of artists tell stories thorough their respective crafts. In this case though, the writer (Bennett) had the ‘responsibility’ of telling Shepherd’s story after debating with himself more than once whether he had the right to do so and whether it was moral or not. On top of that, it took over a decade to find the answers Bennett was looking for. In the end, it seems Bennett did what writers do. They use what’s around them in their lives to write about. And perhaps, by doing so, he helped give Shepherd some sort of closure and perhaps peace as well just before her death.
I’m going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The movie clocks in at 104 minutes so it is a long movie but honestly, how can you say ‘no’ to a movie with Maggie Smith? Honestly, explain that one to me. She definitely ‘carries the film’ with her performance as Miss Mary Shepherd but the combination of her performance and that of Alex Jennings as the writer Alan Bennett that really make the film. I think another one of the reasons this film was good was because you had so many of the people that were involved in the original play that worked on the film itself. I personally find some British films, comedies in particular, to be a bit quirky sometimes. As funny as British humor is its sometimes difficult to grasp at first and there’s a bit of that in this film. Don’t let that discourage you though. If you can find an awesome art house movie theater, I’d certainly recommend going to catch it there. If you can’t, watch it online.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed I’d like to say ‘Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll see you at the movies.
Tekhenu: Obelish of the Sun
Tabletop Game
Four millennia ago on the eastern bank of the Nile river was laid the foundation of the Temple of...