Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Parental Guidance (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
I don’t really know where to start with this review. I guess I’ll start with what I’m expecting to see when I see a preview. I’m really bad at assuming I know what’s going to happen. Sometimes I’m right, happily sometimes I’m wrong, and then there are times, like with this movie, where it’s half and half.
The movie starts out with Artie Decker (Billy Crystal) as ‘de voice’ of his local Grizzlies’ baseball team. He’s really good at commentating and he loves doing it but after the last game of the season he gets fired. It’s predictable why he’s fired, basically he doesn’t poke or tweet, and I think they thought they hit gold with that moment of comedy but for me, eh. When he gets home his wife Diane (Bette Midler) comforts him. He’s lost for a moment since he wasn’t ready to stop but then decides he should chase his dream to commentate for the Giants though he doesn’t know where to start.
We shoot over to Alice Simmons (Marisa Tomei) Artie and Diane’s daughter, and her husband Phil, (Tom Everett Scott) who live in such a modern electronic home that it’s actually all controlled by a beta system called Rlife. Rlife can be programmed for alarm times, music, food, pretty much everything for each family member. This Rlife is Phil’s dream he gets invited to a conference to get his Rlife hopefully in production. Alice is going to with him, kind of a semi work vacation and they need Artie and Diane to watch the kids for a week.
What makes the divide even greater between Alice and her kids from Artie is that Alice and Phil are raising their kids in a new school that is different from Artie’s old school, tough love and strict rules. They use phrases like ‘use your words’ or if you give a ‘put down’ you have to give ‘three ups’ and you can’t use the word ‘no’ you have to say ‘think about the consequences’.
Their oldest, a young teen, is their only daughter Harper, Bailee Madison, who is extremely uptight and carrying the weight of the world on her shoulders. Next we have the two boys, Turner, Joshua Rush, middle schooler, who stutters and is shy because of it, and the youngest Barker, Kyle Harrison Breitkopf, who is basically toddler with lots of energy, but seems to get away with a lot of bad behavior.
Diane realizes that they are the other grand parents, the ones that their grand kids don’t really like. Long story short, it’s supposed to be about being open to new ideas but it just feels like old school versus new school. Billy’s Crystal’s comedy and Bette Middler’s and Marisa Tomei’s acting can pull it out of the boredom for some laughs and good moments and there are a few situational laughs with the children as well, but that’s about it.
The truly redeeming quality to this movie, besides the three main actors is the ending, the last ten minutes. It’s a surprising heartwarming ending, and only slightly predictable. It sounds crazy but it actually brings the whole movie up from a two star to a three star for me. One last thing is that the guest I went with has two children of her own and tried to get me to change my rating from three to four. I really can’t do that but I think that means that if you have children of your own you might enjoy this a little bit more than I did.
Bottom line, renter, unless you love Bily Crystal.
The movie starts out with Artie Decker (Billy Crystal) as ‘de voice’ of his local Grizzlies’ baseball team. He’s really good at commentating and he loves doing it but after the last game of the season he gets fired. It’s predictable why he’s fired, basically he doesn’t poke or tweet, and I think they thought they hit gold with that moment of comedy but for me, eh. When he gets home his wife Diane (Bette Midler) comforts him. He’s lost for a moment since he wasn’t ready to stop but then decides he should chase his dream to commentate for the Giants though he doesn’t know where to start.
We shoot over to Alice Simmons (Marisa Tomei) Artie and Diane’s daughter, and her husband Phil, (Tom Everett Scott) who live in such a modern electronic home that it’s actually all controlled by a beta system called Rlife. Rlife can be programmed for alarm times, music, food, pretty much everything for each family member. This Rlife is Phil’s dream he gets invited to a conference to get his Rlife hopefully in production. Alice is going to with him, kind of a semi work vacation and they need Artie and Diane to watch the kids for a week.
What makes the divide even greater between Alice and her kids from Artie is that Alice and Phil are raising their kids in a new school that is different from Artie’s old school, tough love and strict rules. They use phrases like ‘use your words’ or if you give a ‘put down’ you have to give ‘three ups’ and you can’t use the word ‘no’ you have to say ‘think about the consequences’.
Their oldest, a young teen, is their only daughter Harper, Bailee Madison, who is extremely uptight and carrying the weight of the world on her shoulders. Next we have the two boys, Turner, Joshua Rush, middle schooler, who stutters and is shy because of it, and the youngest Barker, Kyle Harrison Breitkopf, who is basically toddler with lots of energy, but seems to get away with a lot of bad behavior.
Diane realizes that they are the other grand parents, the ones that their grand kids don’t really like. Long story short, it’s supposed to be about being open to new ideas but it just feels like old school versus new school. Billy’s Crystal’s comedy and Bette Middler’s and Marisa Tomei’s acting can pull it out of the boredom for some laughs and good moments and there are a few situational laughs with the children as well, but that’s about it.
The truly redeeming quality to this movie, besides the three main actors is the ending, the last ten minutes. It’s a surprising heartwarming ending, and only slightly predictable. It sounds crazy but it actually brings the whole movie up from a two star to a three star for me. One last thing is that the guest I went with has two children of her own and tried to get me to change my rating from three to four. I really can’t do that but I think that means that if you have children of your own you might enjoy this a little bit more than I did.
Bottom line, renter, unless you love Bily Crystal.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Green Knight (2020) in Movies
Aug 6, 2021
Interesting...Intriguing...and Weird
You have 2 choices when choosing to view the Arthurian tale THE GREEN KNIGHT.
1). Brush up on the 14th Century tale (writer unknown) about Sir Gawain (of Knights of the Round Table fame) and The Green Knight
2). Go in “blind” and let the film wash over you.
I did #2 and while I got the “gist” of what was going on, I missed some of the subtleties (or the attempted subtleties) that I now know since I went on-line and brushed up on the story/poem (no, I did not read the 14th century poem - a google search synopsis of plot of the poem was sufficient).
Starring Dev Patel (more on him later) THE GREEN KNIGHT tells the story of a would-be Knight of the Round Table, Gawain, who accepts a challenge of THE GREEN KNIGHT and now must stand up to the consequence of his deeds while heading off on a quest.
Dev Patel (SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE) has really grown into a fine actor and he is perfectly cast as the courage-challenged Gawain. He walks through this film with a slight look of fear in his eyes and I was finding myself yelling at him (in my head) to “stand up and do what’s right” (which is the point of the film/story) when he would make the wrong decision.
Alicia Vikander (who I have not seen on screen since 2018’s TOMB RAIDER) and Joel Edgerton (LOVING) are 2 of the people that Gawain meets along the way and they bring strength and star power to the middle part of this film - they came along at an opportune time, for this film was beginning to sag under it’s own weight at that point, but these 2 help propel Gawain (and the film) to the climax.
Director David Lowery (A GHOST STORY) has crafted a fantastical film that reminded me very much of the work of Terry Gilliam - and I mean that as a compliment. He heightens every scene with imagery that’s just “off” (again, I mean that as a compliment) that symbolizes the “quest” that Gawain is on.
He also does something that will either encourage or discourage a viewer (and that is the strength and weakness of this film) - he explains nothing.
For example…at the beginning, Gawain is sitting at a round table with a King and Queen and a bunch of other Knights (or would be Knights). One would assume that this is King Arthur, Guinevere and the Knights of the Round Table, but Lowery never calls them by name. “The King” pulls out his sword and hands it to Gawain for his contest with the Green Knight. The crowd reacts with gasps - one would assume that this is the fable sword Excaliber, but it is never stated.
So…knowing these things (and some of the other aspects of the Gawain) story, might further enrich this experience, but Lowery chooses to not spoon feed the audience and since I did not really know the Gawain story, I just sat back and enjoyed the quest, the imagery, the weirdness (and there is some VERY weird moments - I still don’t know what to make of the scene with the Giants) and was rewarded with a film experience that is rare nowadays, one that just unfurls without telescoping what is happening or what is to come.
This film is not for everyone - it does have a rather languid pace to it - but for those of you that can sit in the stillness, marvel at the imagery and revel in the weirdness/unknown, then THE GREEN KNIGHT is, ultimately, a rewarding film experience - one that (now that I know the story) am eager to revisit.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
1). Brush up on the 14th Century tale (writer unknown) about Sir Gawain (of Knights of the Round Table fame) and The Green Knight
2). Go in “blind” and let the film wash over you.
I did #2 and while I got the “gist” of what was going on, I missed some of the subtleties (or the attempted subtleties) that I now know since I went on-line and brushed up on the story/poem (no, I did not read the 14th century poem - a google search synopsis of plot of the poem was sufficient).
Starring Dev Patel (more on him later) THE GREEN KNIGHT tells the story of a would-be Knight of the Round Table, Gawain, who accepts a challenge of THE GREEN KNIGHT and now must stand up to the consequence of his deeds while heading off on a quest.
Dev Patel (SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE) has really grown into a fine actor and he is perfectly cast as the courage-challenged Gawain. He walks through this film with a slight look of fear in his eyes and I was finding myself yelling at him (in my head) to “stand up and do what’s right” (which is the point of the film/story) when he would make the wrong decision.
Alicia Vikander (who I have not seen on screen since 2018’s TOMB RAIDER) and Joel Edgerton (LOVING) are 2 of the people that Gawain meets along the way and they bring strength and star power to the middle part of this film - they came along at an opportune time, for this film was beginning to sag under it’s own weight at that point, but these 2 help propel Gawain (and the film) to the climax.
Director David Lowery (A GHOST STORY) has crafted a fantastical film that reminded me very much of the work of Terry Gilliam - and I mean that as a compliment. He heightens every scene with imagery that’s just “off” (again, I mean that as a compliment) that symbolizes the “quest” that Gawain is on.
He also does something that will either encourage or discourage a viewer (and that is the strength and weakness of this film) - he explains nothing.
For example…at the beginning, Gawain is sitting at a round table with a King and Queen and a bunch of other Knights (or would be Knights). One would assume that this is King Arthur, Guinevere and the Knights of the Round Table, but Lowery never calls them by name. “The King” pulls out his sword and hands it to Gawain for his contest with the Green Knight. The crowd reacts with gasps - one would assume that this is the fable sword Excaliber, but it is never stated.
So…knowing these things (and some of the other aspects of the Gawain) story, might further enrich this experience, but Lowery chooses to not spoon feed the audience and since I did not really know the Gawain story, I just sat back and enjoyed the quest, the imagery, the weirdness (and there is some VERY weird moments - I still don’t know what to make of the scene with the Giants) and was rewarded with a film experience that is rare nowadays, one that just unfurls without telescoping what is happening or what is to come.
This film is not for everyone - it does have a rather languid pace to it - but for those of you that can sit in the stillness, marvel at the imagery and revel in the weirdness/unknown, then THE GREEN KNIGHT is, ultimately, a rewarding film experience - one that (now that I know the story) am eager to revisit.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Two Popes (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020 (Updated Jan 26, 2020)
Fantastic performances from two old acting pros.
Being inaugurated as a new pope in the last century must have been a source of enormous pride. But there must also have been a nagging thought... at some point you are going to be paraded, stiff as a board, around your work courtyard before being taken back inside to your place of work and buried there!
All that changed in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the first pope to voluntarily do so since Pope Celestine V in 1294. (Pope Gregory XII also resigned in 1415, but he was effectively forced to).
This movie tells the story of that curious situation, when Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) ended up as Pope Francis while Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) was still alive. The official reason for the pope's resignation appears to have been his advanced age. But the film paints a rather different picture.
The movie starts back in 2005 as we enter the papal conclave. Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger, as was) is the highly-political German cardinal who desperately wants the papacy; Bergoglio is the highly respected Argentinian cardinal who doesn't seek the office but might have it thrust upon him. (Clearly, when the white smoke clears, history has dictated the outcome).
But flash forward to 2013 and Bergoglio will get another bite of the cherry. Is he worthy of the role? Through flashbacks we return to Perón's unsettling rule over Argentina and the events that made the man.
The two stars are simply outstanding together, and it's no surprise at all that both have been nominated in the Oscar acting categories. They are almost joint leads. But - perhaps to give the film its best awards-season shot - Pryce is down for Best Actor and Hopkins is down for Best Supporting Actor.
Anthony Hopkins in particular for me shone with the brilliant quietness and subtle facial movements that are the mark of a truly confident actor. Less is more.
I was enjoying this movie enormously up until we flashed back to the Argentinian sub-plot. Set in the time of Perón's "Dirty War" when a huge number of people - estimates range from 9,000 to 30,000 - simply went "missing". There's nothing wrong with this sequence of the film. For example, a reunion of Bergoglio with a persecuted priest, Father Jalics (Lisandro Fiks) - is brilliantly and movingly done. It's just that for me it seemed so disjointed. It was jarring to switch from this Evita-era drama to the gentle drama of the papal plot.
If the movie had been 30 minutes shorter and focused on the mental struggles of Benedict I would have preferred it. Curiously - we don't really get to fully understand his divergence from the faith. Bergoglio gets no end of back-story. But Ratzinger's is probably just as interesting, but not explored.
This is still a really fine movie and will appeal to older folks who like a story rich with character acting and not heavy on the action or special effects. The director is Fernando Meirelles (who interestingly directed the Rio Olympics opening ceremony!) and it's written by Anthony McCarten, the man behind the screenplays for "The Theory of Everything", "Darkest Hour" and "Bohemian Rhapsody".
You may still be able to find this in selected cinemas (e.g. Curzon) but it is also streaming on Netflix, which is where I had to watch it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/26/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-two-popes-2019/ ).
All that changed in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the first pope to voluntarily do so since Pope Celestine V in 1294. (Pope Gregory XII also resigned in 1415, but he was effectively forced to).
This movie tells the story of that curious situation, when Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) ended up as Pope Francis while Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) was still alive. The official reason for the pope's resignation appears to have been his advanced age. But the film paints a rather different picture.
The movie starts back in 2005 as we enter the papal conclave. Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger, as was) is the highly-political German cardinal who desperately wants the papacy; Bergoglio is the highly respected Argentinian cardinal who doesn't seek the office but might have it thrust upon him. (Clearly, when the white smoke clears, history has dictated the outcome).
But flash forward to 2013 and Bergoglio will get another bite of the cherry. Is he worthy of the role? Through flashbacks we return to Perón's unsettling rule over Argentina and the events that made the man.
The two stars are simply outstanding together, and it's no surprise at all that both have been nominated in the Oscar acting categories. They are almost joint leads. But - perhaps to give the film its best awards-season shot - Pryce is down for Best Actor and Hopkins is down for Best Supporting Actor.
Anthony Hopkins in particular for me shone with the brilliant quietness and subtle facial movements that are the mark of a truly confident actor. Less is more.
I was enjoying this movie enormously up until we flashed back to the Argentinian sub-plot. Set in the time of Perón's "Dirty War" when a huge number of people - estimates range from 9,000 to 30,000 - simply went "missing". There's nothing wrong with this sequence of the film. For example, a reunion of Bergoglio with a persecuted priest, Father Jalics (Lisandro Fiks) - is brilliantly and movingly done. It's just that for me it seemed so disjointed. It was jarring to switch from this Evita-era drama to the gentle drama of the papal plot.
If the movie had been 30 minutes shorter and focused on the mental struggles of Benedict I would have preferred it. Curiously - we don't really get to fully understand his divergence from the faith. Bergoglio gets no end of back-story. But Ratzinger's is probably just as interesting, but not explored.
This is still a really fine movie and will appeal to older folks who like a story rich with character acting and not heavy on the action or special effects. The director is Fernando Meirelles (who interestingly directed the Rio Olympics opening ceremony!) and it's written by Anthony McCarten, the man behind the screenplays for "The Theory of Everything", "Darkest Hour" and "Bohemian Rhapsody".
You may still be able to find this in selected cinemas (e.g. Curzon) but it is also streaming on Netflix, which is where I had to watch it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/26/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-two-popes-2019/ ).
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Trivia question for you…what does an immortal evil queen, King Arthur, Nazis and a boy born from Hell itself have in common? If you answered Hellboy you win a prize. The prize is going to the theater and watching the film and whether it’s a prize worth winning is something you’ll have to decide for yourself. I’m getting a bit ahead of myself though, so let’s rewind a bit and start at the beginning.
Hellboy (David Harbour) is a demon from Hell (hence the name), his backstory as we learn early on in the movie is pretty standard fare. The Nazi’s are on the verge of losing World War II and in a desperate move to turn the tide call upon the evil sorcerer Rasputin to call upon the depths of Hell and raise a champion who will fight for them. The incantation is interrupted when famous Nazi hunter Lobster Johnson (Thomas Haden Church) goes in with guns blazing, as other allied troops join the fray. Their relief at stopping the incantation is short-lived as the alter opens and a young demon climbs through. Professor Broom who had infiltrated the Nazi team had been brought in to put down any evil that was successfully summoned. Upon seeing the young demon, Professor Broom (for reasons known only to him at the time) decides not to kill him, but to take him in and raise him as his own.
Flash forward to present day, and Hellboy as we now know him alongside his father are members of the B.P.R.D (Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense). On a mission to defeat some giants that are roaming the countryside in England they stumble upon an ancient evil that dark forces are trying to retrieve. It seems back in the dark ages a war between humans and monsters was being waged. Seeing no end to the violence King Arthur (Mark Stanley) and his faithful wizard Merlin (Brian Gleeson) offer to surrender to The Blood Queen (Milla Jovovich). On top the hill where the surrender is to take place, the Blood Queen is betrayed by one of her own and King Arthur, using the infamous blade Excalibur, cut the Blood Queen into several parts. While she can’t be killed, she can be contained and each of her body parts are placed in separate boxes. These boxes are then sealed with holy water that only a holy man can unlock and are sent to the farthest corners of England. If the Blood Queen ever returns, she will release a plague that will not only destroy England but spread across the entire world. Thus, sets the stage for Hellboy.
Being a fan of the previous movies and in particular the portrayal of Hellboy by Ron Pearlman, I wasn’t sure how to feel about David Harbour in this role. It’s always a bit hit or miss when a series is rebooted, and I was pleasantly surprised with how David Harbour stepped up and into the role. While he doesn’t have the same menacing size and gruffness that Ron Pearlman possesses, it didn’t take me long to adjust to this new version. He is joined by a strong supporting cast consisting of Sasha Lane as his ghost whispering friend Alice and Ben Daimo as an MI-11 agent weary of teaming up with a monster. Milla Jovovich does an outstanding job as the Blood Queen and her fairy-pig friend portrayed by Stephen Graham and Douglas Tait.
Visually the movie is stunning, with the numerous monsters and fairy creatures coming to life before your eyes. The movie is exceptionally gory as one might expect, with numerous limb dismemberments, decapitations, and more blood than anyone would expect to erupt from such wounds. It’s over-the-top and meant to be that way which tended to bring some uncomfortable laughter at times from those around me. Having recently played Mortal Kombat 11, I couldn’t help but feel that some of the fatality screens in that game would have felt right at home in this movie.
Story is where I feel Hellboy falls a bit flat. There are so many characters and side stories going on that it’s easy to get lost in it. From my description above, you can see that it includes King Arthur, Rasputin, Nazis, Secret Societies, Witches that eat children, monsters…and that’s only in the first half of the movie. There is a ton going on and there are a lot of disconnects. While trying to avoid spoilers, there is a part in the film where Hellboy is talking to Baba Yaga (see another character reference), and after tricking her she places a curse on him. I’m still trying to figure out if the curse she placed on him occurred in the movie or not. In fact, I’m trying to figure out exactly what the point of that scene was. It’s not a bad story, but it tries to pack in a TON of references in its brief hour and forty five-ish minutes.
I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve never read any of the Hellboy graphic novels, I have seen both of the previous films, so I had a little bit of background going into this movie. I don’t know if all the references in the movie are pivotal to the novels or not. You certainly don’t have to have read them or seen the previous movies to appreciate this one, I just wonder if they tried to fit in too many Hellboy references into one film. Hellboy is an enjoyable ride, and it certainly doesn’t drag at all, in fact I was surprised at how quickly it was over. With all that being said, it’s a fun action-packed movie, with lots of gratuitous violence if that’s your thing. I certainly wouldn’t recommend taking your children to see it, violence aside, I just think there is way too much going on and it can be difficult to follow. Oh, and don’t forget to stay through the credits for the end credit scene. It’s not pivotal to the movie, but worth waiting around for.
Hellboy (David Harbour) is a demon from Hell (hence the name), his backstory as we learn early on in the movie is pretty standard fare. The Nazi’s are on the verge of losing World War II and in a desperate move to turn the tide call upon the evil sorcerer Rasputin to call upon the depths of Hell and raise a champion who will fight for them. The incantation is interrupted when famous Nazi hunter Lobster Johnson (Thomas Haden Church) goes in with guns blazing, as other allied troops join the fray. Their relief at stopping the incantation is short-lived as the alter opens and a young demon climbs through. Professor Broom who had infiltrated the Nazi team had been brought in to put down any evil that was successfully summoned. Upon seeing the young demon, Professor Broom (for reasons known only to him at the time) decides not to kill him, but to take him in and raise him as his own.
Flash forward to present day, and Hellboy as we now know him alongside his father are members of the B.P.R.D (Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense). On a mission to defeat some giants that are roaming the countryside in England they stumble upon an ancient evil that dark forces are trying to retrieve. It seems back in the dark ages a war between humans and monsters was being waged. Seeing no end to the violence King Arthur (Mark Stanley) and his faithful wizard Merlin (Brian Gleeson) offer to surrender to The Blood Queen (Milla Jovovich). On top the hill where the surrender is to take place, the Blood Queen is betrayed by one of her own and King Arthur, using the infamous blade Excalibur, cut the Blood Queen into several parts. While she can’t be killed, she can be contained and each of her body parts are placed in separate boxes. These boxes are then sealed with holy water that only a holy man can unlock and are sent to the farthest corners of England. If the Blood Queen ever returns, she will release a plague that will not only destroy England but spread across the entire world. Thus, sets the stage for Hellboy.
Being a fan of the previous movies and in particular the portrayal of Hellboy by Ron Pearlman, I wasn’t sure how to feel about David Harbour in this role. It’s always a bit hit or miss when a series is rebooted, and I was pleasantly surprised with how David Harbour stepped up and into the role. While he doesn’t have the same menacing size and gruffness that Ron Pearlman possesses, it didn’t take me long to adjust to this new version. He is joined by a strong supporting cast consisting of Sasha Lane as his ghost whispering friend Alice and Ben Daimo as an MI-11 agent weary of teaming up with a monster. Milla Jovovich does an outstanding job as the Blood Queen and her fairy-pig friend portrayed by Stephen Graham and Douglas Tait.
Visually the movie is stunning, with the numerous monsters and fairy creatures coming to life before your eyes. The movie is exceptionally gory as one might expect, with numerous limb dismemberments, decapitations, and more blood than anyone would expect to erupt from such wounds. It’s over-the-top and meant to be that way which tended to bring some uncomfortable laughter at times from those around me. Having recently played Mortal Kombat 11, I couldn’t help but feel that some of the fatality screens in that game would have felt right at home in this movie.
Story is where I feel Hellboy falls a bit flat. There are so many characters and side stories going on that it’s easy to get lost in it. From my description above, you can see that it includes King Arthur, Rasputin, Nazis, Secret Societies, Witches that eat children, monsters…and that’s only in the first half of the movie. There is a ton going on and there are a lot of disconnects. While trying to avoid spoilers, there is a part in the film where Hellboy is talking to Baba Yaga (see another character reference), and after tricking her she places a curse on him. I’m still trying to figure out if the curse she placed on him occurred in the movie or not. In fact, I’m trying to figure out exactly what the point of that scene was. It’s not a bad story, but it tries to pack in a TON of references in its brief hour and forty five-ish minutes.
I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve never read any of the Hellboy graphic novels, I have seen both of the previous films, so I had a little bit of background going into this movie. I don’t know if all the references in the movie are pivotal to the novels or not. You certainly don’t have to have read them or seen the previous movies to appreciate this one, I just wonder if they tried to fit in too many Hellboy references into one film. Hellboy is an enjoyable ride, and it certainly doesn’t drag at all, in fact I was surprised at how quickly it was over. With all that being said, it’s a fun action-packed movie, with lots of gratuitous violence if that’s your thing. I certainly wouldn’t recommend taking your children to see it, violence aside, I just think there is way too much going on and it can be difficult to follow. Oh, and don’t forget to stay through the credits for the end credit scene. It’s not pivotal to the movie, but worth waiting around for.
Kelly J Tyrrell (3 KP) rated Inspired: Slaying Giants, Walking on Water, and Loving the Bible Again in Books
May 21, 2018
Truly Inspired
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is a book review for the not-yet-released Inspired: Slaying Giants, Walking on Water, and Loving the Bible Again by Rachel Held Evans. This book is available in stores June 12th, but you can pre-order it at rachelheldevans.com.
I should start by saying - I filled out an application to be on the Launch Team for this new book, so I received an Advanced Reader Copy from the Publisher.
I first came across Rachel Held Evans when her book A Year of Biblical Womanhood crossed upon my Goodreads page. I thought, "Now there's a crazy idea", and while it was, the writing was not. The writing was wonderful! I followed along to grab Searching for Sunday, too.
So as any good 21st century fan, I started following Evans on Facebook, where I saw polls for naming a new book. A new book?? Yay! Never in my wildest dreams did I think I'd get to be reading it a month in advance of release.
"Bible stores don't have to mean just one thing."
Inspired is largely about the importance of stories. Not just Bible stories , but our own stories, too. Stories like how your Grandpa had to quit smoking to get Grandma to go out with him. Stories like how you met your spouse over $0.25 tacos. Stories like how your great-uncle got kicked out of military school necessitating not one, not two, but FOUR rosaries at his funeral.
There are stories about who we are, where we come from, what we're willing to fight for, and what we've learned along the way. There are stories of good news and bad, and who we make community with. And the Bible is no different. Rather than dissecting all of the stories of the Bible, Evans divides the book into genres of stories. There are Wisdom stories, stories of deliverance, Church stories, and of course, Gospels.
"The good news is good for the whole world, certainly, but what makes it good varies from person to person, and community to community."
This theme of interpretation is recurrent through the whole book. Bible stories, gospel stories, war stories - none of them have one singular meaning. For Evans, growing up in a tradition that took the Bible as literally true and the inerrant Word of God, one singular meaning was not only suggested, but preached everyday. And though I grew up Catholic, and not Evangelical Protestant, I can relate.
Leaving the Catholic faith in my late teens to re-emerge as a Progressive Protestant in my thirties has been an eye-opening experience to say the least. I've never known anyone who takes the Bible literally (or at least if I did, I didn't know it). Not until I started homeschooling did I ever meet a person who actually believed in Creation. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it has never occurred to me to take the Bible literally.
But I am, overall, an academic person. I love to read, analyze, and over-think everything. But since I did not grow up with the Bible's cast of characters like old friends, I was thirty-years-old before I started attending Bible studies at my local church. Instantly, I was sucked in to the weirdness and messiness of the Bible. Which made me ask - how does one even take the Bible literally?
"The truth is, the bible isn't an answer book. It's not even a book, really. Rather it's a diverse library of ancient texts, spanning multiple centuries, genres, and cultures, authored by a host of different authors coming from a variety of different perspectives...No one has the originals."
You could almost say that God delighted in canonizing inconsistencies, trusting that we could use our [God given] intellect to figure out what it needed to mean.
Because, things change, don't they? A historical, analytical approach to studying the Bible tells us that time, place, and context matter. The Epistles of Paul were not written to us. They were written to the church in Corinth, or Thessalonica, or Ephesus. And by church, I mean incredibly small groups of people, gathered in someone's house, illegally I might add. They weren't written to the 2.1 billion of us, flaunting our religion around the world like we own the place.
Indeed, Inspired was so good, and covered such a rich variety of story types, that if I keep talking, I'm going to ruin it for you. So, I guess I'll leave you with this. If you have ever read the Bible and thought:
...how could God just leave Tamar like that?
...how could God call David a man after his own heart?
...Jesus sure does touch a lot of people he ain't supposed to, what's up with that?
...what's so bad about being a tax collector, anyway?
you should probably read this book. NOT because this book answers any of those questions. It doesn't. It doesn't even try to. Rather, Rachel Held Evans in her Southern mama wisdom, helps remind us that maybe having all the answers isn't actually the answer. Maybe reveling in the magic of the Bible is the Hokey Pokey. Maybe that IS what it's all about.
I should start by saying - I filled out an application to be on the Launch Team for this new book, so I received an Advanced Reader Copy from the Publisher.
I first came across Rachel Held Evans when her book A Year of Biblical Womanhood crossed upon my Goodreads page. I thought, "Now there's a crazy idea", and while it was, the writing was not. The writing was wonderful! I followed along to grab Searching for Sunday, too.
So as any good 21st century fan, I started following Evans on Facebook, where I saw polls for naming a new book. A new book?? Yay! Never in my wildest dreams did I think I'd get to be reading it a month in advance of release.
"Bible stores don't have to mean just one thing."
Inspired is largely about the importance of stories. Not just Bible stories , but our own stories, too. Stories like how your Grandpa had to quit smoking to get Grandma to go out with him. Stories like how you met your spouse over $0.25 tacos. Stories like how your great-uncle got kicked out of military school necessitating not one, not two, but FOUR rosaries at his funeral.
There are stories about who we are, where we come from, what we're willing to fight for, and what we've learned along the way. There are stories of good news and bad, and who we make community with. And the Bible is no different. Rather than dissecting all of the stories of the Bible, Evans divides the book into genres of stories. There are Wisdom stories, stories of deliverance, Church stories, and of course, Gospels.
"The good news is good for the whole world, certainly, but what makes it good varies from person to person, and community to community."
This theme of interpretation is recurrent through the whole book. Bible stories, gospel stories, war stories - none of them have one singular meaning. For Evans, growing up in a tradition that took the Bible as literally true and the inerrant Word of God, one singular meaning was not only suggested, but preached everyday. And though I grew up Catholic, and not Evangelical Protestant, I can relate.
Leaving the Catholic faith in my late teens to re-emerge as a Progressive Protestant in my thirties has been an eye-opening experience to say the least. I've never known anyone who takes the Bible literally (or at least if I did, I didn't know it). Not until I started homeschooling did I ever meet a person who actually believed in Creation. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it has never occurred to me to take the Bible literally.
But I am, overall, an academic person. I love to read, analyze, and over-think everything. But since I did not grow up with the Bible's cast of characters like old friends, I was thirty-years-old before I started attending Bible studies at my local church. Instantly, I was sucked in to the weirdness and messiness of the Bible. Which made me ask - how does one even take the Bible literally?
"The truth is, the bible isn't an answer book. It's not even a book, really. Rather it's a diverse library of ancient texts, spanning multiple centuries, genres, and cultures, authored by a host of different authors coming from a variety of different perspectives...No one has the originals."
You could almost say that God delighted in canonizing inconsistencies, trusting that we could use our [God given] intellect to figure out what it needed to mean.
Because, things change, don't they? A historical, analytical approach to studying the Bible tells us that time, place, and context matter. The Epistles of Paul were not written to us. They were written to the church in Corinth, or Thessalonica, or Ephesus. And by church, I mean incredibly small groups of people, gathered in someone's house, illegally I might add. They weren't written to the 2.1 billion of us, flaunting our religion around the world like we own the place.
Indeed, Inspired was so good, and covered such a rich variety of story types, that if I keep talking, I'm going to ruin it for you. So, I guess I'll leave you with this. If you have ever read the Bible and thought:
...how could God just leave Tamar like that?
...how could God call David a man after his own heart?
...Jesus sure does touch a lot of people he ain't supposed to, what's up with that?
...what's so bad about being a tax collector, anyway?
you should probably read this book. NOT because this book answers any of those questions. It doesn't. It doesn't even try to. Rather, Rachel Held Evans in her Southern mama wisdom, helps remind us that maybe having all the answers isn't actually the answer. Maybe reveling in the magic of the Bible is the Hokey Pokey. Maybe that IS what it's all about.