Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Voyagers (2021) in Movies
Apr 7, 2021
The classic novel Lord of the Flies by William Golding is not only a beloved classic but has been assigned reading for generations of students since it was first published in 1954. The book has been adapted into plays and films over the years and remains a chilling and poignant cautionary tale.
In the new movie “Voyagers” audiences are introduced to an Earth that has been ravaged by climate change and disease. In an effort to save the species; a grand experiment to genetically create a group of children who are the origins of a colonization effort is undertaken.
The planet is 86 years away so the decision is made that the children will be raised and trained indoors without any exposure to nature, open skies, fresh air, and other aspects they will be deprived of on the ship.
Richard (Colin Farrell) decides to accompany the children on the mission as he wants to protect them and ensure things go as planned so their progeny will be well suited to continue on the mission to the next generation who will ultimately be the ones who colonize the planet.
Ten years into the mission things are going well until a discovery is made that a drink the children take daily known as “The Blue” is a drug used to suppress their emotions and keep them docile and easy to control.
When friends Christopher (Tye Sheridan) and Zac (Fionn Whitehead); who learned the secret of the drug decide to stop taking it; they soon reveal the truth of their discovery to the rest of the children who in turn stop using the drug.
In no time rampant emotions, aggressions, desires, paranoia, and mistrust start to run wild and Zac becomes obsessed with Sela (Lilly-Rose Depp). His unwelcome advances soon become more and more aggressive which causes Christopher and Richard to intervene and tragedy soon follows.
Christopher and Zac soon find themselves at odds with one another and fear and paranoia lead the crew to form into factions and turn on one other which not only threatens the mission but their very survival.
The film was very engaging and while I saw the influence of Lord of the Flies early on; the engaging cast and setting make the film entertaining and enjoyable despite any really unexpected twists.
The young leads work well with one another and it will be very interesting to watch how their careers unfold in the years to come. “Voyagers” is a refreshing new take on a classic tale and provides an entertaining and engaging adventure for viewers to enjoy.
In the new movie “Voyagers” audiences are introduced to an Earth that has been ravaged by climate change and disease. In an effort to save the species; a grand experiment to genetically create a group of children who are the origins of a colonization effort is undertaken.
The planet is 86 years away so the decision is made that the children will be raised and trained indoors without any exposure to nature, open skies, fresh air, and other aspects they will be deprived of on the ship.
Richard (Colin Farrell) decides to accompany the children on the mission as he wants to protect them and ensure things go as planned so their progeny will be well suited to continue on the mission to the next generation who will ultimately be the ones who colonize the planet.
Ten years into the mission things are going well until a discovery is made that a drink the children take daily known as “The Blue” is a drug used to suppress their emotions and keep them docile and easy to control.
When friends Christopher (Tye Sheridan) and Zac (Fionn Whitehead); who learned the secret of the drug decide to stop taking it; they soon reveal the truth of their discovery to the rest of the children who in turn stop using the drug.
In no time rampant emotions, aggressions, desires, paranoia, and mistrust start to run wild and Zac becomes obsessed with Sela (Lilly-Rose Depp). His unwelcome advances soon become more and more aggressive which causes Christopher and Richard to intervene and tragedy soon follows.
Christopher and Zac soon find themselves at odds with one another and fear and paranoia lead the crew to form into factions and turn on one other which not only threatens the mission but their very survival.
The film was very engaging and while I saw the influence of Lord of the Flies early on; the engaging cast and setting make the film entertaining and enjoyable despite any really unexpected twists.
The young leads work well with one another and it will be very interesting to watch how their careers unfold in the years to come. “Voyagers” is a refreshing new take on a classic tale and provides an entertaining and engaging adventure for viewers to enjoy.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Days of Heaven (1978) in Movies
Jul 7, 2019
Gorgeous sprawling vistas
While I am still a Terrence Malick novice, I truly appreciate the small amount of his films I have seen. Having recently watched The Tree of Life which I found amazing I thought I would look up a few more to see what I was missing.
In or around 1916 middle America, an expansive wheat farm is worked for harvesting by hoards of day laborers. The landowner takes a fancy to one of his prettiest workers and asks her to stay on along with her brother and little sister. Little does the man know the other man is indeed her beau instead of her brother. A love triangle develops after she marries the rich man that slowly builds in tension until the poor couple's relationship is uncovered.
Peril comes to the farm in the form of locusts which threaten the crops and a subsequent fire which could destroy the fields completely.
I have found when I watch a Malick film, an very important supporting character is the landscape, atmosphere and world of nature around their human counterparts. In this film, the majestic fields are supplemented with shots of animals in the fields, vast sky and cloud formations and even unseen plants fighting to break through the soil.
I think these elements add much to deepen the immersion of the audience into the story Malick is telling and helps you accept the world around them quickly.
Richard Gere, Brooke Adams and the handsome Sam Shepard (they all looked so young) were beautifully photographed and played their parts well as we believed their emotions completely.
A truly magnificent film!
In or around 1916 middle America, an expansive wheat farm is worked for harvesting by hoards of day laborers. The landowner takes a fancy to one of his prettiest workers and asks her to stay on along with her brother and little sister. Little does the man know the other man is indeed her beau instead of her brother. A love triangle develops after she marries the rich man that slowly builds in tension until the poor couple's relationship is uncovered.
Peril comes to the farm in the form of locusts which threaten the crops and a subsequent fire which could destroy the fields completely.
I have found when I watch a Malick film, an very important supporting character is the landscape, atmosphere and world of nature around their human counterparts. In this film, the majestic fields are supplemented with shots of animals in the fields, vast sky and cloud formations and even unseen plants fighting to break through the soil.
I think these elements add much to deepen the immersion of the audience into the story Malick is telling and helps you accept the world around them quickly.
Richard Gere, Brooke Adams and the handsome Sam Shepard (they all looked so young) were beautifully photographed and played their parts well as we believed their emotions completely.
A truly magnificent film!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Moulin Rouge! (2001) in Movies
Apr 15, 2020
In My "ALL TIME TOP 10"
If one would look at the BankofMarquis "All Time Top 10" film list, you will see such stalwarts as THE GODFATHER, SINGIN' IN THE RAIN and CITIZEN KANE. It also would contain a "more modern" film that doesn't, necessarily, find itself on these types of lists - Baz Luhrman's MOULIN ROUGE from 2001.
Yes...it's that good.
Set at the turn of the century (the 19th to the 20th century) during the Bohemian Revolution in Paris, MOULIN ROUGE tells the tale of the...you guessed it...the Moulin Rouge theater/club where a young writer (Ewan McGregor) gets pulled into the lives of the artists and others trying to make a living, falling in love with a young courtesan, Satine (Nicole Kidman) all under the watchful eye of Harold Zidler (Jim Broadbent).
But it is not the story, but the telling of the story that sets this film apart. It is chaotic, wild, colorful, sexy, grimy, loving, alcoholic and spectacular - all things that not only describe this film, but the Moulin Rouge itself. Directer Baz Luhrman really shines in his vision of this picture that juxtaposes colorful sets and costumes, unique characters and songs and dance and music that tells the tale in a a unique way.
Oh...did I mention that most of this music is MODERN music? From Elton John's YOUR SONG to Roger's and Hammerstein's THE SOUND OF MUSIC to LADY MARMALADE to the ingenious use of Sting's ROXANNE (in a tango scene no less), this film is an amalgam of song that fits each scene perfectly. At what first seems incongruous, upon further viewings, the songs are slyly picked to accent the emotions and dramatic purpose of each scene.
As for the acting, McGregor and Kidman are beautifully cast (pun intended) as the young lovers. Their good looks radiate across the screen and I thought they had great chemistry. John Leguzamo and the other "Bohemians" pop in and out and are uniquely outrageous without being annoying. Richard Roxburgh's antagonist, "the Duke", came across in this viewing as not nearly as annoying as I have found him to be previously. Maybe there is more to this character/performance than meets the eye.
But it is Jim Broadbent's portrayal of the Master Shoman, Harold Zidler, that steals this film for me. He is a cunning and ingenious showman who (more than once) proves that he will stop at nothing for the "show to go on", but there are many notes to Zidler, at once in control and at the same time trying to KEEP control of events spiraling out of his control that actually shows a desperate man doing whatever he can to survive.
Add all these ingredients up and you have a film that gets deeper and richer with each subsequent viewing. I have yet to get tired of this film - and I am looking forward to the next time I immerse myself into this world.
Letter Grade: A +
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Yes...it's that good.
Set at the turn of the century (the 19th to the 20th century) during the Bohemian Revolution in Paris, MOULIN ROUGE tells the tale of the...you guessed it...the Moulin Rouge theater/club where a young writer (Ewan McGregor) gets pulled into the lives of the artists and others trying to make a living, falling in love with a young courtesan, Satine (Nicole Kidman) all under the watchful eye of Harold Zidler (Jim Broadbent).
But it is not the story, but the telling of the story that sets this film apart. It is chaotic, wild, colorful, sexy, grimy, loving, alcoholic and spectacular - all things that not only describe this film, but the Moulin Rouge itself. Directer Baz Luhrman really shines in his vision of this picture that juxtaposes colorful sets and costumes, unique characters and songs and dance and music that tells the tale in a a unique way.
Oh...did I mention that most of this music is MODERN music? From Elton John's YOUR SONG to Roger's and Hammerstein's THE SOUND OF MUSIC to LADY MARMALADE to the ingenious use of Sting's ROXANNE (in a tango scene no less), this film is an amalgam of song that fits each scene perfectly. At what first seems incongruous, upon further viewings, the songs are slyly picked to accent the emotions and dramatic purpose of each scene.
As for the acting, McGregor and Kidman are beautifully cast (pun intended) as the young lovers. Their good looks radiate across the screen and I thought they had great chemistry. John Leguzamo and the other "Bohemians" pop in and out and are uniquely outrageous without being annoying. Richard Roxburgh's antagonist, "the Duke", came across in this viewing as not nearly as annoying as I have found him to be previously. Maybe there is more to this character/performance than meets the eye.
But it is Jim Broadbent's portrayal of the Master Shoman, Harold Zidler, that steals this film for me. He is a cunning and ingenious showman who (more than once) proves that he will stop at nothing for the "show to go on", but there are many notes to Zidler, at once in control and at the same time trying to KEEP control of events spiraling out of his control that actually shows a desperate man doing whatever he can to survive.
Add all these ingredients up and you have a film that gets deeper and richer with each subsequent viewing. I have yet to get tired of this film - and I am looking forward to the next time I immerse myself into this world.
Letter Grade: A +
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A fantasy that’s glossy and beautiful to look at.
Before the heavyweight juggernaut of “Mary Poppins Returns” arrives at Christmas, here’s another Disney live action feature to get everyone in the festive spirit.
The Plot.
It’s Victorian London and Young Clara (Mackenzie Foy) lives with her father (Matthew Macfadyen), her older sister Louise (Ellie Bamber) and her younger brother Fritz (Tom Sweet). It’s Christmas and the family are having a hard time as they are grieving the recent death of wife and mother Marie (Anna Madeley). Like her mother, Clara has an astute mind with an engineering bias and is encouraged in this pursuit by her quirky inventor godfather, Drosselmeyer (Morgan Freeman). At his fabled Christmas ball, Clara asks for his help in accessing a gift Clara’s mother has bequeathed to her. This leads Clara on a magical adventure to a parallel world with four realms, where everything is not quite peace and harmony.
The Review.
This is a film that visually delights from the word go. The film opens with a swooping tour of Victorian London (who knew the Disney castle was in the capital’s suburbs?!) via Westminster bridge and into the Stahlbaum’s attic. It’s a spectacular tour-de-force of special-effects wizardry and sets up the expectation of what’s to come. For every scene that follows is a richly decorated feast for the eyes. Drosselmeyer’s party is a glorious event, full of extras, strong on costume design and with a rich colour palette as filmed by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“). When we are pitched into the Four Realms – no wardrobe required – the magical visions continue.
The film represents a Narnia-esque take on the four compass-point lands of Oz, and on that basis it’s a bit formulaic. But the good vs evil angles are more subtley portrayed. Of the Four Realms leaders, Keira Knightley as Sugar Plum rather steals the show from the others (played by Richard E. Grant, Eugenio Derbez and Helen Mirren). Mirren in particular is given little to do.
What age kids would this be suitable for? Well, probably a good judge would be the Wizard of Oz. If your kids are not completely freaked out by the Wicked Witch of the West and the flying monkeys, then they will probably cope OK with the scary bits of the “Realm of Entertainment”. Although those who suffer from either musophobia or (especially) coulrophobia might want to give it a miss! All kids are different though, and the “loss of the mother” is also an angle to consider: that might worry and upset young children. It is definitely a “PG” certificate rather than a “U” certificate.
Young people who also enjoy ballet (I nearly fell into a sexist trap there!) will also get a kick out of some of the dance sequences, which are “Fantasia-esque” in their presentation and feature Misty Copeland, famously the first African American Female Principal Dancer with the American Ballet Theatre. (I have no appreciation at all for ballet, but I’m sure it was brilliant!)
As for the moral tone of the film, the female empowerment message is rather ladled on with a trowel, but as it’s a good message I have no great problem with that. I am often appalled at how lacking in confidence young people are in their own abilities. Here is a young lady (an engineer!) learning self-resilience and the confidence to be able to do anything in life she puts her mind to. Well said.
The story is rather generic – child visits a magical other world – but the screenplay is impressive given its the first-feature screenplay for Ashleigh Powell: there is an article on her approach to screenwriting that you might find interesting here.
The film is credited with two directors. This – particularly if there is also an army of screenwriters – is normally a warning sign on a film. (As a case in point, the chaotic 1967 version of “Casino Royale” had six different directors, and it shows!). Here, there clearly were issues with the filming since Disney insisted on reshoots for which the original director, Lasse Hallström, was not available. This is where the “Captain America” director Joe Johnston stepped in.
The turns.
I really enjoyed Mackenzie Foy‘s performance as Clara. Now 18, she is a feisty and believable Disney princess for the modern age. (If, like me, you are struggling to place where you’ve heard her name before, she was the young Murph in Nolan’s “Interstellar“).
Another name I was struggling with was Ellie Bamber as her sister. Ellie was excellent in the traumatic role of the daughter in the brilliant “Nocturnal Animals“, one of my favourite films of 2016. (Hopefully the therapy has worked and Ellie can sleep at night again!).
A newcomer with a big role is Jayden Fowora-Knight as the Nutcracker soldier: Jayden had a bit part in “Ready Player One” but does a great job here in a substantial role in the film. He stands out as a black actor in a Disney feature: notwithstanding the Finn character in “Star Wars”, this is a long-overdue and welcome approach from Disney.
British comedians Omid Djalili and Jack Whitehouse turn up to add some light relief, but the humour seems rather forced and not particularly fitting.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one much, but I did. Prinicipally because it is such a visual feast and worth going to see just for that alone: I have a prediction that this film will be nominated for production design, costume design and possible special effects.
I think kids of the right age – I would have thought 6 to 10 sort of range – will enjoy this a lot, particularly if they like dance. Young girls in particular will most relate to the lead character. For such kids, I’d rate this a 4*. The rating below reflects my rating as an adult: so I don’t think ‘drag-a-long’ parents in the Christmas holidays (if it is still on by then) will not be totally bored.
The Plot.
It’s Victorian London and Young Clara (Mackenzie Foy) lives with her father (Matthew Macfadyen), her older sister Louise (Ellie Bamber) and her younger brother Fritz (Tom Sweet). It’s Christmas and the family are having a hard time as they are grieving the recent death of wife and mother Marie (Anna Madeley). Like her mother, Clara has an astute mind with an engineering bias and is encouraged in this pursuit by her quirky inventor godfather, Drosselmeyer (Morgan Freeman). At his fabled Christmas ball, Clara asks for his help in accessing a gift Clara’s mother has bequeathed to her. This leads Clara on a magical adventure to a parallel world with four realms, where everything is not quite peace and harmony.
The Review.
This is a film that visually delights from the word go. The film opens with a swooping tour of Victorian London (who knew the Disney castle was in the capital’s suburbs?!) via Westminster bridge and into the Stahlbaum’s attic. It’s a spectacular tour-de-force of special-effects wizardry and sets up the expectation of what’s to come. For every scene that follows is a richly decorated feast for the eyes. Drosselmeyer’s party is a glorious event, full of extras, strong on costume design and with a rich colour palette as filmed by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“). When we are pitched into the Four Realms – no wardrobe required – the magical visions continue.
The film represents a Narnia-esque take on the four compass-point lands of Oz, and on that basis it’s a bit formulaic. But the good vs evil angles are more subtley portrayed. Of the Four Realms leaders, Keira Knightley as Sugar Plum rather steals the show from the others (played by Richard E. Grant, Eugenio Derbez and Helen Mirren). Mirren in particular is given little to do.
What age kids would this be suitable for? Well, probably a good judge would be the Wizard of Oz. If your kids are not completely freaked out by the Wicked Witch of the West and the flying monkeys, then they will probably cope OK with the scary bits of the “Realm of Entertainment”. Although those who suffer from either musophobia or (especially) coulrophobia might want to give it a miss! All kids are different though, and the “loss of the mother” is also an angle to consider: that might worry and upset young children. It is definitely a “PG” certificate rather than a “U” certificate.
Young people who also enjoy ballet (I nearly fell into a sexist trap there!) will also get a kick out of some of the dance sequences, which are “Fantasia-esque” in their presentation and feature Misty Copeland, famously the first African American Female Principal Dancer with the American Ballet Theatre. (I have no appreciation at all for ballet, but I’m sure it was brilliant!)
As for the moral tone of the film, the female empowerment message is rather ladled on with a trowel, but as it’s a good message I have no great problem with that. I am often appalled at how lacking in confidence young people are in their own abilities. Here is a young lady (an engineer!) learning self-resilience and the confidence to be able to do anything in life she puts her mind to. Well said.
The story is rather generic – child visits a magical other world – but the screenplay is impressive given its the first-feature screenplay for Ashleigh Powell: there is an article on her approach to screenwriting that you might find interesting here.
The film is credited with two directors. This – particularly if there is also an army of screenwriters – is normally a warning sign on a film. (As a case in point, the chaotic 1967 version of “Casino Royale” had six different directors, and it shows!). Here, there clearly were issues with the filming since Disney insisted on reshoots for which the original director, Lasse Hallström, was not available. This is where the “Captain America” director Joe Johnston stepped in.
The turns.
I really enjoyed Mackenzie Foy‘s performance as Clara. Now 18, she is a feisty and believable Disney princess for the modern age. (If, like me, you are struggling to place where you’ve heard her name before, she was the young Murph in Nolan’s “Interstellar“).
Another name I was struggling with was Ellie Bamber as her sister. Ellie was excellent in the traumatic role of the daughter in the brilliant “Nocturnal Animals“, one of my favourite films of 2016. (Hopefully the therapy has worked and Ellie can sleep at night again!).
A newcomer with a big role is Jayden Fowora-Knight as the Nutcracker soldier: Jayden had a bit part in “Ready Player One” but does a great job here in a substantial role in the film. He stands out as a black actor in a Disney feature: notwithstanding the Finn character in “Star Wars”, this is a long-overdue and welcome approach from Disney.
British comedians Omid Djalili and Jack Whitehouse turn up to add some light relief, but the humour seems rather forced and not particularly fitting.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one much, but I did. Prinicipally because it is such a visual feast and worth going to see just for that alone: I have a prediction that this film will be nominated for production design, costume design and possible special effects.
I think kids of the right age – I would have thought 6 to 10 sort of range – will enjoy this a lot, particularly if they like dance. Young girls in particular will most relate to the lead character. For such kids, I’d rate this a 4*. The rating below reflects my rating as an adult: so I don’t think ‘drag-a-long’ parents in the Christmas holidays (if it is still on by then) will not be totally bored.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) in Movies
May 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 24, 2019)
An underrated sequel
And so it begins....
The Lost World is the first of a handful of sequels that don't even scratch the original, but I've always thought this was an underappreciated follow up.
As with the first, I first saw this when I was very young, and naturally thought it was incredible (as any 10 year old boy would), but unlike the first one, it doesn't hold up watching it now.
Starting with a huge positive though - I will always, and I mean always have time for Jeff Goldblum. He has always been one of my top actors and he returns to the role of Ian Malcolm with aplomb here.
Another welcome member of the cast is Pete Postlethwaite as the token bad guy, and of course Richard Attenborough returning as John Hammond.
There are also some great set pieces, namely the now infamous trailer-hanging-from-the-side-of-cliff scene. The tension built up here is reminiscent of the first T-Rex scene from the first film.
But on the flip side you have the last 30 minutes. The change of location is jarring and the urban setting highlights just how rough around the edges the special effects are.
I have to give kudos to Spielberg for attempting such an ambitious twist at the last minute, but it doesn't quite work, and gives way to a huge plot hole involving the fates of the ship crew.
I also find myself not really caring about the rest of the cast, which is a shame, as I tend to enjoy Julianne Moore.
Overall - it's not terrible, it's not great, but enjoy this sequel for what it is as it's down hill from here!
The Lost World is the first of a handful of sequels that don't even scratch the original, but I've always thought this was an underappreciated follow up.
As with the first, I first saw this when I was very young, and naturally thought it was incredible (as any 10 year old boy would), but unlike the first one, it doesn't hold up watching it now.
Starting with a huge positive though - I will always, and I mean always have time for Jeff Goldblum. He has always been one of my top actors and he returns to the role of Ian Malcolm with aplomb here.
Another welcome member of the cast is Pete Postlethwaite as the token bad guy, and of course Richard Attenborough returning as John Hammond.
There are also some great set pieces, namely the now infamous trailer-hanging-from-the-side-of-cliff scene. The tension built up here is reminiscent of the first T-Rex scene from the first film.
But on the flip side you have the last 30 minutes. The change of location is jarring and the urban setting highlights just how rough around the edges the special effects are.
I have to give kudos to Spielberg for attempting such an ambitious twist at the last minute, but it doesn't quite work, and gives way to a huge plot hole involving the fates of the ship crew.
I also find myself not really caring about the rest of the cast, which is a shame, as I tend to enjoy Julianne Moore.
Overall - it's not terrible, it's not great, but enjoy this sequel for what it is as it's down hill from here!
Kevin Wilson (179 KP) rated Jurassic Park (1993) in Movies
Jul 23, 2018
The music!!! (3 more)
Incredible cast
The dinosaurs look incredible
The writing
Are there any flaws to this movie? I think not!
Wow what can I say about this? A classic. A masterpiece. The greatest dinosaur movie of all time by far....in fact 1 of the greatest movies in general of all time.
The soundtrack is iconic. John Williams is a genius. You hear that song anywhere and you immediately know what movie it is.
Sam neills greatest role, shirtless Jeff goldblum, a young(er) Samuel l Jackson and a great Richard attenborough. The cast is great with fantastic writing. In a film about dinosaurs the acting is believable, I love the relationships between the characters.
We can't forget the other main cast member.....the dinosaurs. The looked incredible. The use of animatronics were genius mixed with some visual effects. They looked believable, they were scary and there were many different types to keep you interested. The sounds were perfect along with the intense feeling of seeing water shake letting you know something big is coming.
Spielburgs directing is on top form for this movie and is easily 1 of his best and that is saying a lot. Only he can present a scene to you that invokes both awe and fear at the same time.
It does make you think too even now about where technology is going and Jeff goldblum says it best in 1 seen. "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that didn't stop to think if they should" this line has stuck with me for a long time because it's true even today.
Fantastic movie that belongs in anyone's top 10. It is the only Dino movie worth watching. Nothing else comes close.
The soundtrack is iconic. John Williams is a genius. You hear that song anywhere and you immediately know what movie it is.
Sam neills greatest role, shirtless Jeff goldblum, a young(er) Samuel l Jackson and a great Richard attenborough. The cast is great with fantastic writing. In a film about dinosaurs the acting is believable, I love the relationships between the characters.
We can't forget the other main cast member.....the dinosaurs. The looked incredible. The use of animatronics were genius mixed with some visual effects. They looked believable, they were scary and there were many different types to keep you interested. The sounds were perfect along with the intense feeling of seeing water shake letting you know something big is coming.
Spielburgs directing is on top form for this movie and is easily 1 of his best and that is saying a lot. Only he can present a scene to you that invokes both awe and fear at the same time.
It does make you think too even now about where technology is going and Jeff goldblum says it best in 1 seen. "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that didn't stop to think if they should" this line has stuck with me for a long time because it's true even today.
Fantastic movie that belongs in anyone's top 10. It is the only Dino movie worth watching. Nothing else comes close.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated He Walks Among Us: Encounters with Christ in a Broken World in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<b>Synopsis</b>
Richard Stearns is the president of World Vision United States who, along with his wife Reneé, regularly visits the poorer countries of our world to see the ways the charity is helping to change people's lives. <i>He Walks Among Us</i> is a compilation of short thoughts and observations (two-to-three pages, including photographs) they have both had while conducting their work. As they alternate the writing, we are given opinions and experiences that we may be able to relate to our own. As Richard is the president of the organisation, he can give an insight into the way World Vision works, however, he can also express his opinions as a father, grandfather and believer in Christ. Reneé is also a World Vision worker, but due to her nature, gives a more maternal impression of the scenes she witnesses.
The individuals written about in this book come from all over the world. Most are located in Africa, but there are also similar stories in Asia, South and North America, and even Eastern Europe. The terrors these people have faced are shocking (AIDs, war, sexual abuse, natural disasters etc), but each family has been aided in some way by World Vision and their donors.
The purpose of <i>He Walks Among Us</i> is not to promote World Vision, but to encourage us to let God and Jesus into our lives. Richard and Reneé assume their readers are Christians, however, they realise that being a Christian does not equate to fully accepting God's plans. The victims of war, rape, and poverty mentioned have also been touched by Jesus. Many did not know him before World Vision came into their lives, but they have now been transformed through the power of his love - although their situation may not have significantly improved.
The actual stories used to illustrate the work of World Vision are only brief mentions, providing the bare bones of the situations. What Richard and Reneé have focused on is linking these lives, their lives and our lives to passages from the Bible. Either taken literally or metaphorically, the pair manage to relate everything to the actions and fates of a number of key Biblical characters. This emphasises that Our Lord is walking among us, giving life, peace, hope and steadfast faith.
<b>Ideas</b>
Giving someone new hope or purpose in their life can be related to Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. Whether people are literally dying, or on the edge of hopelessness and despair, improving their situation can turn their lives around.
The donors and workers at World Vision are like the Good Samaritan in Jesus' parable. We do not know these people, know their religion or circumstances, yet we send money and aid. To do nothing would make us the Priest or Levite in the story.
David was only a young boy when he had to face Goliath, yet, against all odds, he defeated him. The children mentioned in this book are similar to David. They each have their metaphorical Goliath's: poverty, illness, loss of parents, war, hunger etc, but with God working through us, these can be overcome.
<b>Noteworthy Bible Verses</b>
Each chapter of the book begins with a Bible verse, and often more are included within the text. Here are a few that really relate to the work of World Vision and the ways in which we can involve ourselves:
Philippians 4:12-13
Luke 21:3-4
Luke 6:20-21
Psalm 23:4
<b>Statistics</b>
23 million people in sub-Sahara Africa are suffering from HIV.
In Soviet-controlled Georgia, churches were banned. Some villages are only just seeing their first church in over 400 years.
20 thousand children under the age of 5 die every day.
Every 4 seconds a child under 5 dies.
Over 2 billion people in the world are living on $2 or less a day.
1 billion people have no access to clean drinking water.
41% of the population in Niger have no clean water.
<b>Citations</b>
Helen Keller: "So much has been given to me, I have no time to ponder over that which is denied."
Oswald Chambers: "The great hindrance in spiritual life is that we will look for big things to do. Jesus took a towel ... and began to wash the disciples' feet."
Mother Theresa: "I am a pencil in the hand of a writing God who is sending a love letter to the world."
C.S. Lewis: "Humility is not thinking less of yourself but thinking of yourself less."
<b>Other Mentions</b>
Hymn - Frances R. Havergal, <i>Take my Life and let it be.</i>
Film - <i>Pushing the Elephant</i>
Richard Stearns is the president of World Vision United States who, along with his wife Reneé, regularly visits the poorer countries of our world to see the ways the charity is helping to change people's lives. <i>He Walks Among Us</i> is a compilation of short thoughts and observations (two-to-three pages, including photographs) they have both had while conducting their work. As they alternate the writing, we are given opinions and experiences that we may be able to relate to our own. As Richard is the president of the organisation, he can give an insight into the way World Vision works, however, he can also express his opinions as a father, grandfather and believer in Christ. Reneé is also a World Vision worker, but due to her nature, gives a more maternal impression of the scenes she witnesses.
The individuals written about in this book come from all over the world. Most are located in Africa, but there are also similar stories in Asia, South and North America, and even Eastern Europe. The terrors these people have faced are shocking (AIDs, war, sexual abuse, natural disasters etc), but each family has been aided in some way by World Vision and their donors.
The purpose of <i>He Walks Among Us</i> is not to promote World Vision, but to encourage us to let God and Jesus into our lives. Richard and Reneé assume their readers are Christians, however, they realise that being a Christian does not equate to fully accepting God's plans. The victims of war, rape, and poverty mentioned have also been touched by Jesus. Many did not know him before World Vision came into their lives, but they have now been transformed through the power of his love - although their situation may not have significantly improved.
The actual stories used to illustrate the work of World Vision are only brief mentions, providing the bare bones of the situations. What Richard and Reneé have focused on is linking these lives, their lives and our lives to passages from the Bible. Either taken literally or metaphorically, the pair manage to relate everything to the actions and fates of a number of key Biblical characters. This emphasises that Our Lord is walking among us, giving life, peace, hope and steadfast faith.
<b>Ideas</b>
Giving someone new hope or purpose in their life can be related to Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. Whether people are literally dying, or on the edge of hopelessness and despair, improving their situation can turn their lives around.
The donors and workers at World Vision are like the Good Samaritan in Jesus' parable. We do not know these people, know their religion or circumstances, yet we send money and aid. To do nothing would make us the Priest or Levite in the story.
David was only a young boy when he had to face Goliath, yet, against all odds, he defeated him. The children mentioned in this book are similar to David. They each have their metaphorical Goliath's: poverty, illness, loss of parents, war, hunger etc, but with God working through us, these can be overcome.
<b>Noteworthy Bible Verses</b>
Each chapter of the book begins with a Bible verse, and often more are included within the text. Here are a few that really relate to the work of World Vision and the ways in which we can involve ourselves:
Philippians 4:12-13
Luke 21:3-4
Luke 6:20-21
Psalm 23:4
<b>Statistics</b>
23 million people in sub-Sahara Africa are suffering from HIV.
In Soviet-controlled Georgia, churches were banned. Some villages are only just seeing their first church in over 400 years.
20 thousand children under the age of 5 die every day.
Every 4 seconds a child under 5 dies.
Over 2 billion people in the world are living on $2 or less a day.
1 billion people have no access to clean drinking water.
41% of the population in Niger have no clean water.
<b>Citations</b>
Helen Keller: "So much has been given to me, I have no time to ponder over that which is denied."
Oswald Chambers: "The great hindrance in spiritual life is that we will look for big things to do. Jesus took a towel ... and began to wash the disciples' feet."
Mother Theresa: "I am a pencil in the hand of a writing God who is sending a love letter to the world."
C.S. Lewis: "Humility is not thinking less of yourself but thinking of yourself less."
<b>Other Mentions</b>
Hymn - Frances R. Havergal, <i>Take my Life and let it be.</i>
Film - <i>Pushing the Elephant</i>
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Shaft (2019) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
Bland, boring and uninteresting
Were you the one clamoring for a sequel to the year 2000 Samuel L. Jackson SHAFT (the sequel to the original 1971 Richard Roundtree SHAFT)? Did you remember there WAS a 2000 version of SHAFT? Do you remember the 1971 SHAFT?
Doesn't matter.
The makers of this film certainly don't remember those films for - besides casting Jackson and Roundtree - there is no similarity to either of these films.
The first SHAFT was a Blacksploitation film starring Roundtree with mucho gunfire and bloodshed and SHAFT 2000 (as I'll call it) is a full on action flick with Jackson as Roundtree's nephew fighting crime. SHAFT 2019 is none of these - the Samuel L. Jackson Shaft is now the SON of Richard Roundtree and partners with his son JJ ,John Shaft, Jr. (played by Jessie T. Usher) to investigate the death of his friend.
Okay...fine. I can forgive the change in tone and the "tweak" (I'm being generous) to the timeline. What I can't forgive is the weak script (why write any good, or interesting, dialogue when we can have all of the characters say Samuel L. Jackson's signature motherf*^#er over and over) by 3 different writers (never a good sign) that were all, clearly, just in it for the paycheck.
Jessie T. Usher (he played Will Smith's son in the also ill-advised sequel to INDEPENDENCE DAY) is a bland lead with no gravitas and no swagger that starts out young and naive and is supposed to develop (under the tutelage of his father) street smarts but, really, just becomes annoying.
Regina Hall (GIRLS TRIP), Titus Welliver (BOSCH), Method Man (!) and Luna Lauren Velez (DEXTER) are all sleepwalking through underwritten roles just counting the minutes until they can take their paychecks to the bank.
At the heart of all of this "missed opportunities" is Director Tim Story (RIDE ALONG) he directs this film like he has someplace else to be, never missing an opportunity to be obvious (for example, JJ's friend - Karim - who's death sparks what passes for a plot in this film - might as well be walking around with a "Dead Man Walking" sign on him). Story's direction is lazy (and that's doing injustice to the word lazy) and obvious with no spark of ingenuity or imagination to be found.
And then there's Samuel L. Jackson as SHAFT. He defines the term "sleepwalking through the picture" looking bored and uninterested throughout and HE'S THE BEST THING IN THE FILM! Thank goodness his charisma and charm ooze out of him without really trying - for he didn't really try here.
Save 2 hours of your life - skip SHAFT - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Doesn't matter.
The makers of this film certainly don't remember those films for - besides casting Jackson and Roundtree - there is no similarity to either of these films.
The first SHAFT was a Blacksploitation film starring Roundtree with mucho gunfire and bloodshed and SHAFT 2000 (as I'll call it) is a full on action flick with Jackson as Roundtree's nephew fighting crime. SHAFT 2019 is none of these - the Samuel L. Jackson Shaft is now the SON of Richard Roundtree and partners with his son JJ ,John Shaft, Jr. (played by Jessie T. Usher) to investigate the death of his friend.
Okay...fine. I can forgive the change in tone and the "tweak" (I'm being generous) to the timeline. What I can't forgive is the weak script (why write any good, or interesting, dialogue when we can have all of the characters say Samuel L. Jackson's signature motherf*^#er over and over) by 3 different writers (never a good sign) that were all, clearly, just in it for the paycheck.
Jessie T. Usher (he played Will Smith's son in the also ill-advised sequel to INDEPENDENCE DAY) is a bland lead with no gravitas and no swagger that starts out young and naive and is supposed to develop (under the tutelage of his father) street smarts but, really, just becomes annoying.
Regina Hall (GIRLS TRIP), Titus Welliver (BOSCH), Method Man (!) and Luna Lauren Velez (DEXTER) are all sleepwalking through underwritten roles just counting the minutes until they can take their paychecks to the bank.
At the heart of all of this "missed opportunities" is Director Tim Story (RIDE ALONG) he directs this film like he has someplace else to be, never missing an opportunity to be obvious (for example, JJ's friend - Karim - who's death sparks what passes for a plot in this film - might as well be walking around with a "Dead Man Walking" sign on him). Story's direction is lazy (and that's doing injustice to the word lazy) and obvious with no spark of ingenuity or imagination to be found.
And then there's Samuel L. Jackson as SHAFT. He defines the term "sleepwalking through the picture" looking bored and uninterested throughout and HE'S THE BEST THING IN THE FILM! Thank goodness his charisma and charm ooze out of him without really trying - for he didn't really try here.
Save 2 hours of your life - skip SHAFT - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated The King (2019) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Verdict: Another King Fighting Film
Story: The King starts as the war between the English and the Scots continues to rage on, King Henry IV (Mendlesohn) is getting tired of the bloodshed and disloyalty being found in his own soldiers and with his health getting worse he recalls his son Hal (Chalamet) to his side.
As Hal find himself in a new power, he doesn’t know who to trust, so he turns to Falstaff (Edgerton) to help him in battle, with in latest battle being with the future French king The Dauphin (Pattinson).
Thoughts on The King
Characters – Hal is the young prince that would become King, a role he isn’t ready for, he doesn’t want to see large scale bloodshed like his father’s reign, but finds his country in war from all sides, he wants to end the battles and will look for solutions, which don’t always work for him. Falstaff is the man Hal turns to for advice when it comes to conflict, he thought under King Richard and he knows how to outsmart an enemy, first he must give up his drinking problem though. The Dauphin is next in line to be king of France, he is leading the armies into battle and doesn’t want any part of a deal with the King of England.
Performances – Timothee Chalamet is strong in the leading role, continuing to put himself on the right path to do anything he wants to in the future. Joel Edgerton is always a great supporting star in any movie, this is no different, while Robert Pattinson as the villainous soon to be king does a great job too.
Story – The story here follows a young king taking his place on the throne while his country is involved in wars that he never started and now he wants to end, hoping to find a more peaceful way to end the battles, forcing him to learn the truth about the bitter war between the nations. This is one of those stories which once again puts our history out there for the world to see with the English being seen as an all-conquering nation that always believed they were right, the spin is seeing how the young king wants to try and find a more peaceful way to end things, but just doesn’t get a chance to solve these problems. The pacing follows everything we have seen before, not making this standout on any means whatsoever, which just leads us to disappointment once again.
Biopic/History – This is a film that claims to tell the story of a real king and how he was brave, just like every single one through the years, we don’t know what he was like or what the battles were like, we only know the outcome.
Settings – The settings show us how the kingdoms are beautiful and how the battlefields are covered in blood and bodies.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is the same typical history story.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the period piece dramas that does everything it needs to without giving us the complete truth to what is happening with the real history.
Overall: Simple Royalty Film.
As Hal find himself in a new power, he doesn’t know who to trust, so he turns to Falstaff (Edgerton) to help him in battle, with in latest battle being with the future French king The Dauphin (Pattinson).
Thoughts on The King
Characters – Hal is the young prince that would become King, a role he isn’t ready for, he doesn’t want to see large scale bloodshed like his father’s reign, but finds his country in war from all sides, he wants to end the battles and will look for solutions, which don’t always work for him. Falstaff is the man Hal turns to for advice when it comes to conflict, he thought under King Richard and he knows how to outsmart an enemy, first he must give up his drinking problem though. The Dauphin is next in line to be king of France, he is leading the armies into battle and doesn’t want any part of a deal with the King of England.
Performances – Timothee Chalamet is strong in the leading role, continuing to put himself on the right path to do anything he wants to in the future. Joel Edgerton is always a great supporting star in any movie, this is no different, while Robert Pattinson as the villainous soon to be king does a great job too.
Story – The story here follows a young king taking his place on the throne while his country is involved in wars that he never started and now he wants to end, hoping to find a more peaceful way to end the battles, forcing him to learn the truth about the bitter war between the nations. This is one of those stories which once again puts our history out there for the world to see with the English being seen as an all-conquering nation that always believed they were right, the spin is seeing how the young king wants to try and find a more peaceful way to end things, but just doesn’t get a chance to solve these problems. The pacing follows everything we have seen before, not making this standout on any means whatsoever, which just leads us to disappointment once again.
Biopic/History – This is a film that claims to tell the story of a real king and how he was brave, just like every single one through the years, we don’t know what he was like or what the battles were like, we only know the outcome.
Settings – The settings show us how the kingdoms are beautiful and how the battlefields are covered in blood and bodies.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is the same typical history story.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the period piece dramas that does everything it needs to without giving us the complete truth to what is happening with the real history.
Overall: Simple Royalty Film.
Deborah (162 KP) rated Richard III: The King in the Car Park in Books
Dec 21, 2018
I quote from the final page of this publication: "The writer of this book will face similar virulent criticism. It will be savaged in the book reviews on Amazon, mainly by non-readers, to take its ratings and thus popularity down." In fact, this is the last, but by no means the only rant by the author who appears to have a definite chip on his shoulder for some reason. Since he subjects Thomas Penn's work, 'The Winter King' to such virulent criticism, one can only suspect that he was turned down by Penn's publisher. One can hardly be surprised. I have read this book, despite wanting on a number of occasions to give up in disgust. It is full of errors of spelling (e.g. youngest for younger, now instead of not), so has evidently not had either a proof reader or an editor. There are also many factual errors with names and titles becoming hopelessly confused. On one page we're told that Sir James Tyrell was hanged and a couple of pages later we're told that Henry Tudor was so kind as to merely condescend to cut his head off!
I will admit that with pro-Ricardian sympathies I was probably never going to like this book, but it is a bit of a mess and feels like another case of jumping on the bandwagon. There is no index, no footnotes/endnotes and only a partial list of sources, which is enough to raise questions about academic rigour. If you are going to publish opinions, particular in The Great Debate, these really should be backed up by factual evidence. I think I am most irked by the hypocrisy of Mr Breverton telling us at one point that he is going to take a fresh impartial look at the subject and then immediately showing us exactly which colour he prefers his roses.
His list, near the back of the volume, of all the 'crimes' he thinks Richard III was guilty of really does teeter on the brink of blindness and absurdity. Apparently he is guilty in the case of the Earl of Warwick, son of Richard's older brother, George of Clarence, but whose claim to the throne was barred by his father's attainder (always reversible, but Warwick was then only a child of about 8 years). I'm pretty sure this Warwick was sent to Sheriff Hutton Castle to be brought up with other young persons, as befitted his status by Richard. Of course, as soon as Henry Tudor usurped the throne, this boy was locked up in the Tower only to be executed later on a trumped up charge. I think I know who the guilty party is in that case.
That is my frank opinion on this volume; I will now expect said author to savage me as he has everyone else on Amazon who has pointed out the self-evident shortcomings in this work.
I will admit that with pro-Ricardian sympathies I was probably never going to like this book, but it is a bit of a mess and feels like another case of jumping on the bandwagon. There is no index, no footnotes/endnotes and only a partial list of sources, which is enough to raise questions about academic rigour. If you are going to publish opinions, particular in The Great Debate, these really should be backed up by factual evidence. I think I am most irked by the hypocrisy of Mr Breverton telling us at one point that he is going to take a fresh impartial look at the subject and then immediately showing us exactly which colour he prefers his roses.
His list, near the back of the volume, of all the 'crimes' he thinks Richard III was guilty of really does teeter on the brink of blindness and absurdity. Apparently he is guilty in the case of the Earl of Warwick, son of Richard's older brother, George of Clarence, but whose claim to the throne was barred by his father's attainder (always reversible, but Warwick was then only a child of about 8 years). I'm pretty sure this Warwick was sent to Sheriff Hutton Castle to be brought up with other young persons, as befitted his status by Richard. Of course, as soon as Henry Tudor usurped the throne, this boy was locked up in the Tower only to be executed later on a trumped up charge. I think I know who the guilty party is in that case.
That is my frank opinion on this volume; I will now expect said author to savage me as he has everyone else on Amazon who has pointed out the self-evident shortcomings in this work.