Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated As Above So Below (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The film “As above so below” is part horror, part treasure adventure, and
all shaky cam. This found-footage film could also be more aptly titled as
“Lara Croft goes to hell.” The story centers around an excitable young
adventurer with a British accent named Scarlett on a search for the
mythological Philosopher’s Stone. A self-professed scholar of alchemy, she
hopes proving that the stone exists will fulfill her father’s legacy and
prove to the world that he wasn’t crazy. This search leads her and her
partners through the secret areas of the haunted catacombs of Pairs, France
into what could be hell itself. The movie starts with her traveling to Iran
for clues on the location of the Philosopher’s Stone.
The action opens without introductions which I enjoyed, as it gets right
into the action and sets the a good pace for the rest of the film. After
retrieving clues to the location of the stone and narrowly avoiding
security and a cave-in in Iran, our heroine sets off to Paris, France to
gather the rest of the crew for her adventure (the rest of our films
characters). These characters include her old friend Benji, a translator, a
group of French miscreants: Papillion (the leader), Zed and Souxie (the
Banshee, no kidding) all of whom are experts on the secret underground
catacombs. Her loyal documentarian George rounds out the crew who has
followed her around since the film’s opening shot.
Up until this point, the horror element of this film is non-existent. Once
the crew journey into the secret catacombs is when things begin to get
eerie. Plot and circumstance is good and all, but it’s a horror movie, is
it scary? Well, I wasn’t scared at all, neither was my wife whom I saw the
movie with. I’d call it more of a psychological thriller, a slight one at
that. Lots of supernatural happenings occur in the caverns akin to what
you’d find in a haunted house movie. Things like phone’s ringing
inexplicably in an area devoid of electricity and hundreds of feet below
the ground, spooky ghost like figures chanting occult hymns, and dead
drowned children. There isn’t much gore in this film, the little found is
reserved for the last 3rd of the movie. Some fear and wince inducing
moments are supplied via claustrophobia as the group squeezes themselves
through tight corridors and underwater channels. They did a pretty good job
of getting your heart racing. These scenes were reminiscent of a greater
horror entry “The Descent.” If you’ve seen that film, then you know what to
expect when it comes to the 1st person moments of claustrophobia.
Once in the catacombs what follows is a maze of twists and turns and
strange occurrences as the crew tries to solve the mystery of the hidden
Philosopher’s Stone as one by one the crew members get killed off in their
attempt to escape the demonic maze of underground tunnels. As for the
ending? Well prepare to be underwhelmed. The definitive worst part of the
film is its ending. It is so mundane and handled extremely poorly as to
come to an abrupt and seemingly rushed finish without any sense of
accomplishment or endearment to any of the characters or what they have
been through. Although they don’t all make it out alive (naturally this is
a horror film) those that do give off the impression of a group that has
just passed out of the end of a haunted house maze similar to those at the
upcoming Halloween Horror Nights at Universal Studios.
all shaky cam. This found-footage film could also be more aptly titled as
“Lara Croft goes to hell.” The story centers around an excitable young
adventurer with a British accent named Scarlett on a search for the
mythological Philosopher’s Stone. A self-professed scholar of alchemy, she
hopes proving that the stone exists will fulfill her father’s legacy and
prove to the world that he wasn’t crazy. This search leads her and her
partners through the secret areas of the haunted catacombs of Pairs, France
into what could be hell itself. The movie starts with her traveling to Iran
for clues on the location of the Philosopher’s Stone.
The action opens without introductions which I enjoyed, as it gets right
into the action and sets the a good pace for the rest of the film. After
retrieving clues to the location of the stone and narrowly avoiding
security and a cave-in in Iran, our heroine sets off to Paris, France to
gather the rest of the crew for her adventure (the rest of our films
characters). These characters include her old friend Benji, a translator, a
group of French miscreants: Papillion (the leader), Zed and Souxie (the
Banshee, no kidding) all of whom are experts on the secret underground
catacombs. Her loyal documentarian George rounds out the crew who has
followed her around since the film’s opening shot.
Up until this point, the horror element of this film is non-existent. Once
the crew journey into the secret catacombs is when things begin to get
eerie. Plot and circumstance is good and all, but it’s a horror movie, is
it scary? Well, I wasn’t scared at all, neither was my wife whom I saw the
movie with. I’d call it more of a psychological thriller, a slight one at
that. Lots of supernatural happenings occur in the caverns akin to what
you’d find in a haunted house movie. Things like phone’s ringing
inexplicably in an area devoid of electricity and hundreds of feet below
the ground, spooky ghost like figures chanting occult hymns, and dead
drowned children. There isn’t much gore in this film, the little found is
reserved for the last 3rd of the movie. Some fear and wince inducing
moments are supplied via claustrophobia as the group squeezes themselves
through tight corridors and underwater channels. They did a pretty good job
of getting your heart racing. These scenes were reminiscent of a greater
horror entry “The Descent.” If you’ve seen that film, then you know what to
expect when it comes to the 1st person moments of claustrophobia.
Once in the catacombs what follows is a maze of twists and turns and
strange occurrences as the crew tries to solve the mystery of the hidden
Philosopher’s Stone as one by one the crew members get killed off in their
attempt to escape the demonic maze of underground tunnels. As for the
ending? Well prepare to be underwhelmed. The definitive worst part of the
film is its ending. It is so mundane and handled extremely poorly as to
come to an abrupt and seemingly rushed finish without any sense of
accomplishment or endearment to any of the characters or what they have
been through. Although they don’t all make it out alive (naturally this is
a horror film) those that do give off the impression of a group that has
just passed out of the end of a haunted house maze similar to those at the
upcoming Halloween Horror Nights at Universal Studios.
Sean Freese (4 KP) rated The Witch (2015) in Movies
Jun 25, 2020
THE VVITCH
The full title is, The Witch: A New England Folktale. Like Grimm’s fairytales, American folklore has taken revisions over the centuries to become a palatable collection of juvenile life lessons. Anyone who has read the original versions of these stories knows how brutal, horrifying, and far removed they are from our current values. As much as I would not condone reading original classic witch tales to a small child, they do contain much deeper implications and ideas than the simple “Don’t tell lies” that are gleaned from modern revisions. What’s fascinating about The Witch is how familiar the setting and story is, without a single cliché or moment of prediction to speak of. The evil that was feared in 17th Century Puritan America has been so eclipsed by the human horrors of The Salem Witch Trials, that we have forgotten what it was to fear a witch.
We know these characters only by their Christian names. William removes his family from their Colonial settlement due to an incompatibility of faith. The colony of Puritans isn’t Christian enough. With his wife, Katherine, William takes his 4 children into the wilds of the Northeast. Airs of The Crucible envelope the setting. Common pronouns are replaced with “thines” and “thous”. Dialogue is delivered as if quoted from Shakespeare or the Bible itself. In the past, this oral dynamic has always sounded ardently rehearsed. Somehow, it’s natural here. Considering William’s rigorous faith, you might expect him to be an overbearingly shrewd father. He is in fact a loving and good man of his time; often a pushover. Katherine is the more fearsome parent, with a shrill voice and gaunt pointed face. While they do live in hardship, this is a good family. Once Fall deadens the colors and greys the skies, things begin to take a disturbing turn.
Ralph Ineson and Kate Dickie play the parents without an exaggeration of the material. Remarkable still are the actors portraying their children. Harvey Scrimshaw plays William’s 10-year-old son, Caleb, as natural as can be imagined. The dramatic beats of a horror movie come with taxing climactic moments and Scrimshaw acts beyond his years. Anya Taylor-Joy plays the eldest daughter Thomasin; a doe-eyed blonde beauty who plays the most relatable character of the flock. The dynamic between Caleb and Thompsin has notes of innocent sexual tension. Their secluded life leaves a great deal of new feelings that can’t be addressed due to their customs. These feelings lead to foreign temptations that are preyed upon by the timeless evil beyond the trees.
The greatest achievement of this film is how faithful it is to its setting and story, while keeping enough behind the veil to become engrossing. The tale feels as old as any, drawing from universal fears and motivations. How it draws you in, keeping you tied to the victims and their perspective while keeping the evil at arm’s length, shows a discipline of craft that greatly compliments the material. Much like vampires, witches have been trivialized and diluted by film into something superficially attractive and entertainingly evil. As with Noseferatu, seeing a witch living a damnable existence of ugliness is much more appropriate. If they’re ever beautiful, they won’t be for long.
The full title is, The Witch: A New England Folktale. Like Grimm’s fairytales, American folklore has taken revisions over the centuries to become a palatable collection of juvenile life lessons. Anyone who has read the original versions of these stories knows how brutal, horrifying, and far removed they are from our current values. As much as I would not condone reading original classic witch tales to a small child, they do contain much deeper implications and ideas than the simple “Don’t tell lies” that are gleaned from modern revisions. What’s fascinating about The Witch is how familiar the setting and story is, without a single cliché or moment of prediction to speak of. The evil that was feared in 17th Century Puritan America has been so eclipsed by the human horrors of The Salem Witch Trials, that we have forgotten what it was to fear a witch.
We know these characters only by their Christian names. William removes his family from their Colonial settlement due to an incompatibility of faith. The colony of Puritans isn’t Christian enough. With his wife, Katherine, William takes his 4 children into the wilds of the Northeast. Airs of The Crucible envelope the setting. Common pronouns are replaced with “thines” and “thous”. Dialogue is delivered as if quoted from Shakespeare or the Bible itself. In the past, this oral dynamic has always sounded ardently rehearsed. Somehow, it’s natural here. Considering William’s rigorous faith, you might expect him to be an overbearingly shrewd father. He is in fact a loving and good man of his time; often a pushover. Katherine is the more fearsome parent, with a shrill voice and gaunt pointed face. While they do live in hardship, this is a good family. Once Fall deadens the colors and greys the skies, things begin to take a disturbing turn.
Ralph Ineson and Kate Dickie play the parents without an exaggeration of the material. Remarkable still are the actors portraying their children. Harvey Scrimshaw plays William’s 10-year-old son, Caleb, as natural as can be imagined. The dramatic beats of a horror movie come with taxing climactic moments and Scrimshaw acts beyond his years. Anya Taylor-Joy plays the eldest daughter Thomasin; a doe-eyed blonde beauty who plays the most relatable character of the flock. The dynamic between Caleb and Thompsin has notes of innocent sexual tension. Their secluded life leaves a great deal of new feelings that can’t be addressed due to their customs. These feelings lead to foreign temptations that are preyed upon by the timeless evil beyond the trees.
The greatest achievement of this film is how faithful it is to its setting and story, while keeping enough behind the veil to become engrossing. The tale feels as old as any, drawing from universal fears and motivations. How it draws you in, keeping you tied to the victims and their perspective while keeping the evil at arm’s length, shows a discipline of craft that greatly compliments the material. Much like vampires, witches have been trivialized and diluted by film into something superficially attractive and entertainingly evil. As with Noseferatu, seeing a witch living a damnable existence of ugliness is much more appropriate. If they’re ever beautiful, they won’t be for long.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Jurassic World: Dominion (2022) in Movies
Jun 8, 2022
After having the film halted and its release delayed by the Pandemic, “Jurassic World: Dominion” has finally arrived and closes out the new trilogy in a spectacle of action and visual splendor.
Picking up a few years after the events of “Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom”, the dinosaurs have escaped into the wild and now mingle with and at times endanger society.
A multi-national company has been leading the way with a reserve to study the animals and their quirky leader Lewis Dodgson (Campbell Scott), promises the goal is to discover medicines that will benefit all of society.
At the same time, various concerns have arisen such as gigantic Locust swarms that threaten the food supply and activist Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) is convinced that Dodgson and his company are behind it. Desperate to find answers, she seeks the help of Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) and Dr. Ian Malcom (Jeff Goldblum) to get to the bottom of the mystery.
Owen Grady (Chris Pratt), and Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard), find their lives disrupted by the poaching of a unique dinosaur and a genetically unique young girl named Maisie (Isabella Sermon) and this puts them on a path to recover them both which takes them into the illegal world of dinosaur sales and on a collision course with Ellie and her team.
The old and new cast faces numerous dangers along the way before they unite for a rousing final act which effectively combines the original and new trilogy and cast very well.
Director Colin Trevorrow takes his time getting the story up to speed as the early part of the film is heavy on characters and set up before getting to the action but once it starts, there is an endless parade of dinosaurs old and new to endanger the cast and keep the tension moving.
While people may be able to find fault with elements of the plot, pacing, and dialogue, the cast is very effective and it is nice to see the cast from the original series being given a much larger role and how elements from the first film are addressed which have been a point of debate for fans.
The visuals are impressive and there is no end of snarling, biting, and deadly creatures mixed in with favorites old and new while people may want more depth or variation, the creatures are the focal point of the story and the film provides plenty of what fans have come to expect.
The formula of gathering the cast and endangering them with an array of dinosaurs does not change much aside from the locales and creatures involved but fans of the series know what they are getting and “Jurassic World: Dominion” gives fans what they expect and does it well.
DeWanda Wise and Mamoudou Athie are nice additions to the cast and Isabella Sermon appears to be a breakout star in the making. It will be interesting to see how long Universal waits before returning the franchise to cinemas as they have mentioned taking a break following this film, hopefully, it will not be as long as the break between “Jurassic Park 3”, and “Jurassic World” as it will be interesting to see what the next summer event film in the series will offer.
4 stars out of 5.
Picking up a few years after the events of “Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom”, the dinosaurs have escaped into the wild and now mingle with and at times endanger society.
A multi-national company has been leading the way with a reserve to study the animals and their quirky leader Lewis Dodgson (Campbell Scott), promises the goal is to discover medicines that will benefit all of society.
At the same time, various concerns have arisen such as gigantic Locust swarms that threaten the food supply and activist Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) is convinced that Dodgson and his company are behind it. Desperate to find answers, she seeks the help of Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) and Dr. Ian Malcom (Jeff Goldblum) to get to the bottom of the mystery.
Owen Grady (Chris Pratt), and Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard), find their lives disrupted by the poaching of a unique dinosaur and a genetically unique young girl named Maisie (Isabella Sermon) and this puts them on a path to recover them both which takes them into the illegal world of dinosaur sales and on a collision course with Ellie and her team.
The old and new cast faces numerous dangers along the way before they unite for a rousing final act which effectively combines the original and new trilogy and cast very well.
Director Colin Trevorrow takes his time getting the story up to speed as the early part of the film is heavy on characters and set up before getting to the action but once it starts, there is an endless parade of dinosaurs old and new to endanger the cast and keep the tension moving.
While people may be able to find fault with elements of the plot, pacing, and dialogue, the cast is very effective and it is nice to see the cast from the original series being given a much larger role and how elements from the first film are addressed which have been a point of debate for fans.
The visuals are impressive and there is no end of snarling, biting, and deadly creatures mixed in with favorites old and new while people may want more depth or variation, the creatures are the focal point of the story and the film provides plenty of what fans have come to expect.
The formula of gathering the cast and endangering them with an array of dinosaurs does not change much aside from the locales and creatures involved but fans of the series know what they are getting and “Jurassic World: Dominion” gives fans what they expect and does it well.
DeWanda Wise and Mamoudou Athie are nice additions to the cast and Isabella Sermon appears to be a breakout star in the making. It will be interesting to see how long Universal waits before returning the franchise to cinemas as they have mentioned taking a break following this film, hopefully, it will not be as long as the break between “Jurassic Park 3”, and “Jurassic World” as it will be interesting to see what the next summer event film in the series will offer.
4 stars out of 5.
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament in Books
Jun 29, 2018
In Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2006), Eugene H. Merrill sets out to provide a theology of the Old Testament which represents the O.T. as a consistent whole that has God as its ultimate source. As such, he supports a high view of biblical inspiration as verbal: “The word of God to the prophets was verbal; and what they spoke and wrote, therefore, was also verbal. The means by which the verbalizing was effected is never disclosed, nor is it necessary to know. The point is that the prophetic word, the highest form of divine revelation, was recognized at the time to be the words of God, a view maintained by virtually unanimous consensus in Jewish and Christian tradition until the inroads of modern criticism.”
Insofar as Merrill is a Christian writing about the Old Testament's theology, this creates a dilemma in regard to the role the New Testament is allowed to play in his interpretation. Merrill acknowledges this from the get go:
“Old Testament theology is the study of biblical theology that employs the methods of that discipline to the Old Testament alone while being aware of the limitations inherent in not addressing the New Testament witness in any comprehensive way. This delimitation can be justified on the grounds that the Old Testament speaks its own message, one that is legitimate and authoritative in every sense of the term even if, from the Christian viewpoint, its message is not ultimately complete.”
As such, his work attempts to focus on what the Old Testament says on its own, though he occasionally appeals to New Testament ideas as a means of providing an additional witness to his interpretation.
Merrill tends to provide basic level interpretation in the canonical order of the Old Testament books. As such, little of his exegesis is particularly creative. However, he does have one unique idea which comes up throughout the book and indeed inspired the title-- the idea that man was made by God as an intermediary for God's dominion over the world:
“The crowning work of creation was the appearance of mankind on the sixth day (Gen. 1:26–28). He is said to be in the image and likeness of God, but the grammar permits and theology favors the idea that he was created as his image and likeness, that is, as God's representative on earth... [This passage] is also the clearest expression of the divine purpose in creation. After all things else had been made and put into their several positions of function and interrelationship, the Lord said, 'Let Us make man [as] Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule' (Gen. 1:26). The significance of this for communicating a (if not the) major theme of Old Testament theology cannot be overstated, and the fact that it is the first divinely articulated expression of the reason for man's existence makes it doubly significant. What is lacking apparently after the whole cosmos has been spoken into existence is its management, a caretaker as it were who will govern it all according to the will of the Creator. He could have done it himself without mediation, but for reasons never revealed in the sacred record, God elected to reign through a subordinate, a surrogate king responsible only to him.”
Merrill explains what had been lost in this divine intention after the Fall: “No longer did man have dominion over all things; instead, he abdicated his role as sovereign and worshipped what he should have ruled.” However, he still highlights partial fulfillments of the divine plan even after the Fall, such as in the Israelite monarchy:
“The creation mandate that mankind should 'be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it' and 'rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth' (Gen. 1:28) finds tangible expression even if only in a highly preliminary and anticipatory manner. David and his dynastic successors never exhibited this kind of universal dominion, of course, but the limited success they did enjoy, especially under Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 4:20–34), was a foretaste of the splendor, glory, and power of his descendants yet to come at the end of human history.”
Of course, this idea of human dominion as a vice-regent of God would only find its final fulfillment in Christ, the second Adam and the second David:
“If paradise was lost at the fall, it will be regained at the re-creation, not least in the restoration of man's glory as the vice-regent of the King of kings.”
The book seems to go out of its way to contrast the wild speculation of liberal theology, resulting in a work which is so straight-forward as to be dull. This is by no means always the case with Merrill's writings, as his Historical Survey of the Old Testament was one of the most interesting books I read as a new Christian. In Everlasting Dominion, however, where skeptical scholarship always assumes that the text is hiding something, Merrill takes it at face value. The result is a theology of the Old Testament which is more grounded, but that also often fails to soar to the heights that the text might allow for. Instead of elucidation and theologizing, Merrill tends to resort to extended (and I do mean extended) summary of the Hebrew canon.
The one major exception to this tendency is in Merrill's discussion of dominion, which we discussed above in detail. However, more work could certainly have been done on this topic, particularly in regard to how Jesus brings the idea to its fulfillment. Since it is Merrill's goal to explain the Old Testament with as little light from the New as possible, it is difficult to fault him for this. But it's also hard to fault the reader for wanting more when he reads tantalizing sections like this:
“What we propose in the following comments is done with a great deal of tentativeness since, as far as we can determine, we are virtually alone in making the case that Jesus, in his earthly ministry, frequently performed miraculous works to demonstrate not just his full deity but also his role as Urmensch, the second Adam who came to display in character and life what God had intended as the ideal for the whole human race. Without pursuing the biblical arguments for a full-blown Christology that is sensitive to both his divine and human natures, let it be said that there is universal consensus that the New Testament presents Jesus not only as God but also as perfect man.”
That being said, it does seem like an exaggeration to claim that Genesis 1:26 is the key text to understanding Old Testament theology. That it is a major theme, particularly in relation to its underemphasis by most biblical commentators, does not by any means strain credulity. It also seems to be in the back of the mind of many New Testament authors who emphasize restoration of the Kingdom of God involving our reigning with Christ and inheriting the eternal life and dominion over the world which was originally connected with our Edenic charge.
In the final analysis, Everlasting Dominion provides a good straight-forward overview of the Old Testament, but simply doesn't provide enough insight to warrant its nearly 700 pages.
Insofar as Merrill is a Christian writing about the Old Testament's theology, this creates a dilemma in regard to the role the New Testament is allowed to play in his interpretation. Merrill acknowledges this from the get go:
“Old Testament theology is the study of biblical theology that employs the methods of that discipline to the Old Testament alone while being aware of the limitations inherent in not addressing the New Testament witness in any comprehensive way. This delimitation can be justified on the grounds that the Old Testament speaks its own message, one that is legitimate and authoritative in every sense of the term even if, from the Christian viewpoint, its message is not ultimately complete.”
As such, his work attempts to focus on what the Old Testament says on its own, though he occasionally appeals to New Testament ideas as a means of providing an additional witness to his interpretation.
Merrill tends to provide basic level interpretation in the canonical order of the Old Testament books. As such, little of his exegesis is particularly creative. However, he does have one unique idea which comes up throughout the book and indeed inspired the title-- the idea that man was made by God as an intermediary for God's dominion over the world:
“The crowning work of creation was the appearance of mankind on the sixth day (Gen. 1:26–28). He is said to be in the image and likeness of God, but the grammar permits and theology favors the idea that he was created as his image and likeness, that is, as God's representative on earth... [This passage] is also the clearest expression of the divine purpose in creation. After all things else had been made and put into their several positions of function and interrelationship, the Lord said, 'Let Us make man [as] Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule' (Gen. 1:26). The significance of this for communicating a (if not the) major theme of Old Testament theology cannot be overstated, and the fact that it is the first divinely articulated expression of the reason for man's existence makes it doubly significant. What is lacking apparently after the whole cosmos has been spoken into existence is its management, a caretaker as it were who will govern it all according to the will of the Creator. He could have done it himself without mediation, but for reasons never revealed in the sacred record, God elected to reign through a subordinate, a surrogate king responsible only to him.”
Merrill explains what had been lost in this divine intention after the Fall: “No longer did man have dominion over all things; instead, he abdicated his role as sovereign and worshipped what he should have ruled.” However, he still highlights partial fulfillments of the divine plan even after the Fall, such as in the Israelite monarchy:
“The creation mandate that mankind should 'be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it' and 'rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth' (Gen. 1:28) finds tangible expression even if only in a highly preliminary and anticipatory manner. David and his dynastic successors never exhibited this kind of universal dominion, of course, but the limited success they did enjoy, especially under Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 4:20–34), was a foretaste of the splendor, glory, and power of his descendants yet to come at the end of human history.”
Of course, this idea of human dominion as a vice-regent of God would only find its final fulfillment in Christ, the second Adam and the second David:
“If paradise was lost at the fall, it will be regained at the re-creation, not least in the restoration of man's glory as the vice-regent of the King of kings.”
The book seems to go out of its way to contrast the wild speculation of liberal theology, resulting in a work which is so straight-forward as to be dull. This is by no means always the case with Merrill's writings, as his Historical Survey of the Old Testament was one of the most interesting books I read as a new Christian. In Everlasting Dominion, however, where skeptical scholarship always assumes that the text is hiding something, Merrill takes it at face value. The result is a theology of the Old Testament which is more grounded, but that also often fails to soar to the heights that the text might allow for. Instead of elucidation and theologizing, Merrill tends to resort to extended (and I do mean extended) summary of the Hebrew canon.
The one major exception to this tendency is in Merrill's discussion of dominion, which we discussed above in detail. However, more work could certainly have been done on this topic, particularly in regard to how Jesus brings the idea to its fulfillment. Since it is Merrill's goal to explain the Old Testament with as little light from the New as possible, it is difficult to fault him for this. But it's also hard to fault the reader for wanting more when he reads tantalizing sections like this:
“What we propose in the following comments is done with a great deal of tentativeness since, as far as we can determine, we are virtually alone in making the case that Jesus, in his earthly ministry, frequently performed miraculous works to demonstrate not just his full deity but also his role as Urmensch, the second Adam who came to display in character and life what God had intended as the ideal for the whole human race. Without pursuing the biblical arguments for a full-blown Christology that is sensitive to both his divine and human natures, let it be said that there is universal consensus that the New Testament presents Jesus not only as God but also as perfect man.”
That being said, it does seem like an exaggeration to claim that Genesis 1:26 is the key text to understanding Old Testament theology. That it is a major theme, particularly in relation to its underemphasis by most biblical commentators, does not by any means strain credulity. It also seems to be in the back of the mind of many New Testament authors who emphasize restoration of the Kingdom of God involving our reigning with Christ and inheriting the eternal life and dominion over the world which was originally connected with our Edenic charge.
In the final analysis, Everlasting Dominion provides a good straight-forward overview of the Old Testament, but simply doesn't provide enough insight to warrant its nearly 700 pages.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Hellboy II: The Golden Army (Hellboy 2) (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Hollywood is often littered with decisions that in hindsight seem to be utterly insane. For all of the big budgeted films that go on to do huge business, there are films such as “Waterworld”, “Howard The Duck”, “Hudson Hawk”, and countless others that make you scratch your head and wonder who thought they were worth the investment of millions of dollars that were needed to bring them to the big screen.
One such decision that will undoubtedly look bad with the passage of time, was the decision for Columbia not to continue the “Hellboy” film series and allow it to walk away to find a home elsewhere.
Thankfully due to the strength of “Pan’s Labyrinth”, creator Guillmo del Toro who is riding a wave of critical success, “Hellboy II: The Golden Army”, is a step up from the previous film and sets the stage for a potential series of sequels for Universal.
The film once again stars Ron Perlman as the title character, a demon of supernatural origin who was raised by humans and leads a team of gifted individuals in the ultra-secret Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense (BPRD).
The story begins shortly after the events of the last film, and finds BPRD Director Tom Manning (Jeffrey Tambor), frustrated with Hellboy’s continued flaunting of the rules by posing for pictures and autographs while on missions, despite being sworn to keep himself and the agency a closely guarded secret.
As if this was not enough trouble, Hellboy is having issues with the love of his life Liz (Selma Blair), who is starting to have issues with his gruff mannerisms and slovenly ways.
Unknown to the BRPD a new threat is brewing in the form of Prince Nauada (Luke Goss), who plans to retrieve three pieces of a golden crown so that he may control a fabled army of golden soldiers, and wage war on humanity.
Nauada is part of the mythical world of beings that long ago formed a truce with humanity and have lived in peace. Nauada, who has lived under the rule of his father for centuries, strikes out and sets events into motion which require the BPRD to respond to a threat greater than any they have previously faced,.
With the able help of Abe Sapien (Doug Jones), and new member Johann Krauss (Seth MacFarlane), the BPRD clash with themselves and the forces of Nauada with the fate of the world in the balance.
The new film is significantly better than the previous one, and del Toro has masterfully blended the characters and many interesting sub-stories with solid action, FX, and surprising humor. There is a scene in the film where Hellboy and Abe bond over music and beer to discuss women that is truly classic as is the confrontation between Hellboy and Krauss over leadership.
del Toro is a master at creating world of fantasy and splendor and when he allows the film to venture into this area, the film truly shines. It is during the transition between fantasy and alleged reality where the film has a few rough edges. While it was great to see the characters have a more defined relationship and interaction with one another, it seemed at times that areas for potential gold were glossed over or rushed to get back to the action and FX. There are some great storylines about Hellboy’s relationship with humanity, Liz being caught between two worlds, and many more that I hope get developed more in any future films.
There were times in the film where the nearly two hour run time seemed excessive and dragged, especially leading up to a finale, that did not deliver as big an impact as the setup had hinted at.
That being said, thanks to great characters and visuals “Hellboy II: The Golden Army”, is the rare sequel that is better than the original.
One such decision that will undoubtedly look bad with the passage of time, was the decision for Columbia not to continue the “Hellboy” film series and allow it to walk away to find a home elsewhere.
Thankfully due to the strength of “Pan’s Labyrinth”, creator Guillmo del Toro who is riding a wave of critical success, “Hellboy II: The Golden Army”, is a step up from the previous film and sets the stage for a potential series of sequels for Universal.
The film once again stars Ron Perlman as the title character, a demon of supernatural origin who was raised by humans and leads a team of gifted individuals in the ultra-secret Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense (BPRD).
The story begins shortly after the events of the last film, and finds BPRD Director Tom Manning (Jeffrey Tambor), frustrated with Hellboy’s continued flaunting of the rules by posing for pictures and autographs while on missions, despite being sworn to keep himself and the agency a closely guarded secret.
As if this was not enough trouble, Hellboy is having issues with the love of his life Liz (Selma Blair), who is starting to have issues with his gruff mannerisms and slovenly ways.
Unknown to the BRPD a new threat is brewing in the form of Prince Nauada (Luke Goss), who plans to retrieve three pieces of a golden crown so that he may control a fabled army of golden soldiers, and wage war on humanity.
Nauada is part of the mythical world of beings that long ago formed a truce with humanity and have lived in peace. Nauada, who has lived under the rule of his father for centuries, strikes out and sets events into motion which require the BPRD to respond to a threat greater than any they have previously faced,.
With the able help of Abe Sapien (Doug Jones), and new member Johann Krauss (Seth MacFarlane), the BPRD clash with themselves and the forces of Nauada with the fate of the world in the balance.
The new film is significantly better than the previous one, and del Toro has masterfully blended the characters and many interesting sub-stories with solid action, FX, and surprising humor. There is a scene in the film where Hellboy and Abe bond over music and beer to discuss women that is truly classic as is the confrontation between Hellboy and Krauss over leadership.
del Toro is a master at creating world of fantasy and splendor and when he allows the film to venture into this area, the film truly shines. It is during the transition between fantasy and alleged reality where the film has a few rough edges. While it was great to see the characters have a more defined relationship and interaction with one another, it seemed at times that areas for potential gold were glossed over or rushed to get back to the action and FX. There are some great storylines about Hellboy’s relationship with humanity, Liz being caught between two worlds, and many more that I hope get developed more in any future films.
There were times in the film where the nearly two hour run time seemed excessive and dragged, especially leading up to a finale, that did not deliver as big an impact as the setup had hinted at.
That being said, thanks to great characters and visuals “Hellboy II: The Golden Army”, is the rare sequel that is better than the original.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
"i'd like to purchase some of your finest beer please"
Shout "Shazam!" into the sky and you're struck by a bolt of lightning from the heavens; blessed with the wisdom of Solomon, the strength of Hercules, the stamina of Atlas, the power of Zeus, the courage of Achilles and the speed of Mercury. Instantly elevated from whatever you were into your peak self; reborn with a crack of thunder, a flash of light and a cloud of smoke. It's a wonderfully novel and simple idea for a comic book character. Something that allows for a spectacular hero moment right before each conflict or feat; an epic bit of imagery to light up the night sky and electrify the frame. This transformation also perfectly captures the spirit of both this film and it's hero; a belief in the idea that even the most forgotten, marginalized and seemingly powerless person can change the world.
Shazam! distinguishes itself as DC's first true crack at a comedy; also it's lightest and most modest effort yet. There's a really nice commitment to the lofty, somewhat ridiculously mythological source material here. There's little liberty taken with Shazam's campy world of wizards, demons and magic; the attitude towards these elements can best be described as self-aware without being self-conscious. The jokes almost all land and there's charm oozing out of every frame. Loads of heart, tons of humor and a true fidelity to childhood joy make this such a uniquely enjoyable flick; and an impressively confident approach to a hero that soars due to it's big personality and earnest attitude.
Our hero's journey here boils down to a kid learning to care about a world that has never bothered to care about him. Abandoned as a child and shuttled through the foster system; the explanation and depiction of Billy Batson's unenviable situation is irreverent and laced with sarcasm, true to how teens often confront traumas that imply vulnerability. The film allows these kids to be kids; meaning they're impulsive and ill-equipped for the situation they're in; and often crude and frustratingly ignorant to a seemingly obvious truth. The premise lends itself to a close look at responsibility and purpose; basically a feature length look at a lost kid reclaiming his identity and finding a family. The point at which Billy truly becomes a hero with something to fight for is powerful; a simple but big-hearted affirmation of the importance of connection and love, especially to a kid who's never allowed himself to know either.
Superhero stories can impart lessons in a variety of ways. Both on the page and on the screen; there's a wide array of films that all excel in their own specific way; shaping themselves in the image of their hero, and what he/she means to readers around the world. Shazam! distinguishes itself spectacularly as a film about what constitutes a family, and how that family reflects who we are. There's a powerful yearning in Billy for a connection; someone or something to fight for. A desperate desire for love and support; to feel like a part of something in some way. There's a meaningful, deeply human core to that concept; something universal and immediately affecting. Shazam! understands this from the start; setting aside the punchsplosians and skybeams for a moment, to remind us that sometimes a kid looking for his mom can be as compelling than the threat of planetary destruction. So bring on Joker, Birds of Prey, Wonder Woman 1984 and whatever else DC has in it's chaotic, ever-changing slate of planned superhero flicks; they're on a roll right now.
Shazam! distinguishes itself as DC's first true crack at a comedy; also it's lightest and most modest effort yet. There's a really nice commitment to the lofty, somewhat ridiculously mythological source material here. There's little liberty taken with Shazam's campy world of wizards, demons and magic; the attitude towards these elements can best be described as self-aware without being self-conscious. The jokes almost all land and there's charm oozing out of every frame. Loads of heart, tons of humor and a true fidelity to childhood joy make this such a uniquely enjoyable flick; and an impressively confident approach to a hero that soars due to it's big personality and earnest attitude.
Our hero's journey here boils down to a kid learning to care about a world that has never bothered to care about him. Abandoned as a child and shuttled through the foster system; the explanation and depiction of Billy Batson's unenviable situation is irreverent and laced with sarcasm, true to how teens often confront traumas that imply vulnerability. The film allows these kids to be kids; meaning they're impulsive and ill-equipped for the situation they're in; and often crude and frustratingly ignorant to a seemingly obvious truth. The premise lends itself to a close look at responsibility and purpose; basically a feature length look at a lost kid reclaiming his identity and finding a family. The point at which Billy truly becomes a hero with something to fight for is powerful; a simple but big-hearted affirmation of the importance of connection and love, especially to a kid who's never allowed himself to know either.
Superhero stories can impart lessons in a variety of ways. Both on the page and on the screen; there's a wide array of films that all excel in their own specific way; shaping themselves in the image of their hero, and what he/she means to readers around the world. Shazam! distinguishes itself spectacularly as a film about what constitutes a family, and how that family reflects who we are. There's a powerful yearning in Billy for a connection; someone or something to fight for. A desperate desire for love and support; to feel like a part of something in some way. There's a meaningful, deeply human core to that concept; something universal and immediately affecting. Shazam! understands this from the start; setting aside the punchsplosians and skybeams for a moment, to remind us that sometimes a kid looking for his mom can be as compelling than the threat of planetary destruction. So bring on Joker, Birds of Prey, Wonder Woman 1984 and whatever else DC has in it's chaotic, ever-changing slate of planned superhero flicks; they're on a roll right now.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated How To Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Universal Pictures is wrapping up its How To Train Your Dragon Trilogy with the release of the film: How To Train Your Dragon: Hidden World, set to release on Friday, February 22, 2019.
The film brings back the same core cast of characters as the previous two movies, with Hiccup (Jay Baruchel), Astrid, (America Ferrera), Valka (Cate Blanchet), Eret (Kit Harrington), Gobber (Craig Ferguson), Snotlout (Jonah Hill), Ruffnutt (Kristen Wiig), Tuffnut (TJ Miller), Fishlegs (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), and flashback appearances of Stoic (Gerard Butler).
The story opens on what is supposed to be a “stealthy raid” but isn’t, quite.
We learn that Hiccup and his band of friends (both Dragon and human) are on a continuous mission to rescue captured Dragons from the poachers determined to capture and exploit them.
Hiccup and his friends then bring the rescued dragons back to Berk which is now a “Dragon-Viking utopia”. This arrangement, however idyllic, does not appear to be sustainable in the long-term. It is crowded and messy and Berk is just simply running out of room to house any more Dragons! Astrid and Gobber are concerned that housing all the Dragons on Berk makes the settlement a target for the Dragon hunters, endangering the entire community.
Hiccup is still exploring and reading his father’s old records, and remains convinced that there is “more” out there. He enlists Astrid’s help in finding the hidden world where he believes that all of Berk could move to, with their Dragons to leave in peace and secrecy.
After an attack on Berk, the rest of the community is convinced that Hiccup is right (even as he is not fully convinced himself of his ability to lead them successfully) and agrees to follow him in his search for the Hidden World sanctuary.
The story follows them on their quest and the dangers and successes of the journey to find a new, more suitable home.
The music, animation, and scenery in this movie is great. The details are phenomenal, from the characters’ hair, to the movements of the Dragons, to the Hidden World cave details, really show the attention that was paid in making this movie stand out!
The story line itself, as a continuation of the previous two movies, flows well, and follows an appropriate arc, both as far as relationships as well as time.
The addition of a new Dragon, and the relationship that evolves between the Light Fury and Toothless brings a new level of evolution to the existing relationship between Toothless and Hiccup, and plays on the adage of “if you love something, set it free”.
I laughed throughout the movie, at the dragons’ antics and expressions and interactions with their humans and each other. I held my breath in anticipation at some aspects, and heard myself say ‘oh no!” under my breath at one point as well. Dragons 3 drew me in from the start, and didn’t let go till the very end of the credit rolled. (We stayed until the lights came back up, and even the credits had me smiling with their small surprises!)
I found myself both wishing that this installment wouldn’t be “the end” as well as acknowledging that this story provided a fitting end to the series of films.
If there MUST be an end, this film wraps up the story nicely and provides closure, while yet leaving enough room to imagine what might come next.
I would give this movie 5 out of 5 stars, and while we did not see it in IMAX or 3D, if you have those options available, I would recommend that as well!
The film brings back the same core cast of characters as the previous two movies, with Hiccup (Jay Baruchel), Astrid, (America Ferrera), Valka (Cate Blanchet), Eret (Kit Harrington), Gobber (Craig Ferguson), Snotlout (Jonah Hill), Ruffnutt (Kristen Wiig), Tuffnut (TJ Miller), Fishlegs (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), and flashback appearances of Stoic (Gerard Butler).
The story opens on what is supposed to be a “stealthy raid” but isn’t, quite.
We learn that Hiccup and his band of friends (both Dragon and human) are on a continuous mission to rescue captured Dragons from the poachers determined to capture and exploit them.
Hiccup and his friends then bring the rescued dragons back to Berk which is now a “Dragon-Viking utopia”. This arrangement, however idyllic, does not appear to be sustainable in the long-term. It is crowded and messy and Berk is just simply running out of room to house any more Dragons! Astrid and Gobber are concerned that housing all the Dragons on Berk makes the settlement a target for the Dragon hunters, endangering the entire community.
Hiccup is still exploring and reading his father’s old records, and remains convinced that there is “more” out there. He enlists Astrid’s help in finding the hidden world where he believes that all of Berk could move to, with their Dragons to leave in peace and secrecy.
After an attack on Berk, the rest of the community is convinced that Hiccup is right (even as he is not fully convinced himself of his ability to lead them successfully) and agrees to follow him in his search for the Hidden World sanctuary.
The story follows them on their quest and the dangers and successes of the journey to find a new, more suitable home.
The music, animation, and scenery in this movie is great. The details are phenomenal, from the characters’ hair, to the movements of the Dragons, to the Hidden World cave details, really show the attention that was paid in making this movie stand out!
The story line itself, as a continuation of the previous two movies, flows well, and follows an appropriate arc, both as far as relationships as well as time.
The addition of a new Dragon, and the relationship that evolves between the Light Fury and Toothless brings a new level of evolution to the existing relationship between Toothless and Hiccup, and plays on the adage of “if you love something, set it free”.
I laughed throughout the movie, at the dragons’ antics and expressions and interactions with their humans and each other. I held my breath in anticipation at some aspects, and heard myself say ‘oh no!” under my breath at one point as well. Dragons 3 drew me in from the start, and didn’t let go till the very end of the credit rolled. (We stayed until the lights came back up, and even the credits had me smiling with their small surprises!)
I found myself both wishing that this installment wouldn’t be “the end” as well as acknowledging that this story provided a fitting end to the series of films.
If there MUST be an end, this film wraps up the story nicely and provides closure, while yet leaving enough room to imagine what might come next.
I would give this movie 5 out of 5 stars, and while we did not see it in IMAX or 3D, if you have those options available, I would recommend that as well!
What might be sabotaging your uniquely gifted contribution to the world around you? Discover the obstacles and barriers standing between you and your God-given purpose. In this revised book, youll learn how to identify ways to strengthen your calling thatll encourage you to confidently operate in the gifts and talents that God designed you to do. Through the lens of T.H. Meyers own journey, youll recognize the universal struggle in embracing your whole person as she encourages you to live a life without regrets. For the individual reader looking to examine more deeply their life purpose or a group seeking to collectively spur each other toward their God-given gifts, talents, and life. This book can be used as a 12-week, 6-week, or 4-week study guide, with exploratory questions at the end of each chapter the assist you in listening to Gods voice and revealing your unique purpose, path, or direction.
Endorsements A wonderful exploration, but not only for readers to look inwardly, but to also look around at others, at where our lives are at, and mostly upward toward Gods design and dreams for our lives. Love it! Cindy Coloma, best selling and award-winning author of over 15 books Youll come away from this wise and insightful book with a clearer understanding of how you are uniquely gifted to contribute to the world, and why its imperative that you honor your creative calling. Michelle DeRusha, author of Katharina and Martin Luther: The Radical Marriage of a Runway TH Meyer looks at the glass ceiling the world has placed between creatives and non-creatives and shatters it. This those who have felt they are not creative, too timid, or simply too late to the life they were called to live, Meyer says, Pish-posh. She delivers on her promise to help people embrace uniqueness, explore boldness, and encourage faith. Amy Young, author of Looming Transitions: Starting & Finishing Well in Cross-Cultural Service In her book, A Life Of Creative Purpose, Tammy Hendricksmeyer [TH Meyer] is a trusted mentor, offer ing us the tools we need to step completely into Gods design for us as individuals, and as members of His body. Her relatable stories coupled with scripture inspire and ignite a renewed passion for pursuing not only our own creative callings but even more, her words stoke the fire in our hearts for the Giver of these gifts. Kris Camealy, author of Come, Lord Jesus: The Weight Of Waiting A Life of Creative Purpose is a fantastic resource filled with thoughtful questions, stories, and Scripture each designed to awaken us to Gods unique purposes for our lives. It is well-written, thoughtful, and engaging, an invitation to embrace our own eternally significant creative purpose. Cindee S. Re, author of Discovering Hope: Beginning the Journey Toward Hope in Chronic Illness In her book, A Life of Creative Purpose, TH Meyer masterfully blends personal stories with wisdom from Scripture to reveal the importance of creative purpose (even if you think you are not creative.) The thought-provoking questions at the end of each chapter will help you discover (or uncover) and embrace the unique way God has made you and inspire you to step into a life of purpose, meaning, and fulfillment. JoDitt Williams, author/artist of Delight in the Word of God: A Devotional Coloring Book/Journal for Adults
My Thoughts: This is a great book to remind us about the gifts that God has for each of us. It reminds us not to be afraid to step out in faith to use the guts that God gives us to use.
This is a book of encouragement. It helps those who may not know what their purpose or gift is, to learn how to find it.
I enjoyed this book and encourage others to read it.
Endorsements A wonderful exploration, but not only for readers to look inwardly, but to also look around at others, at where our lives are at, and mostly upward toward Gods design and dreams for our lives. Love it! Cindy Coloma, best selling and award-winning author of over 15 books Youll come away from this wise and insightful book with a clearer understanding of how you are uniquely gifted to contribute to the world, and why its imperative that you honor your creative calling. Michelle DeRusha, author of Katharina and Martin Luther: The Radical Marriage of a Runway TH Meyer looks at the glass ceiling the world has placed between creatives and non-creatives and shatters it. This those who have felt they are not creative, too timid, or simply too late to the life they were called to live, Meyer says, Pish-posh. She delivers on her promise to help people embrace uniqueness, explore boldness, and encourage faith. Amy Young, author of Looming Transitions: Starting & Finishing Well in Cross-Cultural Service In her book, A Life Of Creative Purpose, Tammy Hendricksmeyer [TH Meyer] is a trusted mentor, offer ing us the tools we need to step completely into Gods design for us as individuals, and as members of His body. Her relatable stories coupled with scripture inspire and ignite a renewed passion for pursuing not only our own creative callings but even more, her words stoke the fire in our hearts for the Giver of these gifts. Kris Camealy, author of Come, Lord Jesus: The Weight Of Waiting A Life of Creative Purpose is a fantastic resource filled with thoughtful questions, stories, and Scripture each designed to awaken us to Gods unique purposes for our lives. It is well-written, thoughtful, and engaging, an invitation to embrace our own eternally significant creative purpose. Cindee S. Re, author of Discovering Hope: Beginning the Journey Toward Hope in Chronic Illness In her book, A Life of Creative Purpose, TH Meyer masterfully blends personal stories with wisdom from Scripture to reveal the importance of creative purpose (even if you think you are not creative.) The thought-provoking questions at the end of each chapter will help you discover (or uncover) and embrace the unique way God has made you and inspire you to step into a life of purpose, meaning, and fulfillment. JoDitt Williams, author/artist of Delight in the Word of God: A Devotional Coloring Book/Journal for Adults
My Thoughts: This is a great book to remind us about the gifts that God has for each of us. It reminds us not to be afraid to step out in faith to use the guts that God gives us to use.
This is a book of encouragement. It helps those who may not know what their purpose or gift is, to learn how to find it.
I enjoyed this book and encourage others to read it.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated No Time To Die by Billie Eilish in Music
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Aug 6, 2020)
Congratulations to The Wasteland’s favourite new artist for sweeping 5 awards at yesterday’s Grammy’s. I hate to say I told you so, but I kinda did, a long way out. It just makes sense to me, that if you have a musical ear, this is the best pop music that has been made for 20 years.
Best new artist, best song (Bad Guy), record of the year, best pop vocal album of the year, and the cherry, best album of the year, for the extraordinary When We All Fall Asleep Where Do We Go. Oh, and her brother won one for best producer… so, not a terrible night out!
Not only is she now the youngest person ever to win a Grammy, beating Taylor Swift to that, mostly meaningless, accolade, but more significantly she is the the first artist to sweep the big 4 awards since Christopher Cross in 1981. That is 39 years ago!
From the few acceptance clips I have seen, you can see how genuinely stunned and thrilled she is to win, which is refreshing after a generation of too cool for school egos that were more persona than person, often holding their emotions in check for the sake of image.
I think there is a long, long way to go before talking about Billie Eilish as a great artist – she has to keep it up! But, for sure the music industry wants to make a point that this is the real deal, and have paved the path for an unlimited potential. What these awards do, is create the stamp on her being a superstar. What she and Finneas do with that now is up to them. I have a feeling they are not going to blow it; it just doesn’t feel like this story ends badly.
Billie’s Bond Theme
In the interest of this blog not turning into the Billie Eilish appreciation society, I am adding on my thoughts about the new release of her theme tune for the new 007 movie, No Time To Die. We all have a favourite Bond song from the years past, so how does this one size up?
Working in conjunction with Oscar winning composer, Hans Zimmer can’t be all bad when you just turned 18, and it certainly helps with this sombre, slow building song, utilising full orchestra and a bundle of small motifs that make it seem 100% Bond. Make no mistake, it is a Billie Eilish song, her moody vibe is all over it, but I love how faithful to the brand she has been, avoiding the temptation to do something too weird with the gig.
The first time I heard it was enough for me to be able to say “cast-iron hit!” And I haven’t changed my mind 20 listens later. It is just mind-blowing how the ball of success keeps rolling for her and Finneas. Having the honour of singing the in memoriam song at the Academy awards, with an emotional rendition of the Beatles’ Yesterday would be enough attention for one week for any ordinary superstar, but no, here’s the best Bond theme for 20 years for you too! Astonishing.
It even has folk that were a bit cautious at first saying, actually that is a great tune. Just yesterday I was listening to a radio interview where Billie talked about how she gets fan mail from all demographics, including 80 year old grandfathers! I find that not only reassuring, but apt. This is an artist of universal appeal wrapped up in the media hype of a teenage pop-idol, but doing a great job of denying that narrow image and idea.
What can I say? Just carry on, Billie. It’s going quite well!
Best new artist, best song (Bad Guy), record of the year, best pop vocal album of the year, and the cherry, best album of the year, for the extraordinary When We All Fall Asleep Where Do We Go. Oh, and her brother won one for best producer… so, not a terrible night out!
Not only is she now the youngest person ever to win a Grammy, beating Taylor Swift to that, mostly meaningless, accolade, but more significantly she is the the first artist to sweep the big 4 awards since Christopher Cross in 1981. That is 39 years ago!
From the few acceptance clips I have seen, you can see how genuinely stunned and thrilled she is to win, which is refreshing after a generation of too cool for school egos that were more persona than person, often holding their emotions in check for the sake of image.
I think there is a long, long way to go before talking about Billie Eilish as a great artist – she has to keep it up! But, for sure the music industry wants to make a point that this is the real deal, and have paved the path for an unlimited potential. What these awards do, is create the stamp on her being a superstar. What she and Finneas do with that now is up to them. I have a feeling they are not going to blow it; it just doesn’t feel like this story ends badly.
Billie’s Bond Theme
In the interest of this blog not turning into the Billie Eilish appreciation society, I am adding on my thoughts about the new release of her theme tune for the new 007 movie, No Time To Die. We all have a favourite Bond song from the years past, so how does this one size up?
Working in conjunction with Oscar winning composer, Hans Zimmer can’t be all bad when you just turned 18, and it certainly helps with this sombre, slow building song, utilising full orchestra and a bundle of small motifs that make it seem 100% Bond. Make no mistake, it is a Billie Eilish song, her moody vibe is all over it, but I love how faithful to the brand she has been, avoiding the temptation to do something too weird with the gig.
The first time I heard it was enough for me to be able to say “cast-iron hit!” And I haven’t changed my mind 20 listens later. It is just mind-blowing how the ball of success keeps rolling for her and Finneas. Having the honour of singing the in memoriam song at the Academy awards, with an emotional rendition of the Beatles’ Yesterday would be enough attention for one week for any ordinary superstar, but no, here’s the best Bond theme for 20 years for you too! Astonishing.
It even has folk that were a bit cautious at first saying, actually that is a great tune. Just yesterday I was listening to a radio interview where Billie talked about how she gets fan mail from all demographics, including 80 year old grandfathers! I find that not only reassuring, but apt. This is an artist of universal appeal wrapped up in the media hype of a teenage pop-idol, but doing a great job of denying that narrow image and idea.
What can I say? Just carry on, Billie. It’s going quite well!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Invisible Man (2020) in Movies
Jan 9, 2021
Elisabeth Moss - excellent performance (1 more)
Slowly creeping tension - clever camera work
Have you seen "The Invisible Man"?
Cecilia Kass (Elisabeth Moss) is trapped in a highly controlling and violent relationship with technology mogul Adrian Griffin (Oliver Jackson-Cohen). Escaping from his fortress-like home, she lives in fear of his retribution. So she is much relieved, if a little surprised, at the report of his suicide. Now living with old friend James Lanier (Aldis Hodge) and his teenage daughter Sydney (Storm Reid), Cecilia can finally start to relax. But as strange things start to happen, is the ghost of Griffin back to haunt her? Or is it really all in her rapidly disintegrating mind, as her sister Emily (Harriet Dyer) and James suspect?
Australian writer/director Leigh Whannell is famous as the writer behind the "Saw" and "Insidious" franchises. So he knows a thing or two about crafting horror movies. And in this Blumhouse production, after a clever attention-grabbing opening, he really takes his time in building an understanding of Cecilia's mental state. When things start to happen, they happen so stealthily that I needed to hit the rewind button a couple of times (no cinema experience for this one I'm afraid). Cinematographer Stefan Duscio keeps slowly panning away from Cecilia across the room to show empty corridors before slowly panning back again. It's superbly effective and was comprehensively creeping me out!
When the set action pieces do occur then they are satisfactorily exciting, albeit wildly implausible. I did not see some of the "Surprises" coming, making them jolt-worthy. And the denouement really delivered for me, reminiscent of Hitchcock's style.
Now most famous for "Mad Men" and "The Handmaids Tale" on TV, Elisabeth Moss has delivered a range of impressive film performances including in "High Rise" and - as most closely related to this role - in "Girl, Interrupted" as mental patient Lisa. It's a star turn, no doubt about it.
This movie was intended by Universal to be part of the "Dark Universe" series. But the Tom Cruise flop "The Mummy" unfortunately put paid to that. Which is a great shame. If they'd started with this one, then they might have had a hit on their hands. With a post-credits "monkey" (there isn't one in this movie by the way) they could have lined up into the follow-up movie and started the ball rolling.
It's a rollicking action flick that had my attention throughout. However, the initial question it poses - haunting, 'all in the mind' or something else - gets clarified a little too early for me (and - note - is spoiled by the trailer), so the movie falls short of being a classic for that reason.
There's one aspect of the movie that really irritated me. And that is that there was no credit whatsoever for the idea of H.G. Wells that originated this story. There's a discussion of that here: since Wells died in 1946, his copyright will have expired on his works 70 years later. This is definitely NOT a retelling of his story, but in reusing the novel's title it would seem at least 'polite' to include a "Based on an idea by H.G. Wells" in the credits somewhere.
All in all, this is still a bit of a B-movie, but its a bloody good one! Utterly preposterous at times, and with decision-making that would feel at home within the Trump presidency, it's an entertaining rollercoaster of a movie. Definitely comes with a "recommended" from me and I'll look forward to a re-watch at some point.
For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/01/09/have-you-seen-the-invisible-man/ .
Australian writer/director Leigh Whannell is famous as the writer behind the "Saw" and "Insidious" franchises. So he knows a thing or two about crafting horror movies. And in this Blumhouse production, after a clever attention-grabbing opening, he really takes his time in building an understanding of Cecilia's mental state. When things start to happen, they happen so stealthily that I needed to hit the rewind button a couple of times (no cinema experience for this one I'm afraid). Cinematographer Stefan Duscio keeps slowly panning away from Cecilia across the room to show empty corridors before slowly panning back again. It's superbly effective and was comprehensively creeping me out!
When the set action pieces do occur then they are satisfactorily exciting, albeit wildly implausible. I did not see some of the "Surprises" coming, making them jolt-worthy. And the denouement really delivered for me, reminiscent of Hitchcock's style.
Now most famous for "Mad Men" and "The Handmaids Tale" on TV, Elisabeth Moss has delivered a range of impressive film performances including in "High Rise" and - as most closely related to this role - in "Girl, Interrupted" as mental patient Lisa. It's a star turn, no doubt about it.
This movie was intended by Universal to be part of the "Dark Universe" series. But the Tom Cruise flop "The Mummy" unfortunately put paid to that. Which is a great shame. If they'd started with this one, then they might have had a hit on their hands. With a post-credits "monkey" (there isn't one in this movie by the way) they could have lined up into the follow-up movie and started the ball rolling.
It's a rollicking action flick that had my attention throughout. However, the initial question it poses - haunting, 'all in the mind' or something else - gets clarified a little too early for me (and - note - is spoiled by the trailer), so the movie falls short of being a classic for that reason.
There's one aspect of the movie that really irritated me. And that is that there was no credit whatsoever for the idea of H.G. Wells that originated this story. There's a discussion of that here: since Wells died in 1946, his copyright will have expired on his works 70 years later. This is definitely NOT a retelling of his story, but in reusing the novel's title it would seem at least 'polite' to include a "Based on an idea by H.G. Wells" in the credits somewhere.
All in all, this is still a bit of a B-movie, but its a bloody good one! Utterly preposterous at times, and with decision-making that would feel at home within the Trump presidency, it's an entertaining rollercoaster of a movie. Definitely comes with a "recommended" from me and I'll look forward to a re-watch at some point.
For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/01/09/have-you-seen-the-invisible-man/ .